Steve Duffy

(--Thomas) bump Sorry Thomas, didn't read the bold. Yes, Mrs Charles McRavin, note 871 pg 655 of "With Malice" Meagher had her name as McCravey... And Virgina Davis' Testimony... http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/html/WC_Vol6_0234b.htm

It is a shame. And even I got an email from Francois...seriously. But could the thread go back to topic?

Excellent stuff, Bill. This area intrigues me.

I've not, in any real way, seen many WC Defenders give that much time to Judyth's story. What I have seen, is some proper research put forth on this thread regarding the validity of her claims, and as it must stand now, on her finished book. There has been many statements made, and I'm not really seeing spiteful vitriol against Judyth, just intelligent arguments for the shortcomings of her work. That's healthy, surely?

Regarding the canvassing of the Tippit crime scene, why do we have so little regarding the occupants of 404 East 10th? Myers mentions Ann McRavey...but no one else, from 5 apartments? What about the DPD reports? And Virginia Davis statement that Tippit "was parked between the hedge that marks the apartment house were he lives in and the house next door." http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15689&st=0&p=188189entry188189 Was Tippit a familiar presence to Davis? Why did she make this claim?

Hi David, for me, it's the Mexico city impostor, and the Kostikov call.

Thanks for the above info, Dawn. I was only thinking last night why John isn't more vocal, or continuing his work. Maybe he put everything into "Harvey and Lee" and will let it stand on it's own. Still, would be nice to get further updates from him...

Exactly correct, Doug. All bold mine. Judyth Vary Baker with Howard Platzman, Ph.D, "Deadly Alliance," alternate draft provided to Robert Vernon, posted by Vernon at alt.assassination.jfk, August 30, 2004: "Judyth is 90% certain that Warren Commission exhibit Pizzo 453-B, a photo of the scene, includes her standing near Lee. The picture is blurry, but there is a resemblance between the girl in the photo and contemporaneous photos of Judyth. The dress pattern in the picture matches close-up photos of a dress Judyth wore in other photos in her possession. Judyth Vary Baker, Internet forum post, October 9, 2004: "No, not standing next to Lee, but in the same general area as Lee - iF [sic] that person is me. The face is too blurry to be certain. The pavement sloped upward there, as I have proven with other photos, but I cannot prove this woman is me. Though have never been 100% certain the woman was me, I remember talking to the two girls shown in the footage under consideration. In any case, Lee simply happens to be nearby, and there is little, if any, interaction with the woman, beyond a smile in her direction as he approaches with flyers. I do not remember being filmed, but was warned that filming was taking place, and to leave at once, a warning which Lee gave to me. Quotations from a compilation by Dave Reitzes, at his website, links to actual posts and documents are there. Reitzes website on Judyth In her new book, Me & Lee, the telling has changed. She now says this of this incident: Lee arrived at Dr. Mary's apartment about 10:00 A.M. I wanted to be there with him, but he was afraid I would be photographed and identified.So I decided to dress up as a Cuban girl to change my appearance. First, I put in my specially tinted contact lenses that made my eyes brown. Then I put on too much make-up and curled my hair like Latinas did back then. I put on a festive looking sundress and black high heel shoes to complete the cha-cha look. Lee was amused by my efforts, and thought I could be a good "extra" in the scene to attract attention, but he wanted me to disappear when the TV camera arrived so I would not get captured on film. Everything worked according to plan. Lee and two paid helpers handed out leaflets. I engaged several Cuban girls in conversation to attract a crowd, discussing America's poor treatment of Cuba. The television crew arrived on cue and I disappeared, heading to Thompson's Restaurant to wait for Lee. This was all the subject of much debate on and off with the claim of being a certain girl in the photo changing to being the other girl, Judyth noting she remembered carrying a big black purse. That either one was her became more vague after it was shown in documents that the girls had been identified. A couple other things about this incident were discussed. One was Judyth claiming, and she wrote it this way in her first book, that Oswald and the men helping him pass out leaflets were all dressed in "white shirts, nice slacks and thin ties." But a film of the incident taken by WWL-tv showed one of the men wearing bermuda shorts. Seems to me someone posted a link to a clip of that at the time, but I cannot currently find it online ... perhaps someone here knows where it can be found. The other thing involved the film taken by WWL and the film shot that day by WDSU. Judyth went on about the big television cameras and what all went on with them getting all set up to film the event. Johann Rush, the actual WDSU cameraman who shot the film that day showed up on the newsgroup and posted that there was no huge setup ... that the cameras both he and the fellow from the other station used that day were small, hand held cameras. And in her first book, she did not meet Oswald at Dr. Mary's apartment that morning ... she met up with him on Canal Street. I wholeheartedly agree, Doug. Unless her story is absolute and accurate truth, the already muddy waters of this case are made even muddier, and worse, researchers are sent off down false trails. That is just not okay when it comes to uncovering the truth about the assassination of our president ... and for having an accurate history. Like any witness, Judyth's claims must be checked out. It's nothing personal against Judyth. It's normal, necessary ... and expected ... procedure. Excellent posts, Doug. Bests, Barb :-) Doug: You do raise many goood points. The pic is very interesting. I wonder why she would say it is her. But you cannot tell who it is. I had my first doubts about her when the Harvey and Lee thread was going on. But now I have gone back and looked at some of the NO period in Armstrong's book and it seems to back Judyth even more. As for why she refuses to do certain things I cannot speak for her. I know she totally discounts Armstrong w/o having read his most imprssive work. I hope that Dr. Fetzer sees fit to get her a copy of Harvey and Lee. It was Harvey she met and it is clear that he never shared this with her. (That they were two). I have considered that she has made it all up. In fact when I saw The Love Affair that raised many doubts for me. I will go back and see that again. Am in court all day today...so will get back to this later. Have you read her book? Haslams? Comments. Thanks, Dawn In my opinion, John Armstrong's theory about 2 Oswalds is COMPLETE AND TOTAL BUNK. Totally NOT buying it. Secondly, I believe Judyth Vary Baker when she says she was Lee Harvey Oswald's lover and mistress in New Orleans. Baker is a key witness to truth in the JFK assassination. Having said that, it does not mean one should blindly believe everything Judyth says. Or anyone else for that matter. It also does not mean I don't respect John Armstrong's work in other areas of the research on the 1963 Coup d'Etat. Armstrong believes Allen Dulles was involved in the JFK assassation; I believe that was the case as well, not JUST the cover up when he was on the Allen Dulles Commission. Robert, have you read both books, and Dr Mary's monkey? I know you haven't read all of Armstrong's work, it seems many haven't...which is a major shame. But how, then, do you know all the details of his 2 Oswald theory? Details in this case are everything. Do you agree that Oswald was being impersonated? If so, why is Newman's theory Bunk? What particulars do you have with it? What parts of Judyth's story do you believe? which don't you? I think Doug may have asked this several pages ago. What do you think she was a key witness too? Judyth's claim to have genius level memory recall, should really exclude her from making quite a few glaring mistakes, as this topic is about? How do you pic and choose? Have you been reading the counter argument posts as well, they are offering some pretty excellent insight into her story. I'm sorry, but all these blanket statements, without, as I said, giving particulars, is getting confusing. There is time in the posts to go into more detail.

Greg, I've been chastised gently for not contributing to your forum, by Ms Frankie Fortune. (It was a gentle rebuke). I do read there a lot, I'm just ..daunted by the good research there. So If I'm shy, it's because of the high regards I have for your work. I will get there...

The evidence clearly shows Oswald to be guilty of killing J.D. Tippit. Simple as that. Steve, do you really believe Oswald didn't shoot Tippit? Really? Dave, I been pretty tolerant of everyone since I joined here. I lurked here a lot longer. I've read and studied the assassination for more than 15 years, as a hobby, more than anything. I'm new to the forums, but not a novice. My boyish profile pic not withstanding ha ha. Recently, I've been able to spend nearly all my time on this and related issues. My ideas aren't new. They do change as I read more. I'm part of no group, have no agenda, and have no one to please but myself. I rarely get involved in the debates. In all that time, I've come to some firm conclusions, some that I'm unsure of, and other's that I've not gathered much interest in, but hope to get to later. Posting here, and asking those questions, helps me find some of those answers. I've also became more than aware, by my little own self, which writers and researchers are the ones that have most in common with my thinking on certain subjects, and which, I feel, are at the forefront of this study. I read all sides of the argument, as much as I can. (Hence, my comment's on Rob's list. I would never post a list of books I haven't read) I am predisposed, and always have been, that the Kennedy Assassination was an American Coup. That is why, it should be obvious, I come here, which is predominately (wouldn't you agree?)a pro-conspiracy site. I have asked you, on a couple of occasions, why you are here, out of genuine interest. Your answer was remarkably pat. You claimed, facetiously, I believe, that you have no life, and that a dissenting voice is needed. I agree somewhat with the latter. But as I've yet, I've not read nary a single thing you've posted which I thought needed more investigation. If anything, it has come to the point, beside this little essay, that I, as many others seem too, simply ignore your posts. If you are trying to sway people to your side of the street, you are wanting. During your long debate with Jim, a relative newcomer(who was straddling the fence, but was mostly a WC defender)stated right out that you you were offering nothing of substance to learn from. That, to me, is instructive. As for the actual writer's on the case, such as Myer's, I have stated my opinion, and yes, I really believe that. I wouldn't have posted it if I didn't. Your views on it's work are meaningless to me. I have been to that link, a long time ago, plus the link you provided on Posner, when I questioned you on your thought's of his credibility. If your views on Gerald Posner haven't changed from that early review, then there's nothing I can really say. If they have, I don't care. Actually, sending me that link showed how dismissive you are of really enlightening others. There is much talk about you, your aware. Frankly, I don't care. It's...interesting, but affects me in no real way. Personal attacks, which I've seen from Francois, S V Anderson, May et al, are a different matter. I am in no way suggesting you have done this to me. My belief is debating with a LN (My first use of the word, as these labels are just stupid and corrosive)is pointless. So, my views should be clear, now. I spent more time on this than I thought. I'd still like to get this back to the question I asked Robert Morrow. I'm sure Mr Fetzer would too.

But Jim, when does he get the time?

Dave, glad you enjoyed his book. Pop it in your top books selection..oh it's already there. Thought so. I think I'll stick by my claim. It does have nice pictures Bill helpfully gives the same reason's I'd add. Funny how we all see the faults in a work you don't, but I guess we're all silly. But then, you think Posner was a gem of a researcher... Now, the reason for my post was to ask Robert a question. If you would kindly get back to your job for a while...you're interjecting a lot lately.

Robert, as in your other post, about the best assassination books, it's important to say which you have read and which you haven't. Then explain why. If you haven't read them, don't include them. To do so is disingenuous. There are several on your list that are worth having: the recent "Oswald"s politics" for eg, has all Lee's writings in one book, whether you agree with the authors analysis or not. Part of learning is reading the works of others, for good or bad. The reason I came here is, when I read, I take notes, and questions I have I can usually find answers to, whether in the posts or by asking directly. If you favor a theory, which you do, then I assume it's because you have read those books, and been persuaded by the conclusions. That is fine. Reading others reactions to those books, to be impartial and nonobjective, is also necessary. I have 2 of James Fetzer's book's. I have read one. My area of interest doesn't lie in the film alteration/ photo analysis. As it is, i have put that issue to one side. If I had questions, James has kindly pointed out were to look for them, and is offering the same to you. Have you read his book? and, if not, why is it on your list? To answer your question directly, My two would be "With Malice" which I paid a penny for, and which did nothing to convince me of Oswald's guilt, for reasons, Jim DiEugenio pointed out at the beginning, but it is worthwhile for the documents, and illustrations. It's handy to have the subject in one book. Also, "Case closed" for it's blatant dishonesty. Nothing to recommend on this one. Harold Weisberg say's it all in "Case Open". By reading that terrible book, I was introduced to Weisberg. So good things come from the bad.

Bill, Robert, I want to thank you for this and all your posts. It's these men and their careers which help illuminate the word of espionage. I bookmark these pages, so that i can really explore the dense info you provide at my leisure. There is so much to wade through. Thanks for pointing the spotlight. Steve.

Thanks Bill. Appreciate this.

It looks like Ferrie. Why would he need to impersonate Ruby at any time? Ferrie was in NO at the time of the Assassination...A glimpse in a B@W pic isn't the same as impersonating a person in front of others, for any period of time. I'm not really sure what your getting at, though, Kathleen.

I know a movie reaches a lot more people than a documentary, but in my view, a substantial doco(s), with all that has since been released, with the best experts, the actual documents, Authors like Armstrong, Newman, Douglass, the best researchers, would trump fiction any day. Think a truthful, reasoned version of TMWKK. "The Civil War" for the Kennedy Assassination. This is what I want to see. I have no power to make this happen, but surely someone with some pull could tackle this.

Tom, I also want to thank you for your post. You've bought up issues I myself have been thinking a lot about lately. Methods of research. There can sometimes be an overly hostile environment created here, but of late I've seen a lot of well balanced respect for researchers with different points of view, and methods of presentation. It's refreshing, and I've come to admire so many people here for the giving and taking that, well, politeness and cordiallity has bought about. About the program, I've yet to see it, but will watch it in the next few days. I hope then to have something to add.

The other thread turned into a sports debate. If no one cares, than the mods can delete this thread. Boy, Just asking....

Amazon poster Mr Anderson. An Educator, he claims. David Von Pein has spoken with him. In the Gerald Blaine thread, David said "I've talked with Mr. Anderson on numerous occasions--Amazon included--and he's got his head screwed on straight regarding the JFK case. He's written some very good posts, too." So good, he has breached Amazon's discussion guidelines so many times I couldn't possibly count. It's barely tolerated here, but it seems anyone can hide behind a handle and post whatever they want there. I've reported several attacks by him and others to Amazon Management. Some posts have been deleted. If it wasn't a public site like Amazon, I wouldn't care. If some of the posts weren't truly offensive, I wouldn't care. But rules of conduct are there for a reason. I was going to use quotes from him, but if anyone should wander over, they'll see what I mean. Trust me, as a discussion, it hasn't got much going on... So, this "Historian". Is S V Anderson his real name? Is it a pseudonym? He also may go under the name T Folsom, but I have no proof of this myself. Member Rob Morrow has. Does he post on other forums, either under his own or another name? I invited him here, but got no reply. He also didn't answer my questions to him, but it was replied by another, with a very similar writing style. Perhaps all LNs have the same small lexicon of words to use. So any info? Not after speculation at all, just like to find out more.

Kathy...You know I was being sarcastic? Was kinda hoping that came across...lighten the mood a little. This started about an Amazon poster, if I recall. Never mind, I'm just here for the ride.

Thank God professional boxing is all above board.

As it's my first real chance to comment on this pic here, I'll simply ask: If it was Lee in the doorway, wouldn't that be a great alibi to give to the DPD? Obviously 40 plus years of debate makes the question more complicated, but at it's very heart, wouldn't the evidence lead to Lovelady, with Lee being were he was seen before and after the assassiantion, in the Lunch Room?