Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[Jack White]

Some other forensic factors to consider:

“Since most bones in the body stop growing after puberty, experts assumed the human skull stopped growing then too. But using CT scans of 100 men and women, the researchers discovered that the bones in the human skull continue to grow as people age. The forehead moves forward while the cheek bones move backward. As the bones move, the overlying muscle and skin also move, subtly changing the shape of the face.” stemcells.alphamedpress.org In addition, there is some “baby fat’ on young faces. Under stress, ‘baby fat’ can temporarily disappear if the subject is dehydrated or has temporarily lost weight. Other factors are ear infections that can swell up one or both sides of the face (an occasional problem for Lee H. Oswald until he had an adenoidectomy in the USSR). Lee Oswald was only 24 when he died, so most underlying muscle structures had just reached the development status of a mature face. The ‘baby fat’ or more rounded face of Lee Oswald at ages 18-21 display softer features than at age 17, when Oswald was under boot camp stressors, or after he lost weight between September and November, 1963 (as he reported to Judyth Baker). [/b]

"under boot camp stressors, he lost weight..."

[Jack White]

One Rachel Oswald is better than 100 JVBs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UT13K...layer_embedded

Jack

[Mike Williams]

Some other forensic factors to consider:

“Since most bones in the body stop growing after puberty, experts assumed the human skull stopped growing then too. But using CT scans of 100 men and women, the researchers discovered that the bones in the human skull continue to grow as people age. The forehead moves forward while the cheek bones move backward. As the bones move, the overlying muscle and skin also move, subtly changing the shape of the face.” stemcells.alphamedpress.org In addition, there is some “baby fat’ on young faces. Under stress, ‘baby fat’ can temporarily disappear if the subject is dehydrated or has temporarily lost weight. Other factors are ear infections that can swell up one or both sides of the face (an occasional problem for Lee H. Oswald until he had an adenoidectomy in the USSR). Lee Oswald was only 24 when he died, so most underlying muscle structures had just reached the development status of a mature face. The ‘baby fat’ or more rounded face of Lee Oswald at ages 18-21 display softer features than at age 17, when Oswald was under boot camp stressors, or after he lost weight between September and November, 1963 (as he reported to Judyth Baker). [/b]

"under boot camp stressors, he lost weight..."

Jack,

Do we know his weight going in and coming out of Basic Training? I ask because as a personal observation most people who are underweight gain weight, and most who are overweight lose weight. Was Oswald of rather slight build going in?

Mike

[Kathleen Collins]

WE HAVE SOME “OVER-PROCESSED” SEPIA-TINTED PHOTOS PURPORTING TO BE

“HARVEY” AND “LEE”. THESE ARE “FUZZY” HOWEVER, COMPARED TO THE BLACK

AND WHITE EXAMPLES BELOW. OF SPECIAL CONCERN IS THAT THE ADULT PHOTOS

ARE NOT SHOWN AT THE SAME HEAD SIZE.

THE BLACK-AND-WHITE PHOTOS AVAILABLE ARE NOT NEARLY AS “FUZZY” AND

HAVE MUCH MORE DETAIL. WE WILL USE THESE CLEARER PHOTOS, OR ONES

IDENTICAL TO THEM, FOR OUR COMPARISON WORK.

FIRST OF ALL, WE WILL ELIMINATE THOSE PHOTOS WHICH ARE OBVIOUSLY NOT

LEE H. OSWALD. SOMEBODY MAY HAVE SAID THAT THEY WERE OF OSWALD:

THE PROVENANCE OF THESE DISPUTED EXAMPLES MUST BE MADE KNOWN TO US.

THERE ARE ONLY TWO PHOTOGRAPHS IN THE COLLECTION ABOVE THAT ARE NOT

LEE H. OSWALD: ONE IS IN THE 2ND ROW, CENTER. THE OTHER IS IN THE FIFTH

ROW, SECOND FROM THE RIGHT.

BOTH PHOTOS ARE QUITE DIFFERENT FROM THE OTHERS. THE “HARVEY” PHOTO

SHOWN IN THIS COLLECTION (ROW FOUR, SECOND FRONM RIGHT), HOWEVER, IS

THE ‘BLOATED’ ONE OF REAL CONCERN. IT SHOULD BE REPLACED WITH THE TRUE,

UNBLOATED VERSION.

WE HAVE MANY MORE “BLOATED PHOTOS” IN THE ABOVE COLLECTION. HOW DID

THIS HAPPEN? IT IS A MATTER OF CONCERN. THE FOLLOWING PHOTOS ARE ‘BLOATED”:

ROW ONE: SECOND FROM LEFT, THIRD FROM LEFT, FOURTH FROM LEFT. (3)

ROW TWO: ALL OKAY, EXCEPT REMOVE THE BOGUS PHOTO, THIRD FROM THE LEFT.

ROW THREE: ALL OF THESE PHOTOS HAVE SUFFERED SOME ‘BLOATING’ DISTORTIONS (5)

ROW FOUR: THIRD FROM THE LEFT AND SECOND FROM THE RIGHT ARE BOTH ‘BLOATED’ (2)

ROW FIVE: ALL OKAY. EXCEPT REMOVE THE BOGUS PHOTO, SECOND FROM THE RIGHT.

TEN OF THE 25 PHOTOS HAVE BEEN DISTORTED IN THIS COLLECTION. TWO OTHERS ARE

BOGUS.

WE WILL USE THE “PRISTINE” PHOTO OF LEE H. OSWALD AS A GUIDE TO CORRECT HEAD

WIDTHS, AS THE WIDTH OF THE HUMAN SKULL CHANGES VERY LITTLE.

Professor Fetzer, there are other photos there that are not LHO. In the second row, #2 is the faked Lee photo, #3 is Lee Oswald (of Harvey and Lee) -- a faked photo. There was someone on this forum who removed the top layer of whatever was used on that photo and it wasn't Harvey. IMO it was Lee. #4 is Robert Oswald.

In the 4th row #1 (left) is of Lee (of Harvey and Lee) IMO.

Another researcher told me about Robert Oswald. It certainly isn't Harvey whom Ruby shot.

The bottom row, #4, doesn't look like Harvey. His eyes are dark, but he's got a brown tooth, which is consistent to Lee Oswald in high school, having had a front tooth punched from his mouth. They may have replanted it. A brown tooth means it's dead. (I was a dental asst.) Look at the sepia-toned ones. Top row, #2 -- Lee Oswald.

While we're there the first row, #1, is of Lee (Harvey and Lee.) Lee is also seen in the civil air patrol picture (not shown here) with David Ferrie. And with the 3 brothers, shown earlier.

Kathy C

[Greg Burnham]

I am not taking sides in this debate, as I don't claim to know one way or the other. -- However...

Look, let's not all get our panties up in a bunch, boys. Granted, Jim has a tendency--by his own admission--to be overly combative. I share that same trait, unfortunately. It's not always the easiest beast to tame. However, that trait (or fault, as the case may be) should not influence the outcome of the argument. We're all human, and as such, we might be sensitive to the combativeness of another particularly when we and they are on opposite sides of an argument.

But that's not the point.

If we assume that Jim has committed an error of etiquette--so be it. His social skills my have offended some here. (Although, I fail to see how or why. Perhaps if aimed at me, I too would feel differently? I don't know). However, the problem--in my view, is that those who are claiming "foul" fail to provide sound arguments in rebuttal. Sure, they might be offended, but "who cares" in the bigger picture. Why? Because it isn't Jim's intent to offend. His intent is to "scrap it out" even if it means getting his hands dirty in pursuit of the truth.

There are multiple errors in argumentation from those attempting to discredit Judyth. And they are obvious. The fact that some great researchers on this forum do not believe her story, in and of itself, means little or nothing by way of proof since the arguments offered to debunk her are not well constructed once scrutinized beyond surface appeal.

It is my sincere hope that the tone of this discussion is dialed back at least a few notches. People don't need to feel that they're "giving in" simply because they choose to avoid aggravating their opponent with vitriolic proclamations.

[Dean Hagerman]

Jim

Please think about this for a second

Is it really worth it to you to put a wedge in your friendships with Jack White and David Lifton, two guys who have worked with you on the Z-film and many other things for over 10+ years, two guys who back you up and have the same theories as you over Judyth whom you have been talking with for a very short period of time?

It really hurts me to see you guys trading words over Judyth who is sitting at home right now laughing her butt off over the fact that she is turning fellow researchers against each other.

Please Jim take a step back and look at whats going on.

I hate this thread, I hate the fact that Judyth has done this, I know she is very happy that she has you against Jack and David two researchers who dont believe her story

I hope you dont take my post the wrong way Jim because im behind you no matter what, im also behind Jack and David no matter what

Dean

Edited April 3, 2010 by Dean Hagerman

[Kathleen Collins]

FROM ROBERT'S "FRONTLINE" INTERVIEW ABOUT HIS BROTHER, "THE ASSASSIN":

In your mind, are there questions about whether Lee shot President Kennedy?

There is no question in my mind that Lee was responsible for the three shots fired,

two of the shots hitting the president and killing him. There is no question in my mind

that he also shot Officer Tippit. How can you explain one without the other? I think

they're inseparable. I'm talking about the police officer being shot and the president.

You look at the factual data, you look at the rifle, you look at the pistol ownership,

you look at his note about the Walker shooting. You look at the general opportunity

-- he was present. He wasn't present when they took a head count [at the Texas

School Book Depository].

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...ews/oswald.html

This, of course, is Jack's work and Jack's caption and, in case anyone has

missed it, I suspect Robert of playing a key role--both as an impersonator

and as a conspirator--implicating his brother for a crime he did not commit.

Jim..."suspicions" are not good research nor good history.

There is NO reason to suspect that Robert ever impersonated his brother.

There is NO reason to suspect that Robert ever functioned as a "conspirator"

Those may be interesting HYPOTHESES to consider in looking at evidence,

but NO EVIDENCE OF YOUR SUSPICIONS HAVE EVER SURFACED.

On the other hand, it is clear that Robert WAS AWARE that his mother

had volunteered his brother Lee to lend his identity to the government

to use in a false defector program. Lee was AWARE that an impostor

was using Lee's name and identity...and in fact, as part of this imposture,

Robert actually met the impostor and Marina at the THANKSGIVING

REUNION on November 22, 1962.

Therefore, it was a shock and great dilemma to Robert when the impostor

was named and the assassin. Robert testified that he went for a long

nighttime drive to think things over and sort things out.

During this drive, he decided that it would be imprudent to expose

the impostor since this would EXPOSE THE SECRET DEFECTION PROGRAM,

so he decided to keep quite. And anyway, he KNEW THAT THE IMPOSTOR

WAS NOT HIS BROTHER, so he decided to go along with whatever the

SECRET SERVICE TOLD HIM TO DO.

If Jim were to investigate Robert Edward Lee Oswald and prove his

"suspicions" correct, that would indeed be a startling new development

in the case. But I think Jim will find that Robert was just an ordinary

hard working family man who was a brick salesman...who got caught

up in an avalanche which was beyond his control.

But he KNOWS. He could still confirm what really happened. But he will

never tell.

Jack

I agree with Jack here. Robert Oswald ddn't implicate his brother because Robert and the man shot by Ruby were not brothers. Robert was sending Harvey to his death, a Russian man who was not related to him. Did the real Lee defect to Russia and not come back? Or did he come back under an assumed name and later talk to Mae Brussels (as Bill Kelly will tell you)?

There is much here to be confused about. And I think that's what the planners were trying to do.

Kathy C

[Josiah Thompson]

I am not taking sides in this debate, as I don't claim to know one way or the other. -- However...

Look, let's not all get our panties up in a bunch, boys. Granted, Jim has a tendency--by his own admission--to be overly combative. ...

If we assume that Jim has committed an error of etiquette--so be it. His social skills my have offended some here.

"An error of etiquette?" "Social skills?" You must be kidding. What is closer to the truth is what Mrs. Farnsworth, his kindergarten teacher, wrote to his parents many years ago: "Jimmy doesn't play well with other children."

Josiah Thompson

Edited April 3, 2010 by Josiah Thompson

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Kathy,

This is quite fascinating. You are appear to be convinced beyond any doubt that

Robert, who looked exactly like Lee, and Lee, who looked exactly like Robert,

were nonetheless NOT brothers. That rather astounds me. Are you a student

of genetics? Do you think this kind of match could have been purely random?

I am also struck by your definitive identifications of the images in the photo

line up. Having just reviewed "The Many Faces of Lee Harvey Oswald" to be

sure I had not forgotten anything Jack explains there, how do you know who

is who in these photos? Where did they come from and how do you know?

Bear in mind, it would not surprise me at all if Judyth were wrong about some

of these identifications. It is not quite an exact science, even though I think

she is approaching it scientifically. And her vision is not very good. But how

in the world did you figure all this out? How can you possibly be so certain?

Jim

WE HAVE SOME “OVER-PROCESSED” SEPIA-TINTED PHOTOS PURPORTING TO BE

“HARVEY” AND “LEE”. THESE ARE “FUZZY” HOWEVER, COMPARED TO THE BLACK

AND WHITE EXAMPLES BELOW. OF SPECIAL CONCERN IS THAT THE ADULT PHOTOS

ARE NOT SHOWN AT THE SAME HEAD SIZE.

THE BLACK-AND-WHITE PHOTOS AVAILABLE ARE NOT NEARLY AS “FUZZY” AND

HAVE MUCH MORE DETAIL. WE WILL USE THESE CLEARER PHOTOS, OR ONES

IDENTICAL TO THEM, FOR OUR COMPARISON WORK.

FIRST OF ALL, WE WILL ELIMINATE THOSE PHOTOS WHICH ARE OBVIOUSLY NOT

LEE H. OSWALD. SOMEBODY MAY HAVE SAID THAT THEY WERE OF OSWALD:

THE PROVENANCE OF THESE DISPUTED EXAMPLES MUST BE MADE KNOWN TO US.

THERE ARE ONLY TWO PHOTOGRAPHS IN THE COLLECTION ABOVE THAT ARE NOT

LEE H. OSWALD: ONE IS IN THE 2ND ROW, CENTER. THE OTHER IS IN THE FIFTH

ROW, SECOND FROM THE RIGHT.

BOTH PHOTOS ARE QUITE DIFFERENT FROM THE OTHERS. THE “HARVEY” PHOTO

SHOWN IN THIS COLLECTION (ROW FOUR, SECOND FRONM RIGHT), HOWEVER, IS

THE ‘BLOATED’ ONE OF REAL CONCERN. IT SHOULD BE REPLACED WITH THE TRUE,

UNBLOATED VERSION.

WE HAVE MANY MORE “BLOATED PHOTOS” IN THE ABOVE COLLECTION. HOW DID

THIS HAPPEN? IT IS A MATTER OF CONCERN. THE FOLLOWING PHOTOS ARE ‘BLOATED”:

ROW ONE: SECOND FROM LEFT, THIRD FROM LEFT, FOURTH FROM LEFT. (3)

ROW TWO: ALL OKAY, EXCEPT REMOVE THE BOGUS PHOTO, THIRD FROM THE LEFT.

ROW THREE: ALL OF THESE PHOTOS HAVE SUFFERED SOME ‘BLOATING’ DISTORTIONS (5)

ROW FOUR: THIRD FROM THE LEFT AND SECOND FROM THE RIGHT ARE BOTH ‘BLOATED’ (2)

ROW FIVE: ALL OKAY. EXCEPT REMOVE THE BOGUS PHOTO, SECOND FROM THE RIGHT.

TEN OF THE 25 PHOTOS HAVE BEEN DISTORTED IN THIS COLLECTION. TWO OTHERS ARE

BOGUS.

WE WILL USE THE “PRISTINE” PHOTO OF LEE H. OSWALD AS A GUIDE TO CORRECT HEAD

WIDTHS, AS THE WIDTH OF THE HUMAN SKULL CHANGES VERY LITTLE.

Professor Fetzer, there are other photos there that are not LHO. In the second row, #2 is the faked Lee photo, #3 is Lee Oswald (of Harvey and Lee) -- a faked photo. There was someone on this forum who removed the top layer of whatever was used on that photo and it wasn't Harvey. IMO it was Lee. #4 is Robert Oswald.

In the 4th row #1 (left) is of Lee (of Harvey and Lee) IMO.

Another researcher told me about Robert Oswald. It certainly isn't Harvey whom Ruby shot.

The bottom row, #4, doesn't look like Harvey. His eyes are dark, but he's got a brown tooth, which is consistent to Lee Oswald in high school, having had a front tooth punched from his mouth. They may have replanted it. A brown tooth means it's dead. (I was a dental asst.) Look at the sepia-toned ones. Top row, #2 -- Lee Oswald.

While we're there the first row, #1, is of Lee (Harvey and Lee.) Lee is also seen in the civil air patrol picture (not shown here) with David Ferrie. And with the 3 brothers, shown earlier.

Kathy C

Edited April 3, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

DEAN: I EXPANDED THE POST BUT CREATED A NEW ONE. SEE THE NEXT.

Dean,

Please think about this for a second.

I have been doing this for quite some time. I have been confronted with dozens

and dozens of reasons to disbelieve Judyth. But when I have looked into them,

they fall apart. I must have had eight or more from Jack alone. David Lifton is

giving this his best shot and, so far as I can see, falling short by quite a ways.

If you can show me why I should fault Judyth, I am willing to listen. But I also

find it fascinating that, when I start explaining why Robert looks to me like the

prime candidate for having impersonated Lee, Viklund, Junkkarinen, Thompson,

and this Williams all show up to jeer me and cheer each other on. It's strange.

And now Kathy is making extremely strong claims about Robert not having been

Lee's brother when they are actually virtually identical twins. You don't have to

be a geneticist to see that something VERY STRANGE is going on here. I think

the boat is being rocked and there are those who are very, very upset about it.

Just give it a little more thought.

Jim

Jim

Please think about this for a second

Is it really worth it to you to put a wedge in your friendships with Jack White and David Lifton, two guys who have worked with you on the Z-film and many other things for over 10+ years, two guys who back you up and have the same theories as you over Judyth whom you have been talking with for a very short period of time?

It really hurts me to see you guys trading words over Judyth who is sitting at home right now laughing her butt off over the fact that she is turning fellow researchers against each other.

Please Jim take a step back and look at whats going on.

I hate this thread, I hate the fact that Judyth has done this, I know she is very happy that she has you against Jack and David two researchers who dont believe her story

I hope you dont take my post the wrong way Jim because im behind you no matter what, im also behind Jack and David no matter what

Dean

Edited April 3, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Dean,

Please think about this for a second.

I have been doing this for quite some time. I have been confronted with dozens

and dozens of reasons to disbelieve Judyth. But when I have looked into them,

they fall apart. I must have had eight or more from Jack alone. David Lifton is

giving this his best shot and, so far as I can see, falling short by quite a margin.

Listen, no one could be more surprised to find himself at odds with David and

with Jack than I. But I have always followed logic and evidence. I am quite

convinced that Judyth has been railroaded in the past. I have had extensive

contact with her. I am convinced that she is "the real deal". I am not alone.

If you can show me why I should fault Judyth, I am willing to listen. But I also

find it fascinating that, when I start explaining why Robert looks to me like the

prime candidate for having impersonated Lee, Viklund, Junkkarinen, Thompson,

and this Williams guy show up to jeer me and cheer each other on. It's strange.

And Duncan MacRae shows up completely out of the blue to say something is

not right about the way this thread has developed for nearly 800 posts! He is

right that "Something stinks!", but it has nothing to do with the way in which I

have been doing this. Josiah shows up and, clearly, it's purely for harassment.

And now Kathy is making extremely strong claims about Robert not having been

Lee's brother when they are actually virtually identical twins! You don't have to

be a geneticist to see that something VERY STRANGE is going on here. I think

the boat is being rocked and there are those who are very, very upset about it.

Just give it a little more thought.

Jim

Jim

Please think about this for a second

Is it really worth it to you to put a wedge in your friendships with Jack White and David Lifton, two guys who have worked with you on the Z-film and many other things for over 10+ years, two guys who back you up and have the same theories as you over Judyth whom you have been talking with for a very short period of time?

It really hurts me to see you guys trading words over Judyth who is sitting at home right now laughing her butt off over the fact that she is turning fellow researchers against each other.

Please Jim take a step back and look at whats going on.

I hate this thread, I hate the fact that Judyth has done this, I know she is very happy that she has you against Jack and David two researchers who dont believe her story

I hope you dont take my post the wrong way Jim because im behind you no matter what, im also behind Jack and David no matter what

Dean

Edited April 3, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[William Kelly]

What happened to these posts?

Tink Wrote one and I responded, and then they dissappeared and Evan Burton wrote me a personal note:

Bill - remember the rule about questions research abilities. Thanks!

Well, I want to know where Evan Burton, Education Forum JFK Assassination Debate monitor was when John Belevakia was accusing me of being a women hating sexual deviate?

Where were you then, when I was being attacked personally for two weeks and nobody compained?

You have no right to try to tell me what the rules of this forum are when you flagrantly disavoued them for two weeks while I was accused of all kinds things, and now you try to tell me that it's against the rules to question research abilities?

You are the one who abdicated your responsibilities and now no longer have them.

Now what happened to the post that JT put up and I responded to?

There really is no need to have such high school hall monitors on a forum for adults, and people like you who decide at your personal whim what is questioning research abilities and what is real analysis.

Tink Thompson wrote: Professor Fetzer apparently has some need to argue with people... anyone... all the time. This post as well as this thread is a complete waste of time. Individuals try to insinuate some sanity into it without success.

All of this prompts a rather simple question: What would happen if we all just ignored Fetzer and never replied to anything he says? Would he continue to talk to all of us although he never got a reply? Or would he switch to some other board where folks had unlimited time to deal with inconsequential matters of Fetzer's choosing?

I don't know the answer but it might be a useful test.

Bill Kelly responded:

I think it a match made in heaven. Prof. Fetzer and JVB belong together.

At least it is keeping them busy and out of our hair and out of the way of those doing real research.

BK

Edited April 3, 2010 by William Kelly

[Greg Burnham]

I'm disappointed with the hijacking of this thread. Why try to stop the conversation? If you don't like it, why not move on to a different thread? Or are you guys attempting to protect everyone here from the "Judyth coodies" or the "Fetzer fantasies" -- or some such crap?

You're right, Bill--we ARE all adults. So, people should ignore the thread if they don't like it. I'm rather taken aback that there are those who are attempting to "save Jim" from Judyth! Again, "YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS!" And, when that fails to work, Jim is attacked, ostensibly to save him...ummm--from himself, I guess?

It is quite telling when an individual AND their posts are attacked by multiple parties. Why the ferocity? Why the ugliness? Why does Tink resort to such juvenile mutterings?

If Jim is on the wrong track, the truth will out anyway. Truth has a way of doing that. Let him go down on the weakness of his own arguments--or prevail from their strength. But, I have a feeling that this information is threatening to some here--and I don't know why.

Don't misunderstand. I am not claiming to know or to believe that Judyth is or is not the real deal. But why the overly hostile reaction to her story? Some here take these posts as though they were full of personal attacks against them--and they did from the beginning. Granted, the tone has gotten more heated on both sides recently, but there was an extremely negative and defensive reaction from the very first post in this thread.

Why?

Please don't say it's because "we know this is all BS" or we're sure that "Judyth has nothing new" to bring to this case. Gimme a break. You can't have it both ways. First Judyth is criticized for her information having "not added anything new to what we already know about the case" -- yet, whenever she does "add something new" it is dismissed rather violently as something she just now fabricated before it is even investigated. How do I know it hasn't been investigated by her critics? Because the speed of their response precludes it. Either she "fabricated" this heretofore unknown item opportunistically or she did not. All things being equal, if her critics fail to investigate the claim, (as I have failed to do with many of her claims for lack of time, interest, resources), they really have no standing to reject it--for reasons other than their own personal bias or prejudice.

We are adults. We can do better than this.

Edited April 3, 2010 by Greg Burnham

[Bill Byas]

Professor Fetzer, there are other photos there that are not LHO. In the second row, #2 is the faked Lee photo, #3 is Lee Oswald (of Harvey and Lee) -- a faked photo. There was someone on this forum who removed the top layer of whatever was used on that photo and it wasn't Harvey. IMO it was Lee.

Uh...what?

[David Lifton]

Jim,

You write, QUOTE:

Frankly, David, in scanning this response, it appears to be nothing more than a restatement of your earlier post, which I discussed in my response #771 and in Judyth's post #782. My suggestion to Judyth was that her response was rather repetitive, since you were reiterating the points you had already made. UNQUOTE

Yes, Jim, it IS repetitive. Because 12 hours after writing and posting, I discovered some typos, grammatical errors, and, in addition, a 12 hour arithmetic error re LHO's time of arrival in New Orleans. (I had incorrectly stated that LHO arrived early in the AM of 4/26, when I meant to say at mid-day (approx) on 4/25.)

As far as I know, there is no way of retrieving a post, and replacing it with a corrected post. So I cleaned up my text, and simply reposted it.

At the end, I wrote: "4/2/2010; 4:40 AM; edited/corrected 1:40 PM."

My post appeared repetitive because it was simply a cleaned up version of the earlier post.

Sorry if this caused confusion.

I stand behind what I wrote, and the chronology I offered in my revised post is an accurate reflection of the known record.

All this took far too much time, and I have decided that I do not want to waste further precious time on the matter of Judyth Baker.

DSL