Doug Weldon
-
Posts
326 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Doug Weldon
-
-
JUDYTH REPLIES TO JACK ABOUT IQs AND NOBEL PRIZE WINNERS
NOTE: As I have previously observed, this is old hat, Jack. This has been discussed
before and the same article I am reposting below appeared earlier on this thread. I
think it would be great if you were to pay more attention to these posts. Thank you.
JUDYTH RESPONDS:
RE THE NOBEL PRIZE WINNERS WORKING WITH ME: THESE MATERIALS WERE VETTED
EARLY ON. I NO LONGER EVEN OWN THEM, HERE OVERSEAS. BUT THE ONE ARTICLE I
CAN PROVIDE FROM HERE, I HAVE THE QUOTE--WHICH IS BELOW--FROM THE ARTICLE.
AS FOR THE STATEMENT OF 'HIGHEST IQ IN FLORIDA' --I HAVE TOLD YOU BEFORE THAT
IS WRONG AND YOU KEEP REPEATING IT. WAS RANKED NUMBER ONE IN IQ AMONG HIGH
SCHOOL STUDENTS IN FLORIDA IN 1960 IN FLORIDA WHO TOOK THE WEEK-LONG NATIONAL
TEST SERIES IN PROJECT TALENT .
MACKLE CORPORATION SPONSORED LOTS OF EVENTS AND GAVE OUT LOTS OF SCHOLARSHIPS
THROUGHOUT THE 1960S . IT OCCURRED IN MELBOURNE. I WAS SIXTEEN AND EVEN SYDNEY
WILKINSON SAW THE PHOTO AND SPECIFICS AS RECENTLY AS 2007.
A LOT OF EVENTS HAVE OCCURRED IN THE WORLD THAT ARE NOT ON THE INTERNET. The 35th
science writer seminar is on the internet, but try to find
Abstracts: Novel therapies dominate American Cancer Society's 35th ...
Innovations in therapy were discussed at the 35th Annual American Cancer Society's Science Writers Seminar. A drug currently being tested may inhibit cancer ...
www.faqs.org/.../Novel-therapies-dominate-American-Cancer-Societys-35th-Annual-Science-Writers-Seminar.html - Cached - Similar
THE 4TH SCIENCE WRITER'S SEMINAR, FOR EXAMPLE, WHICH I ATTENDED, IS MENTIONED
ON THE INTERNET. BUT TRY TO FIND SOME OF THE OTHERS. THEY WERE HELD EVERY YEAR,
BUT MANY ARE MISSING FROM THE INTERNET RECORD.
THE QUOTATION OF THE ARTICLE I HAPPEN TO HAVE AT HAND (THERE WERE OTHERS), SAYS,
"WITH TWO NOBEL PRIZE WINNERS, AND LEADERS IN CANCER RESEARCH, JUDY VARY...
RECENTLY ATTENDED..."
IT DOES NOT SAY I MET THEM. IT SAYS I WAS WITH THEM, ATTENDED THE EVENT WITH THEM,
NOT IN THE AUDIENCE. I SAT IN THEIR MIDST, RIGHT NEXT TO THE VICE PRESIDENT OF CANCER
RESEARCH FOR THE AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY, DR. DIEHL. I ATE LUNCHES WITH THEM, WAS
TUTORED BY THEM, THEY WERE FASCINATED WITH MY WORK AND ACTUALLY WENT TO MY HIGH
SCHOOL TO CHECK MY WORK 9ALSO IN A NEWSPAPER OR YEARBOOK ARTICLE).
THE ROBINSONS --HUSBAND AND WIFE-- ARE IN ANOTHER ARTICLE AS PROVIDING TRANSPORTATION
MONEY FOR ME TO GO TO ROSWELL PARK IN BUFFALO, WHERE, BY THE WAY, HIS SECOND WIFE AND
HE OWNED A HOME: .
"In 1912 Sir Robert married Gertrude Maud Walsh, a fellow student at Manchester University. They
collaborated in several fields of chemical research, notably in a survey of anthocyanins. She died in
1954; they had one son and one daughter. In 1957, he married Stearn Sylvia Hillstrom (née Hershey)
of New York REF: nobelprize.org/.../1947/robinson-bio.html
THIS WAS BUFFALO, NEW YORK. I LIVE OVERSEAS AND DO NOT HAVE THESE ARTICLES WITH ME, BUT
THE EDITORS OF MY BOOK TRACKED DOWN EVERY DETAIL AND ARTICLE.
The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1947 was awarded to Sir Robert Robinson "for his investigations on plant
products of biological importance, especially the alkaloids".
NEWSPAPER ARTICLES MENTION THE NOBEL PRIZE WINNERS AND ONE TELLS US THE ROBINSONS
PAID FOR MY TRIP TO BUFFALO, NEW YORK.
JVB
Jim...I have not seen this before. So I googled MACKLE CORPORATION IQ TESTS FLORIDA 1960s,and could find NOTHING indicating that a "Mackle Corporation" had conducted such testing.
So could Judyth provide documentation for this, instead of just saying it?
This reply also fails to name the NOBEL PRIZE WINNERS who support her story.
Therefore this reply is non-responsive to the questions, which are NOT trick questions nor attacks.
Jack
Jack,I thought I had already addressed the Nobel question. It appears to me
you have been very casual about reading posts on this thread. That's too
bad. Here's what Judyth has sent in response to your question about IQ.
I discuss IQ scores and intelligence in THE EVOLUTION OF INTELLIGENCE.
Jim
REPLY TO JACK:
At the same time, please clarify her statement that Judyth's IQ test showed
'that she had the highest IQ of anyone in the state of Florida.
==I already answered this. Didn't Jack read the answer when he brought it
up the first time? I stated that Mackle Corporation feted we kids who scored
highest in Project Talent in the State of Florida, a nationwide IQ and cognitive
testing program where students were assessed in their high schools for a full
week....I was ranked #1 on that series of tests: we were lined up and photo-
graphed. But high IQ means little if not given the opportunity to excel. There
are many other people out there who are smarter than I am who also never
got their chance to help humanity, my big dream.==
Doug,At this juncture, I don't think that the proper venue would be Jim Fetzer's show. (No offense, Jim). In order for a public interview to be conducted properly I would think that a much more "neutral venue" is preferred.
I just spoke with Len Osanic. He agreed to have both Doug and Judyth on Black Op Radio. The purpose of the show will be to have a non-confrontational "question and answer" session.
Neither he nor I want a "knock down drag out" show! So, it needs to be cordial, but NOT restrained. Respectful adversity is acceptable.
Also, due to the "time difference" it might be preferable to pre-record the show so that Judyth is not forced to participate at 4:00am (her time) for a "live" show that will be on the air at 6:00 pst.
Well, any takers?
Excellent, Greg. And you are as spot on about a "neutral venue" as Doug is in his response that this needs to be Judyth, on her own, speaking spontaneously, for herself.
Many of us have questions we have asked ... and would like to ask ... Judyth. Doug could certainly handle that. Pre-recording because of time differences is a fine idea ... as long as the recording is not edited in any way.
Kudos to you for thinking of this.
Barb :-)
I can assure you that there will be no editing at all.
Pipedream. The last thing JVB wants is impartial intelligent questions by an unbiased emcee.
She does not want to be asked about the "Nobel scientists" who back her. Who are they?
She does not want to reveal why she claims to have the highest IQ in Florida. How was this determined?
Jack
There is a huge difference between saying that Nobel Prize winners "worked with you" and "IT DOES NOT SAY I MET THEM. IT SAYS I WAS WITH THEM, ATTENDED THE EVENT WITH THEM,
NOT IN THE AUDIENCE. I SAT IN THEIR MIDST, RIGHT NEXT TO THE VICE PRESIDENT OF CANCER
RESEARCH FOR THE AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY, DR. DIEHL. I ATE LUNCHES WITH THEM, WAS
TUTORED BY THEM, THEY WERE FASCINATED WITH MY WORK AND ACTUALLY WENT TO MY HIGH
SCHOOL TO CHECK MY WORK 9ALSO IN A NEWSPAPER OR YEARBOOK ARTICLE."
Is Judyth suggesting that these Nobel Prize winners were so fascinated with her work that they took a special trip to her high school for the sole purpose of checking out her work in a newspaper and her year book article?
I have a picture (honestly) of me hitting Muhammed Ali in the jaw. Is it fair for me to tell people that he went down to the ground as if he were shot, he begged me not to hurt him, and that I am the greatest boxer who ever lived? I also ran a race where I ran step for step with Frank Shorter for over a mile.(again true) Does that mean I can tell people I could have won the Olympic marathon? Judyth would.
Doug Weldon
-
as to coast to coast.... that is a very popular program run by media professionals. i do not think they let prospective guests bring on friends to interview them.
Just to be clear, I'm no friend. Indeed, I am now more skeptical than I have ever been! But, you are probably correct. They probably won't agree to such an arrangement. I hope that suggestion wasn't just designed for her to "get out" of it?
That's another reason why I prefer Black OP Radio.
I prefer Black Op Radio with Doug asking the questions, not me. However, I really am not "an easy mark" -- or a push over, either... Hell, I debated McAdams, didn't I?
Monk:
Coast to Coast would not allow a third party interviewer and the questions would likely be "soft ball" questions with Ed Haslam or someone else on line cheeriing and expressing their support. Furthermore to wait to November makes this practically useless. A worthwhile interview may take four hours, either at once or divided into two sections.
I agreed to the rules proposed and the rules are consistent with decorum I would exercise in questioning any witness. I have done this thousands of times. There is no one person's intelligence I respect more than yours but I would have liked the opportunity simply because I am so familiar with exploring inconsistencies in someone's testimony.
Judyth should welcome the opportunity to establish her legitimacy but perhaps her response and refusal speak louder than any interview could. What is Jim's response? He thought the idea had merit. I cannot believe that he could agree with the weak rationale given by Judyth. My response would have been "hit me with your best shot" and ask me the hardest questions you can conceive of because this was MY experience and it is TRUE. Why does Judyth have to dodge answering questions if she is "the real deal?" What does she have to fear? Jim? Dean? Anyone who supports her? Is she above scrutiny? Someone is going to ask those questions.
Judyth's credibility seems to be even in question about the most simple of matters. She states she has been sending e-mails to you. You reply "Moreover, Dean Hartwell sent me a "PM" last week stating that you did not even have my email address at all and you wished to correspond with me."Does Dean Hartwell dispute this?
Judyth states " Mr. Weldon has already revealed his tendency to insult me on this forum." Translation: Mr Weldon has not swallowed my story hook, line, and sinker. He asks questions I cannot or refuse to answer and asks for verification of physical evidence which I refuse to do."
If Judyth truly cares about anything other than her own notierity then she should reconsider her response. If her real or imaginary concerns for Lee Harvey Oswald are legitimate she may not recognize that her actions do nothing but mock his memory and the sincere attempts by so many people to find out the truth about what happened on November 22, 1963. If Judyth notes my skepticism it should be more of a reason, not less, to persuade me and others of her legitimacy.
I have always found Jim Fetzer, whether one agrees or disagrees with his methodology or conclusions, to be one who wants truth. I cannot believe he would not be surprised by this response from Judyth. To those in the poll who found her story credible please let me know what is the foundation for that belief? Why should Judyth not be subject to answering my questions? Why is her story accepted without corroboration? Please don't say Anna Lewis. I would be glad to examine Anna Lewis or any person she wants to offer to support her story on Black Op Radio under the same proposed conditions.
The Wizard of Oz is real. Ignore the man behind that curtain. Is that what we are asked to believe? Life does not work that way. Jack's most recent post is very accurate. Am I surprised by Judyth's response? No, not at all. However, there was a part of me that was hopeful that Judyth might have really cared about History and things bigger than herself.
Ultimately. the irony cannot escape me. I honestly did follow this thread with an open mind. So many people asked such legitimate questions which were avoided or ignored. The better the question, the more the character of that person was disparaged. I, myself, transcended from rationale to arrogant and unknowledgeable depending on my observations at the time. The irony is that despite the flow of the thread it was Judyth herself who convinced me that her story was not credible. I am certain I am not alone. The tragedy is that I somehow feel that Judyth may truly believe her story. I cannot explain that fantasy. Several people have told me that if she wrote this story as a piece of historical fiction she may have had a best seller. In offering it as non-fiction I have only empathy and pity for her. I went to Washington D.C in the 1970's and a top journalist described Nixon in that every day of his life Nixon believed that the whole world was having a party and he wasn't invited. The reporter said,"Love me, hate me, or feel whatever emotion you may feel towards me, but please do not pity me. I pitied Richard Nixon."
Again, I pity Judyth Baker. My offer remains open.
Doug Weldon
Well stated, Doug. Exceptionally well. And you are not alone.
Bests,
Barb :-)
Barb:
Thank you. I actually shortened the quote about Nixon. The journalist's total statement was "Have you ever had a dream where you dreamed the whole world was having a party and you were not invited? Richard Nixon lived that dream every day of his life. Like me. hate me, feel whatever emotion you want towards me, but please do not pity me. I pity Richard Nixon."
I pity Judyth. Her life is stuck in a dream. I think she has to create new stories to keep the dream interesting, sometimes forgetting that those new stories contradict things she has said in the past.
Doug Weldon
-
COMMENT:
That you guys are spending so much of your time speculating about what Lee Oswald would or would not have know is simply incredibly. You trash Judyth over matters where you quite obviously know nothing at all. This is very, very unimpressive.
Reply to Monk #2897
I'm very much "caught up" Doug! Thanks. The mere implication that Oswald was somehow "privy" to this information is inescapably absurd. If he said this to Judyth, it was nothing more than a fluke. But, in light of the aftermath, to believe that such a statistically implausible fluke actually occured, is beyond the pale.
==What lee said is not to forget the names Billie Sol Estes and Bobby Baker, that BECAUSE OF THEM the assassination was not going to be stopped. I stated this in THE LOVE AFFAIR. I extrapolated from that statement that it was LYNDON JOHNSON who did not stop the assassination. I did not mean that Lee said that directly. I only meant that this was the logical conclusion.==jvb==
Monk:I hope Judyth does not point to Life Magazine which detailed many of LBJ's legal problems the week befeore the assassination. This is research, not memory.
Well, in any event, the Life Magazine article's headline (or content) didn't say:
"Vice President Wants JFK Dead Within a Week or So Due to Involvement with Billie Sol Estes and Other Sordid Scandals"
So, that dog don't hunt, anyway.
Is Judyth suggesting that Oswald was specially briefed about these problems? If so, by whom and for what reason? If you catch up with the thread you will see that virtually every good question is left unanswered.I'm very much "caught up" Doug! Thanks. The mere implication that Oswald was somehow "privy" to this information is inescapably absurd. If he said this to Judyth, it was nothing more than a fluke. But, in light of the aftermath, to believe that such a statistically implausible fluke actually occured, is beyond the pale.
Judyth will not or has not produced the tape that allegedly contradicts the account of the Mary Ferrell incident and will not subject the alleged writing of Oswald for expert analysis. I just recently found out that Judyth is a member of this forum and sees everything. Why do all of her responses have to get filtered through a third party? I will gladly interview and tape Anna Lewis myself. I hope you get a chance to review the threads.Doug Weldon
Perhaps Judyth will agree to be questioned by you "on the air" so that there are no "problems with tape recordings" and such? She held up quite well to my "in person" interview, so it's not like she's too fragile, IMO. Of course, that was over 10 years ago.
"==What lee said is not to forget the names Billie Sol Estes and Bobby Baker, that BECAUSE OF THEM the assassination was not going to be stopped. I stated this in THE LOVE AFFAIR. I extrapolated from that statement that it was LYNDON JOHNSON who did not stop the assassination. I did not mean that Lee said that directly. I only meant that this was the logical conclusion.==jvb
This is again absolutely ridiculous.
Doug Weldon
-
as to coast to coast.... that is a very popular program run by media professionals. i do not think they let prospective guests bring on friends to interview them.
Just to be clear, I'm no friend. Indeed, I am now more skeptical than I have ever been! But, you are probably correct. They probably won't agree to such an arrangement. I hope that suggestion wasn't just designed for her to "get out" of it?
That's another reason why I prefer Black OP Radio.
I prefer Black Op Radio with Doug asking the questions, not me. However, I really am not "an easy mark" -- or a push over, either... Hell, I debated McAdams, didn't I?
Monk:
Coast to Coast would not allow a third party interviewer and the questions would likely be "soft ball" questions with Ed Haslam or someone else on line cheeriing and expressing their support. Furthermore to wait to November makes this practically useless. A worthwhile interview may take four hours, either at once or divided into two sections.
I agreed to the rules proposed and the rules are consistent with decorum I would exercise in questioning any witness. I have done this thousands of times. There is no one person's intelligence I respect more than yours but I would have liked the opportunity simply because I am so familiar with exploring inconsistencies in someone's testimony.
Judyth should welcome the opportunity to establish her legitimacy but perhaps her response and refusal speak louder than any interview could. What is Jim's response? He thought the idea had merit. I cannot believe that he could agree with the weak rationale given by Judyth. My response would have been "hit me with your best shot" and ask me the hardest questions you can conceive of because this was MY experience and it is TRUE. Why does Judyth have to dodge answering questions if she is "the real deal?" What does she have to fear? Jim? Dean? Anyone who supports her? Is she above scrutiny? Someone is going to ask those questions.
Judyth's credibility seems to be even in question about the most simple of matters. She states she has been sending e-mails to you. You reply "Moreover, Dean Hartwell sent me a "PM" last week stating that you did not even have my email address at all and you wished to correspond with me."Does Dean Hartwell dispute this?
Judyth states " Mr. Weldon has already revealed his tendency to insult me on this forum." Translation: Mr Weldon has not swallowed my story hook, line, and sinker. He asks questions I cannot or refuse to answer and asks for verification of physical evidence which I refuse to do."
If Judyth truly cares about anything other than her own notierity then she should reconsider her response. If her real or imaginary concerns for Lee Harvey Oswald are legitimate she may not recognize that her actions do nothing but mock his memory and the sincere attempts by so many people to find out the truth about what happened on November 22, 1963. If Judyth notes my skepticism it should be more of a reason, not less, to persuade me and others of her legitimacy.
I have always found Jim Fetzer, whether one agrees or disagrees with his methodology or conclusions, to be one who wants truth. I cannot believe he would not be surprised by this response from Judyth. To those in the poll who found her story credible please let me know what is the foundation for that belief? Why should Judyth not be subject to answering my questions? Why is her story accepted without corroboration? Please don't say Anna Lewis. I would be glad to examine Anna Lewis or any person she wants to offer to support her story on Black Op Radio under the same proposed conditions.
The Wizard of Oz is real. Ignore the man behind that curtain. Is that what we are asked to believe? Life does not work that way. Jack's most recent post is very accurate. Am I surprised by Judyth's response? No, not at all. However, there was a part of me that was hopeful that Judyth might have really cared about History and things bigger than herself.
Ultimately. the irony cannot escape me. I honestly did follow this thread with an open mind. So many people asked such legitimate questions which were avoided or ignored. The better the question, the more the character of that person was disparaged. I, myself, transcended from rationale to arrogant and unknowledgeable depending on my observations at the time. The irony is that despite the flow of the thread it was Judyth herself who convinced me that her story was not credible. I am certain I am not alone. The tragedy is that I somehow feel that Judyth may truly believe her story. I cannot explain that fantasy. Several people have told me that if she wrote this story as a piece of historical fiction she may have had a best seller. In offering it as non-fiction I have only empathy and pity for her. I went to Washington D.C in the 1970's and a top journalist described Nixon in that every day of his life Nixon believed that the whole world was having a party and he wasn't invited. The reporter said,"Love me, hate me, or feel whatever emotion you may feel towards me, but please do not pity me. I pitied Richard Nixon."
Again, I pity Judyth Baker. My offer remains open.
Doug Weldon
-
Doug,
At this juncture, I don't think that the proper venue would be Jim Fetzer's show. (No offense, Jim). In order for a public interview to be conducted properly I would think that a much more "neutral venue" is preferred.
I just spoke with Len Osanic. He agreed to have both Doug and Judyth on Black Op Radio. The purpose of the show will be to have a non-confrontational "question and answer" session.
Neither he nor I want a "knock down drag out" show! So, it needs to be cordial, but NOT restrained. Respectful adversity is acceptable.
Also, due to the "time difference" it might be preferable to pre-record the show so that Judyth is not forced to participate at 4:00am (her time) for a "live" show that will be on the air at 6:00 pst.
Well, any takers?
Monk:
I am absolutely game. In the words of Gary Gilmore "Let's do it." (So, it needs to be cordial, but NOT restrained. Respectful adversity is acceptable.)
My best,
Doug Weldon
-
Monk:
I hope Judyth does not point to Life Magazine which detailed many of LBJ's legal problems the week befeore the assassination. This is research, not memory.
Well, in any event, the Life Magazine article's headline (or content) didn't say:
"Vice President Wants JFK Dead Within a Week or So Due to Involvement with Billie Sol Estes and Other Sordid Scandals"
So, that dog don't hunt, anyway.
Is Judyth suggesting that Oswald was specially briefed about these problems? If so, by whom and for what reason? If you catch up with the thread you will see that virtually every good question is left unanswered.I'm very much "caught up" Doug! Thanks. The mere implication that Oswald was somehow "privy" to this information is inescapably absurd. If he said this to Judyth, it was nothing more than a fluke. But, in light of the aftermath, to believe that such a statistically implausible fluke actually occured, is beyond the pale.
Judyth will not or has not produced the tape that allegedly contradicts the account of the Mary Ferrell incident and will not subject the alleged writing of Oswald for expert analysis. I just recently found out that Judyth is a member of this forum and sees everything. Why do all of her responses have to get filtered through a third party? I will gladly interview and tape Anna Lewis myself. I hope you get a chance to review the threads.Doug Weldon
Perhaps Judyth will agree to be questioned by you "on the air" so that there are no "problems with tape recordings" and such? She held up quite well to my "in person" interview, so it's not like she's too fragile, IMO. Of course, that was over 10 years ago.
Monk:
In regards to:
"Perhaps Judyth will agree to be questioned by you "on the air" so that there are no "problems with tape recordings" and such? She held up quite well to my "in person" interview, so it's not like she's too fragile, IMO. Of course, that was over 10 years ago."
There is truly no opportunity I would welcome more than this. I would like to question Judyth for a couple of hours, not "Team Judyth" and without third party intervention answering questions for her or offering reasons not to respond to the questions. It is a great idea.
Hopefully Judyth would view this as an opportunity to establish her legitimacy. The last time I viewed the poll 35 people did not view her as credible, six were unsure, and only seven found her credible. After this extensive thread and the effort to push her credibility this must be disappointing to those who support her. My guess is that considering those who did not participate in the poll would magnify these results.
There are assorted venues under which this could transpire. We all know of one person who could definitely make this happen. Again, it is a great idea. Let's hope for a positive response.
My best,
Doug Weldon
-
[snip][snip...]Even if her various claims were true, which seems unlikely since she appears in not a single document regarding Oswald,
==SINCE SHE POSED AS MARINA OSWALD==
her tales are so peripheral to the assassination as to be meaningless.
========
Jim, I am probably way behind here, but is there anything besides Judyth's own statements that would tend to substantiate her claims about "posing as Marina"? For instance, was Marina documented as having been seen with Lee (or Harvey--whatever!) in New Orleans at a time when she [Marina] was supposedly still in Dallas? Such conflicting documentation would be very relevant in light of Judyth's claim. On the other side of the coin, if there is nothing indicating Marina was "in two places at the same time" (one location being New Orleans) there is no way for researchers to know if Judyth is telling the truth about impersonating Marina. She "might be" telling the truth, but you can't go to the bank with that...
2) HE TELLS ME THAT LYNDON JOHNSON'S SCANDALS ARE ONE REASON FOR THE VICE PRESIDENT WANTING THE ASSASSINATION TO YAKE(sic) PLACE--IS THIS ALSO MEANINGLESS?Jim & Judyth,
How would Oswald know this? C'mon? How? Did he get it from Madeleine Brown? How, why, and for what reason would Oswald know anything about LBJ's legal problems? Ok, Ok, --let's ASSUME he did... But, even if he did know it and said it to Judyth... still: "that he said it to Judyth" is meaningless TODAY. It wouldn't be meaningless if Judyth had reported this to authorities before the fact, then her heroism would be well appreciated. As it is, JFK is dead.
3) HE IDENTIFIED HIMSELF TO ME AS AN AGENT BORROWED BY THE CIA AND ALSO USED BY THE FBI--IS THIS MEANINGLESS, TOO?This is old news, Judyth! We already knew this information before you came along. That he worked for both agencies is meaningful, historically. However, it is personally meaningless to me that he told you this. If you had revealed this BEFORE we already knew it, perhaps I'd feel differently. If you had reported this to researchers BEFORE the documents proving same had emerged, then it would have a lot more meaning. And, I might add, it still would have been vigorously challenged by skeptics, unless and until documentation was forthcoming in support of the claim. In this case it would have panned out. Problem is, it "panned out" before the fact--before you even mentioned it. "That dog don't hunt."
4) I REPORTED THAT HE TOLD ME HOW HE TRIED TO SAVE KENNEDY--AND HE REPORTED THAT HE WAS SUCCESSFUL ONCE (WE NOW HAVE ABRAHAM BOLDEN TO VERIFY THAT) -- HIS REPORTED ATTEMPTS TO SAVE KENNEDY ARE MEANINGLESS?It is a claim. Nothing more. You've provided no proof, Judyth! If you're "the real deal" then to you it is proved because you remember it! But that doesn't constitute proof for anyone else. Understand, I'm not challenging your story, I'm attempting to help you comprehend why others don't find it compelling. You need to understand that there are reasons for skepticism beyond "my skeptics all have nefarious motives and intentions". -- Did Abraham Bolden say that Oswald successfully "saved Kennedy's life" once? Or did he report a generic event without mentioning Oswald's name? See what I mean?
5) LEE TOLD ME HE PENETRATED THE ASSASSINATION RING AT RISK OF HIS LIFE--THAT IS MEANINGLESS, TOO?Well, if true, he penetrated it, and screwed up!!! I assume he was supposed to prevent it from succeeding? If so, he no doubt worked for the CIA, who taught him to be INCOMPETENT, which is their trademark.
Monk:
These are excellent observations. The point that stood out the most was "Jim & Judyth,
How would Oswald know this? C'mon? How? Did he get it from Madeleine Brown? How, why, and for what reason would Oswald know anything about LBJ's legal problems? Ok,
THe answer is Oswald could not have known and there is no way he did know. Like the other points anyone could obtain some of this information years later. I know it has to bother you that Judyth's responses continue to be filtered, soi many questions left unanswered , and no concrete proofs that she claims to possess forthcoming. I am not aware of documents of Marina being in New Orleans.
Doug Weldon
Monk:
I hope Judyth does not point to Life Magazine which detailed many of LBJ's legal problems the week befeore the assassination. This is research, not memory. Is Judyth suggesting that Oswald was specially briefed about these problems? If so, by whom and for what reason? If you catch up with the thread you will see that virtually every good question is left unanswered. Judyth will not or has not produced the tape that allegedly contradicts the account of the Mary Ferrell incident and will not subject the alleged writing of Oswald for expert analysis. I just recently found out that Judyth is a member of this forum and sees everything. Why do all of her responses have to get filtered through a third party? I will gladly interview and tape Anna Lewis myself. I hope you get a chance to review the threads.
Doug Weldon
-
[snip][snip...]Even if her various claims were true, which seems unlikely since she appears in not a single document regarding Oswald,
==SINCE SHE POSED AS MARINA OSWALD==
her tales are so peripheral to the assassination as to be meaningless.
========
Jim, I am probably way behind here, but is there anything besides Judyth's own statements that would tend to substantiate her claims about "posing as Marina"? For instance, was Marina documented as having been seen with Lee (or Harvey--whatever!) in New Orleans at a time when she [Marina] was supposedly still in Dallas? Such conflicting documentation would be very relevant in light of Judyth's claim. On the other side of the coin, if there is nothing indicating Marina was "in two places at the same time" (one location being New Orleans) there is no way for researchers to know if Judyth is telling the truth about impersonating Marina. She "might be" telling the truth, but you can't go to the bank with that...
2) HE TELLS ME THAT LYNDON JOHNSON'S SCANDALS ARE ONE REASON FOR THE VICE PRESIDENT WANTING THE ASSASSINATION TO YAKE(sic) PLACE--IS THIS ALSO MEANINGLESS?Jim & Judyth,
How would Oswald know this? C'mon? How? Did he get it from Madeleine Brown? How, why, and for what reason would Oswald know anything about LBJ's legal problems? Ok, Ok, --let's ASSUME he did... But, even if he did know it and said it to Judyth... still: "that he said it to Judyth" is meaningless TODAY. It wouldn't be meaningless if Judyth had reported this to authorities before the fact, then her heroism would be well appreciated. As it is, JFK is dead.
3) HE IDENTIFIED HIMSELF TO ME AS AN AGENT BORROWED BY THE CIA AND ALSO USED BY THE FBI--IS THIS MEANINGLESS, TOO?This is old news, Judyth! We already knew this information before you came along. That he worked for both agencies is meaningful, historically. However, it is personally meaningless to me that he told you this. If you had revealed this BEFORE we already knew it, perhaps I'd feel differently. If you had reported this to researchers BEFORE the documents proving same had emerged, then it would have a lot more meaning. And, I might add, it still would have been vigorously challenged by skeptics, unless and until documentation was forthcoming in support of the claim. In this case it would have panned out. Problem is, it "panned out" before the fact--before you even mentioned it. "That dog don't hunt."
4) I REPORTED THAT HE TOLD ME HOW HE TRIED TO SAVE KENNEDY--AND HE REPORTED THAT HE WAS SUCCESSFUL ONCE (WE NOW HAVE ABRAHAM BOLDEN TO VERIFY THAT) -- HIS REPORTED ATTEMPTS TO SAVE KENNEDY ARE MEANINGLESS?It is a claim. Nothing more. You've provided no proof, Judyth! If you're "the real deal" then to you it is proved because you remember it! But that doesn't constitute proof for anyone else. Understand, I'm not challenging your story, I'm attempting to help you comprehend why others don't find it compelling. You need to understand that there are reasons for skepticism beyond "my skeptics all have nefarious motives and intentions". -- Did Abraham Bolden say that Oswald successfully "saved Kennedy's life" once? Or did he report a generic event without mentioning Oswald's name? See what I mean?
5) LEE TOLD ME HE PENETRATED THE ASSASSINATION RING AT RISK OF HIS LIFE--THAT IS MEANINGLESS, TOO?Well, if true, he penetrated it, and screwed up!!! I assume he was supposed to prevent it from succeeding? If so, he no doubt worked for the CIA, who taught him to be INCOMPETENT, which is their trademark.
Monk:
These are excellent observations. The point that stood out the most was "Jim & Judyth,
How would Oswald know this? C'mon? How? Did he get it from Madeleine Brown? How, why, and for what reason would Oswald know anything about LBJ's legal problems? Ok,
THe answer is Oswald could not have known and there is no way he did know. Like the other points anyone could obtain some of this information years later. I know it has to bother you that Judyth's responses continue to be filtered, soi many questions left unanswered , and no concrete proofs that she claims to possess forthcoming. I am not aware of documents of Marina being in New Orleans.
Doug Weldon
-
JUDYTH RESPONDS TO JUNKKARINEN (WITH MORE TO COME)
NOTE: This seems to be a nice example of how Junkkarinen likes to make slight
alterations to the evidence in order to create a false target to attack. Judyth has
more to say about her latest posts, which I think will explain to Jack why I take
nothing from Junkkarinen at face value. She is very devious and misleading in
her posts, as I read them, which means that she is an untrustworthy source. I
believe that Doug Weldon has been misled from time to time by relying upon
posts from Barb. They are not reliable and should never be taken for granted.
Actually, what this is a nice example of is you popping off a shot at me prematurely and managing only to shoot yourself in the bee-hind. For the second time today, no less. The first time you leaped to the keyboard before you read everything I had said in my post. This time you go in for the kill without knowing whether or not Judyth's sayso was accurate, but go full throttle ahead and pile accusations of playing fast and loose with evidence upon my character anyway.
If you are going to *ever* accuse me of altering evidence or being an unreliable source, I suggest you engage a little of that critical thinking you preach to everyone about and make sure you've got the goods and can pony up the proof for your allegations. Don't hold your breath though, because it will never happen, that is not the way I roll .. *ever*. It is not me who has a reputation for being an unreliable source. :-) One would think you would have learned by now about running on nothing but Judyth's sayso ... LOL!
JUDYTH REPLIES:]BJ has again made a misrepresentation. This is getting tiresome:
BJ WROTE:
"She reports one suggestion she made to this witness in her introductory remarks
to those she was sending these "highlights" to. That is very troubling as well. It
was when she was relating that McGehee told her he had the impression that
Oswald was in a big black car with Ferrie and Shaw, and she writes,
"I suggested that perhaps others had tried to influence him about that incident
prompting a false memory, but he said no, he had not been influenced by anyone."
==WHERE DO YOU GET THIS QUOTE FROM, BJ? WHAT OCCURRED IS THAT A
RESEARCHER SAID HE HAD A FALSE IMPRESSION ABOUT OSWALD IN THE OLD
CAR, AND THAT ACTUALLY HE HAD SEEN OSWALD IN A BLACK CADILLAC, AND
MCGEHEE SAID HE WAS PRESSURED TO SAY THAT, WHEN THAT WAS NOT HIS
IMPRESSION AT ALL, THAT I SHOULD LOOK AT HIS FIRST STATEMENTS, NOT
HIS LATER ONES, BECAUSE HE FELT HE HAD BEEN PRESSURED TO CHANGE
HIS STORY.
THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HE COMPLAINED OF.
IN FACT, THE SAME PEOPLE WHO 'REMOVED ' THE 'WOMAN' FROM THE CAR
ARE THE ONES WHO ALSO REPORTED THE CHANGED DETAILS IN MCGEHEE'S
STORY.
I REPEAT, MCGEHEE SAID OTHERS TRIED TO INFLUENCE HIM. I DID NOT SAY
THAT TO HIM, HE SAID IT TO ME.
GET IT STRAIGHT.
SHOW US THE ENTIRE SOURCE AND QUOTATION YOU GOT THIS FROM, BJ.
My pleasure. It's an 8 page email. Here is the first page.
And you are correct ... it is tiresome. But according to the document *you* wrote, it is not me who is misrepresenting anything. :-)
Now that I have responded to your request by posting this document, it's your turn. Turn about is fair play and all that, right?
Please have Jim post a couple of the documents from the "sheaf" you claim to have, and that you quoted from in a BlackOp radio interview, that you said showed the apportionment of assorted grants and funds for your research while at the U Fl Gainesville.
And since you are already questioning things posted about your "highlights" email about your McGehee interview ... get that tape out here so we can all hear exactly what was said and how it was said.
I know you want to get all your proofs out, you have stated many times in the past that you know how important proof and documentation is. So, what better time than here and now to tend to some things, like the two I mentioned above ... as well as the other questions that have been asked in this thread.
Barb
This is absolutely worthless! Judyth is taking her own testimony and is repeatedly tainting the witness, It sounds like she had prepped him also, otherwise why would he say:Baker: I don't know what you were able to see in the car.
McGehee: Just saw the back of your head. That was all I saw.
"your head?" She's even telling him it was a two toned car!
If this is an example of how she prepped and approached Lewis and other witnesses it is far worse than I thought. Her paper on cancer could have been taken from an encyclopedia at the time. I look for evidence and there is nothing. Again, I would be happy to interview Lewis and tape it.
Doug Weldon
Exactly. And I agree ... if this is her approach to interviewing a witness ... none of their statements can be used for much of anything. And we do know that Judyth found and spoke with Lewis before the New Orleans meeting with other researches when Debra Conway made the videotape of Lewis.
Bests,
Barb :-)
Barb is correct. I think Judyth needs to respond to ALL of this in addition to other questions she has refused to answer and proofs, i.e. the Mary ferrell tape and LHO writing analysis, that have not been presented.
Doug Weldon
-
I did not mean to imply that there is SHAME involved in not passing the bar. Many law school grads
go on to be very successful businessmen. BUT I bet almost every law school grad at some point
takes or studies to take the bar exam.
Jack
Jack:
I agree with you.
Doug Weldon
-
Dean:
I want to address this very succinctly. My apologies, I thought you had a legal background. Experts can be mistaken and of course, a jury, or in this case, the public or this forum, is the ultimate trier of fact. However, as I assume anyone knows, the triers of fact do not do the examination of the actual handwriting and make their own determination. The examination is made by experts describing how they performed their examination and the jury decides if those experts are reliable. We do not each make individual judments absent the foundation of expert analysis. Doesn't it bother you that Judyth will not allow the writing to be examined with truly the weight of history weighing on her contentions? Judyth wants to examine the handwriting, Oswald's eyes, his autopsy, and asks us to believe that SHE is the expert on everything. Doesn't it bother you that she has such a total recall of everything but yet is wrong on so much, including an unbelieveable penchant for getting things wrong that she had a 50/50 chance of getting right by guessing?
I HAVE A LAW DEGREE BUT AM NOT LICENSED TO PRACTICE LAW. MAYBE THAT WAS THE POINT OF CONFUSION.
AS FOR JURORS DECIDING ON HANDWRITING, I CHECKED FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE, WHICH I FOUND ON THIS WEBSITE WITH COMMENTS:
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/evidencep...ca8-mo2010.html
HERE IS THE GIST OF WHAT IT STATES. I TAKE IT TO MEAN THAT A PARTY CAN (USUALLY AS A LAST RESORT) ASK THE TRIER OF FACT, THE JURY IN MANY TRIALS, TO COMPARE A WRITING TO AN EXEMPLAR:
Federal Rules of Evidence
ARTICLE IX. AUTHENTICATION AND IDENTIFICATION
Rule 901. Requirement of Authentication or Identification
(a) General provision.
The requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.
(
Illustrations.By way of illustration only, and not by way of limitation, the following are examples of authentication or identification conforming with the requirements of this rule:
(1) Testimony of witness with knowledge. Testimony that a matter is what it is claimed to be.
(2) Nonexpert opinion on handwriting. Nonexpert opinion as to the genuineness of handwriting, based upon familiarity not acquired for purposes of the litigation.
(3) Comparison by trier or expert witness. Comparison by the trier of fact or by expert witnesses with specimens which have been authenticated.
...
(WAS THERE SOME QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THERE IS AN AUTHENTICATED LEE OSWALD WRITING AVAILABLE?)
She digs a deeper and deeper hole when she explains her interview with McGeehee. How useful is it when a witness describes a woman and she shouts out that it was her, that she describes the car for him, etc. etc? Do you not believe that the Platzman and JVB e-mails to Mary Ferrell were an obvious attempt to coerce her? If not, there is nothing I can say to you. Doesn't that lead one to believe that such was not an isolated incident? What is surprising me is not that so little stands up to scrutiny but, in fact, virtually nothing does. What do we have besides her sieve filled story? I would be glad to interview her witnesses. Nothing would be hidden and all would be recorded. How can I state that I would not agree with her answers when there are NO answers? How do you know what we would hear if she dodges so many legiitimate questions.
You mention that experts can be mistaken about handwriting samples. Of course, but if I wrote out a book in my handwriting and tell everyone it's JFK's handwriting and all the experts laugh and I tell you they could be mistaken would you buy that book from me? Dean, I do have a couple of Picasso sketches you might be interested in buying.
A LITTLE COMMON SENSE WOULD SETTLE YOUR HYPOTHETICAL BETTER THAN AN EXPERT.
Jim keeps saying repeat the questions. I have over and over. Let's just take one for the upteenth time. Produce the Mary Ferrell tape which she claims she has that supports her position. One issue! Is it clear what I am asking for? This, the alleged LHO writing, and if there is a picture the two of them have are all concrete pieces of evidence. PRODUCE them. Let JVB respond for herself. It always seems like there is a "Team Judyth" that has been there to protect her from her own falsehoods. I don't know why? If there is a money interest, I don't think anyone got rich, yet convinced many others, from her first book. I will bet anyone that Meryl Streep is not waiting anxiously to play Judyth, in the movie role of her life.
I sincerely was open and did not see Judyth as a total fraud. For many personal reasons I was very interested in cancer and the monkey virus. One person has ultimately been able to convince me that Judyth is a fraud. That person has been able to provide overwhelming evidence from each carefully detailed point to detailed point. I simply cannot argue with that person. That person is Judyth.
Doug Weldon
DOUG, SHE HAS SPOKEN ON MANY OF THESE SUBJECTS. BUT IF YOU BELIEVE SOMEONE IS PROTECTING HER FROM WHAT YOU CALL FALSEHOODS, THERE IS NOTHING I CAN SAY TO YOU.
So you went to all the trouble to become a Doctor of Jurisprudence, and then did not take the bar exam? Or did you take it and not pass?
Jack
Jack:
Many people go to law school and never practice law. I don't know Dean's situation but many people who would have been great attorneys never pass the bar exam and there are idiots (some people might point to me) who do. There really is no rhyme or reason. In Michigan people who literally give up three or four years of their life and thousands of dollars never pass the exam. In Michigan about 70% pass it the first time and in retaking it your odds go way down. Remember how many times JFK Jr, failed the exam and the headlines "The Hunk Flunks." When I took the exam over two days there were people who had gone through law school, done well, taken a bar review course, got to the test, looked at it and literally stood up and walked out crying.
I had a friend who gave up everything, took the bar exam once, and in almost thirty years could never bring himeself to take it again. Again, I have no knowledge of Dean's personal situation, but it does not impress me if one passes or fails the bar exam. I do have a respect and feel a fraternity for those who endured the law school experience. About one half of the people I started with did not finish law school. I am six hours short of the course work for completing a PHD in education and have a masters in educational leadership. However, that experience was "fun" compared to law school.
Doug Weldon
-
Dean Hartwell said to Doug Weldon:
DOUG, SHE HAS SPOKEN ON MANY OF THESE SUBJECTS. BUT IF YOU BELIEVE SOMEONE IS PROTECTING HER FROM WHAT YOU CALL FALSEHOODS, THERE IS NOTHING I CAN SAY TO YOU.
---
Dean:
I guess your failure to address most of the points I raised must be construed as acquiescence. (The point about the handwriting were people determining two examples of handwriting were not the same person, not to determine if they were, in fact, the same person. if there is suspicion that Judyth forged the writing do you not agree that she should not be the person to authenticate it?) Since you are a law school graduate, i have a very simple question. If someone is not protecting Judyth from herself, then why does Judyth not reply to questions herself, rather than have her responses screened and filtered through a third party? I believe Jim has stated that he is trying to protect her. What does she need to be protected from? it is interesting that when people agree with Judyth they are perceptive and "rational" but if they disagree they are arrogant and close-minded. Dean, I read that you like to analyze evidence from a "legal" perspective. How can you objectively do so in the case of Judyth. I believe if Monk spoke to Judyth again he would have much more penetrating questions to ask her. You have the benefit of seeing the issues raised through this thread. Why is it that you are not more critical? Are you willing to place your reputation in history on this evidence? On the basis of the evidence to this point of time, I am.
Doug Weldon
Doug,
I do not acquiesce to your points. Your last message gave me the impression that you had nothing to say to me if I did not agree with points that you made.
I have tried to reason with you by asking you why you bother to ask questions of someone with whom you appear to hold in contempt. Obviously, I have not succeeded. Considering your derisive tone toward Judyth, Jim and now (with your last message especially) me, I do not wish to make any further statements to you.
Dean
Dean:
It is unfortunate that you believe that I have a derisive tone or ill will towards you (or Judyth or for that matter anyone) personally. I assure you that nothing could be further from the truth. Despite the agitation with Jim I (from my side) consider him to be my friend. I do care about the evidence. I have been involved with this for 32 years. I can be passionate, come on strong, but it is always about the evidence. I take it very seriously but in the total context of life this should be a minor consideration for everyone here. I have respected and valued your input. It is because of that I chose not to ignore your input. Treat things as you will. I am the foremost expert in the world on the JFK assassination ON my own opinion, not in my own opinion.
Best,
Doug Weldon
Dean:
BTW, there is nothing so humiliating and humbling as going through law school. In enduring that journey, for that reason alone, I have deep respect for you. You actually seemed to have survived it and maintained being a decent person. Don't lose that.
Doug Weldon
-
Dean Hartwell said to Doug Weldon:
DOUG, SHE HAS SPOKEN ON MANY OF THESE SUBJECTS. BUT IF YOU BELIEVE SOMEONE IS PROTECTING HER FROM WHAT YOU CALL FALSEHOODS, THERE IS NOTHING I CAN SAY TO YOU.
---
Dean:
I guess your failure to address most of the points I raised must be construed as acquiescence. (The point about the handwriting were people determining two examples of handwriting were not the same person, not to determine if they were, in fact, the same person. if there is suspicion that Judyth forged the writing do you not agree that she should not be the person to authenticate it?) Since you are a law school graduate, i have a very simple question. If someone is not protecting Judyth from herself, then why does Judyth not reply to questions herself, rather than have her responses screened and filtered through a third party? I believe Jim has stated that he is trying to protect her. What does she need to be protected from? it is interesting that when people agree with Judyth they are perceptive and "rational" but if they disagree they are arrogant and close-minded. Dean, I read that you like to analyze evidence from a "legal" perspective. How can you objectively do so in the case of Judyth. I believe if Monk spoke to Judyth again he would have much more penetrating questions to ask her. You have the benefit of seeing the issues raised through this thread. Why is it that you are not more critical? Are you willing to place your reputation in history on this evidence? On the basis of the evidence to this point of time, I am.
Doug Weldon
Doug,
I do not acquiesce to your points. Your last message gave me the impression that you had nothing to say to me if I did not agree with points that you made.
I have tried to reason with you by asking you why you bother to ask questions of someone with whom you appear to hold in contempt. Obviously, I have not succeeded. Considering your derisive tone toward Judyth, Jim and now (with your last message especially) me, I do not wish to make any further statements to you.
Dean
Dean:
It is unfortunate that you believe that I have a derisive tone or ill will towards you (or Judyth or for that matter anyone) personally. I assure you that nothing could be further from the truth. Despite the agitation with Jim I (from my side) consider him to be my friend. I do care about the evidence. I have been involved with this for 32 years. I can be passionate, come on strong, but it is always about the evidence. I take it very seriously but in the total context of life this should be a minor consideration for everyone here. I have respected and valued your input. It is because of that I chose not to ignore your input. Treat things as you will. I am the foremost expert in the world on the JFK assassination ON my own opinion, not in my own opinion.
Best,
Doug Weldon
-
DOUG, SHE HAS SPOKEN ON MANY OF THESE SUBJECTS. BUT IF YOU BELIEVE SOMEONE IS PROTECTING HER FROM WHAT YOU CALL FALSEHOODS, THERE IS NOTHING I CAN SAY TO YOU.
Dean:
I guess your failure to address most of the points I raised must be construed as acquiescence. (The point about the handwriting were people determining two examples of handwriting were not the same person, not to determine if they were, in fact, the same person. if there is suspicion that Judyth forged the writing do you not agree that she should not be the person to authenticate it?) Since you are a law school graduate, i have a very simple question. If someone is not protecting Judyth from herself, then why does Judyth not reply to questions herself, rather than have her responses screened and filtered through a third party? I believe Jim has stated that he is trying to protect her. What does she need to be protected from? it is interesting that when people agree with Judyth they are perceptive and "rational" but if they disagree they are arrogant and close-minded. Dean, I read that you like to analyze evidence from a "legal" perspective. How can you objectively do so in the case of Judyth. I believe if Monk spoke to Judyth again he would have much more penetrating questions to ask her. You have the benefit of seeing the issues raised through this thread. Why is it that you are not more critical? Are you willing to place your reputation in history on this evidence? On the basis of the evidence to this point of time, I am.
Doug Weldon
-
Judyth is being advised by Nobel Prize Winners? Please tell us more. Which ones?
At the same time, please clarify her statement that Judyth's IQ test showed that she
had the highest IQ of anyone in the state of Florida.
These unsupported claims weaken her credibility.
Jack
JUDYTH REPLIES TO DOUG WELDON'S LATEST EFFORTS TO DISMISS HERNOTE: Once again, he treats her as though she were a professional investigator coming
from the Office of the District Attorney. I regard her objections here as well-founded. His
remark about drawing her work from an encyclopedia is simply ignorant beyond belief. I
consider his degree of bias to disqualify him as an objective investigator of Judyth Baker.
JUDYTH RESPONDS:
This is absolutely worthless! Judyth is taking her own testimony and is repeatedly tainting
the witness, It sounds like she had prepped him also, otherwise why would he say:
Baker: I don't know what you were able to see in the car.
McGehee: Just saw the back of your head. That was all I saw.
==I HAD A WITNESS WITH ME. HE TOLD US HIS ENTIRE EXPERIENCE. I TOLD HIM I WAS
THE WOMAN IN THE CAR. HE DID NOT BELIEVE ME AND ASKED ME ABOUT LEE'S HAIRCUT.
WHEN I GAVE HIM THE CORRECT ANSWER, HE AGREED TO GO ON TAPE.
BECAUSE MCGEHEE COULD NOT SEE MY FACE, THERE WAS NO I.D. TAINTING, JUST MY SAYING
I WAS THE WOMAN. OTHERWISE, HE DID NOT WANT TO ALK TO US. HE WAS BUSY HELPING TO
MOVE FURNITURE FOR A FRIEND AND HAD TO STOP FOR THE INTERVIEW.
WHAT, WAS I TO SAY I WAS A NEWSPAPER REPORTER? HE TOLD ME IF I WAS A REPORTER,
TO GO AWAY!
THERE IS NO 'PREPPING' GOING ON. WE NEVER DISCUSSED HAIR LENGTH. I HAVE IN THE
OTHER POST INTERPRETED WHAT WAS SAID AS EACH PHOTO WAS LOOKED AT. MARTIN
THOUGHT THERE WAS JUST ONE PHOTO BECAUSE SHACK WAS NOT THERE. WELDON IS
EXHIBITING PREJUDICE.==
"your head?"
She's even telling him it was a two toned car!
==USE LOGIC. ONLY AFTER HE SAID HE COULD NOT REMEMBER THE COLOR OF THE CAR DID
I TELL HM THE COLOR. THAT IS NOT PREPPING. PREPPING IS BEFORE THE FACT, NOT AFTER.==
If this is an example of how she prepped
==PREP IS BEFORE THE ACT. HE DID NOT SEE THE FACE. SO MY SAYING IT WAS ME MADE
NO DIFFERENCE, BECAUSE ONLY THE HAIRSTYLE WAS OF CONCERN. I HAVE EXPLAINED THE
PROCESS, WHICH DOES NOT COME ACROSS VERY WELL ON TAPE.==
and approached Lewis and other witnesses
==NOT SO. ANNA AND I SAW EACH OTHER FOR THE FIRST TIME AFTER ALL THOSE YEARS AND
RAN INTO EACH OTHER'S ARMS IN THE PRESENCE OF HER DAUGHTER SONDRA. ANNA SAID,
"SEE? I TOLD YOU I KNEW LEE OSWALD AND HIS GIRLFRIEND!" TO SONDRA.
IT WAS A CROWDED RESTAURANT AND I GOT HER VERY FIRST STATEMENTS IMMEDIATELY,
HER DAUGHTER PRESENT HEARING EVERY WORD. I TAPED ANNA IMMEDIATELY AND LET HER
TALK. WE DID TWO TAPES AND THE NEXT TIME WE MET WAS IN NEW ORLEANS.==
it is far worse than I thought.
==IMPOSSIBLE. WELDON ALWAYS THINKS THE WORST.==
Her paper on cancer could have been taken from an encyclopedia at the time.
==THE NOBEL PRIZE WINNERS WHO ADVISED ME ON MY WORK MAY HAVE WRITTEN SOME OF
THE ARTICLES IN ENCYCLOPEDIAS, BUT FYI, ENCYCLOPEDIAS AT THE TIME WERE WOEFULLY
BEHIND INSOFAR CANCER RESEARCH WENT.
THERE WAS ALMOST NOTHING IN HE ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITTANICA, FOR EXAMPLE, OF USE TO ME.
EVEN THE E.B. WAS WAY TOO GENERAL.==
I look for evidence and there is nothing. Again, I would be happy to interview Lewis and tape it.
==AFTER WHAT'S SHE'S BEEN THROUGH? SHE WASN'T PREPPED FOR NEW ORLEANS. SHE DIDN'T
EVEN KNOW THERE WAS GOING TO BE A TAPING. OR DO YOU WISH TO INCLUDE DEBRA CONWAY
IN 'THE "PLOT' TO INFLUENCE THE WITNESS?" SHE DID THE TAPING. FIVE OF US SAT THERE AND
LISTENED AS CONWAY ASKED OCCASIONAL QUESTIONS.. MR. WELDON HAS EXPRESSED THAT HE
DOUBTS MY SANITY. WHICH OF MY WITNESSES WOULD WANT TO BE UNDER HIS TENDER CARE,
KNOWING HOW PREJUDICED HE IS?==
JVB
Edwin Lea McGehee was one of the "Clinton/Jackson witnesses" who emerged during the Garrison investigation. The stories of these witnesses suggested that Oswald was in the Clinton/Jackson area in the late summer of 1963, accompanied by others, and various theories have been propounded as to the reason for Oswald's alleged presence there. McGehee once said he thought that a woman may have accompanied Oswald there. Baker and another individual interviewed McGehee in 2001. These are portions of the transcript.Excerpts of transcript of "highlights" of interview of Edwin Lea McGehee by Judyth Baker, January 20, 2001.
Baker: I don't know what you were able to see in the car.
McGehee: Just saw the back of your head. That was all I saw.
Baker: OK. Well, was it a dark-haired lady?
McGehee: Right. That's all I know.
Baker: Well, now, it wasn't a blonde? She was dark-haired?
McGehee: Yes, dark-haired.
Baker: Well, I have to, I have to tell you - that was me.
McGehee: Garrison always asked. He said, who...he wished he knew who that was.
Baker: I kept everything.
McGehee: Why didn't it come up at that time?
Baker: Well, I was scared to death, because - Dave Ferrie, you know - think he was murdered - Mary Sherman was stabbed - fourteen times - the other person I worked with.
McGehee: Well, I'll be damned.
Baker: I've got all this documented.
McGehee: Uh-huh, uh-huh.
Baker: I've got all the proof.
McGehee: Unbelieveable!...
Baker: (showing picture of herself) Tell me, if you'll - look at her, and see what you think...Does she look anything like the woman you saw?
McGehee: The back - yeah - but it's short - not long haired - long haired - uh - I think it's...
Baker: It was a little longer at the time.
McGehee: Yeah...uh. Maybe a bit longer down at...it was shoulder length...
Baker: Well, that's exactly right, it was the year before...
McGehee: Right...
Baker: And, uh, my hair was a shorter length at the time...
McGehee: [Oswald] got a haircut. And I thought that was strange. He kept trying to - in my opinion, he was trying to make me remember him. That was my opinion of why he was there.
Baker: Well, there were some things we were trying to do to prove who we were...
McGehee: Uh...
Baker: This will shock you, but - we were there becuase of prisoners being experimented on at Jackson Hospital, and I don't know whether you heard any rumors about them or not. They were injected with cancer cells. did you hear anything about that?
McGehee: No.
Baker: Well, Okay. Did you hear of any experiments that were being done on any prisoners in 1963?
McGehee: Right. No, no.
Baker: Well that was what this whole trip was about - going out there and - I had all this medical training and everything like that, and we - I was out there to check the bloodwork...
Baker: Do you remember about the car out there? I'll tell you what kind of a car it was in a minute, and see if you can remember.
McGehee: It was an old car - and like I said, a Nash, a Frazier.
Baker: Was it two-toned or one-toned? Or do you remember? I'm on record, so - I mean, uh, I'm on record as having already described the car.
McGehee: I don't know...I just glanced at it, and I looked mostly at WHO was in the car...No, didn't know that car.
Baker: Well, it was a...mainly green - darker green...two-tone, the other color had some tan in it...
McGehee: Well, were you driving it? So Lee didn't drive?
Baker: Lee was driving. He was afraid to drive because he didn't have a driver's license, so we were driving up side roads...
McGehee: Everything I read about him - since then - it said he couldn't drive.
Baker: Oh, believe me!..He told me he learned to drive when he was in the Marines.
McGehee: Well, I'll be damned!
Baker: I want you to know that you are not the only one on tape. I've got other witnesses.
This is absolutely worthless! Judyth is taking her own testimony and is repeatedly tainting the witness, It sounds like she had prepped him also, otherwise why would he say:
Baker: I don't know what you were able to see in the car.
McGehee: Just saw the back of your head. That was all I saw.
"your head?" She's even telling him it was a two toned car!
If this is an example of how she prepped and approached Lewis and other witnesses it is far worse than I thought. Her paper on cancer could have been taken from an encyclopedia at the time. I look for evidence and there is nothing. Again, I would be happy to interview Lewis and tape it.
Doug Weldon
Judyth says:
==USE LOGIC. ONLY AFTER HE SAID HE COULD NOT REMEMBER THE COLOR OF THE CAR DID
I TELL HM THE COLOR. THAT IS NOT PREPPING. PREPPING IS BEFORE THE FACT, NOT AFTER.==
There is only one thing worse than this. It would be asking "what color was the GREEN Car?" Then by telling him the color of the car after she told him that she was the woman in the car she is trying to establish facts that the witness cannot do independently and then is using the witness as corroborration for her own statement. I hope people can see the circuitous logic and see how preposterous this is.
Doug Weldon
-
I did not know this. If Judyth is a member why do her replies have to be filtered through Jim? Is it to protect her from stating something inappropriate?
Doug Weldon
Doug,
Your question [that I put in bold] suggests strongly that you do not trust what Jim or Judyth says. Why do you bother asking them questions?
Dean
Dean:
I did not know that Judyth was a member and thus cannot understand now why any of this had to go through Jim. In fact, Judyth has answered NONE of my questions or other legitimate questions raised by others here, has refused to present the concrete proofs she claims she has, i.e., the handwriting ananlysis of oswald and the tape she claims she took at Mary Ferrels which she claims contradict what has been stated here. I cannot believe that anyone, especially you as an attorney, can accept such weak, and probably non-existent, proofs. It is you who should be demanding the handwriting analysis and tapes she claims she has. Doesn't her refusals and to see suchthings as her "interview" with McGeehee bother you? If Judyth was accused of beng LHO's lover and working on research as a high school student that the most reputable PHD's and MD's in the country still cannot do, do you truly believe that there would be enough evidence to convict her? If Judyth is a fraud, and if she cannot answer questions or proofs that SHE claims to have, or tries to taint or intimidate witnesse, then I detest what she is doing. If she has the proofs I am open and let her present them. Otherwise she dishonors the memory of JFK and is an affront to those who care. Let her answer the questions (herself) or present her evidence otherwise let's all hope we can enjoy her historical fiction.
Doug Weldon
Doug,
I am not an attorney. And as to your questions, I do not have much of an interest in handwriting samples. I believe there is a good chance that the experts for the Warren Commission falsely stated that Lee Oswald filled out the order form for the rifle. It seems to me that experts can be mistaken. Also, is it not true that jurors are frequently asked to determine if a writing sample belongs to a certain person? The sample of the handwriting you refer to was, of course, shown on this thread some time back and all of us can make our judgment on that.
As for McGeehee, I do not agree with putting the word interview in quotes. It was an interview and reasonable minds can differ as to its quality. I was not bothered by it.
Doug, I think we can have a fair dialogue about this topic. But I am confused. You sound like you want questions answered on the one hand but you also sound like you have decided you will not agree with what you would hear. Am I reasonable to be confused?
Dean
Dean:
I want to address this very succinctly. My apologies, I thought you had a legal background. Experts can be mistaken and of course, a jury, or in this case, the public or this forum, is the ultimate trier of fact. However, as I assume anyone knows, the triers of fact do not do the examination of the actual handwriting and make their own determination. The examination is made by experts describing how they performed their examination and the jury decides if those experts are reliable. We do not each make individual judments absent the foundation of expert analysis. Doesn't it bother you that Judyth will not allow the writing to be examined with truly the weight of history weighing on her contentions? Judyth wants to examine the handwriting, Oswald's eyes, his autopsy, and asks us to believe that SHE is the expert on everything. Doesn't it bother you that she has such a total recall of everything but yet is wrong on so much, including an unbelieveable penchant for getting things wrong that she had a 50/50 chance of getting right by guessing?
She digs a deeper and deeper hole when she explains her interview with McGeehee. How useful is it when a witness describes a woman and she shouts out that it was her, that she describes the car for him, etc. etc? Do you not believe that the Platzman and JVB e-mails to Mary Ferrell were an obvious attempt to coerce her? If not, there is nothing I can say to you. Doesn't that lead one to believe that such was not an isolated incident? What is surprising me is not that so little stands up to scrutiny but, in fact, virtually nothing does. What do we have besides her sieve filled story? I would be glad to interview her witnesses. Nothing would be hidden and all would be recorded. How can I state that I would not agree with her answers when there are NO answers? How do you know what we would hear if she dodges so many legiitimate questions.
You mention that experts can be mistaken about handwriting samples. Of course, but if I wrote out a book in my handwriting and tell everyone it's JFK's handwriting and all the experts laugh and I tell you they could be mistaken would you buy that book from me? Dean, I do have a couple of Picasso sketches you might be interested in buying.
Jim keeps saying repeat the questions. I have over and over. Let's just take one for the upteenth time. Produce the Mary Ferrell tape which she claims she has that supports her position. One issue! Is it clear what I am asking for? This, the alleged LHO writing, and if there is a picture the two of them have are all concrete pieces of evidence. PRODUCE them. Let JVB respond for herself. It always seems like there is a "Team Judyth" that has been there to protect her from her own falsehoods. I don't know why? If there is a money interest, I don't think anyone got rich, yet convinced many others, from her first book. I will bet anyone that Meryl Streep is not waiting anxiously to play Judyth, in the movie role of her life.
I sincerely was open and did not see Judyth as a total fraud. For many personal reasons I was very interested in cancer and the monkey virus. One person has ultimately been able to convince me that Judyth is a fraud. That person has been able to provide overwhelming evidence from each carefully detailed point to detailed point. I simply cannot argue with that person. That person is Judyth.
Doug Weldon
-
JUDYTH REPLIES TO DOUG WELDON ABOUT HIS PLACE IN HISTORY
<snip>
I AM UNABLE TO SEE THE EDUCATON FORUM--IT IS BLOCKED TO MY VIEW.
<snip>
I hadn't heard this before. Professor, could you please ask Judyth to explain what message she sees? She is a member in good standing here, and should be able to view the Forum.
I did not know this. If Judyth is a member why do her replies have to be filtered through Jim? Is it to protect her from stating something inappropriate?
Doug Weldon
Doug,
Your question [that I put in bold] suggests strongly that you do not trust what Jim or Judyth says. Why do you bother asking them questions?
Dean
Dean:
I did not know that Judyth was a member and thus cannot understand now why any of this had to go through Jim. In fact, Judyth has answered NONE of my questions or other legitimate questions raised by others here, has refused to present the concrete proofs she claims she has, i.e., the handwriting ananlysis of oswald and the tape she claims she took at Mary Ferrels which she claims contradict what has been stated here. I cannot believe that anyone, especially you as an attorney, can accept such weak, and probably non-existent, proofs. It is you who should be demanding the handwriting analysis and tapes she claims she has. Doesn't her refusals and to see suchthings as her "interview" with McGeehee bother you? If Judyth was accused of beng LHO's lover and working on research as a high school student that the most reputable PHD's and MD's in the country still cannot do, do you truly believe that there would be enough evidence to convict her? If Judyth is a fraud, and if she cannot answer questions or proofs that SHE claims to have, or tries to taint or intimidate witnesse, then I detest what she is doing. If she has the proofs I am open and let her present them. Otherwise she dishonors the memory of JFK and is an affront to those who care. Let her answer the questions (herself) or present her evidence otherwise let's all hope we can enjoy her historical fiction.
Doug Weldon
-
Edwin Lea McGehee was one of the "Clinton/Jackson witnesses" who emerged during the Garrison investigation. The stories of these witnesses suggested that Oswald was in the Clinton/Jackson area in the late summer of 1963, accompanied by others, and various theories have been propounded as to the reason for Oswald's alleged presence there. McGehee once said he thought that a woman may have accompanied Oswald there. Baker and another individual interviewed McGehee in 2001. These are portions of the transcript.
Excerpts of transcript of "highlights" of interview of Edwin Lea McGehee by Judyth Baker, January 20, 2001.
Baker: I don't know what you were able to see in the car.
McGehee: Just saw the back of your head. That was all I saw.
Baker: OK. Well, was it a dark-haired lady?
McGehee: Right. That's all I know.
Baker: Well, now, it wasn't a blonde? She was dark-haired?
McGehee: Yes, dark-haired.
Baker: Well, I have to, I have to tell you - that was me.
McGehee: Garrison always asked. He said, who...he wished he knew who that was.
Baker: I kept everything.
McGehee: Why didn't it come up at that time?
Baker: Well, I was scared to death, because - Dave Ferrie, you know - think he was murdered - Mary Sherman was stabbed - fourteen times - the other person I worked with.
McGehee: Well, I'll be damned.
Baker: I've got all this documented.
McGehee: Uh-huh, uh-huh.
Baker: I've got all the proof.
McGehee: Unbelieveable!...
Baker: (showing picture of herself) Tell me, if you'll - look at her, and see what you think...Does she look anything like the woman you saw?
McGehee: The back - yeah - but it's short - not long haired - long haired - uh - I think it's...
Baker: It was a little longer at the time.
McGehee: Yeah...uh. Maybe a bit longer down at...it was shoulder length...
Baker: Well, that's exactly right, it was the year before...
McGehee: Right...
Baker: And, uh, my hair was a shorter length at the time...
McGehee: [Oswald] got a haircut. And I thought that was strange. He kept trying to - in my opinion, he was trying to make me remember him. That was my opinion of why he was there.
Baker: Well, there were some things we were trying to do to prove who we were...
McGehee: Uh...
Baker: This will shock you, but - we were there becuase of prisoners being experimented on at Jackson Hospital, and I don't know whether you heard any rumors about them or not. They were injected with cancer cells. did you hear anything about that?
McGehee: No.
Baker: Well, Okay. Did you hear of any experiments that were being done on any prisoners in 1963?
McGehee: Right. No, no.
Baker: Well that was what this whole trip was about - going out there and - I had all this medical training and everything like that, and we - I was out there to check the bloodwork...
Baker: Do you remember about the car out there? I'll tell you what kind of a car it was in a minute, and see if you can remember.
McGehee: It was an old car - and like I said, a Nash, a Frazier.
Baker: Was it two-toned or one-toned? Or do you remember? I'm on record, so - I mean, uh, I'm on record as having already described the car.
McGehee: I don't know...I just glanced at it, and I looked mostly at WHO was in the car...No, didn't know that car.
Baker: Well, it was a...mainly green - darker green...two-tone, the other color had some tan in it...
McGehee: Well, were you driving it? So Lee didn't drive?
Baker: Lee was driving. He was afraid to drive because he didn't have a driver's license, so we were driving up side roads...
McGehee: Everything I read about him - since then - it said he couldn't drive.
Baker: Oh, believe me!..He told me he learned to drive when he was in the Marines.
McGehee: Well, I'll be damned!
Baker: I want you to know that you are not the only one on tape. I've got other witnesses.
This is absolutely worthless! Judyth is taking her own testimony and is repeatedly tainting the witness, It sounds like she had prepped him also, otherwise why would he say:
Baker: I don't know what you were able to see in the car.
McGehee: Just saw the back of your head. That was all I saw.
"your head?" She's even telling him it was a two toned car!
If this is an example of how she prepped and approached Lewis and other witnesses it is far worse than I thought. Her paper on cancer could have been taken from an encyclopedia at the time. I look for evidence and there is nothing. Again, I would be happy to interview Lewis and tape it.
Doug Weldon
-
JUDYTH REPLIES TO DOUG WELDON ABOUT HIS PLACE IN HISTORY
<snip>
I AM UNABLE TO SEE THE EDUCATON FORUM--IT IS BLOCKED TO MY VIEW.
<snip>
I hadn't heard this before. Professor, could you please ask Judyth to explain what message she sees? She is a member in good standing here, and should be able to view the Forum.
I did not know this. If Judyth is a member why do her replies have to be filtered through Jim? Is it to protect her from stating something inappropriate?
Doug Weldon
-
JUDYTH REPLIES TO DOUG WELDON ABOUT HIS PLACE IN HISTORY
Jim:
I should have noted thaat Barb contributed the e-mail with the portion I quote above. Please tell Judyth she is free to include me in her book as one who questioned her sanity, veracity, witness, and character. If she is honest she will write that I attacked her by asking her to produce evidence that she failed to produce and asked questions she refused to answer. I will take my chances with history.
Doug Weldon
1) SPECIFICALLY, WHAT EVIDENCE DID MR. WELDON ASK ME TO PRODUCE? IT WAS HE WHO ASKED FOR A PHOTOGRAPH OF LEE AND ME TOGETHER? WHAT ELSE DID HE ASK ME TO PRODUCE?
WHAT ARE YOUR SPECIFIC REQUESTS, MR. WELDON? ALL I EVER SAW WAS A POST THAT SAID YOU HAD SOME QUESIONS TO ASK. I NEVER SAW A QUESTION. REPLY, PLEASE.
2) WHAT QUESTIONS HAS MR. WELDON ASKED THAT I HAVE REFUSED TO ANSWER? BE SPECIFIC, MR. WELDON. I AM UNABLE TO SEE THE EDUCATON FORUM--IT IS BLOCKED TO MY VIEW. UNLESS SENT TO ME, I AM UNAWARE HAT YOU ASKED ANY QUESTIONS OF ME, ONLY THAT YOU SAID YOU HAD SOME QUESTIONS.
WHAT HAVE I 'REFUSED' TO ANSWER? SHOW ME WHAT I HAVE REFUSED TO ANSWER.
3) 'ANYONE' CAN QUESTION 'ANYONE'S' SANITY. IT SEEMS MR. WELDON IS COMFORTABLE FOLLOWING THE MANDATE OF THE DAVID LIFTON MANIFESTO.
Jim and Doug,
If I might make a few comments. Please, either or both of you, correct me if I'm wrong in my understanding of your respective positions, which I personally find to both have merit and flaws. (Or just tell me to shut up--that's OK too). I think that both of you will at times use verbiage in a way that the other takes too literally or at least applies a literal interpretation to an inappropriate portion of the response. So that "what it means" to the speaker, is misconstrued because of "what it sounds like" to the listener-- IMHO.
First, Doug, if I'm correctly interpreting your meaning, you're stating that the BEST corroboration of JVB's taped statements, is the contents of the actual tape itself. If, when it's produced, we can assume or establish that it is not altered, I would tend to agree with that--all other things be equal. I think Jim would agree with that, but I'm not sure. It sounds resonable to me though. It's not like you said, "if there was a tape, then I'd believe..." -- She opened the door to the tape issue by claiming she had it. I doubt this first sectoin is the part that caused the miscommunication.
[emphasis added below]
...I am sure you understand how important the actual tape is in weighing JVB's credibility and veracity. She stated that she has the tape. She simply has to provide you with a copy otherwise she is again the only corroboration for her statements...However, you ended the sentence this way:
... which is worthless.Jim interprets that as meaning "Since it has been established that JVB's word counts for nothing, then...." which he objects to as fallacious and an unfair characterization. He would be correct, IF that was your intended meaning, but it was not. Your meaning is that NOBODY can ALONE corroborate their OWN statements, including JVB! The circularity of allowing anyone to do so is absurd on its face. So, in that sense, any such self corroboration--offered by anyone about their own claims, is worthless, in that it has no substantiation value by itself.
And one has to assume that she is not telling the truth.Again, if taken literally, one could interpret you to mean: "If she doesn't produce that which she claims she has, then she IS definitely lying." -- Except, that's not what you meant--I think. What you said, sounds like that, but that would also be fallacious. Your meaning, in my interpretation, is that: "If she doesn't produce the evidence she claims is in her possession to corroborte her story, then we must proceed as if that evidence does not exist. IOW: We cannot admit "invisible" evidence.
Again, she is the one who has claimed that she has the tape.This one is hard for me to help rationalize for the same reason Jim stated. It seems like a double standard is being employed here in the most bias manner. There is one notable difference, however. Lifton is a known quantity among researchers. This doesn't make him infallible, but his integrity has been well established and is not in question. Judyth's has not been well established yet. This does not mean she lacks it, just that many people have yet to be persuaded.
Monk and Jim:
I have no control over Lifton and whether or not he releases his tape. I, in my evaluation, am treating Lifton's tape as if it does not exist, because I have no idea what it says. Jim supposedly has connections with Judyth. It is Judyth who is purporting her story to be true but there are many doubts raised in this thread and the overwhelming number of people polled on this thread do not believe her. She has two concrete pieces of evidence that can establish her truth and veracity. One is the LHO writing on the book. Judyth is refusing to have this authenticated. It is in her possession. In our legal system, if existing evidence is not produced, the triers of fact are instructed to treat that evidence against the interest of those purporting its veracity. I am thus concluding that, if analyzed, that writing would not be that of Oswald.
A story has been described that portrays an incident with Mary Ferrell that suggests Mary did not believe or want to see Judyth. Judyth, says that fortunately she has an audiotape in her possession which contradicts that. The "Best Evidence" is that audiotape. If she refuses to produce it I can only conclude 1. there is no such tape and she lied 2. there is a tape but her refusal to produce it, under the law, would require people trying to determine facts to conclude that the tape does not support her position. Again, she lied. When someone lies in our legal system the jury is instructed that they can disregard ANY or ALL of that person's testimony.
These ARE the only two pieces of evidence that can stand by themselves. Judyth is either telling the truth about them or lying. There is no third alternative. I will be willing to call Anna Lewis, speak with her, and record the conversation. I cannot tell if she was coerced or influenced in any way. I am told that Judyth and some of her supporters were present. They had an agenda so it does, on its face, presents an indirect form of coercion. Jim, on the circumcision issue, wrote that Judyth told you that her intimacy with Oswald was in the dark, so it would be easy to conclude that she might not be clear on the circumcision issue. Barb states, thatin her book, Judyth claims her trysts were in the afternoon. Which is correct?
I believe the proofs on this thread have been very detrimental to Judyth. Her replies not only stretch credulity, they are often preposterous. You indicated that I was more rational than many, but yet again she fails to produce any evidence or answer any of the questions, I, or many others, have raised in this thread.
To anyone not familiar with Judyth this would reflect the impression I believe they might get reading this thread.
Characters JFK and RFK
RFK:
We received another gushing letter from a high school student who does even understand if you are president yet.
JFK:
Please send out one of our standard form letters thanking her.
RFK:
NSA has decoded this letter and we now understand that this high school student is offering her services to our country for the National Good. We understand that other students in her grade are dissectiing frogs and worms but we believe this student is on the verge of discovering a cure for cancer. This is something that the top PHD's in the country who have been working for years have been unable to even approach.
JFK:
Do we have proof?
RFK:
Absolutely. We have documentation that she won a ribbon at a high school science fair.
JFK:
That's enough for me. Clear her for our highest level of security clearance. We'll hook her up with our top two cancer researchers in the country, Commander David Ferrrie and General Lee Oswald. Just to be safe, since we know how Oswald can be, we'll once again have him do our standard genital disguise. If possible, assign her a 00 number so that she has a license to kill.
RFK:
Consider it done. SShould we do a clearance on her? What if one day she takes her secrets and tries to claim asylum in a socialist country?
JFK:
(Laughs) Don't be ridiculous. Afrer my presidency there will be no more socialist countries. Also, please give her an intensive course in Russian. Once we lick the cancer and any Castro issues she would be the perfect person to negotiate the end of the Cold War.
RFK:
Got it!
JFK:
Tell her to say hi to "Sparky" for me.
Doug Weldon
I thought it would be good to attach Judyth's e-mail to Mary Ferrell to the above. Sadly, JVB does not produce any worthwhile evidence and unless she can, her story will be a lost footnote in history and history will judge her as a fraud and will question everything she states below.
I will be presenting
solid evidence to defend myself against your negative statements
concerning my sanity, my veracity, my witness, and my character. ** I
will have to describe the actions and words of those who have aupported me--
and those who attacked me, and how they attacked me --in my second book.
I do not wish to affect anyone's reputation adversely.
Please consider your options now, in light of emerging evidence. The
evidence will continue to come forth. Nothing can stop it. There will
be too much of it.
History can be very unkind to those who tweak the truth to fit their
own theories. I hope you do what is right."
Doug Weldon
Jim:
I should have noted thaat Barb contributed the e-mail with the portion I quote above. Please tell Judyth she is free to include me in her book as one who questioned her sanity, veracity, witness, and character. If she is honest she will write that I attacked her by asking her to produce evidence that she failed to produce and asked questions she refused to answer. I will take my chances with history.
Doug Weldon
Doug Weldon
Jim:
I thought you conveyed my questions to Judyth. For the record, as Jim knows I never requested a photograph of her and Lee together. I asked that the LHO writing be analyzed by a certified examiner. I asked that she produce the Mary Ferrell tape which she has stated is in her possession and that contradicts the description of Mary Ferrell's encounter with her. I posted a list of four questions. I have to assume Jim will be the conduit of anyone's questions if Judyth cannot see them. Many good questions by people have been ignored.
Doug Weldon
-
A LETTER FROM HOWARD PLATZMAN TO MARY FERRELL RE JUDYTH
NOTE: This is an interesting reflection of Howard's state of mind at the time
and of the strength of his belief both in Judyth Vary Baker and in Mary Ferrell.
Subj: With all due respects...a plea
Date: 12/8/01 11:46:12 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: Howpl
To: maryf...@cprompt.net
Dear Mary,
etc etc
Just after my trip to Dallas, I wrote a letter to you I didn't send (it's
down below). It includes a few thoughts on what J has said is behind your
recent decision not to go any further in your public support of her. At
the very least, I hope it shows that I am thinking about you and about
....
Anyway, I am writing to you today feeling very strongly about what I think
you can still do for J, health permitting. I am aware that your health is
up and down, and that you have, in part for that reason, decided that you
would like the continued relationship between the two of you to speak for
itself. Please let me explain why I think this might not be the best idea.
Let me start with a question that I think cuts pretty deeply. What do you
think scares Lifton and Conway more, the thought that you will make a
statement or the thought that you won't? I believe they would do ANYTHING
to keep your relationship with her a matter of friendship and private
support. When all is said and done, J's detractors will exploit your not
going on the record to the hilt. "You see," they will say, "that witch,
Judyth, tried to brainwash poor Mary, but Mary still refused to back her
publicly." They will think that, as much as J tried to get closer to you,
to ingratiate herself with you, that you still refused to go on record and
that this refusal must mean something. That's what they will say -- anyone
who knew about J to begin with, that is. The others who never heard about
J may not ever hear about her. And that's a second very important
consideration.
Instead of focusing on those who will accuse her no matter what, how about
those many more people who love you, or at least respect you, and would
find such an endorsement meaningful? Without solid communication from Mary
Ferrell herself, they only have Martin's word or mine that Mary Ferrell
supports Judyth Baker. That has not been good enough thus far, and will
never be. Your archives needed saving and protecting: so does your support
for J and your reasons for it.
The best way you can defuse the argument that you are being exploited is
by SHOWING yourself to be sound of mind. Ideally, people will want to see
you talking and gesturing. We will no doubt be accused of taking advantage
of an old woman of deteriorating mind, but the more you are shown, the
more people can see you reason aloud, the clearer it will be that you are
sound in mind and freely speaking it.
Perhaps it could be filmed as a conversation, in part at least, so you can
be seen interacting in a natural way. A videotaped statement that speaks
for itself will put an end to your having to explain yourself to everyone.
As with J's own efforts, it gets tiring to try to convince people one at a
time. I don't want to see either of you locked into battle on all fronts.
You both need platforms, but you are already your own platform; J needs
your support for hers. Then each of you could make your own decision about
whether to stay on the platform and take on all comers -- or walk away.
Both paths confer dignity. Private bickering with a tiny knot of people
won't help either of you. This infighting will also keep the official
story intact, because J's detractors certainly have no interest in making
your private support of her public. That interest lives with you. There
should be a record of your speaking to those who have no special interest
in J's being real or fake, but only want the truth.
Here is an alternative option (or you could elect to do both):
Write something substantial. Something that expresses in detail how you
came to know Judy and why you believe her. No worries, then, about going
on film. These are losses, I believe, but a sensible discussion with a
signature is useful, maybe even more useful. (If only we had tapes or even
transcripts of all the conversations and interrogations. I have mine, but
I'm not you.)
What it comes down to, Mary, is that I think you should look at J as the
crowning achievement to what you have dedicated your life to. I know you
have prided yourself on neutrality. But you have also prided yourself on
your knowledge, which goes a whole lot deeper and gets a whole lot more
personal than mine or Martin's or even Jim's. You are, finally, entitled
to express your opinion and have it stand. You've earned that right. In
fact, I might even argue that, after a lifetime of objectivity, it's now
an obligation. You are, quite frankly, in the best position to know a
fraud from the real thing. The most credible opinions should not be tucked
away for private viewing only. Please let the world know that you gave
Judy the third degree for over a year and that you have many reasons for
believing her.
Mary, they think Judy is taking advantage of you. If you make a statement
on her behalf, they will say she bamboozled a sick woman of deteriorating
mind. You may be ill, but from what I hear, your mind is as sharp as ever.
You told me at the start that you didn't want to see your friends fighting
with each other. Well, we are way past that point now. Your moral
authority in the field is unchallenged. If you truly believe Judy is
telling the truth, and I have been given every reason to think you do,
then Judy becomes your reward for a life devoted to truth. She is your
crowning achievement and you are her best hope. I beg of you: figure a way
to make yourself heard and understood in a way that leaves no doubt about
the state of your mind or the firmness of your belief.
Two and a half years ago, I was this close to believing that possibly,
just possibly, Oswald did it alone. I was pretty much convinced he was a
communist. Judy has profoundly changed my mind and my life, as she has
changed Martin's. David Lifton makes fun of me for saying that Judy has
become like a sister to me. Sorry, David, I'm human. We humans have to
unite because there are many more of "them" than I ever thought going into
this adventure. I know it's not black and white; it just seems that way
sometimes. I can understand the truly nice people like XXXXXXXXXXX who
open the door just a little and then close it shut when they feel
threatened -- when their "research" is threatened by Judy's
existence...because they have become as one with their theories, their
gussied up best guesses. They treat a witness like she was another
researcher! And then when she begins to research, they accuse her of
fabricating her story from it. This is no-win no-way.
HERE IS WHERE I DECIDED I WOULDN'T SEND THIS TO YOU..
So now you know what I'm thinking. You will not find me on your doorstep
tomorrow, camera in hand. But I didn't want to go down without at least
making my plea.
If you would like to speak with me at any time, my number at home is
XXXXXXXXXX. You may also call me at work at XXXXXXXXXX..
Best to you,
Howard
3: March 11, 2002: Judyth wrote Mary a very strong email telling Mary it wasn't too late for her to take it all back, etc,
saying in one part:
"It is not too late to post a retraction of your statement, Mary, ** at
least on the points that I'm lying, delusional, and/or 'dangerous.' **
For
the sake of your own reputation, consider it. ** I will be presenting
solid evidence to defend myself against your negative statements
concerning my sanity, my veracity, my witness, and my character. ** I
will have to describe the actions and words of those who have aupported me--
and those who attacked me, and how they attacked me --in my second book.
I do not wish to affect anyone's reputation adversely.
Please consider your options now, in light of emerging evidence. The
evidence will continue to come forth. Nothing can stop it. There will
be too much of it.
History can be very unkind to those who tweak the truth to fit their
own theories. I hope you do what is right."
I find this two e-mails to be intimidating, coercive, and disturbing.
Doug Weldon
-
Jim and Doug,
If I might make a few comments. Please, either or both of you, correct me if I'm wrong in my understanding of your respective positions, which I personally find to both have merit and flaws. (Or just tell me to shut up--that's OK too). I think that both of you will at times use verbiage in a way that the other takes too literally or at least applies a literal interpretation to an inappropriate portion of the response. So that "what it means" to the speaker, is misconstrued because of "what it sounds like" to the listener-- IMHO.
First, Doug, if I'm correctly interpreting your meaning, you're stating that the BEST corroboration of JVB's taped statements, is the contents of the actual tape itself. If, when it's produced, we can assume or establish that it is not altered, I would tend to agree with that--all other things be equal. I think Jim would agree with that, but I'm not sure. It sounds resonable to me though. It's not like you said, "if there was a tape, then I'd believe..." -- She opened the door to the tape issue by claiming she had it. I doubt this first sectoin is the part that caused the miscommunication.
[emphasis added below]
...I am sure you understand how important the actual tape is in weighing JVB's credibility and veracity. She stated that she has the tape. She simply has to provide you with a copy otherwise she is again the only corroboration for her statements...However, you ended the sentence this way:
... which is worthless.Jim interprets that as meaning "Since it has been established that JVB's word counts for nothing, then...." which he objects to as fallacious and an unfair characterization. He would be correct, IF that was your intended meaning, but it was not. Your meaning is that NOBODY can ALONE corroborate their OWN statements, including JVB! The circularity of allowing anyone to do so is absurd on its face. So, in that sense, any such self corroboration--offered by anyone about their own claims, is worthless, in that it has no substantiation value by itself.
And one has to assume that she is not telling the truth.Again, if taken literally, one could interpret you to mean: "If she doesn't produce that which she claims she has, then she IS definitely lying." -- Except, that's not what you meant--I think. What you said, sounds like that, but that would also be fallacious. Your meaning, in my interpretation, is that: "If she doesn't produce the evidence she claims is in her possession to corroborte her story, then we must proceed as if that evidence does not exist. IOW: We cannot admit "invisible" evidence.
Again, she is the one who has claimed that she has the tape.This one is hard for me to help rationalize for the same reason Jim stated. It seems like a double standard is being employed here in the most bias manner. There is one notable difference, however. Lifton is a known quantity among researchers. This doesn't make him infallible, but his integrity has been well established and is not in question. Judyth's has not been well established yet. This does not mean she lacks it, just that many people have yet to be persuaded.
Monk and Jim:
I have no control over Lifton and whether or not he releases his tape. I, in my evaluation, am treating Lifton's tape as if it does not exist, because I have no idea what it says. Jim supposedly has connections with Judyth. It is Judyth who is purporting her story to be true but there are many doubts raised in this thread and the overwhelming number of people polled on this thread do not believe her. She has two concrete pieces of evidence that can establish her truth and veracity. One is the LHO writing on the book. Judyth is refusing to have this authenticated. It is in her possession. In our legal system, if existing evidence is not produced, the triers of fact are instructed to treat that evidence against the interest of those purporting its veracity. I am thus concluding that, if analyzed, that writing would not be that of Oswald.
A story has been described that portrays an incident with Mary Ferrell that suggests Mary did not believe or want to see Judyth. Judyth, says that fortunately she has an audiotape in her possession which contradicts that. The "Best Evidence" is that audiotape. If she refuses to produce it I can only conclude 1. there is no such tape and she lied 2. there is a tape but her refusal to produce it, under the law, would require people trying to determine facts to conclude that the tape does not support her position. Again, she lied. When someone lies in our legal system the jury is instructed that they can disregard ANY or ALL of that person's testimony.
These ARE the only two pieces of evidence that can stand by themselves. Judyth is either telling the truth about them or lying. There is no third alternative. I will be willing to call Anna Lewis, speak with her, and record the conversation. I cannot tell if she was coerced or influenced in any way. I am told that Judyth and some of her supporters were present. They had an agenda so it does, on its face, presents an indirect form of coercion. Jim, on the circumcision issue, wrote that Judyth told you that her intimacy with Oswald was in the dark, so it would be easy to conclude that she might not be clear on the circumcision issue. Barb states, thatin her book, Judyth claims her trysts were in the afternoon. Which is correct?
I believe the proofs on this thread have been very detrimental to Judyth. Her replies not only stretch credulity, they are often preposterous. You indicated that I was more rational than many, but yet again she fails to produce any evidence or answer any of the questions, I, or many others, have raised in this thread.
To anyone not familiar with Judyth this would reflect the impression I believe they might get reading this thread.
Characters JFK and RFK
RFK:
We received another gushing letter from a high school student who does even understand if you are president yet.
JFK:
Please send out one of our standard form letters thanking her.
RFK:
NSA has decoded this letter and we now understand that this high school student is offering her services to our country for the National Good. We understand that other students in her grade are dissectiing frogs and worms but we believe this student is on the verge of discovering a cure for cancer. This is something that the top PHD's in the country who have been working for years have been unable to even approach.
JFK:
Do we have proof?
RFK:
Absolutely. We have documentation that she won a ribbon at a high school science fair.
JFK:
That's enough for me. Clear her for our highest level of security clearance. We'll hook her up with our top two cancer researchers in the country, Commander David Ferrrie and General Lee Oswald. Just to be safe, since we know how Oswald can be, we'll once again have him do our standard genital disguise. If possible, assign her a 00 number so that she has a license to kill.
RFK:
Consider it done. SShould we do a clearance on her? What if one day she takes her secrets and tries to claim asylum in a socialist country?
JFK:
(Laughs) Don't be ridiculous. Afrer my presidency there will be no more socialist countries. Also, please give her an intensive course in Russian. Once we lick the cancer and any Castro issues she would be the perfect person to negotiate the end of the Cold War.
RFK:
Got it!
JFK:
Tell her to say hi to "Sparky" for me.
Doug Weldon
I thought it would be good to attach Judyth's e-mail to Mary Ferrell to the above. Sadly, JVB does not produce any worthwhile evidence and unless she can, her story will be a lost footnote in history and history will judge her as a fraud and will question everything she states below.
I will be presenting
solid evidence to defend myself against your negative statements
concerning my sanity, my veracity, my witness, and my character. ** I
will have to describe the actions and words of those who have aupported me--
and those who attacked me, and how they attacked me --in my second book.
I do not wish to affect anyone's reputation adversely.
Please consider your options now, in light of emerging evidence. The
evidence will continue to come forth. Nothing can stop it. There will
be too much of it.
History can be very unkind to those who tweak the truth to fit their
own theories. I hope you do what is right."
Doug Weldon
Jim:
I should have noted thaat Barb contributed the e-mail with the portion I quote above. Please tell Judyth she is free to include me in her book as one who questioned her sanity, veracity, witness, and character. If she is honest she will write that I attacked her by asking her to produce evidence that she failed to produce and asked questions she refused to answer. I will take my chances with history.
Doug Weldon
Doug Weldon
-
Jim and Doug,
If I might make a few comments. Please, either or both of you, correct me if I'm wrong in my understanding of your respective positions, which I personally find to both have merit and flaws. (Or just tell me to shut up--that's OK too). I think that both of you will at times use verbiage in a way that the other takes too literally or at least applies a literal interpretation to an inappropriate portion of the response. So that "what it means" to the speaker, is misconstrued because of "what it sounds like" to the listener-- IMHO.
First, Doug, if I'm correctly interpreting your meaning, you're stating that the BEST corroboration of JVB's taped statements, is the contents of the actual tape itself. If, when it's produced, we can assume or establish that it is not altered, I would tend to agree with that--all other things be equal. I think Jim would agree with that, but I'm not sure. It sounds resonable to me though. It's not like you said, "if there was a tape, then I'd believe..." -- She opened the door to the tape issue by claiming she had it. I doubt this first sectoin is the part that caused the miscommunication.
[emphasis added below]
...I am sure you understand how important the actual tape is in weighing JVB's credibility and veracity. She stated that she has the tape. She simply has to provide you with a copy otherwise she is again the only corroboration for her statements...However, you ended the sentence this way:
... which is worthless.Jim interprets that as meaning "Since it has been established that JVB's word counts for nothing, then...." which he objects to as fallacious and an unfair characterization. He would be correct, IF that was your intended meaning, but it was not. Your meaning is that NOBODY can ALONE corroborate their OWN statements, including JVB! The circularity of allowing anyone to do so is absurd on its face. So, in that sense, any such self corroboration--offered by anyone about their own claims, is worthless, in that it has no substantiation value by itself.
And one has to assume that she is not telling the truth.Again, if taken literally, one could interpret you to mean: "If she doesn't produce that which she claims she has, then she IS definitely lying." -- Except, that's not what you meant--I think. What you said, sounds like that, but that would also be fallacious. Your meaning, in my interpretation, is that: "If she doesn't produce the evidence she claims is in her possession to corroborte her story, then we must proceed as if that evidence does not exist. IOW: We cannot admit "invisible" evidence.
Again, she is the one who has claimed that she has the tape.This one is hard for me to help rationalize for the same reason Jim stated. It seems like a double standard is being employed here in the most bias manner. There is one notable difference, however. Lifton is a known quantity among researchers. This doesn't make him infallible, but his integrity has been well established and is not in question. Judyth's has not been well established yet. This does not mean she lacks it, just that many people have yet to be persuaded.
Monk and Jim:
I have no control over Lifton and whether or not he releases his tape. I, in my evaluation, am treating Lifton's tape as if it does not exist, because I have no idea what it says. Jim supposedly has connections with Judyth. It is Judyth who is purporting her story to be true but there are many doubts raised in this thread and the overwhelming number of people polled on this thread do not believe her. She has two concrete pieces of evidence that can establish her truth and veracity. One is the LHO writing on the book. Judyth is refusing to have this authenticated. It is in her possession. In our legal system, if existing evidence is not produced, the triers of fact are instructed to treat that evidence against the interest of those purporting its veracity. I am thus concluding that, if analyzed, that writing would not be that of Oswald.
A story has been described that portrays an incident with Mary Ferrell that suggests Mary did not believe or want to see Judyth. Judyth, says that fortunately she has an audiotape in her possession which contradicts that. The "Best Evidence" is that audiotape. If she refuses to produce it I can only conclude 1. there is no such tape and she lied 2. there is a tape but her refusal to produce it, under the law, would require people trying to determine facts to conclude that the tape does not support her position. Again, she lied. When someone lies in our legal system the jury is instructed that they can disregard ANY or ALL of that person's testimony.
These ARE the only two pieces of evidence that can stand by themselves. Judyth is either telling the truth about them or lying. There is no third alternative. I will be willing to call Anna Lewis, speak with her, and record the conversation. I cannot tell if she was coerced or influenced in any way. I am told that Judyth and some of her supporters were present. They had an agenda so it does, on its face, presents an indirect form of coercion. Jim, on the circumcision issue, wrote that Judyth told you that her intimacy with Oswald was in the dark, so it would be easy to conclude that she might not be clear on the circumcision issue. Barb states, thatin her book, Judyth claims her trysts were in the afternoon. Which is correct?
I believe the proofs on this thread have been very detrimental to Judyth. Her replies not only stretch credulity, they are often preposterous. You indicated that I was more rational than many, but yet again she fails to produce any evidence or answer any of the questions, I, or many others, have raised in this thread.
To anyone not familiar with Judyth this would reflect the impression I believe they might get reading this thread.
Characters JFK and RFK
RFK:
We received another gushing letter from a high school student who does even understand if you are president yet.
JFK:
Please send out one of our standard form letters thanking her.
RFK:
NSA has decoded this letter and we now understand that this high school student is offering her services to our country for the National Good. We understand that other students in her grade are dissectiing frogs and worms but we believe this student is on the verge of discovering a cure for cancer. This is something that the top PHD's in the country who have been working for years have been unable to even approach.
JFK:
Do we have proof?
RFK:
Absolutely. We have documentation that she won a ribbon at a high school science fair.
JFK:
That's enough for me. Clear her for our highest level of security clearance. We'll hook her up with our top two cancer researchers in the country, Commander David Ferrrie and General Lee Oswald. Just to be safe, since we know how Oswald can be, we'll once again have him do our standard genital disguise. If possible, assign her a 00 number so that she has a license to kill.
RFK:
Consider it done. SShould we do a clearance on her? What if one day she takes her secrets and tries to claim asylum in a socialist country?
JFK:
(Laughs) Don't be ridiculous. Afrer my presidency there will be no more socialist countries. Also, please give her an intensive course in Russian. Once we lick the cancer and any Castro issues she would be the perfect person to negotiate the end of the Cold War.
RFK:
Got it!
JFK:
Tell her to say hi to "Sparky" for me.
Doug Weldon
I thought it would be good to attach Judyth's e-mail to Mary Ferrell to the above. Sadly, JVB does not produce any worthwhile evidence and unless she can, her story will be a lost footnote in history and history will judge her as a fraud and will question everything she states below.
I will be presenting
solid evidence to defend myself against your negative statements
concerning my sanity, my veracity, my witness, and my character. ** I
will have to describe the actions and words of those who have aupported me--
and those who attacked me, and how they attacked me --in my second book.
I do not wish to affect anyone's reputation adversely.
Please consider your options now, in light of emerging evidence. The
evidence will continue to come forth. Nothing can stop it. There will
be too much of it.
History can be very unkind to those who tweak the truth to fit their
own theories. I hope you do what is right."
Doug Weldon
-
At this point in our debate, I am presenting a three-question survey to determine whether the debate is worth continuing. My own answers follow below:
Questions:
1. What would it take for you to change your mind about JVB's story?
2. Are there any “hidden” arguments you have not disclosed?
3. Do you think you have delivered a “knock out” punch? (If so, why are you still debating?)
Answers:
1. It would take a lot. I have corresponded with JVB for over a year and have been persuaded favorably to her story. From my point of view, she speaks of and writes of Lee Oswald as a real person. I do not believe there are any reasons why she would make it up, as I have mentioned on one of JVB's blogs. I believe she has told her story at great risk to herself and to divisions in her family. There may well be discrepancies in her story, but honest mistakes and an imperfect memory make much more sense as explanations than deception.
2. I don't think so. I have written out my arguments on the Education Forum, my own web site and other sites as well. If I have hidden any arguments, it certainly has not been intentional.
3. No. For those of us who are not first-hand witnesses to anything JVB speaks of, we will never know the absolute truth of what happened. I wanted to ensure JVB’s story got stated and cross-examined, either here or on the other thread. I have been satisfied that this goal has been achieved and also acknowledge that the discovery of truth is an ongoing process. For me, there will be no knock-out punch, only the satisfaction of pursuing what is in my sincere opinion the truth.
Anyone writing historical fiction writes of the people as real persons.
Doug Weldon
Illustrations.
Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted · Edited by Doug Weldon
Monk:
For many reasons I don't want to detail here (as I do not want Judyth to modify her story) there is virtually little or no chance that this happened or could have happened. If you had stated that it has some remote plausibility I could accept that. However, again, the only suggestion for this remote possibility is Judyth alone, whose account now and claim that she even knew Oswald is far from even remotely plausible. Judyth wants only to go on Coast to Coast and have everyone yuk it up with her as she tells her heartwrenching account with Jim and Ed on another line screaming "amen" in chorus, only to have you come in for levity before the commercial breaks to provide some humor with your JFK impressions. She then hopes her book will sell, she'll get some national attention and then, as she suggested earlier, she will be able to sell the movie rights. I would suggest Daniel Craig (the new James Bond actor) for the role of Oswald but he lacks the charm, sex appeal. and sophistication to play the part in a realistic manner.
Doug Weldon