26-04-2010, 12:20 AM
Don,
Thanks for an extremely appropriate and thoughtful post, which is surely one of the best to have appeared in the history of this thread. My concern has to do with the closed-mindedness of some of Judyth's critics, not whether they ultimately come down on her side or not. Judyth, of course, is the most controversial figure in the history of the assassination, even more so than Madeleine Duncan Brown, with whom I had more than 100 conversations. I became convinced that Madeleine was "the real deal" just as I have become convinced that Judyth is, too. What bothers me is the complete and unwavering commitment to contending that nothing she has to say has any merit, when that is absolutely not the case.
The "double-standard" simply astounds me. Everything Judyth has to say is discarded, while everything Armstrong has to say is accepted. Even when he has committed blunders about the "index" to the supporting volumes and the date of the founding of the Warren Commission, no one--with the except of Michael Hogan--seems to care in the least. These are gross mistakes that occur in the first five or six pages of his book! How am I supposed to respect anyone who is so blindly committed to Armstrong that they cannot acknowledge gross blunders at the very start of his book? I cannot.
And when it comes to more serious questions about the alleged differences between "Harvey" and "Lee", such as their alleged difference in eye color, the claim that "Harvey" was born in Hungary, that "Lee" had a missing tooth, and such, the situation becomes even more bizarre. Judyth has presented a brilliant study of the eye-color issue, which, in my opinion, lays the issue to rest. The alleged difference almost certainly did not exist. And she has observed that the man she knew had no trace of a Hungarian accent, but only a slight Cajun accent, which suggests that that claim is unsupportable, too.
And, of course, the whole Beauregard Junior High School story verges on the absurd. "Harvey" is supposed to have been a student the semester before "Lee" enrolls, which is already a bit of a stretch, but then "Lee" loses a tooth in an altercation, where Lillian Murret remembers the incident and that she paid for his dental visit--except that Lillian was not "Lee"'s aunt but "Harvey"'s. So what is "Harvey"'s aunt doing paying for "Lee"'s dental visit? And the response from Jack is that the Murret's, like Robert, Marina, and Marguerite, must have also known about both "Harvey" and "Lee"!
Now I am willing to grant that Armstrong has amassed an impressive archive of documents and records. But the claim that these key players knew there were "two Oswalds" and never peeped a word about it simply escapes me. Invoking ad hoc hypotheses like this is an indication of desperation in the attempt to retain a theory whose truth has been thereby threatened. And when I suggest that a more reasonable hypothesis would be that Robert--whom Jack has shown to be a "dead ringer" for his brother--may have impersonated him on various occasions, my hypothesis is simply disregarded.
Indeed, Judyth has even shown that some of the photographs alleged to support the existence of "two Oswalds" no more serve as "proof" than the alleged difference in eye-color. Simple considerations of aspect ratio differences undermines that claim, where it is easy to make a face somewhat rounder or fatter by simple adjustments, where Jack illustrates the point by a series of six photographs of me, where I am supposed to "guess" which one is the real me. I guess and then learn they are all altered! Yet he does not accept Judyth's point, which undermines some of his own photographic studies.
When it comes to David Lifton and Doug Weldon, I am similarly disappointed in their closed-minded attitude. David has long denounced Judyth on the basis of a phone conversation with her, during which she talked about their plans to visit a hotel in Cancun, on the grounds that Cancun did not exist at that time. But it turns out that the village of Kankun DID exist at that time, where it is most unlikely that a phonetically indistinguishable difference would have been apparent to him, especially when, so far as I can discern, he was not even aware of the existence of Kankun apart from Cancun.
When I ask him to share the basis for his denunciation of Judyth with me by sending me a copy of the cassette recording, so I can evaluate the evidence for myself, he refuses to do so. That, in my opinion, is not the conduct of a scholar who is in search of the truth. I know there is much at stake for him personally, since he has invested many years of research on a new book about Oswald. And even though I infer (from past conversations) that he is not inclined to accept the story of HARVEY & LEE, he is not even willing to say so on this forum. That is not appropriate conduct here.
If you trace the history of posts on this thread, I think you will find that my attitude was very cordial in the beginning. I was very gentle with Jack, even though he was posting grossly abusive, question-begging and ad hominem attacks upon Judyth from scratch. It has taken around 1,200 posts for me to become convinced that the vast majority of those who are attacking her HAVE NO INTEREST IN THE EVIDENCE. That they are not reading Ed Haslam, DR. MARY'S MONKEY, or acknowledging rather obvious truths about her story simply astounds me. They do not seem to care about the truth.
From your observations, perhaps I should have been taking Junkkarinen more seriously, but my impression has been that she is simply endlessly recycling old material from other forums, especially McAdams, which seems to me to be yet another sign that her activities are determined but not sincere. And the indications of collusion between her, McAdams, and Viklund bother me tremendously. That she uncovered the abstract for a paper that Judyth had written as a high-school student, which displays her scientific sophistication at the time, CONFIRMS Judyth's story, as Howard has observed.
It seems to me that anyone with a serious interest in these matters would acknowledge that Haslam, in particular, has done brilliant work in establishing the existence of a convert project to develop a bio-weapon that was initiated by Dr. Alton Ochsner, where Dr. Mary Sherman was the project manager, who was assisted by David Ferrie, Lee Oswald, and Judyth Vary Baker. The project involved the use of monkeys and mice as subjects and the use of a linear particle accelerator to bring about mutations of the viruses they were studying. That much has been established beyond doubt.
It appears to me that Judyth was recruited because she not only knew more about cancer research than the NIH or the American Cancer Society at the time, but also because she was unknown to the public and could be used in a covert operation like this without risking the reputations of others of greater prominence, including Ochsner himself, who, in my view, appears to have been a ruthless individual who brooked no opposition. That he was willing to inoculate his own grandchildren with an unproven vaccine, killing one and inducing polio in the other, reveals the risks he was willing to run.
The point is that she was doing specific kinds of research where she was ahead of the leading cancer researchers in the nation. Newspaper articles were being written about her and Haslam has discussed this, where Judyth can be more specific than I am being here. From Ochsner's perspective, she was perfect: she was brilliant and engaged in the kind of research the project entailed, yet she was young and naive and could be manipulated for the purposes he had in mind. Most of all, because she was otherwise invisible to the public, she was expendable! She could be used like Kleenex and discarded.
Indeed, those few who are actually studying the evidence should have been impressed by Judyth's integrity when she discovered that a prisoner had been used as the subject of an experiment--which cost his life--without informed consent and protested to Ochsner, who promptly terminated the project, abandoned her in spite of his promises for her future, and had Oswald transferred to Dallas. He would later be active in promoting the impression that Oswald was a lone, demented gun-man, who was a communist sympathizer and agent of Castro, when he obviously knew much better.
If I were seeing the least acknowledgment of some of the proof that Judyth has produced to establish that she is indeed the person she claims, then I would not have become so strident in denouncing some of her critics. But the violations of basic canons of rationality and the abuse of logic and evidence that have occurred here cannot be explained on the basis of a preference for one hypothesis over another. They reflect not only the rigid adherence to a theory that requires very careful dissection (HARVEY & LEE) but a dedicated effort to assassinate her character and now, by extension, mine, too.
You are absolutely right, of course, that I sometimes lose arguments that I should win because of my combative stance. I appreciate that you can discriminate between the message and the messenger by noting that the evidence and the reasoning I present can be "right on" and yet those who are reading these posts can be disaffected BECAUSE OF THE INTENSITY OF MY PRESENTATIONS. Of that charge, I am clearly guilty. These matters are of the utmost importance to understanding the mysteries of New Orleans. I had expected more from some of those participating here. I have made my acute disappointment in them public and apparent. But perhaps your valuable post helps me to understand why.
With regard to Doug Weldon, finally, he is basing his assessment of Judyth on his experience with other witnesses. But Judyth is a special case, with a far superior IQ, an excellent memory, and clear recollections of the specific events that occurred during this fascinating and novel period of her life. For that reason, I think he is mistaken, especially when he has had such limited experience dealing with her (non-existent personally). As for friendships, I value them greatly. But if we place friendships ahead of truth, then there is no truth, only friendships. And that is something I am not willing to do.
Jim
[quote name='Don Jeffries' post='190291' date='Apr 21 2010, 07:26 AM']
This extremely long thread exemplifies all the problems that have existed for decades, and continue to exist, within the JFK assassination research community. Good people arguing passionately over aspects of this case that don't, in all reality, alter the larger, crucial issue of exposing the fallacies of the offical version of events.
Just following the posts on this thread convinced me that, eventually, either Jack or Jim would tell the other they were no longer friends. It took quite a while, but eventually that did happen. Very sad, and unnecessary.
Jim- you should know that I almost always agree with your views on a variety of subjects (JFK assassination, 911, etc.). However, I have to tell you in the most friendly way possible that it is very hard for anyone-even someone who is in agreement with you virtually all the time-to support the style in which you post your thoughts. Just becaue someone disagrees with you on a particular point doesn't mean that they have no credibility, or are morally suspect. I think I told you a while back, in a p.m., that you were losing debates you should be winning, on the basis of your objectionable tone, even though the substance of your posts, and the evidence you cited, was solid. In plain English, the manner in which you disagree with people is bound to alienate not only them, but neutral observers who would otherwise be sympathetic to your arguments.
On the other hand, I have disagreed often with Barb J. on some aspects of this case. However, in this instance, she has provided solid research which contradicted many of Judyth's claims. That doesn't mean I now agree with her about the hole in the windshield, location of the back wound or anything else. I am objective enough to admit that she's done impressive work on this thread. That doesn't make me your enemy, and I hope you will understand that.
I hope that Judyth appreciates the fervor of your support. You are certainly a strong ally for anyone to have, and I hope if I ever need defending that you'll be on my side. I tend to agree with Jack's assertion, early in this thread, that Judyth's story, even if completely true, is just not critically important to assassination research. Most of us already believe that Oswald was some kind of undercover agent, and many agree with Jim Garrison's theory that he was on an undercover assignment to infiltrate a JFK assassination plot on November 22, 1963. And, even if all of us believed in her as strongly as you do, the same forces that have obstructed justice in this case for nearly 50 years- mainstream media, government agencies- would certainly not take her seriously, even if they couldn't poke holes in her story as Barb and others here have.
Doug Weldon posted some excellent thoughts here, but you seem not to have heard them. Is total loyalty to everything Judyth has ever said worth the rupture of long time friendships and associations with Jack White and David Lifton? Do you really think that this woman is more important to exposing the truth about the JFK assassination than the author of Best Evidence ? Do you think her personal anecdotes trump the decades of research by Jack White? Do you value her input more than that of Doug Weldon- whose fine work you yourself published?
This thread has resulted in a break between you and Jack, as well as you and David Lifton. There have also been numerous criticisms of John Armstrong and his book Harvey And Lee. I haven't read his book, but have read many excerpts from Jim Hargrove, who had (may still have) a fine web site devoted to promoting Armstrong's work. I don't think that this case will rise or fall on his particular theory, but there is no denying that he produced a lot of solid research, whether he made some mistakes or not. I have a sense you feel that if you can impugn Armstrong's credibility, then that will somehow prove Judyth is the "real deal." You seem to believe that Judyth's recollections are "evidence," even though they are disputed by many (certainly a majority of) researchers.
I bear you no ill well, Jim. This is a very difficult post for me to make. It's hard to tell someone you admire and agree with that his style and tone are getting in the way of the substantive arguments he is presenting. If you could just temper your responses, maybe wait a while before posting a reply, it might make a huge difference in the way you are perceived by many in the critical community. A little humility and self-deprecation make anyone a lot more likeable. And the more likeable you are, the more apt others are to listen to the substance of what you say.
Just my long and rambling unsolicited (and probably unwelcome) input. I hope you don't respond as harshly to me as you have to others, and perhaps actually think about what I've said.[/quote]
Thanks for an extremely appropriate and thoughtful post, which is surely one of the best to have appeared in the history of this thread. My concern has to do with the closed-mindedness of some of Judyth's critics, not whether they ultimately come down on her side or not. Judyth, of course, is the most controversial figure in the history of the assassination, even more so than Madeleine Duncan Brown, with whom I had more than 100 conversations. I became convinced that Madeleine was "the real deal" just as I have become convinced that Judyth is, too. What bothers me is the complete and unwavering commitment to contending that nothing she has to say has any merit, when that is absolutely not the case.
The "double-standard" simply astounds me. Everything Judyth has to say is discarded, while everything Armstrong has to say is accepted. Even when he has committed blunders about the "index" to the supporting volumes and the date of the founding of the Warren Commission, no one--with the except of Michael Hogan--seems to care in the least. These are gross mistakes that occur in the first five or six pages of his book! How am I supposed to respect anyone who is so blindly committed to Armstrong that they cannot acknowledge gross blunders at the very start of his book? I cannot.
And when it comes to more serious questions about the alleged differences between "Harvey" and "Lee", such as their alleged difference in eye color, the claim that "Harvey" was born in Hungary, that "Lee" had a missing tooth, and such, the situation becomes even more bizarre. Judyth has presented a brilliant study of the eye-color issue, which, in my opinion, lays the issue to rest. The alleged difference almost certainly did not exist. And she has observed that the man she knew had no trace of a Hungarian accent, but only a slight Cajun accent, which suggests that that claim is unsupportable, too.
And, of course, the whole Beauregard Junior High School story verges on the absurd. "Harvey" is supposed to have been a student the semester before "Lee" enrolls, which is already a bit of a stretch, but then "Lee" loses a tooth in an altercation, where Lillian Murret remembers the incident and that she paid for his dental visit--except that Lillian was not "Lee"'s aunt but "Harvey"'s. So what is "Harvey"'s aunt doing paying for "Lee"'s dental visit? And the response from Jack is that the Murret's, like Robert, Marina, and Marguerite, must have also known about both "Harvey" and "Lee"!
Now I am willing to grant that Armstrong has amassed an impressive archive of documents and records. But the claim that these key players knew there were "two Oswalds" and never peeped a word about it simply escapes me. Invoking ad hoc hypotheses like this is an indication of desperation in the attempt to retain a theory whose truth has been thereby threatened. And when I suggest that a more reasonable hypothesis would be that Robert--whom Jack has shown to be a "dead ringer" for his brother--may have impersonated him on various occasions, my hypothesis is simply disregarded.
Indeed, Judyth has even shown that some of the photographs alleged to support the existence of "two Oswalds" no more serve as "proof" than the alleged difference in eye-color. Simple considerations of aspect ratio differences undermines that claim, where it is easy to make a face somewhat rounder or fatter by simple adjustments, where Jack illustrates the point by a series of six photographs of me, where I am supposed to "guess" which one is the real me. I guess and then learn they are all altered! Yet he does not accept Judyth's point, which undermines some of his own photographic studies.
When it comes to David Lifton and Doug Weldon, I am similarly disappointed in their closed-minded attitude. David has long denounced Judyth on the basis of a phone conversation with her, during which she talked about their plans to visit a hotel in Cancun, on the grounds that Cancun did not exist at that time. But it turns out that the village of Kankun DID exist at that time, where it is most unlikely that a phonetically indistinguishable difference would have been apparent to him, especially when, so far as I can discern, he was not even aware of the existence of Kankun apart from Cancun.
When I ask him to share the basis for his denunciation of Judyth with me by sending me a copy of the cassette recording, so I can evaluate the evidence for myself, he refuses to do so. That, in my opinion, is not the conduct of a scholar who is in search of the truth. I know there is much at stake for him personally, since he has invested many years of research on a new book about Oswald. And even though I infer (from past conversations) that he is not inclined to accept the story of HARVEY & LEE, he is not even willing to say so on this forum. That is not appropriate conduct here.
If you trace the history of posts on this thread, I think you will find that my attitude was very cordial in the beginning. I was very gentle with Jack, even though he was posting grossly abusive, question-begging and ad hominem attacks upon Judyth from scratch. It has taken around 1,200 posts for me to become convinced that the vast majority of those who are attacking her HAVE NO INTEREST IN THE EVIDENCE. That they are not reading Ed Haslam, DR. MARY'S MONKEY, or acknowledging rather obvious truths about her story simply astounds me. They do not seem to care about the truth.
From your observations, perhaps I should have been taking Junkkarinen more seriously, but my impression has been that she is simply endlessly recycling old material from other forums, especially McAdams, which seems to me to be yet another sign that her activities are determined but not sincere. And the indications of collusion between her, McAdams, and Viklund bother me tremendously. That she uncovered the abstract for a paper that Judyth had written as a high-school student, which displays her scientific sophistication at the time, CONFIRMS Judyth's story, as Howard has observed.
It seems to me that anyone with a serious interest in these matters would acknowledge that Haslam, in particular, has done brilliant work in establishing the existence of a convert project to develop a bio-weapon that was initiated by Dr. Alton Ochsner, where Dr. Mary Sherman was the project manager, who was assisted by David Ferrie, Lee Oswald, and Judyth Vary Baker. The project involved the use of monkeys and mice as subjects and the use of a linear particle accelerator to bring about mutations of the viruses they were studying. That much has been established beyond doubt.
It appears to me that Judyth was recruited because she not only knew more about cancer research than the NIH or the American Cancer Society at the time, but also because she was unknown to the public and could be used in a covert operation like this without risking the reputations of others of greater prominence, including Ochsner himself, who, in my view, appears to have been a ruthless individual who brooked no opposition. That he was willing to inoculate his own grandchildren with an unproven vaccine, killing one and inducing polio in the other, reveals the risks he was willing to run.
The point is that she was doing specific kinds of research where she was ahead of the leading cancer researchers in the nation. Newspaper articles were being written about her and Haslam has discussed this, where Judyth can be more specific than I am being here. From Ochsner's perspective, she was perfect: she was brilliant and engaged in the kind of research the project entailed, yet she was young and naive and could be manipulated for the purposes he had in mind. Most of all, because she was otherwise invisible to the public, she was expendable! She could be used like Kleenex and discarded.
Indeed, those few who are actually studying the evidence should have been impressed by Judyth's integrity when she discovered that a prisoner had been used as the subject of an experiment--which cost his life--without informed consent and protested to Ochsner, who promptly terminated the project, abandoned her in spite of his promises for her future, and had Oswald transferred to Dallas. He would later be active in promoting the impression that Oswald was a lone, demented gun-man, who was a communist sympathizer and agent of Castro, when he obviously knew much better.
If I were seeing the least acknowledgment of some of the proof that Judyth has produced to establish that she is indeed the person she claims, then I would not have become so strident in denouncing some of her critics. But the violations of basic canons of rationality and the abuse of logic and evidence that have occurred here cannot be explained on the basis of a preference for one hypothesis over another. They reflect not only the rigid adherence to a theory that requires very careful dissection (HARVEY & LEE) but a dedicated effort to assassinate her character and now, by extension, mine, too.
You are absolutely right, of course, that I sometimes lose arguments that I should win because of my combative stance. I appreciate that you can discriminate between the message and the messenger by noting that the evidence and the reasoning I present can be "right on" and yet those who are reading these posts can be disaffected BECAUSE OF THE INTENSITY OF MY PRESENTATIONS. Of that charge, I am clearly guilty. These matters are of the utmost importance to understanding the mysteries of New Orleans. I had expected more from some of those participating here. I have made my acute disappointment in them public and apparent. But perhaps your valuable post helps me to understand why.
With regard to Doug Weldon, finally, he is basing his assessment of Judyth on his experience with other witnesses. But Judyth is a special case, with a far superior IQ, an excellent memory, and clear recollections of the specific events that occurred during this fascinating and novel period of her life. For that reason, I think he is mistaken, especially when he has had such limited experience dealing with her (non-existent personally). As for friendships, I value them greatly. But if we place friendships ahead of truth, then there is no truth, only friendships. And that is something I am not willing to do.
Jim
[quote name='Don Jeffries' post='190291' date='Apr 21 2010, 07:26 AM']
This extremely long thread exemplifies all the problems that have existed for decades, and continue to exist, within the JFK assassination research community. Good people arguing passionately over aspects of this case that don't, in all reality, alter the larger, crucial issue of exposing the fallacies of the offical version of events.
Just following the posts on this thread convinced me that, eventually, either Jack or Jim would tell the other they were no longer friends. It took quite a while, but eventually that did happen. Very sad, and unnecessary.
Jim- you should know that I almost always agree with your views on a variety of subjects (JFK assassination, 911, etc.). However, I have to tell you in the most friendly way possible that it is very hard for anyone-even someone who is in agreement with you virtually all the time-to support the style in which you post your thoughts. Just becaue someone disagrees with you on a particular point doesn't mean that they have no credibility, or are morally suspect. I think I told you a while back, in a p.m., that you were losing debates you should be winning, on the basis of your objectionable tone, even though the substance of your posts, and the evidence you cited, was solid. In plain English, the manner in which you disagree with people is bound to alienate not only them, but neutral observers who would otherwise be sympathetic to your arguments.
On the other hand, I have disagreed often with Barb J. on some aspects of this case. However, in this instance, she has provided solid research which contradicted many of Judyth's claims. That doesn't mean I now agree with her about the hole in the windshield, location of the back wound or anything else. I am objective enough to admit that she's done impressive work on this thread. That doesn't make me your enemy, and I hope you will understand that.
I hope that Judyth appreciates the fervor of your support. You are certainly a strong ally for anyone to have, and I hope if I ever need defending that you'll be on my side. I tend to agree with Jack's assertion, early in this thread, that Judyth's story, even if completely true, is just not critically important to assassination research. Most of us already believe that Oswald was some kind of undercover agent, and many agree with Jim Garrison's theory that he was on an undercover assignment to infiltrate a JFK assassination plot on November 22, 1963. And, even if all of us believed in her as strongly as you do, the same forces that have obstructed justice in this case for nearly 50 years- mainstream media, government agencies- would certainly not take her seriously, even if they couldn't poke holes in her story as Barb and others here have.
Doug Weldon posted some excellent thoughts here, but you seem not to have heard them. Is total loyalty to everything Judyth has ever said worth the rupture of long time friendships and associations with Jack White and David Lifton? Do you really think that this woman is more important to exposing the truth about the JFK assassination than the author of Best Evidence ? Do you think her personal anecdotes trump the decades of research by Jack White? Do you value her input more than that of Doug Weldon- whose fine work you yourself published?
This thread has resulted in a break between you and Jack, as well as you and David Lifton. There have also been numerous criticisms of John Armstrong and his book Harvey And Lee. I haven't read his book, but have read many excerpts from Jim Hargrove, who had (may still have) a fine web site devoted to promoting Armstrong's work. I don't think that this case will rise or fall on his particular theory, but there is no denying that he produced a lot of solid research, whether he made some mistakes or not. I have a sense you feel that if you can impugn Armstrong's credibility, then that will somehow prove Judyth is the "real deal." You seem to believe that Judyth's recollections are "evidence," even though they are disputed by many (certainly a majority of) researchers.
I bear you no ill well, Jim. This is a very difficult post for me to make. It's hard to tell someone you admire and agree with that his style and tone are getting in the way of the substantive arguments he is presenting. If you could just temper your responses, maybe wait a while before posting a reply, it might make a huge difference in the way you are perceived by many in the critical community. A little humility and self-deprecation make anyone a lot more likeable. And the more likeable you are, the more apt others are to listen to the substance of what you say.
Just my long and rambling unsolicited (and probably unwelcome) input. I hope you don't respond as harshly to me as you have to others, and perhaps actually think about what I've said.[/quote]