Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[Kathleen Collins]

I have photographic proof that Oswald is in fact circumcised

The autopsy photograph I have leaves no doubt that he is

Add this with the autopsy report and we have a for sure strike against Judyth that she had no idea and just guessed that he wasnt

If she had as she said a hot and heavy love affair she would know for SURE if he was or was not circumcised

She said he was NOT

We know for a fact that he WAS

Produce the photo.

Kathy C

[Dean Hagerman]

I have photographic proof that Oswald is in fact circumcised

The autopsy photograph I have leaves no doubt that he is

Add this with the autopsy report and we have a for sure strike against Judyth that she had no idea and just guessed that he wasnt

If she had as she said a hot and heavy love affair she would know for SURE if he was or was not circumcised

She said he was NOT

We know for a fact that he WAS

Produce the photo.

Kathy C

Kathy I have the photo, trust me

I will not post it on this forum for obvious reasons and I will not email it to anybody until I have a chance to view some other photos

Please wait, that is all I can say

[Jack White]

There are three such pix. One color slide by the FBI, two b/w polaroids of unknown provenance.

No need to post any of them as they are mere curiosities and show nothing of evidentiary value.

Someone mailed me a CD with the two b/ws; I copied the FBI set from Gary Shaw but the slide

would be hard to find and has not been scanned.

Jack

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Judyth says Oswald was left handed:

Subject: Re: The Lonely Bull

Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 00:08:31 -0600

From: "J. Avary Baker" <americancr...@sprintmail.com>

Organization: Living History Foundation (non profit) and ACPBA (American

Cream Puppy Breeders Association)

To: Peter Cox <Pe...@litopia.com>

Dear Peter, and Peggy, and all:

(....)

Anyway, here are the last items that are really important, I think, and

should be included in the document you have, wherever you might see fit, or

as suggested. Those items in quotations are the ones which need to be added

to the text.

1. (Lee was left-handed, and I think this needs to be noted) "We would walk

down the street together holding hands, and I would walk on the outside, Lee

on the inside, so he could hold my right hand, and I could hold his left.

Yet Lee often displayed ambidexterity. Both of us could write with both

hands at the same time, in what could be termed 'mirror writing.' When Lee

wrote like this, he didn't make any spelling errors."

(.....)

Thank you very much!!!!

Happy Easter to all of you!

Affectionately, Judyth

Warren Commission testimony...

Marina:

Mr. RANKIN. Can you tell us whether your husband was right handed or left handed?

Mrs. OSWALD. No, he was right handed..

His brother writes with his left hand and so does--his brother and mother both write with their left hand.

Robert Oswald:

Mr. JENNER. I notice when you are smoking that you hold the cigarette in your left hand. Are you left handed?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir. I am left handed when I write and eat.

Mr. JENNER. And you are right handed otherwise?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Throwing a baseball?

Mr. OSWALD. Throwing a baseball.

At one time I could handle it with both hands especially a football better than a baseball. But I have returned to my right hand on that. I was more accurate with my right hand than with my left hand, in throwing things. I kick footballs right footed and so forth.

Mr. JENNER. What about your father? Was he right handed or left handed?

Mr. OSWALD. This I do not know, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Your mother?

Mr. OSWALD. My mother is left handed.

Mr. JENNER. And your brother Lee?

Mr. OSWALD. He was right handed.

Representative FORD. Was there ever a time that he appeared to be left handed, as far as you recollect?

Mr. OSWALD. No, sir. I have never known him to handle anything--throw a baseball, football, et cetera, fire a rifle, or do anything, left handed.

Mr. JENNER. In order to be certain of the details in this respect, when he wrote, did he write with his right or his left hand?

Mr. OSWALD. Right handed.

Mr. JENNER. Right handed?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And you in fact have seen him write with his right hand?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir, I have.

Mr. JENNER. During your youth?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Did you ever--was there ever an occasion when you saw him write or attempt to write with his left hand?

Mr. OSWALD. No, sir, I have never seen him at any time, on any occasion, ever attempt to write or do anything left handed.

Mr. JENNER. You really covered my next question, but I would like to ask it anyhow.

There are men in athletics who are either right handed or left handed, but who throw or bat or do something from the other side.

Did he ever throw left handed or in any athletic endeavor employ his left hand predominantly as against his right hand?

Mr. OSWALD. No, sir; not to my knowledge, he never did.

Mr. JENNER. From your many years of experience with him, being associated with him, as his brother, was he a predominantly right-handed person?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir; he most certainly was.

Representative FORD. And you personally saw him throw, kick, or do anything athletic over the years, and saw him use his right hand exclusively?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir. I would say without qualification--I might be repeating myself here at no time did I ever know him to do anything left handed, to the extent that it would be predominant. Of course his hands worked together, and so forth. But I have never known him to do anything left handed.

Mr. JENNER. From your long acquaintance with him, and your intimate knowledge of his physical characteristics in that respect, do you have an opinion as to whether he was instinctively right-handed or instinctively a left-handed person?

Mr. OSWALD. I would say he was instinctively a right-handed person.

Mr. JENNER. In all the years you were with him, you had opportunity to see him react instantaneously without having time to think about using his right hand or left hand?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Did you observe him on many occasions?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes. I have never known him to use his left hand in any manner when an occasion would require that he use either hand--instinctively went to his right hand.

Mr. JENNER. Was he a coordinated person in the use of his right hand? Some are not coordinated athletically.

Mr. OSWALD. My opinion of this, sir, would be that he was coordinated to the extent that looking at myself and many, I would compare us as two peas in a pod. Quite fast, well coordinated.

John Pic:

Mr. JENNER - By the way, are you right handed?

Mr. PIC - Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER - Is your brother Lee right or left handed?

Mr. PIC - I think he was right handed, sir. I think we were all right handed, Robert had tendencies toward the left hand and I think my mother made him change.

Marguerite:

Mrs. OSWALD. No, sir, Robert says nothing. I have tried to contact Robert for important matters, and Robert will not talk.

Lee was left handed. Lee wrote left handed and ate right handed. And I wanted to know if Lee shot left handed. Because on Lee's leaves, as I stated, they live out in the country, and Robert goes squirrel hunting, and all kinds of hunting. And on leaves from the Marines, Lee has gone out to this farmhouse, to Robert's family house, and he and his brother have gone squirrel hunting. And so Robert would know if Lee shot left handed, and he would not give me the information, gentlemen.

Mr. RANKIN. Is Robert left handed?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, Robert is left handed. I am left handed.

Mr. RANKIN. Is John Pic left handed?

Mrs. OSWALD. No, John is not.

Mr. RANKIN. But you are?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, sir. Now, I write left handed, but I do everything else with my right hand.

But Lee was more left handed than I am.

I write left handed, but I do everything else with my right hand. But Lee was left handed.

Mr. RANKIN. Was Lee Oswald's father left handed?

Mrs. OSWALD. That I do not remember, Mr. Rankin. No--I am the left handed one. I would say no.

Marguerite seems a tad confused, but everyone else, including his wife, say he was right handed. His handwriting does not appear to have a left hand slant either.

Barb :-)

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Barb is counting on no one reading this carefully, because it shows Judyth admitting a mistake and correcting

her false impression that SV-40 was the same as AIDS. That turned out to be wrong, which she acknowledged.

That is showing more intellectual integrity than most of her critics on this thread, who never admit mistakes or

acknowledge when she is right about "double-dating" with Anna, Lee's eye-color, or "the disappearing witness".

JUDYTH’S STORY HAS REMAINED CONSTANT ACROSS TIME

The serum in which the cancer cells were placed included a virus that could knock out the immune system, thus enhancing the strength of the already powerful cancer cells. This material -- scraped from the kidneys of sick monkeys -- was, in fact, the AIDS virus.(75)

The serum in which the cancer cells were placed included a virus that could knock out the immune system, thus enhancing the strength of the already powerful cancer cells. This material -- scraped from the kidneys of sick monkeys -- was, in fact, a precursor to the AIDS virus.(76)

The serum in which the cancer cells were placed included a virus that could knock out the immune system, thus enhancing the strength of the already powerful cancer cells. This material -- scraped from the kidneys of sick monkeys -- was, in fact, Simian Virus 40 (SV-40), unrelated to the AIDS virus.(77)

Note that the first two quotes above are from material written before Judyth read Haslam's first book in late 1999/early 2000 (her amazon review, posted earlier today, is dated January 19, 2000) .... the third quote is from later ... after she is known to have read and reviewed Haslam's book.

Dave Reitzes, whose link David Lifton posted a few days ago, has done a great job collecting and sourcing a lot

of the changes in Judyth's claims/story "across time" ... including the above.

The numbered source notes:

75. Judyth Vary Baker with Howard Platzman, Ph.D, "Deadly Alliance: Outline of the Conspiracy": "The serum in which the cancer cells were placed included a virus that knocks out the immune system, thus enhancing the strength of the already powerful cancer cells. This material -- scraped from the kidney's [sic] of sick monkeys -- was, in fact, the AIDS virus."

76. Judyth Vary Baker with Howard Platzman, Ph.D, "Deadly Alliance," alternate draft provided to Robert Vernon, posted by Vernon at alt.assassination.jfk, August 30, 2004: "The serum in which the cancer cells were placed included a virus that knocks out the immune system, thus enhancing the strength of the already powerful cancer cells. This material -- scraped from the kidney's [sic] of sick monkeys -- was, in fact, the PRECURSOR OF THE AIDS virus. Note: This material, DERIVED FROM VIRAL CONTAMINANTS FOUND in the early polio vaccine and other applications, is now the subject of an important new book on the origin of AIDS, Edward Hooper's The River." "Judyth's Story," outline provided to Robert Vernon on December 23, 1999, posted by Vernon at alt.assassination.jfk, August 30, 2004: "The serum in which the cancer cells were placed included a virus that knocks out the immune system, thus enhancing the strength of the cancer cells. This material -- from the kidney's [sic] of sick monkeys -- is now the subject of a new book on the origin of AIDS." Judyth Vary Baker, Internet forum post, October 9, 2004: "Read the book. [Note: Judyth acknowledged in an Internet forum post of September 27, 2004, that despite five years of trying, she has been unable to find a publisher for her book.] The matter is too complex to be explained by Mr. Reitzes, who is relying on a portion of an incomplete summary of the process written by somebody else."

77. Rene Zwaap, "An American Hero," De Groene Amsterdammer, June 21, 2003 (based on an interview with Judyth Vary Baker), automated translation, posted by John McAdams to alt.assassination.jfk, July 8. 2003: "[Oswald] got a hurry course over it go around with the transport of living cancer cells, that in a special chemical liquid living could become hold. By that technique was worked with SV-40, material that were pulled from the kidneys [of monkeys], that also became uses by the development of the polio vaccine. The target of the operation was Castro with it to infect. He stood known as a lover of cigars and nobody will it thus strangely of look up as he lung cancer would get." Howard Platzman, alt.assassination.jfk post, August 31, 2003: "The outline is meant as a catch-all. It has had errors in it before and it probably has errors in it now. . . . Anyway, the medical stuff is not that easy to understand and I got parts of it wrong myself, so please tread with caution. SV-40 is not HIV, but they are related. Initially, I thought they were the same. Both attack the immune system and both jumped species from monkey to man."

Dave's site:

http://www.jfk-online.com/judyth-story.html

And thanks to Dave for having had things in one place, all sourced, for a very long time now ... a real time saver.

Barb :-)

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

As I am about to explain, there is a larger issue here than circumcision, though

I agree that that is a matter that Judyth should address. The concern which I

previously expressed toward Dean had less to do with circumcision and more

to do with faked autopsy photos. But then why should I find that surprising?

I have photographic proof that Oswald is in fact circumcised

The autopsy photograph I have leaves no doubt that he is

Add this with the autopsy report and we have a for sure strike against Judyth that she had no idea and just guessed that he wasnt

If she had as she said a hot and heavy love affair she would know for SURE if he was or was not circumcised

She said he was NOT

We know for a fact that he WAS

Produce the photo.

Kathy C

Kathy I have the photo, trust me

I will not post it on this forum for obvious reasons and I will not email it to anybody until I have a chance to view some other photos

Please wait, that is all I can say

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

This is very peculiar. Even his mother says he was left-handed, while

Marina, Robert, and John say right-handed. How could his mother be

wrong about something like this? It suggests to me that he may have

been ambidextrous. I don't see this as carrying weight against Judyth.

Judyth says Oswald was left handed:

Subject: Re: The Lonely Bull

Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 00:08:31 -0600

From: "J. Avary Baker" <americancr...@sprintmail.com>

Organization: Living History Foundation (non profit) and ACPBA (American

Cream Puppy Breeders Association)

To: Peter Cox <Pe...@litopia.com>

Dear Peter, and Peggy, and all:

(....)

Anyway, here are the last items that are really important, I think, and

should be included in the document you have, wherever you might see fit, or

as suggested. Those items in quotations are the ones which need to be added

to the text.

1. (Lee was left-handed, and I think this needs to be noted) "We would walk

down the street together holding hands, and I would walk on the outside, Lee

on the inside, so he could hold my right hand, and I could hold his left.

Yet Lee often displayed ambidexterity. Both of us could write with both

hands at the same time, in what could be termed 'mirror writing.' When Lee

wrote like this, he didn't make any spelling errors."

(.....)

Thank you very much!!!!

Happy Easter to all of you!

Affectionately, Judyth

Warren Commission testimony...

Marina:

Mr. RANKIN. Can you tell us whether your husband was right handed or left handed?

Mrs. OSWALD. No, he was right handed..

His brother writes with his left hand and so does--his brother and mother both write with their left hand.

Robert Oswald:

Mr. JENNER. I notice when you are smoking that you hold the cigarette in your left hand. Are you left handed?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir. I am left handed when I write and eat.

Mr. JENNER. And you are right handed otherwise?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Throwing a baseball?

Mr. OSWALD. Throwing a baseball.

At one time I could handle it with both hands especially a football better than a baseball. But I have returned to my right hand on that. I was more accurate with my right hand than with my left hand, in throwing things. I kick footballs right footed and so forth.

Mr. JENNER. What about your father? Was he right handed or left handed?

Mr. OSWALD. This I do not know, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Your mother?

Mr. OSWALD. My mother is left handed.

Mr. JENNER. And your brother Lee?

Mr. OSWALD. He was right handed.

Representative FORD. Was there ever a time that he appeared to be left handed, as far as you recollect?

Mr. OSWALD. No, sir. I have never known him to handle anything--throw a baseball, football, et cetera, fire a rifle, or do anything, left handed.

Mr. JENNER. In order to be certain of the details in this respect, when he wrote, did he write with his right or his left hand?

Mr. OSWALD. Right handed.

Mr. JENNER. Right handed?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And you in fact have seen him write with his right hand?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir, I have.

Mr. JENNER. During your youth?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Did you ever--was there ever an occasion when you saw him write or attempt to write with his left hand?

Mr. OSWALD. No, sir, I have never seen him at any time, on any occasion, ever attempt to write or do anything left handed.

Mr. JENNER. You really covered my next question, but I would like to ask it anyhow.

There are men in athletics who are either right handed or left handed, but who throw or bat or do something from the other side.

Did he ever throw left handed or in any athletic endeavor employ his left hand predominantly as against his right hand?

Mr. OSWALD. No, sir; not to my knowledge, he never did.

Mr. JENNER. From your many years of experience with him, being associated with him, as his brother, was he a predominantly right-handed person?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir; he most certainly was.

Representative FORD. And you personally saw him throw, kick, or do anything athletic over the years, and saw him use his right hand exclusively?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir. I would say without qualification--I might be repeating myself here at no time did I ever know him to do anything left handed, to the extent that it would be predominant. Of course his hands worked together, and so forth. But I have never known him to do anything left handed.

Mr. JENNER. From your long acquaintance with him, and your intimate knowledge of his physical characteristics in that respect, do you have an opinion as to whether he was instinctively right-handed or instinctively a left-handed person?

Mr. OSWALD. I would say he was instinctively a right-handed person.

Mr. JENNER. In all the years you were with him, you had opportunity to see him react instantaneously without having time to think about using his right hand or left hand?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Did you observe him on many occasions?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes. I have never known him to use his left hand in any manner when an occasion would require that he use either hand--instinctively went to his right hand.

Mr. JENNER. Was he a coordinated person in the use of his right hand? Some are not coordinated athletically.

Mr. OSWALD. My opinion of this, sir, would be that he was coordinated to the extent that looking at myself and many, I would compare us as two peas in a pod. Quite fast, well coordinated.

John Pic:

Mr. JENNER - By the way, are you right handed?

Mr. PIC - Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER - Is your brother Lee right or left handed?

Mr. PIC - I think he was right handed, sir. I think we were all right handed, Robert had tendencies toward the left hand and I think my mother made him change.

Marguerite:

Mrs. OSWALD. No, sir, Robert says nothing. I have tried to contact Robert for important matters, and Robert will not talk.

Lee was left handed. Lee wrote left handed and ate right handed. And I wanted to know if Lee shot left handed. Because on Lee's leaves, as I stated, they live out in the country, and Robert goes squirrel hunting, and all kinds of hunting. And on leaves from the Marines, Lee has gone out to this farmhouse, to Robert's family house, and he and his brother have gone squirrel hunting. And so Robert would know if Lee shot left handed, and he would not give me the information, gentlemen.

Mr. RANKIN. Is Robert left handed?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, Robert is left handed. I am left handed.

Mr. RANKIN. Is John Pic left handed?

Mrs. OSWALD. No, John is not.

Mr. RANKIN. But you are?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, sir. Now, I write left handed, but I do everything else with my right hand.

But Lee was more left handed than I am.

I write left handed, but I do everything else with my right hand. But Lee was left handed.

Mr. RANKIN. Was Lee Oswald's father left handed?

Mrs. OSWALD. That I do not remember, Mr. Rankin. No--I am the left handed one. I would say no.

Marguerite seems a tad confused, but everyone else, including his wife, say he was right handed. His handwriting does not appear to have a left hand slant either.

Barb :-)

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Barb is counting on no one reading this carefully, because it shows Judyth admitting a mistake and correcting

her false impression that SV-40 was the same as AIDS. That turned out to be wrong, which she acknowledged.

That is showing more intellectual integrity than most of her critics on this thread, who never admit mistakes or

acknowledge when she is right about "double-dating" with Anna, Lee's eye-color, or "the disappearing witness".

I hope everyone reads carefully. And more carefully than you .... as the one admitting a mistake was Howard Platzman, as noted below, :

" Howard Platzman, alt.assassination.jfk post, August 31, 2003: "The outline is meant as a catch-all. It has had errors in it before and it probably has errors in it now. . . . Anyway, the medical stuff is not that easy to understand and I got parts of it wrong myself, so please tread with caution. SV-40 is not HIV, but they are related. Initially, I thought they were the same. Both attack the immune system and both jumped species from monkey to man."

JUDYTH’S STORY HAS REMAINED CONSTANT ACROSS TIME

The serum in which the cancer cells were placed included a virus that could knock out the immune system, thus enhancing the strength of the already powerful cancer cells. This material -- scraped from the kidneys of sick monkeys -- was, in fact, the AIDS virus.(75)

The serum in which the cancer cells were placed included a virus that could knock out the immune system, thus enhancing the strength of the already powerful cancer cells. This material -- scraped from the kidneys of sick monkeys -- was, in fact, a precursor to the AIDS virus.(76)

The serum in which the cancer cells were placed included a virus that could knock out the immune system, thus enhancing the strength of the already powerful cancer cells. This material -- scraped from the kidneys of sick monkeys -- was, in fact, Simian Virus 40 (SV-40), unrelated to the AIDS virus.(77)

Note that the first two quotes above are from material written before Judyth read Haslam's first book in late 1999/early 2000 (her amazon review, posted earlier today, is dated January 19, 2000) .... the third quote is from later ... after she is known to have read and reviewed Haslam's book.

Dave Reitzes, whose link David Lifton posted a few days ago, has done a great job collecting and sourcing a lot

of the changes in Judyth's claims/story "across time" ... including the above.

The numbered source notes:

75. Judyth Vary Baker with Howard Platzman, Ph.D, "Deadly Alliance: Outline of the Conspiracy": "The serum in which the cancer cells were placed included a virus that knocks out the immune system, thus enhancing the strength of the already powerful cancer cells. This material -- scraped from the kidney's [sic] of sick monkeys -- was, in fact, the AIDS virus."

76. Judyth Vary Baker with Howard Platzman, Ph.D, "Deadly Alliance," alternate draft provided to Robert Vernon, posted by Vernon at alt.assassination.jfk, August 30, 2004: "The serum in which the cancer cells were placed included a virus that knocks out the immune system, thus enhancing the strength of the already powerful cancer cells. This material -- scraped from the kidney's [sic] of sick monkeys -- was, in fact, the PRECURSOR OF THE AIDS virus. Note: This material, DERIVED FROM VIRAL CONTAMINANTS FOUND in the early polio vaccine and other applications, is now the subject of an important new book on the origin of AIDS, Edward Hooper's The River." "Judyth's Story," outline provided to Robert Vernon on December 23, 1999, posted by Vernon at alt.assassination.jfk, August 30, 2004: "The serum in which the cancer cells were placed included a virus that knocks out the immune system, thus enhancing the strength of the cancer cells. This material -- from the kidney's [sic] of sick monkeys -- is now the subject of a new book on the origin of AIDS." Judyth Vary Baker, Internet forum post, October 9, 2004: "Read the book. [Note: Judyth acknowledged in an Internet forum post of September 27, 2004, that despite five years of trying, she has been unable to find a publisher for her book.] The matter is too complex to be explained by Mr. Reitzes, who is relying on a portion of an incomplete summary of the process written by somebody else."

77. Rene Zwaap, "An American Hero," De Groene Amsterdammer, June 21, 2003 (based on an interview with Judyth Vary Baker), automated translation, posted by John McAdams to alt.assassination.jfk, July 8. 2003: "[Oswald] got a hurry course over it go around with the transport of living cancer cells, that in a special chemical liquid living could become hold. By that technique was worked with SV-40, material that were pulled from the kidneys [of monkeys], that also became uses by the development of the polio vaccine. The target of the operation was Castro with it to infect. He stood known as a lover of cigars and nobody will it thus strangely of look up as he lung cancer would get." Howard Platzman, alt.assassination.jfk post, August 31, 2003: "The outline is meant as a catch-all. It has had errors in it before and it probably has errors in it now. . . . Anyway, the medical stuff is not that easy to understand and I got parts of it wrong myself, so please tread with caution. SV-40 is not HIV, but they are related. Initially, I thought they were the same. Both attack the immune system and both jumped species from monkey to man."

Dave's site:

http://www.jfk-online.com/judyth-story.html

And thanks to Dave for having had things in one place, all sourced, for a very long time now ... a real time saver.

Barb :-)

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

SOME FURTHER REFLECTIONS ABOUT JUDYTH FROM MY PSY OPS EXPERT

NOTE: Given that I have tried to end this thread, I should have anticipated a blizzard of parting

shots, where I anticipate replying more when I am back in touch with Judyth. I am working on

proof that some of these autopsy photos have been faked. I ask anyone who may have copies

to please send them to me. I need to find another copy of a specific autopsy photograph that I

have but am unable to locate. I have asked Jack and some others to provide assistance, where

I will post my findings when I have marshaled the evidence. That it has happened, however, I

have no doubt. When Barb asks "Why in the world would anyone do that?", of course, it pains

me to hear it, since we both know only one person's credibility would thereby be cast into doubt.

I've received some further thoughts from my psy ops expert. Since so much of what appears

here is negative--in my opinion, without justification--I hope that no one is going to complain if

I post his positive review. I would also like to express my appreciate for some posts that came

from Lee Farley and from Todd Vaughan. It is reassuring that a few of those who are following

this thread are exercising some critical judgment, since most of you, in my view, are not. I am

concerned that I have not heard from Judyth since she departed from London on Tuesday, and

I will be relieved to know she is alive and well. My personal experiences with her, including our

collaboration on this thread, convince me beyond any doubt she is the person she claims to be.

FURTHER REFLECTIONS

Your work helping Judyth Vary present her story has generated a xxxxstorm among some whose research is not highly relevant or been shown to probably be down a rabbit hole to no-where. It is a hard landing for those who have spent so much time going in the wrong direction.

As I have said before, regardless of whether folks believe many of the individual details of Judyth's story, the proven presuppositions are important enough to take serious note:

1-Oswald was proven by docs to have been trained as a spy, and to use sex in his tradecraft, did so while stationed at Atsugi (maybe a training exercise, or pulled into a russian female honeypot as a precurser for later op in russia as a defector), got an STD, was treated for it, and was not punished as is typically the case.

2- Judyth was "lured" to New Orleans. The only explanation that makes sense was to continue her proven track record and ongoing cancer induction research track wityh which she had already proven herself very proficient to the point some medical folks took notice. And it would have taken a fairly high level individual such as Dr. Sherman or Dr. Ochsner to entice her to NO (this supports her contention she was offered a substantial career track and medical educational opportunity). It seems plausible that Judyth's story about Ochsner being the person who brought her there is what really happened.

3- There is a live witness on video (Anna Lewis) that stated that her and her man double dated with Judyth and LHO. [NOTE: And there is another, Kathy Santi, M.D., a close friend of Judyth at the University of Florida, in whom she confided her plans to move to New Orleans in the expectation of entering the Medical School at Tulane, which Dr. Ochsner had proposed. See her YouTube interview about her transition from Gainesville to New Orleans.]

4- Ferrie had told others of working on cancer reserach and there were reports of mice in his apt, and the police found at least one research paper on cancer which suggested Ferrie had sophisticated knowledge of cancer research.

5- Ochsner was likely "dirtied up" by taking a stand that the polio vaccine was safe using his grandkids and being wrong, his grandson died and his granddaughter got polio (could intel have done this to motivate Ochsner to set up a covert program to get rid of the monkey virus vaccine contaminants?).

6- It seems plausible that Judyth was used to work on this research at Ferrie's small secret lab as a parallel side program to weaponize cancer, then using the particle accellerator to refine the viral chains (the particle accelerator being brought in for the main cover story and reason to clean up the polio vaccines of the monkey viral contaminants. So you have a ddep black bioweapon program run inside a secret program to clean up the polio vaccine which was used as cover for the deep black bioweapon program.

7- Because Judyth and LHO both were proven to have worked at Reily coffee in a relatively small close environment, it makes perfect sense to believe that LHO knew her and worked with her because of Anna's detailed video statement that LHO and Judyth dated each other. And it also makes sense that LHO was sent to "run into" Judyth at the post office and to "manage her" at least initially.

8- The strange, staged murder of Dr. Sherman strongly suggests that intel did not want her testifying to any warren commission investigators about any part of the secret program (cleaning up the polio vaccine of monkey viruses) or its hidden black op (weaponizing cancer as a bioweapon). This supports a strong intel involved, especially in view of LHO being a proven intel op in a current deep cover role and his prior history of training and practice on Atsugi.

So Jim, if we stop right here, this is enough to set a context for the importance of Judyth's basic story. Even if she was mind kontrolled and stressed to the point where she has made many errors of recollection (done to her as a big psyop to make her whole story easier to discredit), that in and of itself does not effect the basic suppositions I have listed above. By the way, this is typically attempted by intel to make it easy to discredit a witness, so that the most important part of their story is thrown out to like throwing out the baby with the bath water.

So Jim, there you have it. That is why I don't need to even verify every single part of Judyth's story (the little details) in order to realize her basic premises when placed along with Ed Haslams excellent, highly credible research and book, turns the whole JFK Assassination research community on its head and takes up where Jim Garrison left off. Not only is this shocking, it is downright disturbing to those who have gone in a different direction for many years and who wrote Judyth and her story off some years ago, when she first came forth. If Garrison was alive to see this, he would have loved every bit of it.

There are three such pix. One color slide by the FBI, two b/w polaroids of unknown provenance.

No need to post any of them as they are mere curiosities and show nothing of evidentiary value.

Someone mailed me a CD with the two b/ws; I copied the FBI set from Gary Shaw but the slide

would be hard to find and has not been scanned.

Jack

Edited May 8, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Well, if it was Platzman's mistake, then why are you holding it against Judyth?

I appreciated it when you said that the "Avary Baker" business was moot. But

when have you admitted that you have made a mistake or acknowledged she

is right about "double-dating", Lee's eye-color, or "the disappearing witness"?

Barb is counting on no one reading this carefully, because it shows Judyth admitting a mistake and correcting

her false impression that SV-40 was the same as AIDS. That turned out to be wrong, which she acknowledged.

That is showing more intellectual integrity than most of her critics on this thread, who never admit mistakes or

acknowledge when she is right about "double-dating" with Anna, Lee's eye-color, or "the disappearing witness".

I hope everyone reads carefully. And more carefully than you .... as the one admitting a mistake was Howard Platzman, as noted below, :

" Howard Platzman, alt.assassination.jfk post, August 31, 2003: "The outline is meant as a catch-all. It has had errors in it before and it probably has errors in it now. . . . Anyway, the medical stuff is not that easy to understand and I got parts of it wrong myself, so please tread with caution. SV-40 is not HIV, but they are related. Initially, I thought they were the same. Both attack the immune system and both jumped species from monkey to man."

JUDYTH’S STORY HAS REMAINED CONSTANT ACROSS TIME

The serum in which the cancer cells were placed included a virus that could knock out the immune system, thus enhancing the strength of the already powerful cancer cells. This material -- scraped from the kidneys of sick monkeys -- was, in fact, the AIDS virus.(75)

The serum in which the cancer cells were placed included a virus that could knock out the immune system, thus enhancing the strength of the already powerful cancer cells. This material -- scraped from the kidneys of sick monkeys -- was, in fact, a precursor to the AIDS virus.(76)

The serum in which the cancer cells were placed included a virus that could knock out the immune system, thus enhancing the strength of the already powerful cancer cells. This material -- scraped from the kidneys of sick monkeys -- was, in fact, Simian Virus 40 (SV-40), unrelated to the AIDS virus.(77)

Note that the first two quotes above are from material written before Judyth read Haslam's first book in late 1999/early 2000 (her amazon review, posted earlier today, is dated January 19, 2000) .... the third quote is from later ... after she is known to have read and reviewed Haslam's book.

Dave Reitzes, whose link David Lifton posted a few days ago, has done a great job collecting and sourcing a lot

of the changes in Judyth's claims/story "across time" ... including the above.

The numbered source notes:

75. Judyth Vary Baker with Howard Platzman, Ph.D, "Deadly Alliance: Outline of the Conspiracy": "The serum in which the cancer cells were placed included a virus that knocks out the immune system, thus enhancing the strength of the already powerful cancer cells. This material -- scraped from the kidney's [sic] of sick monkeys -- was, in fact, the AIDS virus."

76. Judyth Vary Baker with Howard Platzman, Ph.D, "Deadly Alliance," alternate draft provided to Robert Vernon, posted by Vernon at alt.assassination.jfk, August 30, 2004: "The serum in which the cancer cells were placed included a virus that knocks out the immune system, thus enhancing the strength of the already powerful cancer cells. This material -- scraped from the kidney's [sic] of sick monkeys -- was, in fact, the PRECURSOR OF THE AIDS virus. Note: This material, DERIVED FROM VIRAL CONTAMINANTS FOUND in the early polio vaccine and other applications, is now the subject of an important new book on the origin of AIDS, Edward Hooper's The River." "Judyth's Story," outline provided to Robert Vernon on December 23, 1999, posted by Vernon at alt.assassination.jfk, August 30, 2004: "The serum in which the cancer cells were placed included a virus that knocks out the immune system, thus enhancing the strength of the cancer cells. This material -- from the kidney's [sic] of sick monkeys -- is now the subject of a new book on the origin of AIDS." Judyth Vary Baker, Internet forum post, October 9, 2004: "Read the book. [Note: Judyth acknowledged in an Internet forum post of September 27, 2004, that despite five years of trying, she has been unable to find a publisher for her book.] The matter is too complex to be explained by Mr. Reitzes, who is relying on a portion of an incomplete summary of the process written by somebody else."

77. Rene Zwaap, "An American Hero," De Groene Amsterdammer, June 21, 2003 (based on an interview with Judyth Vary Baker), automated translation, posted by John McAdams to alt.assassination.jfk, July 8. 2003: "[Oswald] got a hurry course over it go around with the transport of living cancer cells, that in a special chemical liquid living could become hold. By that technique was worked with SV-40, material that were pulled from the kidneys [of monkeys], that also became uses by the development of the polio vaccine. The target of the operation was Castro with it to infect. He stood known as a lover of cigars and nobody will it thus strangely of look up as he lung cancer would get." Howard Platzman, alt.assassination.jfk post, August 31, 2003: "The outline is meant as a catch-all. It has had errors in it before and it probably has errors in it now. . . . Anyway, the medical stuff is not that easy to understand and I got parts of it wrong myself, so please tread with caution. SV-40 is not HIV, but they are related. Initially, I thought they were the same. Both attack the immune system and both jumped species from monkey to man."

Dave's site:

http://www.jfk-online.com/judyth-story.html

And thanks to Dave for having had things in one place, all sourced, for a very long time now ... a real time saver.

Barb :-)

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Well, if it was Platzman's mistake, then why are you holding it against Judyth?

I appreciated it when you said that the "Avary Baker" business was moot. But

when have you admitted that you have made a mistake or acknowledged she

is right about "double-dating", Lee's eye-color, or "the disappearing witness"?

I am not holding any of Platzman's confusion against Judyth. The three statements about what this cancer cocktail *was* cleary changed over time. None of them reflect SV-40 being the AIDS virus, in fact the one description that mentions SV-40 clearly states it is not related to the AIDS virus. What...do you think Howard wrote that stuff? Perhaps he was confused because it kept changing. :-)

The salient point is that her claims and tellings have not remained unchanged over time, as you asserted. Not by a long shot! You don't know the history and trail of her claims that have morphed over the last 10 years.

On "Avary" ... I call them the way I see them. And you glided right over that salient point as well ... She writes a review of Haslam's first book in January 2000 ... in October 2000, 9 mos later, she is emphatically telling Dave Reitzes that she has "NO BOOKS" ... that she doesn't need books because it''s all in her head. And, interestingly enough, it was not until *after* she had read Haslam's book that SV-40 became part of her story. Hello?

I do not acknowledge that she is "right" about double-dating or "the disappearing witness." On Oswald's eye color ... and anything else Harvey & Lee, she is entitled to her opinions after studying the materials ... just like any other researcher. Harvey & Lee stands or falls on its own merit, so does her story. IF Harvey & Lee is wrong ... that does not make Judyth right. They are two separate "theories."

Barb is counting on no one reading this carefully, because it shows Judyth admitting a mistake and correcting

her false impression that SV-40 was the same as AIDS. That turned out to be wrong, which she acknowledged.

That is showing more intellectual integrity than most of her critics on this thread, who never admit mistakes or

acknowledge when she is right about "double-dating" with Anna, Lee's eye-color, or "the disappearing witness".

I hope everyone reads carefully. And more carefully than you .... as the one admitting a mistake was Howard Platzman, as noted below, :

" Howard Platzman, alt.assassination.jfk post, August 31, 2003: "The outline is meant as a catch-all. It has had errors in it before and it probably has errors in it now. . . . Anyway, the medical stuff is not that easy to understand and I got parts of it wrong myself, so please tread with caution. SV-40 is not HIV, but they are related. Initially, I thought they were the same. Both attack the immune system and both jumped species from monkey to man."

JUDYTH’S STORY HAS REMAINED CONSTANT ACROSS TIME

The serum in which the cancer cells were placed included a virus that could knock out the immune system, thus enhancing the strength of the already powerful cancer cells. This material -- scraped from the kidneys of sick monkeys -- was, in fact, the AIDS virus.(75)

The serum in which the cancer cells were placed included a virus that could knock out the immune system, thus enhancing the strength of the already powerful cancer cells. This material -- scraped from the kidneys of sick monkeys -- was, in fact, a precursor to the AIDS virus.(76)

The serum in which the cancer cells were placed included a virus that could knock out the immune system, thus enhancing the strength of the already powerful cancer cells. This material -- scraped from the kidneys of sick monkeys -- was, in fact, Simian Virus 40 (SV-40), unrelated to the AIDS virus.(77)

Note that the first two quotes above are from material written before Judyth read Haslam's first book in late 1999/early 2000 (her amazon review, posted earlier today, is dated January 19, 2000) .... the third quote is from later ... after she is known to have read and reviewed Haslam's book.

Dave Reitzes, whose link David Lifton posted a few days ago, has done a great job collecting and sourcing a lot

of the changes in Judyth's claims/story "across time" ... including the above.

The numbered source notes:

75. Judyth Vary Baker with Howard Platzman, Ph.D, "Deadly Alliance: Outline of the Conspiracy": "The serum in which the cancer cells were placed included a virus that knocks out the immune system, thus enhancing the strength of the already powerful cancer cells. This material -- scraped from the kidney's [sic] of sick monkeys -- was, in fact, the AIDS virus."

76. Judyth Vary Baker with Howard Platzman, Ph.D, "Deadly Alliance," alternate draft provided to Robert Vernon, posted by Vernon at alt.assassination.jfk, August 30, 2004: "The serum in which the cancer cells were placed included a virus that knocks out the immune system, thus enhancing the strength of the already powerful cancer cells. This material -- scraped from the kidney's [sic] of sick monkeys -- was, in fact, the PRECURSOR OF THE AIDS virus. Note: This material, DERIVED FROM VIRAL CONTAMINANTS FOUND in the early polio vaccine and other applications, is now the subject of an important new book on the origin of AIDS, Edward Hooper's The River." "Judyth's Story," outline provided to Robert Vernon on December 23, 1999, posted by Vernon at alt.assassination.jfk, August 30, 2004: "The serum in which the cancer cells were placed included a virus that knocks out the immune system, thus enhancing the strength of the cancer cells. This material -- from the kidney's [sic] of sick monkeys -- is now the subject of a new book on the origin of AIDS." Judyth Vary Baker, Internet forum post, October 9, 2004: "Read the book. [Note: Judyth acknowledged in an Internet forum post of September 27, 2004, that despite five years of trying, she has been unable to find a publisher for her book.] The matter is too complex to be explained by Mr. Reitzes, who is relying on a portion of an incomplete summary of the process written by somebody else."

77. Rene Zwaap, "An American Hero," De Groene Amsterdammer, June 21, 2003 (based on an interview with Judyth Vary Baker), automated translation, posted by John McAdams to alt.assassination.jfk, July 8. 2003: "[Oswald] got a hurry course over it go around with the transport of living cancer cells, that in a special chemical liquid living could become hold. By that technique was worked with SV-40, material that were pulled from the kidneys [of monkeys], that also became uses by the development of the polio vaccine. The target of the operation was Castro with it to infect. He stood known as a lover of cigars and nobody will it thus strangely of look up as he lung cancer would get." Howard Platzman, alt.assassination.jfk post, August 31, 2003: "The outline is meant as a catch-all. It has had errors in it before and it probably has errors in it now. . . . Anyway, the medical stuff is not that easy to understand and I got parts of it wrong myself, so please tread with caution. SV-40 is not HIV, but they are related. Initially, I thought they were the same. Both attack the immune system and both jumped species from monkey to man."

Dave's site:

http://www.jfk-online.com/judyth-story.html

And thanks to Dave for having had things in one place, all sourced, for a very long time now ... a real time saver.

Barb :-)

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Since Judyth is currently unavailable, I spoke with Howard Platzman about

this, and neither of us can figure out why anyone would think that Judyth

would dissemble about something so basic as her marriage to Baker. Jack

is doing his best to build a case, but neither of us thinks that he has one.

As near as I can determine, a marriage license in Mobile, Alabama can be

obtained only between 8 a.m. and 4:45 p.m. by adults OVER 18 WITH

VALID PHOTO ID. Persons UNDER 18 must have parental consent. Mobile

has a THREE-DAY WAITING PERIOD FOR NON-RESIDENTS BEFORE A WEDDING

CAN BE PERFORMED. Below are current requirements. They may have been

different in 1963.

ID Requirement in Alabama:

You will need valid Driver's License or Birth Certificate if you are over 18. All applicants must also provide a Social Security number.

Residency Requirement:

You do not have to be a resident of Alabama. However, some counties, like Mobile, require nonresidents to wait three days before being able to have a wedding ceremony performed.

An elopement to Mobile would appear to be more than an overnight affair.

Jack

At that time, Jack, many states required a blood test as well ... and Judyth mentions they needed to get a blood test in her book. The test was a VDRL which is a test for syphilis ... the test had to be ordered as a "pre-marital" so that a signed certificate would be issued with the (hopefully!) negative results. Couples then took their health certificates to the courthouse to get their marriage license. No official signed health certificates, no marriage license.

Bests,

Barb :-)

I forgot about blood tests. As I recall, they take several days to do the lab work. The quickie marriage

elopement overnight to Mobile could have taken a week, including the lab work and waiting period,

the ceremony, and the honeymoon. What is Judyth's timeline on the elopement?

And she never did respond to my friend's claim that she and Baker were married in Florida, not Alabama.

Were announcements of the marriage printed in any newspaper? If they were in New Orleans, as she

says, why did they go to Mobile to tie the knot? Why not just get married in romantic New Orleans?

Jack

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Let me thank you, too, for these very appropriate comments. Like so many of

her critics, Dean Hagerman has not shown a flare for research. He could, for

example, have visited http://religionandmorality.net and read "About Us". He

has apologized for his brutishness and I have accepted it. Thank you for this.

You draw an inference from stereotypical claims about homeless in Seattle to two

persons I admire (for extremely good reasons) in London and trash them without

even reflecting upon what I told you about them.

Having spent the last 21 years living a half-block off Haight St. in San Francisco

I know a thing or two about homeless people. I encounter droves of them daily.

I live one block from the entrance to Golden Gate Park, where a lot of them find

refuge.

Every morning you see them straggling out of the park where they spent

the night hoping the park rangers overlook them.

Some of them are as Dean portrays -- annoying beggars who stand outside

eateries accosting people for spare change. Some will even enter the joint

while you're dining and bug you.

Some are not annoying at all as they stand back holding a beverage cup

for spare change and chant -- "Help for the homeless, help for the homeless."

Some write clever signs and sit on the sidewalk trying to turn their

cardboard witticisms into coins.

My favorite was a guy who tied a plastic microwave food-cover to his head

and chanted -- "Spare change for flying saucer man!" I gave him a quarter.

Others play the pathos card and look the very definition of despair. Many

are in despair!

Some have no home because of chronic poverty; some are drug addicts;

some have mental health issues; some are runaways.

Most of them in these parts are youngsters out on a grand adventure, their

heads full of visions of the Haight-Ashbury of lore. They're almost always

disappointed and move on.

You cannot readily characterize a "homeless person" one way or the other,

except to say they don't have a roof over their head.

I don't bust out spare change very often unless the person has been around

for 6 months or a year. Survival on the streets earns respect in my book.

JVB aside, Jim's friends sound like very interesting people!

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

This is a feeble response, counselor, in view of the existence of living witnesses,

the "disappearing" witness, and your apparent failure to even view (what are

now) eleven YouTube interviews. Judyth has explained why there would be

minor variations in the handwriting sample, where it was written with a tiny

pencil on soft paper and the letters did not all reproduce from the fax. Were

you actually more interested in discovering the truth rather than saving face,

you might actually be making constructive suggestions instead of covering up

the existence of material evidence that supports her case. I discussed your

(to my mind, grotesque) assertions that she might be charged with murder

with Ed Haslam and, to my surprise, he believes that she should not return

to the US even to promote her book because she might be arrested on such

a charge, no matter how trumped-up it may appear. So I think you are doing

a good job of witness intimidation and helping to silence a whistleblower in

perhaps the greatest scandal in American history--the mandated inocuation

of some 100,000,000 citizens with a vaccine contaminated with a virus that

causes cancer. If she ever needs an attorney, I will not be recommending you.

JIM RESPONDS TO DOUG WELDON (HE HOPES) FOR THE FINAL TIME

It defies belief that you would come onto this thread again without having

read the posts that intervened. When someone pointed out that you were

looking for more from me but I had indicated I was "signing off", you said

you had read the last three posts and had no idea. But the first of those

posts BEGAN with a statement that I had no desire to continue with this,

especially since studies discussed in The Guardian have established that,

when those who are committed to a certain point of view are presented

with corrective information, it REINFORCES their commitment instead of

causing them to adjust their beliefs. And that conclusion, which simply

dumbfounds me, has been powerfully confirmed by my experience here.

Many of your contributions, including this post, do nothing to reassure me.

After all, here's Doug Weldon, experienced prosecutor and processor of

witnesses extraordinaire. He makes this post without having even read

#2180. He appears to have completely missed #2055. He doesn't even

spell John Connally's name correctly. Let me offer a caricature of what

the petty participants on this forum would do with him. How can he post

when he isn't reading them? Sometimes he seems to know what he is

talking about, but other times he misses the boat by a mile! Here the

one posting can't even spell "Connally", but other times he has spelled

the name correctly. How can some of these posts come from someone

who is on top of things and others from someone who is not? Some of

them spell his name correctly, others do not. These inconsistencies are

difficult to explain unless, perhaps, there actually are "two Weldons"!

Indeed, I take it his commitment to HARVEY & LEE largely motivates

his interest in Judyth. Yet when she and I have raised questions about

the adequacy of John Armstrong's research--about the "index" to the

26 volumes, the date of founding of the Warren Commission, the eye-

color difference claim, the use of aspect-ratio distortions to bolster a

weak case for photographic support, and even "Harvey"'s aunt Lillian

purportedly paying for "Lee"'s dental work--there has been nothing to

my knowledge coming from Doug Weldon. Jack even began a thread,

"For Jim/Judyth" (now on page 12 of the index) to collate them. When

I point out that Jack's allegation about Judyth's story being "illogical"

applies equally to the story of HARVEY & LEE, we hear nothing from him.

Let me show how easy it would be to shred Doug Weldon on the stand.

"Mr. Weldon, you say you 'listened to the entire podcast'. Which one is

that? There are two two-hour interviews which have been posted there.

Which one did you listen to? You also say, 'the only question you heard

addressed was the one about handwriting'. But don't you know that she

had also done some eleven YouTube interviews, many of which deal with

specific questions that have been raised on the forum, such as the 'Can-

cun/Kankun' controversy? You suggest that Judyth should ask Lifton to

post the audio of his conversation with her if she will declare that she is

not going to bring a suit against him. But don't you know Judyth herself

has observed that the statute of limitations has surely run out on making

such a legal filing? You are an attorney, are you not? You don't know?"

"Included on the blogs Dr. Fetzer has created about her, you can find an

interview with Anna Lewis, who was a friend of Judyth's in New Orleans

and who, with her husband, David, 'double-dated' with Judyth and Lee.

Have you watched that video? Because there are living witnesses who

support Judyth's story. Another is a classmate from the University of

Florida in whom she confided about her plans to head for New Orleans

in the expectation of entering the Tulane Medical School. She, too, is

still alive and attests to the truth of Judyth's story. Her name is Kathy

Santa, M.D. How can an experienced attorney such as yourself be so

oblivious of the importance of living witnesses who support her story?"

"Mr. Weldon, you say you are puzzled that Dr. Fetzer finds Judyth to be

credible when there are lingering questions about aspects of her story,

such as details about the monkey business and her marriage to Robert.

Jack White has repeatedly confounded the weight of the monkeys with

their number. Have you ever corrected him about his blunder? Indeed,

have you ever corrected any of Judyth's critics for their mistakes? Why,

when Dr. Fetzer has had overwhelmingly more direct interaction with her

and two of his closest friends--who are nobody's fool--have lived with her

for a week in a modest rooming house, relating with her every minute of

the day, do you suppose that inferences you are drawing from purported

inconsistencies in minutia should be weighted more than their experience?

Why are you unwilling to grant the least force to their personal knowledge?"

"As an experienced attorney, are you unaware that witnesses repeatedly

subjected to interrogations about their stories commonly describe them in

slightly variant ways across time and under different circumstances, where

those minor inconsistencies do nothing to impeach the integrity of what they

have to tell us? Isn't there something about materiality that matters? And

if this witness has been subjected to multiple mischaracterizations on many

different forums, don't you think it becomes trifling to offer inconsistencies

that are artificial rather than genuine? Yet you appear to be unwilling to

acknowledge any of these obvious considerations. You do not even seem

willing to grant that someone subjected to impersonation is probably real!

Is your devotion to HARVEY & LEE so great you won't give her a fair shake?"

Not only have you apparently not read my "sign off" post #2180 but to the

best of my knowledge, you have never responded to the series of posts in

which I lay out some of the crucial aspects of Judyth's story, including one

about Ochsner (#2120), another on the consistency of Judyth's story over

time (#2121), another on Lee's handwriting and Judyth's sample (#2122),

an important one on "the disappearing witness" (#2123), and a fourth on

maintaining control of witnesses at East Louisiana State Hospital (#2124).

All of these provide substantial circumstantial evidence supporting Judyth's

story. But Weldon is so careless in dealing with them that he even claims

the comparison comes from Judyth when it comes from Howard Platzman.

For an experienced prosecutor, I would have thought the post about "the

disappearing witness" (#2123) would have caught your eye. There are

several early reports of a woman accompanying Lee Oswald, first, when

he enters a barbershop to have a hair cut, second, when he visits a state

representative whose daughter, Mary Morgan, observes the woman in an

old car from which Oswald has entered the house. In successive reports

about it, this person gradually disappears, to the extent that recent work

by associates of Jim DiEugenio maintains she was never there, as though

their much later work could possibly qualify as more reliable than earlier

work by Jim Garrison's staff! This appears to be a stunning example of a

methodological blunder, as I have taken pains to explain above (#2142).

Lest anyone suppose my disagreements with Jack White, David S. Lifton,

Doug Weldon, or Jim DiEugenio are rooted in past conflicts between us, I

am glad to take this opportunity to dispose of any such illusions, namely:

Jack and I have collaborated extensively in the past, where I published

his studies in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), MURDER IN DEALEY

PLAZA (2000), and THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003). He and I

have fought many battles together on the same side against the forces

of darkness in relation to JFK research. I have admired him greatly in

the past, but his utter unwillingness to open his mind to the possibility

that Judyth's story might be true has driven me up the wall. In spite

of my enormous affection for Jack, I am appalled by his ignorance of

basic aspects of the case, which I addressed, for example, in #2073.

As I have observed on more than one occasion, I learned more about

JFK from BEST EVIDENCE (1980) than from any other source when I

first became serious about JFK research and I consider my three books

as sequels to Lifton's studies. When DiEugeio attacked Doug Horne for

his support of Lifton's views, I defended Horne and Lifton against Jim,

as anyone can see (#2157). When Lifton's laptop was stolen from his

car in Santa Monica, he called me for help and I lent him $1,000 to buy

a replacement. But his attitude toward Judyth is simply inexcusable. He

could have contributed so much more, including about HARVEY & LEE.

I have long admired Jim DiEugenio for his dogged determination with

respect to Vincent Buliosi's RECLAIMING HISTORY, where John and I

republished all eight installments of his critique and more in our co-

edited journal, assassinationresearch.com. He has a background in

history, which meant that I was taken aback to discovery that he was

reviewing Horne's book and attacking his admiration for Lifton's work

without realizing that INSIDE THE ARRB vindicates Lifton's research!

That he would attempt to undermine "The Disappearing Witness" by

granting more weight to later interviews than to earlier ones (given

the fallibility of memories, the corruption of investigations of JFK and

the pressure that has no doubt been placed upon them) stunned me.

Doug Weldon speaks with a soft voice but has a considerable intellect.

I published his brilliant study of the Lincoln limousine in MURDER and I

have defended his research in many contexts, including a recent thread

on this very forum. Why he should denigrate his own IQ escapes me,

because he ordinarily qualifies as one of the more patient and thorough

-going students of JFK in town--with the striking exception of his work on

Judyth, which has been slipshod in the extreme. He has taken a casual

approach to this thread, reading intermittently and often posting without

catching up on the state of discussion, as he has done here (see above).

If his research on the limo had been this shoddy, I would not have used

it. Judyth appears to be a special case that tests the integrity of us all.

On the other hand, there have been interesting contributions from others

who were not well known to me, including Michael Hogan, Karl Kinaski,

and Pamela Brown, who have made subtle and penetrating comments,

with which I often agree. Others have been more predictable, such as

. . . . Well, you know their names. They practice the art of flooding the

thread each time I make a consequential post, in the hope that no one

is going to notice. Those who want to study the black arts could learn a

thing or two from them. I close with a tip of my hat to Dean Hartwell,

who has (from my point of view) been the most objective and balanced

of the contributors to this thread. And in recognition thereof, I present:

Doug,

While we will be responding to several of the issues that you raise, I have

one for you. What have you done to pursue the prosecution of one James

Files, who has provided a detailed confession of his role as an assassin of

JFK? I might be more impressed with the zeal of your pursuit of Judyth,

if I thought there is any chance this is not a case of selective prosecution.

Since Files' confession has been around for some time and you are no

doubt aware of it, has your determination to track down evil-doers been

displayed in this case? Because it seems to me to have none of the kinds

of ambiguity that surround Judyth's case, where I am convinced that you

are attempting to intimidate a witness and violating canons of legal ethics.

Jim

Viklund, I should have added you as a cheerleader for the anti-Judyth cult.

In case you haven't noticed, I have posted rebuttals to virtually every one

of the vast number of criticisms that have been lodged against her. Why in

the world would you think that I would believe in Judyth without doing my

own homework? I have explained many times why your claims about her

stay in Sweden are baseless on their face. Jack has made many worthless

criticisms and does not even bother to read the most important work about

Judyth. Lifton won't share his precious cassette, no doubt because it would

reveal aspects of their conversation that he wants to conceal. Weldon has

gone off the deep end with this absurdity about bringing murder charges

against her. None of you has ever conceded that she had anything right!

This kind closed-mindedness in the face of contrary evidence is distinctive

of a cult. I plan to tackle some issues that remain, but I have no reason to

think anti-Judyth zealots like the four of you will ever change your minds.

Fetzer:

"There is nothing here that impugns the integrity of Judyth."

You've by now gotten arguments from 15-20 of the most experienced JFK researchers, and from several others too. I cannot recollect that the two of you have accepted one single argument to this day from the other side as of yet. You are lecturing others about how to deal with arguments, and still you are far from acting this way yourself.

What I remember from the mod group back in 2008 is that you are doing exactly what Shackelford did then. He's not around anymore - I wonder for how long you'll be around with this nonsense?

Jim:

A hysterical response does not change reality. The simple facts are Judyth, if she is truthful, participated in creating a substance to kill Castro. Judyth became awre that the substance was going to be used on person(s) who lacked the capacity to know what was going to happen to them. She objected, knew that tests were being done, but did nothing. She visited one of the subjects who was dying in agony and again did nothing. Tell me why this is not muurder. There are a number of attorneys on this forum. Dean Hartwell has stated that he is a law school graduate and he is a supporter of you and Judyth. I am open to analysis but you, with no experience in the law, are not in a position to simply ignore or dismiss such. Let the attorneys come forward and tell me where my analysis is faulty. I was very careful in charging people with crimes because I knew that decision I would make would forever change the life of the person I accused no matter what the final outcome would be. I took the responsibility very seriously. This case would need a corpus, an identifiable victim(s), but if that could be established it would be a very powerful case for murder. Whether that legal obstacle could be overcome the fact is, again if Judyth is telling the truth and its a big if unless more bona fide evidence for her veracity can be presented, this is a woman who would be morally guilty of murder.

I have watched to the you-tube videos. Judyth has certain things correct but they are things that can be researched or things that can be fabricated. Apparently there is even a research team that is assissting the preparation of her book. When I watch the you-tube videos I see someone being tossed softballs and the interviewer clapping for her without pursuing the inconsistencies that are known to exist in her changing of stories. Judyth elaborated on the fine hotel in Kankun in this thread but her stories go all over the place. I have been to Chichen Itza and throughout Mexico. Chichen Itza was very remote in 1963 and in many ways it still is in that it is still a long drive from Cancun today. I am open to the hard facts that would enhance her credibility. They are very simple but you continue to ignore them.

1. Have a professional analysis of the supposed writing of Oswald.

2. Have Judyth produce the tape she says she has that she claims gives a totally different account of her encounter with Mary Ferrell.

3. Tell how they were going to get these quickie divorces and find crooked priests in Mexico when she was not even sure they were going.

4. Where did Oswald learn Russian and why did Marina say he could not read it very well? What evidence is there that he read Pushkin. Listening to an opera does not qualify. Where are the books? How did Oswald get books from New York to Marina when he was never in New York in 1963?

5. Where is the evidence of the science fiction book Judyth and Oswald were writing together? What evidence is there that Oswald was interested in science fiction?

There are many more questions but this would be a good place to start. These are very fair. Do you realize what a competent attorney could do in shredding Judyth right now. Bugliousi, despite his despicable book, would salivate at the chance to cross examine Judyth. How many people on this forum do you believe are convinced by Judyth so far? My guess would be less than 10 and all the rhetoric is not going to change that until she and you begin to address the hard evidence as noted above. If I am wrong submit a list of people on this forum whom you believe support your position with the evidence presented to date. Monk is very analytical but I have to believe that even he has questions before he would totally commit to his support for her veracity. I am willing to weigh the evidence but until such issues can be addressed this is nothing more than historical fiction. Name calling is not going to change these fundamental issues. Judyth would be far better served by simply addressing them.

Doug Weldon

Jim:

I listened to the entire podcast of Judyth. Overall, she presented herself very well and with more personality than I have seen in prior interviews. The bottom line will continue to be if her assertions check out. The only question I heard addressed that I raised was the first one about the handwriting. It appeared that she is not going to have it examined but then offered a handwriting analysis herself. Again, she cannot be the analyst for her own evidence. No expert is going to reach a conclusion in a few minutes as she suggested. Some of the responses were unusual such as about the motorcade going past John Connolly's apartment on Turtle Creek Road. I thought he lived in the governor's mansion. Was she suggesting someone was filming the motorcade for him from the apartment? She also offerred that people on the forum did not know how to deal with witnesses, only documents. I assure you I have dealt with more witnesses than you can possibly imagine and I am certain that others here have experiences. Corroboration is very important. I am waiting to see how things turn out with things she has claimed to have done. Legitimate questions are being pursued. I am puzzled why you are proclaiming she is authentic while these questions are still in the air. I am keeping an open mind and seeing if her assertions are true. She will always create a doubt unless she has the handwriting properly analyzed. I was also puzzled about the monkeys. She kept saying thousands of pounds of monkeys , not thousands of monkeys, but then talked about 65 pound monkeys. She later talked about the marmousett(sic) monkeys but thousands of pounds of these would be thousands of monkeys. It may be my misunderstanding but it was not clear to me. I have yet to listen to her witnesses but will do so. It matters not to me if they are prominent or homeless or whatever but everyone judging this will weigh their demeanor, etc. I don't know if someone is confronting them with question. I wish I could question them.

I recall that Lifton wrote that he would post the tape with Judyth as an mp3 for all to hear if Judyth would sign a release. Wouldn't that be the most fair method since it is not you that needs to be convinced but rather than all the people who are interested in her story? They are the ultimate jury. Nobody is going to judge this because of what you, I,David, Barb, Jack, etc.ay. They will judge for themselves. There is one major point on which I disagree with you. I think people on this forum have been very fair to her. They have made observations and asked good questions. Rather than attack them for not being observant as you I think you need to understand that these are people truly interested in the assassination. Are people not interested going to even pay attention to this? Between your 152 I.Q. and my 75 I.Q. I am certain the vast majority of the people following this will fall somewhere in between and it is not you or I, but it is the court of public opinion that will need to be persuaded.

Doug Weldon

Jim:

I hope this is my last reply to this thread. I listened to both podcasts. Judyth never responded to any of the four questions I raised except to state she will not submit the alleged LHO writing to an independent handwriting analysis. I became even more concerned when I heard how much she knows about handwriting analysis annd offered her opinions on the writings.. It further raises my concern that the writing could be a careFul forgery. Yes, I am a poor typist and unfortunately this forum does not provide a spelling analysis. How would I possibly know what the statute of limitations or laws are in California? In many states if one party knows a conversation is being taped it is legal. I have no devotion to Harvey and Lee but there are many impressive points. I believe that very few of the pertinent questions in this forum have been adequately addressed. I think it likely that Judyth has convinced very few people on this forum and probably has done herself a disservice. Judyth asked why people on this forum did not ask her questions directly on this forum? It is the same logic she has used with many of her contentions. She ignores that she used you as a conduit for whatever points or questions she chose to address. It is time for this to end. Good luck on her book and movie rights. Ultimately she remains an elusive and damaged witness.

Doug Weldon

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Here's a nice example of the quality of Jack's recent arguments. What is

the basis for his claim that "Harvey" was circumcised but "Lee" was not?

Harvey (killed by Jack Ruby) WAS circumcised, according to his autopsy.

Lee, born a Lutheran and not a Jew in New Orleans in 1939, very likely was

NOT circumcised, as in those days it was not a routine operation, but a religious

ceremony, done by a rabbi.

I was born in 1940 and I was circumcised. Throughout high school and

in college and the Marine Corps, I virtually never encountered anyone who

was not. If I had to guess, I would say that less than 5%--probably closer

to 1%--of men in my experience were uncircumcised. Jack likes to claim

that he depends upon DOCUMENTATION. Not only does he have NONE to

support this claim but the statistical data based upon my experience runs

completely opposed. With a probably approaching .99, "Lee" was probably

circumcised, too. Jack is pulling his argument right out of his anal aperture.

Jim keeps saying "Jack is confounded by the difference in thousands of pounds of monkeys and

thousands of monkeys."

This is false, as I have said several times. A thousand pounds of marmosets = 3000 monkeys.

On the other hand, if KING KONG were the monkey in Ferrie's apartment, then a thousand pounds =

one monkey.

Jim is not reading every posting. I have said this at least twice.

I am not confounded. The monkey business is. We cannot get a straight answer from JVB about

the monkeys and their "processing", questions that have been asked several times.

Jack

Jack:

In the podcasts Judyth refers to 65 pound monkeys. The circumcision issue is very telling. How does Judyth get around her 2000 e-mail?

Doug Weldon

What about the marmosets? That was the big issue last week. A 65 pound monkey is huge (chimp or baboon) and

much more expensive than smaller species.

Harvey (killed by Jack Ruby) WAS circumcised, according to his autopsy. Lee, born a Lutheran and not a Jew in

New Orleans in 1939, very likely was NOT circumcised, as in those days it was not a routine operation, but a religious

ceremony, done by a rabbi.

I think the JVB amazon review using a pseudonym is suspicious.

Jack