04-05-2010, 09:30 PM
QUESTIONS FOR JACK WHITE ABOUT METHODOLOGY AND "PRIMARY RESEARCH"
Jack,
After raking leaves for a few hours and thinking about this post, I have a few questions:
(1) Is the FOIA route the one that you and John Armstrong adopted in your research on
HARVEY & LEE? If so, that might explain quite a lot. Has it ever crossed you mind that
the CIA and the FBI might not be the most reliable sources about the JFK assassination?
(2) Judyth has told me on several occasions that Lee had explained to her that the CIA
was creating a "false personal history" for him so he could return to a normal life after
his covert assignments. Did you and John take that into account in doing your research?
(3) Doesn't that suggest that, if there really were "two Oswalds" (other than Robert and
Lee), then you should have uncovered THREE: your "Harvey", your "Lee", plus the fake
personal history the CIA had created? Could you have confounded "Lee" and the fake?
(4) Judyth observed that, in relation to some of your photographic studies, the case for
"a second Oswald" appears to depend on photos that only differ with respect to, say,
their aspect ratio. You are aware of this. Has it affected your case for "two Oswalds"?
(5) Some of your argument are based on assuming that photos with asymmetrical
features might be composites. But don't most people have asymmetrical features?
Have you done studies by doing what you have done to Oswald photos with others?
(6) You suggest FOIAing the CIA and FBI as "primary research". I don't get it. Aren't
witness interviews the most important and primary research, since they are required
to authenticate photos and films? Is that a procedure that you and John followed?
(7) Why are you suggesting that I should so some "primary research"? Surely what I
am doing in interviewing the person who appears to be the most knowledgeable witness
to Lee's activities in New Orleans is "primary research" if any research on JFK is primary.
This is a nice example of your utter incapacity to break free from your preconceptions.
Jim
[quote name='Jack White' post='191520' date='May 2 2010, 05:27 PM']
There are multiple ways of verifying some of the Judyth tales:
1. File a FOIA request with the CIA and FBI regarding their files on Judyth Vary/Judyth Vary Baker
in 1963 in relation to New Orleans, Lee Harvey Oswald, David Ferrie, Guy Banister, Alton Oschner,
Carlos Marcello, Clay Shaw, Fidel Castro, Reily Coffee, Jackson Hospital, medical research, monkey
virus, etc. It is known that the FBI had extensive files on many of these subjects and had many
of them UNDER CONSTANT SURVEILLANCE, noting all of their contacts. Any mention of Vary/Baker
in relation to any of these subjects would be substantiation perhaps that some portions of her
story is true. However, the ABSENCE of ANY mention of Vary/Baker might be equally revealing.
The CIA was running some of these operations, so their records would be revealing, even if
heavily redacted.
2. Locate Robert Baker, her former husband, and pose many reasonable questions regarding the
period of 1963 and any knowledge he has regarding the activities of his wife. One researcher
pointed out to me that there is a conflict even in the circumstances of the Baker marriage. This
source says that the quickie elopement did not happen as JVB describes. This source says that
she and Baker were married in Florida in a traditional wedding, and this can be proved by
marriage license and other records. If this is true (I have no way of knowing), then why would
JVB say that Baker showed up in New Orleans and demanded an immediate marriage, so they
eloped? If she is wrong about how and when she was married, this would cast a large cloud over
anything else she says.
3. Check college records. My source says that Judyth and Robert were classmates at the
University of Florida (Gainesville?) BEFORE she went to New Orleans. If she was a student
there before going to New Orleans, why does her story omit this detail?
There are other obvious civil records which can be consulted. Why not cease the arguing and
do some primary research?
Jack[/quote]
Jack,
After raking leaves for a few hours and thinking about this post, I have a few questions:
(1) Is the FOIA route the one that you and John Armstrong adopted in your research on
HARVEY & LEE? If so, that might explain quite a lot. Has it ever crossed you mind that
the CIA and the FBI might not be the most reliable sources about the JFK assassination?
(2) Judyth has told me on several occasions that Lee had explained to her that the CIA
was creating a "false personal history" for him so he could return to a normal life after
his covert assignments. Did you and John take that into account in doing your research?
(3) Doesn't that suggest that, if there really were "two Oswalds" (other than Robert and
Lee), then you should have uncovered THREE: your "Harvey", your "Lee", plus the fake
personal history the CIA had created? Could you have confounded "Lee" and the fake?
(4) Judyth observed that, in relation to some of your photographic studies, the case for
"a second Oswald" appears to depend on photos that only differ with respect to, say,
their aspect ratio. You are aware of this. Has it affected your case for "two Oswalds"?
(5) Some of your argument are based on assuming that photos with asymmetrical
features might be composites. But don't most people have asymmetrical features?
Have you done studies by doing what you have done to Oswald photos with others?
(6) You suggest FOIAing the CIA and FBI as "primary research". I don't get it. Aren't
witness interviews the most important and primary research, since they are required
to authenticate photos and films? Is that a procedure that you and John followed?
(7) Why are you suggesting that I should so some "primary research"? Surely what I
am doing in interviewing the person who appears to be the most knowledgeable witness
to Lee's activities in New Orleans is "primary research" if any research on JFK is primary.
This is a nice example of your utter incapacity to break free from your preconceptions.
Jim
[quote name='Jack White' post='191520' date='May 2 2010, 05:27 PM']
There are multiple ways of verifying some of the Judyth tales:
1. File a FOIA request with the CIA and FBI regarding their files on Judyth Vary/Judyth Vary Baker
in 1963 in relation to New Orleans, Lee Harvey Oswald, David Ferrie, Guy Banister, Alton Oschner,
Carlos Marcello, Clay Shaw, Fidel Castro, Reily Coffee, Jackson Hospital, medical research, monkey
virus, etc. It is known that the FBI had extensive files on many of these subjects and had many
of them UNDER CONSTANT SURVEILLANCE, noting all of their contacts. Any mention of Vary/Baker
in relation to any of these subjects would be substantiation perhaps that some portions of her
story is true. However, the ABSENCE of ANY mention of Vary/Baker might be equally revealing.
The CIA was running some of these operations, so their records would be revealing, even if
heavily redacted.
2. Locate Robert Baker, her former husband, and pose many reasonable questions regarding the
period of 1963 and any knowledge he has regarding the activities of his wife. One researcher
pointed out to me that there is a conflict even in the circumstances of the Baker marriage. This
source says that the quickie elopement did not happen as JVB describes. This source says that
she and Baker were married in Florida in a traditional wedding, and this can be proved by
marriage license and other records. If this is true (I have no way of knowing), then why would
JVB say that Baker showed up in New Orleans and demanded an immediate marriage, so they
eloped? If she is wrong about how and when she was married, this would cast a large cloud over
anything else she says.
3. Check college records. My source says that Judyth and Robert were classmates at the
University of Florida (Gainesville?) BEFORE she went to New Orleans. If she was a student
there before going to New Orleans, why does her story omit this detail?
There are other obvious civil records which can be consulted. Why not cease the arguing and
do some primary research?
Jack[/quote]