+- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora)
+-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: JFK Assassination (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-3.html)
+--- Thread: Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile (/thread-3232.html)
Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile - James H. Fetzer - 16-04-2010
JIM REPLIES TO DAWN AND OTHER DEVOTEES OF HARVEY & LEE
I don't get it. The reverence--even sanctification--of John Armstrong is beyond me. The guy produced a big book, but so did Vince Bugliosi! If we can evaluate RECLAIMING HISTORY with a fine-toothed comb, why not HARVEY & LEE? I began assuming that most of Armstrong's work and most of Judyth's reports could be reconciled, since she only knew the man whom John calls "Harvey". But there was always the chance that at least some of the characteristics of the man Judyth's knew personally might differ from some of those of "Harvey".
When Jack and I first began discussing this seriously, I asked him for a list of the personality characteristics that differentiated them. He did not reply but told me to "Read the book!" I eventually pieced together (possibly with Dawn's help) that "Lee" was more aggressive, non-intellectual, could not speak Russian but could drive, while "Harvey" was non-aggressive, highly intellectual with a special interest in political philosophy, was born in Hungary and could not drive. Plus they were alleged to have different eye color, among their distinguishing features.
So I began to read the book and found an assertion on the fourth page of the unnumbered Introduction in relation to the role of Allen Dulles as a member of the commission, who "was so successful that there is no reference to the CIA or Central Intelligence Agency in the index to the Warren Commission's 26 volumes". Persumably, what John means is the 26 volumes of supporting evidence rather than the 888-page WARREN REPORT (1964). But while THE WARREN REPORT has an index, the 26 volumes of supporting evidence does not. And having just checked a copy that was published by the United States Government Printing Office, I find an entry for "Central Intelligence Agency, 22, 245, 258, 259, 266, 269, 272, 274-275, 279-280, 284, 305, 309-310, 327, 359, 365, 371, 433-434, 438, 456, 459, 461,463-464, 659-660, 748, 762, 777". So what in the world is going on here?
Indeed, one might have supposed that someone who was tackling a project of this magnitude would have known that in 1965, Sylvia Meagher published her SUBJECT INDEX TO THE WARREN REPORT AND HEARINGS AND EXHIBITS, as the introduction to ACCESSORIES AFTER THE FACT (first published in 1976) explains. Even that arch enemy of truth about the assassination, Max Holland, has acknowledged the absence of an index for the supplemental volumes: "In 2005, I wrote an article that criticized the Commission for its neglect of the Government Printing Office, and failure to observe the venerable practice of publishing supplementary volumes with underlying documents, depositions, and testimony (not to mention an index)" <http://hnn.us/articles/124755.html>. Which led me to ask if Holland is a more reliable source than John Armstrong!
Meanwhile, Judyth was reporting that the man she knew had no Hungarian accent but rather a trace of a Cajun accent that could be mistaken for an Hungarian accent, that he could drive (which she knew because she had actually driven with him), and that the alleged eye-color difference could be accounted for on the basis of the differing appearance of blue-gray eyes under different conditions of observation. This impressed me, because her explanations and analyses appeared to be better-founded and more reasonable than Jack's replies, which were, more often than not, "Read the book!" So I took additional looks and, on pages 91-92, discovered another story about a physical trait that allegedly distinguished between them.
Armstrong reported that both had attended Beauregard Junior High School, but that "Harvey" had left at the end of 5th grade, while "Lee" showed up at the start of the school year for 6th grade. Given his aggressive tendencies--not so much of starting fights but of ending them--the story is related of his having taken a punch from a classmate and losing a tooth! That all sounds fine, where "Lee"'s missing tooth henceforth distingishes him from "Harvey". But the story went on to explain that Lillian Murret remembered the incident and had paid the the dental visit. That was very peculiar, because Lillian was the aunt of "Harvey", not of "Lee", so what was she doing paying for "Lee"'s dental work?
Jack has taken a while to decide how to cope with this, but now suggests that Lillian and Dutz Murret may have known both "Harvey" and "Lee" and nevertheless never said a word about it. Similarly, he insists that Robert, his brother; Marina, his wife; Marguerite, his mother; and no doubt others unnamed have all known that there were "two Oswalds", "Harvey" and "Lee", even though none of them has ever breathed a word about it! I find this rather incredible, especially in the case of his mother, who has insisted from scratch that her son was a government agent and would be most unlikely to remain silent in the possession of such a crucial piece of information.
On a separate thread, during an exchange with Pat Speer, he observed (in relation to an extract I had posted from HARVEY & LEE (about the FBI having secretly taken "Harvey"'s personal effects to Washington to launder them, then secretly returning them and, with great public fanfare, loading them into a vehicle to take them to Washington for the first time) that Armstrong asserts that "FBI officials prepared a 5-volume report, completed within 48 hours of the assassination, that named Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone assassin. The report was released several days before the FBI took over the investigation, before they 'officially' received the 'evidence' from the Dallas Police Department, before they interviewed the vast majority of witnesses, two weeks before the Warren Commission was formed, and many months before their investigation was complete".
Since the Warren Commission was formed on 29 November 1963, a week after the assassination, it cannot have also been formed two weeks after a 5-volume report had been released by the FBI around 48-hours after the assassination. So not only has Armstrong blundered about an index but he also blundered about the date of the founding of the Warren Commission itself! Jack replied that there is an "index" to the supporting volumes but, as Judyth observed,
"The Index of Names" in Vol. XV of the Warren Commission Hearings is not a true index.
It only qualifies as a list of names within the volumes.
There are no city names, such as New Orleans, San Francisco, Chicago, or Dallas.
There is no Moscow. No Minsk.
There are no agency names, such as FBI, CIA, or ONI.
It cannot be said that an 'influence' was exerted to omit the CIA when there are also no place names, city names, street names, etc. There is no Reily's or JCS mentioned.
This is not a true index--it is only a list of names --and the list of
names happens to be incomplete.
For example, Wlliam I. Monaghan, of Reily's, reads reports aloud on
several pages for the FBI, but he's not listed."
So once again, Judyth appears to know the case better than Jack. She has also observed that many of the photographs that have been used to support the alleged existence of "two Oswalds" appear to display aspect-ratio distortion, which can make faces appear to be rounder or fatter than they did in the originals, which she has illustrated in numerous posts. So I ask, when confronted with substantial evidence that seems to undermine the theory of the "two Oswalds", what is a rational response? He invited me to contribute posts to a new "Judyth/Jim" thread, but when I reposted about 20 of them to illustrate the "errors in Armstrong" he wanted to discuss there, he complained that I had "rudely hijacked" his thread, which was nonsense. I was complying with his wishes--or so I thought--by reposting a sampler of the problems that Judyth and I are finding with Armstrong's research.
Jack seems to be willing to expand the list of those who "knew" about both "Harvey" and "Lee" to whatever extend is required to save the hypothesis. I could expand upon the logic of ad hoc defenses of theories during the history of science, but let me simply make the following point. Douglas Weldon has stated that he stands behind the work of David Lifton and John Armstrong:
John engaged in his research in a thorough and painstakiing manner. John is actually a very modest man. One of the differences between him and myself are in examples like John Pic. John located him but was very reserve in his contacts whereas I would have been knocking at Pic's door. What is amazing is how much more evidence Armstrong acquired but did not publish. John was fortunate to have the resources to do what few of us could have. I deeply respect John's work. It does not detract from other work I highly respect such as Lifton's. I predict the work of both will withstand the test of time. I have always realized that my credibility could be destroyed by being led down false roads. It is the tragedy of Garrison. I have been extremely cautious. However, I stand unequivocally behind these two men.
He says that John conducted his research "in a thorough and painstaking manner". But if that were the case, how could he have committed such gross blunders as the "index" and Warren Commission founding-date errors? Those are not subtle issues but, in the case of the latter, common knowledge among competent students of the death of JFK. Telling me to "Read the book!" when it includes the story of Lillian Murret paying for the dental work on "Lee" when she was "Harvey"'s aunt, does not inspire confidence. And when Judyth's studies of the photographs, the eye-color claim, and much more is simply denied but not actually refuted, I am very (not to say "vary") troubled that we are being sold a fanciful tale. I would therefore welcome any of those who care enough to get to the bottom of this to visit "Judyth/Jim" and explain away the problems we have found. I am not willing to place friendship ahead of truth in relation to JFK.
[quote=Dawn Meredith]
Jack, I am reposting from EF your bio of John Armstrong. Thank you for that. He was very circumspect when I met him in Dallas. You are right, not at all egotistical. Not pushing his book. Just fascinating to speak with and I could tell he had made some money in the building trades. (One does not get to live in Hawaii unless one has accumulated some decent income).
I just DO NOT UNDERSTAND why anyone seeks to destroy this work. To what end? I question the motives of such a person or people.
Dawn
Dean:
Whatever one thinks about Harvey and Lee, it is a very unique book in that many of its premises could be proved with witnesses who are still living and evidence that continues to be very impressive. I did not agree with Armstrong on the impact of every piece of the evidence but some of the evidence is jaw-dropping. Watch the interviews and read the book. John Armstrong conducted one of the most impressive investigations of the JFK case ever done. John is unique in that he lets the evidence speak for itself. I believe you or I (or any attorney) could go into court and easily prove that the government was engaged in a covert activity and was manipulating the identities of Oswald. Jack White is not making outrageous comments about the evidence. Whether you agree with him or not on other issues the evidence here is very solid. I am not commenting on Judyth and whether this makes a difference for her argument. I am simply agreeing with Jack that John Armstrong has compiled a mountain of evidence and the fact that individual pieces of the evidence might be questioned in no way detracts from the volumess of evidence John acquired.
John engaged in his research in a thorough and painstakiing manner. John is actually a very modest man. One of the differences between him and myself are in examples like John Pic. John located him but was very reserve in his contacts whereas I would have been knocking at Pic's door. What is amazing is how much more evidence Armstrong acquired but did not publish. John was fortunate to have the resources to do what few of us could have. I deeply respect John's work. It does not detract from other work I highly respect such as Lifton's. I predict the work of both will withstand the test of time. I have always realized that my credibility could be destroyed by being led down false roads. It is the tragedy of Garrison. I have been extremely cautious. However, I stand unequivocally behind these two men.
Best,
Doug Weldn
Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile - James H. Fetzer - 16-04-2010
ON THE MANIFEST ABSURDITY OF DOUG WELDON'S POSITION
According to Doug Weldon, I deeply respect John's work. It does not detract from other work I highly respect such as Lifton's. I predict the work of both will withstand the test of time. I have always realized that my credibility could be destroyed by being led down false roads. It is the tragedy of Garrison. I have been extremely cautious. However, I stand unequivocally behind these two men.
What Doug does not seem to appreciate--even though I have made the point repeatedly in this thread--is that David Lifton does not buy into HARVEY & LEE. I have entreated him to state his position, which he has not done. But Doug's ringing endorsement of BOTH Lifton AND Armstrong--of standing "unequivocally behind" them!--is going to be demonstrated as a manifest absurdity when Lifton finally comes clean. A good time would be NOW!
[quote name='Doug Weldon' post='189823' date='Apr 16 2010, 04:54 PM']
[quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='189822' date='Apr 16 2010, 04:44 PM']
JIM REPLIES TO DAWN AND OTHER DEVOTEES OF HARVEY & LEE
I don't get it. The reverence--even sanctification--of John Armstrong is beyond me. The guy produced a big book, but so did Vince Bugliosi! If we can evaluate RECLAIMING HISTORY with a fine-toothed comb, why not HARVEY & LEE? I began assuming that most of Armstrong's work and most of Judyth's reports could be reconciled, since she only knew the man whom John calls "Harvey". But there was always the chance that at least some of the characteristics of the man Judyth's knew personally might differ from some of those of "Harvey".
When Jack and I first began discussing this seriously, I asked him for a list of the personality characteristics that differentiated them. He did not reply but told me to "Read the book!" I eventually pieced together (possibly with Dawn's help) that "Lee" was more aggressive, non-intellectual, could not speak Russian but could drive, while "Harvey" was non-aggressive, highly intellectual with a special interest in political philosophy, was born in Hungary and could not drive. Plus they were alleged to have different eye color, among their distinguishing features.
So I began to read the book and found an assertion on the fourth page of the unnumbered Introduction in relation to the role of Allen Dulles as a member of the commission, who "was so successful that there is no reference to the CIA or Central Intelligence Agency in the index to the Warren Commission's 26 volumes". Persumably, what John means is the 26 volumes of supporting evidence rather than the 888-page WARREN REPORT (1964). But while THE WARREN REPORT has an index, the 26 volumes of supporting evidence does not. And having just checked a copy that was published by the United States Government Printing Office, I find an entry for "Central Intelligence Agency, 22, 245, 258, 259, 266, 269, 272, 274-275, 279-280, 284, 305, 309-310, 327, 359, 365, 371, 433-434, 438, 456, 459, 461,463-464, 659-660, 748, 762, 777". So what in the world is going on here?
Indeed, one might have supposed that someone who was tackling a project of this magnitude would have known that in 1965, Sylvia Meagher published her SUBJECT INDEX TO THE WARREN REPORT AND HEARINGS AND EXHIBITS, as the introduction to ACCESSORIES AFTER THE FACT (first published in 1976) explains. Even that arch enemy of truth about the assassination, Max Holland, has acknowledged the absence of an index for the supplemental volumes: "In 2005, I wrote an article that criticized the Commission for its neglect of the Government Printing Office, and failure to observe the venerable practice of publishing supplementary volumes with underlying documents, depositions, and testimony (not to mention an index)" <http://hnn.us/articles/124755.html>. Which led me to ask if Holland is a more reliable source than John Armstrong!
Meanwhile, Judyth was reporting that the man she knew had no Hungarian accent but rather a trace of a Cajun accent that could be mistaken for an Hungarian accent, that he could drive (which she knew because she had actually driven with him), and that the alleged eye-color difference could be accounted for on the basis of the differing appearance of blue-gray eyes under different conditions of observation. This impressed me, because her explanations and analyses appeared to be better-founded and more reasonable than Jack's replies, which were, more often than not, "Read the book!" So I took additional looks and, on pages 91-92, discovered another story about a physical trait that allegedly distinguished between them.
Armstrong reported that both had attended Beauregard Junior High School, but that "Harvey" had left at the end of 5th grade, while "Lee" showed up at the start of the school year for 6th grade. Given his aggressive tendencies--not so much of starting fights but of ending them--the story is related of his having taken a punch from a classmate and losing a tooth! That all sounds fine, where "Lee"'s missing tooth henceforth distingishes him from "Harvey". But the story went on to explain that Lillian Murret remembered the incident and had paid the the dental visit. That was very peculiar, because Lillian was the aunt of "Harvey", not of "Lee", so what was she doing paying for "Lee"'s dental work?
Jack has taken a while to decide how to cope with this, but now suggests that Lillian and Dutz Murret may have known both "Harvey" and "Lee" and nevertheless never said a word about it. Similarly, he insists that Robert, his brother; Marina, his wife; Marguerite, his mother; and no doubt others unnamed have all known that there were "two Oswalds", "Harvey" and "Lee", even though none of them has ever breathed a word about it! I find this rather incredible, especially in the case of his mother, who has insisted from scratch that her son was a government agent and would be most unlikely to remain silent in the possession of such a crucial piece of information.
On a separate thread, during an exchange with Pat Speer, he observed (in relation to an extract I had posted from HARVEY & LEE (about the FBI having secretly taken "Harvey"'s personal effects to Washington to launder them, then secretly returning them and, with great public fanfare, loading them into a vehicle to take them to Washington for the first time) that Armstrong asserts that "FBI officials prepared a 5-volume report, completed within 48 hours of the assassination, that named Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone assassin. The report was released several days before the FBI took over the investigation, before they 'officially' received the 'evidence' from the Dallas Police Department, before they interviewed the vast majority of witnesses, two weeks before the Warren Commission was formed, and many months before their investigation was complete".
Since the Warren Commission was formed on 29 November 1963, a week after the assassination, it cannot have also been formed two weeks after a 5-volume report had been released by the FBI around 48-hours after the assassination. So not only has Armstrong blundered about an index but he also blundered about the date of the founding of the Warren Commission itself! Jack replied that there is an "index" to the supporting volumes but, as Judyth observed,
"The Index of Names" in Vol. XV of the Warren Commission Hearings is not a true index.
It only qualifies as a list of names within the volumes.
There are no city names, such as New Orleans, San Francisco, Chicago, or Dallas.
There is no Moscow. No Minsk.
There are no agency names, such as FBI, CIA, or ONI.
It cannot be said that an 'influence' was exerted to omit the CIA when there are also no place names, city names, street names, etc. There is no Reily's or JCS mentioned.
This is not a true index--it is only a list of names --and the list of
names happens to be incomplete.
For example, Wlliam I. Monaghan, of Reily's, reads reports aloud on
several pages for the FBI, but he's not listed."
So once again, Judyth appears to know the case better than Jack. She has also observed that many of the photographs that have been used to support the alleged existence of "two Oswalds" appear to display aspect-ratio distortion, which can make faces appear to be rounder or fatter than they did in the originals, which she has illustrated in numerous posts. So I ask, when confronted with substantial evidence that seems to undermine the theory of the "two Oswalds", what is a rational response? He invited me to contribute posts to a new "Judyth/Jim" thread, but when I reposted about 20 of them to illustrate the "errors in Armstrong" he wanted to discuss there, he complained that I had "rudely hijacked" his thread, which was nonsense. I was complying with his wishes--or so I thought--by reposting a sampler of the problems that Judyth and I are finding with Armstrong's research.
Jack seems to be willing to expand the list of those who "knew" about both "Harvey" and "Lee" to whatever extend is required to save the hypothesis. I could expand upon the logic of ad hoc defenses of theories during the history of science, but let me simply make the following point. Douglas Weldon has stated that he stands behind the work of David Lifton and John Armstrong:
John engaged in his research in a thorough and painstakiing manner. John is actually a very modest man. One of the differences between him and myself are in examples like John Pic. John located him but was very reserve in his contacts whereas I would have been knocking at Pic's door. What is amazing is how much more evidence Armstrong acquired but did not publish. John was fortunate to have the resources to do what few of us could have. I deeply respect John's work. It does not detract from other work I highly respect such as Lifton's. I predict the work of both will withstand the test of time. I have always realized that my credibility could be destroyed by being led down false roads. It is the tragedy of Garrison. I have been extremely cautious. However, I stand unequivocally behind these two men.
He says that John conducted his research "in a thorough and painstaking manner". But if that were the case, how could he have committed such gross blunders as the "index" and Warren Commission founding-date errors? Those are not subtle issues but, in the case of the latter, common knowledge among competent students of the death of JFK. Telling me to "Read the book!" when it includes the story of Lillian Murret paying for the dental work on "Lee" when she was "Harvey"'s aunt, does not inspire confidence. And when Judyth's studies of the photographs, the eye-color claim, and much more is simply denied but not actually refuted, I am very (not to say "vary") troubled that we are being sold a fanciful tale. I would therefore welcome any of those who care enough to get to the bottom of this to visit "Judyth/Jim" and explain away the problems we have found. I am not willing to place friendship ahead of truth in relation to JFK.
Dawn Meredith Wrote:Jack, I am reposting from EF your bio of John Armstrong. Thank you for that. He was very circumspect when I met him in Dallas. You are right, not at all egotistical. Not pushing his book. Just fascinating to speak with and I could tell he had made some money in the building trades. (One does not get to live in Hawaii unless one has accumulated some decent income).[/quote]
I just DO NOT UNDERSTAND why anyone seeks to destroy this work. To what end? I question the motives of such a person or people.
Dawn
Dean:
Whatever one thinks about Harvey and Lee, it is a very unique book in that many of its premises could be proved with witnesses who are still living and evidence that continues to be very impressive. I did not agree with Armstrong on the impact of every piece of the evidence but some of the evidence is jaw-dropping. Watch the interviews and read the book. John Armstrong conducted one of the most impressive investigations of the JFK case ever done. John is unique in that he lets the evidence speak for itself. I believe you or I (or any attorney) could go into court and easily prove that the government was engaged in a covert activity and was manipulating the identities of Oswald. Jack White is not making outrageous comments about the evidence. Whether you agree with him or not on other issues the evidence here is very solid. I am not commenting on Judyth and whether this makes a difference for her argument. I am simply agreeing with Jack that John Armstrong has compiled a mountain of evidence and the fact that individual pieces of the evidence might be questioned in no way detracts from the volumess of evidence John acquired.
John engaged in his research in a thorough and painstakiing manner. John is actually a very modest man. One of the differences between him and myself are in examples like John Pic. John located him but was very reserve in his contacts whereas I would have been knocking at Pic's door. What is amazing is how much more evidence Armstrong acquired but did not publish. John was fortunate to have the resources to do what few of us could have. I deeply respect John's work. It does not detract from other work I highly respect such as Lifton's. I predict the work of both will withstand the test of time. I have always realized that my credibility could be destroyed by being led down false roads. It is the tragedy of Garrison. I have been extremely cautious. However, I stand unequivocally behind these two men.
Best,
Doug Weldn
As a side note I have the 26 volumes. I have not seen Sylvia's index but have used Walt Brown's index quite extensively.
Doug Weldon
[/quote]
Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile - James H. Fetzer - 16-04-2010
JIM REPLIES TO JACK WHITE ABOUT JUDYTH AND HARVEY & LEE
Jack, your response is mind-numbingly irresponsive. I have spelled out very specific
blunders in Armstrong's book. The first was his claim that Dulles had been so effective
in managing the Warren Commission that the index to its 26 volumes did not even have
a reference to the CIA. But, as I observed, the 26 supporting volumes did not have an
index and THE WARREN REPORT, which did, had dozens of references to the CIA. If you
cannot acknowledge that as a "blunder", then we have different standards of rationality.
Again, as Pat Speer observed when I posted a section in which John was explaining how
the FBI had played a fast one on the public by secretly taking the physical evidence (the
Oswald possessions) to Washington and then laundering them, returning the evidence to
Dallas and later making a big to-do about it with a public loading into a vehicle, where John
adds that this was weeks before the Warren Commission was formed. Since I explained
all of this in my posts, I suppose you are no more reading my posts than you are Judyth's.
The quality of an argument, Jack, is independent of its source. If McAdams had posted the
same critiques as Judyth about some of the photographs or explained why the alleged eye-
color difference carries no weight, they would still stand as arguments that have to be dealt
with on their own. You love to commit the genetic fallacy, which is to discount arguments on
the basis of their origin. I spent 35 years teaching students to avoid fallacies of that kind,
Jack, and I am not going to accept them from you. Your conduct has been irresponsible.
The existence of "two Oswalds" largely rests upon accounts like that from Beauregard Jr.
High School. But when I notice that, while "Lee" is supposed to be the one with the tooth
missing but Lillian, who was "Harvey"'s aunt, pays the dental bill, you dismiss it with the
back of your hand, conjuring up some nonsense about how they, too, must have know of
the existence of "Harvey" and of "Lee". Your defense is indefensible. You spend all your
time begging the question by taking for granted that there were both "Harvey" and "Lee".
The Doug Weldon, whom I have also admired in the past, comes on with this fawning pap
about how wonderful Armstrong is and how cautious Weldon is and yet he stands behind
the work of both LIFTON and ARMSTRONG, clearly oblivious of the fact that LIFTON does
not buy HARVEY & LEE, even though I had been pointing this out repeatedly. When you
combine this worshipful attitude toward Armstrong with the unwillingness to even consider
arguments to the contrary that Judyth and I have presented, the result is simply stunning.
It is now becoming apparent that we (Judyth and I) are dealing with a cult, which can be
defined by its core beliefs (such as the existence of "two Oswalds", who had mothers by
the same name and led parallel lives), even if there is mounting evidence that disconfirms
some of the crucial evidence--photographic and historical--that has been used to support
those core beliefs, where Judyth has added further arguments based upon her personal
knowledge of Lee H. Oswald. The members of this cult will not read our posts or reply to
our arguments other than by reaffirming the faith, an irrational and irresponsible attitude.
In your efforts to blunt serious criticism, you resort to ad hoc hypotheses, such as that
Lillian Murret and Dutz must have also known about both "Harvey" and "Lee" along with
Robert, his brother; Marina, his wife; and even Marguerite, his mother! Yet none of them
has ever breathed a word about it! Do you not realize the absurdity of your position by
inventing all of this knowledge of "two Oswalds" which you have no evidence to support?
I am sorry, Jack. I thought you were committed to research. It is obvious that I'm wrong.
[quote name='Jack White' date='Apr 16 2010, 05:24 PM' post='189829']
Jim...I do not understand how you can continue to claim that ANYTHING JVB SAYS IS "PROOF". Anything she
says is merely her OPINION.
You say I am struggling over how to "cope with" the questions JVB raises, when in fact I dismiss her opinions
as being not worthy of wasting time over.
Your essay below is so far afield I must repeat the phrase you hate...please READ THE BOOK.
What does it matter that the WC "Index" is only a "name index"? It does NOT matter. But to belabor the point
that it is not a "complete index" is nonsense, as it would have required another complete volume. The Warren
Report and volumes were not done for the convenience of future researchers, but as a record of an investigation.
It has what it calls an INDEX in Volume XV. That it does not suit JVB is too bad, but it IS an index, and to say
there is NO INDEX is extreme nit-picking.
As I stated once before, do not present a long rambling list. If you find an error in H&L, please state what
that ONE error is and your proof of why it is erroneous. Please give the page number of the "error". I will send
each one to John for comment. Do not give JVB opinions as proof. Give documentation superior to John's.
I do not claim that John's book is error-free. One man, working entirely alone, is likely to make a few mistakes.
But nobody has ever pointed out any serious error of fact in the book.
And I do not need to mention how absurd it is to compare John's book to Bugliosi's. That may be the most
ill-considered comparison you have ever made.
Jack
[quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='189822' date='Apr 16 2010, 02:44 PM']
JIM REPLIES TO DAWN AND OTHER DEVOTEES OF HARVEY & LEE
I don't get it. The reverence--even sanctification--of John Armstrong is beyond me. The guy produced a big book, but so did Vince Bugliosi! If we can evaluate RECLAIMING HISTORY with a fine-toothed comb, why not HARVEY & LEE? I began assuming that most of Armstrong's work and most of Judyth's reports could be reconciled, since she only knew the man whom John calls "Harvey". But there was always the chance that at least some of the characteristics of the man Judyth's knew personally might differ from some of those of "Harvey".
When Jack and I first began discussing this seriously, I asked him for a list of the personality characteristics that differentiated them. He did not reply but told me to "Read the book!" I eventually pieced together (possibly with Dawn's help) that "Lee" was more aggressive, non-intellectual, could not speak Russian but could drive, while "Harvey" was non-aggressive, highly intellectual with a special interest in political philosophy, was born in Hungary and could not drive. Plus they were alleged to have different eye color, among their distinguishing features.
So I began to read the book and found an assertion on the fourth page of the unnumbered Introduction in relation to the role of Allen Dulles as a member of the commission, who "was so successful that there is no reference to the CIA or Central Intelligence Agency in the index to the Warren Commission's 26 volumes". Persumably, what John means is the 26 volumes of supporting evidence rather than the 888-page WARREN REPORT (1964). But while THE WARREN REPORT has an index, the 26 volumes of supporting evidence does not. And having just checked a copy that was published by the United States Government Printing Office, I find an entry for "Central Intelligence Agency, 22, 245, 258, 259, 266, 269, 272, 274-275, 279-280, 284, 305, 309-310, 327, 359, 365, 371, 433-434, 438, 456, 459, 461,463-464, 659-660, 748, 762, 777". So what in the world is going on here?
Indeed, one might have supposed that someone who was tackling a project of this magnitude would have known that in 1965, Sylvia Meagher published her SUBJECT INDEX TO THE WARREN REPORT AND HEARINGS AND EXHIBITS, as the introduction to ACCESSORIES AFTER THE FACT (first published in 1976) explains. Even that arch enemy of truth about the assassination, Max Holland, has acknowledged the absence of an index for the supplemental volumes: "In 2005, I wrote an article that criticized the Commission for its neglect of the Government Printing Office, and failure to observe the venerable practice of publishing supplementary volumes with underlying documents, depositions, and testimony (not to mention an index)" <http://hnn.us/articles/124755.html>. Which led me to ask if Holland is a more reliable source than John Armstrong!
Meanwhile, Judyth was reporting that the man she knew had no Hungarian accent but rather a trace of a Cajun accent that could be mistaken for an Hungarian accent, that he could drive (which she knew because she had actually driven with him), and that the alleged eye-color difference could be accounted for on the basis of the differing appearance of blue-gray eyes under different conditions of observation. This impressed me, because her explanations and analyses appeared to be better-founded and more reasonable than Jack's replies, which were, more often than not, "Read the book!" So I took additional looks and, on pages 91-92, discovered another story about a physical trait that allegedly distinguished between them.
Armstrong reported that both had attended Beauregard Junior High School, but that "Harvey" had left at the end of 5th grade, while "Lee" showed up at the start of the school year for 6th grade. Given his aggressive tendencies--not so much of starting fights but of ending them--the story is related of his having taken a punch from a classmate and losing a tooth! That all sounds fine, where "Lee"'s missing tooth henceforth distingishes him from "Harvey". But the story went on to explain that Lillian Murret remembered the incident and had paid the the dental visit. That was very peculiar, because Lillian was the aunt of "Harvey", not of "Lee", so what was she doing paying for "Lee"'s dental work?
Jack has taken a while to decide how to cope with this, but now suggests that Lillian and Dutz Murret may have known both "Harvey" and "Lee" and nevertheless never said a word about it. Similarly, he insists that Robert, his brother; Marina, his wife; Marguerite, his mother; and no doubt others unnamed have all known that there were "two Oswalds", "Harvey" and "Lee", even though none of them has ever breathed a word about it! I find this rather incredible, especially in the case of his mother, who has insisted from scratch that her son was a government agent and would be most unlikely to remain silent in the possession of such a crucial piece of information.
On a separate thread, during an exchange with Pat Speer, he observed (in relation to an extract I had posted from HARVEY & LEE (about the FBI having secretly taken "Harvey"'s personal effects to Washington to launder them, then secretly returning them and, with great public fanfare, loading them into a vehicle to take them to Washington for the first time) that Armstrong asserts that "FBI officials prepared a 5-volume report, completed within 48 hours of the assassination, that named Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone assassin. The report was released several days before the FBI took over the investigation, before they 'officially' received the 'evidence' from the Dallas Police Department, before they interviewed the vast majority of witnesses, two weeks before the Warren Commission was formed, and many months before their investigation was complete".
Since the Warren Commission was formed on 29 November 1963, a week after the assassination, it cannot have also been formed two weeks after a 5-volume report had been released by the FBI around 48-hours after the assassination. So not only has Armstrong blundered about an index but he also blundered about the date of the founding of the Warren Commission itself! Jack replied that there is an "index" to the supporting volumes but, as Judyth observed,
"The Index of Names" in Vol. XV of the Warren Commission Hearings is not a true index.
It only qualifies as a list of names within the volumes.
There are no city names, such as New Orleans, San Francisco, Chicago, or Dallas.
There is no Moscow. No Minsk.
There are no agency names, such as FBI, CIA, or ONI.
It cannot be said that an 'influence' was exerted to omit the CIA when there are also no place names, city names, street names, etc. There is no Reily's or JCS mentioned.
This is not a true index--it is only a list of names --and the list of
names happens to be incomplete.
For example, Wlliam I. Monaghan, of Reily's, reads reports aloud on
several pages for the FBI, but he's not listed."
So once again, Judyth appears to know the case better than Jack. She has also observed that many of the photographs that have been used to support the alleged existence of "two Oswalds" appear to display aspect-ratio distortion, which can make faces appear to be rounder or fatter than they did in the originals, which she has illustrated in numerous posts. So I ask, when confronted with substantial evidence that seems to undermine the theory of the "two Oswalds", what is a rational response? He invited me to contribute posts to a new "Judyth/Jim" thread, but when I reposted about 20 of them to illustrate the "errors in Armstrong" he wanted to discuss there, he complained that I had "rudely hijacked" his thread, which was nonsense. I was complying with his wishes--or so I thought--by reposting a sampler of the problems that Judyth and I are finding with Armstrong's research.
Jack seems to be willing to expand the list of those who "knew" about both "Harvey" and "Lee" to whatever extend is required to save the hypothesis. I could expand upon the logic of ad hoc defenses of theories during the history of science, but let me simply make the following point. Douglas Weldon has stated that he stands behind the work of David Lifton and John Armstrong:
John engaged in his research in a thorough and painstakiing manner. John is actually a very modest man. One of the differences between him and myself are in examples like John Pic. John located him but was very reserve in his contacts whereas I would have been knocking at Pic's door. What is amazing is how much more evidence Armstrong acquired but did not publish. John was fortunate to have the resources to do what few of us could have. I deeply respect John's work. It does not detract from other work I highly respect such as Lifton's. I predict the work of both will withstand the test of time. I have always realized that my credibility could be destroyed by being led down false roads. It is the tragedy of Garrison. I have been extremely cautious. However, I stand unequivocally behind these two men.
He says that John conducted his research "in a thorough and painstaking manner". But if that were the case, how could he have committed such gross blunders as the "index" and Warren Commission founding-date errors? Those are not subtle issues but, in the case of the latter, common knowledge among competent students of the death of JFK. Telling me to "Read the book!" when it includes the story of Lillian Murret paying for the dental work on "Lee" when she was "Harvey"'s aunt, does not inspire confidence. And when Judyth's studies of the photographs, the eye-color claim, and much more is simply denied but not actually refuted, I am very (not to say "vary") troubled that we are being sold a fanciful tale. I would therefore welcome any of those who care enough to get to the bottom of this to visit "Judyth/Jim" and explain away the problems we have found. I am not willing to place friendship ahead of truth in relation to JFK.
Dawn Meredith Wrote:Jack, I am reposting from EF your bio of John Armstrong. Thank you for that. He was very circumspect when I met him in Dallas. You are right, not at all egotistical. Not pushing his book. Just fascinating to speak with and I could tell he had made some money in the building trades. (One does not get to live in Hawaii unless one has accumulated some decent income).[/quote]
I just DO NOT UNDERSTAND why anyone seeks to destroy this work. To what end? I question the motives of such a person or people.
Dawn
Dean:
Whatever one thinks about Harvey and Lee, it is a very unique book in that many of its premises could be proved with witnesses who are still living and evidence that continues to be very impressive. I did not agree with Armstrong on the impact of every piece of the evidence but some of the evidence is jaw-dropping. Watch the interviews and read the book. John Armstrong conducted one of the most impressive investigations of the JFK case ever done. John is unique in that he lets the evidence speak for itself. I believe you or I (or any attorney) could go into court and easily prove that the government was engaged in a covert activity and was manipulating the identities of Oswald. Jack White is not making outrageous comments about the evidence. Whether you agree with him or not on other issues the evidence here is very solid. I am not commenting on Judyth and whether this makes a difference for her argument. I am simply agreeing with Jack that John Armstrong has compiled a mountain of evidence and the fact that individual pieces of the evidence might be questioned in no way detracts from the volumess of evidence John acquired.
John engaged in his research in a thorough and painstakiing manner. John is actually a very modest man. One of the differences between him and myself are in examples like John Pic. John located him but was very reserve in his contacts whereas I would have been knocking at Pic's door. What is amazing is how much more evidence Armstrong acquired but did not publish. John was fortunate to have the resources to do what few of us could have. I deeply respect John's work. It does not detract from other work I highly respect such as Lifton's. I predict the work of both will withstand the test of time. I have always realized that my credibility could be destroyed by being led down false roads. It is the tragedy of Garrison. I have been extremely cautious. However, I stand unequivocally behind these two men.
Best,
Doug Weldn
[/quote]
Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile - James H. Fetzer - 17-04-2010
RESPONSE TO JACK AND COMMENT ON DOUG WELDON: IT WAS NOT WELL-DONE!
REPLY TO JACK
I have already done that. In each case, I have given specific pages, except, of course,
in case you haven't noticed, his "Introduction" does not have page numbers! Now, so
far, I and Pat Speer and Michael Hogan have all pointed out mistakes (or "blunders")
in HARVEY & LEE. Several occur on the first five pages of the book, so it should not
tax you overly much to track them down. I have also identified pages 92-93 as the
place where the Beauregard Junior High School "lost tooth" episode occurs, where
Lillian Murret remembered having paid for the dental bill, except that the one who is
supposed to have lost the tooth was "Lee" while Lillian was "Harvey"'s aunt. Start
with the "index" error, the founding of the commission error, and Lillian's payment.
You seem to have me in a quandary, my friend. You excoriate me into reading the
Armstrong book but, when I do and turn up mistakes, you don't want to hear them,
even when they bear on crucial aspects of the fundamental thesis of HARVEY & LEE.
COMMENT ON WELDON
Douglas Weldon does a soft shoe to spare himself embarrassment. Well, nice try but
no cigar. If Weldon had known, he could not possibly have made such an unqualified
endorsement of BOTH Lifton AND Armstrong, especially given how "cautious" he is
as a student of JFK. So now three scholars whom I have esteemed and defended in
the past are playing fast and loose with the situation: Lifton, who claims that he dis-
credited Judyty during a phone call, but won't share the cassette; and who has such
moral integrity that he won't even state on this forum that he does not buy the "two
Oswalds" HARVEY & LEE scenario; Jack White, who won't even read Judyth's posts
and is now asking me to do something I have already done, while committing the
kinds of fallacies of reasoning I taught freshmen to avoid; and Doug Weldon, who is
trying to cover his ass from a manifest absurdity and who has thereby lost more of
my respect than from simply coming clean and admitting that he made a mistake!
NOTE TO ALL
Let me make this point very clear. I am not denying that Armstrong may have some-
thing serious to contribute. I am asserting that, when I begin to read his book, I am
finding mistakes--some rather elementary, some impinging upon his basis thesis--but
when I point them out, Jack White is non-responsive and, in other respects, Lifton and
Weldon are playing games. Weldon solemnly declares his unswerving support for both
Lifton and Armstrong yet, when I point out that yields a contradiction, he acts as if he
always knew that anyway--and Jack backs him up! This is turning into a carnival act.
It is not the kind of response to genuine criticism that I expect from serious scholars.
And after all the insults I have endured from Jack White (no doubt, at least in part, on
the basis of emails from Lifton and Weldon), I am just not going to take it any longer!
When they have something serious to offer, I'll be glad to hear from them--not before.
[quote name='Jack White' post='189848' date='Apr 16 2010, 09:50 PM']
Jim...your response is mind-numbingly irresponsive. I asked that you or others
submit errors ONE AT A TIME in a specific manner, and I will ask John about them.
Instead I get yet another lecture about what a terrible researcher I, Doug Weldon,
David Lifton and others are. Doug, David, I and others are entitled to our opinions,
just as you and JVB are.
I have read your posting, but it is not suitable for me to submit to John. Please
use the following format to submit what YOU THINK ARE ERRORS:
.......
ERROR:
H&L page 234, states SUCH AND SUCH
DOCUMENTATION OF ERROR:
(SOURCE) states the contrary is true, SUCH AND SUCH, ETC. in less than
100 words.
........
This is very simple.
1. Point out the error and page number
2. Provide documentation to the contrary (100 words or less)
3. Only one error at a time, please...not a bushel basket!
No LONG essays. No emotional harangues. Keep it simple and objective. No personal
insults. Remember, opinions by JVB are not proofs of errors. No part of John's
book was based on her opinions. She was UNKNOWN at the time he did his
research, and unknown by all the agencies controlling LHO. Please produce
just one document naming her, if you can.
And remember, an author has to be selective. Failure to say something that
you think should have been said is not an error.
Surely you are capable of following these simple instructions. A genuine
listing of genuine errors will move research forward.
Thanks for your cooperation.
Jack
[quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='189845' date='Apr 16 2010, 08:12 PM']
JIM REPLIES TO JACK WHITE ABOUT JUDYTH AND HARVEY & LEE
Jack, your response is mind-numbingly irresponsive. I have spelled out very specific
blunders in Armstrong's book. The first was his claim that Dulles had been so effective
in managing the Warren Commission that the index to its 26 volumes did not even have
a reference to the CIA. But, as I observed, the 26 supporting volumes did not have an
index and THE WARREN REPORT, which did, had dozens of references to the CIA. If you
cannot acknowledge that as a "blunder", then we have different standards of rationality.
Again, as Pat Speer observed when I posted a section in which John was explaining how
the FBI had played a fast one on the public by secretly taking the physical evidence (the
Oswald possessions) to Washington and then laundering them, returning the evidence to
Dallas and later making a big to-do about it with a public loading into a vehicle, where John
adds that this was weeks before the Warren Commission was formed. Since I explained
all of this in my posts, I suppose you are no more reading my posts than you are Judyth's.
The quality of an argument, Jack, is independent of its source. If McAdams had posted the
same critiques as Judyth about some of the photographs or explained why the alleged eye-
color difference carries no weight, they would still stand as arguments that have to be dealt
with on their own. You love to commit the genetic fallacy, which is to discount arguments on
the basis of their origin. I spent 35 years teaching students to avoid fallacies of that kind,
Jack, and I am not going to accept them from you. Your conduct has been irresponsible.
The existence of "two Oswalds" largely rests upon accounts like that from Beauregard Jr.
High School. But when I notice that, while "Lee" is supposed to be the one with the tooth
missing but Lillian, who was "Harvey"'s aunt, pays the dental bill, you dismiss it with the
back of your hand, conjuring up some nonsense about how they, too, must have know of
the existence of "Harvey" and of "Lee". Your defense is indefensible. You spend all your
time begging the question by taking for granted that there were both "Harvey" and "Lee".
The Doug Weldon, whom I have also admired in the past, comes on with this fawning pap
about how wonderful Armstrong is and how cautious Weldon is and yet he stands behind
the work of both LIFTON and ARMSTRONG, clearly oblivious of the fact that LIFTON does
not buy HARVEY & LEE, even though I had been pointing this out repeatedly. When you
combine this worshipful attitude toward Armstrong with the unwillingness to even consider
arguments to the contrary that Judyth and I have presented, the result is simply stunning.
It is now becoming apparent that we (Judyth and I) are dealing with a cult, which can be
defined by its core beliefs (such as the existence of "two Oswalds", who had mothers by
the same name and led parallel lives), even if there is mounting evidence that disconfirms
some of the crucial evidence--photographic and historical--that has been used to support
those core beliefs, where Judyth has added further arguments based upon her personal
knowledge of Lee H. Oswald. The members of this cult will not read our posts or reply to
our arguments other than by reaffirming the faith, an irrational and irresponsible attitude.
In your efforts to blunt serious criticism, you resort to ad hoc hypotheses, such as that
Lillian Murret and Dutz must have also known about both "Harvey" and "Lee" along with
Robert, his brother; Marina, his wife; and even Marguerite, his mother! Yet none of them
has ever breathed a word about it! Do you not realize the absurdity of your position by
inventing all of this knowledge of "two Oswalds" which you have no evidence to support?
I am sorry, Jack. I thought you were committed to research. It is obvious that I'm wrong.
[quote name='Jack White' post='189829' date='Apr 16 2010, 05:24 PM']
Jim...I do not understand how you can continue to claim that ANYTHING JVB SAYS IS "PROOF". Anything she
says is merely her OPINION.
You say I am struggling over how to "cope with" the questions JVB raises, when in fact I dismiss her opinions
as being not worthy of wasting time over.
Your essay below is so far afield I must repeat the phrase you hate...please READ THE BOOK.
What does it matter that the WC "Index" is only a "name index"? It does NOT matter. But to belabor the point
that it is not a "complete index" is nonsense, as it would have required another complete volume. The Warren
Report and volumes were not done for the convenience of future researchers, but as a record of an investigation.
It has what it calls an INDEX in Volume XV. That it does not suit JVB is too bad, but it IS an index, and to say
there is NO INDEX is extreme nit-picking.
As I stated once before, do not present a long rambling list. If you find an error in H&L, please state what
that ONE error is and your proof of why it is erroneous. Please give the page number of the "error". I will send
each one to John for comment. Do not give JVB opinions as proof. Give documentation superior to John's.
I do not claim that John's book is error-free. One man, working entirely alone, is likely to make a few mistakes.
But nobody has ever pointed out any serious error of fact in the book.
And I do not need to mention how absurd it is to compare John's book to Bugliosi's. That may be the most
ill-considered comparison you have ever made.
Jack
[quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='189822' date='Apr 16 2010, 02:44 PM']
JIM REPLIES TO DAWN AND OTHER DEVOTEES OF HARVEY & LEE
I don't get it. The reverence--even sanctification--of John Armstrong is beyond me. The guy produced a big book, but so did Vince Bugliosi! If we can evaluate RECLAIMING HISTORY with a fine-toothed comb, why not HARVEY & LEE? I began assuming that most of Armstrong's work and most of Judyth's reports could be reconciled, since she only knew the man whom John calls "Harvey". But there was always the chance that at least some of the characteristics of the man Judyth's knew personally might differ from some of those of "Harvey".
When Jack and I first began discussing this seriously, I asked him for a list of the personality characteristics that differentiated them. He did not reply but told me to "Read the book!" I eventually pieced together (possibly with Dawn's help) that "Lee" was more aggressive, non-intellectual, could not speak Russian but could drive, while "Harvey" was non-aggressive, highly intellectual with a special interest in political philosophy, was born in Hungary and could not drive. Plus they were alleged to have different eye color, among their distinguishing features.
So I began to read the book and found an assertion on the fourth page of the unnumbered Introduction in relation to the role of Allen Dulles as a member of the commission, who "was so successful that there is no reference to the CIA or Central Intelligence Agency in the index to the Warren Commission's 26 volumes". Persumably, what John means is the 26 volumes of supporting evidence rather than the 888-page WARREN REPORT (1964). But while THE WARREN REPORT has an index, the 26 volumes of supporting evidence does not. And having just checked a copy that was published by the United States Government Printing Office, I find an entry for "Central Intelligence Agency, 22, 245, 258, 259, 266, 269, 272, 274-275, 279-280, 284, 305, 309-310, 327, 359, 365, 371, 433-434, 438, 456, 459, 461,463-464, 659-660, 748, 762, 777". So what in the world is going on here?
Indeed, one might have supposed that someone who was tackling a project of this magnitude would have known that in 1965, Sylvia Meagher published her SUBJECT INDEX TO THE WARREN REPORT AND HEARINGS AND EXHIBITS, as the introduction to ACCESSORIES AFTER THE FACT (first published in 1976) explains. Even that arch enemy of truth about the assassination, Max Holland, has acknowledged the absence of an index for the supplemental volumes: "In 2005, I wrote an article that criticized the Commission for its neglect of the Government Printing Office, and failure to observe the venerable practice of publishing supplementary volumes with underlying documents, depositions, and testimony (not to mention an index)" <http://hnn.us/articles/124755.html>. Which led me to ask if Holland is a more reliable source than John Armstrong!
Meanwhile, Judyth was reporting that the man she knew had no Hungarian accent but rather a trace of a Cajun accent that could be mistaken for an Hungarian accent, that he could drive (which she knew because she had actually driven with him), and that the alleged eye-color difference could be accounted for on the basis of the differing appearance of blue-gray eyes under different conditions of observation. This impressed me, because her explanations and analyses appeared to be better-founded and more reasonable than Jack's replies, which were, more often than not, "Read the book!" So I took additional looks and, on pages 91-92, discovered another story about a physical trait that allegedly distinguished between them.
Armstrong reported that both had attended Beauregard Junior High School, but that "Harvey" had left at the end of 5th grade, while "Lee" showed up at the start of the school year for 6th grade. Given his aggressive tendencies--not so much of starting fights but of ending them--the story is related of his having taken a punch from a classmate and losing a tooth! That all sounds fine, where "Lee"'s missing tooth henceforth distingishes him from "Harvey". But the story went on to explain that Lillian Murret remembered the incident and had paid the the dental visit. That was very peculiar, because Lillian was the aunt of "Harvey", not of "Lee", so what was she doing paying for "Lee"'s dental work?
Jack has taken a while to decide how to cope with this, but now suggests that Lillian and Dutz Murret may have known both "Harvey" and "Lee" and nevertheless never said a word about it. Similarly, he insists that Robert, his brother; Marina, his wife; Marguerite, his mother; and no doubt others unnamed have all known that there were "two Oswalds", "Harvey" and "Lee", even though none of them has ever breathed a word about it! I find this rather incredible, especially in the case of his mother, who has insisted from scratch that her son was a government agent and would be most unlikely to remain silent in the possession of such a crucial piece of information.
On a separate thread, during an exchange with Pat Speer, he observed (in relation to an extract I had posted from HARVEY & LEE (about the FBI having secretly taken "Harvey"'s personal effects to Washington to launder them, then secretly returning them and, with great public fanfare, loading them into a vehicle to take them to Washington for the first time) that Armstrong asserts that "FBI officials prepared a 5-volume report, completed within 48 hours of the assassination, that named Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone assassin. The report was released several days before the FBI took over the investigation, before they 'officially' received the 'evidence' from the Dallas Police Department, before they interviewed the vast majority of witnesses, two weeks before the Warren Commission was formed, and many months before their investigation was complete".
Since the Warren Commission was formed on 29 November 1963, a week after the assassination, it cannot have also been formed two weeks after a 5-volume report had been released by the FBI around 48-hours after the assassination. So not only has Armstrong blundered about an index but he also blundered about the date of the founding of the Warren Commission itself! Jack replied that there is an "index" to the supporting volumes but, as Judyth observed,
"The Index of Names" in Vol. XV of the Warren Commission Hearings is not a true index.
It only qualifies as a list of names within the volumes.
There are no city names, such as New Orleans, San Francisco, Chicago, or Dallas.
There is no Moscow. No Minsk.
There are no agency names, such as FBI, CIA, or ONI.
It cannot be said that an 'influence' was exerted to omit the CIA when there are also no place names, city names, street names, etc. There is no Reily's or JCS mentioned.
This is not a true index--it is only a list of names --and the list of
names happens to be incomplete.
For example, Wlliam I. Monaghan, of Reily's, reads reports aloud on
several pages for the FBI, but he's not listed."
So once again, Judyth appears to know the case better than Jack. She has also observed that many of the photographs that have been used to support the alleged existence of "two Oswalds" appear to display aspect-ratio distortion, which can make faces appear to be rounder or fatter than they did in the originals, which she has illustrated in numerous posts. So I ask, when confronted with substantial evidence that seems to undermine the theory of the "two Oswalds", what is a rational response? He invited me to contribute posts to a new "Judyth/Jim" thread, but when I reposted about 20 of them to illustrate the "errors in Armstrong" he wanted to discuss there, he complained that I had "rudely hijacked" his thread, which was nonsense. I was complying with his wishes--or so I thought--by reposting a sampler of the problems that Judyth and I are finding with Armstrong's research.
Jack seems to be willing to expand the list of those who "knew" about both "Harvey" and "Lee" to whatever extend is required to save the hypothesis. I could expand upon the logic of ad hoc defenses of theories during the history of science, but let me simply make the following point. Douglas Weldon has stated that he stands behind the work of David Lifton and John Armstrong:
John engaged in his research in a thorough and painstakiing manner. John is actually a very modest man. One of the differences between him and myself are in examples like John Pic. John located him but was very reserve in his contacts whereas I would have been knocking at Pic's door. What is amazing is how much more evidence Armstrong acquired but did not publish. John was fortunate to have the resources to do what few of us could have. I deeply respect John's work. It does not detract from other work I highly respect such as Lifton's. I predict the work of both will withstand the test of time. I have always realized that my credibility could be destroyed by being led down false roads. It is the tragedy of Garrison. I have been extremely cautious. However, I stand unequivocally behind these two men.
He says that John conducted his research "in a thorough and painstaking manner". But if that were the case, how could he have committed such gross blunders as the "index" and Warren Commission founding-date errors? Those are not subtle issues but, in the case of the latter, common knowledge among competent students of the death of JFK. Telling me to "Read the book!" when it includes the story of Lillian Murret paying for the dental work on "Lee" when she was "Harvey"'s aunt, does not inspire confidence. And when Judyth's studies of the photographs, the eye-color claim, and much more is simply denied but not actually refuted, I am very (not to say "vary") troubled that we are being sold a fanciful tale. I would therefore welcome any of those who care enough to get to the bottom of this to visit "Judyth/Jim" and explain away the problems we have found. I am not willing to place friendship ahead of truth in relation to JFK.
Dawn Meredith Wrote:Jack, I am reposting from EF your bio of John Armstrong. Thank you for that. He was very circumspect when I met him in Dallas. You are right, not at all egotistical. Not pushing his book. Just fascinating to speak with and I could tell he had made some money in the building trades. (One does not get to live in Hawaii unless one has accumulated some decent income).[/quote]
I just DO NOT UNDERSTAND why anyone seeks to destroy this work. To what end? I question the motives of such a person or people.
Dawn
Dean:
Whatever one thinks about Harvey and Lee, it is a very unique book in that many of its premises could be proved with witnesses who are still living and evidence that continues to be very impressive. I did not agree with Armstrong on the impact of every piece of the evidence but some of the evidence is jaw-dropping. Watch the interviews and read the book. John Armstrong conducted one of the most impressive investigations of the JFK case ever done. John is unique in that he lets the evidence speak for itself. I believe you or I (or any attorney) could go into court and easily prove that the government was engaged in a covert activity and was manipulating the identities of Oswald. Jack White is not making outrageous comments about the evidence. Whether you agree with him or not on other issues the evidence here is very solid. I am not commenting on Judyth and whether this makes a difference for her argument. I am simply agreeing with Jack that John Armstrong has compiled a mountain of evidence and the fact that individual pieces of the evidence might be questioned in no way detracts from the volumess of evidence John acquired.
John engaged in his research in a thorough and painstakiing manner. John is actually a very modest man. One of the differences between him and myself are in examples like John Pic. John located him but was very reserve in his contacts whereas I would have been knocking at Pic's door. What is amazing is how much more evidence Armstrong acquired but did not publish. John was fortunate to have the resources to do what few of us could have. I deeply respect John's work. It does not detract from other work I highly respect such as Lifton's. I predict the work of both will withstand the test of time. I have always realized that my credibility could be destroyed by being led down false roads. It is the tragedy of Garrison. I have been extremely cautious. However, I stand unequivocally behind these two men.
Best,
Doug Weldn
[/quote]
[/quote]
[/quote]
Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile - James H. Fetzer - 17-04-2010
JIM RESPONDS TO DOUG WELDON ABOUT LIFTON, ARMSTRONG, AND MORE
Doug,
You have stated unequivocally your dedication to the work of both David Lifton and John
Armstrong. No doubt, you had in mind Lifton's BEST EVIDENCE and Armstrong's HARVEY
& LEE. My point was that this cannot be an enduring form of support, since Lifton's new
book on Oswald, as I understand it, will refute the thesis of HARVEY & LEE. Now you say
you don't know better. Well, I supposed that was the case, even though I have pointed
this out at least a half-dozen times in posts that you claim to have read. If you actually
have read them, then I can't imagine how you could have missed this crucial observation.
Under the circumstances, it would have been appropriate for you to have simply said, "Of
course, if Jim is right about Lifton regarding HARVEY & LEE, then I will have to revise my
position on exactly where I stand, especially since I am strongly committed to Armstrong".
As for editing a post endorsing you, I would never do that. I have only made very small
edits and I have never done anything like what you suggest. Tell me what you are talking
about and I will most certainly correct it. I did nothing of the kind. Moreover, I still hold
you in high esteem. I have defended you and Jack and Lifton on many occasions because
I believed that you were right. I cannot defend you when I believe that you are wrong. I
cannot put friendship ahead of logic and evidence, because that warps reason and defeats
the search for truth. Jack has repeatedly told me that he has received emails from others
saying how unreasonable I have become and that they are at a loss. I assumed that you
were among them. If that was a mistake on my part, I apologize and withdraw the claim.
Judyth has been subjected to more abuse on more forums than Carter has pills. New
attacks seem to come out of the woodwork on a daily basis. Not only do we have to
cope with the ongoing assaults from the familiar crowd including Junkkarinen, Viklund,
and others you can name, but this Richard Harris shows up after more than 1,200 posts
to declare that Judyth is a phony, while extolling the virtues of the La Fontaines, whose
book was an obvious vehicle for the dissemination of a phony account of the tramps--and
he even wants to defend the authenticity of the Zapruder film! Well, those like him are
a dime a dozen. I never heard of the guy before and, after this, I don't expect to hear
from him again. I would like to believe that you and Jack and David, whom I regard as
quality players, and I can continue to be friends in spite of our differences over Judyth.
Jim
[quote name='Doug Weldon' post='189859' date='Apr 17 2010, 12:14 AM']
[quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='189854' date='Apr 17 2010, 12:14 AM']
RESPONSE TO JACK AND COMMENT ON DOUG WELDON: IT WAS NOT WELL-DONE!
REPLY TO JACK
I have already done that. In each case, I have given specific pages, except, of course,
in case you haven't noticed, his "Introduction" does not have page numbers! Now, so
far, I and Pat Speer and Michael Hogan have all pointed out mistakes (or "blunders")
in HARVEY & LEE. Several occur on the first five pages of the book, so it should not
tax you overly much to track them down. I have also identified pages 92-93 as the
place where the Beauregard Junior High School "lost tooth" episode occurs, where
Lillian Murret remembered having paid for the dental bill, except that the one who is
supposed to have lost the tooth was "Lee" while Lillian was "Harvey"'s aunt. Start
with the "index" error, the founding of the commission error, and Lillian's payment.
You seem to have me in a quandary, my friend. You excoriate me into reading the
Armstrong book but, when I do and turn up mistakes, you don't want to hear them,
even when they bear on crucial aspects of the fundamental thesis of HARVEY & LEE.
COMMENT ON WELDON
Douglas Weldon does a soft shoe to spare himself embarrassment. Well, nice try but
no cigar. If Weldon had known, he could not possibly have made such an unqualified
endorsement of BOTH Lifton AND Armstrong, especially given how "cautious" he is
as a student of JFK. So now three scholars whom I have esteemed and defended in
the past are playing fast and loose with the situation: Lifton, who claims that he dis-
credited Judyty during a phone call, but won't share the cassette; and who has such
moral integrity that he won't even state on this forum that he does not buy the "two
Oswalds" HARVEY & LEE scenario; Jack White, who won't even read Judyth's posts
and is now asking me to do something I have already done, while committing the
kinds of fallacies of reasoning I taught freshmen to avoid; and Doug Weldon, who is
trying to cover his ass from a manifest absurdity and who has thereby lost more of
my respect than from simply coming clean and admitting that he made a mistake!
NOTE TO ALL
Let me make this point very clear. I am not denying that Armstrong may have some-
thing serious to contribute. I am asserting that, when I begin to read his book, I am
finding mistakes--some rather elementary, some impinging upon his basis thesis--but
when I point them out, Jack White is non-responsive and, in other respects, Lifton and
Weldon are playing games. Weldon solemnly declares his unswerving support for both
Lifton and Armstrong yet, when I point out that yields a contradiction, he acts as if he
always knew that anyway--and Jack backs him up! This is turning into a carnival act.
It is not the kind of response to genuine criticism that I expect from serious scholars.
And after all the insults I have endured from Jack White (no doubt, at least in part, on
the basis of emails from Lifton and Weldon), I am just not going to take it any longer!
When they have something serious to offer, I'll be glad to hear from them--not before.
[quote name='Jack White' post='189848' date='Apr 16 2010, 09:50 PM']
Jim...your response is mind-numbingly irresponsive. I asked that you or others
submit errors ONE AT A TIME in a specific manner, and I will ask John about them.
Instead I get yet another lecture about what a terrible researcher I, Doug Weldon,
David Lifton and others are. Doug, David, I and others are entitled to our opinions,
just as you and JVB are.
I have read your posting, but it is not suitable for me to submit to John. Please
use the following format to submit what YOU THINK ARE ERRORS:
.......
ERROR:
H&L page 234, states SUCH AND SUCH
DOCUMENTATION OF ERROR:
(SOURCE) states the contrary is true, SUCH AND SUCH, ETC. in less than
100 words.
........
This is very simple.
1. Point out the error and page number
2. Provide documentation to the contrary (100 words or less)
3. Only one error at a time, please...not a bushel basket!
No LONG essays. No emotional harangues. Keep it simple and objective. No personal
insults. Remember, opinions by JVB are not proofs of errors. No part of John's
book was based on her opinions. She was UNKNOWN at the time he did his
research, and unknown by all the agencies controlling LHO. Please produce
just one document naming her, if you can.
And remember, an author has to be selective. Failure to say something that
you think should have been said is not an error.
Surely you are capable of following these simple instructions. A genuine
listing of genuine errors will move research forward.
Thanks for your cooperation.
Jack
[quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='189845' date='Apr 16 2010, 08:12 PM']
JIM REPLIES TO JACK WHITE ABOUT JUDYTH AND HARVEY & LEE
Jack, your response is mind-numbingly irresponsive. I have spelled out very specific
blunders in Armstrong's book. The first was his claim that Dulles had been so effective
in managing the Warren Commission that the index to its 26 volumes did not even have
a reference to the CIA. But, as I observed, the 26 supporting volumes did not have an
index and THE WARREN REPORT, which did, had dozens of references to the CIA. If you
cannot acknowledge that as a "blunder", then we have different standards of rationality.
Again, as Pat Speer observed when I posted a section in which John was explaining how
the FBI had played a fast one on the public by secretly taking the physical evidence (the
Oswald possessions) to Washington and then laundering them, returning the evidence to
Dallas and later making a big to-do about it with a public loading into a vehicle, where John
adds that this was weeks before the Warren Commission was formed. Since I explained
all of this in my posts, I suppose you are no more reading my posts than you are Judyth's.
The quality of an argument, Jack, is independent of its source. If McAdams had posted the
same critiques as Judyth about some of the photographs or explained why the alleged eye-
color difference carries no weight, they would still stand as arguments that have to be dealt
with on their own. You love to commit the genetic fallacy, which is to discount arguments on
the basis of their origin. I spent 35 years teaching students to avoid fallacies of that kind,
Jack, and I am not going to accept them from you. Your conduct has been irresponsible.
The existence of "two Oswalds" largely rests upon accounts like that from Beauregard Jr.
High School. But when I notice that, while "Lee" is supposed to be the one with the tooth
missing but Lillian, who was "Harvey"'s aunt, pays the dental bill, you dismiss it with the
back of your hand, conjuring up some nonsense about how they, too, must have know of
the existence of "Harvey" and of "Lee". Your defense is indefensible. You spend all your
time begging the question by taking for granted that there were both "Harvey" and "Lee".
The Doug Weldon, whom I have also admired in the past, comes on with this fawning pap
about how wonderful Armstrong is and how cautious Weldon is and yet he stands behind
the work of both LIFTON and ARMSTRONG, clearly oblivious of the fact that LIFTON does
not buy HARVEY & LEE, even though I had been pointing this out repeatedly. When you
combine this worshipful attitude toward Armstrong with the unwillingness to even consider
arguments to the contrary that Judyth and I have presented, the result is simply stunning.
It is now becoming apparent that we (Judyth and I) are dealing with a cult, which can be
defined by its core beliefs (such as the existence of "two Oswalds", who had mothers by
the same name and led parallel lives), even if there is mounting evidence that disconfirms
some of the crucial evidence--photographic and historical--that has been used to support
those core beliefs, where Judyth has added further arguments based upon her personal
knowledge of Lee H. Oswald. The members of this cult will not read our posts or reply to
our arguments other than by reaffirming the faith, an irrational and irresponsible attitude.
In your efforts to blunt serious criticism, you resort to ad hoc hypotheses, such as that
Lillian Murret and Dutz must have also known about both "Harvey" and "Lee" along with
Robert, his brother; Marina, his wife; and even Marguerite, his mother! Yet none of them
has ever breathed a word about it! Do you not realize the absurdity of your position by
inventing all of this knowledge of "two Oswalds" which you have no evidence to support?
I am sorry, Jack. I thought you were committed to research. It is obvious that I'm wrong.
[quote name='Jack White' post='189829' date='Apr 16 2010, 05:24 PM']
Jim...I do not understand how you can continue to claim that ANYTHING JVB SAYS IS "PROOF". Anything she
says is merely her OPINION.
You say I am struggling over how to "cope with" the questions JVB raises, when in fact I dismiss her opinions
as being not worthy of wasting time over.
Your essay below is so far afield I must repeat the phrase you hate...please READ THE BOOK.
What does it matter that the WC "Index" is only a "name index"? It does NOT matter. But to belabor the point
that it is not a "complete index" is nonsense, as it would have required another complete volume. The Warren
Report and volumes were not done for the convenience of future researchers, but as a record of an investigation.
It has what it calls an INDEX in Volume XV. That it does not suit JVB is too bad, but it IS an index, and to say
there is NO INDEX is extreme nit-picking.
As I stated once before, do not present a long rambling list. If you find an error in H&L, please state what
that ONE error is and your proof of why it is erroneous. Please give the page number of the "error". I will send
each one to John for comment. Do not give JVB opinions as proof. Give documentation superior to John's.
I do not claim that John's book is error-free. One man, working entirely alone, is likely to make a few mistakes.
But nobody has ever pointed out any serious error of fact in the book.
And I do not need to mention how absurd it is to compare John's book to Bugliosi's. That may be the most
ill-considered comparison you have ever made.
Jack
[quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='189822' date='Apr 16 2010, 02:44 PM']
JIM REPLIES TO DAWN AND OTHER DEVOTEES OF HARVEY & LEE
I don't get it. The reverence--even sanctification--of John Armstrong is beyond me. The guy produced a big book, but so did Vince Bugliosi! If we can evaluate RECLAIMING HISTORY with a fine-toothed comb, why not HARVEY & LEE? I began assuming that most of Armstrong's work and most of Judyth's reports could be reconciled, since she only knew the man whom John calls "Harvey". But there was always the chance that at least some of the characteristics of the man Judyth's knew personally might differ from some of those of "Harvey".
When Jack and I first began discussing this seriously, I asked him for a list of the personality characteristics that differentiated them. He did not reply but told me to "Read the book!" I eventually pieced together (possibly with Dawn's help) that "Lee" was more aggressive, non-intellectual, could not speak Russian but could drive, while "Harvey" was non-aggressive, highly intellectual with a special interest in political philosophy, was born in Hungary and could not drive. Plus they were alleged to have different eye color, among their distinguishing features.
So I began to read the book and found an assertion on the fourth page of the unnumbered Introduction in relation to the role of Allen Dulles as a member of the commission, who "was so successful that there is no reference to the CIA or Central Intelligence Agency in the index to the Warren Commission's 26 volumes". Persumably, what John means is the 26 volumes of supporting evidence rather than the 888-page WARREN REPORT (1964). But while THE WARREN REPORT has an index, the 26 volumes of supporting evidence does not. And having just checked a copy that was published by the United States Government Printing Office, I find an entry for "Central Intelligence Agency, 22, 245, 258, 259, 266, 269, 272, 274-275, 279-280, 284, 305, 309-310, 327, 359, 365, 371, 433-434, 438, 456, 459, 461,463-464, 659-660, 748, 762, 777". So what in the world is going on here?
Indeed, one might have supposed that someone who was tackling a project of this magnitude would have known that in 1965, Sylvia Meagher published her SUBJECT INDEX TO THE WARREN REPORT AND HEARINGS AND EXHIBITS, as the introduction to ACCESSORIES AFTER THE FACT (first published in 1976) explains. Even that arch enemy of truth about the assassination, Max Holland, has acknowledged the absence of an index for the supplemental volumes: "In 2005, I wrote an article that criticized the Commission for its neglect of the Government Printing Office, and failure to observe the venerable practice of publishing supplementary volumes with underlying documents, depositions, and testimony (not to mention an index)" <http://hnn.us/articles/124755.html>. Which led me to ask if Holland is a more reliable source than John Armstrong!
Meanwhile, Judyth was reporting that the man she knew had no Hungarian accent but rather a trace of a Cajun accent that could be mistaken for an Hungarian accent, that he could drive (which she knew because she had actually driven with him), and that the alleged eye-color difference could be accounted for on the basis of the differing appearance of blue-gray eyes under different conditions of observation. This impressed me, because her explanations and analyses appeared to be better-founded and more reasonable than Jack's replies, which were, more often than not, "Read the book!" So I took additional looks and, on pages 91-92, discovered another story about a physical trait that allegedly distinguished between them.
Armstrong reported that both had attended Beauregard Junior High School, but that "Harvey" had left at the end of 5th grade, while "Lee" showed up at the start of the school year for 6th grade. Given his aggressive tendencies--not so much of starting fights but of ending them--the story is related of his having taken a punch from a classmate and losing a tooth! That all sounds fine, where "Lee"'s missing tooth henceforth distingishes him from "Harvey". But the story went on to explain that Lillian Murret remembered the incident and had paid the the dental visit. That was very peculiar, because Lillian was the aunt of "Harvey", not of "Lee", so what was she doing paying for "Lee"'s dental work?
Jack has taken a while to decide how to cope with this, but now suggests that Lillian and Dutz Murret may have known both "Harvey" and "Lee" and nevertheless never said a word about it. Similarly, he insists that Robert, his brother; Marina, his wife; Marguerite, his mother; and no doubt others unnamed have all known that there were "two Oswalds", "Harvey" and "Lee", even though none of them has ever breathed a word about it! I find this rather incredible, especially in the case of his mother, who has insisted from scratch that her son was a government agent and would be most unlikely to remain silent in the possession of such a crucial piece of information.
On a separate thread, during an exchange with Pat Speer, he observed (in relation to an extract I had posted from HARVEY & LEE (about the FBI having secretly taken "Harvey"'s personal effects to Washington to launder them, then secretly returning them and, with great public fanfare, loading them into a vehicle to take them to Washington for the first time) that Armstrong asserts that "FBI officials prepared a 5-volume report, completed within 48 hours of the assassination, that named Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone assassin. The report was released several days before the FBI took over the investigation, before they 'officially' received the 'evidence' from the Dallas Police Department, before they interviewed the vast majority of witnesses, two weeks before the Warren Commission was formed, and many months before their investigation was complete".
Since the Warren Commission was formed on 29 November 1963, a week after the assassination, it cannot have also been formed two weeks after a 5-volume report had been released by the FBI around 48-hours after the assassination. So not only has Armstrong blundered about an index but he also blundered about the date of the founding of the Warren Commission itself! Jack replied that there is an "index" to the supporting volumes but, as Judyth observed,
"The Index of Names" in Vol. XV of the Warren Commission Hearings is not a true index.
It only qualifies as a list of names within the volumes.
There are no city names, such as New Orleans, San Francisco, Chicago, or Dallas.
There is no Moscow. No Minsk.
There are no agency names, such as FBI, CIA, or ONI.
It cannot be said that an 'influence' was exerted to omit the CIA when there are also no place names, city names, street names, etc. There is no Reily's or JCS mentioned.
This is not a true index--it is only a list of names --and the list of
names happens to be incomplete.
For example, Wlliam I. Monaghan, of Reily's, reads reports aloud on
several pages for the FBI, but he's not listed."
So once again, Judyth appears to know the case better than Jack. She has also observed that many of the photographs that have been used to support the alleged existence of "two Oswalds" appear to display aspect-ratio distortion, which can make faces appear to be rounder or fatter than they did in the originals, which she has illustrated in numerous posts. So I ask, when confronted with substantial evidence that seems to undermine the theory of the "two Oswalds", what is a rational response? He invited me to contribute posts to a new "Judyth/Jim" thread, but when I reposted about 20 of them to illustrate the "errors in Armstrong" he wanted to discuss there, he complained that I had "rudely hijacked" his thread, which was nonsense. I was complying with his wishes--or so I thought--by reposting a sampler of the problems that Judyth and I are finding with Armstrong's research.
Jack seems to be willing to expand the list of those who "knew" about both "Harvey" and "Lee" to whatever extend is required to save the hypothesis. I could expand upon the logic of ad hoc defenses of theories during the history of science, but let me simply make the following point. Douglas Weldon has stated that he stands behind the work of David Lifton and John Armstrong:
John engaged in his research in a thorough and painstakiing manner. John is actually a very modest man. One of the differences between him and myself are in examples like John Pic. John located him but was very reserve in his contacts whereas I would have been knocking at Pic's door. What is amazing is how much more evidence Armstrong acquired but did not publish. John was fortunate to have the resources to do what few of us could have. I deeply respect John's work. It does not detract from other work I highly respect such as Lifton's. I predict the work of both will withstand the test of time. I have always realized that my credibility could be destroyed by being led down false roads. It is the tragedy of Garrison. I have been extremely cautious. However, I stand unequivocally behind these two men.
He says that John conducted his research "in a thorough and painstaking manner". But if that were the case, how could he have committed such gross blunders as the "index" and Warren Commission founding-date errors? Those are not subtle issues but, in the case of the latter, common knowledge among competent students of the death of JFK. Telling me to "Read the book!" when it includes the story of Lillian Murret paying for the dental work on "Lee" when she was "Harvey"'s aunt, does not inspire confidence. And when Judyth's studies of the photographs, the eye-color claim, and much more is simply denied but not actually refuted, I am very (not to say "vary") troubled that we are being sold a fanciful tale. I would therefore welcome any of those who care enough to get to the bottom of this to visit "Judyth/Jim" and explain away the problems we have found. I am not willing to place friendship ahead of truth in relation to JFK.
Dawn Meredith Wrote:Jack, I am reposting from EF your bio of John Armstrong. Thank you for that. He was very circumspect when I met him in Dallas. You are right, not at all egotistical. Not pushing his book. Just fascinating to speak with and I could tell he had made some money in the building trades. (One does not get to live in Hawaii unless one has accumulated some decent income).[/quote]
I just DO NOT UNDERSTAND why anyone seeks to destroy this work. To what end? I question the motives of such a person or people.
Dawn
Dean:
Whatever one thinks about Harvey and Lee, it is a very unique book in that many of its premises could be proved with witnesses who are still living and evidence that continues to be very impressive. I did not agree with Armstrong on the impact of every piece of the evidence but some of the evidence is jaw-dropping. Watch the interviews and read the book. John Armstrong conducted one of the most impressive investigations of the JFK case ever done. John is unique in that he lets the evidence speak for itself. I believe you or I (or any attorney) could go into court and easily prove that the government was engaged in a covert activity and was manipulating the identities of Oswald. Jack White is not making outrageous comments about the evidence. Whether you agree with him or not on other issues the evidence here is very solid. I am not commenting on Judyth and whether this makes a difference for her argument. I am simply agreeing with Jack that John Armstrong has compiled a mountain of evidence and the fact that individual pieces of the evidence might be questioned in no way detracts from the volumess of evidence John acquired.
John engaged in his research in a thorough and painstakiing manner. John is actually a very modest man. One of the differences between him and myself are in examples like John Pic. John located him but was very reserve in his contacts whereas I would have been knocking at Pic's door. What is amazing is how much more evidence Armstrong acquired but did not publish. John was fortunate to have the resources to do what few of us could have. I deeply respect John's work. It does not detract from other work I highly respect such as Lifton's. I predict the work of both will withstand the test of time. I have always realized that my credibility could be destroyed by being led down false roads. It is the tragedy of Garrison. I have been extremely cautious. However, I stand unequivocally behind these two men.
Best,
Doug Weldn
[/quote]
[/quote]
[/quote]
[/quote]
So that I am clear I have known Armstrong very well since 1998 and spent many hours on the phone with him in conversation as he was gathering his evidence and writing his book. I spoke with a couple of his witnesses. I knew there was a conflict between him and Lifton about Oswald though I have no idea what, if any, conflict still exists. (Yes, I know it is unusual for JFK researches to disagree with one another) I do know David had an extensive interview with Robert Oswald where Armstrong did not. I have also spent hours talking with Marina myself, even as recent as last year. I do not know what Lifton's conclusions about Oswald are as I have not seen any portion of Lifton's book though I have exchanged a few e-mails with him. I highly respect the work he has done and the observations made by Doug Horne. As I noted before I do not agree with everything Armstrong has presented and there were some things he thought very important that I found to be very innocuous. However, there is other evidence he presents which has virtually floored me. John ran many things by me. He would mail me things for comment. This is not a soft shoe. I have trenendous respect for Armstrong and Lifton and if there is something I disagree with from either of them I am not hesitant to express it. I stand by my comments.
I am concerned that you seem to perceive that I have shared my private concerns about Judyth, which I have raised in private e-mails to you, with Jack and David, thus stirring up Jack. Nothing is further from the truth. I have not raised those concerns in this forum at all or to Jack or David and yet I am now included in the personal attacks on my integrity. You even edited the post and removed the endorsement of my work by your psych-ops. I can only infer that it is because of my lack of endorsement for Judyth. I have read every single post on this thread and have followed her in the past. I even have a couple of personal e-mails from her. My opinion about her has not changed but I have not attempted to influence anyone else's opinion. The whole tenor of this thread has become as surreal as Judyth.
Doug Weldon
[/quote]
Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile - James H. Fetzer - 17-04-2010
JIM, HOWARD, AND JUDYTH COMMENT ON ROBERT HARRIS
If ever there were a contributor to this thread who does not deserve to be taken seriously, it is Robert Harris. Notice he has only joined the forum in the last two days. How could this guy be standing on the sidelines with his "dynamite" refutation of Judyth over more than 1,200 posts and not become involved before this? And I am quite certain that he has not even bothered to read them. This guy is as phony as they come. The gratuitous swipe at me over the Zapruder film is especially revealing, since the presentations he must be talking about are simply ones in which I show and discuss four different versions of the film which differ with respect to how much of the scene is presented in them, which is even supported by a mathematical analysis of their relative informational content. Anyone who would buy into the La Fontaine's feeble attempt to mislead the public about the identity of "the tramps" has discredited himself.
PLATZMAN COMMENTS ON ARMSTRONG AND HARRIS:
-- On Sat, 4/17/10, Howpl@aol.com <Howpl@aol.com> wrote:
Armstrong's little mistakes:
(1) Last week I wrote an e-mail saying that Mary Sherman died in 1967. I was soon corrected (she died in 1964) -- and then remembered that I'd made the same mistake before. Guess whose book I relied upon. Why, none other than Craig Roberts' and John Armstrong's JFK: The Dead Witnesses. Maybe that was Armstrong's mistake.
(2) John and Judyth crossed paths several years ago when she, through Martin Shackelford, corrected him on Oswald's New Orleans address. (She even took Martin and me to the spot and pointed out how the little sign with the address was obscured from view -- even today -- so that someone might easily get the address wrong.) Martin told me that Armstrong was not interested in Judyth. I'm not sure he even thanked her. That is one very focused researcher!
Harris again:
It's hard to believe that, after all these years, Robert Harris is still mired in the same muck. A muck of his own making yet. Anita/Anna is a mix-up in his mind only. Moreover, it represents no more that a millionth of a percent of all that Judyth has tirelessly given (or tried to give) researchers over the past decade. It is foolish in the extreme for anyone to be paying any attention to this "issue" in April of 2010. Plain ridiculous.
Here is the dirty little secret of the so-called research community. Many if not most of the "experts" believe they have all but closed this case when all they've done is closed their minds. An apt axiom: The fervor of true believers (and their imperviousness to reason or disconfirming data) correlates directly with the number of years they have consumed writing and then waiting for their (first or next) book to get (self-)published.
At the center of their so-called research is, sadly, a hard core of religious thinking. It was Mark Twain who said: "Man is the only animal that has the true religion -- several of them." This group is the Armstrong-is-God crowd. READ THE BOOK, but not too closely. Tea-party scholarship at its finest.
Howard
JUDYTH COMMENTS ON ROBERT HARRIS
Dear Dr. Fetzer:
JUST IN CASE ROBERT HARRIS SHOWS UP -- Martin Shackelford and Dr. Howard Plaztman BOTH tried to tell Mr. Harris that he got it wrong -- I TRIED to tell him he got it wrong -- he INSISTED he got it 'right'. ANITA IS WHAT I CALLED ANNETTE -- A WORKER AT REILY. I even have her photo.
![[Image: e0qqfb.jpg]](http://i39.tinypic.com/e0qqfb.jpg)
She invited me to her wedding but I did not recall her last name or the name of her fiance, so I could not reply to Mr. Harris' question about her.
He misstated many things I said and persists to this day. Why do these people do that? When corrected, they retain their initial statements anyway. For years!
I never ever said I double-dated with a former classmate -- I expressed to Dr. Platzman my frustration with Harris for persisting and claiming I said this, and he would not admit he misunderstood.
Anita -- Annette -- I had called Annette 'Anita' as a pet name when we worked together at Reily's. We never were high school classmates. I was dismayed when he kept saying that.
Harris, reading from Lifton -- that I was a 'bored Louisiana houisewife" -- may have assumed I lived in Louisiana.
I said LEE AND I double-dated with ANNA--ANNA LEWIS--never Annette.
Which he mixed up with ANNETTE and would not let go of.
I told him of an incident on a plane, too, and produced flight records to back up our emergency landing at Hot Springs [from Washington, DC, where "60 Minutes" had sent me]. He assumed I made it all up. Since then, an important researcher also had a similar threat, and in fact, it helped him to endorse me, as he has done for some time.
Mr. Harris posts on McAdams' newsgroup. I expect him and David Lifton to come around and attack.
Martin and Howard will tell you that this person has absolutely refused to change his mind about what he says I said, even though I corrected him as soon as I learned he mixed up all the Annette's/Anita's/Anna's and Lewises! So if he shows up, I will let them know. Hope they are both well.
Note the many late clock-outs for Lee Oswald. Also note that Marina did not know for 2 weeks -- in one letter -- or as long as 6 weeks -- testifying -- that she knew Lee no longer worked at Reily. She had no idea what he was doing for weeks, in other words. He left in the morning and returned in the evening--and it wasn't at 4:00, as she told Garrison. He was usually home around 7:00 PM and sometimes later, as he often brought home groceries, too.
He had a fight with her once and walked out and was gone all night.
She said he went for walks. He sometimes visited me at my nearby apartment for several hours at that time, in July.
In case this comes up. I can provide you with some old comments that were previously written in rebuttal (see below). I will also provide information about Lee's background report, if that might come up.
FROM PLATZMAN TO HARRIS IN 2003:
From: Howard Platzman (howpl@aol.com)
Subject: Re: Shackelford JUST CAN'T STOP Lying about Robert Harris
View: Complete Thread (23 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Date: 2003-10-09 14:35:30 PST
reharris1@yahoo.com (Robert Harris) wrote in message news:<3f85656f.69498671@News.CIS.DFN.DE>...
> On 07 Oct 2003 07:21:36 GMT, Martin Shackelford
> <mshack@concentric.net> wrote:
>
> >The "newest account" is the same as the account she gave to Dr. Riehl in
> >1999--also the "earliest account."
> >Then, of course there is the "exclusive Robert Harris account." Sad, really.
>
> Martin,
>
> Judyth's claim is that Anna and Ron Lewis double dated with her and Oswald.
> Is that right?
>
> Robert Harris
>
I can't believe where this thread has gone?
First - Ron Lewis?!!! That name has not come up in conversation with Judyth for years. And when it came up, I brought it up and played devil's advocate to see if he could fit anywhere into the events.
Judyth rejected his story from the first as inconsistent with Lee's movements in August. I found something disarming about the poor schmo's "what's-going-on-here? story," and she said that MAYBE Lee knew him, but he sure never mentioned him to her, so at most he was a minor character. Ron Lewis had no relation to David Lewis, Anna's husband.
For what it's worth, a couple of years ago, I tried to contact Ron Lewis thru his co-author, who was listed in the white pages. This was a small town that apparently had two guys named "Lessie Coloma" in it, only I got the wrong one. This one said he had nothing to do with Ron Lewis and knew of no Lessie Coloma who might. I think maybe he was just ashamed of himself.
Second - I hate to say Martin's got the truth a bit twisted, but I have to. Anita was a co-worker at Reily's. She was going to marry her high-school sweetheart. She was not an old high school friend of Judyth's. Anna, on the other hand, was the double dater, and her husband was David Lewis.
Anna has nothing to do with Judyth's high school or with Florida. The basic point is that Judyth did find this witness, whether before you split or after. You have been claiming for three years that she has no witnesses. What gives you the right to claim that she still has no witnesses?
Robert, you have been corrected about this stuff over and over again.
Once again, if you have notes of a conversation in which Judyth says she double-dated with Anna Lewis, scan it for all to see. Liars wouldn't call your bluff. I'm calling it. (Yeah, I know you could fake it, but I'm hoping you are not that foolish.)
Howard
Richard Harris wrote:
Dr. Fetzer, Judyth contacted me in 1999, long before she was on television and even before most researchers had heard of her. After a number of email exchanges, in which she related her story (or that version of it), we spoke on the phone for about three hours.
At that time, she talked about double dating with Oswald, with an old high school friend and her fiance, who married her in August of that year. My response was, that this would be a great way to corroborate her affair with Oswald. What were their names? At that point, she was silent for a moment and then said she didn't remember his surname, nor did she have any interest in tracking down the girl's parents, nor did she want to look at the wedding announcements in the newspaper for August, the month in which she said they got married. This is from an email exchange, she and I had in 2002
1. You said you and LHO double dated with a friend from school and her
fiance, and that you saw her wedding announcement in the paper in August
of 1963. It should be fairly easy to find that woman, through a yearbook
or the newspaper. Have you done so and do you have her name yet?
2. You said people at Alba's garage saw you with Oswald there. Have you
figured out yet, which of them saw you? Did Mr. Alba himself, see the two
of you? If not, then who did?
3. You said that you and LHO were inseparable during your affair and that
you felt sorry for Marina because she was left alone at night, on numerous
occasions. But, Marina was asked, by the La Fontaines (in a totally
different context), if Lee was frequently gone at night, or even late
coming home. She replied that he was always there on time, and never
missing. (in New Orleans, only)
==Nonsense. He had 6:00 and 6:30 clock-outs from Reily's and even a 7:32 clock-out from Reily's. She was telling the WC he was home by 4:00! He did not get home until 6-8:00 at night on numerous occasions backed up merely from Reily records.==
Was Marina wrong about that? If not, then when did you and LHO have the
opportunity to see each other?
And why did you tell me that you monopolized his (non-working) hours?
As I said before, I still hope/wish your story is true.
But if it is not, then you are doing a grave disservice to this country
and to history. It is already almost impossible for serious researchers to
get anything published on the JFK case, which because of all the red
herrings and bogus theories, many editors equate with UFO tales and Big
Foot sightings.
She replied:
I did respond. I sent an answer through another person because I do not
have an email address for you. PLEASE simply send me an email with a
current address. If this email arrives, I made one error; where it says
"Anita" it should say "Annette" and is not to be confused with "Anna," as
these people are two different witnesses. I am still recovering from an
auto crash and do not look at the ne3wsgroup every day by any means.
Of course, she never could come up with the name of her "best friend" in high school, who was replaced by Anna Lewis as the woman, who with her husband, David Lewis, was supposed to have double dated with them. David Lewis, is the same guy who had a lot of stories to tell about Oswald, but never once, mentioned any double dates, or any kind of social activities with Oswald.
==because there was no 'friend from high school--it is all in his head!==
In her private emails to me, she totally changed her story about feeling sorry for poor lonely Marina, which she mentioned several times in our phone conversation. In version II, their flaming romance was carried on during daylight hours only, apparently sneaking out from work.
And of course, she never could come up with anyone who saw her at Alba's garage.
==Martin Shackelford got a report from a New Orleans investigator about that.==
And one more thing.
Judyth had always spent a lot of time, following the JFK usenet groups. In 2005, I wrote a piece on Oswald and his obsession with "I led three lives", and Herbert Philbrick's influence on him.
When did she first start talking about Philbrick and IL3L's?
==1999==
Judyth also told me during that phone conversation that some sinister character stole the hard drive from her computer. And she told me a story about being on a plane in which they had to make an emergency landing because a passenger had a heart attack. Sitting next to her, was a men-in-black type who said, "If we can do that to him, we can do that to you.".
FWIW, I have no respect at all, for most of the people who have been actively attacking her, in alt.assassination.jfk. And I have no doubt at all, that David Ferrie was involved in setting up the assassination. But Judyth is totally phony. Maybe she doesn't even realize what she is doing. My sense was, when I spoke with her, that this woman has some very serious mental and emotional issues. But her story is just not true. I wish it was, because a legitimate Oswald girlfriend might have given us a lot of important answers.
Robert Harris
[quote name='Robert Harris' post='189872' date='Apr 17 2010, 07:31 AM']
[quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='189856' date='Apr 17 2010, 12:46 AM']Robert,
Judyth has been subjected to a lot of abuse and has not always handled situations most effectively. She has often not been sure whether or not to provide additional information to those challenging her, especially in a case where it might put her friend on the spot without asking in advance. But she has been very responsive here. Her friend's name is Anna Lewis and a video of her talking about their double-dating may be found archived on my blog, including "The Love Affair", especially, at http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/03/14...udyth-vary.html The LaFontaine's OSWALD TALKED is such rubbish I can't believe anyone would take it seriously, which, I am sorry to say, raises questions in my mind about your competence. I think you need to get up-to-speed on Ed Haslam, DR. MARY'S MONKEY, http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/04/ed...rys-monkey.html . He (Ed Haslam) was on "Coast to Coast" for four hours last night. I suggest you check it out before drawing such damning conclusions. I have had a huge amount of contact with Judyth in the meanwhile and I am quite sure that she is "the real deal".
Jim[/quote]
Dr. Fetzer, I am disappointed to learn that you are exactly what I expected after watching one or two of your presentations, on the Zapruder film, which I hope we can discuss in detail in another thread.
Judy didn't just handle a "situation" poorly. She lied to me and then significantly changed her story after she learned that her early versions didn't hold up. And she was either suffering from severe paranoia when she made up some very silly stories, or she thought I was.
After all these years, neither you nor anyone else has been able to confirm her story about an affair with Oswald, for the very obvious reason that it never happened.
As for your smear against the La Fontaines, I noticed that you support that argument every bit as well as you do this fairy tale about Judyth. The La Fontaines made some enormously important contributions, including their debunking of the "three tramps" myth, and their absolute proof that Oswald had been an informant for the FBI.
Their analysis was solidly supported by a great deal of facts and documented evidence. If you could show us 1/10th that much evidence in support of Judyth, there would be nothing left to argue about.
Robert Harris
[/quote]
Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile - James H. Fetzer - 17-04-2010
All,
Anyone who wants to see how far-off base this guy can be should simply watch my opening presentations at the Z-film conference I organized and moderated in Duluth in 2003. They are as straightforward, objective, and scientific as any presentation could be. I am quite convinced that his research on Judyth is just as competent as his research on me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zSghy2TkIY...feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtZqautUPPw...feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yR0vayhmQNU...feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-tsoLRI4tE...feature=related
Another source, of course, is THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003), which I am sure this guy cannot abide either. And, if he were remotely up-to-date, he would be aware of Doug Horne's INSIDE THE ARRB (2009), which I discuss in "U.S. Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication", http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_5772.shtml
Jim
[quote name='Robert Harris' post='189904' date='Apr 17 2010, 08:25 PM']
[quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='189895' date='Apr 17 2010, 06:10 PM']
JIM, HOWARD, AND JUDYTH COMMENT ON ROBERT HARRIS
If every there were a contributor to this thread who does not deserve to be taken seriously, it is Robert Harris. Notice he has only joined the forum in the last two days. How could this guy be standing on the sidelines with his "dynamite" refutation of Judyth over more than 1,200 posts and not become involved before this? And I am quite certain that he has not even bothered to read them. This guy is as phony as they come. The gratuitous swipe at me over the Zapruder film is especially revealing, since the presentations he must be talking about are simply ones in which I show and discuss four different versions of the film which differ with respect to how much of the scene is presented in them, which is even supported by a mathematical analysis of their relative informational content. Anyone who would buy into the La Fontaine's feeble attempt to mislead the public about the identity of "the tramps" has discredited himself.[/quote]
Dr. Fetzer, I posted about Judyth nine years ago, and my total postings on this subject over the years can probably be counted on one hand. I don't spend much time on the topic because it doesn't even make the bottom of my priority list. Judyth said exactly what I claimed. There is no confusion here on my part. "Anita" is the ONLY woman she even mentioned in regard to this issue. And she did say the woman double dated with her and Oswald. She admits that she told me about Anita, but she hasn't even come up with an alternative explanation for why she mentioned her.
If "anita" could corroborate her story in some other way, then surely you and Mr. Platzman have tracked her down by now. I mean, if she has a postcard, she at least has a maiden name which should allow you to track down her employment records. And surely, she told all of you about Anita a long time ago. What did you/they find out??
Or is it possible, that Anita only gets evoked as a co-worker whenever I show up??
And I noticed that she does not deny having told me about how sorry she felt for Marina, being left at home alone every night. Has she explained to you, why her story morphed into a daylight affair, after I corrected her? And if Mary La Fontaine had been wrong, then Judyth could have simply said so. But instead, she completely changed her story about the affair, from that day forward.
Dr. Fetzer, I have no dogs in this race. I have no money from books, movies, TV, hanging in the balance. And we all know, that if I had posted a message supporting Judyth, you would see me as God's gift to the research community, rather than as the human sewage you portray.
If you were right about Judyth and honestly believed you were right, you wouldn't need to resort to this "take no prisoners" strategy. You could discuss the issues rationally and objectively, instead of sounding like a ranting madman. I notice that you treat all skeptics, pretty much the same way. I doubt that you care, Dr. Fetzer, but when you promote things like this and your luny Zapruder film theories, you do far more damage to our credibility than the Posners and Bugliosi's of the world.
Whenever the nutters start accusing us of being lunatics, they always point to one guy as the ultimate example. Now, who do you suppose that is?
Robert Harris
[/quote]
Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile - James H. Fetzer - 25-04-2010
Jack,
A few questions for my friend, who has evidently gone off the deep end:
(1) Are you now practicing psychology/psychiatry without a license?
(2) Have you ever actually met or spoken with Judyth Vary Baker?
(3) Have you ever watched Nigel Turner's "The Love Affair"?
(4) Have you read MARY, FERRIE, AND THE MONEY VIRUS?
(5) Have you read Ed Haslam's DR. MARY'S MONKEY?
(6) Have you read my blog about Judyth Vary Baker?
(7) Have you listened to my 1-hour Haslem interview?
(8) Have you read my blog about DR. MARY'S MONKEY?
(9) Have you listened to Ed's 4-hour C2C interview?
(10) Are your opinions actually based upon research?
(11) Are you and Barb Junkkarinen now collaborators?
(12) What is the value of opinions not based on research?
Jim
[quote name='Jack White' post='189942' date='Apr 18 2010, 04:07 AM']
If I were an armchair psychiatrist instead of an armchair detective, I would
diagnose this affair as a case of a person with an extreme need to feel
sexually attractive. At the center of the story is a wild immediate sexual
attraction between two strangers, wild passionate trysts arranged by crime
bosses, promises to meet in romantic places for a honeymoon (never mind
that both were married). Wild illicit sex with a historic figure is not uncommon.
How many men had such thoughts about Marilyn Monroe, for instance? Another
form of this is women who fall in love with convicted murderers. The handsome
Ted Bundy, convicted mass murderer, was besieged with romantic mail from
women.
It is more than a passing observation that most of JVB's most passionate
devotees are MEN who have met her in person or spoken at length with her
on the phone. To these she seems to have some sort of charisma that appeals
to some persons and not others...much like "falling in love" defies rational
explanation. She has "something" which makes certain types of men "fall
in love" with her. Her passionate supporters show every sign of "being in love".
If her tales DID NOT INCLUDE THE ALLEGED ROMANCE, they might be much
more believable. It is unlikely that the romance happened, so it is unlikely
that all the other imaginings happened.
It reminds me somewhat of my 27-year career with a large ad agency. In
addition to being the lead art director, I also was "personnel director" (largely
because nobody else wanted to do it). It was my task to interview all job
seekers and recommend hiring or not. I developed a knack of recognizing
phonies as well as "comers". I am proud that much of our agency success
came from the great team I helped assemble. At our peak, we had 50+
employees; today the agency has fewer than ten. Only once did I pick a
dud. She was a dazzling brunette who claimed to be an artist. She had
been recommended by the son of a client. I allowed myself to be more
impressed by her beauty than by her art samples and recommended that
we hire her. Annette did not last three months. She was a phony. Ever
since I learned that lesson, I pay more attention to credentials than to
personal appeal. And I think I know a phony better than most.
Jack
[quote name='Glenn Viklund' post='189934' date='Apr 17 2010, 10:59 PM']
[quote name='Jack White' post='189932' date='Apr 18 2010, 12:33 AM']
[quote name='Glenn Viklund' post='189931' date='Apr 17 2010, 09:43 PM']
Mr Fetzer,
Early on, I asked you a couple of questions. So far, there has been no answers. As this thread - hopefully - is fading out, I'd like to repeat those questions to you.
1. Where do you draw the line? When are you going to realize that this is not a question of "Judyth detractors"?
2. What conclusions do you draw from her consistent lying about her asylum process? None?
And, thirdly, as a matter of this thread:
3. Have you perhaps now realized that you are not the center of the Universe? Not even the center of the JFK assassination research? When you instantly dismiss Mr Harris, of whom "you've never heard", as a phony, could it possibly occur to you that things are happening without your knowledge? And have been, for years?[/quote]
Too bad the late Rich DellaRosa is no longer with us. He investigated the Judyth myths
for about nine months nearly ten years ago (long before Jim ever heard of JVB). Rich
finally had enough of her myths, evasiveness and ever-changing "facts", and told her
so. She departed his forum when she realized she had gained no converts there. She
will depart this forum eventually also, since the only supporter she has converted here
is Jim. What Jim is unaware of, as you say, is that all of this is a rehash of what happened
years before. It is new to Jim. It is deja vu all over again to most of us.
Jack
[/quote]
Mr White,
It seems to me that many are those who have been blinded by JVB. Most notably those who have met her in person. Your description of "a moving target" is indeed exactly what this is about. The story keeps changing, and the attempts to discredit those who disagree, are becoming more outlandish day by day.
DellaRosa, Ferrell and others who knew her, all seem to have come to the same conclusion.
Mr Fetzer stated very early in this thread that "he didn't know her story". At best, this explains why he's now apparently surprised by the number of people now coming "out of the woodwork".
[/quote]
[/quote]
Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile - James H. Fetzer - 25-04-2010
PSY OPS EXPERT COMMENTS ON ED HASLAM'S RESEARCH
NOTE 1:
Jim, I cannot overemphasize the importance of Ed Haslam's excellent research. If this story ever breaks into the mainstream and it sure seem possible now, he is going to be appearing on some network shows. Certainly he should be doing so, being how important his discoveries are about Dr. Sherman, David Ferrie and others. And his book should be a top seller like Jesse Ventura's new book. It is an important and very timely book. And anyone who has young kids or is planning to have children should read it it and start carefully considering the whole issue of vaccination side effects and risks to long term health.
Ed is a very restrained humble man that doesn't toot his own horn. But he deserves very high commendations for his excellent far reaching research. His research was very carefully conducted, conservative in its claims and will yield some very far researching effects eventually in the medical immunology/vaccine research community.
This man has done a great public service to us all by exposing this important history and its ramifications for causing diseases in a process largely unknown to the public at large.
Jim, more evidence supporting some of the research discoveries of Ed Haslam and reports by Judyth Vary. Yes to many their information on contaminated vaccines seemed outrageous. Now more proof is coming out. It turns out the manufacturing of vaccines is very, very problematic and contamination is a very big unresolved problem.
NOTE 2:
Jim, this is serious business as far as the general health and a legitimate govt commission (not a cover-up) needs to be set up to investigate all aspects of this matter, including the new evidence now coming out of "stealth viruses" as a cause of autism, cancer, chronic fatigue syndrome, arthritis, autoimmune disease, etc., etc.
This really is extensive criminal negligence carried on for many years and the actual harm to the public is astronomical.
This is a very important video clip. Stay tuned because this thread is starting to get pulled and it will not surprise you where it eventually leads to (the JFK Assassination, Judyth Vary, and Ed Haslam's research).
The FDA Shuts Down Common Infant Vaccine After Startling Discovery
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles...-pig-virus.aspx
![[Image: iw2fk4.jpg]](http://i42.tinypic.com/iw2fk4.jpg)
Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile - James H. Fetzer - 25-04-2010
FOR THOSE WITH A SERIOUS INTEREST IN RESEARCH
(FORWARDED BY JUDYTH)
CANCER-CAUSING PIG VIRUS - RECALL OF VACCINE
The FDA Shuts Down Common Infant Vaccine After Startling Discovery
Posted by Dr. Mercola | April 17 2010 | 26,611 views
“U.S. federal health authorities recommended … that doctors suspend using Rotarix, one of two vaccines licensed in the U.S. against rotavirus, saying the vaccine is contaminated with material from a pig virus,” CNN reports.
The Rotarix vaccine, which is made by GlaxoSmithKline and was approved by the FDA in 2008, has already been given to about 1 million U.S. children along with 30 million worldwide. The vaccine was found to contain DNA from porcine circovirus 1.
“The FDA learned about the contamination after an academic research team using a novel technique to look for viruses in a range of vaccines found the material in GlaxoSmithKline's product and told the company,” FDA Commissioner Dr. Margaret Hamburg told CNN.
Sources:
CNN March 22, 2010
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
Follow me on twitter Follow me on facebook
One million U.S. children, and about 30 million worldwide, have already received GlaxoSmithKline’s Rotarix vaccine. Now a research team has discovered it is contaminated with “a substantial amount” of DNA from a pig virus.
What is pig virus DNA doing in a vaccine intended to prevent rotavirus disease, which causes severe diarrhea and dehydration?
It’s anybody’s guess, although CNN reported that GlaxoSmitthKline detected the substance in the cell bank and the seed used to make the vaccine, “suggesting its presence from the early stages of vaccine development.”
It is actually common for vaccines to contain various animal matter, including foreign animal tissues containing genetic material (DNA/RNA), but even FDA Commissioner Dr. Margaret Hamburg told CNN:
"It [Pig virus DNA] should not be in this vaccine product and we want to understand how it got there.
It's not an easy call and we spent many long hours debating the pros and cons but, because we have an alternative product and because the background rates of this disease are not so severe in this country, we felt that the judicious thing to do was to take a pause, to really ask the critical questions about what this material was doing in the vaccine, how it got there."
Disturbing Findings in Rotarix and Two Other Common Childhood Vaccines
Dr. Eric Delwart is the researcher who, along with colleagues, made the discovery of contamination in Rotarix. Their intent was reportedly to “show that live attenuated vaccine only contained the expected viral genomes and no other,” but what they found told a different story.
Using new technology to test eight infectious attenuated viral vaccines, the results showed three of the vaccines contained “unexpected viral sequences”:
1. A measles vaccine was found to contain low levels of the retrovirus avian leukosis virus
2. Rotateq, Merck’s rotavirus vaccine, was found to contain a virus similar to simian (monkey) retrovirus
3. Rotarix (GlaxoSmithKine’s rotavirus vaccine) was found to contain “significant levels” of porcine cirovirus 1
So in their tests, nearly 40 percent of the vaccines they tested contained viral contaminants. The implications of these findings on the alleged safety of the vaccine supply remains to be seen, but clearly there is contamination occurring that was a complete surprise to researchers, health officials and vaccine manufacturers alike.
As Barbara Loe Fisher, founder of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), said in her commentary on the Rotarix contamination issue:
“There are lots of questions about how the manufacturer of Rotarix vaccine and the FDA both missed the pig virus DNA contaminating the original seed stock and all doses of Rotarix vaccine given to more than one million American children in the past few years.
Is there state-of-the-art technology that is being used by private laboratories but not by drug companies and the FDA?
Why did the independent team of scientists, who found the contamination, notify the vaccine manufacturer first rather than also immediately reporting their finding directly to the FDA?
What about the significance of finding bird viral DNA in measles vaccine and the monkey viral DNA in RotaTeq vaccine?”
There are clearly a lot of unanswered questions right now. At the very least, it certainly makes you wonder what other “unknown” contaminants are lurking in vaccines. At worst, we could be injecting children with substances that could potentially cause serious health problems down the road.
Animal Ingredients Common in Vaccines
You should know that it is very common for vaccine manufacturers to use cells from animals and birds in their manufacturing process.
To put this in perspective, Barbara Loe Fisher has explained what animal material is par for the course in manufacturing the Rotarix vaccine for your children:
“Rotarix is a genetically engineered vaccine that GSK created by isolating human rotavirus strain infecting a child in Cincinnati and using African Green monkey kidney cells to produce the original viral seed stock from which all Rotarix vaccine has been made.
In the FDA licensing process, Rotarix had to meet certain FDA standards, that included demonstrating the vaccine was not contaminated with, for example TSE (Transmissable Spongiform Encephalopathy or “mad cow” disease, a brain wasting disease) or with cow viruses because bovine (cow) serum was used to prepare the original viral seed stock.
Porcine trypsin, an enzyme in the pancreatic juice of a pig, was also used to make the viral seed stock.”
So the fact that Rotarix contains animal material is not a surprise … it’s the type of animal material, an unexpected variety, that has even the FDA raising their eyebrows.
Why it’s Dangerous to Have Various Animal DNA in Vaccines …
Both the FDA and GlaxoSmithKline spokespeople continue to state that no safety risk has been uncovered from the contamination, at least not yet.
Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the National Institutes of Health, said “a substantial amount” of the DNA was found in the vaccine. But, he stressed, “there is no evidence that it causes any disease. … There is no evidence that it ever does anything.”
Dr. Paul Offit added, “The PCV1 virus they found is an orphan virus, i.e., it is not associated with disease”.
Of course there are no studies provided or have ever been done to show this, it doesn’t stop them from making these statements without any facts to back up their safety assurance, despite the fact that SV40 from monkeys has been associated with cancer in multiple studies.
History has shown that it can indeed be very dangerous when an animal virus unintentionally enters the vaccine supply.
During the 1950s and 1960s, the polio vaccine, which is still given in the United States, typically four times during a child's first 16 months of life, was widely contaminated with the monkey virus, SV40, which had gotten into the vaccine during the manufacturing process (monkey kidney cells, where SV40 thrived, were used to develop polio vaccines).
In lab tests, the virus was found to cause several different types of cancer, including brain cancer, and now SV40 is showing up in a variety of human cancers such as lung, brain, bone and lymphatic.
According to the authors of The Virus and the Vaccine: The True Story of a Cancer-Causing Monkey Virus, Contaminated Polio Vaccine, and the Millions of Americans Exposed, leading scientists and government officials turned their heads to repeated studies showing that SV40 was in the vaccine, and even today some well-known agencies are still dismissing study results.
The virus is even showing up in children too young to have received the contaminated vaccine, and some experts are now suggesting the contaminated virus may have been in the polio vaccine up until as late as 1999.
It is because of risks like this that Barbara Loe Fisher said:
“With mounting evidence that cross-species transfer of viruses can occur, the United States should no longer be using animal tissues to produce vaccines.”
This is also the same reason why Donald Miller, a cardiac surgeon and professor of surgery at the University of Washington, suggests in his more User-Friendly Vaccination Schedule that if you choose to get your child vaccinated against polio, you request only an inactivated (dead) virus vaccine that is cultured in human cells, not monkey kidney cells.
The United States no longer uses the live oral polio vaccine, so parents don't really have to ask for the injected version. However, if you live internationally, this is still an issue.
Are the Benefits of Rotarix Worth the Risks?
Even without a potential contamination scare, there are serious risks to every vaccine. So before vaccinating you really need to be certain that the benefits will outweigh those risks.
In the case of Rotarix, along with RotaTeq (a similar vaccine made by Merck), the benefits are very questionable, especially if you live in the United States or another developed country.
Rotavirus is very contagious and does cause more than 500,000 deaths in young children each year, but this is mostly in developing countries. In the United States, rotavirus is responsible for only “several dozen” deaths a year, according to Hamburg.
Typically, when a child in the United States contracts rotavirus, and most do, only rest and fluids are required to recover. This infection also provides natural immunity that will protect your child for life.
As NVIC writes
“The CDC estimates that, by age 3, almost every US child has had a case of rotavirus. Once a child has been infected with a strain of rotavirus, he or she develops antibodies and is either immune for life or has a milder case if infected with that same strain in the future.
Most healthy children, who are infected with several strains of rotavirus in the first few years of life, develop lifelong natural immunity to rotavirus infection.”
The rotavirus vaccine, meanwhile, has shown little benefit for rotavirus rates in the United States. According to NVIC:
“Today, even though almost all US infants receive vaccines for rotavirus, and despite efforts to improve the management of childhood rotavirus-associated diarrhea, hospitalizations of children in the U.S. with the disease have not significantly declined in the past two decades.”
Along with showing little benefit for a disease that is typically entirely treatable with fluids and rest, a recent drug review by the FDA found that Rotarix is associated with a significant increase in pneumonia-related deaths in children, compared to a placebo.
So with this particular vaccine, children are taking on serious risks with what appears to be very little benefit -- and that was before the contamination was uncovered.
The moral of the story?
Whatever you do, please do your homework before subjecting your children to any vaccine. A great way to get started is to simply use the Search Feature at the top of each of my Web pages and search my site as it contains a litany of research on vaccine safety, and the lack thereof.