Jump to content
The Education Forum

Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile


Guest James H. Fetzer

Recommended Posts

This is absolute nonsense. You need to go back and do some reading in this thread.

Jim Fetzer has ATTACKED several people even with regards to who they are, just for starters. This has been his instant reaction to their first posting in this thread. Myself, Dolva, Williams, to name a few. Paranoia, Greg, ever heard of that?

No need to be condescending, I'm not an idiot.

I've seen a lot of stupid things in this thread, but I am still surprised to see anyone actually defending his outrageously indefensible manors and the way he has conducted himself. He has broken every rule in the book over and over again, here. Hundreds of times, no doubt. AND, the mud has been directed towards every single one who has opposed his ridiculous, clownish way of argue about this matter.
[emphasis added]

Well, that is demonstrably false. First of all, characterizing his style of arguing as "ridiculous and clownish" is a subjective judgment. Second, to claim he has directed "mud" at every single one who has opposed his assertions is obviously false since he has not directed mud at me!

On the other hand, Fetzers desperation to find support for his standings, has been just as clear. No matter how silly, how wrong, how insignificant or outright irrelevant the argument, anyone who has supported him has been embraced as "brave and forthcoming".

Have you ever heard of "begging the question"? Well, you are.

Those are the people that are "very clever", "very intelligent", "very observant" and, indeed, the only ones who have actually read the "facts and evidence".

Indeed. And they are few and far between.

Nonsensical has gotten a whole new meaning through the course of this thread. Open your eyes, Greg.

You condescending little [expletive deleted by author]! I have my eyes wide open. I do not take sides on this one for a reason. I have not done adequate research on all of her claims to render a well informed opinion. WHAT HAVE YOU DONE, really, besides read forum posts? Not one thing by comparison!

It is extremely telling that many of those who consider themselves "researchers" have not actually researched anything beyond what is written on "internet forums" --and act as though they know what they are talking about!

Sorry, I lost my temper admins. Censor me if you must...but golly gee--this is ridiculous!

Edited by Greg Burnham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This is absolute nonsense. You need to go back and do some reading in this thread.

Jim Fetzer has ATTACKED several people even with regards to who they are, just for starters. This has been his instant reaction to their first posting in this thread. Myself, Dolva, Williams, to name a few. Paranoia, Greg, ever heard of that?

No need to be condescending, I'm not an idiot.

I've seen a lot of stupid things in this thread, but I am still surprised to see anyone actually defending his outrageously indefensible manors and the way he has conducted himself. He has broken every rule in the book over and over again, here. Hundreds of times, no doubt. AND, the mud has been directed towards every single one who has opposed his ridiculous, clownish way of argue about this matter.
[emphasis added]

Well, that is demonstrably false. First of all, characterizing his style of arguing as "ridiculous and clownish" is a subjective judgment. Second, to claim he has directed "mud" at every single one who has opposed his assertions is obviously false since he has not directed mud at me!

Have you ever heard of "begging the question"? Well, you are.

Indeed. And they are few and far between.

You condescending little [expletive deleted by author]! I have my eyes wide open. I do not take sides on this one for a reason. I have not done adequate research on all of her claims to render a well informed opinion. WHAT HAVE YOU DONE, really, besides read forum posts? Not one thing by comparison!

It is extremely telling that many of those who consider themselves "researchers" have not actually researched anything beyond what is written on "internet forums" --and act as though they know what they are talking about!

Sorry, I lost my temper admins. Censor me if you must...but golly gee--this is ridiculous!

Well, if it was condescending, that goes for the both of us. I am 55 years old, and hardly "little" to you, Greg. Not by age, not by academic qualifications or by any other standard. So let's just quit this side of things, OK?

Demonstrably false that Fetzer has trown mud toward every single one? Fair enough - I should not have used the word opposed, but the words opposed to his arguments and to JVBs story. If you can show one such person who fits this bill and has not been abused by Fetzer, be my guest. I can provide certainly 25-30 examples who fits my bill. Easily. But the point is that you neglected this, when you are stating that: "Therefore, he has not, in fact, "attacked" anyone or everyone who fails to embrace JVB's story." And even though your statement might be true, it is, to say the least, quite selective. As you, by this definition, seems to imply that Fetzer's conduct in this thread is OK. The group you intentionally left out, is in a clear majority in this thread. Those who do not believe JVB. To those "neutral", well, first of all how do we know who those are? I see a lot of skepticism, but this doesn't necessarily tell you what to conclude.

Not clownish or ridiculous? I agree, it's subjective. But, it's one proper way of describing it. First, what Fetzer refers to as "evidence", are no evidence. Not by any standard whatsoever. Second, he has managed to disregard anything in this thread that has been brought forward, suggesting that JVB is not telling the truth. The way he has done this, very often by trying to discredit the person instead of by reasoning with arguments, is ridiculous! Him questionening, against all rules, who people are? What's that? What's that got to do with anything, with the arguments?? That, is ridiculous!

Fetzer not recognizing that the JVB story has been going on for a decade without him knowing much about it, should be somewhat humbling to most people. Not to Fetzer, though. He has repeatedly dismissed arguments of this kind as "old drivel". It is by no means "old drivel" when it comes to JVB. Her story is a question of credibility. This includes what she has said and done over the past decade, which has made a whole lot of researchers conclude that she's a hoax. To neglect this history side of things the way Fetzer is doing - is ridiculous!

On a personal note. I have not claimed to be a "researcher", period. I have claimed to have facts from her asylum process. Those facts have repeatedly been referred to as "rebutted drivel" from Fetzer. That's ridiculous! I have shown where I got them and this has been confirmed as correct. And yet, Fetzer is trying to discredit me for doing this? That's ridiculous! And to suggest that I am "collaborating" with Barb and with McAdams, is not only ridiculous - it's simply utterly false! To even suggest, as Fetzer has, that I was paid by McAdams, well, I'd better not state how that should be described, false doesn't do it properly!

I have also "suggested" why she did not tell the truth about her asylum experience, which is subjective, but nonetheless very logical. If Fetzer had only once, dared to discuss those "suggestions", it would not have been ridiculous. That's what any real researcher would be expected to do. Fetzer has diligently stayed away of any such thing.

What does this tell you about Fetzer, Greg?

The facts about the asylum issue speaks volumes about her credibility, as far as I am concerned. That's why I bothered about it, at all. In this little instance I've done my research and know what I'm talking about. Fetzer does not, and he knows it, so he's trying to neglect the whole thing. That's ridiculous!

Call it what you want - all those 'ridiculouses' sums up to something that could be described as clownish. Especially considering that the man himself is lecturing others in this thread about logics, about what's relevant and not when making an argument, etc.

And yes, Greg. English is not my native language, so perhaps I'm not getting it right all the time. Just don't mix it up with intellect.

Edited by Glenn Viklund
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moreover, their rapid-cancer bio-weapon appears to have been a success. Jack Ruby and (now) Steven Brown both appear to have been among its victims. It is one of the greatest disappointments of my life that my dear friend cannot bring himself to acknowledge the abundant evidence in this case.

"Rapid"?

See: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2342

April, 1964: CIA Psychiatrist, Dr Jolyon West, treats Ruby with hypnosis and drugs. (11) (reported in the NYT, April, 1964)

October 1966: The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reverses Ruby's conviction on the grounds of improper admission of testimony and the necessity of a change of venue. Arrangements are made for a new trial in February, in Wichita Falls.

December 9, 1966: Ruby is admitted to Parkland Hospital in Dallas, apparently suffering from pneumonia. Testing quickly reveals lung cancer.

January 3, 1967: Ruby dies in hospital of a blood clot in the lungs which has travelled from his leg. (12)

(12) The number one cause of lung cancer is cigarette smoking, representing 85 to 90 percent of all cases. Other causes include exposure to radon, asbestos, nickel, chloromethyl ether, chromium, beryllium and arsenic (a by-product of copper), as well as exposure to passive smoke or "second-hand" smoke. A person is "at risk" of developing lung cancer if they: smoke; are over the age of 50; work in industries where substances such as asbestos, nickel, chloromethyl ether, chromium, beryllium or arsenic are used; have or have had a lung disease; have a family history of lung cancer; are former smokers; have been exposed to second-hand smoke over many years or; have been exposed to radon. (Tenet Health Care Corporation Library) As a non-smoker, Ruby’s only risk factors would, on the surface, appear to be his age, and long-term exposure to second-hand smoke. In jail, Ruby reported to one of his psychiatrists, Dr Manfred Guttmacher, that he had been to see Dr Ulevich on November 11, 1963 due to a bronchial cough. Dr Ulevitch took x-rays, but Ruby had been too busy to get the results. He believed he had "walking pneumonia". (DPD JFK files) The previously mentioned Dr Walter Bromberg, stated in his report that Ruby had felt he suffered pneumonia on and off for a number of years. (DPD JFK files) It was a diagnosis of pneumonia, as we have seen, which resulted in Ruby being sent to Parkland Hospital. "Walking pneumonia" is caused by mycoplasma – the smallest free-living organism known to man. One of the characteristics of these tiny organisms is their ability to completely mimic or copy the protein of the host cell which can cause the immune system to attack the body’s own cells; an event that happens in all auto-immune diseases. First isolated in humans in 1932, it was not until the 1950s that one strain was identified as the cause of atypical ("walking") pneumonia. (Web Article: Mycoplasmas - Stealth Pathogens). Before death, Ruby’s cancer had spread to both his liver and his brain. This tends to rule out second-hand smoke as the culprit because although small cell lung cancer is the type that spreads quickly to other organs, it is most often found in people who are themselves heavy smokers. (Rhodes Island Cancer Council). What we are left with then, is some other carcinogen as the probable cause. Beryllium is one logical answer given beryllium dust shuts down the immune system, allowing the lungs to be damaged, and tumors to form and spread to other organs. It also creates ideal conditions for mycoplasma to thrive. (The Unified Health Physics Modelling Scientific Report). It is not a stretch to suggest that Ruby may have first come into contact with beryllium whilst in the Army Air Force and stationed at Farmingdale where the F-12 was being built, since this heavy metal is much used in the aviation and space industries. His association with the National Research Corporation through John C Jackson provides a second possibility for beryllium exposure to have occurred. The NRC was named in a May 25, 2001 report issued by the US General Accounting Office as being one of the locations where beryllium was used or detected. The evidence however, points only to low grade exposure in the 1950‘s (and possibly back to the 1940‘s), causing atypical recurring pneumonia, and a weakened immune system rather than cancerous tumors (which would have required a higher exposure): nothing lethal if he kept fit and otherwise healthy. That Ruby was a health and fitness fanatic indicates he may have had some knowledge of his exposure. So what did happened to trigger his cancer ? Alan Adelson tells us in "The Ruby Oswald Affair" that Jack’s sister, Eva Grant, first noticed Jack’s illness as early as June, 1966 , and that by September, he was throwing up every day. If his illness was evident in June 1966, then it is feasible that the onset of cancer coincided with Dr Jolyon West’s visit in April, 1964 to administer hypnosis and drugs (refer to note 10). This was the month after the trial ended, and when appeals would be in full swing. It is unfortunately common for such a period of time to pass between onset and when symptoms become manifest. In this case, it took another 7 months after the onset of symptoms before a diagnosis of lung cancer was made. It is possible, but unlikely, that Ruby had the cancer prior to the assassination. This is because of the x rays Dr Ulevitch took of Ruby’s chest on November 11. Though not fool proof, most lung cancer patients show an abnormal x ray. (Cancerline UK). It is widely known that Ruby believed injections he was being given, were cancer cells. He truly believed he was being murdered in this most unusual manner. And why would he not be paranoid about such a possibility since in January 1964, it was widely reported that elderly patients at the Jewish Chronic Disease Hospital in Brooklyn had been injected with live cancer cells as part of an experiment conducted by two eminent physicians from Sloan-Kettering? A court battle over the records of patients involved kept the story bubbling until at least 1966. Deputy sheriff Al Maddox claimed to researchers in the 1980s that the doctor who gave Ruby the injections was from Chicago. Though not from Chicago, Alan Adelson said he had met with Dr Jolyon West in the Windy City to discuss the case. (Earl Ruby HSCA testimony) The last word however, probably should go to the Inspector General in reference to CIA medical experiments: "The risk of compromise of the program through correct diagnosis of an illness by an unwitting medical specialist is regularly considered and is stated to be a governing factor in the decision to conduct a given test. The Bureau officials also maintain close working relations with local police authorities which could be utilized to protect the activity in critical situations." (July 26, 1963 memo from JS Eamon to Director, CIA).

As shown, it was at least 7 months between onset of symptoms and diagnosis. That he died relatively quickly after the diagnosis is irrelevant to proving anything. As I have said, there are major problems with Judyth's story beyond a possible brief affair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I resent that Jim, I think I'm the one who has made the least intersting post in this topic.

egit:typo

Edited by John Dolva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

There are major problems with Parker's critique here, including that Judyth has only voiced the suspicion that Ruby was taken out using the bio-weapon. I personally find it very plausible and would not consider the case resolved based upon official records. So he can direct his criticism toward me, since I have advanced the conjecture that both he and even Steven Brown may have been taken out using it. Once someone has entered a hospital, it is relatively easy to subject them to abusive treatments, so I regard the case involving Ruby as still open. And Brown's is equally interesting. If this project was indeed its #1 "crown jewel", secrecy about it now is inexplicable if it was never used.

Edited by Evan Burton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Actually, John, you have made an extremely interesting post on the Hartwell thread,

which suggested to me that you are giving this more thought that your posts display.

I resent that Jim, I think I'm the one who has made the least intersting post in this topic.

egit:typo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim, I've already stated my agreement with Robert C.D. in the vote topic, with qualifiers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, John, you have made an extremely interesting post on the Hartwell thread,

which suggested to me that you are giving this more thought that your posts display.

I resent that Jim, I think I'm the one who has made the least intersting post in this topic.

egit:typo

Im sure John will rest much better knowing you approve.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this thread should be EXCLUSIVELY about the claims of JVB, not about any of the persons

who express opinions on the subject.

I am thinking of starting a series of new threads which would be limited to a SINGLE CLAIM on

each thread. The current discussion has become so unwieldy it is IMPOSSIBLE to find what

anyone said on some previous occasion. It would work like this:

Investigating a claim: LHO WAS CIRCUMCISED

Investigating a claim: LHO INTRODUCED JVB TO DR. OSCHNER

Investigating a claim: JVB WAS INTRODUCED TO SPARKY RUBENSTEIN

Investigating a claim: LHO STOLE A GREEN GLASS AND WAS FIRED

Investigating a claim: DR. SHERMAN WAS MURDERED BY A PARTICLE ACCELERATOR

Investigating a claim: THE IQ OF JVB WAS THE HIGHEST OF ANY PERSON IN FLORIDA

Investigating a claim: CARLOS MARCELLO PROVIDED A MAFIA PHONE LINE FOR LHO AND JVB

Investigating a claim: JVB AND FERRIE PROCESSED THOUSANDS OF POUNDS OF MONKEYS

eteetcetcetetceteetcetcetetceteetcetcetetceteetcetcetetcadinfinitum

I will initiate some of the above threads, but others could add threads of their own interest

or field of expertise. All I would ask is that everone use the same format of "investigating

a claim"...so that each questionable subject would be restricted to a single topic for ease

of handling. I would also suggest that only PRO and CON information be included, and personal

comments or attacks be left out. Does anyone like this idea? If so, feel free to initiate the

first thread on a subject of your choice, using the suggested format. I can't right now,

because I am about to go out for lunch.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this thread should be EXCLUSIVELY about the claims of JVB, not about any of the persons

who express opinions on the subject.

I am thinking of starting a series of new threads which would be limited to a SINGLE CLAIM on

each thread.

I was afraid this would occur. I saw it happen on alt.ass.mcadams -- JVB threads

metastasize like some horrid cancer, taking all the air out of the group (fetid as

such air already was over there).

First there was the original thread; then there was the thread about the original thread;

then there was the poll about the original thread.

Any day now I expect to see the entire front page of what used to be a JFK forum

completely taken over by JVB threads.

It'll be like what MEET THE BEATLES did to the US Top Ten in early '64!

I gotta an idea -- why not give JVB her own forum so that the students of the

JFK (remember him?) assassination can continue their studies with only

occasional off-topic comic relief.

:rant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is amazing. I just noticed this thread, and it's already 178 pages long. Is this a forum record?

I wonder what little nuggets of knowledge could be mined from this thread. I read the last page or so, and found the info on Ruby's cancer to be interesting, buried amid all the boring bickering.

Perhaps if Cliff Varnell would be willing to write an outline of the thread, it could be used by all of us students of the assassination as "Cliff's Notes" on the classic thread "Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile."

Otherwise, forget it. (But that's just me.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is amazing. I just noticed this thread, and it's already 178 pages long. Is this a forum record?

I wonder what little nuggets of knowledge could be mined from this thread. I read the last page or so, and found the info on Ruby's cancer to be interesting, buried amid all the boring bickering.

Perhaps if Cliff Varnell would be willing to write an outline of the thread, it could be used by all of us students of the assassination as "Cliff's Notes" on the classic thread "Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile."

Otherwise, forget it. (But that's just me.)

It's the boring bickering that's the most fun!

As long as it's kept to a minimum number of threads...ahem...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something just occurred to me. It is stated, in conjunction with Haslam's "Dr. Mary's Monkey," that Dr. Mary Sherman died "on the day that the Warren Commission began its investigation in New Orleans." (paraphrase)

Sherman died on July 21, 1964.

But the Warren Commission investigation of New Orleans was ongoing, from its first months, when it received its first FBI and Secret Service reports. By April 7, 1964, Wesley Liebeler was in New Orleans interviewing Sidney Edward Voebel, and Albert Jenner was there interviewing Freddie O'Sullivan. It is hard to believe that the Warren Commission "began its investigation in New Orleans" near the end of July, so late in the game, when the report was already being written.

Is the assertion above actually a fact (source?) or a factoid - something written as a (wrong) guess, and then repeated from book to book?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are major problems with Parker's critique here,

Jim, it wasn't a critique. It was a footnote to my Ruby Timeline. You only had to click the link to see that. However, if you have spotted major problems with it, I honestly would appreciate them being pointed out.

including that Judyth has only voiced the suspicion that Ruby was taken out using the bio-weapon.

Well, that gets back to one of the more reasonable criticisms of Judyth; where do memories cease and research begin. And here apparently it was neither memory nor research, but pure conjecure.

I personally find it very plausible and would not consider the case resolved based upon official records.

It won't be closed by a SUPERFICIAL and SELECTIVE look at the records -- which is ALL that EVER happens.Tell me who else has given any consideration to Ruby's claim of having "walking pnuemonia"? No one except me, as far as I know. Yet given his later cancer, his past exposure to berylium in the USAF and his paranoia about keeping fit and eating well, it makes perfect sense that he did in fact, have "walking" (atypical) pneumonia.

So he can direct his criticism toward me, since I have advanced the conjecture that both he and even Steven Brown may have been taken out using it.

The only criticisms I have are that you did not label it conjecture, nor claim it as your own and the other was as previously indicated - there was nothing "rapid" about the cancer onset, and I believe I proved that beyond too much doubt.

Once someone has entered a hospital, it is relatively easy to subject them to abusive treatments, so I regard the case involving Ruby as still open.

Please read what I posted again. It contained details of a major news story at the time - of patients at a Jewish hospital being injected with cancer under the guise of treatment.

I also finish by showing how local law enforcement co operated with the CIA in such matters.

And Brown's is equally interesting. If this project was indeed its #1 "crown jewel", secrecy about it now is inexplicable if it was never used.

That is conjecture based upon conjecture. Where is the logic, let alone the science in that?

But don't take my word for anything. As I have already declared - I'm just a bodgie from the bush (descending from the convict classes via monkey gland experiments) who lerft school at 14 and isn't qualified enough to tie his own shoelaces.

edit: typos, format

Edited by Greg Parker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forum Members: I feel that Jim Fetzer wants to opt out of the discussion of Oswald's penis and call it a "moot" point because he doesn't want Judyth "damaged," a word Doug Weldon used. So Prof. Fetzer comes up with a compromise that Oswald had a "partial" circumcision.

Greg Burnham -- says we are dehuminizing LHO. I don't think so. They even exhumed him. This is what is done when you're after the truth. That's what autopsies are about. That's what this forum is about.

Kathy Beckett -- is disgusted. I'm not. I don't think the majority of members (no pun intended) here are offended. This info on Oswald is relevant for the 2 Oswalds theory.

Judyth -- is either travelling or is sick. This is why her answer to this question defines her status here. And I think Jim and Judyth want to cover their tracks, Jim saying it is irrelevant, etc. He wants to drop the subject, yet he holds onto Judyth's other claims like a dog with a bone. Is he after truth?

Kathy C

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...