Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[Jack White]

L Farley:

I say that because "[my] rebuttals", if you wish to call them that, demonstrate the probability of several impostors.

May I join here? What about the photographed LHO in Mexico-City, outside the (cuban, soviet?) embassy? What about the LHO at the Ford-salesman NOLA 20.1.1961?

What about the Oswald at the Lincoln-Mercury-Shop at Dealy Plaza? The other Ossi in the Texas Theater? The Oswald in the cuban consulate in NOLA Sep. 63? The Ossi at the Shooting ranch in Dallas? JVB knew the one and only real Oswald, who was surrounded by imposters, which didn't even look like him! (I am talking about the pic of the Mexico-city Ossi...)...call it ID-Charade... Armstrong is wrong, by claiming there where only two of them...

KK

Armstrong's book focuses ONLY on TWO LHOs...there may have been more. However, in cutting his original

2000 page book back to a 1000 page book, John had to forego some discussions, and simply focused on

the main two, Lee and Harvey. However, he and I both discussed other possibilities:

1. Multiple LHOs in Russia IF the Russians by chance replaced the original defector. Numerous photos

show this is a possibility.

2. Some impostors for LHO in some instances, such as Mexico City, etc. For instance, there are several

sightings of an LHO around Texas various places which are unlikely to be either Lee or Harvey.

These likely were being managed by the CIA to create false trails.

I emphasize, however, that other possibilities such as above do NOT detract from the main story of

Harvey and Lee. Even if the Russians substituted someone for Harvey, the original substitution

story is still valid. However, I believe the original Harvey returned, but the Russians somehow

muddied the waters through various covert means, including photos and witness tampering.

Jack

[Jack White]

Evidently Dean Hartwell has not read HARVEY & LEE.

Lee,

It appeared to me you supported a LEE and HARVEY (or 2-Oswald theory) when you wrote this:

I'm sorry but the evidence of two Oswald's is overwhelming.

Your rebuttals showed evidence to me of multiple imposters, so it appeared to conflict with the statement above.

Which do you mean -

1) a LEE and HARVEY scenario, with one man accused of the JFK assassination and subsequently killed and the other man used to setting the first man up?

2) the same scenario with multiple imposters

3) multiple imposters

Dean

Great question Dean. Thanks for clarifying. Simple answer. I don't know. I haven't made my mind up...how's that for some fence sitting? I'm gonna need these splinters removed.

If you forced me to choose I would plump for number (2), but my mind swings around in circles and my questions for Judyth were to gain her insights on lots of confusing data. There is massive amounts of evidence that supports two Oswald's. I'd agree with Jim F and say that you need to keep an open mind on it all. The minute you make your mind up for certain then it can limit your thinking on other things. Wouldn't you agree?

If I may merge this into Karl's reply too. I think there were people impersonating him who didn't have to specifically look like him in certain situations (Mexico - which resulted in post-assassination embarrassment when a photo of Mike Ditka is published) and there were times when the "double" was used.

Hell, if I had the answer's Dean I'd be a wealthy man.

Cheers

Lee

P.S. I think the question is "do I believe in a Harvey and Lee from such a young age?" There was, in my mind, a definitive "Harvey and Lee" in the assassination run-up and the Texas Theater incident is proof of that alone. I keep toying with the idea of Marguerite having twins and a separation process occurring as some sort of MKULTRA type experiment. Can I ask? What are your own thoughts on all of this?

Lee,

With my legal background, I focus on how much evidence is needed to prove a certain point. Proving HARVEY and LEE requires a great deal of evidence because it is so specific.

Also, the use of a permanent double would have incurred the risk of the "framed" person figuring out the scheme. Or the double could have revealed himself to the public after the assassination. It would seem a conspiracy would not want to bring about any unnecessary risks. Using several impersonators would likely mean telling each of them less about the plot than one would have to tell a permanent one.

Because of the strong likelihood that this specific claim has been rebutted (ex: the assertion that the tooth supposedly belonging to LEE but having been paid for by Lee's aunt) and because of its impracticability, I do not believe HARVEY and LEE has been proven to be true.

Dean

Edited April 15, 2010 by Jack White

[Jack White]

Poetry is not her forte. She should stick to fiction.

[Doug Weldon]

Lee,

With my legal background, I focus on how much evidence is needed to prove a certain point. Proving HARVEY and LEE requires a great deal of evidence because it is so specific.

Dean

Respectfully, this does not make any sense at all.

Doug Weldon

[Jack White]

Lee,

With my legal background, I focus on how much evidence is needed to prove a certain point. Proving HARVEY and LEE requires a great deal of evidence because it is so specific.

Dean

Respectfully, this does not make any sense at all.

Doug Weldon

Thanks, Doug! HARVEY & LEE contains MOUNTAINS of evidence. No more evidence is required short of someone confessing.

Jack

[Jack White]

Dean wrote:

Because of the strong likelihood that this specific claim has been rebutted (ex: the assertion that the tooth supposedly belonging to LEE but having been paid for by Lee's aunt) and because of its impracticability, I do not believe HARVEY and LEE has been proven to be true.

Dean

Jack replies:

It was "Lee" who lost the tooth in a fight.

It was "Harvey" that JVB knew. Harvey had not lost a tooth in a fight.

JVB did not know the man who lost the tooth. The story of saving the tooth in

milk and having it reimplanted by a dentist is totally without foundation...an

invention of an inventive mind. The fiction that David Ferrie knocked out a

tooth of Harvey during Civil Air Patrol days is another imaginative grasp.

Read H&L for the true account.

Jack

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

A POSTSCRIPT FROM JUDYTH ABOUT HARVEY & LEE

NOTE: Jack needs to reread the studies of "Lee" losing a tooth at Beauregard Junior High,

where Lillian Murret, "Harvey's" aunt, remembered paying for his visit to the dentist. Are we

now to believe that Lillian and Dutz Murret knew both "Harvey" and "Lee"? That's a bit much.

There must be at least 20 posts exposing problems, mistakes, or blunders in HARVEY & LEE.

Multiple impostors with compartmentalized knowledge across time seems far more plausible.

JUDYTH COMMENTS:

THANKS SO MUCH, JIM...AND LOLA....AND DEAN! AND ED!

HAVE TO SIGN OFF, BUT MY HOPE IS THAT THE TRUTH WILL NOT HURT JACK OR ANYONE,

AND THAT THEY WILL LAY ASIDE A THEORY THAT IS SEVERELY RESTRICTING REAL RESEARCH INTO WHAT REALLY HAPPENED.

HERE'S HOW IT'S RESTRICTING IT:

1 ) THOSE WHO PUT SO MANY IMPOSTORS OUT THERE ARE NOT TRACKED DOWN, AS 'LEE' IS USED ALL OVER THE PLACE TO

ACCOUNT FOR :

A ) FAKED RECORDS,

B ) FAKE LHO APPEARANCES,

C ) RED HERRING TESTIMONIES THAT HIDE THE TRUTH ABOUT LEE

RE ALTERED AND FAKE (ON PURPOSE OR JUST WANTING 'FAME')TESTIMONIES. AFTER MUCH STUDY, THINKING--I REALIZED

THAT ARMSTRONG ACCEPTS THEM ALL ON SOME LEVEL, IF THEY FIT HIS THEORY.

I DO NOT HAVE THE BOOK YET [NOTE: I have sent her a copy], BUT ASK-- HOW MANY REPORTS ARE IN HIS BOOK THAT HE

ANALYZES AND REJECTS--WHAT REASONS DOES HE USE TO REJECT A REPORT?

WHAT ARE HIS REASONS FOR ACCEPTING SUCH A POOR WITNESS AS MYRA DAROUSE? JUST BECAUSE SHE FITS HIS THEORY?

I FIND SLOPPY RESEARCH AND ALTERED PHOTOS THAT ARE TROUBLING. AND WE HAVE JUST BEGUN.

IT IS NOT A SIN TO PUT RESEARCH BACK ON RACK.

I CANNOT THINK OF ANYTHING THAT HAS SO HOBBLED THE TRUTH AS HIS THEORY THAT HAS HAS DIVIDED RESEARCHERS TO

THE EXTENT OF RUPTURING FRIENDSHIPS. THINK OF IT.

THAT 'KATHY' CAN CONTINUE TO SAY 'HARVEY' THIS AND 'LEE' THAT AS IF IT WERE A FACT THAT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED...

ALMOST LIKE A RELIGIOUS BELIEF NOT ALLOWING ANY HERESY OR HERETIC--THEY WILL BE BURNED AT THE STAKE....

SO I ASKED MYSELF--HOW DOES ARMSTRONG THINK?

I HAVE REALIZED WHERE HIS WEAK SPOT IS:

2 ) ARMSTRONG TAKES WHAT'S IN THE WARREN COMMISSION RECORDS LITERALLY,

A ) HE ASSUMES THAT THE WARREN COMMISSION KNEW ABOUT 'LEE' AND 'HARVEY' BUT HID 'LEE' FROM SIGHT--OR ELSE

THE COMMISSION'S HANDLERS DID.

B ) THIS ASSUMPTION THEN GIVES HIM A BASIS FOR HUNTING ANY NEW EVIDENCE --BUT HE ONLY LOOKS FOR EVIDENCE

THAT SUPPORTS HIS THEORY.

BY THE WAY, THIS IS NOT SCIENTIFIC.

THIS IS WHAT MARKETERS DO FOR A PRODUCT.

IT IS HIS WORST FAULT, THIS MIND-SET.

HIS NEXT FLAW IS THAT HE CHOOSES TO BELIEVE THAT ALL REPORTS ARE ESSENTIALLY ACCURATE IF THEY FIT HIS HYPOTHESIS.

IF THEY DO NOT--FOR EXAMPLE, REJECTING ME AS A WITNESS BECAUSE I WAS NOT PREGNANT AT THE TIME, THEREFORE COULD

NOT 'POSE; AS MARINA--HE LIMITS HIS COLLECTION TO WHAT FITS HIS VISION.

IN FACT, THIS IS WHAT THE WARREN COMMISSION DID!

THE HABIT OF ANSWERING EVERY QUESTION WITH: "HARVEY AND LEE" IS THE SAME KIND OF THINKING THE WARREN COMMISSION

USED TO SAY "OSWALD SHOT KENNEDY."

IT REMINDS ME OF THE PHLOGISTON THEORY, SAME WAY OF THINKING:

Stahl outlined his medical theories in The True Theory of Medicine (1708) and the book had great influences throughout Europe.

The Becher/Stahl theory explained burning, oxidation, calcination (metal residue after combustion), and breathing in the following way:

* Flames extinguish because air becomes saturated with phlogiston.

* Charcoal leaves little residue upon burning because it is nearly pure phlogiston.

* Mice die in airtight space because air saturates with phlogiston.

* When heated, metals are restored because phlogiston transferred from charcoal to calx.

Becher/Stahl derived these conclusions outside the laboratory while in the laboratory others were finding that metals such as magnesium

gained weight during combustion. If phlogiston is given off when a metal forms a calx, why does the calx weigh more than the metal?

Stahl attributed the weight increase to air entering the metal to fill the vacuum left after phlogiston escaped.

THIS IDEA IS STUNNING AND SOUNDS LOGICAL --BUT IS ABOUT AS SCIENTIFIC AS THE PHLOGISTON THEORY BY EXPLAINING 'EVERYTHING'

AND OBSTRUCTING OUR VIEW OF WHAT REALLY HAPPENED. DON;T GET ME WRONG--THEY HAD IMPOSTORS OUT THERE--MULTIPLE ONES,

WHO, AS DEAN POINTED OUT, HAD LIMITED UNDERSTANDING OF THEIR ROLES AND THUS NOT WERE DANGEROUS.

THEY TRY TO SAY DONALD NORTON IS 'LEE' AND JACK SHOWED A HANDWRITING EXAMPLE THAT ONLY PROVED NORTON WAS 'NOT' 'LEE.'

ARMSTRONG GIVES MENTAL RELIEF TO THE COMPLEX PROBLEMS OF HAVING TO TRY TO IDENTIFY SUCH A BIG BASE OF CONSPIRATORS,

BUT DEAN IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT THAT EACH LITTLE PLAYER KNEW VERY LITTLE, AND THE PLETHORA OF THE DEAD SHOWS THAT THOSE

WHO KNEW MORE PAID WITH THEIR LIVES.

DAVE FERRIE HAD STUCK A NEEDLE IN MY ARM AND PHOTOGRAPHED IT TO PROVE I HAD BEEN HYPNOTIZED AND REMEMBERED NOTHING--

SEE THE BOOK--I KNOW HE WAS FOND OF ME AND TRIED TO SAVE MY LIFE--HE STAYED ALIVE LONGER THAN MARY BY SEVERAL YEARS,

BUT ONCE HIS NAME GOT OUT THERE, HE DIED.

FOLLOW THE MONEY.

FOLLOW WHO DIED.

SEE WHO LIED.

NOTHING WAS SOLVED WITH 'HARVEY' AND 'LEE'-- BUT IT HAS CUT THE STRENGTH OF THE CT RESEARCH COMMUNITY IN HALF.

JVB

L Farley:

I say that because "[my] rebuttals", if you wish to call them that, demonstrate the probability of several impostors.

May I join here? What about the photographed LHO in Mexico-City, outside the (cuban, soviet?) embassy? What about the LHO at the Ford-salesman NOLA 20.1.1961?

What about the Oswald at the Lincoln-Mercury-Shop at Dealy Plaza? The other Ossi in the Texas Theater? The Oswald in the cuban consulate in NOLA Sep. 63? The Ossi at the Shooting ranch in Dallas? JVB knew the one and only real Oswald, who was surrounded by imposters, which didn't even look like him! (I am talking about the pic of the Mexico-city Ossi...)...call it ID-Charade... Armstrong is wrong, by claiming there where only two of them...

KK

Armstrong's book focuses ONLY on TWO LHOs...there may have been more. However, in cutting his original

2000 page book back to a 1000 page book, John had to forego some discussions, and simply focused on

the main two, Lee and Harvey. However, he and I both discussed other possibilities:

1. Multiple LHOs in Russia IF the Russians by chance replaced the original defector. Numerous photos

show this is a possibility.

2. Some impostors for LHO in some instances, such as Mexico City, etc. For instance, there are several

sightings of an LHO around Texas various places which are unlikely to be either Lee or Harvey.

These likely were being managed by the CIA to create false trails.

I emphasize, however, that other possibilities such as above do NOT detract from the main story of

Harvey and Lee. Even if the Russians substituted someone for Harvey, the original substitution

story is still valid. However, I believe the original Harvey returned, but the Russians somehow

muddied the waters through various covert means, including photos and witness tampering.

Jack

Edited April 15, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Dean Hartwell]

Doug,

You had a question about my comment:

With my legal background, I focus on how much evidence is needed to prove a certain point. Proving HARVEY and LEE requires a great deal of evidence because it is so specific.

Perhaps you missed my earlier post where I use CAPS to refer to HARVEY and LEE as a "2-Oswald theory." To prove this particular theory requires a great deal of evidence.

Dean

[Dean Hartwell]

Jack,

I would appreciate you addressing me directly on this forum. Courtesy, if not politeness, is the kind of thing that could help our community to work together to find the answers to the mysteries of the JFK assassination.

Thank you,

Dean

Evidently Dean Hartwell has not read HARVEY & LEE.

Lee,

It appeared to me you supported a LEE and HARVEY (or 2-Oswald theory) when you wrote this:

I'm sorry but the evidence of two Oswald's is overwhelming.

Your rebuttals showed evidence to me of multiple imposters, so it appeared to conflict with the statement above.

Which do you mean -

1) a LEE and HARVEY scenario, with one man accused of the JFK assassination and subsequently killed and the other man used to setting the first man up?

2) the same scenario with multiple imposters

3) multiple imposters

Dean

Great question Dean. Thanks for clarifying. Simple answer. I don't know. I haven't made my mind up...how's that for some fence sitting? I'm gonna need these splinters removed.

If you forced me to choose I would plump for number (2), but my mind swings around in circles and my questions for Judyth were to gain her insights on lots of confusing data. There is massive amounts of evidence that supports two Oswald's. I'd agree with Jim F and say that you need to keep an open mind on it all. The minute you make your mind up for certain then it can limit your thinking on other things. Wouldn't you agree?

If I may merge this into Karl's reply too. I think there were people impersonating him who didn't have to specifically look like him in certain situations (Mexico - which resulted in post-assassination embarrassment when a photo of Mike Ditka is published) and there were times when the "double" was used.

Hell, if I had the answer's Dean I'd be a wealthy man.

Cheers

Lee

P.S. I think the question is "do I believe in a Harvey and Lee from such a young age?" There was, in my mind, a definitive "Harvey and Lee" in the assassination run-up and the Texas Theater incident is proof of that alone. I keep toying with the idea of Marguerite having twins and a separation process occurring as some sort of MKULTRA type experiment. Can I ask? What are your own thoughts on all of this?

Lee,

With my legal background, I focus on how much evidence is needed to prove a certain point. Proving HARVEY and LEE requires a great deal of evidence because it is so specific.

Also, the use of a permanent double would have incurred the risk of the "framed" person figuring out the scheme. Or the double could have revealed himself to the public after the assassination. It would seem a conspiracy would not want to bring about any unnecessary risks. Using several impersonators would likely mean telling each of them less about the plot than one would have to tell a permanent one.

Because of the strong likelihood that this specific claim has been rebutted (ex: the assertion that the tooth supposedly belonging to LEE but having been paid for by Lee's aunt) and because of its impracticability, I do not believe HARVEY and LEE has been proven to be true.

Dean

[Jack White]

I was not addressing you. I was announcing to the jury that you have not read the book.

Jack,

I would appreciate you addressing me directly on this forum. Courtesy, if not politeness, is the kind of thing that could help our community to work together to find the answers to the mysteries of the JFK assassination.

Thank you,

Dean

Evidently Dean Hartwell has not read HARVEY & LEE.

Lee,

It appeared to me you supported a LEE and HARVEY (or 2-Oswald theory) when you wrote this:

I'm sorry but the evidence of two Oswald's is overwhelming.

Your rebuttals showed evidence to me of multiple imposters, so it appeared to conflict with the statement above.

Which do you mean -

1) a LEE and HARVEY scenario, with one man accused of the JFK assassination and subsequently killed and the other man used to setting the first man up?

2) the same scenario with multiple imposters

3) multiple imposters

Dean

Great question Dean. Thanks for clarifying. Simple answer. I don't know. I haven't made my mind up...how's that for some fence sitting? I'm gonna need these splinters removed.

If you forced me to choose I would plump for number (2), but my mind swings around in circles and my questions for Judyth were to gain her insights on lots of confusing data. There is massive amounts of evidence that supports two Oswald's. I'd agree with Jim F and say that you need to keep an open mind on it all. The minute you make your mind up for certain then it can limit your thinking on other things. Wouldn't you agree?

If I may merge this into Karl's reply too. I think there were people impersonating him who didn't have to specifically look like him in certain situations (Mexico - which resulted in post-assassination embarrassment when a photo of Mike Ditka is published) and there were times when the "double" was used.

Hell, if I had the answer's Dean I'd be a wealthy man.

Cheers

Lee

P.S. I think the question is "do I believe in a Harvey and Lee from such a young age?" There was, in my mind, a definitive "Harvey and Lee" in the assassination run-up and the Texas Theater incident is proof of that alone. I keep toying with the idea of Marguerite having twins and a separation process occurring as some sort of MKULTRA type experiment. Can I ask? What are your own thoughts on all of this?

Lee,

With my legal background, I focus on how much evidence is needed to prove a certain point. Proving HARVEY and LEE requires a great deal of evidence because it is so specific.

Also, the use of a permanent double would have incurred the risk of the "framed" person figuring out the scheme. Or the double could have revealed himself to the public after the assassination. It would seem a conspiracy would not want to bring about any unnecessary risks. Using several impersonators would likely mean telling each of them less about the plot than one would have to tell a permanent one.

Because of the strong likelihood that this specific claim has been rebutted (ex: the assertion that the tooth supposedly belonging to LEE but having been paid for by Lee's aunt) and because of its impracticability, I do not believe HARVEY and LEE has been proven to be true.

Dean

[Jack White]

Apparently JVB is now try to confuse everyone. Now she says LHO lost a tooth at

Beauregard school, and has previously said that David Ferrie knocked one of his

teeth out at a CAP event. And she finds it impossible that the Murret family did

not know of both Lee and Harvey, EVEN THOUGH Dorothea Murret was in the CIA

and Marguerite knew of the plan, and likely asked for their cooperation. When

you can't convince 'em, confuse 'em.

Robert knew. Marina knew. Marguerite knew. John Pic knew.

Why not the Murret family? It is even possible that Dorothea recruited LHO

for the false defector program. It is interesting that she met with LHO in

Japan. Which LHO? I do not remember, but it likely was Lee, her cousin,

and not Harvey, whom she did not know.

Jack

A POSTSCRIPT FROM JUDYTH ABOUT HARVEY & LEE

NOTE: Jack needs to reread the studies of "Lee" losing a tooth at Beauregard Junior High,

where Lillian Murret, "Harvey's" aunt, remembered paying for his visit to the dentist. Are we

now to believe that Lillian and Dutz Murret knew both "Harvey" and "Lee"? That's a bit much.

There must be at least 20 posts exposing problems, mistakes, or blunders in HARVEY & LEE.

Multiple impostors with compartmentalized knowledge across time seems far more plausible.

JUDYTH COMMENTS:

THANKS SO MUCH, JIM...AND LOLA....AND DEAN! AND ED!

HAVE TO SIGN OFF, BUT MY HOPE IS THAT THE TRUTH WILL NOT HURT JACK OR ANYONE,

AND THAT THEY WILL LAY ASIDE A THEORY THAT IS SEVERELY RESTRICTING REAL RESEARCH INTO WHAT REALLY HAPPENED.

HERE'S HOW IT'S RESTRICTING IT:

1 ) THOSE WHO PUT SO MANY IMPOSTORS OUT THERE ARE NOT TRACKED DOWN, AS 'LEE' IS USED ALL OVER THE PLACE TO

ACCOUNT FOR :

A ) FAKED RECORDS,

B ) FAKE LHO APPEARANCES,

C ) RED HERRING TESTIMONIES THAT HIDE THE TRUTH ABOUT LEE

RE ALTERED AND FAKE (ON PURPOSE OR JUST WANTING 'FAME')TESTIMONIES. AFTER MUCH STUDY, THINKING--I REALIZED

THAT ARMSTRONG ACCEPTS THEM ALL ON SOME LEVEL, IF THEY FIT HIS THEORY.

I DO NOT HAVE THE BOOK YET [NOTE: I have sent her a copy], BUT ASK-- HOW MANY REPORTS ARE IN HIS BOOK THAT HE

ANALYZES AND REJECTS--WHAT REASONS DOES HE USE TO REJECT A REPORT?

WHAT ARE HIS REASONS FOR ACCEPTING SUCH A POOR WITNESS AS MYRA DAROUSE? JUST BECAUSE SHE FITS HIS THEORY?

I FIND SLOPPY RESEARCH AND ALTERED PHOTOS THAT ARE TROUBLING. AND WE HAVE JUST BEGUN.

IT IS NOT A SIN TO PUT RESEARCH BACK ON RACK.

I CANNOT THINK OF ANYTHING THAT HAS SO HOBBLED THE TRUTH AS HIS THEORY THAT HAS HAS DIVIDED RESEARCHERS TO

THE EXTENT OF RUPTURING FRIENDSHIPS. THINK OF IT.

THAT 'KATHY' CAN CONTINUE TO SAY 'HARVEY' THIS AND 'LEE' THAT AS IF IT WERE A FACT THAT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED...

ALMOST LIKE A RELIGIOUS BELIEF NOT ALLOWING ANY HERESY OR HERETIC--THEY WILL BE BURNED AT THE STAKE....

SO I ASKED MYSELF--HOW DOES ARMSTRONG THINK?

I HAVE REALIZED WHERE HIS WEAK SPOT IS:

2 ) ARMSTRONG TAKES WHAT'S IN THE WARREN COMMISSION RECORDS LITERALLY,

A ) HE ASSUMES THAT THE WARREN COMMISSION KNEW ABOUT 'LEE' AND 'HARVEY' BUT HID 'LEE' FROM SIGHT--OR ELSE

THE COMMISSION'S HANDLERS DID.

B ) THIS ASSUMPTION THEN GIVES HIM A BASIS FOR HUNTING ANY NEW EVIDENCE --BUT HE ONLY LOOKS FOR EVIDENCE

THAT SUPPORTS HIS THEORY.

BY THE WAY, THIS IS NOT SCIENTIFIC.

THIS IS WHAT MARKETERS DO FOR A PRODUCT.

IT IS HIS WORST FAULT, THIS MIND-SET.

HIS NEXT FLAW IS THAT HE CHOOSES TO BELIEVE THAT ALL REPORTS ARE ESSENTIALLY ACCURATE IF THEY FIT HIS HYPOTHESIS.

IF THEY DO NOT--FOR EXAMPLE, REJECTING ME AS A WITNESS BECAUSE I WAS NOT PREGNANT AT THE TIME, THEREFORE COULD

NOT 'POSE; AS MARINA--HE LIMITS HIS COLLECTION TO WHAT FITS HIS VISION.

IN FACT, THIS IS WHAT THE WARREN COMMISSION DID!

THE HABIT OF ANSWERING EVERY QUESTION WITH: "HARVEY AND LEE" IS THE SAME KIND OF THINKING THE WARREN COMMISSION

USED TO SAY "OSWALD SHOT KENNEDY."

IT REMINDS ME OF THE PHLOGISTON THEORY, SAME WAY OF THINKING:

Stahl outlined his medical theories in The True Theory of Medicine (1708) and the book had great influences throughout Europe.

The Becher/Stahl theory explained burning, oxidation, calcination (metal residue after combustion), and breathing in the following way:

* Flames extinguish because air becomes saturated with phlogiston.

* Charcoal leaves little residue upon burning because it is nearly pure phlogiston.

* Mice die in airtight space because air saturates with phlogiston.

* When heated, metals are restored because phlogiston transferred from charcoal to calx.

Becher/Stahl derived these conclusions outside the laboratory while in the laboratory others were finding that metals such as magnesium

gained weight during combustion. If phlogiston is given off when a metal forms a calx, why does the calx weigh more than the metal?

Stahl attributed the weight increase to air entering the metal to fill the vacuum left after phlogiston escaped.

THIS IDEA IS STUNNING AND SOUNDS LOGICAL --BUT IS ABOUT AS SCIENTIFIC AS THE PHLOGISTON THEORY BY EXPLAINING 'EVERYTHING'

AND OBSTRUCTING OUR VIEW OF WHAT REALLY HAPPENED. DON;T GET ME WRONG--THEY HAD IMPOSTORS OUT THERE--MULTIPLE ONES,

WHO, AS DEAN POINTED OUT, HAD LIMITED UNDERSTANDING OF THEIR ROLES AND THUS NOT WERE DANGEROUS.

THEY TRY TO SAY DONALD NORTON IS 'LEE' AND JACK SHOWED A HANDWRITING EXAMPLE THAT ONLY PROVED NORTON WAS 'NOT' 'LEE.'

ARMSTRONG GIVES MENTAL RELIEF TO THE COMPLEX PROBLEMS OF HAVING TO TRY TO IDENTIFY SUCH A BIG BASE OF CONSPIRATORS,

BUT DEAN IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT THAT EACH LITTLE PLAYER KNEW VERY LITTLE, AND THE PLETHORA OF THE DEAD SHOWS THAT THOSE

WHO KNEW MORE PAID WITH THEIR LIVES.

DAVE FERRIE HAD STUCK A NEEDLE IN MY ARM AND PHOTOGRAPHED IT TO PROVE I HAD BEEN HYPNOTIZED AND REMEMBERED NOTHING--

SEE THE BOOK--I KNOW HE WAS FOND OF ME AND TRIED TO SAVE MY LIFE--HE STAYED ALIVE LONGER THAN MARY BY SEVERAL YEARS,

BUT ONCE HIS NAME GOT OUT THERE, HE DIED.

FOLLOW THE MONEY.

FOLLOW WHO DIED.

SEE WHO LIED.

NOTHING WAS SOLVED WITH 'HARVEY' AND 'LEE'-- BUT IT HAS CUT THE STRENGTH OF THE CT RESEARCH COMMUNITY IN HALF.

JVB

L Farley:

I say that because "[my] rebuttals", if you wish to call them that, demonstrate the probability of several impostors.

May I join here? What about the photographed LHO in Mexico-City, outside the (cuban, soviet?) embassy? What about the LHO at the Ford-salesman NOLA 20.1.1961?

What about the Oswald at the Lincoln-Mercury-Shop at Dealy Plaza? The other Ossi in the Texas Theater? The Oswald in the cuban consulate in NOLA Sep. 63? The Ossi at the Shooting ranch in Dallas? JVB knew the one and only real Oswald, who was surrounded by imposters, which didn't even look like him! (I am talking about the pic of the Mexico-city Ossi...)...call it ID-Charade... Armstrong is wrong, by claiming there where only two of them...

KK

Armstrong's book focuses ONLY on TWO LHOs...there may have been more. However, in cutting his original

2000 page book back to a 1000 page book, John had to forego some discussions, and simply focused on

the main two, Lee and Harvey. However, he and I both discussed other possibilities:

1. Multiple LHOs in Russia IF the Russians by chance replaced the original defector. Numerous photos

show this is a possibility.

2. Some impostors for LHO in some instances, such as Mexico City, etc. For instance, there are several

sightings of an LHO around Texas various places which are unlikely to be either Lee or Harvey.

These likely were being managed by the CIA to create false trails.

I emphasize, however, that other possibilities such as above do NOT detract from the main story of

Harvey and Lee. Even if the Russians substituted someone for Harvey, the original substitution

story is still valid. However, I believe the original Harvey returned, but the Russians somehow

muddied the waters through various covert means, including photos and witness tampering.

Jack

[Dean Hagerman]

I CANNOT THINK OF ANYTHING THAT HAS SO HOBBLED THE TRUTH AS HIS THEORY THAT HAS HAS DIVIDED RESEARCHERS TO

THE EXTENT OF RUPTURING FRIENDSHIPS. THINK OF IT.

You cant think of anything?

How about what you have done to ruin friendships?

You have some nerve to try and say that its Armstrongs book that is dividing researchers

It is YOU who is dividing researchers!

You love this dont you? You love messing with peoples friendships because you have nothing in your sorry life but this fake story about you and Oswald

It never happened Judyth, you might be able to fool some people but trust me you dont fool me at all, I see right through you

I hope this really is the end of your using Jim to post all your fake stories on this forum

It makes me sick to watch you tell these fairy tales through Jim while you sit back and laugh about the friendships of his that you have ruined

[Karl Kinaski]

Now we're supposed to send her money?

BK

I am laughing hysterically. I love your reaction. I can't catch my breath.

Kathy C

Paying for a very entertaining, long and exiting thread and a good show---why not?

Whether you re a JVB believer or not, LN or CT:pay for it, if you enjoyed it. This Thread was one of my daily highlights the last two months. I wanna thank you all for that.

I fear this will not happen again for quite some time...

And I ve learned something too: JVB and Haslam are right and the Armstrong book is bullxxxx.

KK

Edited April 15, 2010 by Karl Kinaski

[Glenn Viklund]

"Now we're supposed to send her money?

BK"

Bingo!

Nah, as she's probably not too far from where I am, I'll just stop by with a specialty from the Swedish kitchen - Fermented Baltic Herring.

Foreigners usually refer to it as "rotten fish".

Oh, there are those who love it, too.

[Karl Kinaski]

edit

Edited June 11, 2015 by Karl Kinaski