Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[James H. Fetzer]

JIM RESPONDS TO JACK ABOUT "HARVEY & LEE"

Let me say that I am just the least bit taken aback by your cavalier attitude
toward the "hunting photo", which has been among those you have used to
establish the existence of "Lee" as a person separate from "Harvey", whom
you insist was the person Judyth knew in New Orleans--the one who was
born in Hungary, could not drive, intellectual and interested in philosophy,
and all that, while "Lee" was the one who was hot-tempered, uninterested
in Marxism and could not speak Russian. You observe that the man in the
"hunting photo" does not look like "Harvey", which is true, but then almost
any random photo of an adult male would not look very much like "Harvey":

The "hunting photo" is NOT my photo, but was a personal photo allegedly
taken by Robert when he took Lee hunting just before Lee "departed
for New Orleans" for his defection. I copied the photo from LEE, written
by Robert Oswald. The way a Marine handles a rifle is not necessarily
indicative of what he would do when out hunting. Not everyone behaves
according to any preconceived notion. I have no opinion on the veracity
of the photo. It may be genuine, it may be faked. But it does not resemble
the LHO of Dealey Plaza.

I am also disturbed by your source, which is Robert, after I have explained
that he appears to be a prime candidate for impersonating his bother and
for publishing a phony book about him, including fake photographs. You do
not seem to appreciate the depth of instruction provided by the Marine Corps
with respect to the proper handling of weapons. It is not something you can
"turn on and off" like a spigot. It is a set of habits deeply ingrained within a
recruit that they are required to maintain. That you should have "no opinion"
of the veracity of the photograph raises extremely disturbing questions, not
just about the photograph but about the methodology behind "Harvey & Lee".

You have insinuated that, if Judyth or I do not know that the "Oswald ID" you
and John featured on the cover of HARVEY & LEE is fake, then we have no
qualifications for undertaking a study of the adequacy of your research on
this subject. And, of course, as you observe, it is featured on the cover:



On the inside flap, however, the immediate images that one encounters are these,
albeit with the order of the images reverse, "Harvey" to the left, "Lee" to the right:



where, as you may or may not know, Judyth has questioned the authenticity of the
image you label "Lee", suggesting that his face appears somewhat bloated, which
not only does not resemble the man in the "hunting photo" but, if you consider her
take on how it may have been produced, actually does resemble the man whom you
have labeled "Harvey" in the Oswald arrest photo. Where, if she is correct, then one
of the key pieces of photographic evidence that you have advanced to establish the
existence of "Harvey & Lee" tends to merge into two photos of one man, "Harvey".

From the photo image, I infer that you and John are well aware of the possibility of
forged documents and other forms of fakery in the documentary records, where, as
I have asked before, the methodology used to sort out the authentic from the non-
authentic requires consideration. You have told me (independently) that John only
relied upon "public sources", which guaranteed that these documents were genuine.
But that only establishes that they were "genuine documents" as physical entities,
not with respect to their actual contents. Indeed, in the Introduction to HARVEY &
LEE, which I find quite fascinating, John offers a brilliant explanation of the process
followed by the FBI to take evidence from Dallas, launder it and return it, and then
stage an elaborate "retaking of evidence" to create the impression that it was being
taken into possession by the FBI for the very first time! Which is a brilliant scheme.

I am less impressed, however, by the assertion on fourth page of the unnumbered
Introduction in relation to the role of Allen Dulles as a member of the commission,
who "was so successful that there is no reference to the CIA or Central Intelligence
Agency in the index to the Warren Commission's 26 volumes". Persumably, what
John means is the 26 volumes of supporting evidence rather than the 888-page
WARREN REPORT (1964). But while THE WARREN REPORT has an index, the 26
volumes of supporting evidence does not. And having just checked a copy that
was published by the United States Government Printing Office, I find an entry
for "Central Intelligence Agency, 22, 245, 258, 259, 266, 269, 272, 274-275,
279-280, 284, 305, 309-310, 327, 359, 365, 371, 433-434, 438, 456, 459,
461, 463-464, 659-660, 748, 762, 777". So what in the world is going on here?

Indeed, one might have supposed that someone who was tackling a project of
this magnitude would have known that in 1965, Sylvia Meagher published her
SUBJECT INDEX TO THE WARREN REPORT AND HEARINGS AND EXHIBITS, as
the introduction to ACCESSORIES AFTER THE FACT (first published in 1976)
explains. Even that arch enemy of truth about the assassination, Max Holland,
has acknowledged the absence of an index for the supplemental volumes: "In
2005, I wrote an article that criticized the Commission for its neglect of the
Government Printing Office, and failure to observe the venerable practice of
publishing supplementary volumes with underlying documents, depositions,
and testimony (not to mention an index)" <http://hnn.us/articles/124755.html>.
Which leads me to ask if Holland is a more reliable source than John Armstrong!

Not to belabor the point, but you have no warrant in taking for granted that the
documents and records that John Armstrong vacuumed up from "public sources"
are authentic in relation to their content as well as their existence as documents.
Unless you can authenticate the content of those documents, then we have what
most students of the assassination would call "a serious problem". And when we
factor in the propaganda expertise of Frank Wisner and his mastery of the media,
where he referred to his capacity to manipulate it to his will--CBS, NBC, ABC, The
New York Times, The Washington Post, and all that--as "The Mighty Wurlitzer", I
am more than a little floored by your reluctance to address the problem. Because
if we don't know which have authentic content and which do not, then what you
and John provided is only a starting point and not the answer to "Harvey & Lee".

[quote name='Jack White' date='Mar 29 2010, 02:55 AM' post='188089']
The "hunting photo" is NOT my photo, but was a personal photo allegedly
taken by Robert when he took Lee hunting just before Lee "departed
for New Orleans" for his defection. I copied the photo from LEE, written
by Robert Oswald. The way a Marine handles a rifle is not necessarily
indicative of what he would do when out hunting. Not everyone behaves
according to any preconceived notion. I have no opinion on the veracity
of the photo. It may be genuine, it may be faked. But it does not resemble
the LHO of Dealey Plaza.

Jack

[quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='188041' date='Mar 28 2010, 02:49 AM']
JIM COMMENTS ON THE ALLEGED "HUNTING PHOTO OF LEE"

Let me state that his "hunting photo of Lee" categorically falsifies your
theory. "Lee", of course, on your scenario, was in the Marine Corps. I
can assure you that no one who had ever served in the Marine Corps
would hold a rifle or shotgun in the manner shown here. They would
have the weapon across their arms, cradled with the end pointed up-
ward. They would never display the casual, grab-ass behavior that is
displayed by the "Lee" of your photograph, which, as I have observed
before, looks like a completely phony photo in any case. But once a
man has served in the Marine Corps and acquired a minimal degree of
competence with a rifle, they would not handle a long gun as shown.
Either the man in the photo is not your "Lee" or the photo is a phony.

[quote name='Jack White' post='188015' date='Mar 27 2010, 08:59 PM']
I will reply to your questions in segments, because the forum format is
not good for a "mass reply".

Segments to follow.

Jack

[quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='188010' date='Mar 27 2010, 07:38 PM']
Jack,

OK. Let's see if we can sort some of it out together. By "you guys", I am
referring to you, John Armstrong, and David Lifton, whom I have taken
to be the leading experts on Lee Harvey Oswald. I know that John and
you believe there were two, one "Lee", the other "Harvey", and that the
one Judyth knew in New Orleans was the one to whom you refer to as
"Harvey". According to Dawn Mededith, the one you call "Lee" (not the
one whom Judyth knew) was short-tempered, non-intellectual and could
not speak Russian, while the one you call "Harvey" was mild-mannered,
intellectual and fluent in Russian. You say the one called "Harvey" was
born in Hungary and liked the name "Harvey", while Judyth's says that
he was born in Louisiana, had a slight Cajun accent, and hated the name
"Harvey". So we know that at least some of this has to be wrong. OK?

I do not know if Lifton believes there were "two Oswalds", but I rather
suspect he does not. So what we know about "Oswald" is very obscure.
Now, in this new post you say that you have been suggesting for years
that Robert was involved in framing "Harvey", the man Judyth knew in
New Orleans as "Lee", who, according to you, was not his brother, even
though they looked enough alike that they were virtually "dead ringers"
for one another. In addition, in a recent post, you make this observation:

Today, 05:23 PM
Post #674

Super Member
****
Group: Members
Posts: 7127
Joined: 26-April 04
Member No.: 667

Robert Oswald, of course, knew that Harvey was not his brother, and to this
day he "cooperates" with the perpetrators, as does Marina...for safety reasons.

Robert, Marina and Ruth Paine are the only remaining living persons who
knew both Harvey and Lee. If they were to tell what they know, the case
would be solved.

Robert likely was an unwitting participant. Because both he and Lee were
Marines, and they looked very much alike, the military had photos and
records of both to use in creating confusion in the official record. I am
fairly certain that photos of Robert were in some cases used to portray
Lee. Of course Robert was ASTOUNDED when the assassination happened
and Harvey was named the assassin. What he had assumed was a rather
benign assignment of Lee took a very terrible turn. Read his testimony for
his reaction to the event.

Jack

So here are my questions:

(1) The man who died, according to you, was "Harvey", whom Judyth
knew as "Lee" and who was shot to death by Jack Ruby on 24 November.

(2) Although Robert was the brother of the one you call "Lee" and not of
the one Judyth knew and Ruby shot, they were "dead ringers" of each other.

(3) According to your latest, #678, you have always insisted that Robert
was involved in framing the man that Judyth knew and that Ruby shot.

(4) In your earlier, #674, however, you state (a) that Robert likely was an
unwitting participant and (B) was astounded when "Harvey" was fingered.

(5) Now, if Robert was helping to frame "Harvey", how could he possibly
have been astounded when "Harvey" was blamed for the the assassination?

(6) Reading his testimony for his reaction to the event sounds like a waste
of time when we know that (a) he "found" the Imperial Reflex camera no one
had been able to locate in the Paine's garage; (B) he had an affair with Marina
following her husband's death; and, © he move into a nice, new brick home,
which he previously could not have afforded. What speaks louder to you?

(7) Moreover, Judyth has shown that, when you correct for distortion, the
images of "Lee" and of "Harvey" tend to converge, which suggests to me
that, while there may have been "two Oswalds", they are not adequately
identified as "Harvey & Lee" but instead more plausibly as "Robert & Lee":



So my question for you, my friend, is how can you reconcile what I have
just presented, especially your claims (i) that Robert was involved in the
framing of "Harvey" and (ii) that he was an unwitting participant who was
"astounded" when "Harvey" was fingered as the assassin? I don't get it.

It is plausible to me that Robert was impersonating Lee on some occasions.
And I hope you are not going to suggest that Robert "found" the Imperial
Reflex camera, had an affair with Marina, and purchased a new brick home
because he had to "play along" with the perpetrators "for safety reasons"!

Jim

[quote name='Jack White' post='188002' date='Mar 27 2010, 08:36 PM']
Who are the YOU GUYS you refer to?

What are your questions?

I have always said that Robert Oswald participated in the framing of Harvey.
Harvey was not his brother, so he cooperated in framing him. Now what is
your question about this opinion? Are you saying I am wrong about Robert?
I have long said that some photos of "Lee" are really of Robert. Are you
disputing this? Your questions are not clear.

It is clear to me that Robert helped frame "LHO". I have said this for about
thirty years. Are you disputing this? I do not understand your accusation.

Jack

[quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='187998' date='Mar 27 2010, 05:53 PM']
JIM HAS MORE QUESTIONS FOR JACK ABOUT ROBERT OSWALD:



In post #469 on page 32, Judyth made the following observations:

I knew that Lee was aware of and even wanted impersonations. We covered up our tracks very well and after Lee left Reily, I could never dare meet him outside there anymore.

Just trying to say, when you know the man, you know some things simply aren’t true.

Then it's easy to find what is true and present it.

Lee told me he even had a relative there. In New Orleans, two of his relatives were working for Reily when he was, and one worker describes a relative as smoking who was actually Lee, as Lee mentioned his male relative smoked.

People should notice that the boy is leaning back...the photo itself has been altered slightly around the nose ...as many other photos, as well...also, though this is supposed to be the Bronx Zoo, Robert Oswald has a fuzzy memory on a lot of stuff, and remember, Lee was visiting John Pic's home, not Robert's, in New York.

Robert has committed various errors and told lies as well, due to his affair with Marina shortly after Lee's death.

He 'found' the damning Imperial Reflex camera in the PAINE garage that had been so thoroughly searched...



Right after being caught with Marina....

Robert then moved into a nice new brick house that he could not have afforded before then.


Then catch what Robert has to say about his brother Lee as the assassin of JFK during a PBS "Frontline" interview:

(http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...ews/oswald.html)

Robert Oswald:

In your mind, are there questions about whether Lee shot President Kennedy?

There is no question in my mind that Lee was responsible for the three shots fired, two of the shots hitting the president and killing him. There is no question in my mind that he also shot Officer Tippit. How can you explain one without the other? I think they're inseparable. I'm talking about the police officer being shot and the president. You look at the factual data, you look at the rifle, you look at the pistol ownership, you look at his note about the Walker shooting. You look at the general opportunity -- he was present. He wasn't present when they took a head count [at the Texas School Book Depository].

I watched the deterioration of a human being. You look at that last year -- his work, his family, trying to go to Cuba, trying to go back to Russia. His wife is wanting to go back to Russia. Everything is deteriorating.

You look at all the data there, and it comes up to one conclusion as far as I'm concerned -- the Warren Commission was correct.

JIM'S COMMENTS ABOUT THE ALLEGED "EXPERTS" ON LEE HARVEY OSWALD:

These observations suggest to me that Robert was a key player in framing Lee. This is quite outrageous. You guys are supposed to be the "experts" on Lee Harvey Oswald and I have to learn about Robert having what appears to be motive, means, and opportunity to frame him from Judyth? And you guys have the nerve to challenge her background and her competence and her qualifications? The situation here is entirely outrageous. This woman appears to me to be doing more to solve the case in relation to Lee Harvey Oswald than you and John Armstrong and David S. Lifton put together.

[quote name='Jack White' post='187962' date='Mar 27 2010, 04:04 AM']
Lee and Robert were almost as interchangeable as twins.

Jack[/quote]
[/quote]
[/quote]
[/quote]
[/quote]
[/quote]
[/quote]