Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Jack,

Not to place too fine a point upon it, but if you review this entire thread, you would find

that, while you have lodged many complaints about Judyth, when I have examined them,

none--not one!--has panned out. Now I am going to prepare an index that identifies the

posts where allegations are made, the names of those who lodged them, and the posts

where they have been discussed and evaluated. Then we can review the bidding. But,

as I have explained in several posts, the claims that have been advanced against her

by many participants here appear to hold very little water and, for the most part, have

come up completely dry. Lots of fallacies are being committed, as I shall also explain,

but the fact that you do not believe Judyth does not mean she is not believable. And,

as I have also observed, Ed Balsam, Nigel Turner, Jim Marrs and I, among others, all

believe in Judyth. Maybe we are wrong and you are right, but I would appreciate it

if you would be sufficiently objective to acknowledge that there is just the barest of

possibilities that maybe we are right and you and David, among others, are wrong.

Indeed, the weight of the evidence as it is accumulating here supports that outcome.

Jim

P.S. You take on Robert as you lay it out in post #810 and elsewhere, in my view, is

far more incredible--truly unbelievable!--than anything I've ever heard from Judyth!

To me, Robert looks like a weakling who envied his brother and was glad to have the

chance to "outsmart" him. No one who cared about his brother could be so careless

with the truth when it comes to embracing that other fantasy, THE WARREN REPORT.

Monk...

Many JVB claims appear "plausible" and some cannot be "refuted", simply because all are

her OPINIONS, things she SAYS she witnessed, without proof offered. I do not care whether

her tales are true or not.

Some of her tales are irrelevant. What is the relevance to JFK studies if she claims an illicit

affair with a man she just met? What does it matter that she thinks she resembles Marina?

What does it matter that she thinks she and LHO pledged to meet somewhere in Mexico and

explore ancient ruins? What does it matter that she claims to have personally met Shaw,

Banister, Ferrie, Ochsner, Sherman, etc. etc.? Her knowing these well documented figures

adds NOTHING to the information already known. Her information changes frequently as

it suits her purpose. I will even grant that if everything she says is true it does not amount

to a bigratsass in the overall study of the investigation. Cancun or Kan Kun...who cares?

Thanks, Monk.

Jack

Jack,

Your definition of "information" and mine vary considerably. I am interested in history and the way our American government violates the rule of law set forth in the Constitution by using cutouts and compartmentalized intelligence operatives who are trained not to question their handlers. This is the only reason I have ever studied the assassination. I do not get excited about bullet trajectories or faked photos or any of those elements of physical evidence because none of that explains to me how the system (what I tend to refer to as the infrastructure) of the entire secretive intelligence operation works, and by whom it is directed. In other words, I myself do not focus on trees, but on the forest, to use a trite metaphor.

For that purpose, what Judyth tells is more essential to my historical research than anything since the information presented by Dick Russell about Richard Case Nagell.

We all have a focus on different aspects, fortunately, but we tend to weigh the importance of these interests differently and, consequently and unfortunately, often impute personal motives to those with whom we differ. I have attempted previously to insert remarks about why Judyth's information is extremely significant, at least to me, because of the historical context it provides. But there was no response made. My comments were ignored, and that is fine with me; but my research will continue nonetheless.

Linda, I agree IF HER TALES ARE FACTUAL. To me they seem to be largely FICTIONAL.

Fiction has popular appeal, but it is not history. GONE WITH THE WIND is great HISTORICAL

FICTION about the Civil War, and gives some idea what the people went through, and presents

facts mixed with romance. The JFK case does not need a GWTW approach about the romance

of Romeo and Juliet as imagined by JVB. "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn."

Jack

Edited April 3, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Pamela Brown]

David,

An addendum about Pamela: You are displaying the same kind of stridently uncharitable attitude toward Pamela that you have previously shown toward Judyth.

In the first place, her research on the limo does not hinge upon whether or not she complained about your dismissal of Judyth. They are independent matters.

In the second place, she may have seen a film that she took to be the Zapruder as an honest mistake. Perhaps she has a faulty memory of having seen "Executive Action" (1973).

In the third place, just possibly she actually saw what she claims to have seen, where Rich DellaRosa, as you know, reported having seen "another film" on three different occasions.

As it happens, I believe that Doug is right and Pamela is wrong about the limo, but I would never think of dismissing her work on the limo based upon her attitude toward Judyth.

Jim

Thanks, Jim. I hope that you and I can continue to agree-to-disagree on Whittaker's story, which seems to me to have come from the FMC urban legends. However, Weldon's work on promoting the significance of the PH witnesses is something that I appreciate, whether or not I think either of us has all the answers.

I also appreciate your keeping an open mind on my early viewing of the Zapruder in 1964. I wrote about it in "SS-100-X" in CAR CRASH CULTURE years ago, and I believe sent a copy to Lifton who seems not to have read it. I had no idea how negative Lifton's reaction would be; one would think that a proclaimed alterationist would be keeping an open mind to new information regarding the lack of provenance or even control of the Zapruder film(s), but that is his choice.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

The question is not to become Judyth but to replicate the measurement

of the photographs to see if you arrive at the same results. It's called

"data". No one has to have her problems with visual acuity to do this,

and that you would even imply as much is beyond ridiculous. You are

either massively ignorant of the objectivity of scientific inquiries, which

is based upon the inter-subjective capacity for replication to verify or to

falsify data or you are playing the kind of games we expect from XXXXX

I really don't think anyone here has any doubt as to what you are about.

Observation and measurement are basic to scientific inquiries, Duncan.

Judyth is reporting the results of her studies. If you want to replicate

them to verify or falsify them, they you should do that, precisely as in

the case of any other scientific inquiry. You can redo the experiments

of Galileo and review the calculations of Newton, if you like, or perhaps

you can print out photos and see if you obtain the same results Judyth

is reporting. I would think you are smart enough to have figured that

out. But of course that is not really the point of your posts, is it? And,

since she is getting new glasses, it's a good thing you are doing this

now, since your posts will be even more pointless in the future. I am

sure that everyone who has been following this thread appreciates it.

JUDYTH REPLIES TO DUNCAN MACRAE ON HER PHOTO STUDIES

The comment about how I can analyze these photos with my bad eyesight:

I print them out and measure them with a tape measure. I can see very well

at about an inch from a page.

JVB

This leads to the obvious question.

If you can't see the letters of a keyboard properly from an inch or any further distance away, leaving Jim Fetzer to correct your mistakes and finish sentences,

then how can you read a tape measure with any guaranteed degree of accuracy, and how can anyone, including Jim, know your measurements are correct?

And what is your angle on the point of my posts, Jim?

I ask straight no nonsense questions, and expect straight no nonsense answers.

The point of my posts were, and still are, to try to get some straight no nonsense answers to questions that in my opinion needed to be asked, in view of her vision disability.

They have not been answered to a satisfactory degree.

Suggesting that I replicate her results is a sidetracking strategy, any replication of her studies being pointless and unfruitful, given that I do not have her vision disability. Newton couldn't replicate her studies and the disability conditions under which they were studied, and neither could Galileo.

I am sure that everyone reading this will understand my concerns, and understand that my points, far from being pointless, need to be answered...Now.

edited for offensive language.

Edited April 3, 2010 by Kathy Beckett

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

And let me say how much I appreciate your presence on this thread. Apparently, we

are encroaching on some sensitive territory, which cannot be Judyth (since she has

been the subject from the start) but has to be Robert (since the piranhas have only

begun to swarm since I focused upon him). It is incredible that most of them have

no idea what the thread or any of the posts are even about. That is quite revealing

in exposing their true purpose here, which is to attempt to be disruptive. You are

doing an excellent job in helping keep things on track, where we are bound to have

to deal with eddies and currents in making progress in swimming against the tide.

David,

An addendum about Pamela: You are displaying the same kind of stridently uncharitable attitude toward Pamela that you have previously shown toward Judyth.

In the first place, her research on the limo does not hinge upon whether or not she complained about your dismissal of Judyth. They are independent matters.

In the second place, she may have seen a film that she took to be the Zapruder as an honest mistake. Perhaps she has a faulty memory of having seen "Executive Action" (1973).

In the third place, just possibly she actually saw what she claims to have seen, where Rich DellaRosa, as you know, reported having seen "another film" on three different occasions.

As it happens, I believe that Doug is right and Pamela is wrong about the limo, but I would never think of dismissing her work on the limo based upon her attitude toward Judyth.

Jim

Thanks, Jim. I hope that you and I can continue to agree-to-disagree on Whittaker's story, which seems to me to have come from the FMC urban legends. However, Weldon's work on promoting the significance of the PH witnesses is something that I appreciate, whether or not I think either of us has all the answers.

I also appreciate your keeping an open mind on my early viewing of the Zapruder in 1964. I wrote about it in "SS-100-X" in CAR CRASH CULTURE years ago, and I believe sent a copy to Lifton who seems not to have read it. I had no idea how negative Lifton's reaction would be; one would think that a proclaimed alterationist would be keeping an open mind to new information regarding the lack of provenance or even control of the Zapruder film(s), but that is his choice.

[Pamela Brown]

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

I think most researchers will agree to that statement. Judyth Baker is old news. She had her chance and she blew it.

An appeal to the masses? That is a weak response to a thread that has had over 38K hits in the last few weeks, not to mention a disappointing one from someone who sincerely seems to want to understand what happened.

I agree that Judyth is an acquired taste -- some get her and some don't. The problem seems to be that she has until now been unable to have an open forum. Her initial approach to the research community didn't work; not because it was her 'fault', as you seem to imply (as though she were a rock band on Idol), but a result of her and her team's underestimating the furor that would arise as a result of her coming forward. They did not realize that those who rabidly objected to her statements and even her mere existence view the situation as Judyth V Marina, or Judyth V the WCR. As a result, she was sandbagged at every turn, vilified, humiliated, called a xxxx and a fraud, hunted down and forced to seek asylum overseas.

Thanks to Jim Fetzer, whose skills at blocking negative and even virulent attacks is impressive, not to mention his ability to articulate the underlying issues involved in Judyth's statements, Judyth does have as much of a level field as possible. Judyth is not being given a free pass -- it is up to her to persuade people or not that what she is saying has value and increases our understanding of the assassination.

[Greg Burnham]

...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...

DSL

David,

Just FYI: You have the ability to "edit" a post. When you look at your posted message you'll notice that in the lower right hand corner just below your message there are 3 buttons. EDIT / REPLY / QUOTE. If you're not the author of the post only the REPLY and QUOTE buttons are available, but if you are the author you press EDIT and it will allow you to make changes to the original. Moreover, it automatically posts the date and time of your edit at the bottom. I'm going to edit this post as an example of what you'd see.

Edited April 3, 2010 by Greg Burnham

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Asked and answered. Sometimes having poor vision can be beneficial.

David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., for example, suffers from acute myopia,

which actually benefitted him in conducting his optical density studies

of the autopsy X-rays in the National Archives. In case you are not

familiar with his work, I have just interviewed him for two YouTube

segments, which are archived along with discussion of some of his

most recent presentations at http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com. That

you are persisting with this offers convincing evidence that you are

simply insincere and are merely clogging the thread with questions

that have already been addressed. If you want to check her results,

then conduct the same photographic studies and verify or falsify them

for yourself. That should not be too difficult for a man of your talents.

The question is not to become Judyth but to replicate the measurement

of the photographs to see if you arrive at the same results. It's called

"data". No one has to have her problems with visual acuity to do this,

and that you would even imply as much is beyond ridiculous. You are

either massively ignorant of the objectivity of scientific inquiries, which

is based upon the inter-subjective capacity for replication to verify or to

falsify data or you are playing the kind of games we expect from XXXXX

I really don't think anyone here has any doubt as to what you are about.

Observation and measurement are basic to scientific inquiries, Duncan.

Judyth is reporting the results of her studies. If you want to replicate

them to verify or falsify them, they you should do that, precisely as in

the case of any other scientific inquiry. You can redo the experiments

of Galileo and review the calculations of Newton, if you like, or perhaps

you can print out photos and see if you obtain the same results Judyth

is reporting. I would think you are smart enough to have figured that

out. But of course that is not really the point of your posts, is it? And,

since she is getting new glasses, it's a good thing you are doing this

now, since your posts will be even more pointless in the future. I am

sure that everyone who has been following this thread appreciates it.

JUDYTH REPLIES TO DUNCAN MACRAE ON HER PHOTO STUDIES

The comment about how I can analyze these photos with my bad eyesight:

I print them out and measure them with a tape measure. I can see very well

at about an inch from a page.

JVB

This leads to the obvious question.

If you can't see the letters of a keyboard properly from an inch or any further distance away, leaving Jim Fetzer to correct your mistakes and finish sentences,

then how can you read a tape measure with any guaranteed degree of accuracy, and how can anyone, including Jim, know your measurements are correct?

And what is your angle on the point of my posts, Jim?

I ask straight no nonsense questions, and expect straight no nonsense answers.

The point of my posts were, and still are, to try to get some straight no nonsense answers to questions that in my opinion needed to be asked, in view of her vision disability.

They have not been answered to a satisfactory degree.

Suggesting that I replicate her results is a sidetracking strategy, any replication of her studies being pointless and unfruitful, given that I do not have her vision disability. Newton couldn't replicate her studies and the disability conditions under which they were studied, and neither could Galileo.

I am sure that everyone reading this will understand my concerns, and understand that my points, far from being pointless, need to be answered...Now.

edited for offensive language.

The problem is not the the data, it is about how she acheived her results with her visual impairment.

You of course know this, you're not that stupid, and neither are the members here who will be noticing your avoidance at giving satisfactory answers on Judyth's behalf.

Judyth puts her face to within an inch of a print out and then makes measurements from that distance with a measuring tape without obscuring the data.

Wasn't April fools day 2 days ago?

Edited April 3, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

MORE FROM JUDYTH ABOUT THE PURPORTED PHOTOS OF "HARVEY" AND "LEE"

NOTE: Just in case anyone has any lingering doubts about my replies to Duncan

MacRae, realize that even if Judyth did not have problems with her vision, there

would be the opportunity to confirm or disconfirm her findings by replicating her

research and determining whether or not you obtain the same results. If she is

right, then the results should be the same. And this is the case even if she had

perfect vision, since having perfect vision alone is not sufficient to conduct the

studies that she has reported in the past and continues to report on in this post.

JUDYTH COMMENTS:

Amazing, bringing up braille...I am not blind...and with new glasses will be able to

see the keyboard without it being 'double vision'. The person who wrote that remark

is not stupid and anybody can see what the intent was.

I welcome a duplication of findings because my vision is not that good and I could be

off by some percentage points. However, I will continue to do my best with these photos.

So far:

1) Photos have been over-copied, where in the case of the sepia reproductions significant

degradation of feaures is involved -- yet people are asked "Which is Harvey?" and "Which

is Lee?" from this set of photos that are degraded in their clarity.

2) Every photo of "Lee" that I have examined so far has been a) bloated or otherwise

distorted or 2) could be a photo of Robert Oswald insead of Lee H. Oswald. More later...

3) I have seen photos of Marguerite where the feet were placed at different levels, making

Marguerite (the sort one, so called) look shorter: when the disparity was corrected and, in

addition, high-heels versus slippers were taken into consideration, very little difference in

height remains--nothing like the six or seven inches clamed...This is a serious blunder, in

my opinion, on the part of the researchers.

4) In a photo to 'prove' Marguerite was 'much shorter", a FUNERAL photo was the one that

was provided with a line that clearly showed, instead, the angle of slope, going downhill from

left to right, reducing the height of Marguerite to an APPARENT but not actual LOWER HEIGHT.

5) We were then shown a photo of Lee fishing in the USSR, where once again a line was drawn,

without any reference to the steep slope of a riverbank upon which Oswald was sanding so that

his feet could not be seen.

6) We were next shown a photo of Lee with Marina, where Lee is shown as too short once more

-- with more lines pointing this out -- -but Peter Wronsky took photos showing that (ONCE AGAIN)

a significant slope is involved that artificially visually raised the height of the person as seen to

the left by a viewer of the photo (Marina, in this case)....Therefore, in examples 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7,

slopes are involved or position of photos are placed that fool the eye.

7) We next find that a "hunting photo" of Lee might very well be that of Robert Oswald, but it, too,

is distorted -- 'bloated' -- and could possibly be of Lee Oswald as well...What is obvious to me is

that the person in this 'hunting photo' is not holding the rifle correcty and therefore may be joking.

Whoever took the photo was clearly friendly toward the person being photographed.

8) We need a DNA sample to ascertain if Robert Oswald and Lee were biological brothers....Lee's

daughters can provide enough DNA, because they are females (mitochondria will be the same),

to provide the answer.

9) There is increasing evidence that Robert Oswald had the incentives and motives to betray his

brother and support the findings of the Warren Commission; his records in the miliary need close

examining to see if some of the official "Lee Oswald" records are really about Robert.

JVB

The question is not to become Judyth but to replicate the measurement

of the photographs to see if you arrive at the same results. It's called

"data". No one has to have her problems with visual acuity to do this,

and that you would even imply as much is beyond ridiculous. You are

either massively ignorant of the objectivity of scientific inquiries, which

is based upon the inter-subjective capacity for replication to verify or to

falsify data or you are playing the kind of games we expect from XXXXX

I really don't think anyone here has any doubt as to what you are about.

Observation and measurement are basic to scientific inquiries, Duncan.

Judyth is reporting the results of her studies. If you want to replicate

them to verify or falsify them, they you should do that, precisely as in

the case of any other scientific inquiry. You can redo the experiments

of Galileo and review the calculations of Newton, if you like, or perhaps

you can print out photos and see if you obtain the same results Judyth

is reporting. I would think you are smart enough to have figured that

out. But of course that is not really the point of your posts, is it? And,

since she is getting new glasses, it's a good thing you are doing this

now, since your posts will be even more pointless in the future. I am

sure that everyone who has been following this thread appreciates it.

JUDYTH REPLIES TO DUNCAN MACRAE ON HER PHOTO STUDIES

The comment about how I can analyze these photos with my bad eyesight:

I print them out and measure them with a tape measure. I can see very well

at about an inch from a page.

JVB

This leads to the obvious question.

If you can't see the letters of a keyboard properly from an inch or any further distance away, leaving Jim Fetzer to correct your mistakes and finish sentences,

then how can you read a tape measure with any guaranteed degree of accuracy, and how can anyone, including Jim, know your measurements are correct?

And what is your angle on the point of my posts, Jim?

I ask straight no nonsense questions, and expect straight no nonsense answers.

The point of my posts were, and still are, to try to get some straight no nonsense answers to questions that in my opinion needed to be asked, in view of her vision disability.

They have not been answered to a satisfactory degree.

Suggesting that I replicate her results is a sidetracking strategy, any replication of her studies being pointless and unfruitful, given that I do not have her vision disability. Newton couldn't replicate her studies and the disability conditions under which they were studied, and neither could Galileo.

I am sure that everyone reading this will understand my concerns, and understand that my points, far from being pointless, need to be answered...Now.

edited for offensive language.

The problem is not the the data, it is about how she acheived her results with her visual impairment.

You of course know this, you're not that stupid, and neither are the members here who will be noticing your avoidance at giving satisfactory answers on Judyth's behalf.

Judyth puts her face to within an inch of a print out and then makes measurements from that distance with a measuring tape without obscuring the data.

Wasn't April fools day 2 days ago?

Edited April 6, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

JUDYTH COMMENTS ON "THE HUNTING PHOTO" AND ON ROBERT OSWALD

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.

From Judyth's excerpts from Robert's Warren Commission testimony, it is

apparent that he was deliberately casting his brother in an unfavorable light.

No Marine could confound an "undesirable" with a "dishonorable" discharge.

JUDYTH COMMENTS:

JACK WHITE MENTIONS THE "HUNTING PHOTO" -- BUT DOES NOT GIVE US ITS

PROVENANCE. GERALD POSNER ("CASE CLOSED") WAS GIVEN THE "HUNTING

PHOTO" FOR USE IN HIS BOOK (A BOOK FILLED WITH LIES ABOUT OSWALD):

"...the first of two photographs appearing in Gerald Posner's book "Case Closed."

It shows Oswald with a severe Marines-style haircut, dressed in casual clothes,

standing alone in a field, clutching what appears to be some sort of rifle (32).

He is holding the weapon by his left side in a very relaxed manner. The caption

reads: "A rare photo of Lee hunting while on his first leave from the

Marines in February 1958, when he visited his family in Fort Worth, Texas.

The photograph appears courtesy of Robert L Oswald (Lee's elder brother)."

During his periods of leave, Lee would hunt squirrels and other game with

Robert (33), but does not appear among the Warren Commission Exhibits.

We are mystified by Mr. Posner's statement that this photograph was taken

during Oswald's first leave in February 1958. (34) Oswald did not have to

wait 16 months for his first leave <http://www.jfklancer.com/byphotos.html>.

Robert Oswald cooperated with Gerald Posner in assassinating Lee's character.

AN FBI TAPE SUPPOSEDLY CAUGHT ROBERT OSWALD MAKING LOVE WITH MARINA

... THAT INFO VANISHED FROM THE INTERNET...EXCEPT FOR A SOLE REFERENCE I

FOUND IN NEWSGROUP POSTS ...

BELOW, WE LEARN THAT ROBERT OSWALD PICKED UP THE LAST OF THE THINGS

FROM RUTH PAINE'S HOME THAT BELONGED TO LEE (MARINA WAS WITH HIM AT

THE TIME, ALONG WITH HER LOVER, HER MANAGER, MR. MARTIN, WHOM SHE

WOULD SOON LEAVE TO STAY WITH ROBERT OSWALD -- HE SAYS FOR ONE DAY):

From Ruth Paine's W/C testimony.

Mr Liebler, "Did you have anything left in your house that belonged to Lee Harvey

Oswald?"

Mrs Paine, "No, they were eventually taken by Robert Oswald, in company with John

Thorne & Jim Martin, it was probably the first W/E in December at least two weeks

after the assassination, more likely three."

Mr Liebler, "Do you recall what was among those things that Robert Oswald, and Mr

Martin took?"

Mrs Paine, "They took the clothes from the closet, boxes and things that I did not look

into. I have heard from the police that it also included an old camera, WHICH THEY

HAD TOO CHASE LATER, AND WENT UP TO ROBERT OSWALD'S TO FIND IT....

Now, if she's telling the truth, how did she know the police had to go looking for

the incriminating camera, and went "up to Robert Oswald's to find it"?

ONE NEWSGROUP POST SAID:

1 Given that the DPD had gone over Oswaldss things with a fine-toothed comb, how

did they miss this camera?

2 Given that they had to chase it up, Robert had obviously not informed that he had it,

so who did?

3 [Ruth Paine deposed:] "They took clothes from the closet, boxes and things that I did

not look into." Right you have given bed and board to the most infamous man in the world,

yet you dont bother to have a look at his possessions when the chance presents itself...

See anything green....

THERE ARE OTHER PROBLEMS WITH ROBERT....BELOW IS MOST OF ROBERT OSWALD'S

INTERVIEW WITH FRONTLINE, "WHO WAS LEE OSWALD?", WITH MY ADDED COMMENTS:

"You see him for a few days when he gets out [of the Marines]. Tell me about that, and what

his attitude is and the kinds of things you talked about.

"When Lee is discharged, early discharge in September 1959..."

[[JVB: Robert should know that Lee was not discharged, but placed in the Marine

Reserves, a bit early...]]

"...he returns to Fort Worth for about three days. …"

[[Robert Oswald should know that Lee spent only one or two days with his mother.]]

"...We spent some time together. He was relaxed, but at about the second day, he starts talking

about where he's going. He's thinking about going to Cuba...."

[[Lee told me that he did not breathe a word as to his intentions to anybody in the family..]]

"...He wants to "do like Hemingway." He wants to get some experience and write about it. …"

[[Robert is just starting this interview and uses 'Hemingway' -- but Lee told me 'Hemingway' was

a code word he was told to use. So why is it coming out of Robert Oswald's mouth?]]

"....His plans, as we well know now, were already made to go to Russia, rather than to Cuba. … But

then, Oct. 31, we hear that he's in Russia. That's the shocker. That's almost unbelievable. This was

1959. The Cold War was going on. He was just out of the Marine Corps. It just didn't fit. I know he

wanted to travel. ... But my goodness, this is completely out of the ballpark."

[[Lee had already done considerable "traveling" and could have stayed in the Marnes to keep doing more.]]

You don't think that there was any possibility that he was on some mission when he went to Russia?

[[strikingly, Robert Oswald acts as if he can read his brother's mind, saying there was 'definitely' no

possibility that his brother was on a mission... yet he says he was shocked that Lee went to Russia.]]

"Definitely not. This was something all his own. This was his grand experience at the time. I anticipated,

and I said to the family, "He'll be back within a year." Well, it took him a little bit longer than that, but he

started trying after a year to come back."

When you learned he had defected, did you have any explanation?

"I wasn't real sure what the explanation was. ... I was just completely in the dark. Apparently he'd been

planning this for a long time. ... The planning that Lee did probably at least extended all the way back to

the time he was in Japan ... because of the clothes he purchased at the time."

[[Yet Robert is certain Lee was on no mission, though he offers evidence of long planning to go to Russia.]]

"If it didn't work for Russia, he was going to stay in Europe anyway. He'd actually applied for Albert

Schweitzer's school in Switzerland, and been accepted for that summertime or fall semester. So, to me,

that was his back-up plan if everything else failed. Those are the indications that say he took some thought,

some planning over a long period of time. ..."

From Russia, he had written you, saying that he was worried about charges being brought against him

when he came back. What was his concern?

"Well, his concern was, was there anything that I was aware of that [there] were going to be charges

placed against him from anybody? This would have to be at the federal level. I wrote him back that, to

my knowledge, nothing he has done warrants any charges, because they did not let him accomplish

anything over there, i.e., the U.S. Embassy did not accept his citizenship rejection. They didn't finalize

that. He was, in fact, an American citizen all the time, and still had the rights of the American citizen.'

[[Robert Oswald is saying he knew this Embassy information--and wrote about it to Oswald?]]

But he had said he was going to give the Russians any information he had, and it seemed like he did.

"As far as Lee giving any information to the Russians while he was over there, even though he said he

would if they had asked, apparently they weren't interested in it. Now apparently, for whatever reasons

or however they checked it out, they found out whatever he knew wasn't necessarily anything they'd be

interested in."

[[OK, we'll take Robert's word for it...]]

With regard to his return home from Russia in June 1962 with his family -- what did he tell you about

reporters meeting him, and what do you think it really meant?

"He indicated that, if reporters were asking about when he's coming back, to say nothing. He wanted

not to be bothered by the reporters. But ... he had prepared answers and statements, anticipating

reporters either at the ship or some place down the line on the return. I think he was surprised when

he stepped off the plane in Dallas Field -- he asked me, "What, no reporters?" I said, "Yes. I've managed

to keep it quiet." That was it. But I think he was disappointed. He was ready."

Did he talk about the Russian system and the American system and comparing the two?

"When Lee got back from Russia, the way he talked about the Russian system, he didn't talk about

it politically, in the sense that he was wrapped up in communism or Marxism. He was making fun of

how inept they were, and he was making fun of them all the time. ...He wasn't political. He really

wasn't. I say that in all honesty,..."

[[Lee must have told some of his very humorous jokes about the USSR to Robert...]]

"...because he tried to become what he needed to be to achieve his immediate objectives; i.e., he

needed to be a Marxist and accept the Russians [to] get the experience in Russia. When he returned

to the United States, he didn't want to be a Russian. He wanted to be an American, to be accepted by

the American society, and so wherever he was ... he wanted to be accepted. He wasn't political.

He was what's convenient to be."

[[The malice in this statement is barely concealed, IMHO]]

So you're saying, in a sense, he is the ultimate pragmatist?

"I think it says that he is very pragmatic, and he's going to go with the punches. He's going to fit in

to where he needs to fit in to accomplish what he needs to accomplish ... "

[[This is hardly unacceptable behavior -- nor suggestive of the ambitions of a "lone assassin" JHF]]

"...what is very essential to get by with, to be somebody. That's what it comes down to -- he wanted

to be unique, by whatever it took..."

[[but Lee Oswald WAS already unique...Was his brother jealous of that?]]

When Lee came back, how did he react to visits from the FBI when they came and saw him here?

"After Lee's return, approximately two weeks, in the latter part of June 1962, he gets a call from one

of the FBI agents -- I believe that was Mr. Fain -- in wanting to have a meeting with him. He told me

about it, and I told him I'd go with him. He said no, that wasn't necessary, he could take care of it. ...

He went the following day, had the meeting. When I returned home from work that evening, I asked

him about it, and he said, "Well, everything went all right. They even asked me if I'd ever been an

agent of the federal government or the CIA." I said, "What did you tell them?" He says,"Well, don't

you know?" and he just laughed. I mean, they had asked the wrong man. There's another seed that's

planted in him that stayed there forever."

[[How peculiar! Robert says his brother asks, "Well, don't you know?" That doesn't sound like the

answer one would expect from a 'non-agent']]

What do you mean? What did he have in the back of his mind?

"If they didn't know who worked for them, he could always say he worked for them; ..."

[[Robert Oswald is implying that Lee Oswald would play the game of pretending to be an FBI agent..or..

CIA?...His line of reasoning here is strange and illogical and appears to be deceptive...]]

"...he was in control of the FBI then. They didn't know for sure if he was an agent or not...."

[[Yet another illogical and suspicious statement made because he got himself into a linguistic jam

further up about relating that his brother was laughing about, "Don't you know?"]]

"...He was toying with them. He toyed with people like that...."

[[A surprisingly snide statement from a brother...]]

"...He toyed with the interrogators down at the Dallas police station, all that weekend [after the

assassination]. It was a game to him...."

[[beaten, friendless, alone, surrounded by frowning police, sleepless, accused of slaying a police

officer and then the President--he TOYS with his interrogators? The statement is malicious.]]

"He knew something they didn't know, and he would keep it to himself. He was in control. ..."

[[Lee knew a coup occurred and that people would die if he broke under interrogation. He was

handcuffed, sleep-deprived, indicted without legal representation in "short and sweet" hearings--

hardly 'in control' of anything but his own self-discipline, not to break under pressure...]]

When Lee came back to Fort Worth, what kind of spirits was he in, and what kind of hopes did he

have for his new life here?

<snip>

"...The third thing was he wanted to look into his dishonorable discharge from the Marine Corps,..."

[[The ex-Marine, Robert Oswald, tells an important TV program interviewer that his brother had a

'dishonorable discharge from the Marine Corps.' This is untrue, and Robert knows the difference. Lee

had an 'undesirable' discharge, much less serious...We now understand that Robert is interested in

placing his brother in a bad light.]]

...because he felt like that was unwarranted ... because, i.e., he was released with honorable conditions.

We talked about this at a great length during that first week."

[[Here Robert Oswald shows that he knew Lee had an undesirable discharge--he could not have 'talked

about this at a great length' and FORGOTTEN that his brother did not have the onerous 'dishonorable'

discharge on his record.]]

Conclusion: Robert Oswald is displaying a considerable degree of malice toward his brother, Lee Oswald.

JVB

Edited April 6, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

JIM REPLIES TO DUNCAN MACRAE ABOUT HIS POST RECORD

Apparently I can anticipate more drivel from you in an apparently

hopeless effort to save face. Consider the history of your queries

about how Judyth does her measurements on these photographs:

post #796 at 2:26 PM April 2nd (Duncan)

post #798 at 4:00 PM April 2nd (Jim)

post #802 at 4:51 PM April 2nd (Duncan)

post #817 at 10:50 PM April 2nd (Duncan)

post #821 at 11:14 PM April 2nd (Jim)

post #823 at 11:34 PM April 2nd (Duncan)

post #855 at 2:02 PM Yesterday (Judyth)

post #857 at 2:33 PM Yesterday (Duncan)

post #859 at 3:48 PM Yesterday (Duncan)

post #864 at 4:28 PM Yesterday (Jim)

post #868 at 4:49 PM Yesterday (Duncan)

post #870 at 5:12 PM Yesterday (Jim)

post #872 at 5:59 PM Yesterday (Duncan)

post #875 at 7:20 PM Yesterday (Jim)

post #877 at 11:53 PM Yesterday (Duncan)

One might have thought the matter was settled by Judyth's response:

JUDYTH REPLIES TO DUNCAN MACRAE ON HER PHOTO STUDIES

The comment about how I can analyze these photos with my bad eyesight:

I print them out and measure them with a tape measure. I can see very well

at about an inch from a page.

In fact, I can see details most people cannot because their vision does not

focus so close to a page. I can see details that others would miss without

a magnifying glass.

But I cannot type on a computer with my nose an inch from the keyboard.

Try it sometime for yourself.

JV

But, no, Duncan is not satisfied. Apparently, nothing less than a webcam

recording of Judyth at work will satisfy him. I find this intense pursuit of

the obvious to be extremely interesting. I have made many points about

all of this, but the most important was included in post #876, which this

fellow may have missed, since it explains the pointlessness of his quest:

NOTE: Just in case anyone has any lingering doubts about my replies to Duncan

MacRae, realize that even if Judyth did not have problems with her vision, there

would be the opportunity to confirm or disconfirm her findings by replicating her

research and determining whether or not you obtain the same results. If she is

right, then the results should be the same. And this is the case even if she had

perfect vision, since having perfect vision alone is not sufficient to conduct the

studies that she has reported in the past and continues to report on in this post.

Now the post to which I am replying here, he refers to my answers as "garbage".

But what else is there to explain? What does Duncan MacRae think is going on

here? That I am secretly conducting these photo studies and attributing them to

Judyth? It might help if he would please explain himself. Otherwise, I think he

is setting a new record for complete and utter drivel. These nine posts, I believe,

constitute his complete contributions to this thread. If we measure drivel by the

standard of repetitions of meaningless content divided by number of posts made,

then I believe he has attained a perfect score of 9/9 = 1 (or 100% drivel). You

can't do better than that. So Duncan MacRae appears to have set the standard.

That you are persisting with this offers convincing evidence that you are

simply insincere and are merely clogging the thread with questions

that have already been addressed.

Unfortunately, you are spouting garbage, and Neanderthal insinuations which have not addressed the questions.

Neither you or Judyth have answered how she can make measurements with a measuring tape, while being only one inch from a print out, without blocking out the fine detail which she is attempting to study.

You have not answered if she can read Braille, or why she does not use a Braille keyboard or Braille keyboard stickers.

[Josiah Thompson]

I received an email from David Lifton this morning telling me of some of the significant research he is doing rather than rolling around in the gutter with you and this unfortunate woman. Your continued posts make all the more important what I wrote back to him:

"David, you must understand that you do real research; Glell Viklund does real reserch; Duncan Macrae does real research; Barb Junkkarinen does real research. But James Fetzer doesn't do real research and never has. I don't think it is a personal attack on him to point this out. I think it is just something that can be read off the sum total of his enthusiasms. Instead of actually looking into things and finding out what makes sense and what doesn't, Fetzer prefers another role. He likes being a flack or press agent or cheerleader. His congenial tools are press releases, news conferences, mysterious "intel" authorities, blogs, obscure radio talk shows, and now, "channeling" a woman whose story was holed at the water-line years ago. Since he never gets his hands dirty in real research, he loses perspective and ends up backing ideas that most folks are willing to let sink into obscurity. None of this is very important. It's just some of the noise that accompanies genuine discussion and inquiry. You are wise to stay away from it."

Josiah Thompson

[Evan Burton]

A friendly reminder to all concerned:

(iv) Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers. Most importantly, the motivations of the poster should not be questioned. At all times members should concentrate on what is being said, rather than who is saying it. It is up to the reader to look at the biography submitted by the poster, to judge whether they are telling the truth or not. The word “xxxx” is banned from use on the forum.

[Greg Burnham]

I fail to understand why this has to get personal. Tink, are you seriously claiming that Jim is not a real researcher? C'mon, now--isn't that over the top? You are a grown man. You need not resort to playground tactics. You may disagree with him, you might think you have discovered all of the correct answers--indeed, you may even hate Jim--but it is insulting to our intelligence, and frankly, such a claim is beneath you (or so one would presume).

I received an email from David Lifton this morning telling me of some of the significant research he is doing rather than rolling around in the gutter with you and this unfortunate woman. Your continued posts make all the more important what I wrote back to him:

"David, you must understand that you do real research; Glell Viklund does real reserch; Duncan Macrae does real research; Barb Junkkarinen does real research. But James Fetzer doesn't do real research and never has. I don't think it is a personal attack on him to point this out. I think it is just something that can be read off the sum total of his enthusiasms. Instead of actually looking into things and finding out what makes sense and what doesn't, Fetzer prefers another role. He likes being a flack or press agent or cheerleader. His congenial tools are press releases, news conferences, mysterious "intel" authorities, blogs, obscure radio talk shows, and now, "channeling" a woman whose story was holed at the water-line years ago. Since he never gets his hands dirty in real research, he loses perspective and ends up backing ideas that most folks are willing to let sink into obscurity. None of this is very important. It's just some of the noise that accompanies genuine discussion and inquiry. You are wise to stay away from it."

Josiah Thompson

[Jack White]

[[JVB: Robert should know that Lee was not discharged, but placed in the Marine

Reserves, a bit early...]]

Lee Harvey Oswald received an UNDESIRABLE DISCHARGE from the Marines.

[Don Jeffries]

I received an email from David Lifton this morning telling me of some of the significant research he is doing rather than rolling around in the gutter with you and this unfortunate woman. Your continued posts make all the more important what I wrote back to him:

"David, you must understand that you do real research; Glell Viklund does real reserch; Duncan Macrae does real research; Barb Junkkarinen does real research. But James Fetzer doesn't do real research and never has. I don't think it is a personal attack on him to point this out. I think it is just something that can be read off the sum total of his enthusiasms. Instead of actually looking into things and finding out what makes sense and what doesn't, Fetzer prefers another role. He likes being a flack or press agent or cheerleader. His congenial tools are press releases, news conferences, mysterious "intel" authorities, blogs, obscure radio talk shows, and now, "channeling" a woman whose story was holed at the water-line years ago. Since he never gets his hands dirty in real research, he loses perspective and ends up backing ideas that most folks are willing to let sink into obscurity. None of this is very important. It's just some of the noise that accompanies genuine discussion and inquiry. You are wise to stay away from it."

Josiah Thompson

Josiah, you left out Jack White. Is he doing real research?