Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[James H. Fetzer]

JIM REPLIES TO DAVID LIFTON AGAIN (AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND. . . )

PREFATORY NOTE:

Let's begin with five general points that serve to place all this into perspective, namely:

(1) You are revising your position for the third or fourth time. I rebut your posts and
you take "time out" to improve them. That is what you accuse Judyth of doing, which,
I suppose, if we follow "Lifton logic", makes you a--what is the word?--"fantasist", too?

(2) You know you are a very intelligent fellow, but no matter how smart you think you
are, I am not intellectually less able than you. And, on the basis of my experience with
this forum, I would guess Judyth may very well be more intelligent than either you or I.

(3) My experience in dealing with Judyth is overwhelmingly greater than yours, possibly
by an order of magnitude approaching 1,000. You conversed with her by phone for an
hour or so. Ed Haslam interrogated her for 1,000. We have had hundreds of exchanges.

(4) Judyth and I are trying to sort out the evidence, especially with regard to this "Harvey
& Lee" thing, where, so far as I know, in relation to this specific thread, you have not even
been willing to state your position. You and Jack are out to trash Judyth, not search for truth.

(5) You are displaying an obsession with Judyth that exceeds the bounds of rationality. To
apply "Lifton logic" once again, it concerns me that you are tarnishing your reputation and
all the good work you have done in the past, including, of course, your BEST EVIDENCE.

I presume you recognize at this point in time how ridiculous it is to suggest that work you
published in 1980 should be affected by exchanges on this thread in 2010. And yet that is
exactly what you have implied about my three books, published in 1998, 2000, and 2003!

SPECIFIC COMMENTS:

You begin with lots of evaluative, subjective, and denigrating language--such as "glib"--and
self-serving assertions--"My facts are impeccable and my logic sound"--that beg the question,
which means that, once again, you begin your posts by taking for granted what needs to be
established on independent grounds. Off hand, I doubt you could even define what it means
for an argument to be "sound", but no doubt you would consult sources before you respond.

This post appears to be a rehash of points you have made before, including your concern
about my research on the Zapruder film. If that is still bothering you, since it has no basis
in logic but represents another instance of the genetic fallacy (since arguments have to be
evaluated on their merits, not judged by their sources), please reread my point (5) above.
In fact, you appear to be committing these fallacies in even more eggregious forms, thus:

"the question will be asked: if a person cannot distinguish between the false and the real,
when it comes to the matter of Judyth Baker, can we trust that person’s judgment when it
comes to the far more important situation of 'fraud in the evidence,' and especially in a
matter as technical as the Zapruder film",

which, of course, is a question that could well be asked about you! The indications that
Judyth is being truthful and that you are mistaken has accumulated on this forum. What
she has had to say about meeting Lee, about his appearance, about the date on which he
arrived in New Orleans, about KanKun--and everything else you have alleged that she has
wrong--appears to weigh in her favor, not in yours, in spite of your utter inability to see it.

Frankly, David, in scanning this response, it appears to be nothing more than a restatement
of your earlier post, which I discussed in my response #771 and in Judyth's post #782. My
suggestion to Judyth was that her response was rather repetitive, since you were reiterating
the points you had already made. After replying to you again in post #803 and Judyth has
replied to your "PERSONAL STATEMENT" in post #808, I can see she was right about you.

Your methodology appears to be the tenacious reiteration of the position you have already
advanced, regardless of its merits. She told me when we discussed it that your technique
was to repeat and repeat and repeat, and that her reply was to rebut and rebut and rebut
to expose your chicanery. Having now dealt with several of your posts, where, so far as I
can see, you have offered nothing new, I reiterate what I said in my preface to post #782,

This is a nice example of presumptuous reasoning passing for research.The matter is settled
decisively by Marina and Ruth's testimony about his date of departure and the travel time by
bus. Unless you think it is more reasonable for Lee to sleep in the street, he checked into the "Y".
To cope with your obvious blunder, you now concede here that he arrived on the 25th and
slept somewhere. However, nothing else about your position appears to have changed.

If you have anything more that affects that blunder on your part, then distill it and post it.
Because it appears to me that your recent posts contribute no more than the otherwise point-
less posts by the likes of Viklund, Junkkarinen, MacRae, and Thompson, whose solitary role
is to distract from real research or cheerlead. When David S. Lifton and Jack White are more
concerned to trash Judyth than to discover truth, alas!, then JFK research is in a terrible state.

Let me close by asking you to step up and be counted in two specific respects. First, tell us if
you support the thesis of HARVEY & LEE of the existence of "the two Oswalds" who were living
parallel lives (with mothers by the same name and all of that) and, if not, why not. Second, I
would appreciate it if you would share the transcript of your conversation with Judyth with me
by sending it to me. I strongly suspect that a close reading will support my interpretation of you
having heard "Kankun" but thought that she was saying "Cancun" and illuminate other issues.

NOTE: David, as I have just heard from an interested reader, far better that you should send me
me a copy of your cassette recording so I can listen to the conversation for myself without being
concerned that something may have been lost in transcription. The inflection of her voice and the
tone of yours will speak volumes about what is taking place here. I take for granted that you can
appreciate my desire for a copy of the cassette. You yourself, of course, would settle for no less.

[quote name='David Lifton' post='188562' date='Apr 2 2010, 09:52 PM']Post by David Lifton Responding to post by Judyth Baker (as conveyed by Jim Fetzer)

Topic: How did Oswald get from Dallas to New Orleans on April 24, 1963; and where did he stay once he arrived, and through Monday, April 29, 1963, when he first called his Aunt Lillian?

* * *

Date: 4/2/10; about 4:20 AM PDT (Edited, 4/2/10, 1:50 PM, PDT)

Jim:

Contrary to your glib assertions (“Judyth refutes the purported details of his [Lifton’s] account”) Judyth has refuted nothing. My facts are impeccable, and my logic sound. Contrary to your statement that “Lifton appears to have committed a ser[ies] of blunders in making assumptions that turn out to be false,” it is you have become entangled in the false details of Judyth’s tale, to the point where you have been bamboozled by a woman promulgating a thoroughly false and fictitious account of a non-existent relationship with Lee Oswald.

Candidly, I could care less if the only casualty was whether or not—either through carelessness or excessive credulity--you were taken in by this lady. What concerns me is the role you have played in attempting to expose major fraud in the physical evidence, and what I am talking about, of course, is the Zapruder film.

Because surely, as this situation unwinds—and it will-the question will be asked: if a person cannot distinguish between the false and the real, when it comes to the matter of Judyth Baker, can we trust that person’s judgment when it comes to the far more important situation of “fraud in the evidence,” and especially in a matter as technical as the Zapruder film?

Do you remember a month or two back, when a photo was circulating supposedly showing JFK's body--laid out on the autopsy table? And you were rather enthusiastic about that item? Within a day or so, when it became obvious that that was nothing but a mock-up, one created in connection with the making of the movie JFK, you changed your opinion. Well, that photo sure looked real--and, at first glance, Judyth's story can look real, and even be appealing. Unfortunately, it is all bogus, and the prodoct of someone who is the victim of what, medically, is called "pseudologia fantastica" or "mythomania."

Unfortunately, you have been taken in my all this; and it is sure to result in great harm.

Anyway, those are my concerns—but I am sure you will not be deterred in doing what you personally believe is right—even if it is provably incorrect.

So let me now drop that subject, and turn to Judyth’s latest post, as conveyed by you, to all the readers on this board.

MY RESPONSE TO JUDYTH”S LATEST POST (i.e., to the one titled “Judyth Replies to Lifton on Lee’s Arrival in New Orleans”)

Judyth’s very long post is loaded with weak arguments, circular logic, and just plain false statements. If this were a university test booklet, the reader would give her a failing grade, writing again and again, either “irrelevant,” or “so what?” or “false inference.”

Let’s review the immutable facts:

Fact: Lee’s journey from Dallas to New Orleans began on Wednesday, April 24. We know that from the testimony of Ruth Paine, who says she brought Lee to the bus station, with some bags. Then—after dropping those bags off at the bus station, and after offering Marina the option of not accompanying Lee to New Orleans, but instead staying with her-- they returned to his apartment and emptied what was left from his apartment. Then, they all returned (and by “they all” I’m referring to Ruth Paine, Lee, and Marina) to Paine’s home. Ruth Paine testified that Lee left that evening, Wednesday, April 24, for New Orleans, but she does not say who took Lee from Irving back to the Greyhound bus station in Dallas. All she does is mention that Lee would have had to take a city bus to get back to Dallas from Irving, and then board the Greyhound bus for New Orleans.

Did he do that? The fact is—we don’t know. The assumption is that he did, but he could just as well have used Greyhound to carry his baggage, and gone to New Orleans by some other means (and in fact I’m very open, if not partial, to that possibility). Judyth notes an interesting fact (one noted in the Mary Ferrell chronologies) that I have not dwelt on here--that twice in FBI interviews, Marina says that Lee went to the bus station the day before April 24--i.e., on April 23--to check some bags. Marina told the FBI that (she believed) Ruth drove Lee there, the day before, but Ruth's account says nothing about that. If Marina is correct, and Lee checked some bags on 4/23/63, then obviously, someone else was involved with Lee, in making preparations for this trip to New Orleans, and that also raises the possibility that he simply shipped his bags by Greyhound, but did not actually use the bus, to get to New Orleans.

BUT, for the purpose of this discussion, let’s return to what the Warren Report states. That keeps the discussion very simple, and permits us to see how Judyth is attempting to “burrow into” a small hole in the actual historical record, one at the New Orleans end of the line.

Fact: Lee traveled to New Orleans –as far as the Warren Commission investigation is concerned—alone. Further, according to the Warren Report, he traveled by bus—i.e., on the Greyhound bus carrying his bags. Marina stayed with Ruth Paine. If the bus left on the evening of Wednesday, April 24 (as Ruth Paine testified was the case) then –if it was a 14 hour trip—it would have arrived midday on Thursday, April 25. That means Lee stayed somewhere on the night of Thursday, April 25. Furthermore, by the next day—Friday, April 26, he was dressed quite nicely for his job placement interview.

Fact: The contemporaneous record created by John Rachal, at the Louisiana Department of Labor, records the data that Lee was attired in a suit and tie on Friday, April 26, at the time of his interview. His handwritten notes read “Neat. Suit. Tie. Polite” (See Rachel deposition Exhibit, Volume 21, p. 283, of the WC hearings) and his June 1964 Warren Commission affidavit reads: “I recall that Oswald was neatly dressed with a suit, dress shirt, and tie on the occasion of our initial interview.” (Volume 11, p. 475).

Fact: Lillean Murret testified that she first heard from Lee on a Monday—when he called from the bus station, saying that he had “just arrived” in New Orleans.” That statement is provably untrue because he had already had an interview on Friday, April 26, at which point he was dressed in “a suit, dress shirt, and tie.”

Fact: Monday—the day Lillian Murret first heard from Lee, who said he was calling from the bus station, and said he had “just arrived” etc.—would have been Monday, April 29, 1963. This is a critical time-marker: nothing Judyth says can change that immutable fact. “Monday” was April 29.

FACT: No one was ever located, nor did any one ever come forward to say that they were on that bus—or any bus—with Lee Oswald, from Dallas to New Orleans, leaving on or about Wednesday evening, April 24, 1963 and arriving midday on Thursday, April 25. Unlike the situation regarding Oswald’s trip to Mexico, where the FBI was able to locate people who were halfway around the world on that particular bus, we have no eyewitness placing Oswald on a bus from Dallas to New Orleans on or about April 24, 1963. The Dallas-to-New Orleans bus journey—with Lee Oswald (and not just his luggage) on board—is all conjecture (perhaps reasonable conjecture, based on his having brought his boxes to the Dallas bus station) but there is no evidence that Lee, himself, actually rode on the bus to New Orleans. All we know for certain is that he was in New Orleans on Friday, April 26, 1963, when he appeared at the Louisiana Department of Labor, and had the interview with John Rachal.

FACT: As any discerning reader can see, this leaves a small “time hole” in the record—one extending from Lee’s putative “time of arrival” in New Orleans (midday on April 25) until his April 26, 1963 placement interview with Rachal; and then another between that same placement interview and Monday, April 29, 1963, when he called his Aunt Lillian for the first time, said he was at the bus station, and desired help in getting all his boxes over to her place.

FACT: No one –except Judyth—says that Lee Oswald stayed at the YMCA between April 25 and April 29. She can say anything she wants, but that does not make it so. The YMCA keeps records. No one has ever produced such a record.

FACT: Anyone who has studied the records of the warren Commission knows how careful and meticulous the FBI could be (when it wanted to be); and how hotels and motels were scoured for records of Lee’s whereabouts. When he stayed at the Dallas YMCA, for example, between October 15 an October 19, 1962, the actual records were produced, which listed his room number, and even accounted for the $1 deposit for a room key. (See the deposition exhibit of John Hulen, in volume 10 of the Warren Commission, and the Hulen Deposition Exhibits, in Volume 21).

Question: where did Lee stay between the time he arrived in New Orleans—however he got there, and exactly whenever he got there—and Friday, April 26, 1963? And where did he stay between Friday, April 26, and Monday, April 29, when he first called his aunt? Honest answer: we don’t know. According to Aunt Lillian’s testimony, Lee did not call her (saying he had “just arrived” etc.) until a Monday—which would be April 29, 1963—when he called from the bus station, and when his uncle Dutz (Lillian’s husband) then went to pick him up, along with his luggage.

But Lee’s statement about when he “first arrived” was clearly false, i.e., a deliberate lie—and that’s obviously so based on the data proffered by John Rachal, and published in the Warren Report. Lee was there some days earlier, and was certainly there on Friday, April 26. Well, then, where did he stay? Truthful answer: We don’t know.

Fact: No Murrett family member—not Aunt Lillian, not Uncle Dutz, not cousin Marilyn—ever stated, in any statement to the FBI, nor in any Warren Commission testimony, that Lee had said he had stayed at the New Orleans YMCA. That is purely an unsupported assertion of Judyth.

Fact: Because no Murrett family member ever stated, or even speculated, that Lee had stayed at the YMCA, the FBI never checked the New Orleans YMCA for any record of his having stayed there. (If I am wrong on this point, and there was in fact an FBI investigation on this point, I would sure appreciate being informed where it can be found). Nor, for that matter, did the FBI ever check hotels or rooming houses seeking to find where Lee stayed between April 24, 1963 and April 29, 1963. In other words, this “gap” wasn’t spotted by the official investigation. And so there is no paper trail that Lee ever stayed at the YMCA—or anywhere else, for that matter—upon arriving in New Orleans in the Spring of 1963, and one reason there is no paper trail is that there was never any FBI investigation; and the reason there was no FBI investigation is that there is not a scintilla of testimony that Lee ever said he stayed anywhere prior to the time he called Aunt Lillian.

So now we turn to Judyth’s justification and rationale for invoking the YMCA.

JUDYTH AND HER STATEMENTS ABOUT LEE OSWALD HAVING STAYED AT THE NEW ORLEANS YMCA

Fact: Lee stayed at the Dallas YMCA in the fall of 1962, for some four days, when he moved from Fort Worth to Dallas (10/15-10/19/62). Lee also stayed at the Dallas YMCA on the night of Thursday, October 3, 1963, upon his return from Mexico City, and before he hitched a ride out to the Paine house on Friday, October 4, 1963. In each case there is a clear YMCA paper trail. The room number is listed; the amount paid; even the $1 deposit for a room key (See the testimony of John Leroy Hulen, who’s deposition was taken by WC attorney Jenner, and the document admitted into evidence at that time—called the Hulen Deposition Exhibit, in Volume 20 of the Warren Report).

We now come to an important false inference by Judyth Baker, one which exposes her entire methodology.

False Inference By Judyth: in effect, Judyth claims—but has no right to—that because LHO stayed once before at the YMCA in Dallas (and would later stay at the YMCA after his Mexico City trip) she can now infer that he stayed at the YMCA in New Orleans late April, 1963. That is what she does—repeatedly. (She wonders aloud: Where ELSE could he have stayed? Did he sleep on the street? And Jim Fetzer chimes in: “Yeah, what do you say to that? Did he sleep on the street?”

What do I say to that? Here’s what I say. Everyone has heard the phrase “junk science.” This is “junk history.” What Judyth has done, in an attempt to insert herself into the valid history of this event—a history that (admittedly) has some gaps in the record—is to use the concept of “pattern evidence” to find a home for Lee Oswald in the brief period between the time she infers the bus from Dallas must have arrived (midday on Thurday, April 25), and the time Lee called Aunt Lillian on Monday, April 29. So the YMCA serves that purpose—it is, for Judyth, her “Motel 6.” But it is as contrived as the Single Bullet Theory, with all its twists and turns. In that case, we have a trajectory designed to account for a multiplicity of wounds. Here we have an itinerary, custom-designed by Judyth Baker, to account for some missing nights. This is her invention concerning the YMCA. This is her device for inserting herself into the Oswald narrative. And the gullible buy into that and say, “Well, where could he have stayed? Did he sleep on the street?”

Sorry, but posing such a question is no substitute for evidence as to where he stayed.

THE LACK OF A NEW ORLEANS YMCA PAPER TRAIL

Unfortunately, for Judyth, there is no New Orleans YMCA paper trail, nor is there a smidgeon of evidence that Lee ever told anyone that he stayed at the YMCA—not his aunt, not his uncle, not his cousin, not his own wife. (And, to repeat, had he said any such thing, the FBI would have been all over it—interviewing the YMCA people and checking the records.) But no such investigation ever occurred, and it’s a safe inference that it did not because no one ever reported Lee as having said any such thing. And that’s a crucial missing link: no statements about the YMCA, no FBI investigation of the New Orleans YMCA; no YMCA paper trail. Just unsupported assertions by Judyth.

No doubt Lee stayed somewhere—but Judyth has struck out here (and once again, I might add) by positing it was the New Orleans YMCA, and then attempting to crawl into this interstitial space, by manufacturing dialogue and events.

MARCH, 2010: JUDYTH’s “Ooops” moment

BUT (as in “ooops,” as I have said), Judyth did not realize—until this past month, when Jack White posted the exhibit I prepared--that there is a documentary record of how Lee was dressed on Friday, April 26, the day she claims to have met him at the post office; and that record, created by John Rachal, of the Louisiana Deaprtment of Labor, and published in the Warren Report, established that Lee was attired in a suit and tie. I have just quoted that record, earlier in this post: handwritten notes by Rachal made on 4/26/63, plus his Warren Commission affidavit: “Neat. Suit. Tie. Polite” (the notes) and “Oswald was neatly dressed with a suit, dress shirt, and tie on the occasion of our initial interview” (Rachel Affidavit, 11 WCH 475).

The second aspect of this “oops” moment concerns me, and the first (and only) time I ever spoke with Judyth—on March 4, 2000. Yes, it is a tape recorded conversation, but not because I was lying in wait, or anything of the sort. It was tape recorded because –initially—I gave Judyth the benefit of the doubt, thought I’d be speaking to someone the official investigation had missed, and wanted there to be an accurate record of what she said.

So what happened?

Judyth was unaware, until a few days ago, that not only did she now have to contend with the Rachal Exhibit, and what it says, but another “inconvenient truth” as well: what Judyth told me on March 4, 2000. That’s when I personally questioned Judyth, on this very point, as to how he was dressed, on April 26, 1963, the day she supposedly met Lee Oswald at the Post Office. And she told me he was in workman’s clothes. At that time (3/4/2000), Judyth was decidedly uncomfortable with my repeated questions on the subject, and wanted to know why, but I declined to say. In other words, I did not say, “Judyth, I am asking you a very important question, and you keep answering it the wrong way, so let’s repeat the question, just to make sure there is no misunderstanding.” No, I did not say that. But I asked my question more than once, because I knew very well the implication of the false response I was getting, and she kept answering it all wrong—and further (I might add) she also has it wrong in her manuscript.

WHERE WE ARE NOW—10 YEARS LATER (i.e., in March-April, 2010)

Well, ten years have passed, and now she knows. Judyth now knows that ten years ago, on March 4, 2000, in my first and only telephone conversation with her, and at a time when I (but not she) was fully aware of the Rachal evidence, I carefully questioned her as to how Lee was attired on the day she met him at the Post Office, and she answered in workman’s clothes.

And so now—i.e., in March, 2010—having just found this out—Judyth has to deal with this double whammie: the record of April, 1963, and, in addition, the record she herself created in March 2000, in her conversation with me, a conversation which was tape recorded. And so, having just had this embarrassing “ooops” moment—she goes back to her story, and –like a screenplay writer after a meeting with the producer, and after being informed that there is a glitch in her account—Judyth now adds, 47 years after the event, new dialogue to her narrative. “Lee told me he was going to borrow a white shirt,” she now lamely writes.

Well, then, what about the suit? Would Dutz Murret, some 30 years older than Lee, wear a suit that even came close to fitting him? (And what about the tie?) Well, she speculates, perhaps he borrowed that (the suit), too, from the Murrets. But (unfortunately for Judyth), that won’t work, because—say what she might-- Lee didn’t meet the Murrets until Monday, April 29, when she called Aunt Lillian, and when Aunt Lillian’s husband, Uncle Dutz, came to the bus station to pick up Lee and his luggage. And so now Judyth has become all tangled up in the problem of her fabricated chronology. Because regardless of whether or not Aunt Lillean wished to buy her nephew some clothes—i.e., later—that cannot (and does not) account for his attire on Friday, April 26. But Judyth is unfazed. She proclaims: “: "I am a witness, and I know what happened. Lee told me he was going to borrow a white shirt.”

She wants us to believe; indeed, she practically demands that we do so.

But what can be done about the stubborn facts of the known chronology?

Here’s what Judyth does. Judyth, ignoring the record while attempting to amend her story, says that Lee –who arrived in New Orleans midday on April 25, then visited with the Murrets, and they cooked him a nice dinner, loaned him clothing, etc etc. ad nauseum.

I write ad nauseum because it is all false, and contrary to the known record.

And throughout, she makes all kinds of personal accusations against me, and furthermore, adopts the tone that she is some kind of exalted witness:

Just get a whiff of her tone:

QUOTE:

Lee spent a Saturday night with his aunt and uncle, I think, because he reported eating a nice supper with them. Lee was very busy working with Guy Banister during his first week in New Orleans -- and also helping me find a room. UNQUOTE

My comment:: “Lee spent a Saturday night with his aunt and uncle, I think. . .” ?

Notice the “I think” (how modest of you Judyth) and that statement is then followed by “because he reported eating a nice supper with them. . “

Reported? Reported to whom? To the FBI? Not at all. “Reported” as in “reported” to Judyth, of course. In this manner, she becomes a corroborating witness to her own false story.

ANOTHER INSTANCE OF JUDYTH’S TERMINOLOGY

Judyth writes: “Everyone please see the above list of facts offered by the witness” Notice how she now narrates her own story in the 3rd person.

What gall. She’s both narrator—as if she was speaking from the bench—and a witness. Just read that again: “everyone please see the above list of facts offered by the witness.”

“. . .the witness. . .”??

Translated: Everyone should believe what I say and believe it to be a fact, even though I’m a fabricator, because I claim the status of being a “witness.”

Judyth: who are you kidding? Do you really believe everyone is that gullible? That we should heed your command when you say: “I’m a witness. . I know what happened. . everyone please see the above list of facts offered by the witness.”

Finally: I must make the following personal statement, directed at Judyth.

A PERSONAL STATEMENT TO JUDYTH

Lee Oswald is not akin to some wall in a pubic toilet, where you can inscribe your destructive graffiti. Besmirching the personal reputation of a man with a wife and child, and, at that time, expecting another on the way. Lee Oswald was a real person, with a real wife and a young child, both of whom he loved very much—and who had just learned she was pregnant with their 2nd child (daughter Rachel, born on 10/20/63).

The notion that he was carrying on an affair with you in New Orleans is not just false—it is ludicrous.

I knew Marina, very well—having spoken to her dozens of times, over a thirteen year period, after Best Evidence was published in 1981.

And, as Lloyd Bentsen said to Senator Dan Quayle, “Senator, Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine, and you’re no Jack Kennedy.”

Judyth: Marina Oswald was a friend of mine—and I (along with another writer) even threw her daughter a party here in Hollywood, when the Warner Brothers movie (about Marina) was being made. So let me assure you, Judyth Baker: I knew Marina quite well, and Judyth, you’re no Marina. Not even close.

If you wish to write fiction, go take a course in creative writing, and try your hand at a screenplay—but lay off the Oswald family and spin your false yarns elsewhere.

Again: Lee Oswald’s life is not akin to a public washroom, where you can go and inscribe graffiti, while you run around attempting to manufacture a counterfeit version of history.

DSL
4/2/2010; 4:40 AM; edited/corrected 1:40 PM.[/quote]

[James H. Fetzer]

JUDYTH OFFERS MORE OBSERVATIONS ABOUT "HARVEY & LEE"

NOTE: All of this twaddle about Judyth's eyesight and odious smells is quite ridiculous.
Either you have it (in knowing what you are doing) or you don't. Judyth, of all of the
students and witnesses of JFK I have ever known--which includes Madelene Duncan
Brown and Chauncey Marvin Holt--has it. Madeleine knew well the man of whom she
spoke, Chauncey knew his business with the mafia and the CIA, and Judtyh not only
knew her man but is a woman of many research talents. I am stunned to read Jack
say that many people could alter the aspect ratio on photographs, yet it turns out to
be Judyth, not Jack, who makes the observation that the apparent differences in the
crucial photos being used to justify the distinction between "Harvey" and "Lee" seem
to have arisen because of manipulation. The question thus becomes, How many more?

JUDYTH REPLIES:





WE HAVE SOME “OVER-PROCESSED” SEPIA-TINTED PHOTOS PURPORTING TO BE
“HARVEY” AND “LEE”. THESE ARE “FUZZY” HOWEVER, COMPARED TO THE BLACK
AND WHITE EXAMPLES BELOW. OF SPECIAL CONCERN IS THAT THE ADULT PHOTOS
ARE NOT SHOWN AT THE SAME HEAD SIZE.





THE BLACK-AND-WHITE PHOTOS AVAILABLE ARE NOT NEARLY AS “FUZZY” AND
HAVE MUCH MORE DETAIL. WE WILL USE THESE CLEARER PHOTOS, OR ONES
IDENTICAL TO THEM, FOR OUR COMPARISON WORK.

FIRST OF ALL, WE WILL ELIMINATE THOSE PHOTOS WHICH ARE OBVIOUSLY NOT
LEE H. OSWALD. SOMEBODY MAY HAVE SAID THAT THEY WERE OF OSWALD:
THE PROVENANCE OF THESE DISPUTED EXAMPLES MUST BE MADE KNOWN TO US.

THERE ARE ONLY TWO PHOTOGRAPHS IN THE COLLECTION ABOVE THAT ARE NOT
LEE H. OSWALD: ONE IS IN THE 2ND ROW, CENTER. THE OTHER IS IN THE FIFTH
ROW, SECOND FROM THE RIGHT.

BOTH PHOTOS ARE QUITE DIFFERENT FROM THE OTHERS. THE “HARVEY” PHOTO
SHOWN IN THIS COLLECTION (ROW FOUR, SECOND FRONM RIGHT), HOWEVER, IS
THE ‘BLOATED’ ONE OF REAL CONCERN. IT SHOULD BE REPLACED WITH THE TRUE,
UNBLOATED VERSION.

WE HAVE MANY MORE “BLOATED PHOTOS” IN THE ABOVE COLLECTION. HOW DID
THIS HAPPEN? IT IS A MATTER OF CONCERN. THE FOLLOWING PHOTOS ARE ‘BLOATED”:

ROW ONE: SECOND FROM LEFT, THIRD FROM LEFT, FOURTH FROM LEFT. (3)

ROW TWO: ALL OKAY, EXCEPT REMOVE THE BOGUS PHOTO, THIRD FROM THE LEFT.

ROW THREE: ALL OF THESE PHOTOS HAVE SUFFERED SOME ‘BLOATING’ DISTORTIONS (5)

ROW FOUR: THIRD FROM THE LEFT AND SECOND FROM THE RIGHT ARE BOTH ‘BLOATED’ (2)

ROW FIVE: ALL OKAY. EXCEPT REMOVE THE BOGUS PHOTO, SECOND FROM THE RIGHT.

TEN OF THE 25 PHOTOS HAVE BEEN DISTORTED IN THIS COLLECTION. TWO OTHERS ARE
BOGUS.

WE WILL USE THE “PRISTINE” PHOTO OF LEE H. OSWALD AS A GUIDE TO CORRECT HEAD
WIDTHS, AS THE WIDTH OF THE HUMAN SKULL CHANGES VERY LITTLE.

Some other forensic factors to consider:

“Since most bones in the body stop growing after puberty, experts assumed the human skull stopped growing then too. But using CT scans of 100 men and women, the researchers discovered that the bones in the human skull continue to grow as people age. The forehead moves forward while the cheek bones move backward. As the bones move, the overlying muscle and skin also move, subtly changing the shape of the face.” stemcells.alphamedpress.org In addition, there is some “baby fat’ on young faces. Under stress, ‘baby fat’ can temporarily disappear if the subject is dehydrated or has temporarily lost weight. Other factors are ear infections that can swell up one or both sides of the face (an occasional problem for Lee H. Oswald until he had an adenoidectomy in the USSR). Lee Oswald was only 24 when he died, so most underlying muscle structures had just reached the development status of a mature face. The ‘baby fat’ or more rounded face of Lee Oswald at ages 18-21 display softer features than at age 17, when Oswald was under boot camp stressors, or after he lost weight between September and November, 1963 (as he reported to Judyth Baker).

[Jack White]

JUDYTH OFFERS MORE OBSERVATIONS ABOUT "HARVEY & LEE"
" when Oswald was under boot camp stressors, or after he lost weight between September and November, 1963 (as he reported to Judyth Baker)." [/b]

Oswald under stress in boot camp.

[Jack White]

One Rachel Oswald is better than 100 JVBs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UT13K0aye...r_embedded

Jack

[James H. Fetzer]

David, Your flippancy does not become you. Why haven't you stated your position on HARVEY & LEE? And why haven't you sent me a copy of the cassette of your recording of the conversation with Judyth? If you don't want to post an article from The Dallas Observer, so be it. But why not contribute to a better understanding of your position? It is not as though these matters were of no historical significance. I think you should reconsider. Jim

[quote name='David Lifton' post='188625' date='Apr 3 2010, 11:52 AM']
Judyth,

Regarding my filmed interview with Rachel some 20 years ago:

You are sliming it up again, and your statements are completely inaccurate. Since you basically engage in fiction writing, this probably does not bother you--but it does bother me. FYI: Rachel was not paid "a few dollars", and no one took advantage of her. Rachel was paid thousands of dollars, and made the choice herself that a filmed interview we had previously done (the year before) be utilized by HARDCOPY, in producing a brief program that would be just as positive as the one we had done the year before about her mother. In that case, four segments were produced, and Marina was quite satisfied with them. Her husband was portrayed as innocent, based on my research on the medical evidence (i.e., on the Bethesda autopsy being a fraud, based on BEST EVIDENCE) and the interview permitted us to air some very powerful footage of Marina stating that Lee "adored" Kennedy. I had significant control over the program content, sitting in the control room with the Executive Producer of HARDCOPY, who admired my work, and was sympathetic to my view of Oswald as innocent.

So now we hoped for an equally positive --and very brief--program about Rachel, the daughter of someone falsely accused. The opportunity to do this was a real "mitzvah," as they say in the Hebrew tradition, and I was proud of it. Further, and returning to the subject of money: those payments to Rachel, which I personally paid (along with additional money paid by Paramount TV) were of considerable assistance to Rachel in going to graduate school in nursing. (Moreover: I was personally thanked by Kenneth Porter for providing those sums of money).

Subsequently, I was amazed and upset at the poor judgment shown by the HARDCOPY segment editor who was placed in charge, when the top level person with whom I had been dealing, had to suddenly leave town on another matter. The new "segment producer" created what we both thought was a rather tasteless show. It was eight minutes in length, and we were all upset with it--I, as well as the family. Nonetheless, Kenneth Porter told me that the money Rachel received permitted her to start her graduate studies a year earlier than would otherwise have been the case. Another offshoot was the fact that a major European media outfit flew her to Europe for a trip of about a week. And, perhaps most important of all, is what Marina told me after I first interviewed Rachel, reviewed Lee's life with her, casting him in a very positive light. After those days spent with Rachel, the phone rang, and it was Marina--telling me of how the interview had changed things a bit. Said Marina to me, in her thickly accented Russian: "Thankyou for giving me my daughter back."

Now those are the facts, Judyth--and you too, Jim Fetzer--and I don't care what the Mayor of Houston (or anyone else) said years ago. I have the canceled checks to prove the thousands given to Rachel, and I will always remember Marina's positive response to my own actions.

In other words, I had a genuine relationship with Marina, and the family--not the fantasy you have constructed.

So step into the gutter, if you must, and stir the pot--but those are the facts.

Further: your statements about "computer technology" are also false. Once the TV show was transmitted by satellite, I had no control whether some producer in a foreign land did a "frame grab" of some picture, and sold it to a tabloid. Nor did I have any control over the captions that people unknown to me, and located halfway around the world, write to go with such photos.

As everyone knows, the media is a jungle, and when Rachel said yes, and the financial arrangements were made--and, like her birth father, she was one very smart lady to bank the money and use if for college--we all crossed our fingers, and hoped for the best. But "the best" is not what we got, and I will always regret that.

So--both of your--take your speculations and false information and peddle them elsewhere.

DSL

PS: And oh yes, give the ex-Mayor of Houston my regards. Perhaps you can meet her in Cancun, "at a fine hotel," to exchange further information.[/quote]

[James H. Fetzer]

JUDYTH RESPONDS TO BARB ABOUT SEEKING ASYLUM

Barb asks the question about my applying for political asylum but never expecting a 'positive':

Then why did she apply for it? And when it was denied, why did she then appeal that decision?

1) I was advised to leave Hungary after a death threat

2) I was advised not to return to the US because I would be locatable through airline tickets, etc.
and the death threat applied there as well. This was a second warning given to me, AFTER I had
purchased the expensive tickets to the US--and then my hotel room was broken into and almost
everything I owned was taken. The entry into my hotel room was violent and frightened everybody.
There was no attempt at stealth.

3) I was advised to seek political asylum and to explain my problems, even though I could never be
given a final permission to stay.

4) I was assured I would not be deported back to Hungary by Sweden (which was my concern, as
they were Schengen countries).

5) I was to ask for enough time for my family to arrange safe havens for me overseas

6) I was assigned for deportation soon after arriving. By filing an appeal, the deportation order was
inhibited, an unusual action. I was given directions on how to obtain the inhibition.

7) I was thus able to stay for over ten months and was given all the time I needed.

JVB

NOTE: The name "Schengen" originates from a small town in Luxembourg. In June 1985, seven European Union countries signed a treaty to end internal border checkpoints and controls. More countries have joined the treaty over the past years. At present, there are 15 Schengen countries, all in Europe.

The 15 Schengen countries are: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Greece, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain and Sweden. All these countries except Norway and Iceland are European Union members.

Traveling in Europe has been simplified with the introduction of the Schengen visa. As a visitor to the Schengen area, you will enjoy the many advantages of this unified visa system. Download the SCHENGEN VISA APPLICATION and apply today.

With a Schengen visa, you may enter one country and travel freely throughout the Schengen zone. Internal border controls have disappeared; there are no or few stops and checks. This means that internal air, road and train travel are handled as domestic trips, similar to travel from one US state to another. Those who traveled in Europe before Schengen know the difference.

[quote name='Barb Junkkarinen' post='188556' date='Apr 2 2010, 08:44 PM'][quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='188442' date='Apr 1 2010, 04:11 PM']Judyth never expected permanent political asylum.[/quote]

Then why did she apply for it? And when it was denied, why did she then appeal that decision?
[/quote]

[James H. Fetzer]

JUDYTH RESPONDS TO DEAN HAGERMAN ON FRIENDSHIP

NOTE: This has nothing to do with loyalty and everything to do
with truth. My relationship with Jack and with David is not going
to change because of our differences about Judyth. But what we
know and understand about Lee may change because I am willing
to stand up for her and give her another opportunity to be heard.

JUDYTH REPLIES:

Jim

Please think about this for a second

Is it really worth it to you to put a wedge in your friendships with Jack White and David Lifton, two guys who have worked with you on the Z-film and many other things for over 10+ years, two guys who back you up and have the same theories as you over Judyth whom you have been talking with for a very short period of time?

==FRIENDSHIPS ARE IMPORTANT. SO IS THE TRUTH. YOU HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH THEORIES. I AM A WITNESS. ==

It really hurts me to see you guys trading words over Judyth who is sitting at home right now laughing her butt off over the fact that she is turning fellow researchers against each other.

==BY NO MEANS HAVE I BEEN LAUGHING. I WARNED JIM WHEN THIS BEGAN THAT HE WOULD BE ATTACKED BY JACK WHITE AND OTHERS IF HE POSTED ON THE FORUM. THIS BEGAN WITH SOME INTERVIEWS AND THE IDEA OF HAVING A BLOG. I MOURN THE FACT THAT FEELINGS ARE GETTING INVOLVED. I HAVE STAYED OFF THE FORUMS FOR OVER FIVE YEARS. I HAD NO DESIRE OR INTENT TO DIVIDE PEOPLE.==

Please Jim take a step back and look at whats going on.

I hate this thread, I hate the fact that Judyth has done this, I know she is very happy that she has you against Jack and David two researchers who dont believe her story

==HE KNOWS THIS? HE'S VERY WRONG. I GRIEVE OVER IT.====

I hope you dont take my post the wrong way Jim because im behind you no matter what, im also behind Jack and David no matter what

Dean

DEAN, YOU NEVER MET ME. YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW IT FEELS TO BE ATTACKED. HOW CAN I BE LAUGHING WHEN I'M PERSONALLY ATTACKED AND DR. FETZER IS BEING FAULTED FOR HAVING INTERVIEWED ME AND COLLECTED INFORMATION, AND THEN SEES THAT I HAVE BEEN UNFAIRLY ATTACKED ON THE FORUM? LOOK HOW JOSIAH THOMPSON GOES AFTER DR. FETZER, AND IT'S REALLY BECAUSE OF THE Z FILM, NOT ME -- JUST A CHANCE TO JUMP IN AND TAKE HIS DIGS. I THINK JACK WHITE AND DAVID LIFTON HAVE DONE FINE RESEARCH, BUT PERSONAL APPEALS ABOUT FRIENDSHIP HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH ESTABLISHING THE TRUTH. I COMMEND DR. FETZER FOR INSISTING ON LEAVING 'FRIENDSHIP' OUT OF HIS. HIS FEELINGS FOR JACK WILL NEVER CHANGE. WE CAN HAVE DIFFERING OPINIONS ON SOME THINGS WITHOUT ANY AFFRONT TO TRUE FRIENDSHIP. DIVISION OVER INTERPRETING THESE SCIENTIFICALLY OBSERVABLE MATTERS SHOULD HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PERSONAL MILIEU OF FRIENDSHIP.

JVB

[quote name='Dean Hagerman' post='188597' date='Apr 3 2010, 03:05 AM']
Jim

Please think about this for a second

Is it really worth it to you to put a wedge in your friendships with Jack White and David Lifton, two guys who have worked with you on the Z-film and many other things for over 10+ years, two guys who back you up and have the same theories as you over Judyth whom you have been talking with for a very short period of time?

It really hurts me to see you guys trading words over Judyth who is sitting at home right now laughing her butt off over the fact that she is turning fellow researchers against each other.

Please Jim take a step back and look at whats going on.

I hate this thread, I hate the fact that Judyth has done this, I know she is very happy that she has you against Jack and David two researchers who dont believe her story

I hope you dont take my post the wrong way Jim because im behind you no matter what, im also behind Jack and David no matter what

Dean[/quote]

[James H. Fetzer]

Jack,

Not to place too fine a point upon it, but if you review this entire thread, you would find
that, while you have lodged many complaints about Judyth, when I have examined them,
none--not one!--has panned out. Now I am going to prepare an index that identifies the
posts where allegations are made, the names of those who lodged them, and the posts
where they have been discussed and evaluated. Then we can review the bidding. But,
as I have explained in several posts, the claims that have been advanced against her
by many participants here appear to hold very little water and, for the most part, have
come up completely dry. Lots of fallacies are being committed, as I shall also explain,
but the fact that you do not believe Judyth does not mean she is not believable. And,
as I have also observed, Ed Balsam, Nigel Turner, Jim Marrs and I, among others, all
believe in Judyth. Maybe we are wrong and you are right, but I would appreciate it
if you would be sufficiently objective to acknowledge that there is just the barest of
possibilities that maybe we are right and you and David, among others, are wrong.
Indeed, the weight of the evidence as it is accumulating here supports that outcome.

Jim

P.S. You take on Robert as you lay it out in post #378 and elsewhere, in my view, is
far more incredible--truly unbelievable!--than anything I've ever heard from Judyth!
To me, Robert looks like a weakling who envied his brother and was glad to have the
chance to "outsmart" him. No one who cared about his brother could be so careless
with the truth when it comes to embracing that other fantasy, THE WARREN REPORT.

[quote name='Jack White' post='188641' date='Apr 3 2010, 03:26 PM']
[quote name='Linda Minor' post='188639' date='Apr 3 2010, 01:56 PM']
[quote name='Jack White' post='188302' date='Mar 31 2010, 06:06 AM']
Monk...
Many JVB claims appear "plausible" and some cannot be "refuted", simply because all are
her OPINIONS, things she SAYS she witnessed, without proof offered. I do not care whether
her tales are true or not.
Some of her tales are irrelevant. What is the relevance to JFK studies if she claims an illicit
affair with a man she just met? What does it matter that she thinks she resembles Marina?
What does it matter that she thinks she and LHO pledged to meet somewhere in Mexico and
explore ancient ruins? What does it matter that she claims to have personally met Shaw,
Banister, Ferrie, Ochsner, Sherman, etc. etc.? Her knowing these well documented figures
adds NOTHING to the information already known. Her information changes frequently as
it suits her purpose. I will even grant that if everything she says is true it does not amount
to a bigratsass in the overall study of the investigation. Cancun or Kan Kun...who cares?
Thanks, Monk.
Jack[/quote]

Jack,
Your definition of "information" and mine vary considerably. I am interested in history and the way our American government violates the rule of law set forth in the Constitution by using cutouts and compartmentalized intelligence operatives who are trained not to question their handlers. This is the only reason I have ever studied the assassination. I do not get excited about bullet trajectories or faked photos or any of those elements of physical evidence because none of that explains to me how the system (what I tend to refer to as the infrastructure) of the entire secretive intelligence operation works, and by whom it is directed. In other words, I myself do not focus on trees, but on the forest, to use a trite metaphor.

For that purpose, what Judyth tells is more essential to my historical research than anything since the information presented by Dick Russell about Richard Case Nagell.

We all have a focus on different aspects, fortunately, but we tend to weigh the importance of these interests differently and, consequently and unfortunately, often impute personal motives to those with whom we differ. I have attempted previously to insert remarks about why Judyth's information is extremely significant, at least to me, because of the historical context it provides. But there was no response made. My comments were ignored, and that is fine with me; but my research will continue nonetheless.
[/quote]

Linda, I agree IF HER TALES ARE FACTUAL. To me they seem to be largely FICTIONAL.

Fiction has popular appeal, but it is not history. GONE WITH THE WIND is great HISTORICAL
FICTION about the Civil War, and gives some idea what the people went through, and presents
facts mixed with romance. The JFK case does not need a GWTW approach about the romance
of Romeo and Juliet as imagined by JVB. "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn."

Jack
[/quote]

[James H. Fetzer]

Asked and answered. Sometimes having poor vision can be beneficial.
David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., for example, suffers from acute myopia,
which actually benefitted him in conducting his optical density studies
of the autopsy X-rays in the National Archives. In case you are not
familiar with his work, I have just interviewed him for two YouTube
segments, which are archived along with discussion of some of his
most recent presentations at http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com. That
you are persisting with this offers convincing evidence that you are
simply insincere and are merely clogging the thread with questions
that have already been addressed. If you want to check her results,
then conduct the same photographic studies and verify or falsify them
for yourself. That should not be too difficult for a man of your talents.

[quote name='Duncan MacRae' post='188653' date='Apr 3 2010, 05:59 PM']
[quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='188649' date='Apr 3 2010, 05:12 PM']
The question is not to become Judyth but to replicate the measurement
of the photographs to see if you arrive at the same results. It's called
"data". No one has to have her problems with visual acuity to do this,
and that you would even imply as much is beyond ridiculous. You are
either massively ignorant of the objectivity of scientific inquiries, which
is based upon the inter-subjective capacity for replication to verify or to
falsify data or you are playing the kind of games we expect from XXXXX
I really don't think anyone here has any doubt as to what you are about.

[quote name='Duncan MacRae' post='188647' date='Apr 3 2010, 03:59 PM']
[quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='188643' date='Apr 3 2010, 04:28 PM']
Observation and measurement are basic to scientific inquiries, Duncan.
Judyth is reporting the results of her studies. If you want to replicate
them to verify or falsify them, they you should do that, precisely as in
the case of any other scientific inquiry. You can redo the experiments
of Galileo and review the calculations of Newton, if you like, or perhaps
you can print out photos and see if you obtain the same results Judyth
is reporting. I would think you are smart enough to have figured that
out. But of course that is not really the point of your posts, is it? And,
since she is getting new glasses, it's a good thing you are doing this
now, since your posts will be even more pointless in the future. I am
sure that everyone who has been following this thread appreciates it.

[quote name='Duncan MacRae' post='188632' date='Apr 3 2010, 01:33 PM']
[quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='188630' date='Apr 3 2010, 02:02 PM']
JUDYTH REPLIES TO DUNCAN MACRAE ON HER PHOTO STUDIES

The comment about how I can analyze these photos with my bad eyesight:

I print them out and measure them with a tape measure. I can see very well
at about an inch from a page.

JVB[/quote]

This leads to the obvious question.
If you can't see the letters of a keyboard properly from an inch or any further distance away, leaving Jim Fetzer to correct your mistakes and finish sentences,
then how can you read a tape measure with any guaranteed degree of accuracy, and how can anyone, including Jim, know your measurements are correct?
[/quote]
[/quote]


And what is your angle on the point of my posts, Jim?
I ask straight no nonsense questions, and expect straight no nonsense answers.
The point of my posts were, and still are, to try to get some straight no nonsense answers to questions that in my opinion needed to be asked, in view of her vision disability.
They have not been answered to a satisfactory degree.
Suggesting that I replicate her results is a sidetracking strategy, any replication of her studies being pointless and unfruitful, given that I do not have her vision disability. Newton couldn't replicate her studies and the disability conditions under which they were studied, and neither could Galileo.
I am sure that everyone reading this will understand my concerns, and understand that my points, far from being pointless, need to be answered...Now.
[/quote]

edited for offensive language.
[/quote]

The problem is not the the data, it is about how she acheived her results with her visual impairment.
You of course know this, you're not that stupid, and neither are the members here who will be noticing your avoidance at giving satisfactory answers on Judyth's behalf.
Judyth puts her face to within an inch of a print out and then makes measurements from that distance with a measuring tape without obscuring the data.
Wasn't April fools day 2 days ago?
[/quote]

[James H. Fetzer]

MORE FROM JUDYTH ABOUT THE PURPORTED PHOTOS OF "HARVEY" AND "LEE"

NOTE: Just in case anyone has any lingering doubts about my replies to Duncan
MacRae, realize that even if Judyth did not have problems with her vision, there
would be the opportunity to confirm or disconfirm her findings by replicating her
research and determining whether or not you obtain the same results. If she is
right, then the results should be the same. And this is the case even if she had
perfect vision, since having perfect vision alone is not sufficient to conduct the
studies that she has reported in the past and continues to report on in this post.

JUDYTH COMMENTS:

Amazing, bringing up braille...I am not blind...and with new glasses will be able to
see the keyboard without it being 'double vision'. The person who wrote that remark
is not stupid and anybody can see what the intent was.

I welcome a duplication of findings because my vision is not that good and I could be
off by some percentage points. However, I will continue to do my best with these photos.

So far:

1) Photos have been over-copied, where in the case of the sepia reproductions significant
degradation of feaures is involved -- yet people are asked "Which is Harvey?" and "Which
is Lee?" from this set of photos that are degraded in their clarity.

2) Every photo of "Lee" that I have examined so far has been a) bloated or otherwise
distorted or 2) could be a photo of Robert Oswald insead of Lee H. Oswald. More later...

3) I have seen photos of Marguerite where the feet were placed at different levels, making
Marguerite (the sort one, so called) look shorter: when the disparity was corrected and, in
addition, high-heels versus slippers were taken into consideration, very little difference in
height remains--nothing like the six or seven inches clamed...This is a serious blunder, in
my opinion, on the part of the researchers.

4) In a photo to 'prove' Marguerite was 'much shorter", a FUNERAL photo was the one that
was provided with a line that clearly showed, instead, the angle of slope, going downhill from
left to right, reducing the height of Marguerite to an APPARENT but not actual LOWER HEIGHT.

5) We were then shown a photo of Lee fishing in the USSR, where once again a line was drawn,
without any reference to the steep slope of a riverbank upon which Oswald was sanding so that
his feet could not be seen.

6) We were next shown a photo of Lee with Marina, where Lee is shown as too short once more
-- with more lines pointing this out -- -but Peter Wronsky took photos showing that (ONCE AGAIN)
a significant slope is involved that artificially visually raised the height of the person as seen to
the left by a viewer of the photo (Marina, in this case)....Therefore, in examples 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7,
slopes are involved or position of photos are placed that fool the eye.

7) We next find that a "hunting photo" of Lee might very well be that of Robert Oswald, but it, too,
is distorted -- 'bloated' -- and could possibly be of Lee Oswald as well...What is obvious to me is
that the person in this 'hunting photo' is not holding the rifle correcty and therefore may be joking.
Whoever took the photo was clearly friendly toward the person being photographed.

8) We need a DNA sample to ascertain if Robert Oswald and Lee were biological brothers....Lee's
daughters can provide enough DNA, because they are females (mitochondria will be the same),
to provide the answer.

9) There is increasing evidence that Robert Oswald had the incentives and motives to betray his
brother and support the findings of the Warren Commission; his records in the miliary need close
examining to see if some of the official "Lee Oswald" records are really about Robert.

JVB

[quote name='Duncan MacRae' post='188653' date='Apr 3 2010, 05:59 PM']
[quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='188649' date='Apr 3 2010, 05:12 PM']
The question is not to become Judyth but to replicate the measurement
of the photographs to see if you arrive at the same results. It's called
"data". No one has to have her problems with visual acuity to do this,
and that you would even imply as much is beyond ridiculous. You are
either massively ignorant of the objectivity of scientific inquiries, which
is based upon the inter-subjective capacity for replication to verify or to
falsify data or you are playing the kind of games we expect from XXXXX
I really don't think anyone here has any doubt as to what you are about.

[quote name='Duncan MacRae' post='188647' date='Apr 3 2010, 03:59 PM']
[quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='188643' date='Apr 3 2010, 04:28 PM']
Observation and measurement are basic to scientific inquiries, Duncan.
Judyth is reporting the results of her studies. If you want to replicate
them to verify or falsify them, they you should do that, precisely as in
the case of any other scientific inquiry. You can redo the experiments
of Galileo and review the calculations of Newton, if you like, or perhaps
you can print out photos and see if you obtain the same results Judyth
is reporting. I would think you are smart enough to have figured that
out. But of course that is not really the point of your posts, is it? And,
since she is getting new glasses, it's a good thing you are doing this
now, since your posts will be even more pointless in the future. I am
sure that everyone who has been following this thread appreciates it.

[quote name='Duncan MacRae' post='188632' date='Apr 3 2010, 01:33 PM']
[quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='188630' date='Apr 3 2010, 02:02 PM']
JUDYTH REPLIES TO DUNCAN MACRAE ON HER PHOTO STUDIES

The comment about how I can analyze these photos with my bad eyesight:

I print them out and measure them with a tape measure. I can see very well
at about an inch from a page.

JVB[/quote]

This leads to the obvious question.
If you can't see the letters of a keyboard properly from an inch or any further distance away, leaving Jim Fetzer to correct your mistakes and finish sentences,
then how can you read a tape measure with any guaranteed degree of accuracy, and how can anyone, including Jim, know your measurements are correct?
[/quote]
[/quote]


And what is your angle on the point of my posts, Jim?
I ask straight no nonsense questions, and expect straight no nonsense answers.
The point of my posts were, and still are, to try to get some straight no nonsense answers to questions that in my opinion needed to be asked, in view of her vision disability.
They have not been answered to a satisfactory degree.
Suggesting that I replicate her results is a sidetracking strategy, any replication of her studies being pointless and unfruitful, given that I do not have her vision disability. Newton couldn't replicate her studies and the disability conditions under which they were studied, and neither could Galileo.
I am sure that everyone reading this will understand my concerns, and understand that my points, far from being pointless, need to be answered...Now.
[/quote]

edited for offensive language.
[/quote]

The problem is not the the data, it is about how she acheived her results with her visual impairment.
You of course know this, you're not that stupid, and neither are the members here who will be noticing your avoidance at giving satisfactory answers on Judyth's behalf.
Judyth puts her face to within an inch of a print out and then makes measurements from that distance with a measuring tape without obscuring the data.
Wasn't April fools day 2 days ago?
[/quote]