Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[James H. Fetzer]

Judyth responds to Jack about "Harvey and Lee":





Check this photo against attached photos....











Is there more than one 'Judyth'? The lab one is a giveaway, but check it against this:





Would Jack White have decided that we were two--or even three?--different people?

I'll give you the answers to the photos after you look at all of them...The truth is easy to see......

Meanwhile...I am not allowed to download Jack's 'fat face' because I am not a member--they once
sent a collection of some forty photos and ordered, almost, rather than asked, me which ones were
Lee and which ones were Harvey.

This forces me to agree that there is a distinction that I accept.

I do not.

This is a logical trap.

"Which one did you know, Harvey or Lee?" is a rigged question. It assumes that some are "Harvey"
and some are "Lee" and, if I refuse to answer, I'm a cur.

But they are forcing me to make their logical differentiation.

I refuse to do so because they are forcing their logic based on how the arranged they photos.

You might ask (not Jack, who has seen my photos) an outsider--which ones are me and which are
an imposter?

It assumes an imposter.

And they assume an imposter that existed since childhood.

They are in error.

Please give me time to show it.

Do you understand why I just pointed out ones that I was sure were Lee? And by that, I meant
'Harvey' to them?

By stacking the deck with just two responses, they leave no room for discussion.

He's doing the same thing again, asking me which one it is, in the 'fat face'.

It is the wrong question.

It is not 'who did she know --Harvey? Or did she know Lee'?'

It is dangerous.

It is catching.

Above all, I have strong reasons to contend with it.

And will.

[NOTE: Having taught logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning for 35 years, I can confirm that
Judyth is on impeccable logical grounds in objecting that she is being presented with a conclusion to
which she should not assent. This is known as "the complex (or leading) question", which begs the
question (by taking for granted what needs to be proven on independent grounds). It is like asking,

"Have you stopped beating your wife?" or, perhaps, "Do you prefer to purchase the red Buick or the burgundy?"

You cannot answer "Yes" or "No" to the first questions without admitting you have beaten your wife or
"Red" or "Burgundy" to the second without acknowledging that you are going to buy a Buick. Likewise,
you cannot answer "Harvey" or "Lee" without granting that there were two Oswalds, Harvey and Lee.]

==Please tell Jack White that he forces me into a logical bind when he asks 'which' man I knew and loved.
He attempts to have me answer in his mode, that Lee was 'one' or the 'other' -- I refuse to respond to this
loaded question, which forces many errors into the big picture. Instead, I will present, one by one, my
arguments as to why the Armstrong thesis must be re-evaluated and in many aspects (not all, by any
means, since impersonators were frequent)--ultimately discarded.

Not a single bit of Armstrong's research and hard work--all those records he accumulated-- has actually
unearthed a single verified living member of this 'second Oswald's' family. Were they murdered afterwards?

Vanished forever? Maybe?

But there are better explanations.

One of the best is that Armstrong is wrong.

We have Donald Norton, who says he impersonated Oswald, He does not resemble either 'Lee' or 'Harvey',
however. Does Armstrong or Jack White assign him as 'Lee' or 'Harvey'? I refuse to pick out 'Harvey' or 'Lee'
as the person I knew and loved in New Orleans.

However, I promise to explain why, in the blogs.

Hopefully, we can get back to Lee Oswald, why he had to die, and why it matters, instead of mulling over photos that never,
unlike Abraham Bolden or Jim Douglass or Doug Horne or Jim Fetzer, actually brought us new information that jives together
and moves the case forward.

What it did, in a royal way, was to divert form the big picture.
These keep us going in circles.

Which one do 'you' think is 'Lee' and which one do 'you' think is 'Harvey'--shown this photo or that, Jim? Lola?
It's a trap.

Maybe unintentional, but the man never met me, ignored me.
His research cannot be trusted to be as thorough as Jack wishes us to believe.

There are gaping errors in logic. Including trying to force a witness to fall into the 'Lee' and 'Harvey' ID game.

[quote name='Karl Kinaski' post 'Mar 9 2010, 08:31 PM']

This nonsense shows a total lack of understanding.

On the SAME DATE it is documented that ONE MARGUERITE
OSWALD worked at Paul's Shoe Store in Fort Worth while
Lee Harvey Oswald attended Stripling Junior High School.

On that SAME DATE it is documented that ANOTHER MARGUERITE
OSWALD worked at a hosiery store on Canal Street in New
Orleans while another Lee Harvey Oswald attended Beauregard Junior
High School.

This information has NOTHING to do with photo analysis nor
forensic analysis nor medical analysis as NONSENSICALLY stated
above. Two LHOs, two Marguerites, same date, different cities.
That is as simple an explanation as can be made.

Any other interpretation is NONSENSE!

Read the book.

Jack

Jack. The game with identities is well known in that never ending murder
case. There were 4 to 6 Oswalds, (the Bolton-Ford Ossi, N.O, the Lincoln-
Mercury Ossi, Dallas, the Odio-Ossi, Dallas, the firering ranch Ossi, Dallas,
the mexico-city Ossi etc...), at last two JVBers, the Haslam-JVB, and the
real one, and maybe there where two moms of Ossi. Jim and Judyth just
say this, and I agree: there was no Oswald-CLON, which is, as far as I
understand, the main-idea of the Armstrong book...according to Prouty the
CIA started to create an Oswald 201 file in Dec 1960. One purpose of such
a file is to create parallel résumés of one person. It is flashy that the first
documented incident with a false Oswald occurred just a month later in
Oswald's Hometown N.O., on 20.1.1961, the day JFK was sworn into office.
I do not believe, there was any need or intention to play the game of
identities prior.

To me the Oswald-Clon theorie is worthless. I am happy with the well
documented appearances of Oswald-copycats. (Some of them looked
completely different!...mexico city Ossi... )

Since I am not familiar with the Armstrong book: did Armstrong explain,
why there was a need to create an Oswald-Clon well back in the fifties,
when Ike was president, and nobody on earth knew who would be the next
man in the O-Office?

PS The final proof of the JVBs Story, to me, was, when Haslam realized, in
2000 I think, that his monkey-virus story fit 100 percent with Judyths story.
Note: they never met before, (except this strange incident with that false
Judyth!) and they came out with their storys independently.

KK
[/quote]