Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[James H. Fetzer]

JUDYTH REPLIES TO JACK ABOUT A SIMPLE MISTAKE

NOTE: What is or is not "new information" to someone is a
function of the information already present in their minds. I
find it difficult to reconcile Jack's insistance that HE IS NOT
LEARNING ANYTHING NEW with the conclusion that THERE-
FORE NO ONE IS LEARNING ANYTHING NEW. I have been
offering examples about Ochsner, Phillips, and Files that I,
for example, have been finding to be "new information".
So I think Jack has been employing the wrong standard.

Jack writes:

To the contrary, it is difficult to pin down just what she does claim.
In 2007 an article for which she initiated the information for . . .

== I told Dr. Williams it would make an interesting statistical study.
He agreed, after reviewing everything. He worked hard gathering a
great deal of information. the article itself is quite long and involved.
It may have another flaw somewhere. I didn't catch the confluence
of several people being met in one day. NOTE THAT THIS IS NOT
IN THE LOVE AFFAIR, IT IS NOT IN ANY INFORMATION GIVEN TO
OTHERS. IT IS A SIMPLE ERROR.

and read in advance

===by computer! And it did not prnt out like it does on paper. The
layout of the next sentence fooled me. The rest of the article still
looks ok to me, with dozens and dozens of additional statements.====

says that the second day she had known LHO, he took her to meet Dr.
Ochsner; that she waited in the outer office while Lee went in, and that
he came out and took her in and introduced her to the doctor.

Now, in 2010, she says that is wrong...that he was in South America at
that time.

MR. WHITE IS IN ERROR. IN THE SAME ARTICLE THAT HE REFERS TO,
BUT APPARENTLY DID NOT READ CAREFULLY, IT SAYS THE FOLLOWING
ON PAGE 3:

"When I came to New Orleans two weeks early, both Ochsner and Sherman
were out of town, and I found myself temporarily stranded. My fiancé had
offered to come to New Orleans to marry me if he could convince his parents
to allow him to work away from their real estate office. "

SHORTLY AFTER DR. WILLIAMS PUBLISHED HIS ARTICLE, WE FOUND PROOF
THAT DR. OCHSNER WAS IN SOUTH AMERICA. I ONLY COULD PROVE THAT
HE WAS OUT OF TOWN BEFORE WE FOUND THE TIMES-PICAYUNE ARTICLE
MENTIONING HE WAS IN SOUTH AMERICA.

WHY DID JACK WHITE SAY I HAVE CHANGED MY STORY, WHEN I DID NOT?

I have acknowledged one error in the article, but have shown that both
before and after its publication I have shown that this was an error.

I made an error in reading this article. And Jack just made one by saYing
I did not menton that Ochsner was out of town in tis article. But I did.

You see how easly an error in reading can be made, Jack?

Why are you after my flesh and bones?

JVB

[quote name='Jack White' post='186998' date='Mar 16 2010, 01:22 AM']
Jim...You have your opinions and I have mine about what constitutes "new evidence" in the JFK case.

I have not read her "book", but have read enough "excerpts" to have an idea what she claims. In
all of that, I HAVE NOT ENCOUNTERED ANY NEW INFORMATION WHICH ADDS TO MY UNDERSTANDING
of what happened in Dallas. To ME, what she says either is not relevant, not new, not important, or not
believable...so I find nothing of value to any of it. It does nothing to change our understanding of
what happened in DP or Bethesda. The autopsy is still faked, the brain is still substituted, the
Zapruder film still faked. The backyard photos were faked to frame LHO, etc., etc. etc. Nothing she
says CHANGES ANY OF THE "SETTLED" FACTS.

You and others who choose to think the opposite are entitled to your beliefs. But that does not mean
that others must change their evaluations. I have seen nothing that makes me sit up and take notice.

To the contrary, it is difficult to pin down just what she does claim. In 2007 an article for which she
initiated the information for and read in advance says that the second day she had known LHO, he
took her to meet Dr. Ochsner; that she waited in the outer office while Lee went in, and that he came
out and took her in and introduced her to the doctor. Now, in 2010, she says that is wrong...that
he was in South America at that time. Previously I had read that she had been invited to come to
New Orleans to be an intern under Dr. Ochsner. Now if you can sort this out and make sense of it,
you are better than I am at interpreting conflicting statements. I find this (and many other things)
too confusing to sort out or bother with. And so what? Was Ochsner behind the assassination? Or
if he had ANY involvement, was it important? I do not get that impression from ANYTHING JVB has
said. Even if EVERYTHING she says is true, it does not enhance the things we already knew.

I agree with you that "I AM HAVING A HARD TIME KEEPING ALL OF THIS STRAIGHT". It is difficult
to hit a moving target.

Warm regards.

Jack

[quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='186979' date='Mar 15 2010, 08:20 PM']
OK, Jack. I am going to ask Judyth about it. I don't know about
you, but I would have a hard time keeping all this straight. Let me
ask you a question. Do you acknowledge, given what I have posed
above, that what Judyth has to tell us--assuming she is "the real deal",
which you dispute--DOES ADD TO OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE CASE
IN VARIOUS REPECTS, such as regarding Ochsner, Phillips, and Files?

[quote name='Jack White' post='186977' date='Mar 15 2010, 10:04 PM']
Here is the Williams 2007 DP ECHO article. I am using the
McAdams reprinting of it, since it is much easier to read
as a PDF file rather than the small type in the ECHO
article:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ngarchive/Judya...nNewOrleans.pdf

Much of it differs from what JVB says in 2010.[/quote]
[/quote]
[/quote]