Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[James H. Fetzer]

Bernice,

You are a dear and I have great affection for you. That cannot be said of many others who are piling on at this late stage in the evolution of this forum. I have done my best to present Judyth's case because I believe in her. There is no way I can transfer the reasoning ability and evaluation of the evidence that has led me to my position, but I am convinced both logically and psychologically that she is genuine. I have seen her anguish over misrepresentations of her position and take the time to correct me when I was mistaken about some point, even when it was not flattering to her. If this woman is not "the real deal", then I have no understanding of human nature. I have done my best to explain the reasons why I, Nigel Turner, Ed Haslam, Jim Marrs, Howard Platzman, "60 Minutes", Wim Dankbaar, and many others, including Dean Hartwell, Pamela McElwain-Brown, Karl Kinaski, and Linda Minor, have come to believe in her. We are a diverse group but not a gullible group. There have been so many cheap shots taken here since I tried to bring this thread to an end several hundred posts ago--around post #1,200!--but it hasn't happened. With Judyth's book about to appear, which will provide new documents, records, and other data, I can't imagine any good reason to continue with this thread. It has long since become the longest in the forum's history. I have appreciated those who have taken the subject seriously, especially Michael Hogan, who has been the most astute among those who are probing for more. As for most of the rest, their adamant unwillingness to consider new evidence and adjust their degrees of belief accordingly has been stunning. The method of tenacity clearly prevails on this thread, which is unfortunate but has something to do with the threat that Judyth Vary Bakes poses to what the agency is willing for the pubic to learn, not only about Lee H. Oswald, the alleged assassin, but about cancer research and the development of a bio-weapon, which appears to be so secret that, even when the CIA decides to release its "family jewels", the first--which was dated around the time of these developments in New Orleans--had been redacted. There were eight, but only the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth were released to the public. Think about it. Judyth's story has the potential to broaden awareness of some of the deepest secrets in the history of the CIA! That is simply astounding and is no doubt related to its potential to further reveal a host of issues about covert ops in New Orleans, the infected polio vaccine that was mandated for 100,000,000 children even though NIH knew better, and the development of cancer as a bio weapon! One day some of those who were here may well come realize that they were wrong in opposing Judyth. But that will almost certainly require the passage of time and learning more about her. ME & LEE affords the perfect opportunity! Good luck! And enjoy!

Jim

[quote name='Bernice Moore' post='190488' date='Apr 22 2010, 09:41 PM']I have great respect for you Dr.Jim as well as your work that you provide so willingly, therefore also your decisions and beliefs, you have found within yourself to believe that all Judith has stated and what documents etc that she has provided to you as being sufficient to draw your conclusion that she is the real deal as you have mentioned..and that is your prerogative and as I say i respect such...what you have posted for us and she had supplied to you, we, many, have seen in the past except for the one photo which was new to me, they were posted at Rich's as well as at the lancer forums in the past, and i believe they are still there within RICH'S archives, they were some months back,,..a part of me wishes he had been here during this long stressful thread , but then another does not ,as i know he would have been extremely upset at some of what has been said and has occurred, '' and as JFK said

For in the final analysis, our most basic common link, is that we all inhabit this small planet, we all breathe the same air, we all cherish our children's futures, and we are all mortal.

we are all mortal, therefore we all at times make mistakes, move too quickly, act before contemplating and so on,



John F. Kennedy, Speech at The American University, Washington, D.C., June 10, 1963

Our problems are man-made, therefore they may be solved by man. And man can be as big as he wants. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings.



John F. Kennedy, speech at The American University, Washington, D.C., June 10, 1963

and Our problems are man-made, therefore they may be solved by man but we lost him before he had the chance to teach us how.and we still stumble each and every day.... and my favourite ''

So, let us not be blind to our differences - but let us also direct attention to our common interests and to the means by which those differences can be resolved.



John F. Kennedy

we human beings are AT most times our own worse enemies, not just within the research as i have thought at times. We fly off the handle, before we think, my old granny used to say to me as well as my bro, if you cannot say anything nice, do not say anything, well our mother picked it up and for years that was the daily reminder,as we left for school, as ''Mr dobs in the movie 'Harvey'' states, words to the effect, '' in this world you can be oh so smart or oh so pleasant, he then says well I ,,.was oh so smart for many years, and i recommend being oh so pleasant''...all we must do, I believe is put others before ourselves, their thoughts and feelings...IMO...

As i believe and hope i made clear i have read Ed's books,and each post here, as well as studying and reading some thousands of posts during the 12 years or so at the alts in following as the information,as it was made available and her previous set of books and have her new one on order,the DVDs and Cd's that were made available were obtained , as well as many others we took the time to peruse as much as possible and also went to the expense of having all, plus the black op radio DVD.. i did find them all of great interest, and informative but also within Ed's and Judyth's books I was disappointed as many others were that there was not the documented proof that was available to him at that time and he chose not to supply,nor the documentation she had promised, i must now being human wonder if ED ever did try or make any effort to.find the proof, .perhaps as Kathy has supplied the link to the N.O city archives it is not too late.someone may be able to bring forth the information needed..the proof is in the pudding as they say,and these are his books and his puddings to prove..i cannot blame anyone for not believing what they cannot see in the way of documentation, we as researchers have been taught and inundated very early on, that that is a must, the final piece for whatever is to be accepted as a given, he and she as well as others are very aware of that fact..as far as JudYth being in N.O AT THE TIME OF LHO THAT WAS ACCEPTED AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN AS FAR AS I KNOW, THAT SHE WAS AN EXTREMELY GIFTED YOUNG WOMAN IN SCIENCE also is a given..and that they SHE AND LHO worked at REILLYS AT THE SAME TIME ALSO, AND IMO THAT SHE HAS PROVEN , BUT NO MORE AND NO LESS...NEITHER HAS ED HASLAM..I WISH SHE AND HE HAD BEEN ABLE TO SUPPLY THE DOCUMENTATION FOR ALL THE REST BUT THAT WAS NOT TO BE, perhaps at some date in the future he will be able to provide further.SO THEREFORE WE AS INDIVIDUALS MUST DECIDE FOR OURSELVES EXACTLY HOW MUCH WE WILL BELIEVE HONESTLY IN WHAT HAS BEEN STATED AS TRUTH, SOME APPARENTLY WILL,ACCEPT IT AS BEING ENOUGH, SOME WILL NOT, THAT IS VERY HUMAN. AND To each their own, as it is and should be..AFTER STUDYING AND READING ALL THAT I HAVE BEEN ABLE TO the JFK-assassination-related parts of her account simply do not pass the smell test for me. that is my decision I am very hopeful as you have made mention of perhaps in the future old friendships will be able to be mended and put again on a solid footing..i realized many pages ago how stressful this all was for you and that many were feeling the stress of this terribly contentious, long thread,

and for all who have worked together for so long and or perhaps quietly supporting whom they consider their peers within the JFK research studies such as Dean and others who admire you so, as well as others who believe in your work, that you have so willingly shared and made available, even some who disagree with your findings as well, were feeling the stress of this terrible up heaving long thread,and there are as we know a relative few i believe, who were happy to see such, too bad, their most earnest wishes will not take place and the group as called at times by others will not and has not disintegrated within harsh meaningless words..

“I realized many pages ago how stressful this must be for you, and that others must be feeling stressed also by this terribly contentious, long thread, such as Dean who admires you, and others who believe in the work that you have so willingly made available to others. Some who disagree with your statements must also have felt much stress. Of course, no doubt others were happy to see harsh words used. JFK told us that we are all human, which we certainly are, in spades. The old phrase comes to mind: to err is human, to forgive devine.

---



..I THANK YOU KIND SIR FOR YOUR REPLY AND YOUR THOUGHTFULNESS THAT YOU HAVE EXPRESSED WITHIN..AND WISH YOU AND YOURS ALL THE VERY BEST.

NOW, IF POSSIBLE, FOR HEAVEN’S SAKE,CAN WE ALL GET BACK TO THE BUSINESS OF RESEARCH

------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------

THE PLAY PERHAPS HAS ENDED AND ALL SHOULD PERHAPS TAKE A BREAK AND A REST, AND THEN CARRY ON AND GET BACK TO THEIR WORK AND ALLOW THIS THREAD TO QUIETLY REST, HOPEFULLY, THE SHOW IS OVER, ME THINKS MORE THAN ENOUGH HAS BEEN SAID

I CANNOT THINK OF ANYTHING FURTHER THAT SHOULD BE POSTED HERE

PERHAPS WE ALL COULD, LET THE SLEEPING RESEARCHERS LIE PLEASE...IF ANYONE MUST SAY ANYTHING FURTHER RELATED TO THE INFORMATION AND OR THE JUDY TH STUDIES,THAT IS WORTHY OF SUCH,, PERHAPS YOU COULD START A NEW THREAD ON A NEW NON-CONTROVERSIAL TOPIC.

THANK YOU KINDLY FOR ALL THAT YOU DO..AS WELL AS TO EACH AND EVERYONE OF YOU ON THIS FORUM.FOR YOUR WORK AND CONTRIBUTIONS.IT TAKES A VILLAGE...



------



. THANK YOU ALL..KINDLY AND TAKE GOOD CARE...PS AND A THANK YOU TO JOHN SIMKIN FOR ALLOWING THIS LONG DEBATE...PS... PLEASE EXCUSE AGAIN THE CAPS,IT WAS VERY EARLY IN THE DAY FOR ME WHEN I BEGAN TRYING TO COMPOSE THIS REPLY.. AGAIN VERY SORRY ABOUT THAT...B[/quote]

[James H. Fetzer]

POSTSCRIPT: SOME REPLIES TO THOSE WHO HAVE CONTINUED TO POST

NOTE: It has come as no surprise to me that Josiah Thompson would seize this opportunity
to take a cheap shot when I am attempting to end this thread in the expectation I would not
respond. This is derived from the thread, "A shot fired through the front of the windshield",
which was initiated by Doug Weldon. True to form, Josiah distorts the evidence obtained by
Jim Lewis, who has traveled through the South firing through windshields and has found that
the bullets not only create a spiral nebula-like image in the glass (corresponding to that seen
in the Altens photo) but also the sound of a firecracker. I published a photo Jim sent me in
THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003) on page 436, which is reproduced (but not well)
in posts #472 and #473, which, in my opinion, resembles the spiral nebula-like image seen
in the Altgens photograph. Contrary to this post, the evidence supports my position, not his.

More surprising is that John Simkin would involve himself in this thread for the third or the
fourth time. I was just a bit taken aback by his last intervention, in which he stated--quite
categorically!--that Gerry Hemming is a disinformation agent. Since Hemming has threads
that are archived on this forum and characterizations like that one are supposed to violate
forum rules, I suppose he should have been censored by his own moderators. Others who
know vastly more about the assassination, such as James Richards and Noel Twyman, for
example, have found Hemming to be extremely reliable. The longest chapter in BLOODY
TREASON (1998), for example, is devoted to Hemming. If Hemming had disputed Judyth's
authenticity rather than endorsed it, I imagine he (Simkin) would have said nothing. That
he praises Jack's posts on this forum speaks volumes about his knowledge of this thread.

The post from Pat Speer is more interesting. http://www.jfklancer.com/LNE/jbkwc.html
includes three fragments of Jackie's testimony including that, "I was trying to hold his hair
on. From the front there was nothing --- I suppose there must have been. But from the
back you could see, you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on." My
depiction of what she is saying, I would suggest, is far more accurate than yours, where
she is trying to hold the skull and brains at the back of his head together. I know that
you accept the Groden color photos as authentic and, I see now, believe that the dark
area at the right-front of the anterior-posterior X-ray only shows missing brains but not
missing bone. My position is quite different on both counts, as I explain (with images)
on pages 15 and 25 of HOAX. The Groden photos are fake; the massive blow-out was
at the back of his head, not the top; and the X-ray shows missing bone, not just absent
brain, which demonstrates that my argument goes beyond what others have said before.

So Kevin Greenlee wants to reprise the evidence, which I consider to be a bit much. The
longest thread in forum history is chock full of evidence, arguments, and proof that Judyth
is the person she claims to be. Josiah, who has no interest in this question but only takes
every opportunity to cast aspersions upon me, chimes in with, "Right on target, Kevin. But
Fetzer's refusal to come up with any evidence for the claim you asked him about is only the
April version of what we saw back in March." As we have already seen, however, Josiah is
distorting the evidence, essentially misquoting out of context. The most that could be said
is that, as Jerry Logan observed in post #472, it would be better to have sharper images.
I agree with that and, if I can track him down, I will ask Jim if he can provide some. But
that is a far cry from claiming that a bullet fired through a windshield produces "obvious
shattering of the glass... nothing at all like Fetzer's 'nebula', which is simply false but true
to form. Since proof of Judyth's authenticity abounds, I conclude with more from Haslam.

ED HASLAM ON THE THREE KEY QUESTIONS

MARY, FARRIE, & THE MONKEY VIRUS The Witness / Chapter 17 By Edward Haslam
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/04/ed...rys-monkey.html

It’s time to get to the core questions about Judyth Vary Baker. I consider the three most important questions to be:

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.

If the answers to all three questions are “yes,” then we need to pay attention to what Judyth has to say, even if it conflicts with both the official and the unofficial stories concerning Oswald and his role (whatever it was) in the assassination of JFK. Even if it disagrees with the self-appointed Oswald experts. And even if it disagrees with some of the things I originally said in this book. Let’s tackle these questions right now - one at a time.

1. Is she the real Judyth Vary Baker from Bradenton, Florida?

Judyth had shown me a collection of newspaper articles when we met in 2001. Several had photos of her. Most of the articles were published in The Bradenton Herald, one of the local newspapers in the Bradenton, Florida.

A year later, in February 2002, I started working for The Bradenton Herald. My role was to handle their market research materials, but my position gave me access to their news library and their microfilm collection. This microfilm collection had been copied about 10 years earlier, and the copy had been given to the Bradenton Public Library. The public could see the microfilm collection at the public library, but the original microfilm was kept in the news department’s research library on the upper floor of The Bradenton Herald and was not open to the public. No one could have anticipated that I would start working for The Bradenton Herald and would have access to their original microfilm collection. If I could find Judyth’s newspaper articles there in the off-limits microfilm collection, I could settle the “forgeries” issue once-and-for-all. I got Judyth to send me a list of publication dates for the articles she had.

Yes, I found all of The Bradenton Herald newspaper articles that Judyth had shown me in the microfilm library of The Bradenton Herald. She had also shown me two other newspaper articles which I will be discussing later in this chapter.

So the answer to our first question is “Yes, she is definitely the real Judyth Vary Baker from Bradenton, Florida.” Her maiden name was Judyth Anne Vary, and she was frequently referred to as Judy in the press of the day. She is easy to recognize in the photos. Bradenton was proud of her. “Judy” was going to find the cure for cancer.[5] She presents copious evidence to support all of this in her book.[6]

2. Did Judyth know Lee Harvey Oswald in New Orleans in 1963?

It might help the reader to know there has never been any dispute over the fact that the person that the press has referred to as Lee Harvey Oswald worked at a coffee company in New Orleans in the summer of 1963. This is reported by the Warren Commission and acknowledged throughout the JFK assassination research community. In fact, I have never heard anyone dispute it. Beyond that, I personally heard Boatner Reily, later the president of that same coffee company, state that they (the Wm. B. Reily Coffee Company) had turned over their employment records of Lee Harvey Oswald to the U.S. Government immediately after the assassination. What is less clear to the casual reader is whether Lee Oswald worked for the Standard Coffee Company or for the Wm. B. Reilly Coffee Company, since the names differ on various documents. Both companies were owned and operated by William B. Reily and his family, so the difference in the names is not important. Lee Oswald worked for Reily. So did Judyth Vary Baker.

Here is her W2 tax form submitted by Wm. B. Reily & Co. to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service which proves that she did.

This document was provided to me directly by Judyth Vary Baker who scanned it from the original. I accept it as authentic.[7] I have blocked out the last four digits of her Social Security number to protect her privacy. I did, however, compare that social security number with a variety of other documents which Judyth provided to me, such as her college transcripts, and I assure the reader that the numbers match.

The name on the document is Judyth Anne Baker. The person we now know as Judyth Vary Baker was known as Judyth Anne Vary until she married Robert Baker and became Judyth Anne Baker in 1963. Back then it was not common for women to incorporate their maiden names into their married names.

W2 forms are mailed out in January of the following year - in this case, in January 1964 for the 1963 tax year. The address on the form shows where the form was mailed, not where the person lived during their employment. Judyth left New Orleans in September 1963 after her employment with Reily ended and returned to Florida. The Ft. Walton address on Judyth’s W2 form was her husband’s family’s residence which he used as his official address while attending the University of Florida in Gainesville.

The amount of money shown on the W2 form is consistent with Judyth’s pay stubs from Reily, which I also have copies of. It should be emphasized that Judyth was referred to Reily by the same employment agency that referred Lee Oswald and that she started work on the same day. Judyth worked directly for Reily’s Vice–President William I. Monaghan, an ex-FBI agent who later testified to the Warren Commission about Oswald. But Monaghan did not mention Judyth to the Warren Commission nor did he mention that another person was hired on the same day that Oswald was hired.

A simple gumshoe investigation a murder suspect would have started with friends and associates, particularly at the place of employment. A gumshoe investigation of Oswald would have checked out Reily Coffee, found Judyth, and realized that she was close to Oswald. They started on the same day and arrived at work together each morning, though they frequently clocked in at different times, due to Lee’s other activities in the neighborhood. We even find Judyth’s initials on Lee’s timecards. Figuring out their connection would not have been difficult. Consider these obvious points. Neither Lee nor Judyth owned a car. Reily Coffee was located on Magazine Street. Both Judyth and Lee lived along the Magazine Street bus route and rode the bus to work. Day after day, Lee would get on the bus at the 4900 block of Magazine. Several blocks later Judyth would get on at the corner of Marengo Street and sit next to Lee. Bus drivers recognize their regular customers. The bus driver could have easily confirmed that Judyth and Lee sat together every morning, read the newspaper, and talked - and that they got off the bus together near the Reily Coffee Company. This would not have been difficult for an investigator to sort out.[8]

Who was this young woman who talked to the accused assassin of the President on a daily basis? What did she know about him? What did she know about the assassination? Did she have prior knowledge? These are good questions, and a competent investigator would have asked them. So why were they not asked?

Did the Warren Commission send in a gumshoe to investigate Oswald at Reily? No, they asked the “ex-FBI” agent that hired Oswald about him.[9] And that ex-FBI agent did not mention that his own secretary, whom he also hired, started on the same day and arrived at his front door with Oswald every morning. How convenient! This raises the question: Did Monaghan knowingly withhold information from the Warren Commission? If he did, was he instructed to do so? And by whom? Was Judyth being protected in order to protect the bio-weapon project and the people behind it?

Several years after the Warren Commission “investigation,” the investigators working for New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison tracked down another young woman named Anna Lewis, a waitress who worked at Thompson’s Restaurant - a favorite gathering spot for the anti-Castro crowd around Lafayette Square in downtown New Orleans. At the time, Anna was married to David Lewis, who had worked for another “ex-FBI” agent Guy Banister. Today we have video testimony from Anna Lewis recorded in 2003 and made available on the internet by Dutch JFK researcher Wim Dankbaar. In this interview, Anna clearly states that she knew Lee Oswald and that Oswald was a regular customer at Thompson’s in 1963. Further, she states that she and her husband socialized with Lee and Judyth together on a number of occasions. More importantly Anna Lewis admits that she lied to District Attorney Garrison and his investigators when they asked her about Oswald. Had Anna Lewis told Garrison the truth, Garrison could have easily tracked down Judyth. Garrison was already suspicious of Ochsner and his role in the media exposure of Oswald. If Garrison had had access to Judyth, and if Judyth told Garrison what she now tells us--that she and Lee were working on a biological weapon project under the direction of Dr. Alton Ochsner--Garrison’s investigation (and his whole life) might have turned out very differently. But she didn’t. Anna Lewis lied to Garrison because she was afraid. Meanwhile, Judyth hid silently because she was afraid. Two critical pieces of evidence were unavailable to the American people and their elected representatives (like Garrison) at the time they were pondering who killed their President. Now that we know differently, is it time to reconsider our history?

3. Was Judyth trained to handle cancer viruses before going to New Orleans?

The short answer is “yes,” and the evidence to support this is abundant. Here is a photo taken by the Herald-Tribune (a newspaper in the Bradenton area) showing Judyth in her cancer lab with her mice during high school. The numerous newspaper articles published in The Bradenton Herald tell a similar tale. Judyth was a star science student who wanted to find a cure for cancer. They wanted her to succeed. After creating lung cancer in her mice faster than anyone known to medical science, Judyth was given introductions, financing, opportunities, chemicals, tuition, and training. Her training was world-class.

I also know a man in Bradenton who remembers Judyth from high school. He was in an independent-study science class with Judyth and saw her on a regular basis during their senior year in high school. His comments to me are worth noting. He said “If you’re telling me that Judyth wound up in some secret lab doing some heavy duty experiments, it wouldn’t surprise me in the least. She was always very intense and took herself very seriously.”

The next newspaper article that I would like to discuss was published in upstate New York in The Buffalo Courier-Express, which reported on the cancer research training program that Judyth attended at the Roswell Park Cancer Center.

There is a detail in the text of this article that I think is equally important. It’s a quote from Dr. Edwin Mirand who ran the program Judyth attended.

Dr. Mirand was half of the “Grace and Mirand” medical research team that wrote “Human Susceptibility to a Simian Tumor Virus,” an article published in the Annals of the New York Academy of Science in 1963.

I referred to this same article in every edition of my book since 1995. It has been listed in the bibliography the entire time.

In other words, this is proof that in 1961, Judyth personally knew and studied under the nation’s leading experts in cancer-causing monkey viruses which I wrote about.

And she did so 34 years before I published my book.

This article contradicts that notion that Judyth read my book and wrote herself into it. She did not. The evidence indicates that she was trained to handle cancer-causing viruses, lived in New Orleans, and knew Lee Oswald decades earlier.

This may be intoxicating news for those concerned about Judyth’s credibility and what she can tell us about Lee Oswald, but it is sobering to those of us worried about the fate of the biological weapon. This means that Judyth Vary Baker really did have the technical skills to handle the cancer-causing monkey viruses that might be used to create a biological weapon. Yes, Judyth Vary Baker had the technical qualifications to be “the technician” that did “the bench work” in the Ferrie-Sherman medical laboratory. Hearing Judyth admit that as a 19-year old she assisted Lee Harvey Oswald, David Ferrie, Dr. Mary Sherman, and Dr. Alton Ochsner in their efforts to develop a biological weapon is… a brain-buster! I guess I have my witness.

[quote name='Josiah Thompson' post='190511' date='Apr 23 2010, 03:03 AM']
[quote name='Kevin Greenlee' post='190477' date='Apr 22 2010, 08:33 PM']
So- it comes down to this. after a couple of months of bluster and several lost friendships and much bragging about your academic credentials you are unable to offer any evidence whatsoever to support a point you yourself indicated was one of the "best supported" elements of judyth's story. i am sorry, sir, but that is your failing and not mine.[/quote]

Right on target, Kevin. But Fetzer's refusal to come up with any evidence for the claim you asked him about is only the April version of what we saw back in March.

I don't know if you caught it. Back in March, Fetzer was crowing for about a week that some guy in Texas had shot a bunch of windshields with a rifle and the resulting windshield damage looked just like Fetzer's "spiral nebula." Jerry Logan kept asking him to come up with evidence for this since windshields hit with bullets look nothing at all like the socalled "spiral nebula." Fetzer finally came up with a photo that proved the opposite of what he said. It showed what we all knew. A bullet fired through a windshield produces obvious shattering of the glass... nothing at all like Fetzer's "nebula."

Same old... same old.

Josiah Thompson
[/quote]

[James H. Fetzer]

"Actual evidence"? Ed Haslam, who grew up in New Orleans and even sat on Mary Sherman's lap as a child, has done the most research on the cancer project, Ochsner, Sherman, Ferrie, Oswald, and Vary. I would like to assume that you have his book, DR. MARY'S MONKEY, which is chock full of documents, photographs, and references. Ed is extremely meticulous, very painstaking and thorough and it is excellent work. Anyone who simply scans through this thread can see that there are massive quantities of evidence, not only supporting Judyth's story but critiquing Armstrong's theory of HARVEY & LEE. A more fruitful use of your time might be to pursue the "index" error, the mistaken datd of the creation of the Warren Commission, and the fantastic claim that Lillian Murret paid for "Lee"'s dental visit. Apart from asking for another round, which is at least faintly ridiculous when ME & LEE is about to appear (since I have no doubt that its publication will initiate "another round" with more documentation and elaboration, even about events that were not discussed here), I can't see what you have contributed here. Your tactics, on the other hand, are obvious. Under the circumstances, your claim that my lack of enthusiasm for your suggestion amounts to a "sweeping critique of (my) credibility" is so stunningly arrogant and so massively undermined by this entire thread, my YouTube interviews and blogs about Judyth and Ed that I don't think anyone beside Josiah Thompson is going to be impressed. Indeed, you would appear to be a graduate of Tink Thompson's School of Obfuscation and Dissembling. My reasons for declining your absurd invitation are so reasonable, given the totality of circumstances, that it is becoming all too apparent that your purpose in being here has not been to study the issues but to position yourself to make a gesture of this kind, which is supposed to harm me. Well, I don't think it's going to work. No one who has studied this thread or my other efforts is going to buy it. Judyth's story, at its core, appears to be faultless, as many others besides me, including Nigel Turner, Ed Haslam, Jim Marrs, Wim Dankbaar, Howard Platzman, Dean Hartman, "60 Minutes", and many more, have concluded as well. You may not like it, but there it is. Study the evidence. Read Ed's book. Pick up ME & LEE. Then we can do it again!

[quote name='Kevin Greenlee' post='190563' date='Apr 23 2010, 02:27 PM']
Mr. Fetzer-

to be clear, i was not asking for an "instant replay" or "reprise" of anything that had already appeared in this thread. i was asking for something completely new and fresh- actual evidence. your utter inability to provide it not only reveals much about what sort of an empty exercise this whole "judyth" business is but it is also a far more devastating critique of your credibility than anything josiah thompson has ever written about you.[/quote]

[James H. Fetzer]

Jack,

I like these posts (which does not mean that I agree with them) and I hereby
withdraw my disavowal of our friendship. I think we can survive in spite of
our differences about Judyth Vary. I want to publicly reaffirm our friendship!

Jim

[quote name='Jack White' post='190573' date='Apr 23 2010, 04:50 PM']
[quote name='John Simkin' post='190534' date='Apr 23 2010, 08:05 AM']
[quote name='Jack White' post='185259' date='Mar 1 2010, 07:35 AM']
This, I hope, will be my FINAL posting on this subject. Someone or some agency
has designed the JVB affair TO DIVIDE RESEARCHERS. The have succeeded beyond
their expectations.

Let us all concede for a moment EVERY STATEMENT made by JVB is TRUE. What are
we left with which might advance the solution to the JFK case???

1. This teen science student was recruited by the CIA to assist David Ferrie in designing
a means of killing Fidel Castro using cancer cells.

2. This teen girl was introduced into high level anti-Castro Cuban persons in New Orleans,
including Carlos Marcello, Guy Bannister, Clay Shaw, Dr. Oschner and others.

3. This married teen girl was assisted by these anti-Castro persons on a few days notice
to become involved in a romance with a CIA asset who had been steered into employment
at a CIA asset company.

4. What agency recruits high school students to devise cancer infections to be used in
assassination attempts? What agency uses this student, a strange ex-pilot, a famed
doctor and medical researcher who is strangely murdered to devise cancer strains to
be delivered to Cuba to kill Castro?

5. Much later, this teen girl learned that her lover was involved in a plot to kill the president
but instead of reporting this plot, she aids and abets her lover's involvement.

Now where have we heard all of this before? Who or what agency has been heavily
involved in promoting the Cuban connection as the perpetrators of the assassination?

The answer is clear.

I hope this is my final word.

Carry on.

Jack[/quote]

Jack, I have been very impressed with your postings on this thread.
[/quote]

Thank you John. I treat the evidence of JVB as I do all other evidence.
My first question is...IS IT LOGICAL?

It is not logical that the CIA needed a teen girl and a homosexual
airline pilot to devise "cancer weapons", because they have the vast
resources of Fort Detrick nearby. It is not logical that if a section of
the CIA was controlling a false defector who was then diverted to
an assassination plot, that the defector, LHO, would be allowed by
his controllers and surveillance to engage in a second activity, nor
become involved with a teenage girl. Framing a patsy for a planned
murder was serious business; LHO was plainly ordered to New Orleans
to be sheep dipped as a CASTRO SYMPATHIZER to aid his image
as a commie killer. It is logical that this was of paramount importance
to the plotters, and they would not risk it being derailed. It is logical
that the plotters KNEW EVERY MOVE OF THIER PATSY, had him under
surveillance at all times, and knew all of his associates. There is no
record of his association with Mary, Vary and Ferrie in the mice and
monkey business.

Jack
[/quote]

[James H. Fetzer]

SOME REFLECTIONS ON THE APPEAL TO WHAT IS "LOGICAL" AND WHAT IS NOT

Truth can be stranger than fiction. When you look where you've been, sometimes
you had no idea where you were going. Judyth was talented at cancer research.
She was lured to New Orleans by Alton Ochsner. There was a problem with the
polio vaccine, which had to be treated covertly to avoid alarming the public. Dr.
Mary Sherman was engaged in research there. The experiments did involve mice
and monkeys. David Ferrie and others were involved in conducting that research.
It involved the use of a linear particle accelerator. Someone had to have assisted
her. Judyth and Lee were hired by Riley's on the same day. Judyth kept the time
cards and other records for Oswald. Anna Lewis has testified that she and David,
her husband, even "double-dated" with Judyth and Lee. Mary Sherman was killed,
apparently using a linear particle accelerator. The death scene at her apartment
was staged. Ochsner did inoculate his grandchildren, killing one, while inducing
polio in the other. Judyth does appear to have been summarily sacked after she
protested the use of a prisoner in a (fatal) experiment without informed consent.
David Ferrie appears to have been silenced; and Ruby, too, using the bio-weapon.
And a second "Judyth Vary Baker" was used to impersonate the real Judyth Vary.

What could be a greater stretch than the idea of "two Oswalds", both having the
same name, one called "Harvey", the other "Lee", who even attended the same
schools, though not at the same time, where one was born in Hungary, physically
unimposing but intellectually able, who spoke fluent Russian but could not drive,
while the other had a propensity for violence, could drive but could not speak any
Russian and who had no interest in political philosophy or matters intellectual,
both of whom had mothers by the same name, where one of them ("Lee") lost
a tooth at Beauregard Junior High School, but Lillian Murret, the aunt of the
other ("Harvey"), paid for his dental bill, where his brother, Robert, who looks
exactly like him, is not supposed to be related genetically and who could have
effortlessly impersonated him did not, even though, after the assassination, he
would give lectures and publish a book falsely blaming his brother for a crime
he did not commit, where not only Aunt Lillian but Robert, Marguerite, and
Marina all knew of the existence of both "Harvey" and "Lee", even though none
of them ever uttered a peep! Neither of these stories is "logical" in the sense
Jack intends. Yet, I submit, at least one of these stories appears to be true.

[quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='190576' date='Apr 23 2010, 05:09 PM']
Jack,

I like these posts (which does not mean that I agree with them) and I hereby
withdraw my disavowal of our friendship. I think we can survive in spite of
our differences about Judyth Vary. I want to publicly reaffirm our friendship!

Jim

[quote name='Jack White' post='190573' date='Apr 23 2010, 04:50 PM']
[quote name='John Simkin' post='190534' date='Apr 23 2010, 08:05 AM']
[quote name='Jack White' post='185259' date='Mar 1 2010, 07:35 AM']
This, I hope, will be my FINAL posting on this subject. Someone or some agency
has designed the JVB affair TO DIVIDE RESEARCHERS. The have succeeded beyond
their expectations.

Let us all concede for a moment EVERY STATEMENT made by JVB is TRUE. What are
we left with which might advance the solution to the JFK case???

1. This teen science student was recruited by the CIA to assist David Ferrie in designing
a means of killing Fidel Castro using cancer cells.

2. This teen girl was introduced into high level anti-Castro Cuban persons in New Orleans,
including Carlos Marcello, Guy Bannister, Clay Shaw, Dr. Oschner and others.

3. This married teen girl was assisted by these anti-Castro persons on a few days notice
to become involved in a romance with a CIA asset who had been steered into employment
at a CIA asset company.

4. What agency recruits high school students to devise cancer infections to be used in
assassination attempts? What agency uses this student, a strange ex-pilot, a famed
doctor and medical researcher who is strangely murdered to devise cancer strains to
be delivered to Cuba to kill Castro?

5. Much later, this teen girl learned that her lover was involved in a plot to kill the president
but instead of reporting this plot, she aids and abets her lover's involvement.

Now where have we heard all of this before? Who or what agency has been heavily
involved in promoting the Cuban connection as the perpetrators of the assassination?

The answer is clear.

I hope this is my final word.

Carry on.

Jack[/quote]

Jack, I have been very impressed with your postings on this thread.
[/quote]

Thank you John. I treat the evidence of JVB as I do all other evidence.
My first question is...IS IT LOGICAL?

It is not logical that the CIA needed a teen girl and a homosexual
airline pilot to devise "cancer weapons", because they have the vast
resources of Fort Detrick nearby. It is not logical that if a section of
the CIA was controlling a false defector who was then diverted to
an assassination plot, that the defector, LHO, would be allowed by
his controllers and surveillance to engage in a second activity, nor
become involved with a teenage girl. Framing a patsy for a planned
murder was serious business; LHO was plainly ordered to New Orleans
to be sheep dipped as a CASTRO SYMPATHIZER to aid his image
as a commie killer. It is logical that this was of paramount importance
to the plotters, and they would not risk it being derailed. It is logical
that the plotters KNEW EVERY MOVE OF THIER PATSY, had him under
surveillance at all times, and knew all of his associates. There is no
record of his association with Mary, Vary and Ferrie in the mice and
monkey business.

Jack
[/quote]
[/quote]

[James H. Fetzer]

JIM REPLIES TO DOUG WELDON AND TO HIMSELF ABOUT LEE'S "READING LIST"

In a paragraph below in my response to Bernice, I made the following observation about Lee's reading list:

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.

Time after time, points she has made that seemed initially implausible have turned out to be true. Lee's list,
no matter how implausible, was substantiated by the FBI and became a formal document in the hearings:



So I think we have one more illustration of the dramatic difference it makes when claims that initially appear
to be implausible nevertheless turn out to be true. Once again, Judyth has been vindicated, where what she
contributed to the previous post was blurbs about the contents of those book. I have known Doug Weldon to
be fair-minded in the past. I would like to have some indication that he is willing to respond to new evidence!

[quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='190373' date='Apr 22 2010, 04:38 AM']
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:





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]
[/quote]

[James H. Fetzer]

JUDYTH RESPONDS TO BARB JUNKKARINEN AND TO GARY MACK

NOTE: This is a nice example of the failure to adhere to the principle of charity, where, within the realm
of the reasonable, you impose interpretations on statements persons make that maximize their truth, not
distort their meaning. Here are some classic examples involving the television coverage of JFK in Dallas.
Appealing to Gary Mack, like appearances by John Simkin, smacks of desperation. If Judyth Vary Baker
really were a flake, why in the world would there be so much time and effort devoted to discrediting her?

JUDYTH REPLIES

A television set perched over our heads showed the news, sports and
weather beginning at noon. I saw the news about JFK arriving in Dallas,
trying to maintain outward calm. All the TV programs were then in black
and white, but I could imagine that the roses Jackie Kennedy was
given probably complemented her dress.

The problem with this is that there was no hour long noon news show in Gainesville according to any of the TV stations, as well as someone I was referred to at the university, I contacted a few years ago. Even if there was even a half hour news show at noon in Gainesville, Florida ... that would only be 11am in Dallas ... and the Kennedy's arrived at 11:40am Dallas time. That would be 12:40pm in Gainesville. Not in time for any 1/2 hour noon news show.

==WHEN I SAID I SAW THE NEWS ABOUT KENNEDY ARRIVING IN DALLAS, IT WAS THE COVERAGE OF HIS ARRIVAL IN DALLAS-FORT WORTH. JACKIE WAS GIVEN FLOWERS AT THAT TIME. THEY HAD THE TV ON FOR THE NEWS, AS I REPORTED, BUT -- UNUSUAL -- THE TV SET WAS KEPT ON. A VOLLEYBALL TOURNAMENT WAS BEING HELD OUTSIDE, AND THE LUNCH HOUR WAS EXTENDED THAT FRIDAY.

PCR CLOSED DOWN ONLY ON THE 4TH OF JULY AND CHRISTMAS. BUT THERE WOULD BE BREAKS. THIS FRIDAY, THE 22ND, THE VOLLEYBALL GAME WAS PLAYING AND THOSE NOT INTERESTED IN THE GAME CAME INTO OUR LAB, WHICH HAD A TV SET MOUNTED ABOVE OUR HEADS.

THEY PULLED UP STOOLS AND WATCHED THE NEWS.

FOR SOME REASON -- PERHAPS BECAUSE THE VOLLEYBALL GAME WAS PLAYING -- BUT I WAS VERY WORRIED ABOUT WHAT COULD HAPPEN IN DALLAS AND VIEWED EVERYTHING WITH SUSPICION. OTHERS REMAINED IN THE LAB AND SOME OF THEM BEGAN DISCUSSING JFK. THEY DISCUSSED HIM WITH HATRED.

THE TV WAS STILL ON AT 1:30, AND THE VOLLEYBALL GAME HAD BEEN GOING ON NEARLY TWO HOURS BY THEN. I WAS WORKING, BUT EVERYBODY WAS STILL TALKING AND WATCHING TV -- VERY LITLE WORK BEING DONE. I WAS SUSPICIOUS AND NEVER FORGOT THAT, BECAUSE IT WAS SO UNUSUAL.

WHEN THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF JFK BEING SHOT WAS MADE, THESE PEOPLE CHEERED AND WHISTLED AND STAYED GLUED TO THE SET, MAKE OF IT WHAT YOU WILL -- A RADIO HAD ALSO BEEN TURNED ON TO NEWS PROGRAMS, SOMEONE HAD BROUGHT IT IN, TOO.

I ALWAYS BELIEVED SOMEBODY THERE KNEW SOMETHING, BUT PERHAPS I WAS SIMPLY OVER-SENSITIVE.

WATCHING THE NEWS OVER AND OVER, THE SCENES OF THE ARRIVAL IN DALLAS WERE IMPRINTED IN MY MEMORY. AS IN EVERYBODY ELSE'S.

THE CONDUCT OF THE SCIENTISTS AND TECHNICIANS THERE, THEIR RESPONSE WHEN HEARING KENNEDY WAS SHOT, WILL REMAIN WITH ME AS A HORRIBLE MEMORY FOREVER.

I have done the best I could to reconstruct that day. At the very least, everybody remembers where they were on that day and what was going on...I was alert, however, much earlier..These people also want me to be arrested for not 'warning' --when Lee had told me he was part of an abort team that was secretly being assembled to try to save JFK.

What would have happened if the killers knew about the abort team? Would the members have also been shot?

I had the choice to tell every detail I could possible recall or 'play it safe' and say what everybody knew. I have always done my very best to provide as many details as I could recall.==

THE GAYLORD FAMILY, OWNERS OF WTVT IN TAMPA EXPANDED AND OBTAINED KTVT IN DALLAS IN 1962.

http://www.big13.net/crawfordrice.htm

THEY HAD THE 11:00 NEWS, 12:00 NEWS, 6:00 NEWS AND 10:00 NEWS.

WESH TV OUT OF ORLANDO COVERED ALMOST ALL OF FLORIDA. Had first hour-long local news in the market starting in September 1963.

WFTV HAD 12:00 AND 6:00 NEWS....

In a message dated 9/7/2006 4:03:57 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, mshack@concentric.net writes:

From the website of the Gainesville TV station, WKMG:

http://www.local6.com/station/71239/detail.html

"In 1961 Channel 6 started the first full-time news department in Central Florida. Its newscasts expanded from 15 minutes to 25 minutes."

**********

"Most of Channel 6's programming came from CBS. However, because there were so few television stations at the time, WDBO also carried programming from ABC, NBC, and Dumont, the original third network. Soap operas have long been a television staple. It was no different then. Fans tuned in to "Search for Tomorrow", "Guiding Light" and "As The World Turns"."

The latter was the program on the air when CBS cut in with its first bulletin about the assassination. The station broadcast news in black and white until 1969.

The station's history doesn't address the question of when they began their noon newscasts, just that they have a half-hour noon news now.

The other possibility, received in the area, was the Tampa station, WTVT. It converted to a half-hour newscast in 1958. Because CBS offered a 15 min. news program, WTVT expanded its news to 45 min. to fill an hour time block.

The interview from which this information came didn't give the date when this happened, but said they dumped a 15 minute Eddie Fisher program. The Eddie Fisher program began in 1957 and was canceled in 1959.

Another article confirms that the hour-long news began in November 1958, called "Pulse."

At noon, there was a half-hour news program called "Pulse Midday." (http://www.big13.net/news/wtvt_news_3.htm)

In September 1963, "Pulse" expanded to 90 minutes. The news was black and white until 1966. (http://www.big13.net/news/wtvt_news_5.htm) It was a CBS affiliate.

Four days earlier it had covered JFK's visit (without Jackie) to Tampa.

"With a 5,000 square mile coverage area, Smith and his news team could always be counted on to be first and best."

So, WTVT in Tampa had at least a half hour noon news program in November 1963.

Overhead: Standard model televisions were sometimes mounted on shelves with sturdy brackets to carry their weight.

As for flowers, the Fort Worth arrival footage on Nov. 21 shows Jackie with flowers, as indicated by this still from a newsreel footage house, Buyout.com

Martin

[quote name='Barb Junkkarinen' post='190503' date='Apr 23 2010, 12:58 AM']
[quote name='Jack White' post='190385' date='Apr 22 2010, 06:41 AM']
Barb J. wrote:

[color="#000080"]A major problem with this is that the Kennedy's arrival at Love Field was only televised live
on Dallas/Ft. Worth TV stations.[/color]

As a DFW resident, I believe that this statement is not true. Gary Mack would know. A
live hookup in those days would require a special microwave signal hookup and large
bulky studio cameras, which were few back then. The local stations shot the arrival on FILM,
not live video feed. Ask Gary.

The only LIVE feed that weekend, as I recall, was the abortive LHO jail transfer and shooting.

Jack[/quote]

Hi Jack,

I checked with Gary ... and yes, the arrival was broadcast live in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area.

Here is Gary's response in full:

Hi Barb,

In response to your question about TV coverage of JFK’s Dallas Love Field arrival, I checked a couple newspapers, but not all of them. From that “refresher” course and information I’ve picked up over the years, here is what I know:

1. WFAA-TV, the ABC affiliate here, did the pool coverage for themselves and any other local TV station that wanted to carry it. Their remote truck can be seen 45 seconds into this home movie recently acquired by The Sixth Floor Museum: http://jfk.org/go/collections/ward-warren-film Atop the truck is one of the two cameras they used and the person describing the events was the late WFAA news director, Bob Walker.

2. The 11-22-63 Dallas Morning News, which was co-owned with WFAA, listed the Kennedy arrival in its TV schedule for the day. Live coverage was to begin at 11:30am.

3. While I cannot prove it from the listings I read, it is my understanding that the other three local commercial stations – KRLD, WBAP and KTVT – decided after the press deadline to show the arrival live.

4. I have a vague memory that one or two other Texas TV stations, perhaps one in Tyler, planned to carry at least one of Kennedy’s speeches that day, though it is highly doubtful an out of town station would also include the Dallas arrival unless there was a speech.

5. WFAA also recorded the Love Field arrival on video tape for later use, as did CBS affiliate KRLD. Those original tapes are preserved at The Sixth Floor Museum. Existence of the KRLD tapes suggests they, too, carried the arrival live.

6. There is no indication in anything I have ever read or learned that any Kennedy appearance in Fort Worth or Dallas was ever shown live or even fed to any of the three networks (ABC, CBS, NBC), so it would be impossible to view those events outside of the Dallas-Fort Worth/North Texas area.

7. There was absolutely no live TV coverage anywhere along the motorcade route. All TV remote trucks are firmly accounted for, and without them there could be no live pictures. WFAA’s truck stayed at Love Field for they planned to show Kennedy’s departure back to Washington. KRLD’s truck was at the Trade Mart for pool coverage of that speech, which all four stations planned to show live. The KTVT truck did the pool coverage of the Fort Worth breakfast speech that morning, with assistance from the WBAP truck. Both vehicles were returning to their Fort Worth studios when the assassination happened.

And just so you know, my 34 years here both in broadcasting and at the Museum have put me in contact with many, many reporters, photographers, engineers and others from all four stations who covered those events. Many are personal friends to this day. Unfortunately, not everything we want to know now was documented at the time.

Gary Mack

P.S. Feel free to pass this along to anyone who wants to know.

So, yes, there was live coverage of the arrival at Love Field in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area .... but no other live coverage along the motorcade route.

This info and the time difference between Dallas and Florida make all 3 versions of Judyth's claims about what she and her co-workers saw on TV that day impossible. I am including those claims, as detailed in my original post, again below ... as well as the link to the Dutch radio interview of Judyth.

Hearing Judyth speak on the Dutch radio program is interesting.

Thanks, Jack .... a good thing to have doub;e checked with Gary, and thanks to Gary too.

From my original post:

[i]Hi Kathy,

After his summer job in the Gulf was over, Judyth and her husband returned to Gainesville, Florida where he was completing his degree. This is when Judyth is purported to have worked as a lab assistant at PenChem. (Fetzer posted some check stubs from PenChem a few days ago.)

The story about the co-workers and what they saw on TV is one of the things that underwent some changes over the years.

1.This from an early draft of her book posted on the net .... in 2006, as I recall:

A television set perched over our heads showed the news. JFK and Jackie had
arrived at Love Field in Dallas. I tried to maintain an outward calm. The
TV programs then were in black and white, but I could imagine that the
roses Jackie Kennedy was [sic] given probably complemented her dress. I
prayed to a God I did not believe in that there would be a bubble top
placed over the limousine. When I saw the President and his wife enter a
vehicle without a bubble top, I felt sick.

A major problem with this is that the Kennedy's arrival at Love Field was only televised live
on Dallas/Ft. Worth TV stations.

2. In her book printed by Trafford, pg 626, it was this:

A television set perched over our heads showed the news, sports and
weather beginning at noon. I saw the news about JFK arriving in Dallas,
trying to maintain outward calm. All the TV programs were then in black
and white, but I could imagine that the roses Jackie Kennedy was
given probably complemented her dress.

The problem with this is that there was no hour long noon news show in Gainesville according to any of the TV stations, as well as someone I was referred to at the university, I contacted a few years ago. Even if there was even a half hour news show at noon in Gainesville, Florida ... that would only be 11am in Dallas ... and the Kennedy's arrived at 11:40am Dallas time. That would be 12:40pm in Gainesville. Not in time for any 1/2 hour noon news show.

3. In 2003,in a Dutch interview originally broadcast in
streaming audio, Judyth said this:

Oh, I knew what was going to happen. I was working at a lab where I had
been placed making special chemicals for our project in Florida and they
all got chairs out to watch the assassination on TV. . . . And I saw it
happen on TV, and we had worked so hard to stop that from happening.

The problems with that are obvious.

The complete interview is here .... narrated in Dutch, but Judyth speaks in English, it's just a few seconds under 14 minutes in length. The quote above is from the beginning of the interview:

Link to Judyth's 2003 Dutch Radio interview:

CLICK HERE

Bests,
Barb :-)
[/quote]

[James H. Fetzer]

APPARENTLY THINGS HAVE GOTTEN SO FAR OUT OF HAND THAT TINK THOMPSON HAS TO INTERVENE

This is unbelievably childish, but then, that's Josiah Thompson. I explained in the rather long thread that Doug
Weldon had initiated that there are multiple lines of proof that there was a through-and-through bullet hole in
the Lincoln windshield, which is actually visible in the Altgens. These included (i) that JFK had an entry wound
to his throat, (ii) that he had small shrapnel wounds to his face, (iii) that the sound of a firecracker accompanied
the early (many thought, the first) shot, (iv) that witnesses at Parkland Hospital observed the hole, including
a motorcycle officer who put a pencil through it, (v) that a reporter on the scene, Richard Dudman, wrote about
it in an article published in the St. Louis Post Dispatch, (vi) that others witnesses observed it in Washington, DC,
(vii) that it was taken back to Ford and reconstructed on Monday, 25 November 1963, where the official who was
in charge confirmed that the windshield they replaced had a through-and-through hole in it, where (viii) Weldon
has studied the trajectory, where the alignment from the above-ground sewer opening on the south end of TUP
provided an ideal location for making precisely such a shot. In that thread, I provided documentation for these
observations, citing the Parkland Press Conference, the Dudman article, and more in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE.

What you have to understand is that Josiah Thompson has an impermeable mind-set. No one's commitment to
the method of tenacity can compare. He will dispute every point I have made, down to the absurd claim that
the throat wound was actually an exit wound caused by a fragment of bone. This, even though we know--and I
have diagrams to support it--that it was a small, clean, round wound, which had the characteristics of a wound
of entry, and Malcolm Perry, M.D., who knew this wound "up close and personal", reported THREE TIMES during
the press conference that began at 2:16 PM that this was a "wound of entry", "the bullet was coming at him" and
the like. If this guy, who makes his living as a PI, knows no more than he displays here--where a bone fragment
would have caused a tearing, irregular wound with edges flaying outward--then he is completely incompetent. So
unless he is completely incompetent, he is peddling trash in an evident effort to confuse and confound the public.
When I pointed out that a student named Jim Lewis had been traveling around the South and firing high-velocity
bullets into wrecked cars to determine if he could hit dummies in the back seat and had discovered (a) that they
create the image of a spiral nebula in the windshields and (B) that they make the sound of a firecracker passing
through, he has tried to dispute it, first, by showing photographs of windshields that were obviously NOT caused
by high-velocity bullets and, second, by featuring a close-up of the damage that may have been subtly altered.

All of this can be found in the thread, "A shot fired through the front of the windshield", which was initiated by
Doug Weldon. I had hoped that he might step up to the plate and correct the false impressions that Josiah has
been conveying, but he has chosen not to do that. I agree with the point Jerry Logan made in post #472 as a
response to mine (which I believe were) posts #469 and #470, namely, that it would be good to have sharper
images. But the point I make is that, from the side, it looks very much like the damage in the Altgens. And I
should also observe that Jim Lewis told me that the bullet holes looked like spiral nebulae. The fact that in this
very threat Josiah offers photos of windshields that WERE NOT HIT BY HIGH VELOCITY BULLETS illustrates the
fact that he will do ANYTHING to create a negative impression of me. He distorts my work whenever he can,
including publishing hatchet-job reviews of books of mine that he has never read. Remarkably, to support the
authenticity of the film, he has to accept the blow-out to the right-front that it shows, which is contradicted by
his endorsement of exactly one chapter in MURDER by Gary Aguilar, which proves the opposite. He is even in
the process of systematically discrediting his own work, SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS, apparently for the purpose
of setting himself up to deny the existence of any conspiracy to kill JFK for the fiftieth observance. Thus, for
example, he has disavowed the double-hit between frames 311 and 313, which was easily its most scientific
and objective contribution. If there has ever been a more despicable student of JFK, I cannot imaging who
that would be. Posner stands tall compared with this guy, because he does not pretend to be what he is not.

[quote name='Josiah Thompson' post='190608' date='Apr 23 2010, 09:38 PM']
[quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='190561' date='Apr 23 2010, 02:35 PM']
POSTSCRIPT: SOME REPLIES TO THOSE WHO HAVE CONTINUED TO POST

NOTE: It has come as no surprise to me that Josiah Thompson would seize this opportunity to take a cheap shot when I am attempting to end this thread in the expectation I would not respond. This is derived from the thread, "A shot fired through the front of the windshield", which was initiated by Doug Weldon. True to form, Josiah distorts the evidence obtained by Jim Lewis, who has traveled through the South firing through windshields and has found that the bullets not only create a spiral nebula-like image in the glass (corresponding to that seen in the Altens photo) but also the sound of a firecracker. I published a photo Jim sent me in THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003) on page 436, which is reproduced (but not well) in posts #472 and #473, which, in my opinion, resembles the spiral nebula-like image seen in the Altgens photograph. Contrary to this post, the evidence supports my position, not his...

Josiah, who has no interest in this question but only takes every opportunity to cast aspersions upon me, chimes in with, "Right on target, Kevin. But Fetzer's refusal to come up with any evidence for the claim you asked him about is only the April version of what we saw back in March." As we have already seen, however, Josiah isdistorting the evidence, essentially misquoting out of context. The most that could be said is that, as Jerry Logan observed in post #472, it would be better to have sharper images. I agree with that and, if I can track him down, I will ask Jim if he can provide some. But that is a far cry from claiming that a bullet fired through a windshield produces "obvious shattering of the glass... nothing at all like Fetzer's 'nebula', which is simply false but true to form. Since proof of Judyth's authenticity abounds, I conclude with more from Haslam.[/quote]


As various posters have pointed out, Professor Fetzer does not argue. He does not present evidence for his positions. He bloviates and fumes.

Kevin Greenlee asked him politely to present some evidence... any evidence... for Fetzer’s claims about Judyth. Fetzer had claimed that “Judyth... was lured to New Orleans by Alton Ochsner.” He said that this was among “the most important and best supported of his claims.” So how does Fetzer respond to a perfectly reasonable request? He rants and rages, insults Greenlee but never comes up with a simple shred of evidence.

This is standard operating procedure for Fetzer. Earlier, he claimed that some guy in Texas had shot windshields and produced a hole that looked just like Fetzer’s “spiral nebula.” He’s still claiming this without any evidence. Take a look.

Here’s the Altgens photo with the undamaged windshield. Can you find what Fetzer is calling a bullet hole... his socalled “spiral nebula?”



Next. Here is the photo that the guy in Texas sent him.



Do you see anything in it that looks like Fetzer’s “spiral nebula?” I don’t. Rather, I see some damage to the windshield that may or may not be a through-and-through hole but looks like all the other bullet holes I’ve ever seen in windshields... a collar of shattered glass around the impact point.

For comparison, here’s a photo of a Honda that I pulled off the internet at random.





Neither the photographer nor me nor anyone else knows whether these are high velocity, medium velocity or low velocity shots. It doesn’t matter. The photos illustrate what I’ve seen numerous times in car shootings... the collar of shattered glass. You can see it present in Fetzer’s Texas photo but not present in the Altgens photo. As usual, the actual evidence shows the opposite of what Fetzer says it shows.

Fetzer simply declares things to be true whether or not he has any evidence for them. Kevin Greenlee and others have his number.
Josiah Thompson
[/quote]

[James H. Fetzer]

JIM RESPONDS TO DIXIE DEA ABOUT "LEE"'S LOST TOOTH

From John Armstrong, HARVEY & LEE (2003), pages 91-92 and page 532:







Here is what I posted about these pages, Dixie, and addressed to Jack:

Since it was LEE who had the tooth knocked out, not HARVEY, as Jack makes very clear, why was HARVEY'S AUNT LILLIAN PAYING FOR LEE'S DENTAL BILL? And if she knew that "MARGUERITE" had taken him to the dentist, DID LILLIAN ALSO KNOW LEE'S MOTHER "MARGUERITE", TOO? If there is an answer to this question, I want to know. I want to get this straight.

Not only do we have EDWARD VOELBEL knowing both HARVEY and LEE, who were enrolled at the same junior high school consecutive semesters (but not at the same time), but LEE has a tooth knocked out, of which LILLIAN, who is HARVEY'S AUNT, is aware, even knowing that "MARGUERITE", LEE'S MOTHER, had taken LEE to the dentist, for which LILLIAN PAID?

Are you telling me that LILLIAN was not only HARVEY'S AUNT but also LEE'S AUNT? And that LILLIAN knew not only HARVEY'S MOTHER, who was named "MARGUERITE", but also LEE'S MOTHER, who was also named "MARGUERITE"? As Judyth has asked above, are you and Armstrong telling us that the entire MURRET FAMILY knew both HARVEY and LEE?

Jack replied by saying that Lillian and Dutz must have known them both.
I find that just the least bit incredible, but Jack has also suggested that
Robert, Marina, and Marguerite ALSO knew there were "two Oswalds",
even though none of them ever uttered a peep about it. That's why in
post #1561 about "logic" I suggest that HARVEY & LEE strains credulity.

By the way, Jack has demonstrated that Lee and his brother Robert were
so similar in their appearance as to be "dead ringers" for one another. It
has therefore crossed my mind that Robert has to be a prime candidate to
have impersonated his brother. There you have "two Oswalds", "Lee" and
"Robert", whose lives are less convoluted than those of "Harvey" and "Lee".

[quote name='Dixie Dea' post='190613' date='Apr 23 2010, 09:14 PM']Jim....Numerous times, you have mentioned something that I have been unclear about and unsure where you obtained the info. ...whether your own thoughts, from Judyth or from Armstrong's book. You do seem to be indicating that you have a problem accepting it and if you did read it in Armstrongs book and believe it to be an error, then I do have to agree with you, in this instance. It has been sometime since I read Armstrongs book, so I do not recall if this was an error in his book. But, since you have been freshly reading it, I am thinking this is where you obtained the info...although I cant imagine him making such an error....since it just doesn't fit. Although, I haven t read very many books that didnt have at least one error. I also feel that a book such as this, it could be quite easy to get mixed up and make an error.

However, when you say that Lillian Murret was Harveys aunt (rather then Lees aunt) ...that cant be true. Lillian was Margueretes sister Their maiden names were both Claverie. This is the Marguerete that was m'arried to Robert E. Lee Oswald, John Pic and Edwin Ekdahl. and her son was Lee. So Lillian, is the one in regard to the dentist story and it was about Lee (not Harvey). I have no idea if Lillian knew about Harvey or not though. The Marguerete that we are all most familiar with, was Harveys mother or someone acting in that capacity). Harvey is the one from NY who may have came from Hungary and according to Armstrong's book. No relation to Lillian Murret or that Marguerete. So...I am confused as to what you have been saying about this.

I have mentioned this several times in the past and you will probably call me idiotic, and most don't buy it either....but for a very long time, I have had the thoughts that LHO might be a twin. Why would his birth certificate still be hidden? I have other reasons, but am unable to get to my notes just now. However, Armstrong said in his book that there was no indication that he was a twin...it is still in my own thoughts though.


Dixie.[/quote]

[James H. Fetzer]

Good one, Jack. I will check with Judyth. Try these for size. I think she is right:



"The common marmoset (Callithrix jacchus) is a small, nonendangered New World primate that is native to Brazil and has been used extensively in biomedical research. Historically the common marmoset has been used in neuroscience, reproductive biology, infectious disease, and behavioral research. Recently, the species has been used increasingly in drug development and safety assessment. Advantages relate to size, cost, husbandry, and biosafety issues as well as unique physiologic differences that may be used in model development. Availability and ease of breeding in captivity suggest that they may represent an alternative species to more traditional nonhuman primates. The marmoset models commonly used in biomedical research are presented, with emphasis on those that may provide an alternative to traditional nonhuman primate species."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14524414

[quote name='Jack White' post='190628' date='Apr 24 2010, 12:15 AM']
Jim...MARMOSET monkeys are not THUMBSIZED. Here is a photo of a BABY one next to a soft drink
can. Note the price....$2000 for one. I think that is a little expensive for research purposes.

Jack

[quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='190598' date='Apr 23 2010, 07:01 PM']
How do you know whether a post is REPEATED or REPETITIVE if you don't read them?

The monkeys were not kept in "the mouse house". They were probably kept at the
Tulane Primate Center in Covington, which, I gather, houses the largest collection of
research primates in the world. Some marmosets, which are thumb-sized primates,
not real monkeys, were housed at the mouse house, as Judyth has explained to me.[/quote]
[/quote]