26-04-2010, 12:30 AM
JUDYTH REPLIES TO STEVEN ROY ABOUT LEE H. OSWALD AND DAVID FERRIE
NOTE: I take this opportunity to expand on the principles of reasoning that apply
in this case, which are presented in bold. They may be more important to under-
standing the case than I have realized before and deserved earlier consideration.
JUDYTH COMMENTS:
Mr. Roy, who came forth to McAdams' group as "David Blackburst" ---has sated here that Edward Haslam's research is a 'sream of consciousness" approach. Mr. Blackburst is a good researcher, but not this time: Ferrie's underground lab was across the street from his residence: though he kept mice there, he removed them when he had parties and moved them across the street. Said Ferrie to me, when I asked him, "I don't want anybody messing with my mice."
Jim Garrison in his OTTA book states he saw the cages, though the mice were gone, when he arrived on the scene. Death photos show a relativerly clean apartment, with some things missing, that to me are very telling: the photos on the wall of Dave Ferrie's CAP students and his associates are all gone. The walls are empty and that was not the case in 1963. Lots of stuff, especially books, are missing. The fact that Ferrie is shown in his bed conflicts with other reports that he was found on his mother's couch, a condition I told Blackburst I did not accept. Now the photos show that wasn't so, unless the body was moved there for photos.
==Blackburst says,
"The normal process is to marshall facts, then state some reasonable conclusion permitted by those facts. Haslam takes a less-rigorous stream of consciousness approach..."
JVB: Blackburst tries to tell us that this approach may not be 'normal" --
However, Haslam posts citations all along. He shows us how he reasoned his way from one clue to another. "Most" researchers don't tell us how they arrive at conclusions. Haslam tells us -- we can see the process. In essence, Haslam actually demonstrates MORE precision than usual because he tells us HOW he arrives at his conclusions. This is a scientific approach: you look a the data and you decide what it means and record the course of your decision-making.==
He offers a few possible pieces of evidence, then asks a question in boldface (not always in strict conformity with the cited evidence). But a few pages later, the question has hardened into a fact,
==Citations needed...not mere opinions==
NOTE FROM JIM ABOUT INDUCTIVE AND DEDUCTIVE REASONING IN THIS CASE
The differences between inductive and deductive reasoning are not well-understood, where
rational agents confronted with relevant evidence are not free to believe or not believe any-
thing they want. Suppose, for example, that you believe all rabbits are white. When you
encounter a brown rabbit, that belief is no longer rationally warranted. If you are rational in
your adherence to the principles of deductive reasoning, in this case, then when confronted
with a brown rabbit, you will reject your belief that all rabbits are white. Analogously, with
respect to the claim that there is a pink elephant in your living room, if you visit your living
room and detect no signs of a pink elephant, if you are rational, you will reject that belief.
Deductive reasoning is conclusive in the sense that, given the truth or the existence of the
premises as evidence, the conclusion cannot be false. In the examples I have just given,
we are dealing with deductive reasoning, where the existence of even a single brown rabbit
guarantees the truth of the conclusion that it is not the case all rabbits are white, and where
the absence of evidence that would have to be present if the elephant hypothesis were true
provides (virtually) conclusive evidence that no elephant is present based upon perception,
which is not as definitive because of the possibility of visual problems, mental states, etc.
Perceptual reasoning tends to be a highly reliable form of inductive reasoning, where the
content of the conclusion goes beyond the content of its premises by adding something to
it. Familiar examples of inductive reasoning include drawing inferences about populations
on the basis of sampling, reasoning from the past to the future, and from the observable
to the unobservable. But there are well-established standards, in general, for the weight
that should be assigned to the evidence, which is the domain of the study of logic, which
is concerned with the investigation and certification of those standards for rational belief.
In general, for a person to be rational, there should be an approximate correspondence
between their degree of belief (or strength of conviction) and the strength of the evidence
for that belief when objective standards are applied to the available relevant evidence. As
a general indication of this relationship, where the schematization I provided is intended to
reflect the fact that our knowledge of events in the world is characteristically inductive, not
deductive, which means that the conclusions we draw go beyond the truth of our premises.
Every belief we form about the world around us could possibly be false, even when there is
no reason to doubt their truth, where we could be hallucinating, misperceiving, and all that.
The most important principle, however, is known as "inference to the best explanation", in
which we compare likelihoods to discover which explanation for the evidence confers upon
it the highest probability if the hypothesis were true. The question becomes what account
can provide the most adequate explanation for events in New Orleans during this period of
time with respect to cancer research, the death of Mary Sherman, and everything related
to that. Ed Haslam's reseach seems to me to provide the best explanation for the available
relevant evidence, namely: that Ochsner had a problem involving cancer research, that he
put together a research group involving Mary Sherman, David Ferrie, Lee Oswald, and Judy,
where the core of what she has been telling us is right. Nothing else makes sense of it all.
None of it can be known with certainty, but the basic elements are very strongly supported.
It would be a mistake to suppose that every aspect of her story has to be supported to the
same degree as every other. Among the 17 findings that Haslam enumerates, which I have
reiterated above, the most important and best supported concern Judyth's ability to conduct
reseach on cancer, that she was induced to come to New Orleans by Alton Ochsner, that she
met and worked with Mary Sherman, David Ferrie, and Lee Oswald, that Mary was killed by
a massive source of electricity (almost certainly the linear particle accelerator at the Public
Health Hospital), and that Judyth was summarily dismissed by Ochsner after she complained
about the prisoner who was used in a (fatal) experiment conducted without informed consent.
These are the crucial elements of her story, which appear to me to be very difficult to doubt.
The deployment of an impostor and the campaign against her appear to me to be elements
of a classic agency operation to neutralize a threatening source of information. It would not
be necessary to take her out if she could be discredited by a massive campaign against her.
Because she was naive in presenting herself and emphasis was placed on the romance, not
the cancer research, which was the heart of the matter, she made herself vulnerable to many
kinds of attacks, which have continued to this day unrelentingly. That some points about the
books Lee may or may not have read seem less plausible than others, will affect some more
than others in considering her case. But it is important to bear in mind that none of this can
be known with certainty and that there appears to be no alternative that can explain as much.
I should also add that Judyth has the kind of detailed knowledge that could only be acquired
by living through the experiences that she discusses. The rest of her response to Blackburst,
as she refers to him (for reasons she explains), seems to me to be a perfect illustration. The
fact that she knows the bus route, that the route back was not the same as the route going
there, and all of that is ultimately the most convincing aspect of her story. I know that many
claims are made about inconsistencies and contradictions that are alleged to discredit her. My
experience with her, which has become more extensive than I could have ever imagined, has
convinced me that she has to be the person she claims to be. Nothing else makes any sense.
But I respect the right of others to disagree, even if it appears to me that they are not being
fully responsive to the available relevant evidence, which convinces me that her story is true.
As she observes, study Halsam's book and ME & LEE and decide what you think for yourself.
==
JUDYTH CONTINUES:
The net effect is that the ideas he postulates are not always supported by (or not always the
sole interpretation of) the cited evidence. Among the items for which the evidence is short are
the notions that Ferrie authored a certain "cancer treatise" and that he had an "underground
laboratory" in his apartment at 3330 Louisiana Avenue Parkway; yet, these are primary points
of that first edition. I found myself wishing to hear more evidence to support these points.
==Mr.Blackburst could have consulted me about "the cancer treatise" and I would have told him
what to look for to see if Ferrie had authored it or adapted it for his own particular use. In fact, to
own such a treatise, which gives directions for creaing a cell-free filtrate full of cancer-causing virus
material, is not the kind of thing one would expect to be cooked up in former aitline pilot's kitchen.
In fact, the most important recipe in the treatise indeed must be cooked up on a stove of some kind.
Irrelevant is how much of the treatise Ferrie himself wrote.
He possessed it.
He was making copies of it, which is why we know it was important to him.
Why would Ferrie WANT a 'cancer treaise' with a recipe for creating a medium to grow cancer cells in,
and with instructions on how to obtain cancer-causing viruses from cancerous maerials?
I am at an airport and working from memory, but I clearly recall seeing the treatise myself in 1963.
It was UNPUBLISHED--an insider's paper--as were so many that we used in 1963.
The references cited were old ones, tried and true.
How did Ferrie get his hands on it without being in contact with cancer researchers?
Why would he be working with that recipe to get cell-free flrates -- working not only with cancers, but
with filtrates cllecting cancer-causing viruses?
It seems that a forest can be lost looking at a single tree.
The discovery that Ferrie owned such a paper is a prodigious one, given its insider-status and its topic.
Did Mr. Blackburst know about this treatise owned by Ferrie?
Did he ever analyze the treatise?
Mr. Blackburs is the "Ferrie expert" and should be telling us what he knows about the treatise that differs
from what Haslam has told us.
Once again, Mr. Blackburst could have asked me about the relevance and importance of this treatise. By
the way, Mr.Edward T. Haslam did ask. He got the information. While it is impossible to ascertain who wrote
every word of the "cancer treatise" at the very least, we know that Ferrie copied it for himself and that a
change of verbiage shows the treatise was not composed all a the same time. It's the kind of research
paper you needed to have on hand if you were working by yourself. That fit Ferrie's situation to a "t".==
Blackburst also wrote:
"....and that he had an "underground laboratory" in his apartment at 3330 Louisiana Avenue Parkway; yet,
these are primary points of that first edition. I found myself wishing to hear more evidence to support these
points..."
I do appreciate the gentlemanly restraint used by Mr. Blackburst (I'm used to calling him that, as that is what
he told me his name was, for years)... and I will try to be as circumspect.
Mr. Blackburst says he wanted to see more evidence about the "underground laboratory" -- this kichen lab --
though he was presented with the information that the lab animals and the procedures used on them there--
a particular concern of Ferrie's-- did not involve his residence, but instead, were located across the street and
to the right, facing the street from Ferrie's residence on the second floor at 3330 Louisiana Avenue Parkway....
Yet Haslam presented a witness that he thoughly vetted.
Mr. Blackburst does not consider the witness to the laboratory as sufficient evidence of is existence. Tha witness
(myself) offers witnesses, in addition, attesting to her relationship with Lee Oswald. Haslam had already discerned
that Oswald for some reason (which I told him about) owned a health card form the US Public health Service, with
the fake Hidell doctor's name. Why the card? Read Haslam's book and mine.
Besides finding his witness, the treatise, and having learned many details that ONLY a New Orleans native raised
in a medically-oriented household could have known or apprerhended correctly, Haslam brought in evidence for
the linear particle accelerator and much, much more. He presents it in a fashion that allows the reader to deduce
his or her own conclusions. By doing so, he allows the introduction of new evidence at any time.
In other words, his theory is not agenda-driven. I encourage you, Mr. Blackburst, to present arguments as to why
he should discard me as a witness after ceaseless and thorough invesigations, grillings and astute challenges. One
interesting challenge was to prove I had actually been in Ferrie's apartment:
Haslam asked me the bus route to Dave's place. Those who had never been there by bus would have flunked the
test, because you could not ake the ame way going back tha you took going up, and there are no records of the
routes, which changed several times over the decades.
But in 1963, Edward Haslam was a student who rode the bus that went through Ferrie's very neighborhood every
day. We no doubt rode that bus sometimes together!
But the bus route back was different, not as close to Ferrie's house....
Haslam knew from personal experience that I rode tha route--a lot.
I'd been there. Therefore, if Mr. Blackburst does not accept me as a witness, despite the thorough vetting I've
received from numerous researchers and from Haslam himself, then i suppose no amount of evidence could ever
convince him that we did cancer research routines on a regular basis in Dave Ferrie's kitchen -- mostly while Ferrie
was at work and not when Ferrie had a pary, of course -- and Ferrie also worked at what we called "the Mouse House"
... This is sad news, because I would not like to think that Mr. Blackburst embraces an agenda, or keeps a closed mind.
Well, my time here is over, though surely there will be more strange and diverse comments, ad hominem atacks, and
so on, but here's hoping some of these issues are now settled..Please --let's move on. People should have enough
infomation to decide whether or not they want to read Me & Lee, Dr. Mary's Monkey, or buy Harvey and Lee. I know
Mr. Blackburst has a book on Dave Ferrie and that he and I do not agree whatsoever on Ferrie's character or history.
I do know that Mr. Blackburst never met Dave Ferrie,... and I have never been able to figure out why he appeared
right after the film "JFK" came out, with so much information about David Ferrie, having never known him. Inquiring
minds would like to know how he became so dedicated to this single person, and has remained so for almost two
decades, to the exclusion of almost all other topics, and why he made his original debut a John McAdams' newsgroup,
modestly saying he wasn't really an expert and was a fence-sitter about Lee Oswald. He was welcomed immediately,
nevertheless, by John McAdams as THE expert.
However--time passes......and comments made last year, etc. show us that Mr. Blackburst -- Stephen Roy -- believes
Lee Oswald shot JFK and has even stated some hostile remarks about Oswald.
Therefore, I do understand where Mr. Blackburst has come from, following a pattern first carved by Dave Reitzes, Gary
Mack, and BJ. However, he's more intelligent than all of them put together, and I respect him for his restraint, which is
an attribute sorely lacking among his compatriots.
Just a thought....I believe he may still tell some that he's a fence-sitter, but rather recent comments he has posted have
obliterated that stance in favor of WC Defender. Certainly his take on Dave Ferrie is a steady campaign to diminish the
man in every aspect, in every possible way.
Thank you.
JVB
[quote name='Stephen Roy' post='190212' date='Apr 20 2010, 03:36 PM']There has been some discussion in this Forum about the books of Edward Haslam. In the interest of balance, I wanted to offer a few observations, some of which I have made in the past on this and other Forums, having researched in some detail some of the matters Haslam discusses. What follows is based on the "Mary, Ferrie and the Monkey Virus" first edition and a later update; I am in the process of obtaining "Dr. Mary's Monkey" for further examination. My comments mainly concern his Ferrie material, but I believe they may also apply in a more global sense.
The normal process is to marshall facts, then state some reasonable conclusion permitted by those facts. Haslam takes a less-rigorous stream of consciousness approach: He offers a few possible pieces of evidence, then asks a question in boldface (not always in strict conformity with the cited evidence). But a few pages later, the question has hardened into a fact, and it is combined with other pieces of evidence to form a new boldface question. And so on. The net effect is that the ideas he postulates are not always supported by (or not always the sole interpretation of) the cited evidence. Among the items for which the evidence is short are the notions that Ferrie authored a certain "cancer treatise" and that he had an "underground laboratory" in his apartment at 3330 Louisiana Avenue Parkway; yet, these are primary points of that first edition. I found myself wishing to hear more evidence to support these points.
He bases much of his Ferrie research on (one of several installments of) a report by the Southern Research Company. Helpful as it may be, the SRC report has certain limitations: It was commissioned by Eastern Air Lines for the purpose of digging up dirt to be used against Ferrie in a grievance hearing related to his dismissal by that airline; The focus of the report is very narrow in terms of Ferrie's overall activities; and the report itself contains errors.
I have been unsuccessful in attempting to initiate discussion with the author on these and other issues. I can't say one way or the other if his points are solid or not, but I would suggest that interested readers consult additional primary evidence where possible.[/quote]
NOTE: I take this opportunity to expand on the principles of reasoning that apply
in this case, which are presented in bold. They may be more important to under-
standing the case than I have realized before and deserved earlier consideration.
JUDYTH COMMENTS:
Mr. Roy, who came forth to McAdams' group as "David Blackburst" ---has sated here that Edward Haslam's research is a 'sream of consciousness" approach. Mr. Blackburst is a good researcher, but not this time: Ferrie's underground lab was across the street from his residence: though he kept mice there, he removed them when he had parties and moved them across the street. Said Ferrie to me, when I asked him, "I don't want anybody messing with my mice."
Jim Garrison in his OTTA book states he saw the cages, though the mice were gone, when he arrived on the scene. Death photos show a relativerly clean apartment, with some things missing, that to me are very telling: the photos on the wall of Dave Ferrie's CAP students and his associates are all gone. The walls are empty and that was not the case in 1963. Lots of stuff, especially books, are missing. The fact that Ferrie is shown in his bed conflicts with other reports that he was found on his mother's couch, a condition I told Blackburst I did not accept. Now the photos show that wasn't so, unless the body was moved there for photos.
==Blackburst says,
"The normal process is to marshall facts, then state some reasonable conclusion permitted by those facts. Haslam takes a less-rigorous stream of consciousness approach..."
JVB: Blackburst tries to tell us that this approach may not be 'normal" --
However, Haslam posts citations all along. He shows us how he reasoned his way from one clue to another. "Most" researchers don't tell us how they arrive at conclusions. Haslam tells us -- we can see the process. In essence, Haslam actually demonstrates MORE precision than usual because he tells us HOW he arrives at his conclusions. This is a scientific approach: you look a the data and you decide what it means and record the course of your decision-making.==
He offers a few possible pieces of evidence, then asks a question in boldface (not always in strict conformity with the cited evidence). But a few pages later, the question has hardened into a fact,
==Citations needed...not mere opinions==
NOTE FROM JIM ABOUT INDUCTIVE AND DEDUCTIVE REASONING IN THIS CASE
The differences between inductive and deductive reasoning are not well-understood, where
rational agents confronted with relevant evidence are not free to believe or not believe any-
thing they want. Suppose, for example, that you believe all rabbits are white. When you
encounter a brown rabbit, that belief is no longer rationally warranted. If you are rational in
your adherence to the principles of deductive reasoning, in this case, then when confronted
with a brown rabbit, you will reject your belief that all rabbits are white. Analogously, with
respect to the claim that there is a pink elephant in your living room, if you visit your living
room and detect no signs of a pink elephant, if you are rational, you will reject that belief.
Deductive reasoning is conclusive in the sense that, given the truth or the existence of the
premises as evidence, the conclusion cannot be false. In the examples I have just given,
we are dealing with deductive reasoning, where the existence of even a single brown rabbit
guarantees the truth of the conclusion that it is not the case all rabbits are white, and where
the absence of evidence that would have to be present if the elephant hypothesis were true
provides (virtually) conclusive evidence that no elephant is present based upon perception,
which is not as definitive because of the possibility of visual problems, mental states, etc.
Perceptual reasoning tends to be a highly reliable form of inductive reasoning, where the
content of the conclusion goes beyond the content of its premises by adding something to
it. Familiar examples of inductive reasoning include drawing inferences about populations
on the basis of sampling, reasoning from the past to the future, and from the observable
to the unobservable. But there are well-established standards, in general, for the weight
that should be assigned to the evidence, which is the domain of the study of logic, which
is concerned with the investigation and certification of those standards for rational belief.
In general, for a person to be rational, there should be an approximate correspondence
between their degree of belief (or strength of conviction) and the strength of the evidence
for that belief when objective standards are applied to the available relevant evidence. As
a general indication of this relationship, where the schematization I provided is intended to
reflect the fact that our knowledge of events in the world is characteristically inductive, not
deductive, which means that the conclusions we draw go beyond the truth of our premises.
Every belief we form about the world around us could possibly be false, even when there is
no reason to doubt their truth, where we could be hallucinating, misperceiving, and all that.
The most important principle, however, is known as "inference to the best explanation", in
which we compare likelihoods to discover which explanation for the evidence confers upon
it the highest probability if the hypothesis were true. The question becomes what account
can provide the most adequate explanation for events in New Orleans during this period of
time with respect to cancer research, the death of Mary Sherman, and everything related
to that. Ed Haslam's reseach seems to me to provide the best explanation for the available
relevant evidence, namely: that Ochsner had a problem involving cancer research, that he
put together a research group involving Mary Sherman, David Ferrie, Lee Oswald, and Judy,
where the core of what she has been telling us is right. Nothing else makes sense of it all.
None of it can be known with certainty, but the basic elements are very strongly supported.
It would be a mistake to suppose that every aspect of her story has to be supported to the
same degree as every other. Among the 17 findings that Haslam enumerates, which I have
reiterated above, the most important and best supported concern Judyth's ability to conduct
reseach on cancer, that she was induced to come to New Orleans by Alton Ochsner, that she
met and worked with Mary Sherman, David Ferrie, and Lee Oswald, that Mary was killed by
a massive source of electricity (almost certainly the linear particle accelerator at the Public
Health Hospital), and that Judyth was summarily dismissed by Ochsner after she complained
about the prisoner who was used in a (fatal) experiment conducted without informed consent.
These are the crucial elements of her story, which appear to me to be very difficult to doubt.
The deployment of an impostor and the campaign against her appear to me to be elements
of a classic agency operation to neutralize a threatening source of information. It would not
be necessary to take her out if she could be discredited by a massive campaign against her.
Because she was naive in presenting herself and emphasis was placed on the romance, not
the cancer research, which was the heart of the matter, she made herself vulnerable to many
kinds of attacks, which have continued to this day unrelentingly. That some points about the
books Lee may or may not have read seem less plausible than others, will affect some more
than others in considering her case. But it is important to bear in mind that none of this can
be known with certainty and that there appears to be no alternative that can explain as much.
I should also add that Judyth has the kind of detailed knowledge that could only be acquired
by living through the experiences that she discusses. The rest of her response to Blackburst,
as she refers to him (for reasons she explains), seems to me to be a perfect illustration. The
fact that she knows the bus route, that the route back was not the same as the route going
there, and all of that is ultimately the most convincing aspect of her story. I know that many
claims are made about inconsistencies and contradictions that are alleged to discredit her. My
experience with her, which has become more extensive than I could have ever imagined, has
convinced me that she has to be the person she claims to be. Nothing else makes any sense.
But I respect the right of others to disagree, even if it appears to me that they are not being
fully responsive to the available relevant evidence, which convinces me that her story is true.
As she observes, study Halsam's book and ME & LEE and decide what you think for yourself.
==
JUDYTH CONTINUES:
The net effect is that the ideas he postulates are not always supported by (or not always the
sole interpretation of) the cited evidence. Among the items for which the evidence is short are
the notions that Ferrie authored a certain "cancer treatise" and that he had an "underground
laboratory" in his apartment at 3330 Louisiana Avenue Parkway; yet, these are primary points
of that first edition. I found myself wishing to hear more evidence to support these points.
==Mr.Blackburst could have consulted me about "the cancer treatise" and I would have told him
what to look for to see if Ferrie had authored it or adapted it for his own particular use. In fact, to
own such a treatise, which gives directions for creaing a cell-free filtrate full of cancer-causing virus
material, is not the kind of thing one would expect to be cooked up in former aitline pilot's kitchen.
In fact, the most important recipe in the treatise indeed must be cooked up on a stove of some kind.
Irrelevant is how much of the treatise Ferrie himself wrote.
He possessed it.
He was making copies of it, which is why we know it was important to him.
Why would Ferrie WANT a 'cancer treaise' with a recipe for creating a medium to grow cancer cells in,
and with instructions on how to obtain cancer-causing viruses from cancerous maerials?
I am at an airport and working from memory, but I clearly recall seeing the treatise myself in 1963.
It was UNPUBLISHED--an insider's paper--as were so many that we used in 1963.
The references cited were old ones, tried and true.
How did Ferrie get his hands on it without being in contact with cancer researchers?
Why would he be working with that recipe to get cell-free flrates -- working not only with cancers, but
with filtrates cllecting cancer-causing viruses?
It seems that a forest can be lost looking at a single tree.
The discovery that Ferrie owned such a paper is a prodigious one, given its insider-status and its topic.
Did Mr. Blackburst know about this treatise owned by Ferrie?
Did he ever analyze the treatise?
Mr. Blackburs is the "Ferrie expert" and should be telling us what he knows about the treatise that differs
from what Haslam has told us.
Once again, Mr. Blackburst could have asked me about the relevance and importance of this treatise. By
the way, Mr.Edward T. Haslam did ask. He got the information. While it is impossible to ascertain who wrote
every word of the "cancer treatise" at the very least, we know that Ferrie copied it for himself and that a
change of verbiage shows the treatise was not composed all a the same time. It's the kind of research
paper you needed to have on hand if you were working by yourself. That fit Ferrie's situation to a "t".==
Blackburst also wrote:
"....and that he had an "underground laboratory" in his apartment at 3330 Louisiana Avenue Parkway; yet,
these are primary points of that first edition. I found myself wishing to hear more evidence to support these
points..."
I do appreciate the gentlemanly restraint used by Mr. Blackburst (I'm used to calling him that, as that is what
he told me his name was, for years)... and I will try to be as circumspect.
Mr. Blackburst says he wanted to see more evidence about the "underground laboratory" -- this kichen lab --
though he was presented with the information that the lab animals and the procedures used on them there--
a particular concern of Ferrie's-- did not involve his residence, but instead, were located across the street and
to the right, facing the street from Ferrie's residence on the second floor at 3330 Louisiana Avenue Parkway....
Yet Haslam presented a witness that he thoughly vetted.
Mr. Blackburst does not consider the witness to the laboratory as sufficient evidence of is existence. Tha witness
(myself) offers witnesses, in addition, attesting to her relationship with Lee Oswald. Haslam had already discerned
that Oswald for some reason (which I told him about) owned a health card form the US Public health Service, with
the fake Hidell doctor's name. Why the card? Read Haslam's book and mine.
Besides finding his witness, the treatise, and having learned many details that ONLY a New Orleans native raised
in a medically-oriented household could have known or apprerhended correctly, Haslam brought in evidence for
the linear particle accelerator and much, much more. He presents it in a fashion that allows the reader to deduce
his or her own conclusions. By doing so, he allows the introduction of new evidence at any time.
In other words, his theory is not agenda-driven. I encourage you, Mr. Blackburst, to present arguments as to why
he should discard me as a witness after ceaseless and thorough invesigations, grillings and astute challenges. One
interesting challenge was to prove I had actually been in Ferrie's apartment:
Haslam asked me the bus route to Dave's place. Those who had never been there by bus would have flunked the
test, because you could not ake the ame way going back tha you took going up, and there are no records of the
routes, which changed several times over the decades.
But in 1963, Edward Haslam was a student who rode the bus that went through Ferrie's very neighborhood every
day. We no doubt rode that bus sometimes together!
But the bus route back was different, not as close to Ferrie's house....
Haslam knew from personal experience that I rode tha route--a lot.
I'd been there. Therefore, if Mr. Blackburst does not accept me as a witness, despite the thorough vetting I've
received from numerous researchers and from Haslam himself, then i suppose no amount of evidence could ever
convince him that we did cancer research routines on a regular basis in Dave Ferrie's kitchen -- mostly while Ferrie
was at work and not when Ferrie had a pary, of course -- and Ferrie also worked at what we called "the Mouse House"
... This is sad news, because I would not like to think that Mr. Blackburst embraces an agenda, or keeps a closed mind.
Well, my time here is over, though surely there will be more strange and diverse comments, ad hominem atacks, and
so on, but here's hoping some of these issues are now settled..Please --let's move on. People should have enough
infomation to decide whether or not they want to read Me & Lee, Dr. Mary's Monkey, or buy Harvey and Lee. I know
Mr. Blackburst has a book on Dave Ferrie and that he and I do not agree whatsoever on Ferrie's character or history.
I do know that Mr. Blackburst never met Dave Ferrie,... and I have never been able to figure out why he appeared
right after the film "JFK" came out, with so much information about David Ferrie, having never known him. Inquiring
minds would like to know how he became so dedicated to this single person, and has remained so for almost two
decades, to the exclusion of almost all other topics, and why he made his original debut a John McAdams' newsgroup,
modestly saying he wasn't really an expert and was a fence-sitter about Lee Oswald. He was welcomed immediately,
nevertheless, by John McAdams as THE expert.
However--time passes......and comments made last year, etc. show us that Mr. Blackburst -- Stephen Roy -- believes
Lee Oswald shot JFK and has even stated some hostile remarks about Oswald.
Therefore, I do understand where Mr. Blackburst has come from, following a pattern first carved by Dave Reitzes, Gary
Mack, and BJ. However, he's more intelligent than all of them put together, and I respect him for his restraint, which is
an attribute sorely lacking among his compatriots.
Just a thought....I believe he may still tell some that he's a fence-sitter, but rather recent comments he has posted have
obliterated that stance in favor of WC Defender. Certainly his take on Dave Ferrie is a steady campaign to diminish the
man in every aspect, in every possible way.
Thank you.
JVB
[quote name='Stephen Roy' post='190212' date='Apr 20 2010, 03:36 PM']There has been some discussion in this Forum about the books of Edward Haslam. In the interest of balance, I wanted to offer a few observations, some of which I have made in the past on this and other Forums, having researched in some detail some of the matters Haslam discusses. What follows is based on the "Mary, Ferrie and the Monkey Virus" first edition and a later update; I am in the process of obtaining "Dr. Mary's Monkey" for further examination. My comments mainly concern his Ferrie material, but I believe they may also apply in a more global sense.
The normal process is to marshall facts, then state some reasonable conclusion permitted by those facts. Haslam takes a less-rigorous stream of consciousness approach: He offers a few possible pieces of evidence, then asks a question in boldface (not always in strict conformity with the cited evidence). But a few pages later, the question has hardened into a fact, and it is combined with other pieces of evidence to form a new boldface question. And so on. The net effect is that the ideas he postulates are not always supported by (or not always the sole interpretation of) the cited evidence. Among the items for which the evidence is short are the notions that Ferrie authored a certain "cancer treatise" and that he had an "underground laboratory" in his apartment at 3330 Louisiana Avenue Parkway; yet, these are primary points of that first edition. I found myself wishing to hear more evidence to support these points.
He bases much of his Ferrie research on (one of several installments of) a report by the Southern Research Company. Helpful as it may be, the SRC report has certain limitations: It was commissioned by Eastern Air Lines for the purpose of digging up dirt to be used against Ferrie in a grievance hearing related to his dismissal by that airline; The focus of the report is very narrow in terms of Ferrie's overall activities; and the report itself contains errors.
I have been unsuccessful in attempting to initiate discussion with the author on these and other issues. I can't say one way or the other if his points are solid or not, but I would suggest that interested readers consult additional primary evidence where possible.[/quote]