Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[James H. Fetzer]

JUDYTH’S STORY HAS REMAINED CONSTANT ACROSS TIME

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKbakerJ.htm

Judyth Baker, posting on Manatee High School website (2003)

As you may recall, I was engaged in cancer research, and seemed to drop out of sight. Until now, I could not have mentioned what was going on in my life. Didn't you ever wonder what had happened to me? I, who had won national recognition for my magnesium project, and whose cancer research project gained Honors in the Westinghouse Science Talent Search, plus a trip to Buffalo to work in the nation's oldest cancer laboratories, seemed to vanish.. However, between 1961 and 1963, I was trained to do special cancer research. I became involved in an anti-castro project in New Orleans. I can't even discuss the impact of this project, but suffice that by spring of 1963, I was working for Reily coffee company as a front (my boss was former FBI agent William Monaghan) while actually engaged in clandestine cancer research with 'Dr.' David W. Ferrie (supposedly committed suicide but was probably murdered during the Garrison investigation) and renowned medical specialist Dr. Mary Sherman (brutally murdered July 21, 1964 for her part in the scenario I am about to describe). You may recall that I took Russian (all fees paid) at Manatee (then Jr.) Community College. I spoke crude conversational Russian by 1963, when I was introduced in New Orleans to Lee Harvey Oswald. When I wore my hair and makeup the same as his wife, Marina, - for I was same height, weight, and spoke Russian, Lee Oswald and I could worked together. Lee was involved in an anti-Castro project whose sponsor, Dr. Ochsner, was possibly related to the CIA in fact, one of Ochsner's best friends was 'Wild Bill' Donovan, who founded the CIA and who was, like Ochsner, a President of the American cancer Society. The project included delivery of live biological weapons into Cuba, aimed to kill Castro. Not only was Oswald an innocent man, he was framed in Dallas. He was a patriot who, had he defended himself, would have led to our deaths. We had endured the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, and the threat of communism spreading throughout Central and South America. I have been unable to speak about this for all these years, and indeed went into hiding after the events of Nov. 22-24, 1963. I am writing this to let light fall at last upon what must have seemed my many mysterious activities even in high school - such as meeting with Nobel Prize winners in St. Petersburg, and why I was never to become a doctor or research scientist. My book will come out next year, we believe, dealing with these events, and of my love affair with Lee.

Judyth Baker, Assassination of JFK Forum (18th April, 2004)

There are persons alive who were aware of my story from the beginning. My sister, Lynda, for example, knew about my love affair with Lee in 1964. My children knew from 1981 that Lee and I 'were friends.' We have statements from members of Marcello's family that they remembered me and Lee. Anna Lewis and her husband David (an investigator who had worked for Guy Banister), and Lee and I double dated. This has been twisted about by those who like to rewrite what I have actually reported. Anna spontaneously spoke of me as Lee's mistress, and went into detail before six witnesses. This poor woman has been threatened and harassed since. I have a Mafia soldier on tape, three times. We knew each other by sight, not as friends, in New Orleans. His name is "Mac" McCullough. I've proven I knew Lee to Gerry Hemming, because I told Gerry some things Lee knew about him that nobody knew. There are others who know. They just don't want to talk. They remain silent...

The bioweapon is not well-described by my detractors. It must be accompanied by radiation and/or chemotherapy to be useful - and those adjunct forces could be manipulated. For example, I have a newspaper article stating Jack Ruby was placed in front of x-rays for forty-five minutes. Do you know what that kind of potential exposure would do to your immune system? It was destruction of the immune system that would allow strengthened cancer cells to survive and reproduce in the victim's body...

I was assigned in Gainesville, Florida, to make certain compounds that help biological materials withstand liquid nitrogen freezing. Yes, I believe the materials we developed are in deep freeze. Jack Ruby was shown that extra x-rays were needed... or radiation... he also knew a large gauge needle was needed to inject cancer cells. It would be a painful, intravenous shot, not intramuscular, which would merely cause necrosis. He was a 'health nut' and experienced painful shots given him, as recounted by Al Maddox (I have additional written statements from Maddox), who was present when Jack Ruby died. Maddox was told by Ruby that he'd been injected with cancer cells. Ruby would have been able to figure that out, as explained above. Maddox said a doctor from Chiacgo (Dr. Sherman was from Chicago) gave the shots, then left Texas after Ruby died. Sam Giancana's book says a scientist 'from Illinois' was involved with the injection/radiation/cancer project to get Castro that Moody described to his brother. While Giancana's book is full of rumors and legends as well as facts, rumor indeed is what he reports coming out of the get-Castro project - and he was right on the money.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKshermanM.htm

Judyth was offered a summer medical internship with Dr. Sherman by Ochsner: she accepted, and came to New Orleans in April, 1963. There, she met Lee Harvey Oswald, who introduced her to Sherman's friend, David Ferrie. Judyth accidentally learned about the clandestine side of the project before Ochsner, who was out of town, was able to steer her to the legitimate side. She then became a willing participant in the project. At the same time, Oswald and Judyth began to fall in love. Neither had a happy marriage (Judyth was recently married to a man who promptly left her alone in New Orleans,and who in other ways neglected her). Oswald became linked to the project, partly to be close to Judyth.

According to Judyth Baker the research into the biological weapon was hidden by using two or more secret mini-labs which were set up when Ochsner's Clinic made a massive move into new facilities in March, 1963. Equipment, animals, etc. were 'misplaced' during the move, the second-largest in the history of New Orleans. The basic project was set up March 23, 1962, using conventional facilities, which then expanded out of the loop for its final phases.

Baker adds that Lee Harvey Oswald learned how to handle the materials safely and keep them alive. He volunteered to courier the materials to Mexico City, where a medical student, doctor or intern was scheduled to take the materials to Cuba. Oswald made frantic efforts to get the materials, which had a short shelf-life, into Cuba himself when his contacts failed to appear. The project, in fact, had been called off because of Hurricane Flora, which devastated Cuba at this time. Oswald was ordered to Dallas: his "desire to go to Cuba" was never mentioned again by him. His transit visa to go to Cuba was approved in mid-October, but by then, Oswald had no more need to go to Cuba: he never used the approved visa, which arrived too late to be of any use in saving the biological materials.

Judyth Baker claims that she and Lee Harvey Oswald planned to divorce and marry in Mexico after he had done all he could to help thwart the plans of an assassination ring, which he had volunteered to investigate. He believed he would have the help of the CIA to escape after providing information, but instead, due to his Pro-Castro activities in New Orleans, which had been under the handling of Guy Bannister (in order to identify Pro-Castroites in New Orleans), Oswald became the perfect patsy, even though he was on record as having admired John F. Kennedy.

According to Judyth, Oswald volunteered to continue to penetrate the ring, even when he realized his life was in danger. Oswald could only speculate on who organized the conspiracy. He was aware that Mafia, Texas oil moguls, and conservative racists put up money to finance an assassination ring that seemed to include a wide variety of planners and participants. He was kept from learning the identities of the leaders, but expressed opinions that Carlos Marcello (godfather of New Orleans and Dallas) and his Mafia friends in Chicago and Miami, along with anti-Castroites and elements of the Secret Service and CIA, were well able to assassinate Kennedy, if those at the highest levels in government cooperated to allow the assassination to take place for their benefit. Oswald told Judyth he would do what he could to try to get the mission aborted, and that he had others who were going to help him to abort the assassination.

After the assassination of John F. Kennedy and the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald, Judyth Baker received a phone-call from David Ferrie warning her that she would be killed if she told anyone about her knowledge of these events.

[James H. Fetzer]

THE JUDYTH BOOK SAMPLE MATCHES LEE’S WRITING

NOTE: As a young man, I took an interest in graphology (hardwriting analysis) myself.
Although the sample is small, it appears to match the other writing extremely well. When
I first received what Howard had sent, I read it through and assumed that he had sent me
a sample of Lee’s handwriting for comparison. It looked to me like a single unified piece. I
have asked Howard to send his second example of the same technique for me to post here.

HOWARD COMMENTS:

In a message dated 4/30/2010, Howard Platzman <Howpl@aol.com> wrote:

Jim

The fax I sent: I copied an annotation in the margins of J's Aristotle book,
putatively by Lee, and pasted it into a documented example of Lee's handwriting.
The fit is perfect. As you can see, it is one individual's writing all the way through.
You can only pick out the pasted-in part by reading for meaning. Interestingly, the
annotation includes a misspelling, as might be expected from a dyslectic. I have
another example using the same technique. I'm not a pro, but I'm convinced.

Howard





JUDYTH COMMENTS:

The original margin writing was small, on the left-hand side of the page in this case,
composed of a few words, written with a short, stubby pencil such as were used with
compasses in high school geometry classes. Plus, in ink, we have a few numbers, a lot
of underlining, and parentheses in more than one style. The underlining is sometimes
sloppy. The highlighted word comes from a short phrase, "comparation of 3" with a large
bow-style [brace] {-type parenthesis. He obviously meant "comparison of 3" -- misspelling
'comparison.' .The writing, though blown up to more than twice its original size, retained
all the proportions seen in the handwriting samples of normal size.

JVB

[James H. Fetzer]

THE DISAPPEARING WITNESS: THE WOMAN IN THE CAR (WAS JUDYTH VARY BAKER)

NOTE: This is a nice example of the process of making a person who should be of enormous
interest "disappear" from official records, but where diligent research can uncover the history
of the sequence, as occurs here, beginning with the Clay Shaw trial and ending with the HSCA.
This is a nice illustration why depending on “official records” is unlikely to reveal the whole story.

THE MISSING WITNESS

During the trial of Clay Shaw, a man named Edwin Lea McGehee testified that a man resembling
Lee Harvey Oswald came into his barbershop in late August 1963 for a haircut, that he was able
to remember him because he had few strangers as patrons, and that a woman was driving him
in "a battered old car". The state acknowledged that it could not identify here and make it clear
that, in particular, it was not alleging that this woman was Marina Oswald (now Marina Oswald
Porter). The state wished it could have identified her.


Here's an extract from the trial transcript:



McGehee also testified, "The car might have been dark-green--but the make of it I just couldn't
remember, it was an old car, real old." It "resembled a Kaiser or Frasier or an old Nash." "There
was a woman sitting on the front seat", he recalled, "and in the back seat" he also noticed what
"looked like a [baby] bassinet". He suggested that Oswald [who was looking for a job] pay a visit
to State Representative Reeves Morgan, who worked as a guard at the East Louisiana State Mental
Hospital, who testified that Oswald visited him at his home outside of Jackson for 20 or 25 minutes,
and told him of his expertise as an electrician. It was late August or early September. Not called
was Morgan's daughter, Mary, a student at LSU in 1967, who told the New Orleans District Attorney
that "when Oswald was in the house talking with dad, she happened to walk towards the screen door
and sat on the porch and just casually noticed that there was a dark colored car parked under the tree
in front of the house." It was "an old car and the model was somewhere in the Fifties." She remembered
"seeing a woman in the car". Her and her father's testimony both appears to have been taken in 1967.



THE HSCA PUTS THE WOMAN BEHIND THE WHEEL

On 19 January 1978, Mr. McGehee was interviewed by Bob Buras and Patricia Orr of the House Select
Committee on Assassinations at his home in Jackson about the testimony that he had presented on 6
February 1969. He reiterated that Oswald had come in for a haircut in late August 1963 and that "a
woman in a battered old car had driven up at about the same time that Oswald had arrived. He did
not see Oswald get out of or into the car. McGehee was unable to remember the type of car that the
woman had been driving. A big black car pulled away shortly after Oswald left. He did not know if
Oswald got into it." Because of his "clean cut appearance", after Oswald explained to him that he
"really needed a job", McGehee referred him to his friend, Morgan Reeves, who worked at the East
Louisiana State Hospital, which might be looking for someone to work in its electrical department:



THE HSCA MAKES MARY MORGAN’S “WOMAN IN THE CAR” VANISH

The same staff members had also interviewed Morgan Reeves just a few hours earlier on the same
day. "He verified that his statements made at the Clay Shaw trial, which [they] went over with him,
were accurate and truthful" and that "Sometime in 'probably the latter part of August' Oswald came
to Morgan's home to talk with him about getting a job at East Louisiana State Hospital. He "believes
Oswald drove up to his home or had been driven to his home by somebody, because he had heard the
car come up the driveway just before Oswald came to the door. Unfortunately, [either] Mr. Morgan or
his daughter, who was present at the time, did not see the car or the possible driver."



STATEMENT BY JUDYTH VARY BAKER:

Multiple reports that LHO could drive were rejected by the Warren Commission, for Ruth Paine and Marina Oswald--who was under duress--consistently stated that LHO could not drive. But other reports from the Irving, Texas-based barber (Mr. Sasheen), the barber in Jackson, LA (Lea McGehee), and Mary Morgan, the daughter of Texas State Representative Reeves Morgan, among others, suggested that Oswald in fact could drive.

The HSCA was deeply concerned about these inconsistencies. There was no doubt that at least some witnesses had seen Marina and Lee Oswald together, with Lee driving. Judyth Vary Baker was also seen by two people -- Lea McGehee and Mary Morgan -- during the course of the second trip LHO made to the East Louisiana State [Mental] Hospital. That trip concerned the testing of a bioweapon for use against Fidel Castro. She was with him in the car when he had his hair cut by Lea McGehee and when Mary Morgan saw her.

In 1969 testimony, a woman closely associated with Oswald and who was also with him the trip to the hospital was with him. Lee drove the car. By 1978, however, that woman was now described as driving the car herself and was no longer closely associated with Oswald in one report and in the other, she had disappeared entirely from the record. The woman whom Garrison wanted identified became an inconvenient, disappearing woman by the time the HSCA investigators re-examined the witnesses. That woman was me.

[James H. Fetzer]

OSWALD AND BAKER: DR. HENRY SILVAO
by Judyth Vary Baker and Lola Heavey

NOTE: This is a nice example of "primary research" where a witness corrects
the record of studies that purport to settle issues, but do so in misleading ways.
My inference would be that Silva may have remained “on the job” because there
was too much risk involved in allowing inquiries to be made without a manager.

THE LAMBERT TARGET ARTICLE

The Good Witness: Dr. Frank Silva and “Lee Harvey Oswald”
by Patricia Lambert

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/silva.htm

“…Dr. Silva [was] a prominent psychiatrist in Baton Rouge. But in 1963 he was
working at this mental hospital “in charge of training residents for Tulane.” Dr.
Silva said he was sent there by Tulane “for 45 days and I stayed four years” as
director of the program.

Dr. Silva said that he was working at the hospital all during the year 1963 but
had never seen or heard of Lee Harvey Oswald. He was originally scheduled to
be there 45 days, but remained there, conveniently, for four years.



JUDYTH AND LOLA COMMENT:: “Why did he stay for four years? Was it
because after the experiments there, he had to provide “damage control” for any
investigators, such as from the press, the FBI, Garrison, etc.?

Lambert, who is no friend of Garrison’s, nevertheless occasionally helps his case,
such as her report on Dr. Silva -- a physician working at the East Louisiana (Mental)
Hospital near Jackson. The Registrar of Voters, Henry Palmer, stated to Garrison that
Lee H. Oswald told him he was ‘living’ with Dr. Silva at the hospital. Why would Oswald
say such a thing? Speculation from Silva was that Palmer was somehow out to ‘get him’
for some reason. But Palmer simply repeated what Oswald told him. He had no vendetta
against Silva.

The truth is often elegant. Oswald, waiting with Ferrie and Shaw in the black Cadillac,
saw the voter registration drive going on and, as George DeMohrenschildt has told us,
he was concerned about civil rights. Witnesses agree the Clinton-Jackson sightings were
at the end of August or early September. The exact date was August 29, 1963, the day
after Martin Luther King’s speech of August 28. Lee Oswald is on record as having sat on
the “colored” side at the courthouse when he waited to pay his fine after his August 9th
arrest. Carlos Bringuier mentions it. The same man wanted to support the blacks who
were attempting to register to vote. He spoke to a colored girl who had been rejected,
who was very upset because she had an A.A. degree in business and they said she was
illiterate.

Lee returned briefly to the car and made a bet that he could register without showing any
documentation. For that reason, Lee named a doctor he knew was at the hospital. After all,
this trip was to join a convoy that would be delivering one or more prisoners to the hospital
for the bioweapon experiment. Lee said he was living with Dr. Silva -- that was his “proof of
residency” -- to try to win the bet. Lee told Judyth Vary Baker that he had actually succeeded
in getting registered briefly before he let the cat out of the bag by asking Palmer how he might
obtain a job out there -- when he was supposedly already living with the doctor there!

[James H. Fetzer]

JIM RESPONDS TO JIM DIEUGENIO COMING FROM OUT OF LEFT FIELD

Well, I embarrassed DiEugenio on another thread and I take it this is his form of retaliation. I suppose he does not mention the dates when this purported "research" was done, because it would reveal the distance in time between the original reports and testimony in relation to the Garrison trial and this (virtually irrelevant) effort expended not long before Reeves Morgan died. There is a natural decay in recollections, which in this case has obviously been exacerbated by deliberate corruption and quite possibly by witness intimidation. Most strikingly, he does not understand that there were two visits and two cars, one of which was a black Cadillac driven by Clay Shaw himself. Judyth, no doubt, will say more. When research is done properly, early testimony when memories are fresher is preferable to later. Just as this guy excoriated Horne for his admiration of David Lifton's work--apparently oblivious that the ARRB had found that there was surgery to the skull and that body alteration had taken place and that there were multiple casket entries, which meant that the key claims of his early work, BEST EVIDENCE, had been vindicated, which Horne was reporting--producing one of the most peculiar reviews I have ever read, where the reviewer apparently wrote the first part of his review completely unaware of the actual findings that would be established during the rest of its pages. This also extends to the issue of Zapruder film alteration, where DiEugnio has declined to take a stand on the ground that the research that would be involved would be too taxing! But that means he has probably not read ASSASSINATION SCiENCE, MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA, or THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX, which don't leave much room for hope by anti-alterationists. Even more peculiar, he apparently doesn't know what is coming in the appendix to INSIDE THE ARRB, Vol. IV, which I summarized in "US Government Official: JKF Cover-Up, Film Fakery". I would say that his positions about the events in Jackson are on a par with his review of Horne, which was grossly incompetent. File trails are frequently distorted and incomplete, as the very post on which he is commenting convincingly demonstrates. As a friend of mine likes to say, "How dumb is that?" I used to think he was a serious scholar, but I am now persuaded that, his review of Bugliosi notwithstanding, his work should not be taken at face value. I will invite Judyth to comment in greater detail, but the thought that he and his "brain trust" are more competent and reliable than Howard Platzman or Judyth herself, in view of these considerations, is not merely a stretch but quite ridiculous. The earlier testimony of Lea McGehee, Reeves Morgan, and Mary Morgan is obviously the more reliable.

[quote name='Barb Junkkarinen' post='191646' date='May 4 2010, 03:19 AM']
A response from Jim DiEugenio:

The latest claims by the Baker team shows just how little they know about the Clinton/Jackson incident. Specifically, how knowledge about it progressed over time and what Garrison came to ultimately think about it. And also how other people actually went to the area and followed up on Garrison's groundbreaking previous work. Which Bill Davy, Peter Vea, and myself did. In fact, Bill and I were the last people to interview Reeves Morgan before he died. And we also interviewed Van Morgan and Mary Morgan. And Edwin McGehee. Twice.

If you follow the file trail of Garrison's investigation of the incident you will see this girl with a basinet story entered into the inquiry early. As time went on, and investigators brought back more information--including interviews, pictures, and diagrams--Garrison discarded this aspect of Oswald's first sighting there.

Why? Because he learned there was a laundromat located close to the barber shop. And that Ed M. never saw Oswald exit or enter the "basinet car". The car Oswald arrived in was not actually seen by M, but it did drive away as Oswald left. (Davy, Let Justice Be Done, p. 102) The other green colored car did not. Garrison once theorized that the basinet car was owned by Kerry Thornley, and the woman may have been his girlfriend June Hack. And it was maybe Thornley who was with Oswald. This was discarded as 1.) Multiple witness reports came in identifying Shaw and Ferrie as the escorts, and 2.) the green car became irrelevant to Oswald's actual visits. (We shall see why shortly.) Alcock should never have brought this point up at trial. And the fact he did shows how unfortunate it was that Garrison was so sick at the time that he could not conduct the trial himself. (Old back ailment, and Hong Kong flu.) I interviewed McGehee twice in Jackson, he never once mentioned the "basinet car." He said he did not actually see the car Oswald left in.

Concerning the Reeves Morgan visit: When I interviewed Mary Morgan at her home, she never once mentioned this "woman in the car". Probably because she realized she was not the best witness to the car Oswald arrived in or left in. Her brother Van was playing in the front yard when the car arrived and stayed there the whole time while Oswald entered the home to talk to Reeves. Afterward he described the car to his father as a black Cadillac and the driver as a man with a shock of white hair. (ibid, p. 117) The description of this car by Van coincides with what the majority of witnesses would describe during the Clinton voting rally. And of course, the shock of white hair matches Clay Shaw.

Team Baker likes to find loose ends and then fits their girl into that cul de sac, hoping no one will notice the trick. One would think Fetzer would. He is the professor who accents the doctrine of the "totality of the evidence". One would think he would have asked someone who knew that totality and had done a field investigation of Clinton-Jackson--not once but twice--what that sum indicated.

The question then becomes: Why did he trust Platzman, Martin S. etc., over the people who had actually done the spade work in that field?

(All as received from Jim Di Eugenio and posted at his request. - Barb)

[quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='191621' date='May 3 2010, 09:05 PM']
THE DISAPPEARING WITNESS: THE WOMAN IN THE CAR (WAS JUDYTH VARY BAKER)

NOTE: This is a nice example of the process of making a person who should be of enormous
interest "disappear" from official records, but where diligent research can uncover the history
of the sequence, as occurs here, beginning with the Clay Shaw trial and ending with the HSCA.
This is a nice illustration why depending on “official records” is unlikely to reveal the whole story.

THE MISSING WITNESS

During the trial of Clay Shaw, a man named Edwin Lea McGehee testified that a man resembling
Lee Harvey Oswald came into his barbershop in late August 1963 for a haircut, that he was able
to remember him because he had few strangers as patrons, and that a woman was driving him
in "a battered old car". The state acknowledged that it could not identify here and make it clear
that, in particular, it was not alleging that this woman was Marina Oswald (now Marina Oswald
Porter). The state wished it could have identified her.


Here's an extract from the trial transcript:



McGehee also testified, "The car might have been dark-green--but the make of it I just couldn't
remember, it was an old car, real old." It "resembled a Kaiser or Frasier or an old Nash." "There
was a woman sitting on the front seat", he recalled, "and in the back seat" he also noticed what
"looked like a [baby] bassinet". He suggested that Oswald [who was looking for a job] pay a visit
to State Representative Reeves Morgan, who worked as a guard at the East Louisiana State Mental
Hospital, who testified that Oswald visited him at his home outside of Jackson for 20 or 25 minutes,
and told him of his expertise as an electrician. It was late August or early September. Not called
was Morgan's daughter, Mary, a student at LSU in 1967, who told the New Orleans District Attorney
that "when Oswald was in the house talking with dad, she happened to walk towards the screen door
and sat on the porch and just casually noticed that there was a dark colored car parked under the tree
in front of the house." It was "an old car and the model was somewhere in the Fifties." She remembered
"seeing a woman in the car". Her and her father's testimony both appears to have been taken in 1967.



THE HSCA PUTS THE WOMAN BEHIND THE WHEEL

On 19 January 1978, Mr. McGehee was interviewed by Bob Buras and Patricia Orr of the House Select
Committee on Assassinations at his home in Jackson about the testimony that he had presented on 6
February 1969. He reiterated that Oswald had come in for a haircut in late August 1963 and that "a
woman in a battered old car had driven up at about the same time that Oswald had arrived. He did
not see Oswald get out of or into the car. McGehee was unable to remember the type of car that the
woman had been driving. A big black car pulled away shortly after Oswald left. He did not know if
Oswald got into it." Because of his "clean cut appearance", after Oswald explained to him that he
"really needed a job", McGehee referred him to his friend, Morgan Reeves, who worked at the East
Louisiana State Hospital, which might be looking for someone to work in its electrical department:



THE HSCA MAKES MARY MORGAN’S “WOMAN IN THE CAR” VANISH

The same staff members had also interviewed Morgan Reeves just a few hours earlier on the same
day. "He verified that his statements made at the Clay Shaw trial, which [they] went over with him,
were accurate and truthful" and that "Sometime in 'probably the latter part of August' Oswald came
to Morgan's home to talk with him about getting a job at East Louisiana State Hospital. He "believes
Oswald drove up to his home or had been driven to his home by somebody, because he had heard the
car come up the driveway just before Oswald came to the door. Unfortunately, [either] Mr. Morgan or
his daughter, who was present at the time, did not see the car or the possible driver."



STATEMENT BY JUDYTH VARY BAKER:

Multiple reports that LHO could drive were rejected by the Warren Commission, for Ruth Paine and Marina Oswald--who was under duress--consistently stated that LHO could not drive. But other reports from the Irving, Texas-based barber (Mr. Sasheen), the barber in Jackson, LA (Lea McGehee), and Mary Morgan, the daughter of Texas State Representative Reeves Morgan, among others, suggested that Oswald in fact could drive.

The HSCA was deeply concerned about these inconsistencies. There was no doubt that at least some witnesses had seen Marina and Lee Oswald together, with Lee driving. Judyth Vary Baker was also seen by two people -- Lea McGehee and Mary Morgan -- during the course of the second trip LHO made to the East Louisiana State [Mental] Hospital. That trip concerned the testing of a bioweapon for use against Fidel Castro. She was with him in the car when he had his hair cut by Lea McGehee and when Mary Morgan saw her.

In 1969 testimony, a woman closely associated with Oswald and who was also with him the trip to the hospital was with him. Lee drove the car. By 1978, however, that woman was now described as driving the car herself and was no longer closely associated with Oswald in one report and in the other, she had disappeared entirely from the record. The woman whom Garrison wanted identified became an inconvenient, disappearing woman by the time the HSCA investigators re-examined the witnesses. That woman was me.[/quote]
[/quote]

[James H. Fetzer]

NOTE: THIS POST WILL MAKE MORE SENSE IN VIEW OF POST #441 BELOW. IN THE ORIGINAL SEQUENCE, IT APPEARED BEFORE THESE TWO.

Jack,

I don't want to make too much of this, but some of those you have been dealing with have extremely high IQs. I would estimate that David S. Lifton has an IQ around 150, for example, and David W. Mantik and John P. Costella have to have similarly high IQs. My GCT (General Classification Test) was 152. That doesn't mean I know everything, but only that I'm pretty good at taking things apart and putting them together--not physical things, as my wife would tell you, but matters intellectual. From your post of 4 May 2010, I take it you discovered that philosophers average around 160 and scientists around 159. Well, I am a philosopher and Judyth is a scientist, so I take that as indirect confirmation of what I am saying. That much should have been obvious even from her early accomplishments as a high-school student. She was a prodigy. Judyth not only has an extremely high IQ but knows more and in more detail about events in New Orleans than anyone else, in my estimation. She cannot have learned these things from reading, because she has often corrected them with new data not previously known. And in the case of controversies over interpretations of events, she has proven herself to be more able than anyone else on his thread, as I have lived through it. My familiarity with IQ is also theoretical, by the way, since I published THE EVOLUTION OF INTELLIGENCE (2005) on the nature of mind and the emergence of human mentality from those of earlier species, including animal mind and primate mind. There is a lot there on intelligence as the ability to learn. I think this is not a subject to which you have given as much attention as have I. Going by your data, I am not equal to the average for philosophers! It is easy to make too much of IQ as those who tout their membership in MENSA often do. Measures of ability are not also measures of accomplishment, which requires effort, discipline, and perseverance. Very few philosophers, for example, publish as many articles and books as I have. That's just something I happen to be good at. I am not equally good at everything, including mathematics.

Jim

[quote name='Jack White' post='191657' date='May 4 2010, 07:30 AM']
Whoever came up with an IQ of 160 for JVB is making the wildest Judyth claim yet!

The standard Stanford-Binet adult IQ Test rates any score above 135 as genius!

........

[color="#000080"]A normal intelligence quotient (IQ) ranges from 85 to 115 (According to the Stanford-Binet scale). Only approximately 1% of the people in the world have an IQ of 135 or over. In 1926, psychologist Dr. Catherine Morris Cox - who had been assisted by Dr. Lewis M. Terman, Dr. Florence L. Goodenaugh, and Dr. Kate Gordon - published a study "of the most eminent men and women" who had lived between 1450 and 1850 to estimate what their IQs might have been. The resultant IQs were based largely on the degree sof brightness and intelligence each subject showed before attaining the age of 17. Taken from a revised and completed version of this study, table II shows the projected IQs of some of the best scorers.
For comparison I have included table I which shows the IQs' relation to educational level.

Cox also found that different fields have quite widely varying average IQs for their acknowledged leading geniuses. Displayed below are there calculated Deviation IQs (the number in brackets is the number in the sample considered):

Philosophers (22) average IQ 160; Scientists (39) 159; Fiction writers (53) 152; Statesmen (43) 150; Musicians (11) 149; Artists (13) 153; Soldiers (27) 136.
[/color]

[quote name='Kathleen Collins' post='191655' date='May 4 2010, 04:48 AM']"She has an IQ of around 160 and is superb at research."

-- Jim Fester

Read your own sentence. She's a researcher. Doesn't that give you a clue about what she knows? She didn't live all this. She read about it.

Kathy C[/quote]
[/quote]

[James H. Fetzer]

Jack,

Here is my post about DiEugenio's review of the first volume of INSIDE THE ARRB (2007). You can
find it on page 9 at the bottom, where perhaps by now it is even at the top of page 10. I take it you
have not read the book. If you had, you would not be making some of the silly remarks you make here.
I was, of course, talking about Horne's book rather than the official stance of the ARRB, which is that it
was not conducing an investigation of the assassination but only releasing JFK documents and records.
Those documents and records have proven to be extremely revealing and substantiate the core views
advanced by David Lifton in BEST EVIDENCE. I certainly hope that you will find time to actually read it.
My suggestion is that you pull back your horns and accept that there is more in heaven and earth than
is dreamt of in your philosophy, which includes the existence of Judyth Vary Baker as "the real deal".

Jim

P.S. Pat Speer pointed out to me that Armstrong had the date of the formation of the commission wrong
in the following post. I was so intent on copying it that it had slipped by me. He is, of course, correct.

Inside the ARRB, Vol. I, by Doug Horne
CITKA review by Jim DiEugenio

Apr 10 2010, 03:40 AM

Some participants on the post about Costella's review of Horne berated me for posing this on that
thread. So I am creating a separate thread to make the points I would like to make here instead.

Michael,

You make some nice points, where not only has Costella missed the boat completely but DiEugenio
in a different way. It seems to me that Jim is very good on the trees, not so good on the forest. I
offer this early paragraph as an illustration of what I mean, where he, too, has something wrong:

All the above introductory material is necessary to understand my decidedly mixed feelings about
Inside the ARRB. There seem to me a lot of good things in Horne's very long work. And I will discuss
them both here and later. But where the author gets into trouble is when he tries to fit the interesting
facts and testimony he discusses into an overarching theory. Because as we will see, although Horne
has revised Best Evidence, he still sticks to the concept of pre-autopsy surgery, and extensive criminal
conduct by the pathologists. And as Lifton clearly suggested in his book, Horne will also argue that the
Zapruder film was both edited and optically printed. (Lifton pgs. 555-557)

Unless DiEugenio is writing his reviews as he goes and does not realize what unexpected findings await
him, the fact of the matter is THERE WAS PRE-AUTOPSY SURGERY and EXTENSIVE CRIMINAL CONDUCT
BY THE PATHOLOGISTS, including lying to the HSCA and to the ARRB. And, of course, as he demonstrates
quite decisively, the arguments against film alteration advanced by ROLLIE ZAVADA, by DAVID WRONE,
and by JOSIAH THOMPSON have been thoroughly demolished in the course of Doug's extensive studies.
Egad! Somewhere DiEugenio expresses his preference for the physical evidence over the medical and
photographic, as though he did not understand that ALL OF IT has been planted, fabricated, or faked.

NOTE: DiEugenio should read the first few pages of HARVEY & LEE, in which John Armstrong observes:

Chief Curry turned the physical evidence over to the FBI and it was immediately taken to FBI Headquarters
in Washington, D.C. FBI Agent James Cadigan told the Warren Commission about receiving the evidence
(Oswald's personal possessions) on November 23rd, the day after the assassination. But when Cadigan's
testimony was published in the Warren volumes, references to November 23 had been deleted. Neither
the FBI nor the Warren Commission wanted the public to know that Oswald's personal possessions (phys-
ical evidence) had been secretly taken to Washington, DC, and quietly returned to the Dallas police.

During the three days that Oswald's possessions were in FBI custody many items were altered, fabricated,
and destroyed. The "evidence" was then returned to the Dallas Police on November 26th, and used by the
FBI and Warren Commission to help convince the American people that Oswald was the lone assassin.

As the physical evidence was undergoing alteration FBI officials prepared a 5-volume report, completed
within 48 hours of the assassination, that named Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone assassin. This report
was released several days before the FBI took over the investigation, before they "officially" received the
"evidence" from the Dallas poice, before they interviewed the vast majority of witnesses, two weeks before
the Warren Commission was formed, and many months before their investigation was complete.

. . .

On November 26 the FBI secretly returned the physical evidence (Oswald's possessions) to the Dallas Police
where it was "officially" inventoried and photographed. When the Dallas Police received t he evidence they
were unaware that many of the items had ben altered, fabricated, and/or destroyed. President Johnson soon
announced the FBI was in charge of the investigation and, a short time later, Bureau agents arrived at Dallas
Police headquarters.

As television cameras recorded the historic event FBI agents collected the evidence, loaded it into a car, and
drove away. The public was unaware that the FBI had secretly returned the same "evidence" to the Dallas
Police earlier that morning.

Here is another--and closely related--defect in DiEugenio's understanding. He spends a lot of time with
denigrating BEST EVIDENCE, which is surely one of the most brilliant and insightful studies published in
the history of the case. Lifton was first to suspect body alteration of the cranium and also alteration by
changing the throat wound, along with the falsification of the X-rays and the substitution of another brain
for that of JFK--not to mention the substitution of another film Sunday night after bringing the original to
the NPIC the night before--but DiEugenio does not seem to understand that is how all of this was done.
The multiple casket entries, which Lifton originally discerned, has also been borne out by Horne's research:

In spite of all the above, Horne still genuflects to Best Evidence. To the point that he essentially admits
that the main reason he joined the ARRB was to prove or disprove Lifton's thesis. (p. lxviii) Sealing and
qualifying this emotional bond is the following statement: "David Lifton's work has been a great inspiration
to me over the years, and he and I eventually became very close personal friends, as well as fellow travelers
on the same intellectual journey." (p. lxix) In light of the warm feelings betrayed in that statement, it is hard
to believe that Horne expended a lot of time on disproving Lifton's thesis. In fact, I feel comfortable in writing
that if Horne had never read Best Evidence, he would never have written his series or joined the ARRB.

Given what Horne has discovered, I cannot imagine what motivates DiEugenio to shortchange Lifton.
I think that the only one who finds anything "extreme" here are those unfamiliar with the evidence,
which I had not expected to included the author of this review. If he doesn't know better, something
is terribly wrong, but it has nothing to do with Horne's research and everything to do with DiEugenio's
apparently partial state of knowledge. And you don't have to have read THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM
HOAX to understand these things. The review I [have now published--below] should actually suffice.

NOTE: US Govenment Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/...5772.shtml

Jim

[quote name='Michael Hogan' post='189057' date='Apr 7 2010, 03:27 AM'][quote name='Pat Speer' post='189044' date='Apr 6 2010, 06:54 PM']
While I am not a fan of Horne's book, I would agree that Costella's review read more like a rant, a rant I can relate to, by the way.[/quote]

Not an unexpected response. One can conclude that "not a fan" might be an understatement. The urge to rant is strong when one feels that they, their work, their intelligence, or their opinions are in some way, shape or form being challenged, questioned, diminished, etc. Pat Speer has spent a considerable amount of time and effort in researching the medical (and other) evidence.

Horne's five volumes cut a wide swath through the evidentiary landscape. While constantly adding caveats that the evidence has never come together, he nevertheless takes very strong and opinionated stands about what he thinks or speculates really happened. Writing a bible or Rosetta Stone about the Kennedy murder is, and always will be, an impossible task.

Probably the more one has studied President Kennedy's murder, the more likely they are to question Horne's research and some of his conclusions. But the ultimate value of Horne's book is certainly not that it explains everything. The value comes from being able to glean new information or possibly being persuaded to think about certain things in a different way. I challenge anyone to read Horne and not find many things with which they either concur or vehemently disagree. By design, it's an extremely controversial work.

I don't think Horne's work should be studied and reviewed as if it were a textbook, or even a compendium of the medical evidence, although it comes closer to the latter. I view it simply as one man's personal odyssey through the ultimate murder mystery labyrinth, written from his own unique perspective.

Over the years, David Lifton's findings were written about and debated extensively. Regardless whether or not one accepts his major conclusion, much of what Lifton discovered remains important as evidence. His research helped make this major episode in Horne's life possible.

Weisberg, Lane, Meagher, Thompson, Summers, Marrs, Fonzi, Hancock, Russell (and so many others I'm leaving out) did not solve the case. They advanced it, as researchers that followed them so readily admit.

If Horne advances the case, that is enough. Pointing out weaknesses in his arguments or errors in his information is certainly fair game. However, the largely unnecessary tone and content of Costella's rant caused me to lose a certain amount of respect for him.
[/quote]



[quote name='Pat Speer' post='191668' date='May 4 2010, 08:54 AM']
[quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='191649' date='May 4 2010, 03:07 AM']
JIM RESPONDS TO JIM DIEUGENIO COMING FROM OUT OF LEFT FIELD
Well, I embarrassed DiEugenio on another thread and I take it this is his form of retaliation. I suppose he does not mention the dates when this purported "research" was done, because it would reveal the distance in time between the original reports and testimony in relation to the Garrison trial and this (virtually irrelevant) effort expended not long before Reeves Morgan died. There is a natural decay in recollections, which in this case has obviously been exacerbated by deliberate corruption and quite possibly by witness intimidation. Most strikingly, he does not understand that there were two visits and two cars, one of which was a black Cadillac driven by Clay Shaw himself. Judyth, no doubt, will say more. When research is done properly, early testimony when memories are fresher is preferable to later. Just as this guy excoriated Horne for his admiration of David Lifton's work--apparently oblivious that the ARRB had found that there was surgery to the skull and that body alteration had taken place and that there were multiple casket entries, which meant that the key claims of his early work, BEST EVIDENCE, had been vindicated, which Horne was reporting--producing one of the most peculiar reviews I have ever read, where the reviewer apparently wrote the first part of his review completely unaware of the actual findings that would be established during the rest of its pages. This also extends to the issue of Zapruder film alteration, where DiEugnio has declined to take a stand on the ground that the research that would be involved would be too taxing! But that means he has probably not read ASSASSINATION SCiENCE, MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA, or THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX, which don't leave much room for hope by anti-alterationists. Even more peculiar, he apparently doesn't know what is coming in the appendix to INSIDE THE ARRB, Vol. IV, which I summarized in "US Government Official: JKF Cover-Up, Film Fakery". I would say that his positions about the events in Jackson are on a par with his review of Horne, which was grossly incompetent. File trails are frequently distorted and incomplete, as the very post on which he is commenting convincingly demonstrates. As a friend of mine likes to say, "How dumb is that?" I used to think he was a serious scholar, but I am now persuaded that, his review of Bugliosi notwithstanding, his work should not be taken at face value. I will invite Judyth to comment in greater detail, but the thought that he and his "brain trust" are more competent and reliable than Howard Platzman or Judyth herself, in view of these considerations, is not merely a stretch but quite ridiculous. The earlier testimony of Lea McGehee, Reeves Morgan, and Mary Morgan is obviously the more reliable.[/quote]


Jim, the highlighted section above is just not true. The ARRB made NO conclusions. None of the members of its board came out of their experience as supporters of Lifton's theory of body alteration. The only ARRB employee, to my knowledge, who came out of his ARRB experience a committed alterationist was Horne, who went in as a committed alterationist. Jeremy Gunn, Horne's boss, has claimed in year's past that the only thing he learned for sure about the medical evidence was that one can't trust the thirty-year old memories of old people, or something like that. Horne has spent the last decade trying to weave all the conflicting stories into a convincing whole.

But it's more like an unconvincing hole, IMO.

FWIW, IMO, you need to take your lumps and just let the Judyth story drop, if only for a while. While you may have a valid point to make, and where Judyth and her story--as improbable as it sounds--may have something to it, you have let it become personal, and about YOU. You are hurt that men you considered friends fail to trust your judgment re Judyth. You are now claiming DiEugenio has it in for you, when he is simply sharing his own impressions based on actual conversations he has had with actual witnesses.

It's not about you.

Take care.
[/quote]

[James H. Fetzer]

God knows, it's NOT about me. It's about the truth in relation to the death of JFK. If you had spent more time reading Doug's work, you
would be much better informed about the assassination. Give me a break. You entertain a host of views that are utterly unsupportable,
such as that the Groden color-photos are not fake, that the blow-out to JFK's skull was at the top of his head, and more. You are not the
right person to be offering advice to anyone about research on JFK. I have suggested that you spend more time on David Mantik's work
especially his brilliant synthesis of the medical evidence in MURDER. To that I must add, more on Lifton and more on Horne would help.

[quote name='Pat Speer' post='191668' date='May 4 2010, 08:54 AM']
[quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='191649' date='May 4 2010, 03:07 AM']
JIM RESPONDS TO JIM DIEUGENIO COMING FROM OUT OF LEFT FIELD
Well, I embarrassed DiEugenio on another thread and I take it this is his form of retaliation. I suppose he does not mention the dates when this purported "research" was done, because it would reveal the distance in time between the original reports and testimony in relation to the Garrison trial and this (virtually irrelevant) effort expended not long before Reeves Morgan died. There is a natural decay in recollections, which in this case has obviously been exacerbated by deliberate corruption and quite possibly by witness intimidation. Most strikingly, he does not understand that there were two visits and two cars, one of which was a black Cadillac driven by Clay Shaw himself. Judyth, no doubt, will say more. When research is done properly, early testimony when memories are fresher is preferable to later. Just as this guy excoriated Horne for his admiration of David Lifton's work--apparently oblivious that the ARRB had found that there was surgery to the skull and that body alteration had taken place and that there were multiple casket entries, which meant that the key claims of his early work, BEST EVIDENCE, had been vindicated, which Horne was reporting--producing one of the most peculiar reviews I have ever read, where the reviewer apparently wrote the first part of his review completely unaware of the actual findings that would be established during the rest of its pages. This also extends to the issue of Zapruder film alteration, where DiEugnio has declined to take a stand on the ground that the research that would be involved would be too taxing! But that means he has probably not read ASSASSINATION SCiENCE, MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA, or THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX, which don't leave much room for hope by anti-alterationists. Even more peculiar, he apparently doesn't know what is coming in the appendix to INSIDE THE ARRB, Vol. IV, which I summarized in "US Government Official: JKF Cover-Up, Film Fakery". I would say that his positions about the events in Jackson are on a par with his review of Horne, which was grossly incompetent. File trails are frequently distorted and incomplete, as the very post on which he is commenting convincingly demonstrates. As a friend of mine likes to say, "How dumb is that?" I used to think he was a serious scholar, but I am now persuaded that, his review of Bugliosi notwithstanding, his work should not be taken at face value. I will invite Judyth to comment in greater detail, but the thought that he and his "brain trust" are more competent and reliable than Howard Platzman or Judyth herself, in view of these considerations, is not merely a stretch but quite ridiculous. The earlier testimony of Lea McGehee, Reeves Morgan, and Mary Morgan is obviously the more reliable.[/quote]

Jim, the highlighted section above is just not true. The ARRB made NO conclusions. None of the members of its board came out of their experience as supporters of Lifton's theory of body alteration. The only ARRB employee, to my knowledge, who came out of his ARRB experience a committed alterationist was Horne, who went in as a committed alterationist. Jeremy Gunn, Horne's boss, has claimed in year's past that the only thing he learned for sure about the medical evidence was that one can't trust the thirty-year old memories of old people, or something like that. Horne has spent the last decade trying to weave all the conflicting stories into a convincing whole.

But it's more like an unconvincing hole, IMO.

FWIW, IMO, you need to take your lumps and just let the Judyth story drop, if only for a while. While you may have a valid point to make, and where Judyth and her story--as improbable as it sounds--may have something to it, you have let it become personal, and about YOU. You are hurt that men you considered friends fail to trust your judgment re Judyth. You are now claiming DiEugenio has it in for you, when he is simply sharing his own impressions based on actual conversations he has had with actual witnesses.

It's not about you.

Take care.
[/quote]

[James H. Fetzer]

JIM SIGNS OFF FOR (WHAT HE HOPES WILL BE) THE LAST TIME

The situation here has gone far beyond ridiculous into the stratospheric
realm of the absurd. I featured Judyth Vary Baker last night on "The
Real Deal" and, so far as I can discern, exactly one active member of
this thread tuned in--Dean Hartwell--who explained to me that there had
been a glitch and that the second two 25-minute segments of the show
had not been broadcast. So I am rebroadcasting the show this Friday,
5-7 PM/CT, on revereradio.net. But I could care less if you listen to it.
The Guardian had it right: I am up against psychological dispositions.

I am continuing to report to the public the discoveries that I have made
though my contacts and associations with Judyth, which, I can assure
you, will be ongoing. Among the projects we have in mind is taking a
close look at HARVEY & LEE, which I am convinced came about because
Jack and John did not realize that the CIA had created a false history of
Lee Harvey Oswald so he could return to a normal life. In order for them
to have established the existence of "two Oswalds", they would have had
to establish the existence of three: "Harvey", his false history, and "Lee".





Let me also add that Judyth spent the past week in the company of two
of my closest associates, Declan and Lola Heavey. Lola, who maintains
my blog at http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com, is a social psychologist and
spent every waking minute of her visit in the company of Judyth. She
and Declan are tough as nails, having spent 2 1/2 years sleeping on the
streets of London. They maintain a web site for an organization that they
created, NAC, at http://religionandmorality.net, which I support. I believe
in them and in their intelligence and dedication to their projects, including
a petition to the UN on theraputic cloning signed by many Nobel laureates.

Lola has said, "By the way I will give my two arms that she is a genuine
witness. You can quote me in the forum, and say she has spent more than
six days with me and Declan and we have found her a 100% credible, reliable
and genuine. She never contradicted her story, answered all of my questions
and more, and was very patient. We watched "JFK" with her and anybody in
the room with us would have been under no doubt whatsoever that she was
there, she worked with Ferrie and considered him a friend, and had a very
loving relationship with Lee." Of course, this will have no impact upon those
who are attacking Judyth on the forum. But it carries real weight with me.

To be sure that Lola and Declan had drawn similar conclusions, I spoke with
them both this morning. They related many fascinating aspects about being
around her, including her lack of orientation in coping with the world around
her. Both of them have followed the evolution of this thread, and Declan told
me that he is also convinced that she is genuine and added that, "Jack White is
100% wrong!" Once again, of course, it will be water off a duck's back for one
like Jack, who has known that she was a "fantasist" from scratch. Both Declan
and Lola insist that that is untrue and that her knowledge of Lee Oswald, David
Ferrie, Mary Sherman and events in New Orleans comes from having lived it.

It will come as no surprise that I am more convinced about Judyth than I was
in the beginning. It was my belief that I could provide the platform for a fair
shake on this forum, but today my confidence in logic and evidence has been
severely tested. While I am not inclined to do more with this thread, I would
be willing to consider inquiries that are sent to me personally. I have noticed
that Pat Speer has created a new thread, "The fragment behind the eye, For
Jim Fetzer", which might even become as popular as this one. As one of the
leading critics has observed, "If Judyth is the question, then Judyth cannot be
part of the answer", so you don't need me for a thread attacking me, either.

Those of us who have come to know her the best believe in her the strongest.
I stand with Nigel Turner, Edward Haslam, Howard Platzman, Wim Dunkbaar,
Jim Marrs, Dean Hartwell, Pamela McElwain-Brown, and others who believe in
her. Based upon my past experience, there is nothing more I could ever say
that would change the minds of those who reject her, whose interest in hearing
more has become abundantly clear. Nevertheless, I extend my thanks to the
contributors to this thread, pro or con. And I am glad to end with a message
to Karl Kinaski from Judyth, which, like this thread, is incomplete. If I read
it correctly, those few final words Judyth intended to add fit here: "Good luck!"

[James H. Fetzer]

This is the third or fourth time I have tried to end the thread. I learned quite a lot about the character of JFK research as it is practiced on The Education Forum. I feel badly that I did not do a better job of keeping current here. I have appreciated your comments, some of which were rather important. This is a far more hospitable forum, but I need to sort out the attacks on Judyth, which were fast and furious there. It was the following discovery, however, that broke my interest in pursuing this any further. Reason appears to have no effect on those who are committed! I regard this as simply dumbfounding.