Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[James H. Fetzer]

Dean,

I have had hundreds of email exchanges with Judyth and have now interviewed her for nine YouTubes and a two-hour "The Real Deal"
program. I have dealt with a vast number of people during my lifetime and devoted my career to logic, critical thinking, and scientific
reasoning. I am probably the most accomplished professional scholar on this thread if not the entire forum. I have published more
than 150 articles and my 29th book, THE PLACE OF PROBABILITY IN SCIENCE, will appear shortly, possibly even this month. Based
upon my interactions with her, she is completely sincere, knowledgeable about science, and dedicated to truth, not just about her
experiences in New Orleans about about a wide range of other subjects. She has an IQ of around 160 and is superb at research.
Her knowledge of these events is too specific and too detailed and cannot possibly be the result of fantasizing or fictionalizing. Of
this, I have absolutely no doubt. Conveying that to others, such as her skeptics on this forum, however, is another matter entirely.

My knowledge and experience with her, alas!, cannot be transferred to anyone else. Moreover, my confidence in logic and evidence
to persuade others who are predisposed to not believe her has taken a serious hit during the course of this thread. Today, moreover,
I was sent an article that analyzes a phenomenon that, I believe, illuminates and clarifies what has been going on here, where all the
studies support the same finding: if a dodgy fact fits with your prejudices, a correction only reinforces these. If your goal is to move
opinion, this depressing finding suggests that smears work and, what's more, corrections don't challenge them much: because for
people who already agree with you, it only make them agree even more. I have talked about prior probs and posterior probs, but
not about the human tendency, apparently widespread, to disregard evidence contrary to your probs and selectively reinforce them
My failure, I believe, is not of logic or of evidence, but my inability to appreciate the nature of human psychology in a case like this.

Henceforth, therefore, I intended to emulate Jack's practice of presenting the results of his research without engaging in debate or
defense. I have some important evidence yet to present, but I am going to abandon any pretense of trying to convince anyone of
anything when it comes to Judyth, because logic and evidence cannot overcome the reinforcing power of attempted corrections. It
pains me to conclude that my professional career has been devoted to attempting to correct or compensate for a widespread and
powerful entrenched psychological tendency (which has the character of a predisposition for "special pleading", which is selecting
the evidence that supports a predetermined conclusion and ignoring the rest) but, based upon my experience with this thread, the
studies cited in this article from The Guardian explain what has been going on and I have simply been unable to see it. My appeals
to logic and evidence are largely in vain. So I have, after all, been dealing with human psychology rather than with rational minds.

Jim

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/20...election-smears

How putting the facts straight entrenches deeply-held prejudices

Ben Goldacre
The Guardian
1 May 2010

Elections are a time for smearing, and the Daily Mail's desperate story about Nick Clegg and the Nazis is my favourite so far. Generally the truth comes out, in time. But how much damage can smears do?

Daily Mail splash on Nick Clegg days after he was favourably compared to Winston Churchill The Daily Mail story on Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg days after he was favourably compared to Winston Churchill.

An experiment published this month in the journal Political Behaviour sets out to examine the impact of corrections, and what they found was more disturbing than expected: far from changing people's minds, if you are deeply entrenched in your views, a correction will only reinforce them.

The first experiment used articles claiming that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction immediately before the US invasion. The 130 participants were asked to read a mock news article, attributed to Associated Press, reporting on a Bush campaign stop in Pennsylvania during October 2004.

The article described Bush's appearance as "a rousing, no-retreat defence of the Iraq war" and quoted a line from a genuine Bush speech from that year, suggesting that Saddam Hussein really had WMD, which he could have passed to terrorists. "There was a risk, a real risk, that Saddam Hussein would pass weapons or materials or information to terrorist networks, and in the world after September 11," said Bush, "that was a risk we could not afford to take."

The 130 participants were then randomly assigned to one of two conditions. For half, the article stopped there. For the other half, the article included a correction: it discussed the release of the Duelfer report, which documented the lack of Iraqi WMD stockpiles or an active production programme immediately prior to before the US invasion.

After reading the article, subjects were asked to state whether they agreed with the statement: "Immediately before the US invasion, Iraq had an active weapons of mass destruction programme, the ability to produce these weapons, and large stockpiles of WMD, but Saddam Hussein was able to hide or destroy these weapons right before US forces arrived." Their responses were measured on a five-point scale ranging from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree".

As you would expect, those who self-identified as conservatives were more likely to agree with the statement. More knowledgeable participants (independently of political persuasion) were less likely to agree. Then the researchers looked at the effect of whether you were also given the correct information at the end of the article, and this was where things got interesting. They had expected the correction would become less effective in more conservative participants, and this was true, up to a point: so for very liberal participants, the correction worked as expected, making them more likely to disagree with the statement that Iraq had WMD when compared with those who were very liberal but received no correction.

For those who described themselves as left of centre, or centrist, the correction had no effect either way. But for people who placed themselves ideologically to the right of centre, the correction wasn't just ineffective, it backfired: conservatives who received a correction telling them that Iraq did not have WMD were more likely to believe that Iraq had WMD than people given no correction. Where you might have expected people to dismiss a correction that was incongruous with their pre-existing view, or regard it as having no credibility, it seems that such information actively reinforced their false beliefs.

Maybe the cognitive effort of mounting a defence against incongruous new facts entrenches you further. Maybe you feel marginalised and motivated to dig in your heels. Who knows? But these experiments were then repeated, in various permutations, on the issue of tax cuts (or rather, the idea that tax cuts had increased national productivity so much that tax revenue increased overall) and stem cell research.

All the studies found the same thing: if a dodgy fact fits with your prejudices, a correction only reinforces these. If your goal is to move opinion, this depressing finding suggests that smears work and, what's more, corrections don't challenge them much: because for people who already agree with you, it only make them agree even more.

[quote name='Dean Hagerman' post='191506' date='May 2 2010, 02:43 PM']
[quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='191505' date='May 2 2010, 01:38 PM']
There's nothing "hysterical" about my posts.

In my opinion, there is no chance in the world she is fabricating, fantasizing, or making these things up.[/quote]

Jim

I will take the time this morning to watch all of the Youtube videos that you posted

Can you read that last line I quoted and ask yourself if you are being fair to the "Cult" (Myself, David, Jack , Doug, Barb, Glen etc By the way who is the Jim Jones/Marshal Applewhite of this Anti Judyth Cult? :lol: )from this lat statement you dont seem to have any room for other opinions ?
[/quote]

[James H. Fetzer]

Discussion on the Judyth thread on the EF turned toward a study of autopsy photographs for several reasons, including (a) because one of Judyth's critics has badgered her over having said (on different occasions) that the man she knew in New Orleans was and was not circumcised and (b) because she (Judyth) has said (on at least one occasion) that Lee had "impressive equipment", which I knew from an autopsy photograph that I have but am presently unable to locate (after moving to Madison from Duluth, where it is one of some thirty boxes I had not planned to unpack).

When Dean Hagerman sent me a colored photo that did not comport with the one I have, it initiated an exchange about these issues. Rather to my astonishment, at a point where I believed we were making progress, the forum deleted all of these images, including the entirety of the following post (#2487). I have asked if I might move this discussion here and received approval for doing so. Jack believes they are all authentic. The question of autopsy photo fakery is interesting in its own right, so I am going to initiate a new thread on this forum about that issue specifically.

In his comments, Jack has said © that he appeared to have an erection (a remark that he has later qualified) and (d) that it looked to him as if he were uncircumcised (since the foreskin overlaps the glans). I have found that many men are partially rather than completely circumcised, as appears to be the case here. Which means that the question, "Was he circumcised?", has not definite answer. If it means, "Was he (completely) circumcised?", then the answer is "No". But if it means, "Was he (partially) circumcised?", then the answer is "Yes". I infer that the question is now moot.

Post #2487

Super Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1409
Joined: 23-August 04
Member No.: 1135

EVIDENCE OF PHOTO FAKERY IN THE OSWALD AUTOPSY

Dean has asked if the second of Jack's autopsy photographs
is the one that I have (somewhere) but cannot presently find,
to which the answer is, "No!" As I have explained before, the
one I am talking about has his member lying across his hip to
the right from the perspective of the camera and the left from
the perspective of the subject. It looks to be as much as seven
inches long (flaccid), which is why I thought that Jack had the
one I have: even flaccid, it is the size of most men's erections.

What we have already available, even absent the image I have
(which I may have to go through 30 boxes to locate) is rather
striking. Here is a partially covered image of the body, where
his member is not visually accessible, as in many other photos:



Here is the first of the two that Jack has now posted. Note
the size of the penis appears considerably larger than normal:



Here is the second of the two that Jack has now posted. Note
that the size of the testicles appears much larger than normal:



Here is a comparison that Dean Hagerman prepared, which shows
that the more recent (colored) photo does not appear authentic:



Here is a collection that combines some recent (colored) photos with
some (authentic) black-and-whites, some of which are also colorized:



As Dean observes below, "anyone can see that the sizes [comparing the
more recent (colored) photos with the earlier (black-and-whites)] are way
different", which is correct. The difference would be even more impressive
when we eventually access a copy of the black-and-white in my possession.

So we have enough evidence already that fakery has been taking place in
relation to the Oswald autopsy photographs. The only possible target that
I can imagine from minimizing the size of his member, which Judyth alone
has described as "impressive equipment", which, I submit, is exactly right.

Dean expresses concern about the Reitzes email. But, as Judyth herself has
explained in the email she sent to Gary Buell (which she also sent to me but
I had not yet posted), the Reitzes email appears to be untrustworthy. And,
as Gary Buell adds, what reason would she have to misdescribe his member?

As he observes, "Her strongest point is that even if she were faking it would
not make sense for her to simply guess as to whether LHO was circumsized
or not, especially since that information was in the autopsy record", a point
about which I completely agree. The weight of the evidence favors Judyth.

Judyth has said that Lee had "impressive equipment". Autopsy photographs
that Dean Hagerman sent to me did not confirm it, but I knew from viewing
an autopsy photograph in my own possession. Now we know that Judyth's
description is right and some of the Oswald autopsy photos have been faked.

Think about it. This is another line of proof that Judyth is "the real deal" on a
par with the existence of an impostor "Judyth Vary Baker" whom Ed Haslam
met in New Orleans. In fact, it is even more powerful proof, because, while
we do not have access to the impostor, we have access to the photographs.

I appreciate Dean Hagerman's response to the discover that some of these
autopsy photographs are faked, as I have been saying for some time now.
If anyone can come up with a better explanation this than to discredit the
living witness, I would like to know. That appears to be their only purpose.

[James H. Fetzer]

AN OPEN LETTER TO JOHN SIMKIN ON BEHALF OF RESEARCH

John,

We have been making excellent progress on the Judyth thread,
where I have been able to disentangle charges that have been
made against Judyth, especially by Barb Junkkarninen, on the
ground that she has sometimes said that the man she knew was
circumcised and sometimes not. She has also said of him that
he had "impressive equipment". I knew that to be true because
of an autopsy photograph I have in my possession but have not
been able to locate since we moved. It's in one of thirty boxes!

Jack posted two black-and-whites from the same sequence as
the one in my possession, but not mine. We have also posted
some color photos that appear to be of a different person. This
looks like another case of photographic fakery, where only one
person could reasonably be supposed to be the target. I want
to get to the bottom of this, including the fakery charge, but now
the forum has been "cleansed" of all of the autopsy photographs.
What can possibly justify this outrage? We are all adults here.

It has only been by studying the photographs that I have found
the man Judyth knew was partially but not completely circumcised.
This means that the question, "Was he circumcised?", is indeter-
minate. It if means, "Was he (completely) circumcised?", then
the answer is "No". If it means, "Was he (partially) circumcised,
then the answer is "Yes". This implies that the criticism directed
at Judyth, which Doug Weldon has said was the coup de grace of
her credibility, actually has no force. There are may others, but
I offer this as a benefit to our research from studying the photos.

Not only have whole posts been removed, such as my #2487,
with no advanced notice and no change to save our own work.
This is not the kind of conduct that I expected of this forum. I
have long admired what you have created here, but this kind of
exercise--which can only be justified by prudery--has no place
in research on subjects as important as the assassination of JFK.
I entreat you to reverse this decision, restore the deleted posts
and pictures, and allow us to get on with our research. Thanks.

Jim

[quote name='Kathy Beckett' post='192640' date='May 13 2010, 04:36 PM']
Please refrain from posting more pictures of Qswald's "privates".
We have made the other posts invisible.

If you want to compare them, why not email the photos to one
another, and if someone else is interested, they can request an email.

Kathy[/quote]

[Magda Hassan]

Any one is allowed to post photos of the autopsy here. They will not be disappeared. It is entirely relevant to the issue discussed here. I look forward to an interesting discussion of the evidence presented.