Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[James H. Fetzer]

JUDYTH RESPONDS TO JACK'S INQUIRIES ABOUT HER

Dear Jack, thank you for your observations. They are appreciated. I have
interposed answers to your comments and quesions in what you posted:

Why (serious question) did such an accomplished cancer researcher
abandon her medical pursuits after such a brilliant start?

==I was told I would be killed==

She had the backing of many prestigious doctors and groups, and her
research might have led to a cure for cancer.

==As my book explains, I lost beloved relatives and friends to cancer.
My life goal was to cure cancer. If I could get in a lab today, I could guide
such a lab to a cure for soft tissue cancers within a few years. I was
banned by Ochsner, the all-powerful.==

Perhaps a great loss to the medical field that she did not continue her
chosen career. I was impressed that she came up with the idea of dyeing
the mice different colors. I bet that impressed medical research people.

==Color-coding was of no concern to them, Jack. Their interest was in the
fact that I was able to induce cancer in mice in only 7 days. I used newborn
mice without developed immune systems--they were germ-free, obtained
from Dr. Reynier (my esteemed and noted friend in Tampa). Their immune
systems were unable to withstand cancer cell injections combined with
carcinogens.

Today such experimens are duplicated regularly, but in 1960, it was unheard-of.
Immunologically challenged mice and cancer induction was still a developing
science. For such reasons, I was given 12 hours of tutelage in experiment
structure and strategies by Dr. (Sir) Robinson, probably the world's greatest
biochemist in 1961, and a Nobel Prize winner. He and his wife paid for my
transportation costs to Roswell Park that summer. (They lived in Buffalo, NY,
where RPMI was located).

After personally assessing my work, along with Dr. Ochsner, and Nobelist Dr.
Urey, Dr. George Moore had me placed in his own private laboratory at RPMI,
as reported by their history dept. I was also working in RPMI's summer program,
where I learned how to safely handle the SV40 monkey virus and the Friend virus,
using radiation, under the tutelage of Dr. James Grace, for 8 weeks.

I also worked for 11 weeks under Dr. Moore, helping to create the world's best
cancer-growing medium, which would be released a few years later as RPMI-1640,
the world's most famous cancer-growing medium, still used today as the #1 such
medium. That medium, which I improved independently in 1962, made it possible
for me to grow cancer cells faster and better than anybody else in the world,
outside of RPMI, in 1963, facilitating my efforts in New Orleans in 1963.==

Instead of pursuing the medical field, she now sits in self-imposed exile,
writing memoirs on a Hungarian keyboard. Sad.

==They are important memoirs. People need to know about biowarfare and
that cancer could have been cured decades ago, but it's a Big Pharma profitable
business to use chemotherapy and let people suffer, instead. I repeat, I could be
a research scientist now. Today. I could lead a lab to a cancer cure in a few years.
But they stopped me at every turn.

People are still being contaminated with SV40/SV-other viruses today, through
vaccines that have their viruses grown on infected monkey tissues--to this very
hour. Read Dr. Mary's Monkey by Edward T. Haslam. Nobody should take a
vaccine created off monkey kidney tissues.

As for my exile, it is not self-imposed, Jack. Since 2003, after THE LOVE AFFAIR
was banned by the History Channel, I tried to return twice to the US, despite threats,
but due to new threats, harassment and bad things happening to my family on a
constant basis, I went overseas to teach, then had such a serious death threat that
I was forced to leave a good teaching position in Hungary, with free housing and
medical insurance, to seek temporary shelter in the EU political asylum system,
where I was protected best as the Swedes could manage under the laws (the US is
NOT supposed to be an unsafe country for an American). For over ten months, in
frustrated poverty, I remained there as my family, at great sacrifice, arranged safe,
remote accommodations in two countries, where friends would be nearby who could
assure my safety.

Self-imposed? I have grand-children I adore who are forgetting my existence, Jack.
I am not allowed to work overseas, either, and I won't cheat and work under the
table as some do. I am law-abiding. So I have numerous needs hard to pay for,
which you might take for granted, such as dental care, heating, and medicine.
There's no medicare overseas. Thank you for writing.==

JVB

[quote name='Jack White' post='189286' date='Apr 9 2010, 04:58 AM']
Why (serious question) did such an accomplished cancer researcher
abandon her medical pursuits after such a brilliant start? She had the
backing of many prestigious doctors and groups, and her research
might have led to a cure for cancer. Perhaps a great loss to the medical
field that she did not continue her chosen career. I was impressed that
she came up with the idea of dyeing the mice different colors. I bet
that impressed medical research people.

Instead of pursuing the medical field, she now sits in self-imposed exile,
writing memoirs on a Hungarian keyboard. Sad.

Jack[/quote]

[James H. Fetzer]

JUDYTH REPLIES TO A REASONABLE QUESTION FROM MICHAEL HOGAN

NOTE: Judyth apparently caught something that I had missed, namely: what she takes
to have been a "very reasonable question" concerning the book published by Harrison
Livingstone. It completely slipped by me, so I am pleased to be able to publish Judyth's
response and extend an apology to Michael for my utter failure to recognize the question.

JUDYTH REPLIES:

About the very reasonable question that has been broached, concerning the book, published by
Harrison Livingstone behind my back, which was an unauhorized edition due to many flaws and
problems, and why Ed Haslam could mention that my book was withdrawn without knowing that
it was an unauthorized book:

Here is how that happened:

I sent the press release out about the book at the end of July, 2006 to book publishers and some
press members, but did not want Martin Shackelford to be attacked by John McAdams and his crew:
Shackelford is a good researcher who has consistently defended me, and has for his efforts been
mercilessly vilified on McAdams' newsgroup.

So I didn't speak to researchers about why I forced Trafford to stop the printing of my book as
published by Harrison Livingstone. McAdams' clones were saying I got it printed myself at Kinko's.
That's their style.

It should be noted that Livingsone would not have personally published this book unless he thought
it was important. However, we argued over his editing job and the fact that I was not allowed to see
the final galleys: Livingsone is known to be a difficult man to work with.

Haslam heard about the book. I told him I stopped publication of the book, but I had been sent some
copies by Shackelford. I then sent him a copy. But I encountered a dilemma when it came to talking
about the book's problems to Haslam.

Shackelford and Livingstone wanted the true text to get into print as quickly as possible because some
thieves stole an unedited version of a book Dr. Platzman wrote, based on my emails. A lot was missing,
and some errors. Now it was in the hands of thieves. (They would end up sending it to people such as
McAdams, who now quote from this flawed version.)

Speed was more important to them than a good editing job, in my opinion. (Trine Day, this time, is doing
a good job.) In the end, Livingstone simply took it.

Martin preferred to support his old friend, to make a long story short.

I did not want to interfere, however, in any interviewng processes going on between Haslam and Shackelford.

Shackelford's treatment of me had nothing to do with his massive knowledge of the case. In addition, I did not
know Haslam was writing another book. It came as a complete surprise, or otherwise I would have warned
him about the unauthorized status of the book.

Because he kept asking questions, I knew that inaccuracies in the book of concern did not affect what Haslam
learned from me. I never told Haslam why I withdrew the book, because I did not want him to have any
prejudice against Mr. Shackelford.

My personal feelings were not as important as Shackelford's input to Haslam.

Shackelford is a fine researcher, whose knowledge of me and my history was largely accurate.

Shackelford occasionally had some odd misunderstandings: once he wrote that I had not been a Catholic. He
had never examined my early life, as Haslam did.

He was concerned only with the story of Oswald and me. Each researcher has his or her own style.

I hope this explains why I did not bring up why the book was withdrawn to Haslam. I don't think he ever knew
that Shackelford was involved in the matter. I don't know.

JVB

[quote name='Michael Hogan' post='189337' date='Apr 10 2010, 04:41 AM']
[quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='189331' date='Apr 9 2010, 08:52 PM']
When I read this latest post, I picked up my copy and noticed that, while Michael
said that he had reread the appendix, "Judyth's Story", but apparently he ignored Chapter
13, The Witness, which he does not mention. I question the competence
of someone who claims to have read a book but forgets the key chapter in
relation to Judyth. (emphasis mine) It discusses "60 Minutes" enthusiasm for featuring her
on one of its programs, where it spend more time and money on her than
on any other prospective feature. So Michael might want to reread it, too.[/quote]
More than half my post dealt with the JVB Haslam said he encountered in 1972.
I quoted Haslam directly from Chapter 13. I describe Haslam's story as he wrote it.
All from Chapter 13. What's wrong with you, Jim?

Why do you think Haslam (living in New Orlean during the middle of the Garrison investigation)
showed so little interest in meeting with someone that said she knew Lee Harvey Oswald?

Why do you think Haslam made no mention of Baker's book being unauthorized by her,
when his book came out a year after hers did?

Your avoidance of those two elementary issues shows that, contrary to your words much
earlier in this thread, you have no interest in a fair discussion on the subject of JVB.
You'd rather deflect posts by questioning motives or insulting the intelligence of the poster.

You're not really in an advantageous position to question other people's competence
when it comes to this subject. You didn't make one reply of substance in regard to my
original post. Not one.

You can rectify that by giving your take on my two questions above. You might want to
read Chapter 13 before answering.

Why don't you address your false and misleading use of the term "evasive?"

I can answer for you. When you are wrong, you prefer insults over facts. You prefer insinuations
and innuendo about others' competence over substance. You love to give advice and seldom take any.

You are on the right side of many issues. It's a shame. You could do so much better.
[/quote]

[James H. Fetzer]

JUDYTH RESPONDS TO DAVID LIFTON AND TO THE BLIZZARD OF POSTS

NOTE: David Lifton and I have had some rather heated exchanges about Judyth and the recording
he made of his conversation with her. I have asked him to send me a cassette copy, which would
enable me to listen to it to determine for myself whether it has been edited and whether or not it is
reasonable to suppose that he could have discerned some difference in the pronunciation of "Kan
Kun" as opposed to "Cancun", which I submit is virtually impossible. At that point in time, I doubt
that David was aware that there was a Kankun as opposed to a Cancun, which, for me, undermines
his credibility in this exchange. In fact, I no longer regard any of his views about Judyth as credible.
Judyth, it becomes clear, has been there before and detects patterns to the attacks occurring here.
Lifton referred to me as Judyth's "manager", but that is not my role. I am facilitating her posting.

JUDYTH REPLIES:

Dear Jim--I regret more than you will ever know any ruptures of friendships...In my own family, I
have precious children who no longer speak to me over this. It is a burden that is almost unbearable.
History and what happens to a country that is almost overwhelmed by an oligarchy running things after
a violent Coup upon a sitting President, and active in front of and behind the scenes--these facts are
more important than our feelings.

We must ever keep before us that if Oswald had been a 'lone nut'--this man surrounded by people in
almost every photograph of him ever taken outside of official photos--we must keep before us that
this 'lone nut'--had he alone killed the president--would not have generated any "national security"
excuses for why so many files have been hidden, lost, destroyed, altered and redacted. The power
of the cabal is evident when one inspects the overwhelming evidence tha Oswald is innocent, versus
the money, power and low standards (they lie all the time) of the media and the supporters of the
Warren Commission.

We have killed so many people and wrecked our country and its dreams, led by these vicious people
and their fawning, well-paid servants.

As I think you can see, neither person who posted on this page seems to have read the thread carefully.
They congratulate Barb about her showing that some enclosures with a letter from Kennedy's personal
assistant (not a secretary)--the same man who was in charge, along with Shriver, of arranging Kennedy's
funeral--from the White House--were not described accurately. What Barb does not understand is that
items were enclosed that were not on the list. It was quite a lengthy list, by the way. I received a large
package from the White House--not just a regular envelope. Barb assumes that the list of enclosures
was complete. I assure you it was not.

For example, I have a photograph of President Kennedy that was enclosed, and it is not on the list.
Ralph Dungan was a special assistant. Despite what Barb has written, he did not crank out boilerplate
letters to JFK fans, as she implies, though I have been told tha Dungan himself did write letters to
ordinary individuals when the President read certain letters and asked him to respond for him. I thus
believe the President may have personally read my letter, though of course I cannot prove it. So I
was very pleased to hear from Ralph Dungan.

Below is a list showing that receiving a Dungan letter was not receiving a boilerplate mass-produced
response, as Barb J tried to say:

1. DUNGAN WRITES TO NEHRU, PRIME MINISTER OF INDIA, IN REPLY TO NEHRU'S LETTER TO PRESIDENT KENNEDY:

RALPH A. DUNGAN THE WHITE HOUSE Subject: Reply to Prime Minister Nehru's letter of February 20 to the President.

2. Dungan, as Kennedy's special advisor on Latin American affairs, write JFK memos about cover operations. Note this:

"Memo, Ralph A. Dungan to President Kennedy, “Covert Operations in Cuba... "

3. Dungan arranged positions in Kennedy's government:

"...After the election, Ralph Dungan asked [Peterson] what position she wanted. Because of her interest in working
women...Peterson chose the Women's Bureau. Peterson's appointment had the support of virtually every member of
the Women's Bureau coalition."[Esther Peterson]

4. Judith Stein: wrote two letters to Kennedy and then got a reply from Dungan, at about the same time I wrote my
letter to Kennedy:

"Another political event occurred early in February, 1963. I received at that time from Special White House Aide Ralph
Dungan a letter of appreciation of my earlier two letters to the President, indicating that my comments had been
incorporated into his State of the Union address for that year. Dungan's letter to me is reproduced herein..." Stein
says she was injected with drugs to give her cancer (Mae Brussell Archives).

5. Ralph Dungan, of course, had his own secretaries; he was not a drudge writing letters for JFK to fans: "Gerri
Whittington, a secretary to aide Ralph Dungan..."

6. An example of Dungan's advisory position with Kennedy:

"The President's Special Assistant Ralph A. Dungan feared that the Alliance was returning to the Eisenhower emphasis
on monetary stabilization, which provided the proper climate for private investment and economic growth and included
tolerating military dictatorships. Dungan suggested that a reversion to Eisenhower's policy meant the United States
"might as well kiss the Alliance(and the hemisphere(good-bye." (47)
http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/frus/summari...II_1961-63.html

Below is an interesing compilation of letters a friend of Kennedy received. Once the President wrote to him personally,
and twice, Ralph Dungan wrote:

Archive is that of Mr. Henry Borntraeger of Latrobe Pennsylvania.

1) Mr. Borntraeger received a White House letter dated August 14, 1961 from Ralph Dungan, special assistant to
the President, that reads: “Thank you, in the President’s behalf, for your message…in support of bills to create a
U. S. Disarmament Agency.”

2) On August 19, Borntraeger responded in a letter to the President....

3) A White House letter dated September 5, 1961, was the response: : "Dear Mr. Borntraeger: I was pleased to receive
your letter and to learn of the support you are giving my Disarmament Agency proposal. It is gratifying to know that my
old friends are supporting me and your kind words are very much appreciated. With every good wish, Sincerely, (signed)
John Kennedy

On September 20th, Borntraeger sent another telegram: “Delighted to learn that the House has passed your proposal to
create…Disarmament Agency…in search of a just and lasting peace…for realistic solutions to the arms race and international
anarchy.”

4) On September 29th, he received a White House letter from Ralph Dungan, that reads: “The President asked me to
thank you for the message you sent to him prior to his address to the United Nations..." ...included is a copy of the
President’s speech given to the United Nations on September 25, 1961.

Borntraeger responds in a seven-page typed letter to the President, outlining some peace initiatives that might be put
into place while constructing a “Peace Race.” In fine condition. COA John Reznikoff/PSA/DNA and R&R COA.

(This collection of 2 Dungan letters and one JFK letter sold at auction for $4,145.00)

7. Later, Dungan tesified before the Church Committee on US intelligence activities in Chile:
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/r...rchV7_0014a.htm

8. In order to reach the President, Dungan might be approached:

(Lee White, former civil rights adviser to JFK and LBJ) stated: "...And I had a contact in the White House and I just
thought that the president was - President Kennedy was going too slow and I'd always tell him, Ralph - his name was
Ralph Dungan - Ralph, tell the president this, tell the president. Finally, he said, you know this stuff, I don't know this
stuff, write him a memo, I'll give it to him.

Barb reported that Ralph Dungan wrote a boilerplate letter in response to my letter to JFK, as he must have done for
oodles of others, which is not true. In addition, Barb did not analyze or address the aspects of the letter from Walter
Reed. She concentrated on my interpretation of MEDE-ZOE as a "special file" (which my mentor, Col. Doyle, said it
was) when she says she learned it was an "address" on the letter, over which she makes great hoopla, while ignoring
the contents of the letter itself, which addresses advanced research considerations, free chemicals, offers of mentoring,
etc.

Barb says she is "checking facts". But is Barb neutral--"Just the facts, ma'am"? (She far from neutral.)

Barb recently wrote the remark below, that my friend Allan just sent to me from New York:

Wrote Barb:

Oh, Judyth has been chattering like crazy thru Fetzer on the Ed Forum.
He's her new lackey. And yes, it all is convenient timing for her new
book ... which has once again been postponed ... this time, no new
date given, and refunds available ...

Barb :-)

[NOTE: No one who knows me would ever make such an insinuation. I have always been my own man, and if I
did not believe in Judyth, I would not be expending the time and effort involved here. I think Barb is projecting.]

(P.S. from JVB: The book has been delayed as the Trine Day book, A TERRIBLE MISTAKE, about US biowarfare in
France, has been selling so well that printing schedules had to change. DR. MARY'S MONKEY and A TERRIBLE MISTAKE
will prepare readers for Me & Lee. The book is in line for printing.)

Someone named "Karin" wrote to Barb and John McAdams, frustrated because they twisted her questions around:

"What "research assistant" job are you talking about? John, If you'll
simply review the thread, my original question related to her getting a
job as a research assistant in chemistry after she returned to Florida.

("Karin" says she sent me an email which did not get answered. She can send emails to Dr. Fetzer, or to Pamela,
and I will reply to them! But whoever "Karin" is, she tried to actually reason with McAdams and Barb at McAdams'
newsgroup, where Dave Reitzes chimed in that I was a mental case. Here's what Karin wrote:

McA: "Your not assuming that she got such a job in New Orleans, are you?"
Again John, if you'll review the original thread, I was quite clearly
referencing the job that she got working as a research assistant AFTER she
returned to Florida. Sheesh.

McA: "I'm not aware that Barb was wrong."
Again John, the reason for that is that you didn't even bother to REVIEW THE DARN THREAD.
Barb had asked: "How do you know she got a job as a research assistant? Oooo, oooo, call
on me .... I know the answer to that question! 'cuz Judyth tells us so."

That was a wrong assumption on Barb's part, John. I was relying on pay stubs from her work, as I clearly stated in
the thread.

McA: "Please provide some proof that Judyth was ever a "research assistant" in New Orleans."

YET AGAIN, John, it would help if you even glanced at the original thread. I said nothing about her being a research
assistant in New Orleans. I referred to her working in Florida.

McA: "I'm afraid things you think are "well established" are "well established only in the minds of people who take
Judyth's word."

For the last time, it would help if you had actually read the thread. To recap: I had asked a simple question about
how this "college dropout" with no prospects in life would have managed to acquire employment working as a research
assistant upon her return to Florida.

Rather than straightforwardly addressing the question, Barb chose to state that I ONLY knew that Judyth had acquired
such a job because Judyth herself told me so.

Again, that was a WRONG assumption. Then, after I proceeded to inform Barb that her assumption was wrong because
the evidence of it came in the form of PAY STUBS (physical evidence, NOT Judyth's word), Barb chose to suddenly
concede that there is "no doubt that Judyth worked at PenChem."

Hence my question about why she wasted my time asking about things that are well established--not to mention avoiding
the actual original question!

I am still very eager to learn about all of those "devilish details" which show that she did NOT actually acquire a job working
as a research assistant in Florida! And I still can't wait!

Karin

Thank you, Karin, whoever you are. (No, I am not karin, as these people suggested--I keep people between myself and
them for good reason--they always sent viruses to my computer!)

I (JVB) now add these remarks:

That newsgroup, Karin and Allan and all, also faulted me by telling supportive researchers I never wrote President
Kennedy---that I made it up. You know, the you believe that because "Judyth says so" argument. Then Tony Marsh
went to the Archives and found my letter.

But they won't give any credit for long....Recently, a McAdams-clone asked Barb if it was 'she' who found the letter,
though he well knew it was Marsh.

I haven't read anything over there for some time, as I rely on others to send me information to keep my computer
safe, but the above poss from McAdams show that they have no interest in telling people such as Karin the truth.

Barb picked on my making an error about when I said I was told to write President Kennedy, when I was told to
write to the President, and yes, I finally did write the letter...Eisenhower being a lame duck, I didn't get around
to it until later. Yes, I forgot 'the right name' when I said I was asked to write to President Kennedy.

But in fact, I'd been asked to write "the president" and Col, Doyle, my high school physics and science seminar teacher,
asked if I had done so. He reminded me that I had been asked to write, differing my services to my country and said
this would help me get more help in obtaining materials and support for my work. The Peace Corps was forming at that
time, and youth were being encouraged to get involved with their country. I was once such young person. I was told such
a letter would place me on a list of those who would get more favors regarding scholarships and research opportunities.

That's what he said, and I reported what he said. Make of it what you will.

I received numerous letters and materials in 1960-61 with tons of enclosures. Surely the letter proves I was patriotic.
I wrote to my President. Barb was alive back then, I presume. Did she write to JFK? How about David Lifton? Did he
ever write JFK? How many of my critics wrote to Kennedy? One? None? I cared deeply about my country--more than
they did, possibly.

It seems that the people who truly care about what I have to say, who are intelligent enough to have read what has
been posted here--intelligent enough to see that I am trying to place information of importance before their eyes--
I will not be distracted by propaganda.

I urge them to follow us to the blogs being set up, where we can post information for all who have a genuine interest in
the life of Lee Harvey Oswald between April 26, 1963 and November 21, 1963, where I have information concerning him
due to our relationship during that time period.

The blogs won't get buried or trivialized as the thread does here--and people such as Karin will not have to put up with
half-baked facts and ridicule form the likes of Barb and McAdams. She will be treated with respect (that goes both ways--
abusive comments will be erased).

I have tried to present information about Lee H. Oswald here, but keep getting attacked on such matters as mouse
urine! I had to take time to defend why I was inspecting mouse urine under a microscope for a pseudo-scientist. She
now understands that mouse urine can be used to detect cancer, which she did not understand before, and mocked,
until I showed her the research in the field going back into the 1930's.

But this simply buries what we are trying to present to those who care about the identity of Lee H. Oswald and
his activities, and why he was murdered along with Kennedy.

I have explained how David Lifton misconstrued my statements--and that tape had better be intact, when sent to Dr.
Fetzer--because I took full notes on what I said and sent them to Shackelford and Platzman at once.

Of interest to me was how much time Mr. Lifton spent trying to get information about my book and about "60 Minutes",
rather than asking more than a couple of specific questions, in his one and only interview, which he variously described
as two hours long and as short as a half-hour long. I have documented how long the interview was.

Lifton promised to keep everything I said to him confidential--a promise he broke in six months. He promised to help
Rachel Oswald and sold her story out from under her and gave her nothing. Thus, this is a man I do not trust. In addition,
he just praised Barb J, whose efforts on this thread revealed bias and prejudice. Further, I had just exposed her inability
to "fact check"--yet he praised her work. That was unconscionable, as Dr. Fetzer pointed out.

I invite everyone who cares about the truth to visit judythbaker.blogspot.com which has finally been unblocked on google
(yes, it was blocked, for weeks). The rest of you can keep on going around in circles, as has been done for decades. You
will not find the answer at The Education Forum. You are being distracted and derailed, whenever you move close to the
truth, a pattern I have seen now for a decade.

JVB

[quote name='David Lifton' post='189313' date='Apr 9 2010, 06:05 PM']Barb,

You get a small gold star for doing all this work.
Same goes for Anthony Marsh, for actually digging up this obscure letter at the JFK Library.
When are people going to catch on and stop wasting time on this lady?

Life is finite.
Should even a minute be wasted on this lady, and her fictions?

DSL[/quote]

[James H. Fetzer]

Michael, My apologies for misspelling your name and for not realizing you
were quoting from the very chapter I though you had overlooked. You are
right for taking me to task for those mistakes of mine and I apologize to you.

[quote name='James H. Fetzer' date='Apr 10 2010, 02:52 AM' post='189331']
JIM REPLIES TO MICHAEL HOGAN (FOR THE SECOND TIME)

It's hard for me to place any other interpretation upon what Michael Hogan
posted than that it was intended to create a negative impression before the
interview with Ed Haslam, which has now been broadcast (first, before the
hour with Jesse Ventura, instead of second, as I had intended). The sound
quality with Ed was far superior to the sound quality with Jesse, which may
have motivated a change in their order. My wife listed to parts of the Jesse
hour and said that I hardly gave him a chance to talk! Of that, I am guilty!

On the other hand, I gave Ed lots of time to talk. When I read this latest
post, I picked up my copy and noticed that, while Michael said that he had
reread the appendix, "Judyth's Story", but apparently he ignored Chapter
13, The Witness, which he does not mention. I question the competence
of someone who claims to have read a book but forgets the key chapter in
relation to Judyth. It discusses "60 Minutes" enthusiasm for featuring her
on one of its programs, where it spend more time and money on her than
on any other prospective feature. So Michael might want to reread it, too.

As for the rest, there is an old English word that applies here, "Piffle!" Why
he even bothered to write this is beyond me. I gave my take about what
he had to say and he has given his. As much as it fascinates me to read
about Hogan's "anticipations", there are bigger fish to fry. I have put up a
new blog about Ed Haslam and Judyth, which includes the chapter about
"The Witness" from his earlier book, MARY, FERRIE & THE MONKEY VIRUS.
If anyone is interested in the history of the relationship between Judyth and
Lee, they might want to read it. If not, that's fine, too. The blog is here:

http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/04/ed...rys-monkey.html

[quote name='Michael Hogan' post='189329' date='Apr 9 2010, 11:01 PM']
[quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='189327' date='Apr 9 2010, 05:15 PM']
JIM REPLIES TO HORGAN AND WILL INVITE JUDYTH TO ADD MORE

This is a very odd report. At this point in time, Ed Haslam has interviewed
Judyth for around 1,000 hours and has interrogated her more extensively
than anyone else alive, so far as I am able to ascertain. Michael appears
to want to launch a "preemptive attack" on Ed before the interview to be
broadcast this evening. I can assure you, no one is going to conclude that
he is being either "vague" or "general" or "evasive" after hearing it. He has
told me that he does not want to take on extensive discussion about Judyth
until her book, ME & LEE, has appeared, no doubt to have a basic reference
work to which interested parties can be directed. I will invite Judyth to take
a look at this. Meanwhile, everyone should listen to Ed Haslam this evening.[/quote]

The beauty of the written word in a format like the Education Forum is that readers
can make their own judgments about whether a writer is correct or not.

My post did not attack Ed Haslam. Nor was it preemptive of anything.
Fetzer's assignment of motive is ridiculous.

It is clear I was giving a personal impression of an answer Haslam gave,
not attacking him. For Fetzer to insinuate anything else....

Nor did I use the word "evasive" in refererence to Ed Haslam, as Fetzer implies.

His reply is a personal diatribe, directed at me and doesn't attempt to address
the one basic and reasonable question I asked in my post.

Fetzer tries to win arguments by intimidation, rather than employing the logical
process that he professes to be so fond of and considers himself so good at.

Invariably, if someone posts something that Fetzer does not approve of,
he steers the discussion into a personal and desultory one..

I tried hard to make my account of Ed Haslam as non-combative as possible.
I referred to Haslam as "an intelligent, affable, honest and reasonable man."
I anticipated that Fetzer would give an ill-reasoned and vitriolic response.
Unfortunately I was right.

In Fetzer's language, I am attacking Haslam. Absurd.

The belated half-a____ P.S. added by him changes nothing.
He could have at least spelled my name right in his edit.
[/quote]
[/quote]

[James H. Fetzer]

David,

While we both know that our different takes on Judyth has created tension in our (your and my) relationship, I would
observe that four conditions must be satisfied for an assertion A to qualify as a lie: one party (1) must assert A to be
the case, (2) when A is not the case, (3) yet the party is still asserting A deliberately, even though s/he knows that A is
false, and (4) with the intention to deceive their audience. Neither of you trusts the other, even remotely, where each
of you has "good reasons". But if Judyth sincerely believes what she has said, then that assertion does not satisfy the
third condition for properly qualifying as a lie. The word is used too freely within this community, where the fact that
someone is making an assertion that another party regards as false does not mean that the first party is committing a
lie. Based upon my interaction with Judyth, which has been overwhelmingly greater than your own, I have found her
to be painstakingly committed to getting things right, where she has corrected my own understanding on specific points
on more than one occasion. Indeed, I have found her commitment to "getting things right" extremely persuasive about
her integrity and truthfulness. I regard her as extremely scrupulous and therefore I will be very surprised if she has, in
fact, committed a lie. I regard the prospect that she was acting on a false belief as enormously more likely than that
she was deliberately distorting the truth, if, as you claim, she has asserted something that is actually false. So I will be
certain that she responds to this post as promptly as she can and, if she's made a mistake, ask her to apologize to you.
By the same token, however, if she sincerely believed what she was saying, you should extend an apology to her. OK?

Jim

[quote name='David Lifton' post='189353' date='Apr 10 2010, 11:23 AM']Judyth,

Re your statement concerning my 1991 filmed interview with Rachel Oswald, you write, QUOTE:He promised to help Rachel Oswald and sold her story out from under her and gave her nothing. UNQUOTE

Judyth, you're a bald faced liar, and --as the saying goes--someone should wash your mouth out with soap.

As I have already noted, in a previous (and fairly detailed) post, explaining the full circumstances of my 1991 filmed interview with Rachel, in Austin:

1. Rachel Oswald consented to be interviewed by me, in 1991--an interview that was extremely detailed, ran about two hours; and covered many aspects of what it was like to grow up as the daughter of Lee Oswald. For that privilege, Rachel Oswald was paid about $1500.

2. A year later, HARDCOPY learned about this interview, and wanted to broadcast a small portion--about 5 minutes worth. Rachel was approached, consented, and was paid an additional $2500.

In sum, Rachel was paid a total of about $4,000 (at least, for I do not know the full arrangement) for a five minute broadcast version of her multi-hour interview with me.

In connection with that broadcast (or as a consequence, I do not remember the exact details), Rachel was also flown to Europe for about a week, all expenses paid, to the Netherlands.

Marina Oswald Porter, Rachel's mother, told me that Rachel was very pleased with the two hour 1991 interview, after it occurred.
Her stepfather, Kenneth Porter, told me that she banked the money and it helped accelerate her entry to graduate school. He, too, thanked me personally.

Flashing forward now a full year to the 1992 broadcast: Both Rachel and I were angry at the tasteless manner in which HARDCOPY used the few minutes they were licensed to use.

Returning now to your false charge: whether the show was up to par or not (and it definitely was not) Rachel received about $4,000.

To this day, some 18 years later, I have a signed copy of a release for the entire two hour interview, but only about 5 minutes have ever publicly been used.

As is often the case, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Returning now to your statement: "He promised to help Rachel Oswald and sold her story out from under her and gave her nothing."

I repeat what I said at the outset of this post: This is a total falsehood, and your continued repetition of this false statement expose you as nothing but a cheap and uninformed liar. Further, very time you repeat this, I'm going to post a rebuttal, until you stop lying about it.

For whatever reason, Jim Fetzer insists on believing you, and has invested his self image and reputation in the rubbish you promote.

But I won't stand for your nonsense.

DSL
4/10/10; 2:10 AM PDT
Los Angeles, California


P.S. I could care less whether you now say you were referring to "Kan Kun" rather than "Cancun" in your March, 2000 conversation with me. You said "Cancun"--that is quite obvious--but if you can't
be trusted to relate the truth about whether someone was paid $4,000 in fees, for the use of several minutes of a 2 hour filmed interview, and instead promote the fiction they were paid nothing, etc.,
then I have no interest in anything else you have to say, for that incident alone provides an accurate barometer to your utter lack of truthfulness and connection to reality.[/quote]

[James H. Fetzer]

Thanks for the clarification. Well, I appear to be having more communication with her than some members of her family. I think the problem began long ago when, in an effort to protect them from things she knew, she did not confide in them for what she took to be "good reasons". It looks to me as though that induced a degree of unjustified mistrust, where she thought she was going the right thing, but probably over the long run she was wrong, since it has led to disaffection from part of her family. Of course, she could be right that it might have placed them in harm's way, too. So I believe she was in a moral dilemma where, no matter what she decided to do--confide or not confide--it had risky consequences. She tried to protect them, which, I think, is what most mothers would do.

[quote name='William Kelly' post='189357' date='Apr 10 2010, 11:03 AM'][quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='189356' date='Apr 10 2010, 11:58 AM']Bill, since you were displaying extreme hostility toward Judyth as early as post #4, I am not surprised by your flippancy. But I have no idea where you got the idea that the Judyth impersonator--which indicates to me that the agency was already very concerned about neutralizing her--had had sex with Lee Oswald. Where did you come up with this? I would hate to accuse you of being a "fantasist"!

[quote name='William Kelly' post='189350' date='Apr 10 2010, 09:09 AM']If Jim Fetzer's friend Judyth Vary Baker denies being the graduate student Ed Haslam met in New Orleans in the late 60s, and she too had an affair with Oswald, why is anyone surprised that there are two Judyth Vary Bakers?

BK[/quote]
[/quote]

Excuse me, I stand corrected, the Judyth Vary Baker Ed Haslam knew in New Orleans only claimed to have known Oswald, not to have had an affair with him.

Since your friend JVB denies being this women, then there must be two JVBs, right?

And I admire your loyalty to her since apparently even her family has abandoned her over this issue.

BK
[/quote]

[James H. Fetzer]

JUDYTH RESPONDS TO DAVID LIFTON ABOUT RACHEL OSWALD

In the midst of this brouhaha does not appear to be a promising time to take a mini-family vacation.
The endless onslaught of attacks reminds me of the point I and others have made about the Warren
Commission sealing testimony and records for 75 years based upon national security considerations.
If the Warren Commission version of events were true, there were no "national security aspects" to
the assassination. If Judyth were a fantasist, as David, Jack, and others have claimed, why would
there be any reason to attack her? None of this makes any sense. Here is Judyth's reply to Lifton on
Rachel, which, together with the summary of the article by Laura Miller in The Dallas Observer, offers
evidence that Judyth had good reasons to believe that Lifton had pulled "a fast one" on Rachel. What
I would like is a copy of Miller's article, if anyone can provide me with a copy, because it appears to
have "disappeared" from the internet. With it or without it, my inference is that Judyth had grounds
to believe that Lifton had shortchanged Rachel, which means that, even if her belief turns out to be
false, as Lifton insists, she did not satisfy the third or fourth conditions for committing a lie. Under
these circumstances, it seems to me that it is Lifton who owes Judyth an apology and not vice versa.

JUDYTH REPLIES

Dear Jim--

Firs of all, I want to state that my family has not abandoned me over this issue. My dad and my mother always
staunchly defended me. Two of my five children have sacrificed tremendously to get me safe shelter overseas.
One son spent over $45,000, cashing in his retirement fund, to help me stay safe. He was a witness to some of
the threats and harrassments I've endured.

Another son offered me a beautiful, free house in Florida (he owns some fifteen houses and is wealthy) and offered
to publish my book, with all revenues going to me, if I would publish it as "historical fiction." When I turned him down,
he broke off contact with me. Another son also cut me entirely from his life. It's heartbreaking.

About Rachel Oswald Porter

I stated what I did about Rachel Oswald because I received an email from Rachel--and Wim Dankbaar and Linda Minor
have both verified that the email was from her. Even then I did not know what Rachel might be talking about by having
mentioned Lifton, which was an unsolicited comment, so I asked some researchers to tell me what they knew.

Here is Rachel Butterman's email to me:

From: Rachel Buttermann [coneheads@XXXXXX]
Sent: Tuesday November 18, 2003 7:47
To: elec...@xs4all.nl
Subject: A note from LHO's daughter

Hello,
My name is Rachel Oswald. I was born 10/20/1963. I just saw your
interview on the History Channel. After 40 years of unwanted
attention, I want to thank you for placing the light on yourself and
not my poor mother who becomes distraught every November at this time.
I wanted to tell you that either you are a victim of too much
knowledge and are delusional or you are telling your truth about what
you believed happened to you in 1963.
Personally, I just wanted to know what you can tell me about my
father.
Sincerely,
Rachel Oswald Porter
P.S. I cannot stand David Lifton and believe he would sell his mother
if the price were right. Your thoughts?



==I replied with two sincere letters about her father, and how much she had meant to him. The emails were not rejected.
Then Wim Dankbaar found her address and phone number and called her, but her husband wisely and protectively refused
access. Then she changed her email address. I would NEVER have given out her last name, where she lives, etc. but the
McAdams' newsgroup got that email and others stolen from me, and published it on their newsgroup, on May 24, 2008, at
12:58 AM with no compunctions about revealing her last name. Four days later, they wrote:

NOTE: The moderators have redacted information in this post that might compromise the privacy of Rachael Oswald.

Then they published her letter again, but left the former post and her name still visible higher in the thread.

I always try to verify what I'm told. Rachel said, "I cannot stand David Lifton and believe he would sell his mother if the
price were right. Your thoughts?"

It was Rachel who made the negative statement. I did seek evidence to see why she made that statement, and learned
that the present (at that time) Mayor of Houston, Laura Miller, had written an story about David Lifton. Lifton did not sue.

One person on the Internet, Deb Hart, wrote to David Nesbitt:
debhart94103@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:55nervc9uvcpjq7i4rk8mj61m3g87egk70@4ax.com...

> On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 19:39:52 GMT, "David P. Nesbitt"
> <cnesbitt@pacbell.net> wrote:

> Get a copy of the Dallas Observer article, written by Laura Miller
> (current mayor of Dallas, TX), which lays it out in all its sordid
> detail. In summary, [Lifton] lied to Miss Oswald-Porter,
> claiming he wanted to "interview [her] for historical purposes only".
> He paid her a few dollars (literally) "for her time" and got a
> "release". (she was a nursing student, working her way through school
> at the time). Then, he turned around and SOLD THE TAPE to HARD COPY
> FOR TENS OF THOUSANDS.. She was literally waiting tables in a
> restaurant in Austin, TX when she looked up at a screen to see herself
> on HARD COPY.
>
> And THAT'S NOT ALL.
>
> He used computer technology to take a "still" picture from the video
> tape, and sold it to tabloids ALL OVER EUROPE for THOUSANDS MORE.
>
> This guy has given EVERYONE foolish enough to call himself a
> "conspiracy theorist" (he invented the demeaning term) the WORST
> possible reputation.
>
> Even the *cameramen* at HARD COPY (not to mention the executive
> producers) considered him scum.

Thanks for the info, Deb! I had no idea that this had occurred. It is sad
that there are so many who shamefully capitalize on this national tragedy.
==============end post by Deb Hart==================

Was Laura Miller an investigative report for The Dallas Observer? Yes:

"Laura Miller (born November 18, 1958) served as mayor of Dallas, Texas (U.S.) from 2002 through 2007...
In 1991, Miller became an investigative reporter for the Dallas Observer ...In 1998, Miller was elected to the
Dallas City Council representing Oak Cliff and southwest Dallas. In 2002, Miller was elected as Mayor of Dallas."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Miller

Miller was always against corruption: wrote one newsgroup person:

"Laura Miller is an independent minded councilwoman who
has a history of standing up to the downtown power system.
While her power is somewhat limited as a mere council member,
she has a large following in the city from her days as a journalist
for the Dallas Observer..." She later was elected Mayor of Dallas.

Deb Bert (under a different name) on April 4, 2001, two years before she wrote in response to Rachel's complaint
against Lifton, told readers about what he had done to Rachel (and, I do not think Rachel would bring it up in an
email to me unless she felt, in 2003, a BIG grudge against Lifton for some BIG reason, as the email was short):

"It was Ms. Miller who wrote the excellent article on his exploitation of one of the Oswald daughters. After reading
that article, I decided that nothing written ....by [Lifton] was to be trusted. Someone who would lie to Oswald's
daughter would lie to the rest of us as well."

To which another person replied:

<wparker...@home.com>

I would appreciate it if you could direct me to where I could find Miller's article on [Lifton].
I used to believe he was sincere until I had some unfortunate personal dealing with him
Bill Parker

REPLY: "The article was published in the Dallas Observer in the spring or early summer of 1992,
and should be available in their archives for a small fee. It leaves NOTHING to the imagination."

[NOTE: Her articles in the Dallas Observer: http://www.dallasobserver.com/authors/laura-miller
do not include the one of interest. I would appreciate it if someone could send a copy to me.]

Re Lifon's Book, originally to be called something like "I Led ThreeLives" and then, "Charade" one
researcher stated:

David P. Nesbitt
View profile
Nov 14 2003, 3:20 am

Well, the timing has been bad a couple of times. Norman Mailer's book came
out and then Oswald and the CIA, so there was starting to be a glut of books
which is a bad thing for sales. But I don't know what the problem has been
the last 5 years.

Another wrote:

> "He was on Black Op radio recently and said that he was still working
> on his book about Oswald. " (Nov. 2003)

==But Lifton never contacted me but a single time, if only to dismiss my claims after thoroughly investigating them.

I had been willing to cooperate thoroughly.
Why did Rachel Oswald say he would sell his own mother if the price was right?
It was she who brought up a money angle.
In fact, I kept that email from Rachel to myself.
I had not sought to place Mr. Lifton in a bad light by using it-- even though he had attacked me, by then, many times.
I kept he email private.
Rachel's security meant more to me than revealing her email to defend myself against Mr. Lifton.
Then, somebody who is an acknowledged mental case, who had gotten hold of my emails, published Rachel's email to
me on McAdams' newsgroup.==

Summary:

Failure to keep confidentiality: David Lifton broke his word, saying he would keep our only conversation confidential.

The broken promise tells me that he can lie.

Secret and illegal taping: this tells me he can do unscrupulous things.

An unsolicited complaint from Rachel Oswald sating that he would sell his own mother for money. Obviously, something
bad happened between Rachel and Lifton regarding money: this tells me that something to do with money occurred
between Rachel Oswald and David Lifton, to her disadvantage.

He has misrepresented my statements to him and refused to acknowledge his misinterpretations of my statements when
they were pointed out to him at the Education Forum in 2010: he is willing to continue a misrepresentation even after it
has been shown to be wrong.

Conclusion:

David Lifton did something harmful to Rachel Oswald Porter Butterman, financially, and I am justified in pointing it out,
not only because it has already been mentioned elsewhere, and not just because it was brought up by Butterman, but
because Mr. Lifton has also treated me unscrupulously.

It seems he will delay his book in hopes I will die first, because he knows I will come out swinging if he misrepresents
anything about Lee Oswald that I know not to be the truth, such as, for example, getting the very date of his arrival in
New Orleans wrong, just for starters.

Even when Dr. Fetzer corrected him, Mr. Lifton ignored his correction, and again insisted that Oswald arrived on the 26th
instead of the 25th of April, 1963, in New Orleans. Was that because I said Oswald met with David Ferrie on the 25th?
What kind of biography would Lifton's book represent about the real Oswald, if he is willing to hide a claim that Lee
Oswald met with David Ferrie on 25 April, 1963?

JVB

[quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='189360' date='Apr 10 2010, 11:23 AM']David,

While we both know that our different takes on Judyth has created tension in our (your and my) relationship, I would
observe that four conditions must be satisfied for an assertion A to qualify as a lie: one party (1) must assert A to be
the case, (2) when A is not the case, (3) yet the party is still asserting A deliberately, even though s/he knows that A is
false, and (4) with the intention to deceive their audience. Neither of you trusts the other, even remotely, where each
of you has "good reasons". But if Judyth sincerely believes what she has said, then that assertion does not satisfy the
third condition for properly qualifying as a lie. The word is used too freely within this community, where the fact that
someone is making an assertion that another party regards as false does not mean that the first party is committing a
lie. Based upon my interaction with Judyth, which has been overwhelmingly greater than your own, I have found her
to be painstakingly committed to getting things right, where she has corrected my own understanding on specific points
on more than one occasion. Indeed, I have found her commitment to "getting things right" extremely persuasive about
her integrity and truthfulness. I regard her as extremely scrupulous and therefore I will be very surprised if she has, in
fact, committed a lie. I regard the prospect that she was acting on a false belief as enormously more likely than that
she was deliberately distorting the truth, if, as you claim, she has asserted something that is actually false. So I will be
certain that she responds to this post as promptly as she can and, if she's made a mistake, ask her to apologize to you.
By the same token, however, if she sincerely believed what she was saying, you should extend an apology to her. OK?

Jim

[quote name='David Lifton' post='189353' date='Apr 10 2010, 11:23 AM']Judyth,

Re your statement concerning my 1991 filmed interview with Rachel Oswald, you write, QUOTE:He promised to help Rachel Oswald and sold her story out from under her and gave her nothing. UNQUOTE

Judyth, you're a bald faced liar, and --as the saying goes--someone should wash your mouth out with soap.

As I have already noted, in a previous (and fairly detailed) post, explaining the full circumstances of my 1991 filmed interview with Rachel, in Austin:

1. Rachel Oswald consented to be interviewed by me, in 1991--an interview that was extremely detailed, ran about two hours; and covered many aspects of what it was like to grow up as the daughter of Lee Oswald. For that privilege, Rachel Oswald was paid about $1500.

2. A year later, HARDCOPY learned about this interview, and wanted to broadcast a small portion--about 5 minutes worth. Rachel was approached, consented, and was paid an additional $2500.

In sum, Rachel was paid a total of about $4,000 (at least, for I do not know the full arrangement) for a five minute broadcast version of her multi-hour interview with me.

In connection with that broadcast (or as a consequence, I do not remember the exact details), Rachel was also flown to Europe for about a week, all expenses paid, to the Netherlands.

Marina Oswald Porter, Rachel's mother, told me that Rachel was very pleased with the two hour 1991 interview, after it occurred.
Her stepfather, Kenneth Porter, told me that she banked the money and it helped accelerate her entry to graduate school. He, too, thanked me personally.

Flashing forward now a full year to the 1992 broadcast: Both Rachel and I were angry at the tasteless manner in which HARDCOPY used the few minutes they were licensed to use.

Returning now to your false charge: whether the show was up to par or not (and it definitely was not) Rachel received about $4,000.

To this day, some 18 years later, I have a signed copy of a release for the entire two hour interview, but only about 5 minutes have ever publicly been used.

As is often the case, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Returning now to your statement: "He promised to help Rachel Oswald and sold her story out from under her and gave her nothing."

I repeat what I said at the outset of this post: This is a total falsehood, and your continued repetition of this false statement expose you as nothing but a cheap and uninformed liar. Further, very time you repeat this, I'm going to post a rebuttal, until you stop lying about it.

For whatever reason, Jim Fetzer insists on believing you, and has invested his self image and reputation in the rubbish you promote.

But I won't stand for your nonsense.

DSL
4/10/10; 2:10 AM PDT
Los Angeles, California


P.S. I could care less whether you now say you were referring to "Kan Kun" rather than "Cancun" in your March, 2000 conversation with me. You said "Cancun"--that is quite obvious--but if you can't
be trusted to relate the truth about whether someone was paid $4,000 in fees, for the use of several minutes of a 2 hour filmed interview, and instead promote the fiction they were paid nothing, etc.,
then I have no interest in anything else you have to say, for that incident alone provides an accurate barometer to your utter lack of truthfulness and connection to reality.[/quote]
[/quote]

[James H. Fetzer]

JIM AND JUDYTH RESPOND TO GREENLEE, SHACKELFORD, AND WHITE

NOTE: I suppose that Greenlee, who has been posting nasties to Junkkarinen on
another site, belongs here to add to the fray. How many have now piled on about my
inquiry about some code that was linked to Junkkarinen's site but turned out to be
about her son rather than her? Junkkarinen, Thompson, Farley, Viklund, Greenlee,
and no doubt others. That's a lot of posts for asking about some apparently military
code in the belief that they had come from Barb's page to which his page was linked:



"I'm very sorry for the indefensible crap Fetzer posted about your son", he says. But
the only "indefensible crap" posted is his. The code I posted was some that Barb's son
had included on his own Facebook page. Facebook is public and he had it posted there.
My only mistake was to suppose it came from Barb, when it came from another page
linked to Barb's page. It was nothing more than a simple inquiry in one of my posts:



I addressed this issue in #1018 and in #1047. I am not the only one who finds it odd
that there is very little about Barb to be found on Barb's Facebook page. We already knew
that Vikelund, Junkkarenin, and McAdams were working together. Now Greenlee joins them
This is a nice example of the critics methodology: find something to attack, no matter how
innocuous, and beat it to death! No one will even protest this genuinely indefensible crap!

JUDYTH REPLIES:

Martin has some facts wrong. Two others were involved as witnesses,
and know that Shackelford did not know everything that was going on.

1) I did not take any advance money. I sent back $300. Another $100
I was told was a gift to keep my Internet on, in Hungary, just as we
decided to work together. I never regarded that as an advance.

2) Shackelford was not privy to all that occurred between Livingstone and me.

3) It is a fact that many edits Shackelford and I did together did not make it
into the final product. While I approved the edits, I never saw the final product.
ANYONE who got the book can see that there are errors and typos, plus many
exhibits were illegibly printed.

4) It is not true that I rejected the book over money. Shackelford may remember
that Livingstone wanted to take the film rights that had already been assigned
elsewhere. I have witnesses to that. This was the crux of any financial objections:
I had already signed film rights elsewhere.

5) It was never about money. Shackelford may have thought so, but my conduct
proves otherwise. I shut the book down. I refused to accept a penny from the book.

6) That was in 2006. The book was flawed and I began a rewrite in a different
format to protect it from any claim by Livingstone that 'his' edit had been taken
elsewhere. It was not.

7) Ed Haslam's book came out in 2007 -- Dr. Mary's Monkey.

8) I realized that Trine Day--a courageous press that published
Dan Marvin's book, Expendible Elite-- and won a court case when green
berets sued Dan over it---had done a good job with Haslam's book.

9) I wrote to Trine Day, but then was forced in the political asylum system.
I sent them the manuscript. I never asked for an advance. I asked for nothing.
I just wanted the book to be in good hands. That was my sole objective. Since
I had entered the EU political asylum system, I was unable to even sign a contract,
and my son was given power of attorney to handle my affairs.

10) After reading my manuscript, they decided to publish it in hardback, and I have
had not the least trouble in getting corrections made. Talk about professionalism and
due care! At every step of the way, everything has been vetted, researched and double-
checked, most of which would never be seen in the book--everything from obituaries
to interviews. I am pleased that the book will have very few errors in it.

11) In contrast, Livingstone wanted to put the book out as quickly as possible because
of the thieves. Shackelford was not privy to everything that passed between me and
Livingstone. Two others were, but Martin was not.

JVB

[quote name='Kevin Greenlee' post='189372' date='Apr 10 2010, 04:52 PM']Hi Jack,

Martin Shackleford posted an account of the creation and publication of the "unauthorized"
version of Judyth's book in some newgroup messages a few years ago. i will post highlights
but if you wish to read Martin's complete posts you can find them at the address i post at
the bottom of each quotation.

"How "unauthorized" can a book be when she wrote it and corrected the book
after it was edited. It was published exactly in the form it existed after
she made her corrections. For her to complain--after she went through the
entire book herself making corrections--that the book has "typos" is absurd.
As for "missing photos and other flaws," the same thing applies. It was
published as she corrected it. Nonetheless, she would like to blame Harry
Livingstone for those problems--but he made NO changes after she corrected
the book. After everyone had done their work on the book, and it was ready
for publication, she tried to demand additional business concessions in
return for "permission" to publish it. As both sides had already met all
agreed-upon conditions, there was no legal reason not to publish the book.
The only reason she claims that publication was done "behind her back" is
because she refused further involvement and thus didn't keep up with
developments in the final stages. That's ALL it means.
The story is much muddier than you imagine, and has nothing to do with
whether the book was authentic.
Unauthorized isn't the same as inauthentic, by the way. The conflict was
over other issues entirely."

[URL="http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/552f200e928561a2?hl=en%06f4ffeb92d79a0bc"]
<a href="http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspir...f4ffeb92d79a0bc" target="_blank">http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspir...f4ffeb92d79a0bc[/URL]</a>

and

"In October 2004, Harrison Livingstone, who had
included a reference to Judyth in his recently-published book The Radical
Right....., learned that Judyth was having difficulty getting her book
published, and offered to publish it under the following conditions:
1) She would provide the complete manuscript (instead, she doled it out a
chapter at a time over a
period of ten months, violating the first condition to which she agreed;
the projected time frame
had initially been much shorter, but we stuck with it, despite mounting
expenses).
2) He would edit the book and arrange for its publication through a POD, the
same way he had been
publishing his own recent books, which she had praised.
3) A colleague of ours with extensive layout skills would do the layout for
the book, for a minimal cost.
(She later denied that she had been told he would be paid, despite
responding to e-mails in which
this had been clearly discussed; she insisted she had been told
everything would be "free"--what
that meant, to the extent it had been said, was that she wouldn't have
to contribute any money--
she translated it to mean that no one's expenses would have to be
reimbursed out of royalties.)
4) We would raise the money to publish the book, relieving her of the costs.
This and the layout guy
(and the $500 advance which she later received) would be repaid out of
royalties, once they began.
5) After the book was edited, she would make corrections; no further editing
would be done.

She agreed to these five conditions enthusiastically, and expressed
gratitude to the investors and those
putting their efforts into the book.
All of these steps were completed--it was at THAT point that she decided she
wanted to change the agreement, and hold the book hostage, AFTER everyone
had donated their efforts for ten months, and
the investments necessary to publish the book. The new conditions she sought
were totally unacceptable.
Since all of the elements of the original agreement had been completed in
full by all parties involved, we went ahead with publication of the
book--but only after several more months of discussions in an effort to get
her to see reason. There was no precipitous decision to "go behind her
back."
She decided, unilaterally, that the book couldn't be published without her
"permission," which was conditional on meeting her new set of demands. Thus,
she was startled when the book was published.
As she had cut off all communication, we were unable to keep her abreast of
developments, and when the book came out, she learned about it indirectly,
even as copies were being boxed (along with promotional materials, etc.) to
ship to her. Things tend to happen "behind their back" when a person turns
their back on all of the work and money invested in a project, and just
expects everyone to walk away.
Finally, in December 2005, after $2200 had been invested in the book, in
addition to materials (more than originally projected, because she insisted
on having over 400 illustrations, which increased the costs), she offered to
"buy back" the book for $500--in other words, she sought only to return her
advance, and wanted everyone to agree to eat their costs while she went
shopping for a more lucrative deal--with a manuscript edited by Livingstone,
who wasn't even to have his costs reimbursed. "

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspir...f4ffeb92d79a0bc[/quote]

[quote name='Jack White' post='189369' date='Apr 10 2010, 04:42 PM']
I am baffled about how an UNAUTHORIZED VERSION could be published by Livingstone.
Did Harry just make up stuff and write FICTION? How and why did the story change?
What did Harry have wrong? What was his source? What portion of Harry's version was
objectionable, and where did it originate? How did Harry get the original manuscript
which he then corrupted? I find this all very strange.

Jack[/quote]

[James H. Fetzer]

JIM RESPONDS TO JACK ABOUT JUDYTH AND PAMELA AND MORE

Pamela has changed her position, Jack, as she has learned more about Judyth, Lee, and the
history of New Orleans at the time. How can anyone who has read Ed Haslam, DR. MARY'S
MONKEY, or even listened to my interview with him, which was broadcast yesterday on "The
Real Deal" and is currently archived at http://religionandmorality.net/Podcasts/Haslam/ have
any serious doubts about Judyth's bona fides as a brilliant science student who was out-
performing the NIH in cancer research and was recruited to assist in critical research projects
in collaboration with Dr. Mary Sherman, David Ferrie, and Dr. Alton Ochsner? and that early
on she met Lee Oswald, who (apparently by pre-design) was helping her cope with the city?

I have a few questions for you, my friend, which may shed light on the situation between us:

(1) Have you listened to my interview of Ed on "The Real Deal" or via the archived link above?

(2) Have you read Haslam's book, DR. MARY'S MONKEY, which has been in print since 2007?

(3) Have you watched "The Love Affair", from "The Men Who Killed Kennedy", which can be
accessed at http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/03/14...udyth-vary.html?

(4) Have you read "14 Reasons to Believe in Judyth Vary Baker" found on that same blog page?

(5) Have you watched the videotaped interview with Anna Lewis also found on that blog page?

(6) Have you listened to my interview with Dean Hartwell about Judyth also found there, too?

JUDYTH COMMENTS ABOUT SOME OF WHAT HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED HERE SO FAR

We are making progress. We have unmasked so many of the false rumors and statements that
had been traveling under the wire about me that were false, including each of the following:

1) John Simkin showing prejudice against me at once by implying I lied--corrected by Dr. Fetzer;

2) Jack White saying I'd been kicked off DellaRosa's forum for abusive posting--uncovered as untrue;

3) David Lifton's claims about the illegal taping he did have been uncovered as misrerpresenations,
where he has shown amazing and enduring prejudice by attempting to ignore those findings;

4) Barb's 'fact finding" has been proven (for those whose minds aren't closed) to be incompetent;

5) silly claims about me, such as that I changed my name from "Avary" to "Vary" because I hated my
family name, have been exposed;

6) the "Kankun" matter has been settled except for the McAdams' folks, who will never change;

7) the Walter Reed address code factor has been placed back where it belongs in the trivia box;

8) we have shown the truth about Oswald's Tooth, despite the websites that twisted everything I'd said;

9) we have shown that support for "Harvey" and "Lee" attending the same junior high is questionable;

9) we have established that HARVEY and LEE theories ignore some obvioius phoito distortions, where it
seems that Armstrong has been given, or made, bad copies that distorted Oswald: we have more to do;

10) we have established that the entire Murret family would have had to know "both" Harvey and Lee
due to the tooth matter, where Lillian purportedly paid for "Lee"s dental work, as Dr. Fetzer pointed out;

There is much more waiting in the wings--Barb's barbs have proved to be much ado about nothing...--
where the thread has polarized--in other words, exposed--the agendas of many.

I've had so many threats in the past three years that this time, instead of printing an acknowledgment
page as planned, for everyone's safety, there is no such page. Instead, the book is dedicated to those
who have given their lives as witnesses.

JVG

Are you capable of changing your mind like Pam, Jack? I anticipated that the going might get rough, and
I haven't planned to lose any old friends over this. But I'm not going to abandon a witness in whom I believe!

[quote name='Jack White' post='189399' date='Apr 11 2010, 01:24 AM']
I have been trying to play "catchup" on JVB. The Lancer Forum has archived emails from way-back.
I found some interesting discussions there. One that struck me from 2005 was Pamela saying:

"An ironic coincidence (to me anyhow) is that in this DVD I get the feeling we have Judyth as
Oracle of the assassination. It is a strange feeling, and there is something eery about it."

I agree with Pamela's 2005 assessment. I too find it eerie.

Jack[/quote]

[Pamela McElwain-Brown]

Jim Fetzer said:
Are you capable of changing your mind like Pam, Jack? I anticipated that the going might get rough, and
I haven't planned to lose any old friends over this. But I'm not going to abandon a witness in whom I believe!

My life has changed considerably from the time I first became acquainted with Judyth. By that time I had given two presentations at NID and worked on a few TV shows from Gary Mack's giving producers my name. The first thing I did was try to help get the tapes of Anna Lewis' interview plus other tapes from the 2000 NOLA trip back from Debra Conway. My doing that immediately alienated me from her. Not long after, Gary Mack emailed me and told me to back away from being supportive of Judyth. I refused to be manipulated and told him so. That ended my interactions with him.

I could not have known what the fallout would be of my doing only that which I believed was the right thing to do; namely, to try to level the slanted field of libel that surrounded any statements Judyth made. Looking back over the last seven years, I would not do anything differently. Not only that, but each new assault against Judyth causes me to wonder even more just how powerful her statements are considered to be by the Ongoing Coverup. I am convinced that the alternative to allowing Judyth to have a voice is to lead everyone back into the unsullied purity of the WCR where we only need to deal with 'LHO acting alone'.