06-04-2010, 03:58 PM
JUDYTH REPLIES TO YET ANOTHER FALSE CLAIM BY JACK WHITE
NOTE: This one seems to belong on the list with Jack's other blunders about Lee's discharge,
about how we know how he traveled to New Orleans, his flawed defense of John Armstrong's
blunder about the "index", and whether or not Lee could drive. Strictly speaking, a lie is (1)
an assertion (2) that is false (3) that is asserted in the knowledge that it is false (4) with the
intention of misleading the audience. Jack may have picked it up somewhere and simply be
repeating it without having verified the claim made, but the situation here is so odd that, in
my opinion this claim properly qualifies as "a lie" and she is justified to be pissed off about it.
JUDYTH REPLIES TO JACK:
**One of JVB's oddest claims is that she hated her family name of AVARY...so she changed
it to VARY. I consider this as weird as if I were to change my name from WHITE to HITE."
JACK HAS WRITTEN A FALSEHOOD. WHERE DID HE GET IT FROM? SOMEONE HAS SUPPLIED
THIS FALSEHOOD TO HIM WHO DOESN'T CARE WHAT HAPPENS TO JACK'S REPUTATION.
JACK NEVER OFFERS CITATIONS. BUT HE SHOULD EXPLAIN WHO GAVE HIM THIS LIE?
1) MY FAMILY NAME IS "VARY" AND IT IS ON MY BIRTH CERTIFICATES. IT IS ALSO ON MY WEBSITE.
2) I USED 'AVARY' AT THE UNIVERSITY OF LOUISIANA AT LAFAYETTE TO DISGUISE MY MAIDEN NAME
'VARY' BECAUSE OF MY PAST IN NEW ORLEANS IN THAT STATE: I DID NOT WANT ANYBODY TO BE
ALERTED THAT I HAD RETURNED TO LOUISIANA. AND I DID THAT NAME CHANGE BEFORE SPEAKING
OUT BECAUSE I WAS AFRAID, YET WANTED TO SEE IF I COULD FIND A FEW WITNESSES WHO MIGHT
REMEMBER ME.
WONDERING ABOUT WHO LIVED AND WHO DIED, WHEN I WAS OFFERED A FELLOWSHIP IN A DOCTORAL
PROGRAM THERE AND I ACCEPTED THE OFFER.
JACK SEEMS TO BE ACCESSING A SERIES OF BLATANT FALSEHOODS ABOUT ME--AND NOT CITING HIS
SOURCES. OR IS HE MAKING THIS UP ABOUT ME?
GOD FORBID.
AGAIN, Jack White wrote:
**One of JVB's oddest claims is that she hated her family name of AVARY...so she changed it to VARY.
I consider this as weird as if I were to change my name from WHITE to HITE."
And again (to review all this):
1) My family name is "Vary".
2) I never hated my family name, and it was not 'Avary.'
3) I used the name "Avary' for my first name BEFORE speaking out a U of LA at Lafayete because I
was afraid to have 'Vary' out there, due to my past with Lee Oswald, in New Orleans, which I was still
attempting to hide.
This was 1996. A the end of 1998, I saw JFK and decided to speak out, despie the consequences, and
despie the lies I knew would be spread about me.
Indeed the lies have been generated--such as this one.
Where did this lie come from, Mr. White?
JVB
[quote name='Jack White' post='188837' date='Apr 5 2010, 12:10 AM']
I often disagree with some of Barb's writings and ALLIANCES, but I MUST SAY I AM IN 100 PERCENT AGREEMENT WITH WHAT SHE WRITES BELOW. I could not have written it better.
I must say that I have studied for credibility all new witnesses who have come forward in later years. I find
most are credible. The ones NOT CREDIBLE, in my studied opinion, are James Files, Chauncey Holt, and
Judyth Baker. I admit that all three had some very MINOR association with some players in the plot, but
their tales border on the absurd and their motives are transparent. Baker is by far the strangest** of these
historical hitch-hikers.
Jack
**One of JVB's oddest claims is that she hated her family name of AVARY...so she changed it to VARY.
I consider this as weird as if I were to change my name from WHITE to HITE.
[quote name='Barb Junkkarinen' post='188835' date='Apr 4 2010, 10:58 PM']
[quote name='Linda Minor' post='188823' date='Apr 4 2010, 11:10 PM']
Count me on Judyth's side. I found more valuable information on her book than in any "research" from Barb, Jack, Dixie and Bill combined. I'm not saying they haven't contributed anything, only that I'm not aware of what it might be. Yet they have the gall to attack her. Rather than simply dispute this, please inform me what any of the named researchers has contributed to solving the answer of who killed John Kennedy and why. I would be grateful to know that answer. I don't understand why they feel so compelled to attack Judyth, especially since most have not even seen the previous botched version of her book, which I found so valuable.[/quote]
Hi Linda,
We are a research community of people with varied interests, some only get involved with their specific area of interest, some get involved on a more general across the board basis, or find themselves interested in a certain topic when something new appears to have come forward. And newly found documents, as well as newly claimed witnesses, have come forth from time to time over the years.
Some of those documents, like one posted here not long ago, had been found to be fraudulent. Any information must be evaluated carefully to verify it's validity, or how can it have any value to a search for the truth about the assassination of JFK?
The same is true of witnesses .... no matter who it is .... Brennan, Jean Hill, James Files, Judyth, Beverly Oliver, etc. ... whomever, it does not matter. If they are credible, they may have very important information that can open new avenues of research and lead to discovery. If they are not credible, they only serve to muddy the waters of an already confusing arena and set well meaning researchers off on false trails.
One way, imo, to assess the veracity of a witness, is to fact check all of those claims that can be fact checked ... not all can be. But if those that can be fact checked fail the verification process, then just how much credibility ... and reliability ... can anyone place on their claims that cannot be fact checked?
Fact checking is not a personal "attack" on a witness ... it is the necessary process by which we can evaluate new information and evidence, or assess the value some new information may or may not have, as well as if a source, like in the case of a new witness, has credibility. In my opinion, any source whose claims in general fail simple fact checking verification, are not sources that can be trusted for valid research based on their word alone and their claim to be a witness.
When one claims to be a witness, but also is known to have done a great deal of research, their opinions, discoveries, work as a researcher, are certainly as valid as anyone else's as long as it can be documented, if being claimed as fact just like all of us must do. Claims of fact that rely on "I am a witness so what I tell you is true" necessarily must lead back to the evaluation of the veracity of any of that witnesses claims ... they either check out, or they don't.
Will I attack documentable falsehoods? You bet. No matter who puts them out. We get no closer to the truth, in fact the waters
get more muddied, any other way.
We all perceive evidence in different ways, we all have different opinions ... thank you for sharing yours.
Happy Easter to you,
Barb :-)
[/quote]
[/quote]
NOTE: This one seems to belong on the list with Jack's other blunders about Lee's discharge,
about how we know how he traveled to New Orleans, his flawed defense of John Armstrong's
blunder about the "index", and whether or not Lee could drive. Strictly speaking, a lie is (1)
an assertion (2) that is false (3) that is asserted in the knowledge that it is false (4) with the
intention of misleading the audience. Jack may have picked it up somewhere and simply be
repeating it without having verified the claim made, but the situation here is so odd that, in
my opinion this claim properly qualifies as "a lie" and she is justified to be pissed off about it.
JUDYTH REPLIES TO JACK:
**One of JVB's oddest claims is that she hated her family name of AVARY...so she changed
it to VARY. I consider this as weird as if I were to change my name from WHITE to HITE."
JACK HAS WRITTEN A FALSEHOOD. WHERE DID HE GET IT FROM? SOMEONE HAS SUPPLIED
THIS FALSEHOOD TO HIM WHO DOESN'T CARE WHAT HAPPENS TO JACK'S REPUTATION.
JACK NEVER OFFERS CITATIONS. BUT HE SHOULD EXPLAIN WHO GAVE HIM THIS LIE?
1) MY FAMILY NAME IS "VARY" AND IT IS ON MY BIRTH CERTIFICATES. IT IS ALSO ON MY WEBSITE.
2) I USED 'AVARY' AT THE UNIVERSITY OF LOUISIANA AT LAFAYETTE TO DISGUISE MY MAIDEN NAME
'VARY' BECAUSE OF MY PAST IN NEW ORLEANS IN THAT STATE: I DID NOT WANT ANYBODY TO BE
ALERTED THAT I HAD RETURNED TO LOUISIANA. AND I DID THAT NAME CHANGE BEFORE SPEAKING
OUT BECAUSE I WAS AFRAID, YET WANTED TO SEE IF I COULD FIND A FEW WITNESSES WHO MIGHT
REMEMBER ME.
WONDERING ABOUT WHO LIVED AND WHO DIED, WHEN I WAS OFFERED A FELLOWSHIP IN A DOCTORAL
PROGRAM THERE AND I ACCEPTED THE OFFER.
JACK SEEMS TO BE ACCESSING A SERIES OF BLATANT FALSEHOODS ABOUT ME--AND NOT CITING HIS
SOURCES. OR IS HE MAKING THIS UP ABOUT ME?
GOD FORBID.
AGAIN, Jack White wrote:
**One of JVB's oddest claims is that she hated her family name of AVARY...so she changed it to VARY.
I consider this as weird as if I were to change my name from WHITE to HITE."
And again (to review all this):
1) My family name is "Vary".
2) I never hated my family name, and it was not 'Avary.'
3) I used the name "Avary' for my first name BEFORE speaking out a U of LA at Lafayete because I
was afraid to have 'Vary' out there, due to my past with Lee Oswald, in New Orleans, which I was still
attempting to hide.
This was 1996. A the end of 1998, I saw JFK and decided to speak out, despie the consequences, and
despie the lies I knew would be spread about me.
Indeed the lies have been generated--such as this one.
Where did this lie come from, Mr. White?
JVB
[quote name='Jack White' post='188837' date='Apr 5 2010, 12:10 AM']
I often disagree with some of Barb's writings and ALLIANCES, but I MUST SAY I AM IN 100 PERCENT AGREEMENT WITH WHAT SHE WRITES BELOW. I could not have written it better.
I must say that I have studied for credibility all new witnesses who have come forward in later years. I find
most are credible. The ones NOT CREDIBLE, in my studied opinion, are James Files, Chauncey Holt, and
Judyth Baker. I admit that all three had some very MINOR association with some players in the plot, but
their tales border on the absurd and their motives are transparent. Baker is by far the strangest** of these
historical hitch-hikers.
Jack
**One of JVB's oddest claims is that she hated her family name of AVARY...so she changed it to VARY.
I consider this as weird as if I were to change my name from WHITE to HITE.
[quote name='Barb Junkkarinen' post='188835' date='Apr 4 2010, 10:58 PM']
[quote name='Linda Minor' post='188823' date='Apr 4 2010, 11:10 PM']
Count me on Judyth's side. I found more valuable information on her book than in any "research" from Barb, Jack, Dixie and Bill combined. I'm not saying they haven't contributed anything, only that I'm not aware of what it might be. Yet they have the gall to attack her. Rather than simply dispute this, please inform me what any of the named researchers has contributed to solving the answer of who killed John Kennedy and why. I would be grateful to know that answer. I don't understand why they feel so compelled to attack Judyth, especially since most have not even seen the previous botched version of her book, which I found so valuable.[/quote]
Hi Linda,
We are a research community of people with varied interests, some only get involved with their specific area of interest, some get involved on a more general across the board basis, or find themselves interested in a certain topic when something new appears to have come forward. And newly found documents, as well as newly claimed witnesses, have come forth from time to time over the years.
Some of those documents, like one posted here not long ago, had been found to be fraudulent. Any information must be evaluated carefully to verify it's validity, or how can it have any value to a search for the truth about the assassination of JFK?
The same is true of witnesses .... no matter who it is .... Brennan, Jean Hill, James Files, Judyth, Beverly Oliver, etc. ... whomever, it does not matter. If they are credible, they may have very important information that can open new avenues of research and lead to discovery. If they are not credible, they only serve to muddy the waters of an already confusing arena and set well meaning researchers off on false trails.
One way, imo, to assess the veracity of a witness, is to fact check all of those claims that can be fact checked ... not all can be. But if those that can be fact checked fail the verification process, then just how much credibility ... and reliability ... can anyone place on their claims that cannot be fact checked?
Fact checking is not a personal "attack" on a witness ... it is the necessary process by which we can evaluate new information and evidence, or assess the value some new information may or may not have, as well as if a source, like in the case of a new witness, has credibility. In my opinion, any source whose claims in general fail simple fact checking verification, are not sources that can be trusted for valid research based on their word alone and their claim to be a witness.
When one claims to be a witness, but also is known to have done a great deal of research, their opinions, discoveries, work as a researcher, are certainly as valid as anyone else's as long as it can be documented, if being claimed as fact just like all of us must do. Claims of fact that rely on "I am a witness so what I tell you is true" necessarily must lead back to the evaluation of the veracity of any of that witnesses claims ... they either check out, or they don't.
Will I attack documentable falsehoods? You bet. No matter who puts them out. We get no closer to the truth, in fact the waters
get more muddied, any other way.
We all perceive evidence in different ways, we all have different opinions ... thank you for sharing yours.
Happy Easter to you,
Barb :-)
[/quote]
[/quote]