Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[James H. Fetzer]

JUDYTH ADDRESSES THE COLOR OF LEE H. OSWALD'S EYES

NOTE: This is a nice example of why I maintain that Judyth is better
at JFK research than 95% of all students of the assassination and of
most if not all of her critics. Here she presents a study of Lee's eye
colors compiled with comments, based upon my personal knowledge
of Lee--personal observation of Lee's actual eye colors--after running
across a "Harvey & Lee" statement that one of the subjects had blue
eyes and the other one had hazel eyes. If this is indeed the claim,
a study of the "hazel eye phenomenon" is called for. It is attached.

SEEING EYE TO EYE: A STUDY OF LEE H. OSWALD’S ‘HAZEL’ EYES

Judyth Vary Baker

The man that I knew as "Lee" considered his eyes to be blue-gray in color.



THEY WERE DESCRIBED AS "GREY" ON HIS PASSPORT APPLICATION, BUT AS "GREY-BROWN"
ON HIS MILITARY ID:



Mae Brussell reported these words, from 11:00-11:20 PM, Nov. 22, 1963:

"I was in Russia two years and liked it in Russia. . . . I am 5 ft. 9 in., weigh 140 lb., have brown hair, blue-gray eyes, and have no tattoos or permanent scars."

NOTE by Source: “Oswald had mastoidectomy scars [JVB: this scar was hidden in a simple procedure conducted while Lee was hospitalized in Minsk] and left upper-arm scars [JVB: this is true, but when Lee’s arm was straight, it was hard to see…if the autopsy was done with Lee in a stage of rigor mortis, the ventral arm scar might have been missed. ] both noted in Marine records. "Warren Report," pp. 614-618, lists information from Oswald obtained during this interview about members of his family, past employment, past residences.)..”

Source: http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/LHO.html



[Off the subject, but fascinating :Interestingly, Lee stipulated that if he dies:

(Beneficiary of Death Benefits): Marguerite OSWALD or John Edward PIC [Marguerite was also to receive his pay if he is listed as missing.] ==Where’s Robert Oswald?==And organizations to which Lee belonged while in the Armed Services:

ELSINORE PROGRESSIVE LEAGUE
EVERYBODY'S COMMITTEE TO OUTLAW WAR
IDAHO PENSION UNION
MASSACHUSETTS COMMITTEE FOR THE BILL OF RIGHTS

Source: http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/03/MS/mil.html

Oswald joined the military at age 17, not yet quite mature. Weights also could vary due to maturation or physical stressors. But the eye colors must be confusing to those who don’t understand the “hazel eye phenomenon” of the gray-blue/hazel eye.

The above records show a multiplicity of eye colors for Lee Harvey Oswald, including eye colors of “blue-gray,” “grey” and “grey-brown” – while a few more seem to have reported “hazel.”

One comment on the Inernet reporting “hazel” is this one:

“Armstrong never said they [the two "Oswalds"] both worked at the TSBD. Nor did he say they were identical in appearance. One was 5'7" and the other 5'10". One was 135 lbs, the other was 165. One had blue eyes, the other hazel."

Perhaps Armstrong was misquoted. Perhaps this was a distinction he, himself, did not make. Please correct me, Jack, if the statement above is wrong.

Lee H. Oswald was 5’9“ ( and a bit more, but seems to have been measured while in the state of incipient rigor mortis)…and really measured 5’ 10” in shoes in the morning, as my father was 5’ 10” and Lee was the same visual height. Since I was 5’2” he seemed tall to me. Lee looked like he’d lost weight from what was 160 pounds when I knew him to about 140 pounds (my visual estimate) in arrest photos. He told me he had lost weight and not to concern myself about it.

THE STATEMENT ABOVE ABOUT “HARVEY” AND “LEE” – MENTIONS THEIR TWO DIFFERENT EYE COLORS AS A WAY TO DISTINGUISH “HARVEY” FROM “LEE.” WHOEVER WROTE THAT NEVER MET LEE HARVEY OSWALD.

PEOPLE WHO HAVE HAZEL EYES REALIZE THAT HAZEL EYES MAY PRESENT A RANGE OF COLORS, DEPENDING ON THE COLOR OF CAST SHADOWS AND WHETHER THE OWNER OF SUCH EYES IS INSIDE OR OUTSIDE WHEN OBSERVED, AND DEPENDING ON WHAT ANGLE THE LIGHT COMES INTO THEIR EYES, AS WELL AS THE THICKNESS OF THE STROMA. LEE APPARENTLY HAD THIN STROMA (SEE BELOW).

My own mother was classified as having green eyes, amber eyes or hazel eyes, depending on what the people at the driver’s license bureau decided it was. She generally was classified as having hazel eyes, because indoors, they looked more brownish. Outdoors, they were green, but in direct sun looked golden. Other forms of hazel eyes turn bluish-gray in certain slants of light, but are generally considered hazel in color.

Lee had unusual blue-gray eyes with a ring of hazel around the iris and flecks of hazel around the pupil–and exhibited a kind of blue – when indoors or under incandescent light---but they seemed hazel if he was under fluorescent light or outdoors. I have seen his eye color described as blue-gray, blue and hazel, and all would be correct, depending on lighting and his moods, re chomatophores.

JVB: Lee described his own eyes as blue-gray, but they also had little flecks of hazel in a ring around the pupil and a few hazel flecks around the outside edge of the iris. He could be classed as having blue eyes or hazel eyes depending on the light – outside his eyes looked more blue, and inside, they looked more hazel. He could pass for both.

NOTE: “The perception of [eye] color depends on viewing conditions (e.g., the amount and kind of illumination, as well as the hue of the surrounding environment),...”.[16 ] (REF: Wikipedia)



I read that Marina had to look at the eyes of her dead husband to determine it was really him…great loss of blood can flatten facial tissues, and this occurred in Lee’s case.

FROM THE INTERNET:

“I have hazel green eyesbut when I wear blue or am in a low mood they take on an aqua blue tone. When I wear green or when I am angry they turn a brighter green. When I wear golds, yellows, or oranges, they get more of a golden tint. …’

”It cannot be the light. I have hazel eyes that change from a green, to blue, to an icy looking blue. They don't change with the color of clothes I'm wearing. They change by my moods which is weird. When I cry they seem to turn a blueish color, when I'm happy they seem to turn a greenish color. I've looked through all my pictures that I took and it's never the same eye color, which I think is really cool..”

file:///Users/jamesfetzer/Library/Caches/TemporaryItems/msoclip1/01/clip_image001.gif

Note about chromatophores:

Mammals and birds have only one class of chromatophore-like cell type: the melanocyte.

Eye color is a polygenic phenotypic character and is determined by the amount and type of pigments in the eye's iris.[1][2] Humans and animals have many phenotypic variations in eye color, as blue, brown, green and others. These variations constitute phenotypic traits.[3]

The genetics of eye color are complicated, and eye color is determined by multiple genes. Some of the eye-color genes include EYCL1 (a green/blue eye-color gene located on chromosome 19), EYCL2 (a brown eye-color gene) and EYCL3 (a brown/blue eye-color gene located on chromosome 15).

The once-held view that blue eye color is a simple recessive trait has been shown to be wrong. The genetics of eye color are so complex that almost any parent-child combination of eye colors can occur.[4][5]

In human eyes, these variations in color are attributed to varying ratios of eumelanin produced by melanocytes in the iris.[2] The brightly colored eyes of many bird species are largely determined by other pigments, such as pteridines, purines, and carotenoids.[6]

Three main elements within the iris contribute to its color: the melanin content of the iris pigment epithelium, the melanin content within the iris stroma, and the cellular density of the iris stroma. [7] In eyes of all colors, the iris pigment epithelium contains the black pigment, eumelanin.[2][7] Color variations among different irises are typically attributed to the melanin content within the iris stroma.[7]

The density of cells within the stroma affects how much light is absorbed by the underlying pigment epithelium.[7] OCA2 gene polymorphism, close to proximal 5′ regulatory region, explains most human eye-color variation.[8]

Blue eyes with a brown spot, green eyes and gray eyes are caused by an entirely different part of the genome. As Eiberg said: "The SNP rs12913832 [of the Herc2 gene] is found to be associated with the brown and blue eye color, but this single DNA variation cannot explain all the brown eye color variation from dark brown over hazel to blue eyes with brown spots."

In other words, witnesses could have reported Lee H. Oswald as having hazel eyes, gray-blue or blue eyes, depending on lighting and other factors, due to the fact that Lee possessed blue–gray elements as well as hazel elements in his eyes. [NOTE: Which means the alleged difference in eye color between "Harvey" and "Lee" may have no basis in fact.]

JVB

[James H. Fetzer]

Bernice, I noticed it looked funny when I posted it and should have asked for clarification about it at that time. When Jack brought it up, I returned to her for clarification. If you think someone who is a fraud would post a paper that is clearly a fake or could come up with an explanation like that on the spot, then you and I have completely different takes on this. As I have now explained several times, the fact that initially implausible elements of her story--such as the "betting line" phone calls, for example--turn out to have very reasonable explanations is very powerful evidence that she is telling the truth as she knows it because she lived it!

I appreciate your point on the handedness, but the "hunting photo" looks fake and a Marine would not pose with his hand on the muzzle unless he was goofing around. Perhaps I mistook the animated figures on your post as ridicule, when they were not meant that way. I have always had a very high regard for you, but I am now finding that my defense of Judyth, in whom I believe, is bringing a lot of social pressure against me, very much like that which apparently was also brought against Mary Ferrell, which Judyth has also addressed in a much earlier response. I am experiencing for myself a mild version of what Mary must have encountered.

I expressed twice, i guess you missed the mention with his left hand...WAY BACK SOME YEARS THERE WAS MUCH TO DO ABOUT HIM BEING RIGHT OR LEFT HANDED AS MARGUERITE HAD SAID, THAT 'S WHY THE LEFT HAND COMMENT WAS MADE TWICE BUT NOT PICKED UP ON, as far as the funny paper is concerned i think it a little too late to be brought forward as a funny, what's funny, about any of this not anything, and as she certainly did not present that as such when she first did post it..first impressions and all that as well we all know...fyi i had not breathed a negative about you either...b

[Jack White]

As far as I know, Mary Ferrell had no "social pressure" on
her because of her stand that JVB was a fraud. Mary was
a very strongly opinionated person, and pressure from JVB
would not cause her to waver.

Jack

[Bernice Moore]

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

[James H. Fetzer]

This confirms that you are not reading the posts, which tells
me you have a closed mind about Judyth, in spite of your
affirmations that you are not massively hostile toward her.

The pressure being applied to Mary, as I understand it, was
intended to induce her to DISAVOW her SUPPORT for Judyth.
I don't understand why you post without reading the thread.

As far as I know, Mary Ferrell had no "social pressure" on
her because of her stand that JVB was a fraud. Mary was
a very strongly opinionated person, and pressure from JVB
would not cause her to waver.

Jack

[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.

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

[James H. Fetzer]

A SAMPLE OF THE PAP I THAT AM RECEIVING FROM JACK WHITE

From email I received from Jack today, Tue, 30 Mar 2010 14:00:16:

Re: Jim...I am worried about your reputation and credibility....

JACK WRITES: I put forth the greatest researcher I know, MARY FERRELL,
who was at first intrigued that a new witness came forward after 30+ years,
and then spent a year studying her claims and interviewing her, and
finally concluded that she was a fraud. I have received 7 or 8 unsolicited
emails from a variety of researchers denouncing JVB, and you for your
enthusiastic support of the "Castro did it" scenario which she promotes.
. . .

SO I WROTE BACK TO JACK DISPUTING THIS "CASTRO DID IT" CLAIM
AND AT THE SAME TIME WROTE TO JUDYTH TO INQUIRE ABOUT IT:

RE ANY SUCH FOOLISHNESS AS "CASTRO DID IT"--I HAVE NEVER SAID SUCH
AN ABSURD THING. WE WERE TRYING TO GET RID OF CASTRO AS A POTENTIAL
NUCLEAR WEAPON THREAT.

I HAVE SAID FROM THE BEGINNING THAT THE SAME GOVT/INTELLIGENCE/MAFIA/
MILITARY/RIGHT-WING OIL FAT CATS, ETC. WHO CREATED A MUTUAL ADMIRATION
SOCIETY AT FIRST WENT AFTER CASTRO, BUT THROUGH CIA AND THEIR CABAL,
TURNED THE GOVT'S GROWING ASSASSINATION EXPERTISE AGAINST KENNEDY
-- FOR GOOD REASON -- IF IT WERE BLAMED ON CASTRO, THEY COULD INVADE
AND EVERYBODY COULD FACE THE SECOND COMING OF CHRIST IN A NUCLEAR
HOLOCAUST.

SOMEBODY HAD THE GOOD SENSE TO PULL THE BLAME AWAY FROM CASTRO
BEFORE THE CABAL GOT ITS WAY. THUS ALL THE BACK-PEDALING RE MEXICO CITY,
PAINTING LEE AS A LONE NUT INSTEAD.

THIS WAS STRICTLY A COUP, AN INSIDE JOB AIDED BY LAYERS OF MAFIA AND
INTELLIGENCE OPERATIVES AND COVERED UP BY JFK'S ENEMIES WITH SO MUCH
TO GAIN--FROM LBJ TO MILITARY, TO RIGHT-WINGERS, TO HOOVER.

CASTRO AND JFK WERE MAKING HEADWAY WHEN JFK WAS KILLED. MADE JFK
LOOK LIKE A 'COMMIE LOVER.' I BECOME ANGRY THINKING ABOUT IT AND IT
HELPS ME KEEP ON FIGHTING.

I HAVE ALWAYS SAID IT WAS A COUP, EVEN BACK IN 1999 WHEN RESEARCHERS
VETTING ME SEEMED RELUCTANT TO BREATHE THE WORD OUT LOUD. I HAVE
NEVER SAID ANYTHING DIFFERENT.

So I say about this, someone has his head where the sun doesn't shine and --
here's a big clue! -- it ain't Judyth! If Jack can't do better than to push rubbish
in my direction in his efforts to affect my position, then he shouldn't write at all!

Jim

[Bernice Moore]

HI JIM YOU WROTE ''You tell me why if Judyth is not the person whom she claims to be'' IT IS VERY EARLY HERE, ALL I CAN THINK OF RIGHT NOW IS IF HER CLAIMS HAD BEEN ON THE LEVEL, THEN SHE WOULD HAVE PROVIDED ALL THE DOCUMENTATION THAT SHE PROMISED IN HER FIRST SET OF BOOKS SO MANY TIMES, WHICH AS YOU MUST HAVE READ THEM, SAW IT WAS NOT THERE AS PROMISED..I HAVE NOT SEEN ANYTHING PROVIDED BY HER INFORMATION SO FAR THAT HELPS SOLVE THE ASSASSINATION OF THE PRESIDENT...AS A PROFESSOR OF LOGIC, I THINK YOU WOULD AGREE IF SOMONE PROMISES CONTINUALLY, THEN HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE AND DOES NOT, THAT, THAT IS NOT LOGICAL... I TAKE IT YOU HAVE READ HER FIRST SET OF BOOKS..

P.S IMO IT IS TOO BAD AND NOW APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN VERY CONVENIENT THAT SOME TIME AGO McADAMS CHOSE TO DELETE ALL OF HER POSTS MADE ON THE ALTS AT ONE TIME FOR SPACE, THERE WERE OVER 4000, NOW THAT THEY ARE GONE, YOU NOR OTHERS CAN READ FOR THEMSELVES BACK IN HISTORY WHAT SHE DID AND DID NOT SAY...I NOW THINK THIS ALL WAS PERHAPS RATHER TOO CONVENIENT, AS DOUG HORNE'S SET WAS RELEASED THE INFO WAS BEING BROUGHT FORTH, MUCH GOOD RESEARCH FOR ALL, THEN BANG JUDYTH ARISES, YOU COME ON THE EF SUPPORTING HER WHICH IS YOUR PEROGATIVE, BUT NOT OTHERS, AND THE HORNE RESEARCH IS SHUT DOWN TIGHT...BUMPED OFF THE FRONT PAGE PUT ON THE BACK BURNER, AND IS STILL THERE, THAT TO ME IS TOO CONVENIENT, NO ASPERSIONS MEANT TOWARDS YOU BUT WHEN MAY I ASK, IF YOU WISH TO SAY, DID JUDYTH CONTACT YOU AND CONVINCE YOU AND BECAUSE OF SUCH THEN YOU CHOSE TO SUPPORT HER AND POST ALL YOU HAVE BEEN ON THE WEB...I AM CURIOUS...THANK YOU B..

PPS WHAT SHE SHOWED RE LHO'S EYES RESEARCH DR.JIM IS CALL GOOGLING RESEARCH, ONE HAS A THEORY, THEY GO TO GOOGLE, TYPE IN WHATEVER, THE LINKS SHOW, THEY GO INTO EACH CHOOSING AND PICKING WHICH TO COPY AND PASTE INTO A WHATEVER THEY CHOOSE PAD WHATEVER, DOWNLOAD SOME PHOTOS,MUCH OF WHICH HAS BEEN COPIED FROM THE BOOKS SUCH AS ALIAS OSWQALD AND OTHERS SHOWING THE DOC ETC...THEY COPY AND PASTE THE INFO THAT BACKS ONLY THEIR THEORY AND WHEN COMPILED THEY POST IT ON A FORUM, IT IS REFERRED TO AS COPYING AND PASTING OTHERS WORK AS THEIR OWN RESEARCH BY ADDING A FEW COMMENTS OF THEIR OWN AS IT IS COMPILED, IT IS NOT CONSIDERED HARD RESEARCH IN FACT IT IS CONSIDERED VERY EASY EVERY DAY, IT IS DONE BY MANY ON A DAILY BASIS..AND SOME NOW WILL NOT ACCEPT IT AS RESEARCH NOR AS THEIR OWN,WHOMEVER PRESENTS IT, AS IT IS NOT....JUST EXPLAINING HOW SOME DO SO.TODAY..B

[James H. Fetzer]

Bernice,

Just for the record, I am a huge fan of Doug Horne's research and have
featured him on several blogs and two-hour interviews on my internet
radio program, "The Real Deal", where by coincidence I will feature him
again today as my special guest. Visit revereradio.net from 5-7 PM/CT
and you should be able to hear us. This interview, just like our previous
interviews, will be archived at radiofetzer.blogspot.com. My blogs about
him, like my blogs about Judyth, are found at jamesfetzer.blogspot.com.
It has never crossed my mind that serious students could not follow both.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but my defense of Judyth would not be
distracting attention from Doug's exceptional research if others on these
fora were not profoundly interested in the details and the truth of what
she has to tell us. In my opinion, she is getting a "fair shake" here for
what may be the first time. My belief is that taking a fresh look at her
story provides a new opportunity to evaluate her, which I am attempting
to do. I appreciate your comments and concerns, however, and simply
state that I am doing my best to advance both Doug and Judyth's work.

Jim

HI JIM YOU WROTE ''You tell me why if Judyth is not the person whom she claims to be'' IT IS VERY EARLY HERE, ALL I CAN THINK OF RIGHT NOW IS IF HER CLAIMS HAD BEEN ON THE LEVEL, THEN SHE WOULD HAVE PROVIDED ALL THE DOCUMENTATION THAT SHE PROMISED IN HER FIRST SET OF BOOKS SO MANY TIMES, WHICH AS YOU MUST HAVE READ THEM, SAW IT WAS NOT THERE AS PROMISED..I HAVE NOT SEEN ANYTHING PROVIDED BY HER INFORMATION SO FAR THAT HELPS SOLVE THE ASSASSINATION OF THE PRESIDENT...AS A PROFESSOR OF LOGIC, I THINK YOU WOULD AGREE IF SOMONE PROMISES CONTINUALLY, THEN HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE AND DOES NOT, THAT, THAT IS NOT LOGICAL... I TAKE IT YOU HAVE READ HER FIRST SET OF BOOKS..

P.S IMO IT IS TOO BAD AND NOW APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN VERY CONVENIENT THAT SOME TIME AGO McADAMS CHOSE TO DELETE ALL OF HER POSTS MADE ON THE ALTS AT ONE TIME FOR SPACE, THERE WERE OVER 4000, NOW THAT THEY ARE GONE, YOU NOR OTHERS CAN READ FOR THEMSELVES BACK IN HISTORY WHAT SHE DID AND DID NOT SAY...I NOW THINK THIS ALL WAS PERHAPS RATHER TOO CONVENIENT, AS DOUG HORNE'S SET WAS RELEASED THE INFO WAS BEING BROUGHT FORTH, MUCH GOOD RESEARCH FOR ALL, THEN BANG JUDYTH ARISES, YOU COME ON THE EF SUPPORTING HER WHICH IS YOUR PEROGATIVE, BUT NOT OTHERS, AND THE HORNE RESEARCH IS SHUT DOWN TIGHT...BUMPED OFF THE FRONT PAGE PUT ON THE BACK BURNER, AND IS STILL THERE, THAT TO ME IS TOO CONVENIENT, NO ASPERSIONS MEANT TOWARDS YOU BUT WHEN MAY I ASK, IF YOU WISH TO SAY, DID JUDYTH CONTACT YOU AND CONVINCE YOU AND BECAUSE OF SUCH THEN YOU CHOSE TO SUPPORT HER AND POST ALL YOU HAVE BEEN ON THE WEB...I AM CURIOUS...THANK YOU B..

PPS WHAT SHE SHOWED RE LHO'S EYES RESEARCH DR.JIM IS CALL GOOGLING RESEARCH, ONE HAS A THEORY, THEY GO TO GOOGLE, TYPE IN WHATEVER, THE LINKS SHOW, THEY GO INTO EACH CHOOSING AND PICKING WHICH TO COPY AND PASTE INTO A WHATEVER THEY CHOOSE PAD WHATEVER, DOWNLOAD SOME PHOTOS,MUCH OF WHICH HAS BEEN COPIED FROM THE BOOKS SUCH AS ALIAS OSWQALD AND OTHERS SHOWING THE DOC ETC...THEY COPY AND PASTE THE INFO THAT BACKS ONLY THEIR THEORY AND WHEN COMPILED THEY POST IT ON A FORUM, IT IS REFERRED TO AS COPYING AND PASTING OTHERS WORK AS THEIR OWN RESEARCH BY ADDING A FEW COMMENTS OF THEIR OWN AS IT IS COMPILED, IT IS NOT CONSIDERED HARD RESEARCH IN FACT IT IS CONSIDERED VERY EASY EVERY DAY, IT IS DONE BY MANY ON A DAILY BASIS..AND SOME NOW WILL NOT ACCEPT IT AS RESEARCH NOR AS THEIR OWN,WHOMEVER PRESENTS IT, AS IT IS NOT....JUST EXPLAINING HOW SOME DO SO.TODAY..B

[James H. Fetzer]

JIM REPLIES TO DAVID LIFTON ABOUT JUDYTH VARY BAKER

David,

I appreciate your contributions to this thread. You raise serious questions that
I shall pursue and attempt to nail down. If Judyth is wrong about the date Lee
arrived in New Orleans or when they met, that would clearly adversely affect my
estimate of her credibility. As for Jack, he seems to be unable to acknowledge
his massive bias against Judyth. He has advanced many criticisms against her,
but none of them, as far as I can determine, carry any weight. And he has not
been remotely responsive to points she and I have made that, in my opinion,
raise doubts about some of the evidence advanced to support "Harvey & Lee".

A crucial point I would like to make concerns the claim by you and others that
Judyth is a "fantasist" who is attempting to insert herself into history. Why would
anyone who wanted to "insert herself into history" advance a story that had so
many implausible elements? That is highly unlikely. They would be very cautious
arranging their story in order to eliminate virtually any implausible elements to
protect their claim from refutation. Judyth has done precisely the opposite. It
seems to me that the only way she could know these things--especially those
that initially appear to be very implausible--is because she was actually there!

And, significantly, Judyth has pointed out serious problems with photos that Jack
has advanced in support of the "two Oswalds", where I am having a lot of trouble
swallowing the idea that these two guy were often living in close proximity while
leading parallel lives. The "passport" photo, for example, seems to present a more
rounded face than the original, which Judyth has explained in a post that appears
in the last few pages here. Please tell me if you believe in "Harvey & Lee" or if
you have doubts and, if you have doubts, what are they? Inquiring minds would
like to know. And are you still working on your Oswald book? Thanks very much.

Jim

P.S. Suppose that Judyth did not have a love affair with Lee in New Orleans.
In my opinion, she would still be among the leading experts on this man in
the world today. I believe that she knows more about him that anyone else
on this forum, for example, where her abilities as a researcher and student
of his life are simply astounding. The extent of her knowledge and her skill
in coping with criticism, taken as a totality, are among the most persuasive
reasons why I continue to believe that she is indeed "the real deal", and it
is going to take extremely powerful proof to convince me that I am wrong.

And one final point. I am hardly the only serious student of the death of
JFK who believes in Judyth Vary Baker. The list includes Nigel Turner, who
devoted an entire segment of "The Men Who Killed Kennedy", to Judyth;
Ed Haslam, the author of DR. MARY'S MONKEY, who subjected her to the
most intense interrogation before coming to accept her story; Jim Marrs,
of whom some of you may have heard, who is also among those who are
on Judyth's side; and others unnamed. It seems to me that this intense
focus on me--because I am here--simply ignores the fact I am not alone.

[quote name='David Lifton' post='188327' date='Mar 31 2010, 10:50 AM']
Jim,

On the matter of when Lee arrived in New Orleans, and what he was wearing on April 26, 1963, your statements are incorrect.

Fact 1: We do not know exactly when Lee Oswald arrived in New Orleans. We only know, for sure, that he went for an interview on Friday, April 26, 1963, at which point he was dressed in a white shirt, suit, and tie.

Fact 2: Lillian Murrett, Lee's aunt, testified that Lee first called on Monday, April 29, and said he was at the bus station. (And this was corroborated by her daughter Marilyn, who was living with her mother at the time).

Putting fact 1 and fact 2 together, it seems clear that Lee was in New Orleans by Friday, April 26, at which time he went for the interview, dressed in a white shirt, suit, and tie. (And then called his family on Monday, claiming to have just arrived).

When I spoke with Judyth, who claimed to have met Lee for the first time at the Post Office--and that date being April 26, 1963--and when I asked Judyth how Lee Oswald was dressed, she said he was in workman's clothes. She made a big point of this.

Unfortunately for Judyth, who apparently attempts to insert herself into the record, whereever she spots an opening, she was unaware--I repeate UNAWARE--at the time I spoke with her (on March 4, 2000) of the Rachal Deposition Exhibit, and the Rachal affidavit, both of which are in the 26 Volumes of the Warren Commission Report.. These two documents offer credible evience as to what Oswald was wearing on Friday, April 26, 1963, at the time of his job placement interview at the Louisiana Department of Labor. The Rachal Deposition Exhibit includes John Rachal's handwritten notes, recording Lee Oswlad's appearance when he appeared before him for a job placement interview: "Neat. Suit. Tie. Polite." (Rachal Deposition Exhibit--see WC Volume 21, page 283). In his 6/22/64 Warren Commission affidavit, he swears: "I recall that Oswald was neatly dressed with a suit, dress shirt, and tie on the occasion of our initial interview." (WC Vol 11, p. 475).

At my request, Jack White kindly posted an exhibit I prepared depicting the relevant excerpts from these two documents.

That "initial interview" was on Friday, April 26, 1963, and--at the time I spoke with her (March 4, 2000)--Judyth apparently was unaware that the published records of the Warren Commission--in the form of these two Rachal items--offered documentary evidence as to what Oswald was wearing on that particular day.

Consequently, when I questioned her--on March 4, 2000--she glibly asserted that Lee was dressed in workman's clothes, and, as I recall, appeared somewhat grubby. Furthermore, when I asked her a second time (and perhaps even a third time) to nail down this point, she became somewhat hostile and defensive, as if to ask "Why do you want to know?"

Now, 10 years later, and because of the information I released (via Jack White, just in the last week), Judyth has had a serious "Ooops" moment. Now, she realizes that she had Oswald dressed in the wrong clothes, (and on the day of their very first meeting, no less!) And I stress this point because, after all, it is common knowledge that we usually remember what someone who means so much to us was wearing the first time we met them.

So what does Judyth do? Why, she does what she always does: she comes up with an "explanation." In this case, Judyth simply manufactures some new dialogue to her narrative, as if this is not an accurately documented history, but rather a "work in progress," a screenplay which she can change anytime she wishes. And so now she writes: "Lee told me he was going to borrow a white shirt."

Let's focus on just what is going on here: I produce evidence --from the 1963/64 record--that, on April 26, 1963, Lee was dressed in a "dress shirt, and tie" and Judyth now adds, in March, 2010, almost 47 years later, "Lee told me he was going to borrow a white shirt."

Is this plausible? Is Judyth credible? Are we supposed to take this ad hoc revision serioiusly?

But that's not the end of it, because Lee was not just wearing a dress shirt--he was wearing a suit, (and a tie). So now what can we do about those two "inconvenient truths"?

Well, I'll tell you what Judyth does: she engages in speculation as to where Lee obtained the suit. She writes:

NOW QUOTING FROM JUDYTH'S POST:

" Lee told me he was going to borrow a white shirt -- he did not mention a suit-- perhaps his relatives generously added the suit?" UNQUOTE

And then she adds these statements:

QUOTE

(1) " Lee leaves me in the morning and has time to see his aunt and change clothes."

(2) " Here is a logical time line: . . .April 25 [Thursday] -- Lee arrives around 11:00 AM from Dallas, checks into the YMCA, calls his
relatives, and they invite him over. . . Most of he day, he spends with his aunt and uncle and cousin, talking. It's been ten years, after all."

UNQUOTE

But here's the problem with Judyth's "logical time line," and her 2010 attempt at a reconstruction: Lee's Aunt, Lillian Murrett, testified that when she first heard from Lee (who said he was calling from the bus station) it was on "a Monday." That's right: Monday, April 29, 1963.

This testimony is also supported by the testimony of cousin Marilyn, who was living with her mother at the time.

But Lee's interview in which he was so nicely dresse was on Friday, April 26.

So regardless of what day Lee may actually have arrived in New Orleans--THEY first heard from him on a Monday, and specifically, Monday, April 29, 1963, which means there is a three day "missing period" between Friday, April 26, when he showed up at the Louisiana Labor Dept office, for an interview (and was dressed in a suit, white shirt, tie, etc.) and the time he first called his relatives, said he was calling from the bus station, and claimed he had just arrived in New Orleans (which was obviously not true)..

So: Lee Oswald was obviously not telling the truth as to when he arrived, and where he had been, for clearly, he was at the Louisiana Labor Department on Friday, April 26, dressed in the white shirt, suit, and tie.

But now, back to Judyth, and her "work in progress": Whatever the explanation is for where Lee was for three days (and Judyth will no doubt be adept at coming up with something), the fact is that Oswald could not have borrowed such clothing from his relatives (to wear on Friday, April 26) if he didn't see them until Monday, April 29. Furthermore, his aunt Lillian's reaction on first seeing her nephew was that he needed better clothing and she offered to help him get better clothes. Again, no mention of having loaned him anything--no loan of a suit, tie, dress shirt, etc.

All this bears heavily on assessingt the credibility of Judyth, who we catch in the act of scampering around trying to come up with an explanation for how it was possible for Lee to be wearing a suit, dress shirt and tie, on Friday, April 26, when he had the interview with John Rachal, at the Louisiana Department of Labor. Again: If we meet someone who turns out to be important in our lives, we remember what they were wearing when we first met them. But, in her converstion with me, Judyth got it all wrong, and now she's trying to plug this "hole" in her story.

Judyth supposedly met Lee Oswald some 47 years ago, and has written about him extensively, but--apparently--it wasn't until a week ago that she became aware of this glitch in her account.

Unfortunately for Judyth, 10 years have passed since I questioned her on this point--and although I questioned her very carefully on this particular point, I did not reveal the significance of my questions, or my reaction to her answers. And so now, here we are, in March 2010, I reveal this line of questioning, and now, a decade later, Judyth comes up with new (and supposedly legitimate) information, and her entire tone has the defensive, and almost truculent quality, she exhibited when I spoke with her ten years ago: "I am a witness, and I know what happened. Lee told me he was going to borrow a white shirt. . ."

And we're supposed to take this person seriously?

I must ask you Jim: Is there no limit to your credulity?

At what point do you draw the line, and say, "Enough is enough!"

Judyth is a serial fabricator. She is a deluded woman, a fantast.

And rather than deal plainly and forthrightly with the situation, you are throwing your credibility out the window, and tossing great insults at a long time friend, like Jack White, because he has the common sense to see what is obvious (and so did Mary Ferrell, I might add).

DSL
3/31/10; 2:40 AM
Los Angeles, CA[/quote]