Greg Burnham

Hi Kathy,

Thanks for posting this. Very interesting, in a way. The funny thing is...I don't know exctly how or why Geb was ever suspected of being an Oswald impersonator?

At the time of the assassination in 1963 he was 44 years old! Oswald was 20 years younger. It seems hard to believe that anyone would think that he could pass for the same guy or that anyone would have mistaken him for Oswald.

Geb's Social Security Number is 457-26-0371

He was born in Wisconsin in 1919. He died in 1989 at age 70. He retired as a Colonel in the US Air Force in 1965 after duty as a Strategic Air Command Pilot. He also was a WWII veteran.

The only points of interest that I found are these and they are "thin at best" regarding Dallas:

Both Ralph and his brother, Fred Geb, who was also a Colonel in the USAF, attended Woodrow Wilson High School in Dallas, as did Represntative Collins. (I'm uncertain as to which Collins this is--but I believe it is James M Collins).

Also in attendance at Woodrow Wilson High School (I think) were two individuals who would later become FBI Special Agents:

FBI Special Agent Davey O'Brien and Special Agent I. B. Hale. They definitely attended TCU together.

These two were partners for 11 years. Special Agent O'Brien later became the Security Chief for H. L. Hunt and Special Agent I. B. Hale became the Security Director for General Dynamics of Fort Worth Texas.

I. B. Hale's father, Bobby, eloped with and married Governor John Connally's daughter, Kathleen. She later committed suicide (or she was "suicided") by a shotgun blast behind her right ear.

Anyway there's more. Seymour Hersh wrote about more stuff that allegedly took place involving Exener. However, I could never really find where this Ralph Geb supposedly fit in...

Monk...I am with you. We have oodles (legal term) of statements by JVB that she knew LHO and LHO knew her,

both in the conventional and sexual sense. And most of us accept that as a given, since they worked at the same

company. But...tain't necessarily so. As you say, it depends on the size of the company. He was a factory worker,

she was an office worker. So where is the independent documentation? A statement by JVB is NOT documentation;

neither is a statement by Haslam...unless DOCUMENTED.

Jack

Although this might not be exactly what's going on here, Jack--are you saying this is what it resembles?

Example of Begging the Question

Bill: "God exists." [Jim: Judyth is the real deal]

Jill: "How do you know." [Jack: How do you know?]

Bill: "Because the Bible says so." [Jim: Because Doctor Mary's Monkey says so.]

Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?" [Jack: Why should I believe DMM?]

Bill: "Because the Bible was written by those who believe in God." [Jim: Because DMM was written by someone who believes in Judyth]

==============================

This is ridiculous, Monk. Judyth and Lee were hired on the same day. She maintained his work and

payroll records, which even have her initials on them. Doubting this is beyond the realm of reason.

Try not to speak, my friend--it's not ridiculous--not yet. I'm still questioning this "witness" -- I would prefer to hear the witness answer the question. Barb seems to reject any evidence that you or Judyth provide. So that won't work by itself. But, perhaps she has an answer consistent with the evidence that she herself has discovered?

But, now that Jim has "opened the door" to this subject... Barb, do you reject the authenticity of the documents Jim referenced above? If so, why?

Hi Greg,

I don't know where you got the idea I have ever conceded that Judyth knew Oswald. I have not. [snip]

My mistake. I was under the impression that you believed they had, at least, met each other. Do you believe that? Or do you think it's unlikely? During your research did you find out how many people were employed at Reily's in 1963 during that period of time? If it's 800 employees, then perhaps they missed each other. But, if it's only 8 or so--that's a lot harder to miss. IMO, the probability is extremely high that they knew each other. Sorry for putting words in your mouth, I didn't mean to.

Dean,

What a bold bet. I would think that if Fetzer is as sure of his "witness" as he claims, the least he could do is go all in with you and toss in the same wager. I for one could sure say I would not miss him much.

Mike

In my opinion, it's a dumb bet. (No offense intended, Dean). It is counter-productive for sincere researchers to disqualify themselves on a "bet" over any single issue.

Jack,

As you know, I'm not an attorney, but I think there are serious impediments to pursuing such a charge. For instance, if you are correct (in doubting much of what JVB reports) then there is no patient to identify and no crime. However, if she is telling the truth about this "murder" and since she presumably stands to lose the most if the identity of the patient is discovered, etc., and since she would be the sole source of detailed information leading to her own arrest and conviction... well, I hardly think any "suspect" would be forthcoming even if there was a reward offered! We call this a "dead end" case. But, are you sure that her story really means she was involved in a "murder" to begin with?

JVB admits in participating in a premeditated murder. I am surprised that nobody wants

her brought to justice. Scientific experimentation is no justification for murder.

We have attorneys on the forum. How about a legal opinion?

Jack

Many assertions have been made AND ACCEPTED AS FACT that a mental patient was injected

with Judy's cancer virus, and promptly died.

Why is this accepted as true without any checking? Hospitals keep voluminous records on

patients. What was the name of this patient? Where is the death report? Who administered

the injection? Where was the patient buried? What was the date of the injection and the date

of death? Many questions, few answers.

If this incident happened as reported, it clearly is a case of MURDER. There is no statute

of limitations on murder. If JVB admits to creating this cancer virus and being a party to

administering it to some poor unfortunate mental patient...IT IS STILL MURDER, PREMEDITATED

MURDER...not a scientific experiment. JVB has CONFESSED to murder and gone unprosecuted.

Am I the only one who finds this extraordinary?

Jack

[snip]...

Bizarre. LHO writing in the margins of her book would establish she knew him. Just how/why you would think it would automatically establish anything beyond that ... like working in some secret Ferrie kitchen cancer bioweapon lab is nonsensical. [snip]...

Barb,

While I agree with you that even if the above item is shown to be Oswald's writing it does not prove all of her other claims are true. However, why are you asking for this handwriting verification if its only purpose is to substantiate that which you have already conceded based on other evidence? If you have already conceded the high probability that they knew each other based on their concurrent employment at Reily's, why ask for this exercise in futility since, as you say, it won't prove anything beyond that which you already concede anyway?

Well,

You don't want to take my word. What I meant is that Barb has verified this, John Dolva has verified the document. It is ridiculous to start questioning the authenticity of these documents. What exactly is it that you require, simply?

More than your word. That is not meant disrespectfully toward you, but I require more than your word.

All you guys are making fools of yourselfs by never accepting anything, not even stuff that since long has been cleared. I've never seen or heard, or met John Dolva in my life before I entered Edu. Your ridiculous paranoia about anything of which is new to you is just absolutely insane. But that's your choice, Greg. I could not care less about your opinion of this. It's BS. Your default value of anyone you haven't heard of seems that of a sinister CIA agent - do you guys ever sleep at nite??

Well, Glenn, do you know what a "Strawman" is? In the vernacular, a strawman argument is one in which an opponent "places words in your mouth" or otherwise misrepresents your argument, giving it a much weaker position than it originally possessed. Then the opponent proceeds to demolish this new, but weaker "strawman" argument, while all the time claiming that they have defeated your position!

You've done nothing of the sort. Let's not argue. It's becoming tedious.

Greg,

Just like you, I have opinions. Who are never disguised as anything but - opinions. Regarding JVBs asylum issue, I have the knowledge, unlike Jimmy.

Glenn

Yes, Glenn--opinions.

But, some of us have actually conducted research about the broader subject drawing conclusions and forming opinions based upon that research.

I didn't write my opinion about the asylum issue because I have no "standing" to speak intelligently about it. I also have no evidence that you or Dolva have any reliable evidence pertaining to it either--although you might. Therefore, I have refrained from commenting on an issue about which I don't know enough. I refrain from proving I am a fool by not offering ill conceived, inappropriate, best left unsaid, "opinions" -- of which I am ill informed.

By comparison, what have you done with regard to speaking about items with which you have NO KNOWLEDGE (by your own admission)?

You don't need to answer, we already know.

Now to be fair to you, perhaps you felt that Jim accused you inappropriately. Perhaps he did. However, inserting yourself into discussions that you are ill informed about (by your own admission) does nothing to add to the pursuit of truth. Beyond a simple denial an innocent man need not defend himself if there is no basis for the accusations. And certainly there was no need to continue the attack.

Hey Greg,

So far, I've found you reasonable, even funny at times.

I would have thought that you by now could take my word for the authenticity of my statements related to the asylum thing. In fact, I would have expected you to, by now. But if you don't, I'll provide the translation, just give me your notice. And yes, of course you are ill informed about this particular issue. She lied, she was caught and now Jimmy et al are trying to hide. Be my guest to join them, no problem.

You thought I could "take your word" -- Are you kidding me right now? Seriously? I don't even know you. Isn't this one of the main criticisms you and others have for Jim? You all claim that he just "takes Judyth's word for it" and that is NOT acceptable to you! Yet, I have known Jim very, very well for a decade or so--and I interviewed Judyth about 10 years ago, so I have a basis for my judgment. You have nothing, by comparison--except for "gut" feeling.

But now you want me to "take your word for it" even though I have no basis upon which to accept your claims? How hypocritical! Jim has a foundation upon which to base his belief in Judyth!

You have provided me nothing. In fact, your presentation has been dispositive.

Greg,

Just like you, I have opinions. Who are never disguised as anything but - opinions. Regarding JVBs asylum issue, I have the knowledge, unlike Jimmy.

Glenn

Yes, Glenn--opinions.

But, some of us have actually conducted research about the broader subject drawing conclusions and forming opinions based upon that research.

I didn't write my opinion about the asylum issue because I have no "standing" to speak intelligently about it. I also have no evidence that you or Dolva have any reliable evidence pertaining to it either--although you might. Therefore, I have refrained from commenting on an issue about which I don't know enough. I refrain from proving I am a fool by not offering ill conceived, inappropriate, best left unsaid, "opinions" -- of which I am ill informed.

By comparison, what have you done with regard to speaking about items with which you have NO KNOWLEDGE (by your own admission)?

You don't need to answer, we already know.

Now to be fair to you, perhaps you felt that Jim accused you inappropriately. Perhaps he did. However, inserting yourself into discussions that you are ill informed about (by your own admission) does nothing to add to the pursuit of truth. Beyond a simple denial an innocent man need not defend himself if there is no basis for the accusations. And certainly there was no need to continue the attack.

One of the positive things that has come out of this thread is your joining EF and participating, Greg. I think many members have appreciated the balanced and informed positions you have taken whether they agree with you or not.

Maybe marriage has mellowed you a little, but I'm glad you still care.

[emphasis added]

I like your analysis of what transpired, Mike. Also, many thanks for the kind words. And your last observation [in bold] is possibly more astute than you even know!

5) I have not claimed to know anything beyond the asylulm issue. Ever.

Hmmm. Then what business do you have posting comments beyond that scope? Any comments beyond that scope are, by definition, ill conceived, inappropriate, out of place, best left unsaid, and could be the words of a mad man with an over blown image of himself; or otherwise absurd.

[snip] mr. burnham-

it is true that mr. fetzer is coming under heavy attack here. i suggests the attacks come because of the tone he has created. he has, for instance, said many unpleasant things about me- apparently because i asked him to share evidence for a claim he described as "well supported." was that an unreasonable question on my part? now he accuses me- without evidence- of posting another man's words under my own name. that is an attack on my integrity. am i to sit back and ignore that just because some might feel mr. fetzer has contributed more of substance to the thread? does contributing "substance" give you a right to belittle and attack others? leave me out of it- a few posts back he described kathy as "someone incapable of thinking." are people supposed to sit back and silently tolerate that sort of bullying behavior?

Kevin,

I displayed a "general garment" without naming names in my post. Are you claiming a custom fit? On the other hand, perhaps my observation doesn't apply to you? That's not for me to determine and I didn't point any fingers. It was just meant as food for thought...

Greg,

It's really nice that you like Jimmy.

But I think, honestly, we know that by now.

Glenn

Glenn,

My post has nothing to do with my personal likes or dislikes. I am not taking sides with Jim, if you haven't noticed, due to our relationship. Moreover, I am resisting vilifying you for reasons that you may or may not well deserve--because such behavior on my part would serve no purpose. There is no reason to egg me on either. That doesn't work with me.

[snip] I also saw a photo of a curious-looking man and as the photo came downwards the name was "Ralph Geb." I wrote the name down and googled it later on and was shocked. "Ralph Geb" was involved with impersonating LHO before the assassination.

I felt this was important, but nobody seemed interested. Rich had gotten seriously ill. He said to me he didn't care if Lee Oswald showed up that day and confessed. [snip]

Kathy C

Hi Kathy,

It's interesting that you bring up Ralph Geb. One of my friends (now deceased) --Jay Harrison--formerly with the Dallas Police Dept. among other things, was very interested in Ralph Geb, as well. J asked me to research him many years ago. It might be worth its own thread because I'd like to know what you found. I had a lot of trouble gathering any info about him that was pertinent to the subject.

It appears to me that Jim's passion causes him to express his profound frustration in ways that are less than effective at times. However, his considerable contribution to this thread's substance far outweighs those outbursts. In fact, some (but not all) of those outbursts are quite understandable, IMO.

On the other hand, there are those who have contributed virtually nothing--or next to nothing--to the substance of the thread that are posting nearly 100% ad hominem attacks against him--the attacks aren't even against Judyth! I would think that one's legacy in any thread should reside in their contribution of substance to the resolution of the debate, rather than their penchant for targeting any individual.

I think that's a great idea, Barb!

[edited for excessive sarcasm by me]

[...snip...] So now we have a truly unpleasant field of discussion. I keep remembering how things were back when you and I started out in this field. How you and I and others shared information back and forth and helped advance a common agenda.. How we hoped each other’s work would succeed and how we criticized arguments that we believed weren’t up to snuff. Back then, assassination research was sort of fun.

This last thread isn’t fun. [snip ...]

Josiah Thompson

JFK movie quote:

Man X [PROUTY]: Well that's the real question, isn't it? Why? The how and the who is just scenery for the public. Oswald, Ruby, Cuba, the Mafia. Keeps 'em guessing like some kind of parlor game, prevents 'em from asking the most important question, why? Why was Kennedy killed? Who benefited? Who has the power to cover it up? Who?

Greg, I exchanged a number of emails with Hemming, and even spoke to him on the phone once. At one point, shortly before he died, I was brought on board a proposed project on Hemming. In preparation for what was supposed to be a far-reaching series of interviews with Hemming, I read his HSCA testimony, along with his interviews in Twyman and Hancock. I also re-read his emails to me and every post he'd ever made on this Forum. This led me to conclude he was a BS artist. He would claim things he suspected (such as the name of the shooter in the Dal-Tex) as fact, etc... But that would have been forgivable if he hadn't also--with regularity--lied through his teeth about things. It was almost as if he hated all researchers, and thought we were chumps, but couldn't stop himself from messing with us, and feeding us crap.

In my case, after a series of emails on ballistics, silencers, and Werbell, etc, in which he appeared to be sharing his genuine thoughts, he started running on about how he was the last American at Dien Ben Phu, a battle that happened in May 1954. He was not at Dien Ben Phu. His HSCA testimony makes it clear he was still in High School at the time. I realized then that Gerry was basically the guy at the corner bar who tells you a long story about the friends he'd lost in Nam, and the time he spent in the jungle, etc, who tells you a completely different story a week later.

I mean, think about it... Gerry claimed to have been friends with Che Guevara, to have secretly been working for Angleton and to have had several run-ins with Oswald. Now that would be bad enough, but he also claimed to have been at Sirhan's house the morning after RFK was killed. He had no documentation to support any of this, of course, and although gifted with words, never sought to write it down so something could come of it.

If he bought into Judyth's story it may have been because he saw in her a bit of himself... or not.

Pat,

You may have had an unfortunate experience with Gerry. I can't judge it because I didn't witness it. He was adamant that one needed to do their homework before confronting him, and if he judged--rightly or wrongly--that a researcher hadn't done that, he would treat them less than respectfully. You don't know me, but I'm not easily duped. We communicated for over a decade and spent about 50 hours on the phone. At first, our relationship was quite adversarial--and he was quite confrontational. Of course, who wouldn't be if they were being seriously grilled about their involvement in the murder of JFK? But, as time went by I grew to believe that he was not involved in Dallas. There is an argument to be made that he and/or members of his team were set up as alternate patsies had the hit taken place elsewhere, such as, Miami--for instance. But, that's a different topic. Suffice to say, every claim that he made TO ME that I originally doubted ended up checking out (if it was possible to check out). There were claims that I simply could not verify for many reasons, but my inability to confirm them does not prove prevarication on his part.

I will concede that he did have a tendency that, once pissed off enough, allowed him to lead a newbie on a wild goose chase. It was a bit sadistic, IMO. He would usually end it with a justification, by saying, "Well, they didn't know sh*t from shinola anyway..."

GJ [Good job] JG.

I remember Greg Burnham yelling at me because I laughed when I heard some woman claimed she had a love affair with Lee Harvey Oswald.

Off topic?

Kathy C

I have never yelled at you. I have never met you. I have never spoken with you in person or on the phone. How could I ever have yelled at you?

Kathy, when I first joined this forum you reached out to me in private email and I agreed that it was best to let bygones be bygones. Are you having a change of heart?

Greg, I meant the post to be funny. You were "angry" when I scoffed about Judyth. And now years later we're on this thread. Yes, everything is in the past. No, we never spoke, but we did write.

Kathy C

Oh, I get it now! haha -- The "smiley face" helps.

Greg,

Fair enough. I would agree to your description, in general. However, Jim himself has repeatedly, also in this thread stated that "he doesn't know her story" [ie. history..]. So the claim that he is some sort of prominence as far as JVB sounds somewhat exaggerated.

You missed the point. That's OK. Maybe I was unclear. I'll try again. The descriptive phrase "prominent researcher" is independent of this new subject (JVB). It is a "perception" as to the expected quality of research forthcoming from the individual based upon proven track record, among other things.

The problem is that even though he lacks depth of this story, he keeps defending it as if this was the end of civilisation. As we all have seen, this defence has not been convincing. Most probably, Mr Fetzer has with his actions in this thread, achieved the opposite. I mean, you cannot act like an elephant in a China store without consequenses, right?

Well, I don't understand your point as it relates to my post...perhaps it doesn't.

As I alluded on another page, lacking skill in the art of persuasion (rhetoric) is germaine to the conversation, but is not indicative of the objective facts. This is both a blessing, but mostly a curse. For if the truth is not effectively communicated due to lack of finesse, it is a pity. Conversely, if falsehood is triumphant due to an abundance of finesse, but lacking in substance, that is a crime. However, only in the case of a xxxx who lacks finesse is the disregard for the art of rhetoric a good thing.

Know what I mean, Huckleberry?

"Know what I mean, Huckleberry?"

Hehe...:-) I like that, Greg.

Let's see:

"It is a "perception" as to the expected quality of research forthcoming from the individual based upon proven track record, among other things."

Yes, I can agree to this.

"As I alluded on another page, lacking skill in the art of persuasion (rhetoric) is germaine to the conversation, but is not indicative of the objective facts. This is both a blessing, but mostly a curse. For if the truth is not effectively communicated due to lack of finesse, it is a pity"

As we've seen a telling example of here, yes. (And, no one does herself any favors by acting like an elephant, as far as the art of persuasion)

"Conversely, if falsehood is triumphant due to an abundance of finesse, but lacking in substance, that is a crime. However, only in the case of a xxxx who lacks finesse is the disregard for the art of rhetoric a good thing"

Obviously. An ***hole is always an ***hole. No matter "rethorical skills".

I did perhaps not explain myself very well, agreed. The point that I did not make, and should have, is that Fetzer has shown a lot of skills in this thread, no doubt about that. The skills that I expected have, however, so far not been displayed. I was expecting balance, objectivity and some sort of reasoning. This was not to be, not by any stretch.

I was more thinking of the reality of research, when did Mr Fetzer do any research? This whole thread has been one continuos story of him referring to others. Most notably a few books, beside JVB. Apart from this, it seems Fetzer's role has been that of an administrator; of Judyth's claims. I cannot recollect one instance in this JVB thing where Fetzer has referred to his own research. That is, besides listening and accepting Judyth's version of events. But this hardly qualifies.

This was my point. Would that be "prominence"?

Glenn,

Perhaps we are not as far apart as I once imagined. It is possible that I will catch some flack for this post, but I "ain't scared of no ghost" --so here goes.

IMHO, Jim's arguments might be overly dependant upon his admittedly exceptional ability to "judge character" when evaluating Judyth's claims. And he may, in fact, still be correct. However, that is not persuasive--and it should NOT be persuasive--in a public forum. The fact that I personally know and respect Jim and trust his judgment should properly influence my opinion of his support of her claims and, therefore, my opinion of her claims. And it does. Coupled with that, is the fact that I met her myself 10 years ago and believed her to be telling me the truth. I met her at the request of a very close friend of mine, the late, Gerry Patrick Hemming. Gerry was a very tough case. He was disinclined to trust anyone about anything unless they were family or select friends. In fact, Gerry was very critical of those who he thought had written books that were, in his view, based upon the author having "read a lot of books on the subject" and then borrowed "facts not in evidence" as an illegitimate cite to authority. That he believed the bulk of Judyth's story is remarkable.

Having said that, it might be less than appropriate for Jim to expect that others would rely upon his judgment of her bona fides when evaluating her claims. It is understandable that he would rely on his "gut" which has proved reliable in the past, but it may not be...persuasive to others.

Just my 2 cents.

GJ [Good job] JG.

I remember Greg Burnham yelling at me because I laughed when I heard some woman claimed she had a love affair with Lee Harvey Oswald.

Off topic?

Kathy C

I have never yelled at you. I have never met you. I have never spoken with you in person or on the phone. How could I ever have yelled at you?

Kathy, when I first joined this forum you reached out to me in private email and I agreed that it was best to let bygones be bygones. Are you having a change of heart?

Greg,

Fair enough. I would agree to your description, in general. However, Jim himself has repeatedly, also in this thread stated that "he doesn't know her story" [ie. history..]. So the claim that he is some sort of prominence as far as JVB sounds somewhat exaggerated.

You missed the point. That's OK. Maybe I was unclear. I'll try again. The descriptive phrase "prominent researcher" is independent of this new subject (JVB). It is a "perception" as to the expected quality of research forthcoming from the individual based upon proven track record, among other things.

The problem is that even though he lacks depth of this story, he keeps defending it as if this was the end of civilisation. As we all have seen, this defence has not been convincing. Most probably, Mr Fetzer has with his actions in this thread, achieved the opposite. I mean, you cannot act like an elephant in a China store without consequenses, right?

Well, I don't understand your point as it relates to my post...perhaps it doesn't.

As I alluded on another page, lacking skill in the art of persuasion (rhetoric) is germaine to the conversation, but is not indicative of the objective facts. This is both a blessing, but mostly a curse. For if the truth is not effectively communicated due to lack of finesse, it is a pity. Conversely, if falsehood is triumphant due to an abundance of finesse, but lacking in substance, that is a crime. However, only in the case of a xxxx who lacks finesse is the disregard for the art of rhetoric a good thing.

Know what I mean, Huckleberry?

Greg,

Please explain - to a "nobody".

Is Jim a prominent researcher?

No pun intended here.

Glenn,

Yes. The reason I used the phrase, a "prominent researcher", was two-fold. First, my question applies irrespective of the exact identity of the researcher [Fetzer or otherwise], and second, that the researcher is prominent suggests that they are not as easily immediately dismissed as a complete unknown would be who "offered an otherwise outlandish" claim. However, even a well respected researcher would be hard pressed to garner this much attention and draw this much debate if the claims were, in fact, so easily disproved and/or dismissed as nonsense.

I'm very curious about something. If Jim (or any prominent researcher) had started a thread that supported a claim that JFK had been murdered by....um space aliens, for instance...how much attention would it have received? I think, at first, some of his friends would have tried to "help him" out of concern for his well being perhaps, and that some of his detractors would have rejoiced in his folly and gleefully exploited the opportunity to "throw him under the bus" -- But, then what? More than likely, IMO, the thread would have died out fairly quickly.

But that's not what happened here. This thread is the longest in EF history. If it's all so nonsensical, why? I find it interesting that some of Judyth's detractors claim, on the one hand, that her story is so outlandish as to be easily dismissed as nonsense. Yet, on the other hand, they spend a tremendous amount of energy refuting claims that they characterize as having no merit. Why would it take such effort to demonstrate that something "obviously" ridiculous is ridiculous if it was, in fact, so obvious?

Perhaps there is no merit to these claims. That's not my point. But, if there is no merit to the claims and if they are as completely outlandish as her detractors claim, then why all the effort to refute them?

If ridiculous, it seems like it shouldn't have been that hard.

I'm very curious about something. If Jim (or any prominent researcher) had started a thread that supported a claim that JFK had been murdered by....um space aliens, for instance...how much attention would it have received? I think, at first, some of his friends would have tried to "help him" out of concern for his well being perhaps, and that some of his detractors would have rejoiced in his folly and gleefully exploited the opportunity to "throw him under the bus" -- But, then what? More than likely, IMO, the thread would have died out fairly quickly.

But that's not what happened here. This thread is the longest in EF history. If it's all so nonsensical, why? I find it interesting that some of Judyth's detractors claim, on the one hand, that her story is so outlandish as to be easily dismissed as nonsense. Yet, on the other hand, they spend a tremendous amount of energy refuting claims that they characterize as having no merit. Why would it take such effort to demonstrate that something "obviously" ridiculous is ridiculous if it was, in fact, so obvious?

Perhaps there is no merit to these claims. That's not my point. But, if there is no merit to the claims and if they are as completely outlandish as her detractors claim, then why all the effort to refute them?

If ridiculous, it seems like it shouldn't have been that hard.