+- 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 - 26-04-2010
Doug,
You are right. I withdraw my first observation. You have, however, drawn inferences unfavorable to her based upon
your experience with others, which I do not regard as well-founded in this instance. But thanks for the clarification!
Jim
[quote name='Doug Weldon' post='190282' date='Apr 21 2010, 06:12 AM']
[quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='190279' date='Apr 21 2010, 05:53 AM']
JIM OFFERS SOME OBSERVATIONS ABOUT THE EXCHANGES ON THIS THREAD
Weldon appears to have been offended
because, some time back, Judyth was not inclined to talk with him.
Jim:
You are confusing Judyth with Madeline Brown and I was not offended. There has never been a situation where I ever entertained speaking with Judyth or that she ever tried to speak with me. I received a few e-mails from Judyth years ago as I noted before. There was nothing inappropriate about her e-mails. She simply asked that I keep an open mind. I never responded to her.
Doug Weldon[/quote]
[/quote]
Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile - James H. Fetzer - 26-04-2010
Don,
Thanks for an extremely appropriate and thoughtful post, which is surely one of the best to have appeared in the history of this thread. My concern has to do with the closed-mindedness of some of Judyth's critics, not whether they ultimately come down on her side or not. Judyth, of course, is the most controversial figure in the history of the assassination, even more so than Madeleine Duncan Brown, with whom I had more than 100 conversations. I became convinced that Madeleine was "the real deal" just as I have become convinced that Judyth is, too. What bothers me is the complete and unwavering commitment to contending that nothing she has to say has any merit, when that is absolutely not the case.
The "double-standard" simply astounds me. Everything Judyth has to say is discarded, while everything Armstrong has to say is accepted. Even when he has committed blunders about the "index" to the supporting volumes and the date of the founding of the Warren Commission, no one--with the except of Michael Hogan--seems to care in the least. These are gross mistakes that occur in the first five or six pages of his book! How am I supposed to respect anyone who is so blindly committed to Armstrong that they cannot acknowledge gross blunders at the very start of his book? I cannot.
And when it comes to more serious questions about the alleged differences between "Harvey" and "Lee", such as their alleged difference in eye color, the claim that "Harvey" was born in Hungary, that "Lee" had a missing tooth, and such, the situation becomes even more bizarre. Judyth has presented a brilliant study of the eye-color issue, which, in my opinion, lays the issue to rest. The alleged difference almost certainly did not exist. And she has observed that the man she knew had no trace of a Hungarian accent, but only a slight Cajun accent, which suggests that that claim is unsupportable, too.
And, of course, the whole Beauregard Junior High School story verges on the absurd. "Harvey" is supposed to have been a student the semester before "Lee" enrolls, which is already a bit of a stretch, but then "Lee" loses a tooth in an altercation, where Lillian Murret remembers the incident and that she paid for his dental visit--except that Lillian was not "Lee"'s aunt but "Harvey"'s. So what is "Harvey"'s aunt doing paying for "Lee"'s dental visit? And the response from Jack is that the Murret's, like Robert, Marina, and Marguerite, must have also known about both "Harvey" and "Lee"!
Now I am willing to grant that Armstrong has amassed an impressive archive of documents and records. But the claim that these key players knew there were "two Oswalds" and never peeped a word about it simply escapes me. Invoking ad hoc hypotheses like this is an indication of desperation in the attempt to retain a theory whose truth has been thereby threatened. And when I suggest that a more reasonable hypothesis would be that Robert--whom Jack has shown to be a "dead ringer" for his brother--may have impersonated him on various occasions, my hypothesis is simply disregarded.
Indeed, Judyth has even shown that some of the photographs alleged to support the existence of "two Oswalds" no more serve as "proof" than the alleged difference in eye-color. Simple considerations of aspect ratio differences undermines that claim, where it is easy to make a face somewhat rounder or fatter by simple adjustments, where Jack illustrates the point by a series of six photographs of me, where I am supposed to "guess" which one is the real me. I guess and then learn they are all altered! Yet he does not accept Judyth's point, which undermines some of his own photographic studies.
When it comes to David Lifton and Doug Weldon, I am similarly disappointed in their closed-minded attitude. David has long denounced Judyth on the basis of a phone conversation with her, during which she talked about their plans to visit a hotel in Cancun, on the grounds that Cancun did not exist at that time. But it turns out that the village of Kankun DID exist at that time, where it is most unlikely that a phonetically indistinguishable difference would have been apparent to him, especially when, so far as I can discern, he was not even aware of the existence of Kankun apart from Cancun.
When I ask him to share the basis for his denunciation of Judyth with me by sending me a copy of the cassette recording, so I can evaluate the evidence for myself, he refuses to do so. That, in my opinion, is not the conduct of a scholar who is in search of the truth. I know there is much at stake for him personally, since he has invested many years of research on a new book about Oswald. And even though I infer (from past conversations) that he is not inclined to accept the story of HARVEY & LEE, he is not even willing to say so on this forum. That is not appropriate conduct here.
If you trace the history of posts on this thread, I think you will find that my attitude was very cordial in the beginning. I was very gentle with Jack, even though he was posting grossly abusive, question-begging and ad hominem attacks upon Judyth from scratch. It has taken around 1,200 posts for me to become convinced that the vast majority of those who are attacking her HAVE NO INTEREST IN THE EVIDENCE. That they are not reading Ed Haslam, DR. MARY'S MONKEY, or acknowledging rather obvious truths about her story simply astounds me. They do not seem to care about the truth.
From your observations, perhaps I should have been taking Junkkarinen more seriously, but my impression has been that she is simply endlessly recycling old material from other forums, especially McAdams, which seems to me to be yet another sign that her activities are determined but not sincere. And the indications of collusion between her, McAdams, and Viklund bother me tremendously. That she uncovered the abstract for a paper that Judyth had written as a high-school student, which displays her scientific sophistication at the time, CONFIRMS Judyth's story, as Howard has observed.
It seems to me that anyone with a serious interest in these matters would acknowledge that Haslam, in particular, has done brilliant work in establishing the existence of a convert project to develop a bio-weapon that was initiated by Dr. Alton Ochsner, where Dr. Mary Sherman was the project manager, who was assisted by David Ferrie, Lee Oswald, and Judyth Vary Baker. The project involved the use of monkeys and mice as subjects and the use of a linear particle accelerator to bring about mutations of the viruses they were studying. That much has been established beyond doubt.
It appears to me that Judyth was recruited because she not only knew more about cancer research than the NIH or the American Cancer Society at the time, but also because she was unknown to the public and could be used in a covert operation like this without risking the reputations of others of greater prominence, including Ochsner himself, who, in my view, appears to have been a ruthless individual who brooked no opposition. That he was willing to inoculate his own grandchildren with an unproven vaccine, killing one and inducing polio in the other, reveals the risks he was willing to run.
The point is that she was doing specific kinds of research where she was ahead of the leading cancer researchers in the nation. Newspaper articles were being written about her and Haslam has discussed this, where Judyth can be more specific than I am being here. From Ochsner's perspective, she was perfect: she was brilliant and engaged in the kind of research the project entailed, yet she was young and naive and could be manipulated for the purposes he had in mind. Most of all, because she was otherwise invisible to the public, she was expendable! She could be used like Kleenex and discarded.
Indeed, those few who are actually studying the evidence should have been impressed by Judyth's integrity when she discovered that a prisoner had been used as the subject of an experiment--which cost his life--without informed consent and protested to Ochsner, who promptly terminated the project, abandoned her in spite of his promises for her future, and had Oswald transferred to Dallas. He would later be active in promoting the impression that Oswald was a lone, demented gun-man, who was a communist sympathizer and agent of Castro, when he obviously knew much better.
If I were seeing the least acknowledgment of some of the proof that Judyth has produced to establish that she is indeed the person she claims, then I would not have become so strident in denouncing some of her critics. But the violations of basic canons of rationality and the abuse of logic and evidence that have occurred here cannot be explained on the basis of a preference for one hypothesis over another. They reflect not only the rigid adherence to a theory that requires very careful dissection (HARVEY & LEE) but a dedicated effort to assassinate her character and now, by extension, mine, too.
You are absolutely right, of course, that I sometimes lose arguments that I should win because of my combative stance. I appreciate that you can discriminate between the message and the messenger by noting that the evidence and the reasoning I present can be "right on" and yet those who are reading these posts can be disaffected BECAUSE OF THE INTENSITY OF MY PRESENTATIONS. Of that charge, I am clearly guilty. These matters are of the utmost importance to understanding the mysteries of New Orleans. I had expected more from some of those participating here. I have made my acute disappointment in them public and apparent. But perhaps your valuable post helps me to understand why.
With regard to Doug Weldon, finally, he is basing his assessment of Judyth on his experience with other witnesses. But Judyth is a special case, with a far superior IQ, an excellent memory, and clear recollections of the specific events that occurred during this fascinating and novel period of her life. For that reason, I think he is mistaken, especially when he has had such limited experience dealing with her (non-existent personally). As for friendships, I value them greatly. But if we place friendships ahead of truth, then there is no truth, only friendships. And that is something I am not willing to do.
Jim
[quote name='Don Jeffries' post='190291' date='Apr 21 2010, 07:26 AM']
This extremely long thread exemplifies all the problems that have existed for decades, and continue to exist, within the JFK assassination research community. Good people arguing passionately over aspects of this case that don't, in all reality, alter the larger, crucial issue of exposing the fallacies of the offical version of events.
Just following the posts on this thread convinced me that, eventually, either Jack or Jim would tell the other they were no longer friends. It took quite a while, but eventually that did happen. Very sad, and unnecessary.
Jim- you should know that I almost always agree with your views on a variety of subjects (JFK assassination, 911, etc.). However, I have to tell you in the most friendly way possible that it is very hard for anyone-even someone who is in agreement with you virtually all the time-to support the style in which you post your thoughts. Just becaue someone disagrees with you on a particular point doesn't mean that they have no credibility, or are morally suspect. I think I told you a while back, in a p.m., that you were losing debates you should be winning, on the basis of your objectionable tone, even though the substance of your posts, and the evidence you cited, was solid. In plain English, the manner in which you disagree with people is bound to alienate not only them, but neutral observers who would otherwise be sympathetic to your arguments.
On the other hand, I have disagreed often with Barb J. on some aspects of this case. However, in this instance, she has provided solid research which contradicted many of Judyth's claims. That doesn't mean I now agree with her about the hole in the windshield, location of the back wound or anything else. I am objective enough to admit that she's done impressive work on this thread. That doesn't make me your enemy, and I hope you will understand that.
I hope that Judyth appreciates the fervor of your support. You are certainly a strong ally for anyone to have, and I hope if I ever need defending that you'll be on my side. I tend to agree with Jack's assertion, early in this thread, that Judyth's story, even if completely true, is just not critically important to assassination research. Most of us already believe that Oswald was some kind of undercover agent, and many agree with Jim Garrison's theory that he was on an undercover assignment to infiltrate a JFK assassination plot on November 22, 1963. And, even if all of us believed in her as strongly as you do, the same forces that have obstructed justice in this case for nearly 50 years- mainstream media, government agencies- would certainly not take her seriously, even if they couldn't poke holes in her story as Barb and others here have.
Doug Weldon posted some excellent thoughts here, but you seem not to have heard them. Is total loyalty to everything Judyth has ever said worth the rupture of long time friendships and associations with Jack White and David Lifton? Do you really think that this woman is more important to exposing the truth about the JFK assassination than the author of Best Evidence ? Do you think her personal anecdotes trump the decades of research by Jack White? Do you value her input more than that of Doug Weldon- whose fine work you yourself published?
This thread has resulted in a break between you and Jack, as well as you and David Lifton. There have also been numerous criticisms of John Armstrong and his book Harvey And Lee. I haven't read his book, but have read many excerpts from Jim Hargrove, who had (may still have) a fine web site devoted to promoting Armstrong's work. I don't think that this case will rise or fall on his particular theory, but there is no denying that he produced a lot of solid research, whether he made some mistakes or not. I have a sense you feel that if you can impugn Armstrong's credibility, then that will somehow prove Judyth is the "real deal." You seem to believe that Judyth's recollections are "evidence," even though they are disputed by many (certainly a majority of) researchers.
I bear you no ill well, Jim. This is a very difficult post for me to make. It's hard to tell someone you admire and agree with that his style and tone are getting in the way of the substantive arguments he is presenting. If you could just temper your responses, maybe wait a while before posting a reply, it might make a huge difference in the way you are perceived by many in the critical community. A little humility and self-deprecation make anyone a lot more likeable. And the more likeable you are, the more apt others are to listen to the substance of what you say.
Just my long and rambling unsolicited (and probably unwelcome) input. I hope you don't respond as harshly to me as you have to others, and perhaps actually think about what I've said.[/quote]
Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile - James H. Fetzer - 26-04-2010
NOT EVERYONE HAS BEEN ENAMORED BY THE QUALITY OF ARMSTRONG'S RESEARCH
NOTE FROM JUDYTH: Apparently Jack White says he has watched "The Love Affair" -- but he has a strange, dichotomous attitude. He agrees about the vaccines, yet says it was inserted into the thread to provide a humanitarian aspect -- he thinks I have no feelings. He disses everything, accepting only what he likes...I am now concerned about how evidence and witness satements were handled by him. On that note, having time to look at old threads sent to me long ago, I found the gem atached. It is by Greg Parker. PLEASE READ IT. IT TELLS YOU THAT JACK'S BASIC ATTITUDE -- AND THE POSSIBLE CONTAMINATION OF WITNESSES BY ARMSTRONG -- HAS A HISTORY.
AN EXCHANGE BETWEEN GREG PARKER AND JACK WHITE
NOTE FROM JIM: I have put (what I take to be) Jack's posts in italics. If I have not done this right, he can correct me.
In the preceding peculiar post, I found the following absurd statement, among others:
"And you still need to clarify your relationship with the former Vice Principal at Stripling. Do I need to repost a reminder of your contradictory statements about that relationship?"
Again, for the cognitively challenged, I restate:
I attended college sixty years ago with Frank Kudlaty; his wife was a friend of mine, but he was only a casual acquaintance. I have seen him only three or four times in the past sixty years. He rose in teaching ranks to become superintendent of a very large Texas school district. I never knew him to be anything but honest and upright. I have never posted ANY contradictory statements about him. He knew nothing about the significance of his information till he was interviewed by Armstrong.
Jack
Jack. here are the contradictory statements you don't recall making:
From Post #28 in the Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance thread: I was present for many of his interviews given [of Stripling witnesses].
From Post #37 in the Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance thread: I was present when he interviewed three persons about LHO at Stripling.
Which, if either of those is true, Jack? "Many" or "three"?
From Post #28 in the Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance: Frank Kudlaty, the assistant principal at Stripling has been a friend of mine since the 1940s, when he was a college classmate. He later rose to be superintendant of schools at Waco Texas before retiring. He is a man of impeccable honesty.
From Post #37 in the Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance thread: At the time John interviewed him, I had not seen him in about fifty years, although I have seen him a couple of times in recent years. I knew his wife much better than I knew him, as I was in classes with her.
Which if either of these statements is true: That Kudlaty has been a friend of mine since the 1940s or At the time John interviewed him, I had not seen him in about fifty years.
Which if either of these statements is true: he was a college classmate. or I knew his wife much better than I knew him, as I was in classes with her.
I'd also like to see you explain how you can vouch for the "impeccable honesty" of what you now call a casual acquaintance you hadn't seen in about 50 years?
THERE ARE NO CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS ABOVE. ALL ARE TRUE. I STAND BY THEM.
A false inference is being drawn that I was present when Kudlaty was interviewed by John and Robert Groden, who videotaped the interview. Kudlaty was interviewed in Waco Texas which is 90 miles south of me. I was even unaware of the taping, and had no knowledge of the interview till John showed me the tape. It is silly to infer that any of my statements are inconsistent. To quibble over "three" and "many" is dumb. I was present for several interviews and saw his videotapes of quite a few others. What is your definition of "many"? One definition is AN INDETERMINATE NUMBER MORE THAN ONE. Do you disagree?
I was present when he interviewed three Stripling LHO classmates, all of whom verified many facts about LHO and Marguerite at Stripling. I viewed many (quite a few more than one) of John's interviews WHICH YOU ARE UNAWARE OF, but you of course would deny that looking at the video interview is not the same as "being there". The most impressive besides the Kudlaty interview is Myra LaRouche (spelled without looking it up)...but of course you know all about her, don't you? I never met nor influenced Myra. I was present for the interview of Georgia Bell...but I don't have to tell you about her, do I. You know she was wrong without knowing what she said.
I am abandoning this nonsensical thread. You clearly have no knowledge of the book so cannot discuss it intelligently. I still say READ THE BOOK. You obviously have not. Jack
Thank you Doug. This is not about Kudlaty's credibility. It is about the lack of judgment shown by Armstrong and White in not declaring that Jack was a friend of Kudlaty's.
This creates a conflict of interests. Such a conflict is not dependant upon an actual act of impropriety. It is the appearance of possible impropriety that they should have had the horse sense to avoid. This has been compounded by White's ( a ) conflicting statements about his relationship with Kudlaty and ( b ) his utter refusal to admit he has made conflicting statements
GREG PARKER MAKES SOME TELLING COMMENTS:
QUOTE
…what Armstrong has to say about Oswald's employment at Tujague's is very interesting. Keep in mind that Robert Oswald told the Warren Commission that when he got out of the service he went to visit Lee and Marguerite:
Mr. Jenner: Did you visit your mother and your brother in New Orleans when you returned from the service in July of 1955?
Mr. Oswald: Yes, sir; I did. I did not--yes, sir, it was in July 1955 when I made my first trip from Fort Worth, Tex., to New Orleans, La. I had purchased a car the second day I was home from the service, a 1951 Chevrolet, and I drove it on the third day or the second night to New Orleans, La.
Mr. Jenner: Were your quarters in a hotel, or did you join your brother and mother?
Mr. Oswald: I joined my mother and brother.
Mr. Jenner: How long did you stay in New Orleans on that trip?
Mr. Oswald: Approximately 1 week.
Mr. Jenner: And you lived with your mother and brother?
Mr. Oswald: That's correct.
Mr. Jenner: That was in July of 1955?
Mr. Oswald: Yes, sir; that's correct.
Mr. Jenner: He was not in school at that time.
Mr. Oswald: No, sir; he was not.
Mr. Jenner: Now, how did you find your brother, as to the state of health and state of mind?
Mr. Oswald: He seemed to be the same to me. He had joined at that time no, sir--he had not at that time been in the Civil Air Patrol. At that time Lee was working I believe for an export firm there in New Orleans. I do not know the name of it. I do not believe I ever heard the name of it. I might have. (Bold added) Mother was also working at that time.
Armstrong writes [where I have underlined, but where some of this appears to be Jack talking about Armstrong]:
The Warren Commission ignored Robert Oswald's testimony and reported that Lee Harvey Oswald was not employed anywhere in the summer of 1955. They said that he entered the 10th grade at Warren Easton High School in September, dropped out shortly before his 16th birthday (October 18) and only then did he begin working at Tujagues's on November 10, 1955.
[NOTE FROM JUDYTH: THERE IS NO REASON WHY LEE COULD NOT HAVE HAD A SUMMER JOB AT TUJAGUE’S AND ALSO LATER.]
And guess what -- Marguerite said in testimony that then when he left school, as I told you, at age 16 -- the first job was Tujague and Company...
The WC did not ignore Robert's testimony -- they published it. Robert's memories were wrong in other areas, so it's no surprise he got this wrong, as well.
The Commission based their conclusions upon handwritten payroll records and time cards allegedly provided by Mr. Gerald F. Tujague, which could have been created by anyone,
[JUDYTH: ARMSTRONG SOMETIMES SAYS THINGS LIKE THIS, OR SAYS THE RECORDS MUST HAVE BEEN ‘ALTERED’ ON RARE OCCASIONS WHEN HE FINDS A CONFLICT WITH HIS THEORY.]
and offer no proof of Oswald's beginning or ending dates of employment. The Commission relied on these documents and made no attempt to locate verifiable records such as payroll checks, withholding tax statements, social security records, etc. Without verifiable records, as was the case with Oswald's employment at Dolly Shoe, we are left with only the memories of Tujague employees who knew Lee Oswald in order to learn the real dates of his employment.
But that work has since been, I believe, done by Doug Horne. Isn't it true that Armstrong's only rebuttal of Horne's work is that records must have been altered?
Armstrong [NOTE: Here is have to verify if this is Armstrong writing or Jack writing about him] traveled to New Orleans and met Frank DiBenedetto, long time employee and close friend of the company's founder, Gerald Tujague. Although not interviewed by the Warren Commission, DiBenedetto told the HSCA, "Oswald worked at Tujague's for a year to a year and a half." He remembered Oswald as well-built, approximately 5-foot-10, and with either dark brown or nearly black hair. When Armstrong met DiBenedetto, he had taken over the company which was still located at 442 Canal Street, in the same building and floor where Oswald had worked under DiBenedetto's supervision 40 years earlier.
I note the description of Oswald isn't in quotes. Was that part of what DiBenedetto told the HSCA, or is it what Armstrong managed to extract with leading questions?
DiBenedetto gave Armstrong the names of two living former Tujague employees, Gloria Callahan and Jimmy Hudnell who provided confirmation of DiBenedetto's recollections. Armstrong's complete study of Oswald's employment at Tujague's is extensive and beyond the scope of this post. However, this is part of Armstrong's conclusion:
New Orleans school records show that Lee Harvey Oswald attended Warren Easton as a sophomore from September 8 thru October 10, 1955. But Robert Oswald, Lillian Murret, Frank DiBenetto, and Gloria Callaghan's collective memories place Lee Oswald at Tujague's from July 1955 until the spring or summer of 1956. Oswald's original employment records from Tujague's disappeared. Therefore, the statements of these people represent the best available evidence to establish the true beginning and ending dates of Lee Oswald's employment at Tujague's.
Have you ever considered checking what Armstrong claims the record shows to verify it? I ask, because clearly you haven't - otherwise you'd know that Lillian Murret made no such statement.
Here is the only relevant portion of her testimony:
Mrs. MURRET - Yes; and then the next I heard was when he came here, and he didn't want to go to school because he thought he already knew all that they had to teach him, so she must have allowed him to go to work for Tujague's, because he had a job as a runner, going from building to building, delivering messages and things like that.
Mr. JENNER - That was in 1955, would that be about right?
Mrs. MURRET - When he was here; yes.
Thus, what she actually does is confirm Marguerite's memory - not Robert's. Oswald left school in 1955 and started work at Tujagues. Nothing about starting there in July and still being there in '56. That's Armstrong's fantasy.
To make it appear as though one Lee Harvey Oswald attended Warren Easton and worked at Tujague's in the fall of 1955 certain records had to be altered and/or destroyed. The school records and memories of students and teachers who remembered (Harvey) Oswald at Warren Easton High School were numerous and irrefutable. But the dates of Lee Oswald's employment at Tujagues's were known only to a few people, and could be easily manipulated if the original records disappeared and were replaced with fabricated documents. (Armstrong provides extensive evidence of how he believes this was done)
Note: Whoever was responsible for destroying and fabricating Oswald's payroll records knew about the two Oswalds. (Bold added)
Utter nonsense. Why must records have been altered or destroyed? Because those that exist don't comport with this theory which relies so heavily on 30 and 40 year old memories - memories moreover, which have to be taken on faith as being untainted by leading questions, or other manipulations.
Mike, do yourself a favor. Toss all your books and do your own research.
===============
This threads began with:
Talking of Lee Harvey Oswald as being A SINGLE PERSON is contrary to the massive evidence of Armstrong,
Ya. Like the NYC school records which don't actually say what Armstrong says they do. Like his misrepresenting of Lillian Murret's testimony concerning Tujagues. Like his suggestion that the person in Bolton Ford incident gave his name as "Lee Oswald" - not just "Oswald". and on and on it goes.
And you still need to clarify your relationship with the former Vice Principal at Stripling. Do I need to repost a reminder of your contradictory statements about that relationship?
which clearly shows TWO PERSONS using that name. Were they KIN to each other? I doubt it.
Good for you. Too bad it's a theory built on misuse of evidence (to put it at its kindest).
Anyone who says mention of Armstrong is "hijacking the thread" is unfamiliar with HARVEY & LEE.
Ahhh... there it is. Any thread whatsoever can be legitimately turned into a Harvey & Lee-athon and never be off-topic. So sayeth Jack.
Read it.
Send me a copy. My kids are running out of scribble paper.
Jack
THIS APPEARS AS A SNAG:
Now what he didn’t tell me was that on Sunday he must have gone to the
cemetery where his father was buried. That’s right at the end of the Lakeriew
line, where I live. He went to the cemetery. I guess he went to ask the
person in charge about the grave. Anyway, he found it, and while he was
there he saw someone who knew the Oswalds. I didn’t get whether she was
related or not, but they got to talking about the family some way. I don’t
know what all they talked about, but anyway, Lee looked in the paper and
finally he found this job-1 don’t know where it was, but it was up on Rampart
Street, and they wanted someone to letter.
Mr. JENNF.R.
To letter?
Mrs. MURRET.
To do lettering work, yes, and so he called this man and the
man said to come on out, so he went on out there to see about this job.
First, while he was waiting for the appointment time, he sat down and tried,
to letter, and well, it was a little sad, because he couldn’t letter as well as my
next door neighbor’s 6-year-old child, but I didn’t say anything, so when he
got back he said, “Well, I didn’t get the job.” He said, “They want someone
who can letter, and I don’t know how to do that.”
Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile - James H. Fetzer - 26-04-2010
JUDYTH REPLIES (IN CONSIDERABLE DETAIL) TO DOUG WELDON
Dear Doug -- I find it interesting that only TWO people in this thread ever asked ME a question: Kathy and one other poster. That was it. Though I posted trough Jim, nobody talked to ME. Imagine that. As if I did not exist, as if I were somehow out of reach.
And you have done it, too.
I know what friendships mean. I also know that some of the 'friends' who killed Kennedy never 'told' on their '"old friends." When a man places TRUTH above friendship--THAT is the MAN I admire and WANT to investigate me. As he knows, no matter what the question, I pledge to answer in full.
At present time, I am about to finally get out of the country I've been stranded in. I rather dislike volcanoes now!!!!!
It costs quite a bit to hook up my laptop, so I have not written much, and contact will be erratic.
But I wished to address some of your comments, even though, as usual, you only talked ABOUT me, not TO me...So--please scroll down to my comments, and thank you for them.
JVB
JUDYTH REPLIES TO DOUG (whose comments are in italics)
There are many things which cause me concern about Judyth. I will only note a few. One of the arguments in favor of her credibility has been that a researcher went over the known timeline of Oswald's whereabouts and activities and she got everything right. A major reason I doubt her is that she got everything right. Can you tell me everything your wife did the first week of October 2009 yet 40 plus years ago? How about what you did?
==Doug, some of us have different talents and abilities. I get lost going around a corner. It's humbled me my whole life. However, at one time--and these people do exist, Doug--I could take an entire page of the Encyclopedia Britannica and quote it back to you verbatim. I had a reading speed of 3,400 words per minute--but that was because I 'took in' 25% of a page at a time. Just as most people can read a few words at a time, I could read up to 250 words at a time.
I had what is called an eidetic memory for certain things. My memory was so good that Ochsner had me read over 500 journal articles in a period of 8 weeks, which I distilled for him via summaries. I recalled every journal article by name and major author and direct quotes from each article.
The reconstructed conversations are largley correct. As Dr. Platzman knows, I refused, under heavy badgering, to state a certain date that i was not certain of to a 60Minutes investigator. That person was upset because I refused to recall a specific date--because i could recall all the others! Platzman said he was impressed because I could have 'made up' a date just to get rid of the badgering. Dr. Platzman was hired by CBS due to his expertise in the case, which is extensive (he never blows his own horn). I refused to give a date I could not recall. I state what I know, though of course, have made speculations that are not to be considered part of my testimony.
"Autistic savants are a rarity but they, in particular, show signs of spectacular memory; one notable example is Kim Peek, who can recall about 9600 books from memory."
I believe I exhibit a portion of an autistic savant syndrome, insofar as I get lost, literally, by stepping into any new territory. My ability to recognize live faces (not on computer tests, where I get 100%) is strikingly bad....a portion of my brain doesn't work as it does with other people, when I am standing up or walking. Accompanying that, however, was an ability to remember almost everything I read or heard. Yes, I remember, Doug. With terrific accuracy.
But I can't remember 'new things' well, for after sustaining two concussions in succession, I developed short term memory problems on top of still getting lost. My vision problems complicate this further -- Darni! On top of everything else, Lee was dear to me, was shot before my eyes, and I felt a responsibility to never forget what he said, in defiance of the lies told about him. I spent two years writing down his words for my son--inyending him to find it after my death. I never intended to speak out until I saw Oliver Stone's film JFK and realized if I didn't, people might never know the real Lee Oswald, and the fact that he tried to save Kennedy. more below....==
Judyth remembers EVERYTHING Oswald told her.
==Yes, I do.==
He must have been talking from morning to night and she would have to be a stenographer to keep track of everything.
==This is an exaggeration and is not very scientific of you. Note that I recount conversations over a period between April 26, 1963 and November 21, 1963. Almost seven months.
I used a mnemonic system to recall names and events. And I had a lot of help remembering some details. For example, I had to be present to clock him out. When he was so late in the morning that I could not clock him out until 6:30, when I clocked out a 4:30 or 5:00 for myself, and had to stick around, you bet I wanted to know what was going on. He had nobody to confide in. People confide in me very easily. I remember every reason for every late clock out. I kept other things to remind me of events, as well. I kept the streetcar receipt the Sunday we went to see Lee's father's grave hat;s when he told me he hit Marina, so I sulked and refused to participate in a lot that happened that day. However, I kept it because Lee also pledged that he would never hit Marina again, if I would only allow us to still be friends. I kept up out friendship for that reason at that time, and kept the streetcar receipt because it had the very time and date. I have many, many such items that carry meaning and context.==
How could she ever remember the japanese girl or David Phillips and other names and instances that would have no meaning to her.
==Of course the Japanese girl had meaning to me -- she had once been his lover, for heaven's sakes! Lee tells me he is going to die in July, and I should not be concerned about his fate or care who his handler is? Have you seen "The Love Affair"? Even in hose 45 minutes or so of film, enough should come trough to show that we came to love each other dearly.==
If somewhat shot names or stories at you forty years ago that had no meaning to you
==You presume a great deal...If somebody TOLD YOU they were gong to DIE and you were in love with them, and they continued to penetrate a deadly ring that was plotting to kill the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, wouldn't you pay attentoon? Would you really be likely to forget?
You haven't had that experience.
Believe me, all kinds of details would have meaning.
You do not know my history.
I do hope you read the book, which I have tried to write at a level that is accessible to everyone.==
would you remember them? Why would you save your pay stubbs and records?
==Indeed, why did I? Because we are talking about the assassination of Kennedy and the man accused of doing it was innocent. You bet I saved the paycheck stubs, etc. How else could I prove I'd known Lee? Fortunately, more evidence than that also exists.==
Do you have yours from 45 years ago?
==You are arguing for me, not against me. I own very few things, but these things I held onto because they were important.==
Again, a personal reference. While I was teaching in the criminal justice department at Western Michigan University years ago, I shared an office with a former police officer, who the following semester murdered his wife, who was a leading local newscaster. It was the first case ever on Court Television and the prosecuter was an individual I shared rides with my first year in law school. There have been three books written about the murder. How easy would it be for me to start talking about the great friendship we had, how we would go out to the bar together, and the things he would talk about. He had been having affairs with his students which added to the interest. It would be so easy to insert and mesh my life with his. The truth is I really did not know him at all.
==Love can make heroes of utter cowards, my friend. According to you, I saved things for over 35 years so that I could insert myself into the case?--and instead of saying Oswald did it, so I could become famous and have media attention and make lots of money, I offered my story for free to "60 Minutes", I fired my agent who rewrote my book, and I stupidly said Lee Oswald was a good guy, he did not kill JFK, and was a HERO. I thus made sure I would be attacked the rest of my life by everybody and ignored by the media, unless you count the recent History Channel assertion that says I claim I invented AIDS. (!!!!) You'd think I'd at least have inserted myself feet first instead of upside down.==
Judyth's so-called Russian statements to Oswald when they allegedly first met are preposterous.
==Why so hostile? You weren't there. If I had made this meeting up, I should have been sure to use a very common phrase to 'insert' so nobody would question what I said. Instead, I reported what I said, however odd. I didn't particularly think about what I said. It was spontaneous. And that means it should ring true to any honest investigator..==
Furthermore, Judyth's recall of statements between her and Oswald is not only amazing but also preposterous. It makes Romeo and Juliet look like a slap-stick comedy. Listen to Oswald's radio interviews and his statements in Dallas such as "a policeman hit me." Yes, Oswald was intelligent but he was not educated.
==Not so. Oswald's reading list that summer included:
1) Conflict: the Korean War--by the historian Robert Leckie, who wrote a series of historical monographs commissioned by the US Marine Corps, ["Oswald was intelligent but he was not educated"...really?].
2)Soviet Potentials--by George Cressey--which is a geological and statistical survey of the USSR and its potential for economic growth and future stability based on crop production, mineral resources, labor available, civil unrest, trade situations, and treaties. It was a book for a college professor to quote from. ["Oswald was intelligent but he was not educated"...really?].
3) This is My Philosophy:Twenty of the World's Outstanding Thinkers Reveal the Deepest Meanings They Have Found in Life (Sartre, Jung, Freud, Emerson, Bertrand Russell, etc) 378 pages by Whit Burnett---["Oswald was intelligent but he was not educated"...really?].
4) One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovitch--classic and literary --by Nobel prize winner Alex. Solzhenitsyn ["Oswald was intelligent but he was not educated"...really?].
5) Profiles in Courage--by John F. Kennedy--for intelligent readers, too ["Oswald was intelligent but he was not educated"...really?].
6) Everyday Life in Ancient Rome--by the archaeologist F. R. Cowell--a cerebral book for archaeologists and anthropologists with classification of pottery, weapons, excavations and digs, stauary, sewer and water systems, catacomb strucures, food and supply systems, mechanical inventions, maps, and so on....["Oswald was intelligent but he was not educated"...really? How much does one have to read and learn before one is accounted 'educated'?].
7) Ape and Essence by the philosopher-novelist Aldous Huxley: a novel about the effects of radiation from World War III on human beings, and the mutations that resulted..Why would Lee Oswald be interested in the effects of radiation on people? ["Oswald was intelligent but he was not educated"...really?].
8. Portrait of a President by William Manchester: Lee admired JFK.
9. What We Must Know About Communism --written by Harry Overstreet with a recommendation written by J. Edgar Hoover-- is of particular interest, because Lee checked this book out of the library for me. Lee already knew plenty about communism, having livedin the USSR for almost three years, but I did not. "I can't have a decent conversation with you on the subject," he told me. I was touchy about checking out the book, so he got it for me. Certainly Marina didn't need to read it.
(He also read ten science fiction novels and anthology collections, approximately 2,000 pages of that, plus James Bond Novels, the huge book, The Seven Pillars of Wisdom by T. E. Lawrence, and numerous biographies that summer.)==
Judyth's Oswald makes James Bond look like a character from Hee Haw. Listen to him. Can you picture this Oswald making the tearful heartrenching statements about Judyth having babies?
==These are scarcely polite remarks. However, will try to respond without saying anything rude.
You will find Lee weeping on other occasions, however, such as in Marina and Lee when he and Marina thought they were parting forever, and the thought of not seeing Junie again wrenched him. (We planned to marry in Mexico!)
From my original manuscript:
Marina knew Lee was leaving for good: there is a piteous scene in McMillan’s book when she and Lee said goodbye, in tears, when Ruth finally came to take her and Junie back to Texas. Even McMillan says that Marina never expected to see Lee again. This decision wasn’t easy for Lee. He wept in my arms about it. But undoubtedly, there would be more fights, inevitably ending in divorce anyway. While the babies were young, without bad memories, it was best to part. Lee’s tears proved to me that his plans were sincere, and that his love for me was firm. He planned a permanent rupture with Marina but it grieved him. I would not have trusted him so much without seeing so much grief.==
Would the worst soap opera on television even think about putting such dialog in their show?
==You are no longer writing as a researcher...You are appealing to people with special pleadings....They are living under different circumstances, and were not there. I chose to reveal these things about Lee because he was NOT a James Bond cutout. He was a real human being.==
When you were in the marines could you picture yourself saying such things to your wife or girlfriend? Did Oswald not have enough on his schedule with having a wife, a child, and a new born baby, and his travel and activities, that he could or would fit in this elaborate affair with Judyth? Did Oswald not have feelings towards his newly born child? If their love was so deep and the future so fragile why did Judyth not become pregnant? Who would know whose child it was?
==Can you imagine working with deadly cancer-causing monkey viruses and deadly cancers, where you have to wash up with acetone to kill the virus, even thinking about exposing an unborn baby to such carcinogens and unknown factors? I held off having babies for five years until I knew I didn't have cancer, myself. ==
How difficult is it to create accounts for times where Oswalds whereabouts or activities were unknown? It seems like that every time something cannot be accounted for then, lo and behold, Judyth happens to be there. Every single unknown woman Oswald happened to be seen with turns out to be, Surprise, Judyth.
==I stepped forward and identified myself as that woman. Now you are saying that a witness should not presume to identify herself. I have the same right as any other witness.==
Again, I am not questioning that Oswald was bright, but do you believe he was an intellectual? JFK was not an intellectual. Oswald had an IQ of 118, Kennedy 119. Obama has an IQ of 126. Ironically, the president with the highest IQ was Nixon with 164.
Judyth said Oswald's favorite poet was Pushkin. I have learned a lot about Pushkin and I don't think so.
He certainly did not check out any books by Pushkin at the Dallas library. Where are the books?
==RE PUSHKIN: quote from Lee oswald's writings, "The Kollective" : "Here any person can tell you about such splendid operas as "Reiglo," "The Clown," "Queen of Spades," "Traviate," while in the U.S. most citizens are sadly lacking in this field of art due not to the fallacy that we are uncultured as the Russians think, but due to the fact that...there are those who prefer to remain tied to their T.V.'s and comedy shows. "[He is talking about "Queen of Spades" which of course comes from Pushkin.
APRIL 27, 1963, MARINA WRITES TO HER AUNT VALYA ABOUT LEE'S BOOKS:
"We at last got Ogonek and Soviet Belorussia so we know what is happening in Minsk and everything in the Union. I have Russian books. Alka buys them for me in New York. That is, they send them from there: Tolstoy, Chekhov, Pushkin. When we have more dough we will see; I will buy some more. I do not have complete collections".
==IS THIS ENOUGH? I CAN FIND MORE CITATIONS, IF NECESSARY. ==
It would be like me telling everyone that I read some Shakespearian plays everyday for light reading until I have the opportunity to read something more entertaining like "The epistomology of Statistical Analysis when comparing river sediment in Brazil."
==Look at what you have done, sir. You presented an argument -- mostly ad hominem in nature -- and accusations about LHO's having all-too-human feelings and no education -- then presented that he knew nothing of Pushkin -- without bothering to do the most basic research to see if your comments were correct and appropriate. They were not. If you had been making a sincere criticism as a researcher, you would have done some research before blindly stating that Oswald knew nothing of Pushkin, for example. Will you be an honest researcher who garners my respect, or will you just find something else to form an accusation around, to continue a vendetta?==
I can go on and on.
==If you do, please try to do some research first.==
Judyth is obviously very bright which makes her ability to create an account more plausible. After reading everything she has done I am beginning to believe that this poor woman was cheated out of all the Nobel prizes. Whatever the truth is, Judyth is a damaged witness. She has read too much. When she tells of something she has done it is virtually followed by a Wilkepedia article oin the subject. She is tainted.
==I have had to defend myself against the most specious arguments, such as that Oswald was not educated and knew noting about Pushkin, from a dedicated batch of 'researchers' who throw one accusation after another into the air. if left unanswered, they contend that they are 'right.' Should I have said nothing in response to your presentation? Calling me 'poor woman' and saying I am "tainted" and a "damaged witness" a person you have never met-- God forgive you. I must practice forgiveness so I do NOT become damaged by such careless and crude words.==
She knows where the holes can be found in the Oswald story and thus knows where she can safely insert herself.
==The 'holes' are where I was REMOVED.==
She is too good. She can account for virtually every moment. When she can't it was because she got rammed head on by a rhinocerous and momentarily lost her memory which then comes back. If something turns out to be wrong it is because it is an unauthorized account which happened to have gotten stolen. Who writes unauthorized accounts? Humans are fallible. One of the things I argued about the validity of Nick Prencipe was his fallibility.He could have researched Greer and knew exactly where to put himself having a conversation with his friend William Greer. His uncertainty and mistakes are what gave him credibility.
==Most people are honest. They can make honest errors. For sure, you are careless in research, seeing how you have treated me, without ever meeting me or asking a single question of me, tough I have been posting through Dr. Jim here for two months. . . I am tempted to look at your work and see if you have been careless there, too.==
The human mind distorts details after 40 years but certain things are remembered. I can tell you what a great party I was at 2 years ago and some people fell into a pool but I can't tell you everyone who was there and if I did I might remember someone being there who was not there.
==We are talking about the assassination of Kennedy and the man I loved who i saw shot on TV before my eyes, blamed for it, as if I would forget. Most people alive then remember exactly what they were doing when JFK was shot. Why wouldn't I remember much more, having known Lee Oswald? It was not a pool party. You are presenting two entirely different kinds of scenarios. I dare you to tell your wife that you do not remember your wedding day and what happened on your honeymoon.==
These are concerns. I am not passing a final judgment on Judyth.
==Yes, you are. Now you're inserting "I'm being fair" to hide your assemblage of bad-mannered jibes and vituperative comments, offered without doing research. And it is my sad experience that you will never, ever change. Your pride is now hurt. You may not have the moral capacity to say, "I treated her badly." Most who have done so have never apologized. They allow their lies and accusations to stay uncorrected and on the record, even when these have been exposed. Those statements then poison others.==
You, with your contacts with her, are indeed in a better position than I to evaluate her. You may ultimately be right. However, because of her research, she is virtually worthless as a witness.
==Ridiculous. I did no research until AFTER I had related EVERYTHING to two fine researchers, Dr. Howard Platzamn and Martin Shackelford. When they sent me emails, for example, I had my boyfriend John, or Cassie, or Debbee, etc. to ALWAYS be with me when I opened an email from them. They asked questions.I wrote immediate answers in the presence of my witness, and sent the email off at once. THE WONDERFUL THING ABOUT SHACKELFORD AND PLATZMAN WAS THAT THEY NEVER GAVE ME ANY FEEDBACK. I did not know what they knew or believed. I would sit there and say to John, "What if they don't believe me? What if they will just walk away?"
They were merciless, and I am grateful. "60 Minutes", Jim Marrs, Peter Devries, Ed Haslam, Nigel Turner -- days and days and days, no notes, no calendars, no nothing. My memories. They had the records and books and information. My children verify I stayed totally away from all of that -- it nauseated me. "60 Minutes" would bring in the finest lunches, such as sushi, that I love, and I couldn't eat a thing, I was so upset, talking to them about Lee.....I often burst into ears -- even Lifton relates such an incident. I am much better now...==
In big cases, we were always concerned about overpreparing a witness to where their account seems contrived. I once had a case with a young girl who was a CSC victim. I wanted her to be prepared for whatever questions that might come her way. I would talk with her. At first her head would be down and she could only whisper. I would give her a tootsie roll pop each time. One day she came in my office smiling and said "Mr. Weldon, he put his penis in my vagina. Could I have a sucker?" I was crushed.
==How dare you place me in the same category with a student that you lured with candy! i was NEVER a coached witness. I remember only ONE time Dr. Platzman EVER telling me ANYTHING. The man gave NO feedback.
But this one time, he was curious.
I will relate it, because for me, it was a terrible and traumaic event.
I did NOT know of Lee's exhumation and Dr. Platzman, while we waited to talk to investigators for another grueling session with "60 Minutes", came into the atrium and played a tape for me to hear. "I just want to see if you can recognize who this is," he said..
I jumped out of my skin with shock--it was Ochsner's voice!
"Ochsner!" I said at once.
"You're right," he replied. Then he put up the photo in the TV player there of Lee's teeth. i did not know whose teeth they were, I did not know about the exhumation. He asked me if Lee had a missing tooth! Ii told hm of course not--then realized in a way nobody can understand, unless they were suddenly shown the corpse of their own mother or son or husband--that I was looking at Lee's teeth.
Dr Platzman is a researcher. He forgot that I was a human being.
That same day, for a birthday present, he gave me a 'present'[---a front page newspaper announcing Kennedy's murder and Lee's capture.
As a researcher, he thought this was a fine gift for my birthday, as he knew I had NOTHING, despite what you people here thin -- about any of that.
I told him i did not want it. It was the worst period of my lifetime, it was proof we had failed, it was truly one of the worst 'guilts' anybody could have given me. Now, Dr. Platzman didn't think about the fact that I had lived through it. That wasn't in his mind.
You who have not met me cannot understand how deeply sometimes your words cut. It is at a great cost to myself and my loved ones. Sometimes the hurt is accidental--just not thinking of me as a feeling human being, but as a source of information---but when there is also malice involved--and these people never, ever apologize--it is harder to bear.
This was the only time Dr. Platzman ever gave me 'information' -- if you can call it that -- and all it did was make me sick to my stomach for the next few hours.==
Judyth has overprepared herself to the extent that she has lost, if it was there, the ring of truth. She is the witness that an opposing attorney would drool to cross-examine.
==You have made up your mind, sir. Carry on. A decade ago, I said the same things. Only in rumors and lies have 'changes' occurred. I have used my last euro on this hookup here and must soon head for my flight. I cannot defend myself against a million miles of invective and innuendo. I count on those researchers who knew me from the beginning to attest to the fact that I was a raw, uncoached witness. I have the right to find information and evidence backing up what i stated a decade ago. ==
All of us are only here for a moment. I respect everyone who has devoted themselves in an honest way to finding truth. It is thankless and often the best result is simply to be ridiculed.
==As you have done to me, sir.==
Do you doubt that Jack or Lifton have a motive other than truth?
===books, books, books?===
Did Armstrong give up 12 years of his life and the money and time for all of the "fame" this has now brought him. I think Barb, Jerry, and even Pamela care
=='even' Pamela? Pamela more than most!==
Otherwise it's not worth it. People have become skiddish on this thread. Toi silence someone is not to convince them. How many people on this forum do you believe you have convinced that Judyth is the real deal? You know I am religious. Whether Judyth is truthful or not, may God bless her. I do hope truth will prevail, that right will triumph wrong, and as Garrison noted, that virtue shallbe its own reward.
==If you are truly religious, you would not bear false witness. You would have looked up htings such as Lee and 'Pushkin' before assaulting me as you did. but as you say, we are all fallible. please do not ascribe to me those flaws of memory tha you have, however. We are all different.==
Warm regards,
==I wish you had them for me!==
JVB
[quote name='Doug Weldon' post='190158' date='Apr 20 2010, 01:20 AM'][quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='190023' date='Apr 19 2010, 12:18 AM']
NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF FRIENDSHIP WITH JACK WHITE, WHO HAS FINALLY DISGUSTED ME
I cannot believe that someone I have admired in the past would stoop to such a sophomoric level by
lodging such a blatant ad hominem. Those who resort to arguments of this caliber have discredited
themselves massively. I denounce each and every one of them, including the author of the post Jack
has repeated her and the hack who posted it. I am completely disgusted and want nothing more to
do with them. Michael Hogan and Howard Platzman are honorable men. Those who resort to such
disgraceful tactics are not. Cease and desist, Jack White. You have forefeitted being taken seriously.
Please know that I want nothing more to do with you in any context at all. We are no longer friends.
[quote name='Jack White' post='190000' date='Apr 18 2010, 07:43 PM']It seems that most researchers (wisely) do not want to become involved in the thread re JVB. For
some reason many of them seem to focus on emailing me to vent their feelings at a safe venue. So
far about a dozen have emailed me varying messages about JVB. Here is a typical EXCERPT from one
received just today (anonymous for obvious reasons):
[color="#000080"]"I have believed for years that sexual frustration lies at the root of JVB’s motives – that she is more to be pitied than deplored. The sad but indisputable fact is that she is now overweight and unattractive and was once rather attractive (amply endowed, as she has pointed out on occasion), showing much promise in her academic abilities which never came to fruition. She has lived a life peppered with disappointment, unable to get along with people for more than a few weeks. Every relationship – mostly with men -- eventually goes down the toilet."
[/color]
There are many other unsolicited emails. They are wise to not enter the public area of controversy. This
has been going on for ten years now, with new supporters taking up the torch when others become
disenchanted. How much longer will it go on?
Jack[/quote]
[/quote]
Nothing bothers me more in this thread than this posting. On the windshield thread I noted more than once that one did not have to agree with me to be my friend. Barb, Tink, and Jerry disagree with me about the hole in the windshield but I have no personal animosity towards any of them. I simply believed that the arguments were becoming circuitous and that there was not enough understanding of the witnesses to engage further in a constructive dialog. I was not going to write my book on the thread but I did find portions of the thread to be constructive and at the end I actually held a higher opinion and respect for these people than I did at the beginning. If one has to agree with everything one posits then all of us are going to have a very short list of friends.
Each of us is entitled to an opinion and to weigh the evidence and because one has a higher educational background it does not make their opinion or analysis superior to anothers. I have five years of undergraduate credits, a law degee, a masters degree, and I am 6 course hours short of completing the course work for a P.H.D. in education. I think Joe Biden would rightfully respond to that, "Big F---ing Deal!" My analysis is not superior to anyone's.
I am going to make some personal references. I believe friendships and relationships are what is most important in life. If anyone on this forum believes that we are going to develop a total concensus on the death of JFK and bring people to justice then they are living in a fantasyland. To seek to find truth is not only noble it is imperative to defining the society in which we live and for those who will live after us. I use the rhetorical question of why do old men plant trees that they will never see grow? History will always be the myth that people choose to believe and I, as much as anyone, would like to remove much of the myth that exists about November 22, 1963. It is important but it is not so important that we destroy the friendships and relationships that are truly the essence of our lives. Again, I make a personal reference. It is easy to become obsessed in pursuing the truth in the JFK labrynith. I recall my ex-wife telling me that I seemed to pay more attention to a dead president than I did to her. Sadly, in retrospect, she was often correct. For any endeavor, there is a cost to be paid. The ultimate question is whether the cost was worth it. Sometimes it is. Many times it is not. To do it again, I would have made some different decisions.
The most rewarding aspect of being involved with this for 32 years has been the wonderful people and witnesses I have gotten to know. For the witnesses who trusted me I want to keep my promise to tell their accounts for history but I am under no pretense that everyone is going to agree with me or them and I understand that even to get my book published is likely to be a difficult endeavor. I do, however, value that I got to know these witnesses as people, and in writing my book I often smile as I listen to the conversations I had with these people, many now deceased. I enjoy the researchers I have met, agree or disagree, and I respect everyone of them whom I believe has truth as their objective. It is the personal part of these people that endures for me. It is my privilege to get to know these people, even if it is only a voice on the phone or a posting on the internet. I have met Jack and Jim a number of times. I value that. They are passionate people. Some people walk into a room softly. Others come in driving a truck with horns blaring. We can respect people for who they are and the world needs all of these types.
I cannot accept Judyth's account for a number of reasons. Jim, I have watched her on TMWKK. To be honest, when I copy the segments from 2003 and give them to people I often leave out her segment because I fear it detracts from the value of episode 7, on which both you and I appeared, and segment 9. The fact that Nigel Turner believes her really means nothing. I do not believe that there was an altruistic motive for Nigel in his productions but he was motivated by it being a commercial enterprise. I am not fooling myself. Nigel spent days at my house on several occasions. If my opinion was that Oswald did it alone I doubt that my charm would have captivated his time and attention. As Jim Garrison said about the Warren Commission and being told that they were important or distinquished people had no impact on his examination of the evidence.
I have read Haslam's book with great interest. Again, I submit a personal reference. In 2001 I had non-hodgkin's lymphoma and on the Men Who Killed Kennedy I was bloated and my eyes were distorted from Chemo. What is interesting about this cancer is that it is one of the cancers that are increasing and they are finding that a large portion of the people with the cancer have evidence of the "Monkey Virus." It is that, not Judyth, which stirred my interest in the book. Ironically, Jackie Kennedy died of this cancer!
There are many things which cause me concern about Judyth. I will only note a few. One of the arguments in favor of her credibility has been that a researcher went over the known timeline of Oswald's whereabouts and activities and she got everything right. A major reason I doubt her is that she got everything right. Can you tell me everything your wife did the first week of October 2009 yet 40 plus years ago? How about what you did?
Judyth remembers EVERYTHING Oswald told her. He must have been talking from morning to night and she would have to be a stenographer to keep track of everything. How could she ever remember the japanese girl or David Phillips and other names and instances that would have no meaning to her. If somewhat shot names or stories at you forty years ago that had no meaning to you would you remember them? Why would you save your pay stubbs and records? Do you have yours from 45 years ago? Again, a personal reference. While I was teaching in the criminal justice department at Western Michigan Universityyears ago, I shared an office with a former police officer, who the following semester murdered his wife, who was a leading local newscaster. It was the first case ever on Court Television and the prosecuter was an individual I shared rides with my first year in law school. There have been three books written about the murder. How easy would it be for me to start talking about the great friendship we had, how we would go out to the bar together, and the things he would talk about. He had been having affairs with his students which added to the interest. It would be so easy to insert and mesh my life with his. The truth is I really did not know him at all.
Judyth's so-called Russian statements to Oswald when they allegedly first met are preposterous. Furthermore, Judyth's recall of statements between her and Oswald is not only amazing but also preposterous. It makes Romeo and Juliet look like a slap-stick comedy. Listen to Oswald's radio interviews and his statements in Dallas such as "a policeman hit me." Yes, Oswald was intelligent but he was not educated. Judyth's Oswald makes James Bond look like a character from Hee Haw. Listen to him. Can you picture this Oswald making the tearful heartrenching statements about Judyth having babies? Would the worst soap opera on television even think about putting such dialog in their show? When you were in the marines could you picture yourself saying such things to your wife or girlfriend? Did Oswald not have enough on his schedule with having a wife, a child, and a new born baby, and his travel and activities, that he could or would fit in this elaborate affair with Judyth? Did Oswald not have feelings towards his newly born child? If their love was so deep and the future so fragile why did Judyth not become pregnant? Who would know whose child it was?
How difficult is it to create accounts for times where Oswalds whereabouts or activities were unknown? It seems like that every time something cannot be accounted for then, lo and behold, Judyth happens to be there. Every single unknown woman Oswald happened to be seen with turns out to be, Surprise, Judyth.
Again, I am not questioning that Oswald was bright, but do you believe he was an intellectual? JFK was not an intellectual. Oswald had an IQ of 118, Kennedy 119. Obama has an IQ of 126. Ironically, the president with the highest IQ was Nixon with 164. Judyth said Oswald's favorite poet was Pushkin. I have learned a lot about Pushkin and I don't think so. He certainly did not check out any books by Pushkin at the Dallas library. Where are the books? It would be like me telling everyone that I read some Shakespearian plays everyday for light reading until I have the opportunity to read something more entertaining like "The epistomology of Statistical Analysis when comparing river sediment in Brazil."
I can go on and on. Judyth is obviously very bright which makes her ability to create an account more plausible. After reading everything she has done I am beginning to believe that this poor woman was cheated out of all the Nobel prizes. Whatever the truth is, Judyth is a damaged witness. She has read too much. When she tells of something she has done it is virtually followed by a Wilkepedia article oin the subject. She is tainted. She knows where the holes can be found in the Oswald story and thus knows where she can safely insert herself. She is too good. She can account for virtually every moment. When she can't it was because she got rammed head on by a rhinocerous and momentarily lost her memory which then comes back. If something turns out to be wrong it is because it is an unauthorized account which happened to have gotten stolen. Who writes unauthorized accounts? Humans are fallible. One of the things I argued about the validity of Nick Prencipe was his fallibility.He could have researched Greer and knew exactly where to put himself having a conversation with his friend William Greer. His uncertainty and mistakes are what gave him credibility. The human mind distorts details after 40 years but certain things are remembered. I can tell you what a great party I was at 2 years ago and some people fell into a pool but I can't tell you everyone who was there and if I did I might remember someone being there who was not there.
These are concerns. I am not passing a final judgment on Judyth. You, with your contacts with her, are indeed in a better position than I to evaluate her. You may ultimately be right. However, because of her research, she is virtually worthless as a witness. In big cases, we were always concerned about overpreparing a witness to where their account seems contrived. I once had a case with a young girl who was a CSC victim. I wanted her to be prepared for whatever questions that might come her way. I would talk with her. At first her head would be down and she could only whisper. I would give her a tootsie roll pop each time. One day she came in my office smiling and said "Mr. Weldon, he put his penis in my vagina. Could I have a sucker?" I was crushed. Judyth has overprepared herself to the extent that she has lost, if it was there, the ring of truth. She is the witness that an opposing attorney would drool to cross-examine.
All of us are only here for a moment. I respect everyone who has devoted themselves in an honest way to finding truth. It is thankless and often the best result is simply to be ridiculed. Do you doubt that Jack or Lifton have a motive other than truth? Did Armstrong give up 12 years of his life and the money and time for all of the "fame" this has now brought him. I think Barb, Jerry, and even Pamela care. Otherwise it's not worth it. People have become skiddish on this thread. Toi silence someone is not to convince them. How many people on this forum do you believe you have convinced that Judyth is the real deal? You know I am religious. Whether Judyth is truthful or not, may God bless her. I do hope truth will prevail, that right will triumph wrong, and as Garrison noted, that virtue shallbe its own reward.
Warm regards,
Doug
[/quote]
Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile - James H. Fetzer - 26-04-2010
JUDYTH RESPONDS TO JACK WHITE ABOUT THE POST THAT UPSET ME SO VERY MUCH
NOTE: This is the post from Jack that caused me to severe our relationship. I will associate with
Jack in professional activities, but I regarded this post as grossly abusive, inappropriate and wrong.
If Jack were to concede that he was wrong to post this, I would welcomed that, but I don't expect it.
JUDYTH REPIES:
Well, let's look at this interesting remark, kindly provided by Jack White, who states that it is anonymous (go ahead, be a coward!):
"I have believed for years.
===for years, huh? Nobody new on the scene===
that sexual frustration lies at the root of JVB’s motives –
==Sounds like David Lifton or one of his pals again...It's their mantra...perhaps because sexual frustration is THEIR problem?===
that she is more to be pitied than deplored. The sad but indisputable fact is that she is now overweight and unattractive
== I find aging to be an adventure. I've lost 50 pounds and have recovered from the assault that put me in the hospital in 2007. As for unattractive, at almost 67, I find myself, as always, with several close male friends 3-15 years younger than I am as my dearest companions. I can't afford to marry, and neither can they. Blame social security, not looks!.==
and was once rather attractive (amply endowed, as she has pointed out on occasion), showing much promise in her academic abilities which never came to fruition. She has lived a life peppered with disappointment,
==Whoa, there! All the disappointment in my life have come from people who behave like this one is behaving--judging someone they've never met. I know they never met me because those who have know how much the gift of life means to me, how happy I am making other people happy. ....I feel sorry for people who have noting better to do than to make nasty, personal remarks about someone they have never met.
![[Image: 01c.jpg]](http://www.perryvermeulen.nl/neworleans/01c.jpg)
As a writer, poet, artist, song-writer, and activist for human rights and vaccine awareness,as well as the mother of five fine citizens who make me proud, any sufferings and verbal abuse I've endured have been worth it to wake up the country about the dangers of vaccines and the fact that a government coup placed an illegal and destructive cabal into America that took the life of an innocent man I loved. I've seen 35% of the world, and with archaeology as an avocation, intend to see it all. My life has been rich and full, no regrets!==
unable to get along with people for more than a few weeks. Every relationship – mostly with men – eventually goes down the toilet."
==This bloke doesn't know a thing about me...The only part of the sentence above that's true is that most of my closest friendships are with men. I've always had a lot of men in my life. Perhaps because they know I love being around them! I've had several chances to marry. But I can't afford to marry because I'd lose social security.
![[Image: 14udmk0.jpg]](http://i39.tinypic.com/14udmk0.jpg)
I am a gregarious person who loves Allan, Kjell, and George, close friends now for three years. When I am in Sweden, which is half the time, we are together for everything. I was disappointed when the volcano stopped a chance for me to meet a close, longtime friend, Dr. Platzman. And I deeply miss my family and friends in the US.==jvb==
[quote name='Jack White' post='190000' date='Apr 18 2010, 06:43 PM']It seems that most researchers (wisely) do not want to become involved in the thread re JVB. For
some reason many of them seem to focus on emailing me to vent their feelings at a safe venue. So
far about a dozen have emailed me varying messages about JVB. Here is a typical EXCERPT from one
received just today (anonymous for obvious reasons):
[color="#000080"]"I have believed for years that sexual frustration lies at the root of JVB’s motives – that she is more to be pitied than deplored. The sad but indisputable fact is that she is now overweight and unattractive and was once rather attractive (amply endowed, as she has pointed out on occasion), showing much promise in her academic abilities which never came to fruition. She has lived a life peppered with disappointment, unable to get along with people for more than a few weeks. Every relationship – mostly with men -- eventually goes down the toilet."
[/color]
There are many other unsolicited emails. They are wise to not enter the public area of controversy. This
has been going on for ten years now, with new supporters taking up the torch when others become
disenchanted. How much longer will it go on?
Jack[/quote]
Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile - James H. Fetzer - 26-04-2010
JIM RESPONDS TO BERNICE WITH REGARD TO REASONING ABOUT JUDYTH BAKER
Bernice,
This is a bit long-winded, even "professorial". But then, what would you expect from a
retired professor? In my opinion, Ed Haslam has nailed down the key questions to ask,
discussed at http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/04/ed...ys-monkey.html:
1. Is “this Judyth” the real Judyth Vary Baker from Bradenton, Florida? Or is she
the impostor?
2. Did Judyth know Lee Harvey Oswald in New Orleans in 1963? If she does not have
reasonable proof to support this claim, then there is little point in pondering her story.
3. Was Judyth trained to handle cancer-causing viruses before she went to New Orleans
in 1963? If 1 and 2 above are true, then this point would qualify her as a suspect for “the
technician” that I wrote about in “The Pandemic” chapter.
As he explains, the answers appear to be "Yes", "Yes", and "Yes". And I find it increasingly
difficult to believe that anyone who has studied the evidence could disagree with him on this.
I have remarked that many of Judyth's reports about her life with the man she knew are
highly implausible, which means that they are difficult to believe and, on initial consideration,
appear to be more likely to be false than true. The point I have made is that, when claims
that are initially implausible turn out to be true (or, at least, supported by better arguments
than the alternatives), that has the effect of greatly increasing the credibility of the source.
Monk concedes that this is a human psychological tendency, but expresses hesitation over
whether it is warranted rationally as a matter of logic. The answer, however, is that it is.
The study of the impact of new evidence upon our beliefs (or degrees of belief) is among
the most extensively studied subjects in the philosophy of science and epistemology, where
the predominant approach is known as "Bayesianism" for its appeal to a theorem due to a
mathematician by the name of Thomas Bayes. It interprets probability as a measure of the
strength of our beliefs in relation to the evidence available to us. There are objectivist and
subjectivist interpretations of Bayesianism, but the core of the objectivist interpretation has
it (correctly) that there are definable objective standards relating evidence to hypotheses.
Your beliefs about an hypothesis h1, such as that Judyth Vary Baker knew Lee Oswald in
New Orleans, given the evidence e1 available to you initially, which might be formalized as
P(h1/e1) = r1, is called your prior probability. When you gain new evidence, call it e2, the
difference it makes can be measured by the difference between your prior probability and
your posterior, P(h1/e1 & e2) = r2. The new evidence might increase, decrease, or leave
the value of r2 in relation to r1. When it increases the value of r2 in relation to r1, then it
is called "positively" relevant. If it lowers the value of r2 in relation to r1, then "negatively"
relevant. And if r2 = r1, then the new evidence qualifies as neutral or even as "irrelevant".
Those who are responsive to new evidence would be expected to have their priors affected
by the acquisition of new evidence in ways that correspond to objective standards. Those
who are non-responsible to new evidence have priors that are not affected by new evidence,
which can represent "closed mindedness". Indeed, one method for pursuing truth is to adopt
the method of tenacity, which means that, when you are subjectively satisfied with what you
believe, then you simply disregard any new evidence. That has been the case with many on
this forum, including, as a prime example, Jack White. No matter what Judyth could present,
Jack is not going to change his mind about her. His prior, which is approximately zero, will be
his posterior, even if we had a video of Judyth and Lee talking with Marcello at the 500 Club!
The fact is that we have a witness, Anna Lewis, who has testified that she and her husband,
David, double-dated with Judyth and Lee in New Orleans and made a visit to the 500 Club,
where they actually met Carlos Marcello. There is more than enough evidence to establish
that Judyth was lured to New Orleans by Alton Ochsner, who wanted someone who had the
ability to conduct cancer research but who was not known to the public and could be tossed
aside when her usefulness had expended. She worked with Lee Oswland and David Ferrie
under the supervision of Mary Sherman on the development of a rapid form of cancer that
could be used as a bio-weapon to take out Castro. That did not occur, of course, but there
are reasons to believe it was used to kill Jack Ruby, who, like Lee Oswald, knew too much.
During the course of this thread, Judyth has produced documents and records that show
she was a talented science student who had precocious knowledge of certain aspects of
cancer research. She and Lee were hired on the same date by Riley Coffee Company, a
front that provided cover for their covert activities. She even signed Lee's work records,
even though her role was never explained to the Warren Commission. As Ed Haslam has
documented, Judyth and David and Mary (who referred to themsevles as "Mary, Ferrie,
and Vary") performed extensive studies with mice and monkeys, all of which was under
the ultimate supervision of Alton Ochsner. Mary was killed in what appears to have been
an arranged "accident", which took place as the commission was turning attention to LHO.
In general, for a person to be rational, there should be an approximate correspondence
between their degree of belief (or strength of conviction) and the strength of the evidence
for that belief when objective standards are applied to the available relevant evidence. As
a general indication of this relationship, consider the following schematization that applies:
![[Image: 21xvex.jpg]](http://i39.tinypic.com/21xvex.jpg)
where persons are rational in relation to their beliefs when there is an appropriate correspond-
ence (which need not be an exact alignment) between their degrees of subjective certitude and
the objective degrees of evidential support. Persons should properly be incredulous about what
cannot possibly be true (such as that 2 + 2 = 5 in pure mathematics, for example, or that rabbits
are not animals in ordinary English) and completely credulous about what cannot possibly be false
(such as that 2 + 2 = 4 in pure mathematics and that bachelors are unmarried in ordinary English).
With respect to measures of truthfulness, therefore, we might employ a truth-quotient index as a
ratio of true statements made to statements made. Persons who are truthful obviously have high
truth-quotient indices, while those who are not have low. In a case where it is suspected that a
person might be a non-truth teller, presumably their truth quotient index will be low. And that is
certainly going to be the case for someone who is presumed to be a fabricator (teller of tall tails).
If such a person's story seems far-fetched initially, then that creates the presumption that they are
not truth-tellers because they have what appears to be a low truth-quotient. But should it turn out
that initially implausible elements of their story are true, the situation reverses itself dramatically.
The basic measure of evidential support is that of likelihoods, where the likelihood of hypothesis
h given evidence e is equal to the probability of evidence e if that hypothesis were true. Judyth
has made many implausible claims about her experiences in New Orleans and her relationship with
Lee. The probability of making false claims when you are "the real deal" is extremely low, which
means that, if most of these claims are FALSE, then the likelihood that she is telling the truth has
to be extremely low. But if it should turn out that, under further investigation, most of those turn
out to be TRUE after all, then the likelihood reverses and becomes very high, since the discovery
that those claims are true, when they were initially implausible, powerfully supports her position.
What has troubled me during the course of this thread is that, time after time, Judyth has produced
support for initially implausible claims. Yet the vast majority of her critics have not budged. They
continue to disbelieve her, long after she has produced supporting evidence. As an illustration, just
follow the posts in which she responds to Jack. He must have lodged at least a dozen criticisms of
Judyth, where, so far as I have been able to discern, none of them has turned out to be true. He
has observed that if Judyth had not claimed to have had a romance with Lee, he might find her the
more believable. But, in spite of the huge range of issues that have been discussed on this forum,
he has never budged. His priors have remained constant and he has studiously avoided her posts.
Doug suggests that Judyth is a damaged witness because of her involvement in research on JFK.
But OF COURSE she is a damaged witness. After deciding to come forward and tell her story, she
has been abused and attacked--often quite viciously!--by those on the McAdams site, where she
initially attempted to present herself, but also on other forums, where she was treated more or less
equally dismissively. She had to conduct research to find out where those who were attacking her
were coming from. In my opinion, she has demonstrated great ability at research, far greater than
most of the members of this forum, including studies of photos, eye-color, linguistics and much more.
Doug is probably right about some of the details of her story, but its core appears to me to be intact.
After having dealt with Judyth extensvely, evaluated the arguments presented on this thread, and
studied DR. MARY'S MONKEY, among other sources (most of which are cited or archived in the blogs
I have done about her at http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com), I agree with this list of basic findings:
- 1. Judyth went to New Orleans in the 1963 at the invitation of Dr. Alton Ochsner.
- 2. Ochsner had known Judyth for several years and had previously arranged for her to be trained
at the famous cancer research center discussed above.
- 3. Ochsner promised Judyth early-admission to Tulane Medical School in return for her services in
Dr. Mary Sherman’s cancer lab at Ochsner Clinic. Ochsner also provided her with cancer research
papers on the state-of-the-art techniques such as cancer-causing viruses.
- 4. Judyth wound up working under Sherman’s direction in the underground medical laboratory in
David Ferrie’s apartment instead of in her cancer lab at the Ochsner clinic.
- 5. Judyth met Lee Oswald at the Post Office in what she thought was a chance encounter. In hind-
sight, she realized that this had to be intentional, since Lee was already working with David Ferrie,
Dr. Mary Sherman and Dr. Alton Ochsner on the bio-weapon at the time. Lee introduced her to “Dr.
David Ferrie” the following day and helped Judyth find an apartment.
- 6. When Judyth went to meet Dr. Ochsner in a room within the bowels of Charity Hospital, Lee
Oswald accompanied her to the appointment and went in first to meet with Dr. Ochsner alone.
- 7. Lee was working with ex-FBI agent Guy Banister as has been reported by many sources. Lee
took Judyth to meet Banister in his office to satisfy her concerns that the bio-weapons project is
really a secret government operation. Banister confirmed that Lee was working with them on a
get-Castro project.[10]
- 8. When Judyth went to Dr. Sherman’s apartment for a private dinner with her, David Ferrie was
the only other guest. Sherman and Ferrie discussed the nature of their project with Judyth. They
deemed the idea of using cancer-causing viruses to kill Castro as morally ethical since is might
prevent World War III. Lee phoned Judyth that same night at Sherman’s apartment. Dr. Mary
Sherman was the operational director of “the project.” Ferrie and Oswald were participants.
- 9. Lee escorted and transported Judyth all over town, including to Dr. Sherman’s apartment where
Judyth dropped off “the product” and related reports forSherman’s review. Lee was “the runner.”
- 10. Judyth and Lee were provided cover-jobs at Reily Coffee Company where they were allowed to
slip out several afternoons a week to work in the underground medical laboratory in David Ferrie’s
apartment.[11]
- 11. Lee Oswald’s connections to the Mafia in New Orleans are much stronger than have ever been
reported publicly.[12] Judyth and Lee ate-for-free at restaurants owned by Carlos Marcello and went
to his headquarters (500 Club and Town & Country Motel).
- 12. Lee’s role in the kill-Castro portion of the project was to transport the bio-weapon into Cuba.
The radio debates and film clips of Oswald’s leafleting were arranged by Ochsner (at Oswald’s request)
to make Oswald appear to be an authentic defector so he could get into Cuba more easily.
- 13. Judyth heard the subject of assassinating JFK was discussed at various times by various people,
including Ferrie, Sherman and Oswald. Part of the logic that was explained to Judyth was that they had
to hurry up and kill Castro with their bio-weapon before Ochsner’s friend ran out of patience and decided
to kill Kennedy instead.
- 14. After testing their bio-weapon on dozens of monkeys, they arranged to test it on a human “volunteer,”
a convict brought from Angola State Penitentiary to the Jackson State Mental Hospital in rural Louisiana for
that purpose. The weapon was successful. The man died in 28 days as a result.
- 15. Judyth wrote a letter to Dr. Ochsner protesting the use of an unwitting human in their bio-weapon test
and delivered it to his secretary.[13] Upon seeing the letter, Ochsner exploded in anger and threatened both
Judyth and Lee. Everything fell apart for Judyth as a result. Ochsner reneged on his offer to place Judyth in
Tulane Medical School. Lee was ordered to Dallas. Judyth went back to Florida with her husband.
- 16. For the next few months, Judyth and Lee stayed in contact by telephone, thanks to access to the Mafia’s
“secret” Miami-to-Las Vegas sports betting lines courtesy of David Ferrie. While the phone company and the
U.S. Government might not have been able to listen to their conversations, the Mafia would have been able to!
- 17. On Wednesday, November 20, 1963, Lee told Judyth that there would be a real attempt to kill President
Kennedy when he visits Dallas on Friday. It is the last time they talked.
Other aspects of her story may involve embellishments, such as recollecting the details of conversations they
had on various occasions. I certainly agree that the "reading list" Judyth provided appears to be a bit much,
where it reads more like a "wish list" than actual reading by the man who was killed in Dallas. Yet, even here,
Judyth has some support for what she has to tell us in the form of a report by Marina about what Lee read.
Given the strength of the evidence that supports the core of Judyth's story, I am hard pressed to compromise
on the basis of friendship. I have done my best to give Judyth a fair shake on this forum. I am convinced she
is genuine, even if others remain in doubt. The most interesting point that Bill makes and you also note is the
original "Judyth Vary Baker" whom Ed Haslam met. This is quite remarkable: there were two "Judyth Bakers".
What this tells me, however, is that Judyth has to be "the real deal" and posed such a threat that the agency
even went to the trouble to create an impostor. That is stunning in and of itself. Ed did not pursue the chance
to talk with her on a second occasion because his girlfriend did not want him to discuss politics, which is a shame.
I can understand the situation he was in. But if Judyth is not "the real deal", then why would it have bothered?
I would not have been so hard on some of my old friends had they displayed more open-mindedness about the
evidence she was presenting and the findings of others, especially Ed Haslam. But it has become increasingly
obvious that none of this new evidence has made any difference to the vast majority. Their posterior probs
are just the same as their initial priors. None of this has affected them. Which denotes a lack of rationality.
If they had said, "Well, you know, I don't know about that reading list, but the core of her story appears to be
true" or, "Well, I really believe in Armstrong, but you have raised some good points about the 'index' blunder,
the mistaken date for founding the Warren Commission, the "lost tooth" at Beauregard Junior High, and that
eye-color study and commentary on some of the photos deserve to be taken seriously." But no one did so.
This has been a draining experience, Bernice. I have lost several friends over this. Perhaps, with time, those
relationships can be repaired. And I know it must have been difficult for you. I know how much you like and
admire Jack and Doug and others involved in this dispute. I cannot abandon the search for truth about JFK on
the ground that it might cost me friends since, as I have explained, then there would be no truth, only friendships.
Jim
[quote name='Bernice Moore' post='190333' date='Apr 21 2010, 08:55 PM']
[quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='190329' date='Apr 21 2010, 02:17 PM']
What's the deal, Lee? You want to play "amateur philosopher"? I hate to say it again, but when people I like abuse logic, ignore evidence, and make fallacious arguments, again and again and again, there is a point at which I have to question their competence or their integrity. Do you think I LIKE being at odds with some of my oldest and dearest friends? Jack White, David Lifton, and Doug Weldon have been close friends and allies in the past. For some reason, this Judyth thing has affected them in ways that, in my considered opinion, has taken them off the deep end.
For example, given my response to Pat, which of them has actually read DR. MARY'S MONKEY? Well, I am quite sure that Jack has not and that David will not. Doug is a possibility, but, to the best of my knowledge, he has not yet either. IF EVERYONE WOULD READ WHAT ED HASLAM HAS WRITTEN, based upon extremely patient and thorough research, MOST OF THIS CONTROVERSY WOULD SUBSIDE. I have posted a chapter of his from the revised version of MARY, FERRIE, AND THE MONKEY VIRUS, but so far as I can tell, no one here is actually reading it. That's the score.
Of course, I would like to have my friends and truth, too. But when Dean Hagerman, for example, tells me that I am letting Judyth disrupt my relationships with some of my old friends, I am confronted with a dilemma. I KNOW THAT JUDYTH IS THE REAL DEAL. I HAVE STUDIED HER, TALKED WITH HER, READ ABOUT HER, EVALUATED THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST HER, AND I AM CONVINCED. I HAVE NO DOUBT ABOUT IT. So what am I supposed to do? Dean says I should choose Jack (and Lifton and Weldon) and abandon Judyth. That is the conflict that I confront.
I can only do that if I abandon my commitment to truth. If I have to choose between friendships and truth, I have to side with truth. If friendships take precedence over truth, then there is no truth, only friendships. Given who I am, that is not something that I can do. I want to have both. Who does not? But if I am compelled to choose between friends who abuse logic, ignore evidence, and make fallacious arguments, again and again and again, I have no choice but to stand with truth and let friendships go. Forced to choose, my choice is truth.
And let me add one more point. I did not drag them into this. I created a thread to discuss Judyth because I find her story fascinating, not least of all because it transforms our understanding of the assassination, especially with regard to those mysterious days in New Orleans. What may have escaped notice in all of this is that Jack, David, and Doug HAVE BEEN ATTACKING ME. To the best of my knowledge, I have not initiated a single attack upon them. But I will not stand by and allow them to abuse a crucial witness whom I am convinced is telling the truth.
[quote name='Lee Farley' post='190327' date='Apr 21 2010, 07:35 PM'][quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='190312' date='Apr 21 2010, 02:28 PM']As for friendships, I value them greatly. But if we place friendships ahead of truth, then there is no truth, only friendships. And that is something I am not willing to do.[/quote]
I don't get this Jim.
Why can't you have both?
I've always found the question of what is "truth" fascinating. Fact is Jim, the truth doesn't need us all to believe in it for it still to be true. Agreed?
If I don't believe that the sun rises each morning and sets each evening it doesn't make the fact that it does any less true does it?
If I believe that sound is faster than light it doesn't make the fact that light is faster than sound any less true does it?
Would you or Jack fall out with me and not treat me with respect because I believed that there is nothing after we die and you both believed in heaven?
If your wife turned around and told you that she didn't believe a word Judyth said, would you divorce her? I think not...
I'm awaiting some sanity to return and some further discussion of the issues if possible.
Regards
Lee
[/quote]
[/quote]
DR.JIM I WOULD LIKE TO TALK AT YOU FOR A FEW MINUTES, I THOUGHT ABOUT THIS FOR AWHILE AND THINK I SHOULD FOR OUR FRIENDSHIPS SAKE,
YOU ARE CORRECT I DO NOT LIKE SOME OF WHAT I HAVE READ WITHIN THIS VERY LONG THREAD AND I HAVE READ EVERY POST, AND NOT JUST BY YOU, BUT BY SOME OTHERS AS WELL, NO USE PICKING STRAWS AS I WILL NOT BE, MY THOUGHTS ARE MY BUSINESS..
LORDY I, HAVE WONDERED AT TIMES IF this thread would make a good subject for study for a thesis.
It is NOT somehow typical that it has been tried to turn this into a critique of John Armstrong''s work. , we have seen this done in other threads, No doubt Armstrong is open to criticism. as your books were and Lifton's still is, and doug weldon's will be, and so on, Who ISN'T? OPEN TO CRITICISM , I THOUGHT IN THIS THREAD The issue here WAS TO BE JUDYTH Baker and the evidence for her claims.i have seen what she has presented as such, but i admit i find it lacking as i did in her first set of books..
IT SEEMS TO ME AT TIMES WITHIN THE RESEARCH THAT WE START OUT OH SO SMART BUT GET OH SO MUCH STUPIDER AS THE THREADS GROW LONGER...
AND THE INTENTIONS AND THE SUBJECT GETS LOST..SOMETIMES THE SHORTER THE BETTER SUFFICES.
ALL WE NEED TO DO IMO IS TO treat PEOPLE with respect. AND treat FELLOW RESEARCHERS as your equals EVEN IF THEY ARE WITHOUT INITIALS AFTER THEIR NAMES AS SOME HAVE AND AS SOME SEEM TO LEAN ON TOO OFTEN,THOUGH ON THE OTHER HAND I AM NOT YOUR NOR MANYS PEER BECAUSE I HAVE NONE AFTER MY NAME BUT THEN YOU AND THEY CANNOT BE MINE EITHER AS YOU HAVE NOR THEY CAN EVER HAVE THE MANY CHILDREN I HAD,AND CHILDREN I RAISED, WE NEED TO STOP cALLING OTHERS names OR BELITTLING THEM,AND MAKING OTHER such IMPLICATIONS SUCH AS DERIDING THEM BECAUSE THEY SIMPLY DO NOT AGREE WITH YOU OR WITH SOMEONE YOU DO, SO WHAT IF SOMEONE DOES NOT, YOU CERTAINLY HAVE NEVER AGREED WITH ALL THAT ANYONE HAS RESEARCHED IN ALL THE YEARS I HAVE KNOWN YOU.AND PEOPLE NEED TO NOT BE CONDESCENDING AND THEY NEED TO TRY AND KEEP A CIVIL TONGUE IN THEIR HEADS...I AM NOT GOING TO ARGUE SPECIFICS OR DOTS WITH YOU,DR.JIM,EVEN IF THAT WAS WHAT YOU WANTED, WHICH I DOUBT,, I AM NOT GOING TO ALLOW YOU NOR ANYONE, PERHAPS TO ENCOURAGE SUCH,SO THAT EVENTUALLY YOU WOULD THROW AWAY ANOTHER FRIEND OR CHASE ANOTHER AWAY FROM YOU...AS FAR AS WHAT HAS OCCURRED WITHIN THS THREAD IT IS DONE, WHAT AMENDS WILL BE TAKEN IN THE FUTURE WILL BE IN THE FUTURE, '......NOW A VERY GOOD TOPIC THAT BILL KELLY MENTIONED, AND I WILL ASK, WHY IS IT AFTER ALL YOU AND JUDYTH HAVE HAD TO SAY ABOUT JACK'S ERRORS OR DOUG'S OR David lifton's opinions being wrong etc, why is it that you have not as far as i recall in this thread ever LEANED ON ED HASLAM,WHY NOT BECAUSE AFTER ALL HE HAS WRITTEN TWO BOOKS, WHICH I HAVE AND READ, HE IS THE AUTHOR RESEARCHER OF SUCH, YET IN ALL THE YEARS THAT IT TOOK HIM TO DO SO, HE NEGLECTED TO DO OR COMPLETE HIS RESEARCH, HE DID NOT FIND AS FAR AS WE KNOW NOR NAME HIS OLD GIRLFRIEND NOR GET HER INFORMATION NOR STATEMENT RECALLING HER INFORMATION PERTAINING TO SAID PARTY, HE DID NOT GO TO THE N/O ARCHIVES WITHIN THE CITY BEFORE KATRINA RUINED ALL,SO I HAVE READ, TO SEARCH FOR THE INFORMATION OF WHOM OWNED OR RENTED THAT APARTTMENT HOUSE AT THE TIME OF THE PARTY, NOR OBTAIN THE COPIES OF DOCUMENTS OF WHOM WERE LIVING THERE,HE ALSO MENTIONED YEARS BACK OF BEING REMINDED OF SUCH BY SEEING THE NAME JUDY BAKER ON AN OFFICE DOOR, BEFORE JUDYTH WAS IN CONTACT WITH HIM, I BLIEVE ALSO WHEN HE WAS ON THE ALTS YEARS BACK IT WAS JUDY BAKER THAT THEN EVENTUALLY CHANGED TO JUDYTH,SO PERHAPS NOW IT SHOULD BE ED'S WORK TO BE CRITIQUED UPON, IN A NEW THREAD AND ASKED SOME DIRECT QUESTIONS OF THE WHY NOTS,ABOUT WHAT IS OR HAS NOT BEEN DONE NOR VERIFIED WITHIN HIS BOOK AND RESEARCH, OUT OF WHICH JUDYTH BAKER AND HER INFormation FIRST WAS INTRODUCED, IF JOHN ARMSTRONG'S WORK, AND MANY OTHER'S SUCH AS YOURSELF, CAN BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR WORK THEN WHY HAS ED HASLAM HAD A FREE PASS,IMO SO FAR, THAT IS WHAT IT APPEARS TO BE...WHERE IS HIS VERIFICATION DOCUMENTATION AND PROOF OF WHAT HE HAS WRITTEN ABOUT HIM MEETING ANOTHER JUDYTH BAKER WHO HELD A PARTY WHO WAS INTERESTED IN LHO AND EVEN THOUGH ED WAS HE REFUSED TO TALK WITH HER...ED NEEDS TO NOW PROVIDE OTHERS HIS PROOF SO THAT RESEARCHERS DO NOT THINK THAT ALL THIS COULD HAVE JUST BEEN PERHAPS ANOTHER CONVENIENT STORY ..WITH BEST REGARDS....B
[/quote]
Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile - James H. Fetzer - 26-04-2010
JUDYTH REPLIES TO STEVEN ROY ABOUT LEE H. OSWALD AND DAVID FERRIE
NOTE: I take this opportunity to expand on the principles of reasoning that apply
in this case, which are presented in bold. They may be more important to under-
standing the case than I have realized before and deserved earlier consideration.
JUDYTH COMMENTS:
Mr. Roy, who came forth to McAdams' group as "David Blackburst" ---has sated here that Edward Haslam's research is a 'sream of consciousness" approach. Mr. Blackburst is a good researcher, but not this time: Ferrie's underground lab was across the street from his residence: though he kept mice there, he removed them when he had parties and moved them across the street. Said Ferrie to me, when I asked him, "I don't want anybody messing with my mice."
Jim Garrison in his OTTA book states he saw the cages, though the mice were gone, when he arrived on the scene. Death photos show a relativerly clean apartment, with some things missing, that to me are very telling: the photos on the wall of Dave Ferrie's CAP students and his associates are all gone. The walls are empty and that was not the case in 1963. Lots of stuff, especially books, are missing. The fact that Ferrie is shown in his bed conflicts with other reports that he was found on his mother's couch, a condition I told Blackburst I did not accept. Now the photos show that wasn't so, unless the body was moved there for photos.
==Blackburst says,
"The normal process is to marshall facts, then state some reasonable conclusion permitted by those facts. Haslam takes a less-rigorous stream of consciousness approach..."
JVB: Blackburst tries to tell us that this approach may not be 'normal" --
However, Haslam posts citations all along. He shows us how he reasoned his way from one clue to another. "Most" researchers don't tell us how they arrive at conclusions. Haslam tells us -- we can see the process. In essence, Haslam actually demonstrates MORE precision than usual because he tells us HOW he arrives at his conclusions. This is a scientific approach: you look a the data and you decide what it means and record the course of your decision-making.==
He offers a few possible pieces of evidence, then asks a question in boldface (not always in strict conformity with the cited evidence). But a few pages later, the question has hardened into a fact,
==Citations needed...not mere opinions==
NOTE FROM JIM ABOUT INDUCTIVE AND DEDUCTIVE REASONING IN THIS CASE
The differences between inductive and deductive reasoning are not well-understood, where
rational agents confronted with relevant evidence are not free to believe or not believe any-
thing they want. Suppose, for example, that you believe all rabbits are white. When you
encounter a brown rabbit, that belief is no longer rationally warranted. If you are rational in
your adherence to the principles of deductive reasoning, in this case, then when confronted
with a brown rabbit, you will reject your belief that all rabbits are white. Analogously, with
respect to the claim that there is a pink elephant in your living room, if you visit your living
room and detect no signs of a pink elephant, if you are rational, you will reject that belief.
Deductive reasoning is conclusive in the sense that, given the truth or the existence of the
premises as evidence, the conclusion cannot be false. In the examples I have just given,
we are dealing with deductive reasoning, where the existence of even a single brown rabbit
guarantees the truth of the conclusion that it is not the case all rabbits are white, and where
the absence of evidence that would have to be present if the elephant hypothesis were true
provides (virtually) conclusive evidence that no elephant is present based upon perception,
which is not as definitive because of the possibility of visual problems, mental states, etc.
Perceptual reasoning tends to be a highly reliable form of inductive reasoning, where the
content of the conclusion goes beyond the content of its premises by adding something to
it. Familiar examples of inductive reasoning include drawing inferences about populations
on the basis of sampling, reasoning from the past to the future, and from the observable
to the unobservable. But there are well-established standards, in general, for the weight
that should be assigned to the evidence, which is the domain of the study of logic, which
is concerned with the investigation and certification of those standards for rational belief.
In general, for a person to be rational, there should be an approximate correspondence
between their degree of belief (or strength of conviction) and the strength of the evidence
for that belief when objective standards are applied to the available relevant evidence. As
a general indication of this relationship, where the schematization I provided is intended to
reflect the fact that our knowledge of events in the world is characteristically inductive, not
deductive, which means that the conclusions we draw go beyond the truth of our premises.
Every belief we form about the world around us could possibly be false, even when there is
no reason to doubt their truth, where we could be hallucinating, misperceiving, and all that.
The most important principle, however, is known as "inference to the best explanation", in
which we compare likelihoods to discover which explanation for the evidence confers upon
it the highest probability if the hypothesis were true. The question becomes what account
can provide the most adequate explanation for events in New Orleans during this period of
time with respect to cancer research, the death of Mary Sherman, and everything related
to that. Ed Haslam's reseach seems to me to provide the best explanation for the available
relevant evidence, namely: that Ochsner had a problem involving cancer research, that he
put together a research group involving Mary Sherman, David Ferrie, Lee Oswald, and Judy,
where the core of what she has been telling us is right. Nothing else makes sense of it all.
None of it can be known with certainty, but the basic elements are very strongly supported.
It would be a mistake to suppose that every aspect of her story has to be supported to the
same degree as every other. Among the 17 findings that Haslam enumerates, which I have
reiterated above, the most important and best supported concern Judyth's ability to conduct
reseach on cancer, that she was induced to come to New Orleans by Alton Ochsner, that she
met and worked with Mary Sherman, David Ferrie, and Lee Oswald, that Mary was killed by
a massive source of electricity (almost certainly the linear particle accelerator at the Public
Health Hospital), and that Judyth was summarily dismissed by Ochsner after she complained
about the prisoner who was used in a (fatal) experiment conducted without informed consent.
These are the crucial elements of her story, which appear to me to be very difficult to doubt.
The deployment of an impostor and the campaign against her appear to me to be elements
of a classic agency operation to neutralize a threatening source of information. It would not
be necessary to take her out if she could be discredited by a massive campaign against her.
Because she was naive in presenting herself and emphasis was placed on the romance, not
the cancer research, which was the heart of the matter, she made herself vulnerable to many
kinds of attacks, which have continued to this day unrelentingly. That some points about the
books Lee may or may not have read seem less plausible than others, will affect some more
than others in considering her case. But it is important to bear in mind that none of this can
be known with certainty and that there appears to be no alternative that can explain as much.
I should also add that Judyth has the kind of detailed knowledge that could only be acquired
by living through the experiences that she discusses. The rest of her response to Blackburst,
as she refers to him (for reasons she explains), seems to me to be a perfect illustration. The
fact that she knows the bus route, that the route back was not the same as the route going
there, and all of that is ultimately the most convincing aspect of her story. I know that many
claims are made about inconsistencies and contradictions that are alleged to discredit her. My
experience with her, which has become more extensive than I could have ever imagined, has
convinced me that she has to be the person she claims to be. Nothing else makes any sense.
But I respect the right of others to disagree, even if it appears to me that they are not being
fully responsive to the available relevant evidence, which convinces me that her story is true.
As she observes, study Halsam's book and ME & LEE and decide what you think for yourself.
==
JUDYTH CONTINUES:
The net effect is that the ideas he postulates are not always supported by (or not always the
sole interpretation of) the cited evidence. Among the items for which the evidence is short are
the notions that Ferrie authored a certain "cancer treatise" and that he had an "underground
laboratory" in his apartment at 3330 Louisiana Avenue Parkway; yet, these are primary points
of that first edition. I found myself wishing to hear more evidence to support these points.
==Mr.Blackburst could have consulted me about "the cancer treatise" and I would have told him
what to look for to see if Ferrie had authored it or adapted it for his own particular use. In fact, to
own such a treatise, which gives directions for creaing a cell-free filtrate full of cancer-causing virus
material, is not the kind of thing one would expect to be cooked up in former aitline pilot's kitchen.
In fact, the most important recipe in the treatise indeed must be cooked up on a stove of some kind.
Irrelevant is how much of the treatise Ferrie himself wrote.
He possessed it.
He was making copies of it, which is why we know it was important to him.
Why would Ferrie WANT a 'cancer treaise' with a recipe for creating a medium to grow cancer cells in,
and with instructions on how to obtain cancer-causing viruses from cancerous maerials?
I am at an airport and working from memory, but I clearly recall seeing the treatise myself in 1963.
It was UNPUBLISHED--an insider's paper--as were so many that we used in 1963.
The references cited were old ones, tried and true.
How did Ferrie get his hands on it without being in contact with cancer researchers?
Why would he be working with that recipe to get cell-free flrates -- working not only with cancers, but
with filtrates cllecting cancer-causing viruses?
It seems that a forest can be lost looking at a single tree.
The discovery that Ferrie owned such a paper is a prodigious one, given its insider-status and its topic.
Did Mr. Blackburst know about this treatise owned by Ferrie?
Did he ever analyze the treatise?
Mr. Blackburs is the "Ferrie expert" and should be telling us what he knows about the treatise that differs
from what Haslam has told us.
Once again, Mr. Blackburst could have asked me about the relevance and importance of this treatise. By
the way, Mr.Edward T. Haslam did ask. He got the information. While it is impossible to ascertain who wrote
every word of the "cancer treatise" at the very least, we know that Ferrie copied it for himself and that a
change of verbiage shows the treatise was not composed all a the same time. It's the kind of research
paper you needed to have on hand if you were working by yourself. That fit Ferrie's situation to a "t".==
Blackburst also wrote:
"....and that he had an "underground laboratory" in his apartment at 3330 Louisiana Avenue Parkway; yet,
these are primary points of that first edition. I found myself wishing to hear more evidence to support these
points..."
I do appreciate the gentlemanly restraint used by Mr. Blackburst (I'm used to calling him that, as that is what
he told me his name was, for years)... and I will try to be as circumspect.
Mr. Blackburst says he wanted to see more evidence about the "underground laboratory" -- this kichen lab --
though he was presented with the information that the lab animals and the procedures used on them there--
a particular concern of Ferrie's-- did not involve his residence, but instead, were located across the street and
to the right, facing the street from Ferrie's residence on the second floor at 3330 Louisiana Avenue Parkway....
Yet Haslam presented a witness that he thoughly vetted.
Mr. Blackburst does not consider the witness to the laboratory as sufficient evidence of is existence. Tha witness
(myself) offers witnesses, in addition, attesting to her relationship with Lee Oswald. Haslam had already discerned
that Oswald for some reason (which I told him about) owned a health card form the US Public health Service, with
the fake Hidell doctor's name. Why the card? Read Haslam's book and mine.
Besides finding his witness, the treatise, and having learned many details that ONLY a New Orleans native raised
in a medically-oriented household could have known or apprerhended correctly, Haslam brought in evidence for
the linear particle accelerator and much, much more. He presents it in a fashion that allows the reader to deduce
his or her own conclusions. By doing so, he allows the introduction of new evidence at any time.
In other words, his theory is not agenda-driven. I encourage you, Mr. Blackburst, to present arguments as to why
he should discard me as a witness after ceaseless and thorough invesigations, grillings and astute challenges. One
interesting challenge was to prove I had actually been in Ferrie's apartment:
Haslam asked me the bus route to Dave's place. Those who had never been there by bus would have flunked the
test, because you could not ake the ame way going back tha you took going up, and there are no records of the
routes, which changed several times over the decades.
But in 1963, Edward Haslam was a student who rode the bus that went through Ferrie's very neighborhood every
day. We no doubt rode that bus sometimes together!
But the bus route back was different, not as close to Ferrie's house....
Haslam knew from personal experience that I rode tha route--a lot.
I'd been there. Therefore, if Mr. Blackburst does not accept me as a witness, despite the thorough vetting I've
received from numerous researchers and from Haslam himself, then i suppose no amount of evidence could ever
convince him that we did cancer research routines on a regular basis in Dave Ferrie's kitchen -- mostly while Ferrie
was at work and not when Ferrie had a pary, of course -- and Ferrie also worked at what we called "the Mouse House"
... This is sad news, because I would not like to think that Mr. Blackburst embraces an agenda, or keeps a closed mind.
Well, my time here is over, though surely there will be more strange and diverse comments, ad hominem atacks, and
so on, but here's hoping some of these issues are now settled..Please --let's move on. People should have enough
infomation to decide whether or not they want to read Me & Lee, Dr. Mary's Monkey, or buy Harvey and Lee. I know
Mr. Blackburst has a book on Dave Ferrie and that he and I do not agree whatsoever on Ferrie's character or history.
I do know that Mr. Blackburst never met Dave Ferrie,... and I have never been able to figure out why he appeared
right after the film "JFK" came out, with so much information about David Ferrie, having never known him. Inquiring
minds would like to know how he became so dedicated to this single person, and has remained so for almost two
decades, to the exclusion of almost all other topics, and why he made his original debut a John McAdams' newsgroup,
modestly saying he wasn't really an expert and was a fence-sitter about Lee Oswald. He was welcomed immediately,
nevertheless, by John McAdams as THE expert.
However--time passes......and comments made last year, etc. show us that Mr. Blackburst -- Stephen Roy -- believes
Lee Oswald shot JFK and has even stated some hostile remarks about Oswald.
Therefore, I do understand where Mr. Blackburst has come from, following a pattern first carved by Dave Reitzes, Gary
Mack, and BJ. However, he's more intelligent than all of them put together, and I respect him for his restraint, which is
an attribute sorely lacking among his compatriots.
Just a thought....I believe he may still tell some that he's a fence-sitter, but rather recent comments he has posted have
obliterated that stance in favor of WC Defender. Certainly his take on Dave Ferrie is a steady campaign to diminish the
man in every aspect, in every possible way.
Thank you.
JVB
[quote name='Stephen Roy' post='190212' date='Apr 20 2010, 03:36 PM']There has been some discussion in this Forum about the books of Edward Haslam. In the interest of balance, I wanted to offer a few observations, some of which I have made in the past on this and other Forums, having researched in some detail some of the matters Haslam discusses. What follows is based on the "Mary, Ferrie and the Monkey Virus" first edition and a later update; I am in the process of obtaining "Dr. Mary's Monkey" for further examination. My comments mainly concern his Ferrie material, but I believe they may also apply in a more global sense.
The normal process is to marshall facts, then state some reasonable conclusion permitted by those facts. Haslam takes a less-rigorous stream of consciousness approach: He offers a few possible pieces of evidence, then asks a question in boldface (not always in strict conformity with the cited evidence). But a few pages later, the question has hardened into a fact, and it is combined with other pieces of evidence to form a new boldface question. And so on. The net effect is that the ideas he postulates are not always supported by (or not always the sole interpretation of) the cited evidence. Among the items for which the evidence is short are the notions that Ferrie authored a certain "cancer treatise" and that he had an "underground laboratory" in his apartment at 3330 Louisiana Avenue Parkway; yet, these are primary points of that first edition. I found myself wishing to hear more evidence to support these points.
He bases much of his Ferrie research on (one of several installments of) a report by the Southern Research Company. Helpful as it may be, the SRC report has certain limitations: It was commissioned by Eastern Air Lines for the purpose of digging up dirt to be used against Ferrie in a grievance hearing related to his dismissal by that airline; The focus of the report is very narrow in terms of Ferrie's overall activities; and the report itself contains errors.
I have been unsuccessful in attempting to initiate discussion with the author on these and other issues. I can't say one way or the other if his points are solid or not, but I would suggest that interested readers consult additional primary evidence where possible.[/quote]
Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile - James H. Fetzer - 26-04-2010
JIM REPLIES TO DAVID LIFTON ABOUT THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE IN RELATION TO ZAPRUDER FAKERY
Just for the record, I have no problem with what you are saying here. What I was referring to was the use of the combination of these findings--the patch to the back of the X-ray, the missing mass at the right-front, the LIFE Magazine caption, the TV appearance of Abraham Zapruder, and the addition of the "blob" to the images in the film--for the purpose of providing mutually-reinforcing but fabricated "evidence" to support the thesis that the shooter was above and behind. It was putting these pieces together in the fashion that I presented them in "Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid" to explain how they intended to create the impression that he had been hit in the head by a bullet from above and behind, when the actual event blew his brains to the left and to the rear, for which I was claiming credit (and, of course, the discovery that the blow out is actually visible in frame 374). It was only the way I put all of these pieces together to discern exactly how they were going to try to get away with it for which I meant to assert discovery--which is hard to dispute, since, to the best of my knowledge, no one else (including you and David Mantik) has made the point about the missing mass from the right-front of the lateral-cranial and the anterior-posterior X-rays. Correct me if I am wrong, but even Gary Aguilar, on the occasion of our first meeting, told me that the APPEARANCE of missing mass was an effect of OVEREXPOSURE and was not genuine. I thought that was a rather odd thing to say to me on our first meeting, but it stuck with me and I now believe not only that he was wrong but that the missing mass was a crucial ingredient in the medical cover-up that could be used to support what is seen in the film. We know it was not true, of course, from Jackie's testimony and virtually every other report about the appearance of his face where, as Jackie put it, from the front, he looked just fine (but that she had had a terrible time trying to hold his brains and skull together at the rear of his head). My admiration for your and David's work on the medical evidence, which has now been reinforced by Doug Horne, knows no bounds. But, so far as I am aware, I was the first to put all of these pieces of the puzzle together in the article that I cite, where, even today, David has not told me that he agrees with me about that missing mass I discern in the X-rays. I am glad to have you post about this here, a "collateral benefit" of our differences about Judyth and what happened in New Orleans. Consider what I said as I meant it to be understood and see if you don't agree with me about it.
[quote name='David Lifton' post='190394' date='Apr 22 2010, 11:14 AM']Jim,
A number of statements made in your post #1447 (a post asserting who was responsible for a number of original discoveries re theories pertaining to the falsification of the Z film) are incorrect. Immediately below is your statement, and below that is my attempt to “clarify the record” regarding your claim of being “apparently the first” to discover an “interlocking pattern of deception” etc.
Here is your statement:
• Re “It was I who . . . [was] apparently the first to explain the interlocking pattern of deception involved in painting in the blow-out to the right front (“the blob”), the patch the back of the head (which Mantik discovered), the Life Magazine caption for its Frame 313. . . “
This statement contains multiple errors, and numerous false implications. Rather than try to sort through each one, here is my own statement, “for the record” (as the saying goes):
•The school year 1966-67: The business of the back of the head being blacked out on the Zapruder frames was perfectly obvious --certainly, to me--when I was able to examine Life’s 3" x 4 “ transparencies when they were sent to Los Angeles as part of Professor Wesley Liebeler’s UCLA Law School seminar on the Warren Commission, in the school year 966-67. That the back of the head was “blacked out” was already noticeable from frames of the film published in the 11/29/63 of Life Magazine, the LIFE MEMORIAL issue (Dec 7, 1963) and the October, 1964 issue Life Magazine. But Liebeler's UCLA class was the first time I realized that it actually appeared that way (i.e., blacked out) on the Life slide set.
•In June, 1970, at the Beverly Hills office of Time-Life: it was very obvious to me—and three other JFK researchers—who spent hours examining the 35 mm version of the Zapruder film that (a) the back of the head seemed artificially blacked out and (b ) the so-called “large head wound” was painted on. This was the first time I could see with my own eyes that this blacking out was not just a feature of the Life slide set (which I had already seen, as noted, when I examined the slides as part of Liebeler's UCLA Law class) but on the actual film itself. In June, 1970, I was able to actually pull a 16mm copy of the original Z film through a Recordak Microfilm reader, and could see the blacking out right there on the screen. All this is described in detail in “Pig on a Leash,” which I wrote and was published in the anthology you edited (2003). As a consequence of a letter written by the famous Hollywood director, Haskell Wexler, (in which we were described as "appraisers"), we all were able to examine these extraordinary materials, and we could all see that (a) the back of the head had been blacked out and (b ) the “wounds” appeared painted on. The four were: Fred Newcomb, Jack Clemente, Dennis Roy, and myself—we all saw it. It was rather obvious. “Can you believe this?! They altered the Zapruder film!” That was the general tone of the reaction. Of course, we didn’t know how “they” had done it, or exactly who “they” were.
•Turning to the situation as it existed in 1980: in writing Best Evidence, I was quite aware that while I was contrasting the Dallas and Bethesda description of the wounds (in making the case that the boy had been altered) that the Zapruder film frames portrayed “Bethesda-like” wounding. Also, by that time, the famous CIA documents (CIA 450) had been released to Paul Hoch under the FOIA. Consequently, firmly convinced that the film had been altered, but seeing no practical way to argue that on the pages of a hardcover book (remember: there was no email, or YouTube back then), I wrote what I called my “Zapruder film footnote”—a 750 word summary about the situation, calling attention to these key facts. This was written specifically with an eye to the future, and to preempt anyone who would cite the imagery on certain Z film frames and attempt to argue my central thesis was false. The “Zapruder film footnote” was published in Chapter 24 in Best Evidence, published in January, 1981,and discusses the artificiality of the back of the head being blacked out, as it appears on the Zapruder film. It also published the text of an April 1980 letter by Dallas doctor Peters (to JFK researcher Wallace Milam, another JFK researcher who, by the way, also firmly believed the Z film had been falsified, and that the head wound imagery had been painted on. Dr. Peters, who saw the President’s head in Dallas, said the large head wound that appeared towards the front, in the Z film frames sent him by Milam, must be an artifact, and in any event was not what he examined JFK at Parkland Hospital. In any event: please note that I was on record with the belief that the Zapruder film was altered, for these reasons, and published this in Best Evidence in 1981.
Continuing with my own follow-up activities re Z film being altered, and specifically, the head wound imagery being “painted on”:
•It was again rather obvious when I was able to obtain the actual 35mm Weitzman negative in July, 1990, in New York City, rented facilities at an optical lab, personally operated the Oxberry Optical Printer, and made blowups of this sequence—and, for precisely that reason: that the back of the head looked blacked out, and the head wounds painted on. Another purpose of doing all this was to break--once and for all--Robert Groden's "monopoly" on the Z film. Again, see my essay in Pig on a Leash, published in TGZFH, 2003, for details.
•In October, 1992, I decided to “give away” all my Zapruder insights, because I was fed up with Robert Groden presenting slow motion enlarged imagery, implying that the wounding of Kennedy, as shown in the Zapruder film, was faithful to what the Dallas doctors saw. Obviously, it was not. In my presentation, which was preserved on audio tape, I explained how the Zapruder film could have been altered using an optical printer. In the audience was Noel Twyman, and Harrison Livingstone. Both were quite excited by my presentation. Twyman immediately sought some guidance and advice, which I provided. Both went on to write books on the subject of the Z film being altered, and both talked about the falsification of the imagery. Also, by this time, JFK researcher Wallace Milam was thoroughly convinced the Z film had been falsified, and we had many conversations about it.
•At the JFK Lancer convention of 1996, I gave a multi-hour talk on the falsification of the Zapruder film, and the related falsification of the imagery. (Its all on video tape.)
•At the Lancer convention in 1998, and looking for something additional to say, since I had already presented all the major points in my 1996 presentation, I decided to focus on the back of the head being blacked out, and the artificality of the head wound imagery. So I went to the trouble of taking my Weitzman 35 mm internegative to an L.A. optical house, again hiring time on an optical printer, and creating a “reversal color internegative,” --this time focusing on the enlarged imagery of JFK’s head, in the 20-30 frames after the fatal show, and creating the result in "reversal" color--i.e., so that the blackened out area would appear to be white, in frame after frame, and then step-printing the result and presenting it as the main feature of my presentation arguing that the Zapruder film had been falsified, and the back of the head had been blacked out. (My presentation should be available as a JFK Lancer video).
•Regarding David Mantik: no doubt, once he became interested in the JFK assassination (he called me around 1992, with high praise for my book, which I assumed he had recently read), he also realized the obvious: that the back of the head was artificially patched, but I do not know when that was. When did he first have an opportunity to examine a high quality duplicate of the Zapruder film? I know he asked to borrow certain Nix frames about 1994; and I also do remember on at least one occasion, in the early 1990s, asking Mantik—who had done densitometry on the JFK X-rays, whether it would be possible to do densitometry readings on the 35 mm Weitzman negative to show that the “blacking out” was completely artificial.
•As to the changing captions in the frames of Life Magazine’s famous issue of October, 1964—your statement also implies that you were the first in that area, too. FYI: those discoveries were made starting in October, 1964, so I do not understand why anyone would lay claim to such discoveries much beyond that. Specifically: Ray Marcus in Southern California and Vince Salandria in Philadelphia (not to mention Josiah Thompson, Thomas Stamm, Sylvia Meagher and others)--all knew that the captions had been changed. (Salandria even obtained a letter from Life editor Ed Kearn on the extraordinary and explicable changes). At UC/Berkeley, Paul Hoch collected all the Life issues and produced a tabular graphic –a matrix of sorts--tracking the changing caption and pictures. In Best Evidence, published in January, 1981, I commented on Hoch’s work—and I did the same in Pig on a Leash, published in the anthology you edited, published in 2003. So that discovery—about the Life issue of October, 1964, and its changing captions—goes back some 47 years.
In summary: Having lived and toiled in these vineyards for some 40 years, it irks me to see someone come along decades later and blithely claim credit for discoveries which were made decades ago, and were a source of constant commentary among knowledgeable JFK researchers (back then called “Warren Report critics”).
As an expert in logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning, you should be more careful.
DSL
4/22/10; 2 AM PDT
Los Angeles, CA[/quote]
Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile - James H. Fetzer - 26-04-2010
David,
What you say may well be true. I am simply unaware that you marshalled the argument by putting together all of the pieces to show how the medical evidence impeaches the film. I went to "Zapruder Fakery, YouTube", by the way, and immediately encountered "Zapruder Fakery 6 - David Lifton Part 9", where you talk about my discussion of the TV interview during which Zapruder placed his hand over the right-front of his skull at the location of this non-existent wound. Looking for more, I then turned to "Zapruder Fakery 1 - James Fetzer Part 3", which begins with my discussion of the very point about the missing mass from the right-front, for those who want to follow what we are discussing here. Let me know if BEST EVIDENCE uses the same array of medial evidence to impeach the film, which I doubt, if only for the simple reason that, when it dawned on me that these were pieces of a mutually-reinforcing and cleverly contrived fabrication of the evidence to support the depiction of the wournd in the film, where his brains are bulging out to the right-front, IT CAME AS A REALIZATION, which, to the best of my knowledge, I had never read before. But, as you know from the Duluth conference, I have never ceased to be impressed with what you learned about the case in the course of your research, so it would not terribly surprise me. If either of us tracks it down, let the other know. I certainly prefer to be on the same side of these issues, which of course is also true of my attitude toward Jack and Weldon. Incidentally, you mention the Wecht conference. I may have told you this before, but I actually had in hand a formal written invitation from Cyril to attend, which I planned to do but had not as yet decided what I would discuss, when I was notified that my invitation had been rescinded! That was very troubling, but I was later told that two others had stated that they would not attend if I were on the program, which I gathered had been Aguilar and Thompson, who apparently are close to Cyril's son, Ben. I've no doubt that it would have been a far more lively and interesting event had you and I been present, but that's the politics of the JFK research community. I protested to Cyril about it at the time, but to no avail.
Jim
[quote name='David Lifton' post='190405' date='Apr 22 2010, 01:03 PM']Jim,
I am writing this simply "for the record" and in response to just one statement that is made in your post #1480.
Quoting you:
"It was only the way I put all of these pieces together to discern exactly how they were going to try to get away with it for which I meant to assert discovery--which is hard to dispute, since, to the best of my knowledge, no one else (including you and David Mantik) has made the point about the missing mass from the right-front of the lateral-cranial and the anterior-posterior X-rays. Correct me if I am wrong, but even Gary Aguilar, on the occasion of our first meeting, told me that the APPEARANCE of missing mass was an effect of OVEREXPOSURE and was not genuine. I thought that was a rather odd thing to say to me on our first meeting, but it stuck with me and I now believe not only that he was wrong but that the missing mass was a crucial ingredient in the medical cover-up that could be used to support what is seen in the film. We know it was not true," UNQUOTE
FYI: I believe this very point--the clear visual contradiction between what the JFK lateral X-Ray shows, with a major "black" area on the forward right hand side, and the JFK "stare of death" autopsy photograph was published in the 1988 Carroll and Graf edition of Best Evidence, which published the JFK autopsy photographs for the first time. I do not have the Carroll and Graf edition of B.E. in front of me as I write this, but here's what I recall.
It was the Spring of 1988, I had had these photographs since 1982, and the decision had been made by Carroll and Graf to re-publish BEST EVIDENCE, and to publish these photographs; and I was drafting the Epilogue describing the results of what happened in December, 1982 and January, 1983, when I visited Dallas and--along with Pat Valentino, in January--showed the autopsy photos to as many Dallas doctors and nurses as would meet with us. To get the finest possible prints, I had submitted my best copies to the photo lab at the UCLA Medical Center. I also happened to work at UCLA, at the time, in the pediatric radiology unit. I was looking at the autopsy photographs--and at the X-rays--and I had one of those "aha" moments, because there, on my desk, was this amazing, and--to me--inexplicable, contradiction. How could the X-rays show this huge black area, and yet the "stare of death" photo show the front of JFK's face so completely uninjured.
Being at UCLA, it was easy to solicit the opinion of a variety of doctors, and I did so. As I recall, the verdict was near unanimous: the two were contradictory.
What I remember then doing was either adding to the text of the 1988 Epilogue or actually incorporating this observation into the captions I was then responsible for writing. But somehow, I do remember communicating this clash between what the photos appeared to show, and what seemed so evident on the X-rays.
If I am wrong, I will modify this post, but that is my current recollection.
As to Gary Aguilar, he has made a small career out of attempting to deny the validity of BEST EVIDENCE, so I would heavily discount anything he has to say. Many years ago, when I first met Aguilar, and when I would speak to him on the phone, he referred to me as "chief" (as if he were a soldier, snapping his heels. "Yes, chief", etc.). That was when I was up on some sort of pedestal. Then I fell off the pedestal, and he busily tries to discount the major tenets of my book, all the while qualifying his negative message with statements like, "Now, mind you, I am not saying there couldn't have been surgery!" FYI: I tried to get a slot at the 2004 Wecht Conference so that Doug Horne and I might present the new ideas--recently synthesized by Doug--that there was "post-midnight" photography and that Knudsen may have been the photographer. I approached Wecht via a close friend of his, and his immediate response was "yes." Then, about one to two weeks later, came another message: "No," and the explanation: "Aguilar."
So that year, many heard the usual speeches about the Single Bullet Theory, but some truly original work was not presented--and it could have been.
That's all I have to say for now.
DSL
4/22/10, 5AM PDT[/quote]
Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile - James H. Fetzer - 26-04-2010
David,
In Chapter 24, the footnote about the possible alteration of the film appears on pages 555-557. In particular, on page 557, you state, "In my view, previously unreported CIA possession of the Zapruder film compromised the film's value as evidence: (1) the forward motion of Kennedy's head, for one frame preceding frame 313, might be the result of an altered film, and if that was so, it made the theory of a forward high-angle shot (see Chapter 2) completely unnecessary; (3) an altered film might also explain why the occipital area, where the Dallas doctors saw a wound, appears suspiciously dark, whereas a large wound appears on the forward right-hand side of the head, where the Dallas doctors saw no wound at all." For the purpose of comparison, here are a few paragraphs from "Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid":
In an earlier article, "New Proof of JFK Film Fakery" that appeared in OpEdNews (February 5, 2008), I laid out multiple indications that the Zapruder film is a fabrication. But none of those proofs even reaches to the mutually reinforcing deceptions of (a) the blow out to the right-front in the Zapruder film, (B) the missing right-front in the anterior-posterior X-ray, and © the publication of 313 in LIFE magazine with a caption saying that the bullet had entered the back of his head and blown out the right-front--a caption rewritten twice after breaking the plates. And it implicates Abraham Zapruder in the deception, when (d) he described a blow-out to the right-front during a televised interview that that night (HOAX, page 435)!
None of it was true. Jackie herself reported that, from the front, he looked just fine but that she had a hard time holding his skull and brains together at the back of his head. None of the witnesses or doctors reported it. Not even the mortician! Indeed, the massive defect can even be seen in late frames of the film, including 374. During a phone interview with Joe West, a private investigator, the man who had prepared the body for burial, Thomas Evan Robinson, described the wounds on May 26, 1992, as follows (MURDER, p. 116; HOAX, p. 9):
* large gaping hole in back of head patched by stretching piece of rubber over it. Thinks skull full of Plaster of Paris.
* smaller wound in right temple. Crescent shape, flapped down (3")
* (approx 2) small shrapnel wounds in face. Packed with wax.
* wound in back (5 to six inches) below shoulder. To the right of back bone.
* adrenal gland and brain removed.
* other organs removed and then put back.
* no swelling or discoloration to face. (died instantly)
Correct me if I am wrong, but of the points that I cite in describing "the mutually reinforcing deceptions of (a) the blow out to the right-front in the Zapruder film, (B) the missing right-front in the anterior-posterior X-ray, and © the publication of 313 in LIFE magazine with a caption saying that the bullet had entered the back of his head and blown out the right-front--a caption rewritten twice after breaking the plates. And it implicates Abraham Zapruder in the deception, when (d) he described a blow-out to the right-front during a televised interview that that night", you address the blow-out to the right-front seen in the film, the "suspiciously dark" area at the back of the head, and that the Dallas doctors did not observe a wound at the right-front of the head.
Everyone can judge this matter for themselves, but I learned more from BEST EVIDENCE than from any other source when I became serious about JFK research. "Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid", by the way, only appeared on March 28, 2009, while "New Proof of JFK Film Fakery", in which I explained John Costella's discovery that Officer Chaney had motored forward to inform Chief Curry that the President had been shot, which, of course, is also missing from the extant film, appeared on February 5, 2008. "Moorman in the Street Revisited", which appeared in January 2009, provides additional resources related to the study of these issues, including the appendix in which you discuss the apparent manipulation of Mary's testimony by Gary Mack.
In the "Prologue" to THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003), I discuss Noel Twyman's finding from Roderick Ryan, a Hollywood expert of special effects, that the blood spray and the "blob" had been painted in (on page 23), that comparison of the "blob" with the anterior-posterior X-ray "appears to be extremely revealing of a pattern of interlocking deceptions", and that frame 374 reveals the blow-out to the back of the head, which corresponds very closely to McClelland's drawing, Crenshaw's drawing, and especially "Area P" of David Mantik's studies of the X-rays (on page 25), originally published in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998).
Jim
[quote name='Dean Hagerman' post='190410' date='Apr 22 2010, 02:02 PM']
[quote name='David Lifton' post='190394' date='Apr 22 2010, 10:14 AM']
was published in Chapter 24 in Best Evidence, published in January, 1981
In any event: please note that I was on record with the belief that the Zapruder film was altered, for these reasons, and published this in Best Evidence in 1981.[/quote]
Holy cow!
I dont ever remember reading that footnote in "Best Evidence"
I read BE back in 1987 for the first time and have read it probably 20 times, I do not remember that footnote!
I grabbed my original hardcover copy of BE turned to chapter 24 and there it was!
Great job David, the first time I remember reading about alteration was in Crossfire while reading the section on Jack White back in 1989
[/quote]