Kathleen Collins

And when it comes to more serious questions about the alleged differences between "Harvey" and "Lee", such as their alleged difference in eye color, the claim that "Harvey" was born in Hungary, that "Lee" had a missing tooth, and such, the situation becomes even more bizarre. Judyth has presented a brilliant study of the eye-color issue, which, in my opinion, lays the issue to rest. The alleged difference almost certainly did not exist. And she has observed that the man she knew had no trace of a Hungarian accent, but only a slight Cajun accent, which suggests that that claim is unsupportable, too.

I wondered what a Cajun accent sounds like. Here's an example from Youtube.com. I don't think it sounds like Harvey at all. And I certainly don't hear such an accent from Robert Oswald.

Kathy C

Judyth is about as "real deal" as Anna Anderson

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Anderson

Yes, the Anastasia Syndrome or The Living Lindbergh Baby. There have been men who claimed they were the Lindbergh baby and that another infant was found dead. Of course, it wasn't true. There are a number of examples. I remember some young man posing as the son of Sidney Portier. Several women claimed to be Marilyn Monroe's daughter, whom she gave up for adoption supposedly.

When Judyth was on Rich D.'s forum, everything she said was vague. You would ask her questions and she'd answer that she was too sick to go into detai about her relationship with LHO. I, too, tried to coax her into telling us something. I thought we had a nice exchange. Then she disappeared. Did the people who brought her overseas, stay with her and make sure she had decent housing and access to medical help?

Now someone here, I think Doug Weldon, said she fills all the holes in the Lee Harvey Oswald saga. I agree. Back on jfkresearch.com she talked around things and wasn't specific about anything. She was always ill. She is still ill. But she did a hell of a lot of research since then. (She left Rich's forum, then said he called her a "slut." He in no way did.)

But I wonder about this lady. Why did her science projects not continue? Because the cancer inducer was top secret and Kennedy died? Why would the President's death stop cancer research, even though it was from the CIA? And throwing Oswald into this story. It's ludicrous.

I wish her the best though. She's had a rough life and was so talented.

Kathy C

Jim seems to be determined to lash out out the researcher who said that JVB had an emotional problem.

Therefore, I am compelled to state:

IT WAS NOT A BEWILDERED DAVID LIFTON, WHOM JIM CALLED AND CUSSED OUT.

IT WAS NOT DOUG WELDON, WHO IS MORE POLITE AND SOFT SPOKEN THAN ANY RESEARCHER I KNOW.

Jim ought not to keep making such accusatory guesses. More than a dozen researchers have emailed

me expressing concern that Jim has gone off the deep end and is ruining all the credibility and good will

he has built up. If he eventually guesses the researcher, what will it gain him...another tongue-lashing

opportunity?

I wish Jim could see himself as OTHERS are seeing him.

Jack

JIM REPLIES TO DOUG WELDON ABOUT HIS ABSURD TAKE ON JUDYTH VARY BAKER

This appears to be the voice of a guilty conscience from someone who has not been paying attention. It

has only recently dawned upon me that Doug Weldon has a certain streak of arrogance about him. He is

among those whose work I have admired in the past--where I have defended him many times, just as I

have Jack and Lifton--but who somehow wants to do it his own way, which of course is also fine with me.

When I read what Jack had posted, it upset me tremendously, and I called David Lifton to ask if he had

been the author of that post. David assured me that he had not. In light of this (to my mind, ridiculous)

post by Doug Weldon, I now surmise that it was he who wrote to Jack, as I imagine he had done several

times. He thinks I was wrong to condemn Jack for posting his cruel post, and he wants to make amends.

He can correct me if I am wrong, but that appears to be his motivation. I am profoundly disappointed that

this man would marshall so much effort to publish such rubbish. If anything has become clear during the

course of this thread, it is that Judyth was where she claimed to have been associating with exactly those

she identified and doing precisely what she always claimed to have been doing. That much is utterly clear.

She was a brilliant, young, talented and idealistic woman who thought she might make a difference in the

battle against cancer. She was recruited by Alton Ochsner to come to New Orleans with the promise of a

fellowship and early admission to medical school. She worked with Mary Sherman and David Ferrie on one

of the most covert medical research projects in American history. And she was protected by Lee H. Oswald!

Doug Weldon has such vast belief in his powers of observation and reasoning that he does not understand

that this woman's entire life was lived out in about six-month's time. She was obsessive-compulsive about

every detail of her existence in New Orleans and absorbed what was happening around her like a sponge.

She kept records and documents and receipts and knows the details of that entire interval of her existence.

And that is because IT WAS HER ENTIRE LIFE. I am obsessive-compulsive myself. Ask my wife. I kept every

cancelled check I had ever written until I was around 60 years of age. Judyth, I have observed to myself and

perhaps occasionally on this thread, is smarter than anyone else here--including me! Doug has never had an

encounter with someone like her. He didn't believe her story. And now he is here feebly trying to explain why.

Feeling guilty because I broke off with Jack for posting a rubbish attack that should have been beneath them

both, Weldon has come here to display (what he takes to be) his vast sophistication and powers of reasoning

by making claims that might be true in most cases but do not apply to Judyth. He even disregards Ed Haslam's

astonishing research, which provides the framework within which Judyth's stunning story has to be understood.

There is more fakery and fraud in this single post from Doug Weldon than in the hundreds of posts that I have

exchanged with Judyth. Why anyone would think that I would allow myself to be taken in if she were a fraud

is beyond me. Am I not supposed to grasp that my reputation and credibility is on the line? Am I not able to

see what is so clear to Jack and to Dough and to others here who are not convinced by what she has to say?

The extent of the ops against Judyt boggle the mind if she actually were a fraud. The fact is that Doug Weldon

has posted this even after Howard Platzman has made some of the most discerning observations of them all:

(1) How well the totality of her testimony and documents explains mysteries that haunt the case better than any other extant story. For one of many instances, her explanation of the Clinton-Jackson witnesses is far more believable than any that has been offered elsewhere, even by Joan Mellen who brags that this is her expertise yet delivers a story that is ultimately incoherent.

(2) How well it predicts future finds and generates productive leads. In fact, her story of Clinton-Jackson "predicted" 60 Minutes' finding of an FBI report that Garrison was about to indict Alton Ochsner. Though king of INCA, his name has not come up in connection with any conspiracy to kill anyone. In fact, he was conspiring to kill Castro, with Judyth's help. but Garrison never quite figured this out -- it is fascinating to read his Playboy interview that includes musings about Ferrie and a bioweapon aimed at Castro.

The research community needs to go back to school. Standards for what count as evidence -- and for how much evidence is enough evidence -- are generally lacking in those who consider themselves professional researchers, whereas so many of them are just plain not (pace Jim, Jack White's maunderings have always struct me as below par). As for whose anti-Judyth work deserves serious attention, I am inclined to think that Barb J holds first place. She has actually made phone calls and spoken to witnesses (not to Judyth, alas).

The problem with Barb is that she doesn't realize that what she found fundamentally supports Judyth's claims! Barb tried to refute Judyth's claim that she did any serious work at Roswell when, in fact, she proved the opposite. Judyth was heartbroken over the loss of the paper she wrote based on her Roswell studies. In the end, Barb found the abstract to the paper. I thanked her for her diligence and contribution to the cause. She didn't seem to understand -- or didn't want to.

Doug may have been reading posts, but he hasn't been paying attention. I would take one Judyth over a dozen

Weldons, Whites, and others unnamed. At this point in time, there is no excuse for anyone to doubt the identity

of Judyth Vary Baker. Read what Howard has said. He has it exactly right. Most of those here, with the notable

exception of Michael Hogan, seem to think this is some kind of magical mystery tour. But it is too serious for that.

Judyth has reponded more openly and in greater detail than anyone I have ever seen. Her experiences during

that concentrated period of time were virtually imprinted upon her memory--which, like her mind in general, is

far superior to that of most of those here. What Doug has said might fit most people, but Judyth never was one

of them. She is simply a superior human being who has sacrificed her life doing what she believed to be right!

Reread what Howard has to said. Study Ed Haslam's book. She was lured to New Orleans. She met Ochsner.

She worked with Mary Sharman and David Farrie. She did all the things she said she has done and they were

welcome and appreciated in New Orleans just as she has explained it. Nothing else makes any sense at all. I

am stunned at the incapacity to think things through by some I have admired in the past. They really should get

over it. Judyth is "the real deal" and what she has to tell us transforms our understanding of the death of JFK.

NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF FRIENDSHIP WITH JACK WHITE, WHO HAS FINALLY DISGUSTED ME

I cannot believe that someone I have admired in the past would stoop to such a sophomoric level by

lodging such a blatant ad hominem. Those who resort to arguments of this caliber have discredited

themselves massively. I denounce each and every one of them, including the author of the post Jack

has repeated her and the hack who posted it. I am completely disgusted and want nothing more to

do with them. Michael Hogan and Howard Platzman are honorable men. Those who resort to such

disgraceful tactics are not. Cease and desist, Jack White. You have forefeitted being taken seriously.

Please know that I want nothing more to do with you in any context at all. We are no longer friends.

It seems that most researchers (wisely) do not want to become involved in the thread re JVB. For

some reason many of them seem to focus on emailing me to vent their feelings at a safe venue. So

far about a dozen have emailed me varying messages about JVB. Here is a typical EXCERPT from one

received just today (anonymous for obvious reasons):

"I have believed for years that sexual frustration lies at the root of JVB’s motives – that she is more to be pitied than deplored. The sad but indisputable fact is that she is now overweight and unattractive and was once rather attractive (amply endowed, as she has pointed out on occasion), showing much promise in her academic abilities which never came to fruition. She has lived a life peppered with disappointment, unable to get along with people for more than a few weeks. Every relationship – mostly with men -- eventually goes down the toilet."

There are many other unsolicited emails. They are wise to not enter the public area of controversy. This

has been going on for ten years now, with new supporters taking up the torch when others become

disenchanted. How much longer will it go on?

Jack

Nothing bothers me more in this thread than this posting. On the windshield thread I noted more than once that one did not have to agree with me to be my friend. Barb, Tink, and Jerry disagree with me about the hole in the windshield but I have no personal animosity towards any of them. I simply believed that the arguments were becoming circuitous and that there was not enough understanding of the witnesses to engage further in a constructive dialog. I was not going to write my book on the thread but I did find portions of the thread to be constructive and at the end I actually held a higher opinion and respect for these people than I did at the beginning. If one has to agree with everything one posits then all of us are going to have a very short list of friends.

Each of us is entitled to an opinion and to weigh the evidence and because one has a higher educational background it does not make their opinion or analysis superior to anothers. I have five years of undergraduate credits, a law degee, a masters degree, and I am 6 course hours short of completing the course work for a P.H.D. in education. I think Joe Biden would rightfully respond to that, "Big F---ing Deal!" My analysis is not superior to anyone's.

I am going to make some personal references. I believe friendships and relationships are what is most important in life. If anyone on this forum believes that we are going to develop a total concensus on the death of JFK and bring people to justice then they are living in a fantasyland. To seek to find truth is not only noble it is imperative to defining the society in which we live and for those who will live after us. I use the rhetorical question of why do old men plant trees that they will never see grow? History will always be the myth that people choose to believe and I, as much as anyone, would like to remove much of the myth that exists about November 22, 1963. It is important but it is not so important that we destroy the friendships and relationships that are truly the essence of our lives. Again, I make a personal reference. It is easy to become obsessed in pursuing the truth in the JFK labrynith. I recall my ex-wife telling me that I seemed to pay more attention to a dead president than I did to her. Sadly, in retrospect, she was often correct. For any endeavor, there is a cost to be paid. The ultimate question is whether the cost was worth it. Sometimes it is. Many times it is not. To do it again, I would have made some different decisions.

The most rewarding aspect of being involved with this for 32 years has been the wonderful people and witnesses I have gotten to know. For the witnesses who trusted me I want to keep my promise to tell their accounts for history but I am under no pretense that everyone is going to agree with me or them and I understand that even to get my book published is likely to be a difficult endeavor. I do, however, value that I got to know these witnesses as people, and in writing my book I often smile as I listen to the conversations I had with these people, many now deceased. I enjoy the researchers I have met, agree or disagree, and I respect everyone of them whom I believe has truth as their objective. It is the personal part of these people that endures for me. It is my privilege to get to know these people, even if it is only a voice on the phone or a posting on the internet. I have met Jack and Jim a number of times. I value that. They are passionate people. Some people walk into a room softly. Others come in driving a truck with horns blaring. We can respect people for who they are and the world needs all of these types.

I cannot accept Judyth's account for a number of reasons. Jim, I have watched her on TMWKK. To be honest, when I copy the segments from 2003 and give them to people I often leave out her segment because I fear it detracts from the value of episode 7, on which both you and I appeared, and segment 9. The fact that Nigel Turner believes her really means nothing. I do not believe that there was an altruistic motive for Nigel in his productions but he was motivated by it being a commercial enterprise. I am not fooling myself. Nigel spent days at my house on several occasions. If my opinion was that Oswald did it alone I doubt that my charm would have captivated his time and attention. As Jim Garrison said about the Warren Commission and being told that they were important or distinquished people had no impact on his examination of the evidence.

I have read Haslam's book with great interest. Again, I submit a personal reference. In 2001 I had non-hodgkin's lymphoma and on the Men Who Killed Kennedy I was bloated and my eyes were distorted from Chemo. What is interesting about this cancer is that it is one of the cancers that are increasing and they are finding that a large portion of the people with the cancer have evidence of the "Monkey Virus." It is that, not Judyth, which stirred my interest in the book. Ironically, Jackie Kennedy died of this cancer!

There are many things which cause me concern about Judyth. I will only note a few. One of the arguments in favor of her credibility has been that a researcher went over the known timeline of Oswald's whereabouts and activities and she got everything right. A major reason I doubt her is that she got everything right. Can you tell me everything your wife did the first week of October 2009 yet 40 plus years ago? How about what you did?

Judyth remembers EVERYTHING Oswald told her. He must have been talking from morning to night and she would have to be a stenographer to keep track of everything. How could she ever remember the japanese girl or David Phillips and other names and instances that would have no meaning to her. If somewhat shot names or stories at you forty years ago that had no meaning to you would you remember them? Why would you save your pay stubbs and records? Do you have yours from 45 years ago? Again, a personal reference. While I was teaching in the criminal justice department at Western Michigan Universityyears ago, I shared an office with a former police officer, who the following semester murdered his wife, who was a leading local newscaster. It was the first case ever on Court Television and the prosecuter was an individual I shared rides with my first year in law school. There have been three books written about the murder. How easy would it be for me to start talking about the great friendship we had, how we would go out to the bar together, and the things he would talk about. He had been having affairs with his students which added to the interest. It would be so easy to insert and mesh my life with his. The truth is I really did not know him at all.

Judyth's so-called Russian statements to Oswald when they allegedly first met are preposterous. Furthermore, Judyth's recall of statements between her and Oswald is not only amazing but also preposterous. It makes Romeo and Juliet look like a slap-stick comedy. Listen to Oswald's radio interviews and his statements in Dallas such as "a policeman hit me." Yes, Oswald was intelligent but he was not educated. Judyth's Oswald makes James Bond look like a character from Hee Haw. Listen to him. Can you picture this Oswald making the tearful heartrenching statements about Judyth having babies? Would the worst soap opera on television even think about putting such dialog in their show? When you were in the marines could you picture yourself saying such things to your wife or girlfriend? Did Oswald not have enough on his schedule with having a wife, a child, and a new born baby, and his travel and activities, that he could or would fit in this elaborate affair with Judyth? Did Oswald not have feelings towards his newly born child? If their love was so deep and the future so fragile why did Judyth not become pregnant? Who would know whose child it was?

How difficult is it to create accounts for times where Oswalds whereabouts or activities were unknown? It seems like that every time something cannot be accounted for then, lo and behold, Judyth happens to be there. Every single unknown woman Oswald happened to be seen with turns out to be, Surprise, Judyth.

Again, I am not questioning that Oswald was bright, but do you believe he was an intellectual? JFK was not an intellectual. Oswald had an IQ of 118, Kennedy 119. Obama has an IQ of 126. Ironically, the president with the highest IQ was Nixon with 164. Judyth said Oswald's favorite poet was Pushkin. I have learned a lot about Pushkin and I don't think so. He certainly did not check out any books by Pushkin at the Dallas library. Where are the books? It would be like me telling everyone that I read some Shakespearian plays everyday for light reading until I have the opportunity to read something more entertaining like "The epistomology of Statistical Analysis when comparing river sediment in Brazil."

I can go on and on. Judyth is obviously very bright which makes her ability to create an account more plausible. After reading everything she has done I am beginning to believe that this poor woman was cheated out of all the Nobel prizes. Whatever the truth is, Judyth is a damaged witness. She has read too much. When she tells of something she has done it is virtually followed by a Wilkepedia article oin the subject. She is tainted. She knows where the holes can be found in the Oswald story and thus knows where she can safely insert herself. She is too good. She can account for virtually every moment. When she can't it was because she got rammed head on by a rhinocerous and momentarily lost her memory which then comes back. If something turns out to be wrong it is because it is an unauthorized account which happened to have gotten stolen. Who writes unauthorized accounts? Humans are fallible. One of the things I argued about the validity of Nick Prencipe was his fallibility.He could have researched Greer and knew exactly where to put himself having a conversation with his friend William Greer. His uncertainty and mistakes are what gave him credibility. The human mind distorts details after 40 years but certain things are remembered. I can tell you what a great party I was at 2 years ago and some people fell into a pool but I can't tell you everyone who was there and if I did I might remember someone being there who was not there.

These are concerns. I am not passing a final judgment on Judyth. You, with your contacts with her, are indeed in a better position than I to evaluate her. You may ultimately be right. However, because of her research, she is virtually worthless as a witness. In big cases, we were always concerned about overpreparing a witness to where their account seems contrived. I once had a case with a young girl who was a CSC victim. I wanted her to be prepared for whatever questions that might come her way. I would talk with her. At first her head would be down and she could only whisper. I would give her a tootsie roll pop each time. One day she came in my office smiling and said "Mr. Weldon, he put his penis in my vagina. Could I have a sucker?" I was crushed. Judyth has overprepared herself to the extent that she has lost, if it was there, the ring of truth. She is the witness that an opposing attorney would drool to cross-examine.

All of us are only here for a moment. I respect everyone who has devoted themselves in an honest way to finding truth. It is thankless and often the best result is simply to be ridiculed. Do you doubt that Jack or Lifton have a motive other than truth? Did Armstrong give up 12 years of his life and the money and time for all of the "fame" this has now brought him. I think Barb, Jerry, and even Pamela care. Otherwise it's not worth it. People have become skiddish on this thread. Toi silence someone is not to convince them. How many people on this forum do you believe you have convinced that Judyth is the real deal? You know I am religious. Whether Judyth is truthful or not, may God bless her. I do hope truth will prevail, that right will triumph wrong, and as Garrison noted, that virtue shallbe its own reward.

Warm regards,

Doug

Jim:

I can accept whatever observations and criticisms made about me. In fact, I would rather they be directed at me than Jack or Lifton, both of who have more prominence in the JFK community and connections to you than I. Again, I do want to emphasize that I have had no contact with Jack about you or Judyth I have no problem with you being right about Judyth but I stand by what I wrote. I will not be buying her book.

To Josiah, Yes, I believe the sprial nebulae is important, but I am not going to pretend to be a photographic expert. I await the work of Martin and others.

Doug

Why is Professor Fetzer only discovering Judyth now? Did he not see the Nigel Turner TMWKK episode years ago where Judyth was featured? I know Rich DellaRosa thought she was a fraud -- and that was years ago. He begged Nigel Turner not to include her because it would make the other episodes of TMWKK seem trivial, bizarre and a joke. Jack White studied her, as did Terry Mauro (conclusion?) and I'm sure JFK Lancer. Why is Jim embracing her now?

Does Jim Fetzer always pull for the underdog? Is he grabbing for attention? Or, as someone has stated: Could this subject matter have risen to divert him from 9/11?

Has he not done work regarding Kennedy for a long time and wants to use this woman as an in? We all know Prof. Fetzer likes a lot of attention coming his way. I like him (not that he would care) but can't he tell Judyth does an awful lot of research for herself? As another member said, she knows where the holes are in LHO's life and fills them in brilliantly. That alone makes me doubtful of her. I wish her luck. But...

In the immortal words of Bill Kelly, "Now we're supposed to send her money?"

Kathy C

NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF FRIENDSHIP WITH JACK WHITE, WHO HAS FINALLY DISGUSTED ME

I cannot believe that someone I have admired in the past would stoop to such a sophomoric level by

lodging such a blatant ad hominem. Those who resort to arguments of this caliber have discredited

themselves massively. I denounce each and every one of them, including the author of the post Jack

has repeated her and the hack who posted it. I am completely disgusted and want nothing more to

do with them. Michael Hogan and Howard Platzman are honorable men. Those who resort to such

disgraceful tactics are not. Cease and desist, Jack White. You have forefeitted being taken seriously.

Please know that I want nothing more to do with you in any context at all. We are no longer friends.

It seems that most researchers (wisely) do not want to become involved in the thread re JVB. For

some reason many of them seem to focus on emailing me to vent their feelings at a safe venue. So

far about a dozen have emailed me varying messages about JVB. Here is a typical EXCERPT from one

received just today (anonymous for obvious reasons):

"I have believed for years that sexual frustration lies at the root of JVB’s motives – that she is more to be pitied than deplored. The sad but indisputable fact is that she is now overweight and unattractive and was once rather attractive (amply endowed, as she has pointed out on occasion), showing much promise in her academic abilities which never came to fruition. She has lived a life peppered with disappointment, unable to get along with people for more than a few weeks. Every relationship – mostly with men -- eventually goes down the toilet."

There are many other unsolicited emails. They are wise to not enter the public area of controversy. This

has been going on for ten years now, with new supporters taking up the torch when others become

disenchanted. How much longer will it go on?

Jack

Nothing bothers me more in this thread than this posting. On the windshield thread I noted more than once that one did not have to agree with me to be my friend. Barb, Tink, and Jerry disagree with me about the hole in the windshield but I have no personal animosity towards any of them. I simply believed that the arguments were becoming circuitous and that there was not enough understanding of the witnesses to engage further in a constructive dialog. I was not going to write my book on the thread but I did find portions of the thread to be constructive and at the end I actually held a higher opinion and respect for these people than I did at the beginning. If one has to agree with everything one posits then all of us are going to have a very short list of friends.

Each of us is entitled to an opinion and to weigh the evidence and because one has a higher educational background it does not make their opinion or analysis superior to anothers. I have five years of undergraduate credits, a law degee, a masters degree, and I am 6 course hours short of completing the course work for a P.H.D. in education. I think Joe Biden would rightfully respond to that, "Big F---ing Deal!" My analysis is not superior to anyone's.

I am going to make some personal references. I believe friendships and relationships are what is most important in life. If anyone on this forum believes that we are going to develop a total concensus on the death of JFK and bring people to justice then they are living in a fantasyland. To seek to find truth is not only noble it is imperative to defining the society in which we live and for those who will live after us. I use the rhetorical question of why do old men plant trees that they will never see grow? History will always be the myth that people choose to believe and I, as much as anyone, would like to remove much of the myth that exists about November 22, 1963. It is important but it is not so important that we destroy the friendships and relationships that are truly the essence of our lives. Again, I make a personal reference. It is easy to become obsessed in pursuing the truth in the JFK labrynith. I recall my ex-wife telling me that I seemed to pay more attention to a dead president than I did to her. Sadly, in retrospect, she was often correct. For any endeavor, there is a cost to be paid. The ultimate question is whether the cost was worth it. Sometimes it is. Many times it is not. To do it again, I would have made some different decisions.

The most rewarding aspect of being involved with this for 32 years has been the wonderful people and witnesses I have gotten to know. For the witnesses who trusted me I want to keep my promise to tell their accounts for history but I am under no pretense that everyone is going to agree with me or them and I understand that even to get my book published is likely to be a difficult endeavor. I do, however, value that I got to know these witnesses as people, and in writing my book I often smile as I listen to the conversations I had with these people, many now deceased. I enjoy the researchers I have met, agree or disagree, and I respect everyone of them whom I believe has truth as their objective. It is the personal part of these people that endures for me. It is my privilege to get to know these people, even if it is only a voice on the phone or a posting on the internet. I have met Jack and Jim a number of times. I value that. They are passionate people. Some people walk into a room softly. Others come in driving a truck with horns blaring. We can respect people for who they are and the world needs all of these types.

I cannot accept Judyth's account for a number of reasons. Jim, I have watched her on TMWKK. To be honest, when I copy the segments from 2003 and give them to people I often leave out her segment because I fear it detracts from the value of episode 7, on which both you and I appeared, and segment 9. The fact that Nigel Turner believes her really means nothing. I do not believe that there was an altruistic motive for Nigel in his productions but he was motivated by it being a commercial enterprise. I am not fooling myself. Nigel spent days at my house on several occasions. If my opinion was that Oswald did it alone I doubt that my charm would have captivated his time and attention. As Jim Garrison said about the Warren Commission and being told that they were important or distinquished people had no impact on his examination of the evidence.

I have read Haslam's book with great interest. Again, I submit a personal reference. In 2001 I had non-hodgkin's lymphoma and on the Men Who Killed Kennedy I was bloated and my eyes were distorted from Chemo. What is interesting about this cancer is that it is one of the cancers that are increasing and they are finding that a large portion of the people with the cancer have evidence of the "Monkey Virus." It is that, not Judyth, which stirred my interest in the book. Ironically, Jackie Kennedy died of this cancer!

There are many things which cause me concern about Judyth. I will only note a few. One of the arguments in favor of her credibility has been that a researcher went over the known timeline of Oswald's whereabouts and activities and she got everything right. A major reason I doubt her is that she got everything right. Can you tell me everything your wife did the first week of October 2009 yet 40 plus years ago? How about what you did?

Judyth remembers EVERYTHING Oswald told her. He must have been talking from morning to night and she would have to be a stenographer to keep track of everything. How could she ever remember the japanese girl or David Phillips and other names and instances that would have no meaning to her. If somewhat shot names or stories at you forty years ago that had no meaning to you would you remember them? Why would you save your pay stubbs and records? Do you have yours from 45 years ago? Again, a personal reference. While I was teaching in the criminal justice department at Western Michigan Universityyears ago, I shared an office with a former police officer, who the following semester murdered his wife, who was a leading local newscaster. It was the first case ever on Court Television and the prosecuter was an individual I shared rides with my first year in law school. There have been three books written about the murder. How easy would it be for me to start talking about the great friendship we had, how we would go out to the bar together, and the things he would talk about. He had been having affairs with his students which added to the interest. It would be so easy to insert and mesh my life with his. The truth is I really did not know him at all.

Judyth's so-called Russian statements to Oswald when they allegedly first met are preposterous. Furthermore, Judyth's recall of statements between her and Oswald is not only amazing but also preposterous. It makes Romeo and Juliet look like a slap-stick comedy. Listen to Oswald's radio interviews and his statements in Dallas such as "a policeman hit me." Yes, Oswald was intelligent but he was not educated. Judyth's Oswald makes James Bond look like a character from Hee Haw. Listen to him. Can you picture this Oswald making the tearful heartrenching statements about Judyth having babies? Would the worst soap opera on television even think about putting such dialog in their show? When you were in the marines could you picture yourself saying such things to your wife or girlfriend? Did Oswald not have enough on his schedule with having a wife, a child, and a new born baby, and his travel and activities, that he could or would fit in this elaborate affair with Judyth? Did Oswald not have feelings towards his newly born child? If their love was so deep and the future so fragile why did Judyth not become pregnant? Who would know whose child it was?

How difficult is it to create accounts for times where Oswalds whereabouts or activities were unknown? It seems like that every time something cannot be accounted for then, lo and behold, Judyth happens to be there. Every single unknown woman Oswald happened to be seen with turns out to be, Surprise, Judyth.

Again, I am not questioning that Oswald was bright, but do you believe he was an intellectual? JFK was not an intellectual. Oswald had an IQ of 118, Kennedy 119. Obama has an IQ of 126. Ironically, the president with the highest IQ was Nixon with 164. Judyth said Oswald's favorite poet was Pushkin. I have learned a lot about Pushkin and I don't think so. He certainly did not check out any books by Pushkin at the Dallas library. Where are the books? It would be like me telling everyone that I read some Shakespearian plays everyday for light reading until I have the opportunity to read something more entertaining like "The epistomology of Statistical Analysis when comparing river sediment in Brazil."

I can go on and on. Judyth is obviously very bright which makes her ability to create an account more plausible. After reading everything she has done I am beginning to believe that this poor woman was cheated out of all the Nobel prizes. Whatever the truth is, Judyth is a damaged witness. She has read too much. When she tells of something she has done it is virtually followed by a Wilkepedia article oin the subject. She is tainted. She knows where the holes can be found in the Oswald story and thus knows where she can safely insert herself. She is too good. She can account for virtually every moment. When she can't it was because she got rammed head on by a rhinocerous and momentarily lost her memory which then comes back. If something turns out to be wrong it is because it is an unauthorized account which happened to have gotten stolen. Who writes unauthorized accounts? Humans are fallible. One of the things I argued about the validity of Nick Prencipe was his fallibility.He could have researched Greer and knew exactly where to put himself having a conversation with his friend William Greer. His uncertainty and mistakes are what gave him credibility. The human mind distorts details after 40 years but certain things are remembered. I can tell you what a great party I was at 2 years ago and some people fell into a pool but I can't tell you everyone who was there and if I did I might remember someone being there who was not there.

These are concerns. I am not passing a final judgment on Judyth. You, with your contacts with her, are indeed in a better position than I to evaluate her. You may ultimately be right. However, because of her research, she is virtually worthless as a witness. In big cases, we were always concerned about overpreparing a witness to where their account seems contrived. I once had a case with a young girl who was a CSC victim. I wanted her to be prepared for whatever questions that might come her way. I would talk with her. At first her head would be down and she could only whisper. I would give her a tootsie roll pop each time. One day she came in my office smiling and said "Mr. Weldon, he put his penis in my vagina. Could I have a sucker?" I was crushed. Judyth has overprepared herself to the extent that she has lost, if it was there, the ring of truth. She is the witness that an opposing attorney would drool to cross-examine.

All of us are only here for a moment. I respect everyone who has devoted themselves in an honest way to finding truth. It is thankless and often the best result is simply to be ridiculed. Do you doubt that Jack or Lifton have a motive other than truth? Did Armstrong give up 12 years of his life and the money and time for all of the "fame" this has now brought him. I think Barb, Jerry, and even Pamela care. Otherwise it's not worth it. People have become skiddish on this thread. Toi silence someone is not to convince them. How many people on this forum do you believe you have convinced that Judyth is the real deal? You know I am religious. Whether Judyth is truthful or not, may God bless her. I do hope truth will prevail, that right will triumph wrong, and as Garrison noted, that virtue shallbe its own reward.

Warm regards,

Doug

Aside from Bill Kelly's right-on remark, this is the clearest and most heartfelt post on this thread. I'm afraid what Doug has said is true. That Judyth is an expert researcher. I'm sure she had a glorious past regarding her scientific experiments, which past should have continued for her. Why it didn't, I don't know. I laughed the first time I heard a woman was claiming that she had a love affair with Lee Harvey Oswald. Of all the people in history, I thought. I have decided that Judyth did not have a romance with LHO. But I certainly don't mean her harm. I can't see Oswald doing cancer experiments on mice. How did he come to be doing that? He comes over from Russia to work with mice urine and tumors in a coffee company?

Oswald, then, couldn't have been a very smart guy. Didn't he know Kennedy was going to be driven down Elm St.? Kennedy's limo turned the corner right in front of the building where he worked. When did it sink in that he's going to be the patsy?

I still believe in John Armstrong's theory of the 2 Oswalds, which started at their birth probably. Nazi scientists had been doing experiments with twins. Our CIA probably did too.

Kathy C

There is one thing more, Jack. I believe Harvey and Lee. But ask John Armstrong who Donald O. Norton is? I nearly had a heart attack when, following a hunch, I found pictures on the Internet of "Donald O. Norton" and "Ralph Geb." Isn't Norton supposed to be Lee Oswald? (Not Harvey who was killed by Ruby.)

Kathy C

Here is a photo of HARVEY (from Life Magazine) in the Philippines. If I remember the timelines

correctly, on the date this photo was made, LEE was in the brig in Japan. He could not be in the

brig and in the Philippines simultaneously.

Jack

It seems everywhere Harvey goes, people look happy. There's a similar photo of him in Russia with his co-workers from the radio plant.

Kathy C

Linda & Rosemary Willis in Bronson

I know this picture from Bronson was to illustrate where certain people were right before the assassination, but I'm sure everyone's seen the 6th floor window.

Kathy C

David Ferrie............................KNEW HARVEY IN CIVIL AIR PATROL

I disagree. In the Civil Air Patrol Ferrie knew Lee. In the other photo, little Lee is in the middle. He grew to be the teenager in CAP. Look at his mouth.

Kathy C

I wonder if Judyth isn't a victim of the Anastasia Syndrome. But basically she's been through hell.

Kathy C

On a serious note, I don't feel like going throught 81 pages of posts to find the one where I asked Judyth if she could read papyrus. And she said, she studied anthropology. I have met a woman who tells me she knows hieroglyphics because she's studying for an Anthropology degree to add to her other one. She showed me a little necklace, which spelled out her name in hieroglyphics. So the claim about being able to read papyrus and early murals is not far from possible, and I believe Judyth can too.

Which begs the quesion: "Now we're supposed to send her money?"

Kathy C

Now we're supposed to send her money?

BK

I am laughing hysterically. I love your reaction. I can't catch my breath.

Kathy C

THANKS MIKE, I HOPE THEY WILL NOT BE EDITED..BUT.... B

I hope they won't be edited too. I think Caroline is doing the right thing. Jackie made those audios and said they weren't to be played until her last child died. Right there, Caroline's a target. This is a very smart move on her part and I can't wait to hear them.

As Caroline is editing them, I hope she leaves them intact. I wonder about her father's alleged infidelities and if that is going to be mentioned. Jackie didn't want the tapes made public until her last child died -- is there something she kept hidden from them?

Kathy C

f) The thing that gets me about the Red Bird Air Field situation is this. Wayne January stated that on the morning of 20th November 1963 someone who claims to be Oswald was trying to charter a plane. Yes, you are right, he was supposed to be in the TSBD but if this job was a cover then it’s feasible that he could leave whenever he wanted. The problem I have with this is who was running the cover for him in the TSBD? I am familiar with the work of Richard Gilbride regarding his theory that certain employees in the TSBD were involved in the assassination and I am open to this idea. The spanner in the works is this. On Wednesday 20th of November at 10:30am Ralph Yates picked up a man who he claims was Oswald and took him to the TSBD carrying a package that the “Oswald” stated were “…curtain rods.” So, do we again have two Oswald’s to account for? Assuming there isn’t a third in the TSBD.

To me, this is more setting up Harvey as the killer of President Kennedy, which would happen in 2 days. It's so obvious.

Also, I can't find the post but someone was talking about Oswald's eye color. Marina did a strange thing. When she saw Oswald in the coffin, she went right over and lifted one of his eyelids. Now, why do that? Apparently, she was looking for his eye color as a way of distinguishing Harvey from Lee.

But I have a question about this. When a person is embalmed and the cosmetoligist works on the body, don't they sew the eyes closed? It didn't look like Oswald in the coffin. I've since seen photos of him from different angles in his coffin. It was Harvey imo. In the coffin. Who they buried, I don't know.

Harvey's eyecolor was a bright blue. There is a photo of supposedly Lee Oswald with dark eyes. I think we have many photos of Harvey, but not of Lee.

Kathy C

Wow, you have GOT to be kidding. I would not have thought of you as a fan of Ruth Paine of all people. Her statements are convoluted and mysterious, and I do not think she told the WC much of what she knew. How well did she know LHO? She certainly was directly involved in his life those last months. But was she in his court or setting him up? She comes across as cagey and someone who thinks they are quite clever. Frankly, she gives me the creeps.

I wish someone could bug Ruth Paine's house. She's a lying, scheming, CIA asset. I'd like to know what she says in private. I'm sure a day doesn't pass that she doesn't think of the assassination.

Kathy C

JIM RESPONDS TO LEE FARLEY

There are a number of other studies by Judyth that undermine, but do not disprove, the "two Oswalds" account. One of mine is the apparently studied indifference to Robert, who was Lee H. Oswald's virtual twin, who in my opinion is by far the most obvious candidate to have impersonated his brother.

Robert and Harvey do not look alike at all. There was a photo published where they were in a kitchen, standing next to each other. IMO, that photo was faked. And as homely as Harvey was, Robert Oswald is uglier. Please don't say they were twins. They weren't even brothers. I wish, Jim, you would interview Robert Oswald (and get his DNA). That would solve everything about Lee H. Oswald, who came from Russia.

Kathy C

Jack,

If you were a woman, who begins life with a first name, middle name,

and family name, but which changes when they marry, I doubt that you

would find this so mysterious. Why don't you ask your wife about it?

Thanks.

Jim

In searching for information about JVB, I came across a JFK website that

lists these ALIASES.

Jack

Jim...you missed the point entirely. JVB has claimed that she "hated" her family name

of AVARY (Judy Ann Avary), so she changed her name to Judyth A. VARY. I consider

this a peculiar thing for a teen girl to do. And then go off all alone to a distant strange

city. Sounds like a bad familial relationship. A runaway?

Jack

I think her parents should be looked into also. But about the name change. Teen girls often change the spelling of their names and things like that. For instance, I knew a girl named Nancy who wanted to be called Francesca. I, myself, changed the spelling of my first name to Kathi and had an ID bracelet spelled as such, but later went back to ending my name with a Y. Girls that age have a lot of romantic notions. But her upbringing should be brought to life. What were her parents like, did she have siblings, etc.

Kathy C

http://www.russianbooks.org/oswald/tapes.htm

there may be something at this site to help you...b

Unfortunately, that was the site I was thinking of. Whoever runs it, took away the audio tape. That's suspicious to me.

Kathy C

PS Maybe Gary Mack can help? I hate to think we have "lost" it.

My correspondent has offered to do an in depth analysis.

I need as many available examples of Oswald's Russian writing as possibe. Does anyone already have a handy list of those? It would save a lot of time...

Also --I don't think there is any audio of him speaking Russian, but with any luck, I'm wrong about that?

Greg, I wish I could remember the website, but there's an audio of Oswald reading English, supposedly to a Russian friend he was teaching. I would type in something like Oswald Russian audio. Listen to the weird accent he has. Then for comparison, there are 2 other audios of Oswald in America, the radio shows. And of course when he was in custody in Dallas. It's the same voice, 3 years later, speaking English.

Kathy C

Interesting as to where the old Hertz sign is stored, but. . .

Does anyone know the date (month and year would be fine) when the Sexton grocery sign was replaced by the Hertz sign?

Presumably, this would be sometime after February, 1962, but I'd like more specific information, if it is available.

Please send any info on that to me at dlfton2003@yahoo.com.

Thanks.

DSL

I don't know if this will help you. I found it on the Internet:

"Sexton to Sixth-Floor

"The building remained vacant until 1940, when the John Sexton Co. leased it. The grocery wholesaler, who catered primarily to restaurants and institutions, opened its first Dallas branch office and warehouse on January 1, 1941.

"About every two weeks, bulk grocery supplies (usually canned goods) would come in by rail and be transferred to the building by carts and the two freight elevators at the building's rear. The building, which displayed the company's name in large letters just above the sixth floor, became familiar locally as the Sexton Building. The structure would be described that way in some early police reports, even though Sexton had left the building on November 1961 for a modern single-story facility."

Kathy C

Skaggs #14 Crop

Associated Timeline, Image below is Skaggs #16 Crop

In the photo look at the man in a suit, facing away from the camera. He's in the second "column" area, for lack of a better word. He looks taller than people around him. Could it possibly be George HW Bush?

Now that I made the post, I can't see the pictures! What gives?

Kathy C

I can see the outline of a human shape

As far as a familar face can you expand on that Duncan

Sorry Dean, I can't expand on it. I just see a face like you do, and wondered if anyone thought it looked like Oswald.

I also noticed this.

I have to be honest. Yes, to me it does look like Oswald. John Armstrong said Lee Oswald was shooting out that window. Then he went out of the TSBD from the back exit, came down the hill on Elm St and got into a Rambler.

Kathy C

I am starting this new thread which I hope will be limited to a single

subject....which Jim/Judyth have suggested:

"THE ERRORS OF JOHN ARMSTRONG."

Both have the book Harvey & Lee. I ask that if they wish to address

these "errors" that they do so in this thread, and with the following

limitations:

John has "retired" from JFK research and DOES NOT WANT ANY

PART OF INTERNET DEBATES. He has said everything that he

intends to say IN HIS BOOK. He stands behind everything in

his book, as do I. I will attempt to answer any legitimate

questions about alleged "errors". But one at a time, please.

This doesn't fit your criteria -- or maybe it does. John Armstrong is the cause of my long-held frustration regarding Donald O. Norton, who is supposed to be Lee Oswald. It isn't fair. If there is something to it, Jack, please tell me. You know Armstrong.

Kathy C

Based on John's six-month investigation of Norton, I believe Norton is the original LEE Oswald.

Here is a comparison of LEE and NORTON signatures. I believe the characters show great

similarity.

Jack

Was he the Donald O Norton formerly of Avon Park, FL, who was into charter boats and fly-fishing and had red hair? Please answer.

Kathy C

I am starting this new thread which I hope will be limited to a single

subject....which Jim/Judyth have suggested:

"THE ERRORS OF JOHN ARMSTRONG."

Both have the book Harvey & Lee. I ask that if they wish to address

these "errors" that they do so in this thread, and with the following

limitations:

John has "retired" from JFK research and DOES NOT WANT ANY

PART OF INTERNET DEBATES. He has said everything that he

intends to say IN HIS BOOK. He stands behind everything in

his book, as do I. I will attempt to answer any legitimate

questions about alleged "errors". But one at a time, please.

This doesn't fit your criteria -- or maybe it does. John Armstrong is the cause of my long-held frustration regarding Donald O. Norton, who is supposed to be Lee Oswald. It isn't fair. If there is something to it, Jack, please tell me. You know Armstrong.

Kathy C

and on the day of the assassination, apparently, he didn't have any skill at this either,and he had the look of a murderer in his eye. And cops are trained to spot that. They can smell guilt. And this cop, Vaughn, spotted it on Bush and arrested him. And being a newbie, Bush didn't have confidence that his patrons, his bosses, could protect him, destroy the records, make it all go away, make water run uphill if need be. And so he acted on his own, stupidly, and created this record of his involvement, by calling the FBI; thinking that he was cleverly proving that that wasn't him who was arrested in Dallas that day.

Now I understand it.

Kathy C

One more thing about what dentists sometimes did for a person missing a front or easily-seen tooth. They made the patient a "flipper." A flipper was not a good device. It had a roof to it and the fake tooth would replace the missing one. It was a horrible contraption -- you might as well wear dentures. And when they didn't fit -- oh my God.

Kathy C

Kathleen,

Is this like a bridge?

Mike

I am trying to keep up with these posts. I believe I explained what a bridge is. Above I am describing this weird thing. It had a plastic, pinkish roof to hold a fake tooth in, I guess, with suction. I don't think dentists resort to that now. It seems nowadays that a root canal and crown are mandatory and expensive.

Kathy C

Hi Kathy,

I think flippers are only resorted to for a stop gap measure these days ... I know my dentist hates them, but offered one to me as I broke a tooth off at the gumline and once the digging the root out heals, the 2 crowns and bridge process will begin. She said some people like to have a little something to fill the gap in the mean time, and your description seems to agree with the thing she showed me. Mine doesn't really show, so we agreed not to go there. Sounds like they are more trouble than they are worth and they break often.

Bests,

Barb :-)

You bet. Usually poor people got them. Thanks for your response. I hope people don't think I went off on a tangent.

Kathy Collins