30-03-2010, 11:50 PM
(This post was last modified: 31-03-2010, 12:18 AM by James H. Fetzer.)
Bernice, I am not sure what you are telling me, but I am not suggesting to anyone that they change their point of view, especially not because of my views about Judyth. So far as I can see, the effort has been completely the other way around, where I am receiving too many emails telling me that my reputation and credibility is on the line and I should abandon my support. If you can show me one place where I am telling others that they should agree with me because of my conclusions, that will surprise me. I respect the right of each of us to draw their own conclusions, but that is my right, too.
The point I have been trying to convey is that, if Judyth were a fake, then surely her methodology would be very different. She would seek to make only the mildest claims about what she knows, avoiding details in favor of vague and ambiguous assertions to evade their easy disconfirmation. Her style, on the contrary, is completely the opposite, where she has been very detailed and specific about dates and times and places and all of that. And even her most implausible assertions appear to be well-founded. Nothing about her suggests to me that she is a fake. Quite the contrary, based upon my experience.
In fact, so far as I can ascertain, Judyth is making an effort to respond to every question she is being asked. I have never in my life witnessed anyone being taken to task on so many different grounds and surviving intact. At this point in time, I am finding her more forthcoming than some of my esteemed colleagues in research. I have now asked David Lifton several times if he believes in "the two Oswalds", but he has not replied. And he is not even telling me if he is still working on his book. That is very odd to me, but it is entirely the opposite of Judyth. You tell me why if Judyth is not the person whom she claims to be.
The point I have been trying to convey is that, if Judyth were a fake, then surely her methodology would be very different. She would seek to make only the mildest claims about what she knows, avoiding details in favor of vague and ambiguous assertions to evade their easy disconfirmation. Her style, on the contrary, is completely the opposite, where she has been very detailed and specific about dates and times and places and all of that. And even her most implausible assertions appear to be well-founded. Nothing about her suggests to me that she is a fake. Quite the contrary, based upon my experience.
In fact, so far as I can ascertain, Judyth is making an effort to respond to every question she is being asked. I have never in my life witnessed anyone being taken to task on so many different grounds and surviving intact. At this point in time, I am finding her more forthcoming than some of my esteemed colleagues in research. I have now asked David Lifton several times if he believes in "the two Oswalds", but he has not replied. And he is not even telling me if he is still working on his book. That is very odd to me, but it is entirely the opposite of Judyth. You tell me why if Judyth is not the person whom she claims to be.
Bernice Moore Wrote:jim the neener neener and silly man was a back at jack's man, if you look that is clear...seeing that it was Robert that had the hunting photo printed in his book, i imagine the only way you can go for proof now would be through him, and as i understand it, he has not been available to researchers but only to the media for docs newspapers etc, when they need to parade him out, so you may not get any help from him...as far as the research that has been done on his eyes, the differences with colours reported etc was done years ago in ''alias oswald''..by Cutler...as well as his scars, military records showing the two lhos..as well as illnesses while in service etc, the research that has been presented from the web has been well compiled, but sorry no prize from me as it is not new...plus if memory serves me ??? she had also given her explanation for such on the alts down through the years...i can understand somewhat i think the social pressure you are receiving...on the other hand one cannot express as freely as you have been to others your opinions freely in regard to jack's work, being wrong, as well as david's and armstrong's without flak coming your way, that i would believe would have been expected...see DR JIM...NO-ONE CAN JUST TELL ANOTHER THAT THEY they are wrong after all the many years of their research, which in the past you trumpeted they HAVE TO BELIEVE WHAT THEY DO withn and for themselves, AND IF THEY STATE BACK THAT IS THEIR OPINON, AND OR (sorry caps) slipped again......their findings and then are disregarded and put down for such, well it just does not work that way it never has and never will, it did not for you when you were criticized and attacked for such on many sites on the web and forums, you held firm your beliefs, ad that is what other will do as well and , that is i believe what you are running into...they will make up their own minds, and imo no one has the right to tell them what they should believe you have told myself and others for years, as well as on your teaching tape....do not believe me.do you own research make up your own mind from your own research words to that effect, now for some reason, you are trying to tell all to forget such and simply go along now with you because you believe.i can't do that now dr.jim,for you nor anyone, no matter how highly i have regarded you and your work, that cannot possibly work.. i cannot now throw out all the past teachings overnight and simply start again, and i will not...i have taken much from a/hs down through the years in standing up for your books your research and findings, i did not back down then nor change my thoughts through pressure then and i will not now ..and that my friend is the way this cookie crumbles..take good care....b