Greg Burnham Posted April 18, 2010 Share Posted April 18, 2010 NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF FRIENDSHIP WITH JACK WHITE, WHO HAS FINALLY DISGUSTED MEI cannot believe that someone I have admired in the past would stoop to such a sophomoric level by lodging such a blatant ad hominem. Those who resort to arguments of this caliber have discredited themselves massively. I denounce each and every one of them, including the author of the post Jack has repeated her and the hack who posted it. I am completely disgusted and want nothing more to do with them. Michael Hogan and Howard Platzman are honorable men. Those who resort to such disgraceful tactics are not. Cease and desist, Jack White. You have forefeitted being taken seriously. Please know that I want nothing more to do with you in any context at all. We are no longer friends. Jim, As you once said to me, "Don't you think that's enough?" You've made your point. Isn't it also ad hominem to say that Jack is not an honorable man? Almost everyone is slinging mud here on BOTH sides. Why are otherwise reasonble friends claiming to each other: "my mud's less dirty than your mud" as they fling another load? Perhaps both sides need to cease and desist from allowing their emotions to cloud their better judgment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Burnham Posted April 18, 2010 Share Posted April 18, 2010 (edited) Jack, In all due respect, my friend, IMO this is chicken xxxx. It was a cowardly act by the author of the message who was too uncertain of him or her self to claim responsibility for their position (if it can even be called that). It is a very low blow, not to Judyth mind you, but to yourself! Whoever the author is, you might consider the very real possibility that Judyth was not the target of the attack--you were. And, judging from Jim's reaction, it appears that they may have hit the bull's eye. There is a "signature" to these things, my friend. You know me--and you know my meaning. GO_SECURE monk It seems that most researchers (wisely) do not want to become involved in the thread re JVB. For some reason many of them seem to focus on emailing me to vent their feelings at a safe venue. So far about a dozen have emailed me varying messages about JVB. Here is a typical EXCERPT from one received just today (anonymous for obvious reasons):"I have believed for years that sexual frustration lies at the root of JVB’s motives – that she is more to be pitied than deplored. The sad but indisputable fact is that she is now overweight and unattractive and was once rather attractive (amply endowed, as she has pointed out on occasion), showing much promise in her academic abilities which never came to fruition. She has lived a life peppered with disappointment, unable to get along with people for more than a few weeks. Every relationship – mostly with men -- eventually goes down the toilet." There are many other unsolicited emails. They are wise to not enter the public area of controversy. This has been going on for ten years now, with new supporters taking up the torch when others become disenchanted. How much longer will it go on? Edited April 18, 2010 by Greg Burnham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted April 18, 2010 Share Posted April 18, 2010 (edited) Dean, If I were not convinced she is genuine, I would not be here defending her. More than one of your posts has bothered me. I ask the following questions: (1) Have you ever actually met or spoken with Judyth Vary Baker? (2) Have you ever watched Nigel Turner's "The Love Affair"? (3) Have you read MARY, FERRIE, AND THE MONEY VIRUS? (4) Have you read Ed Haslam's DR. MARY'S MONKEY? (5) Have you read my blog about Judyth Vary Baker? (6) Have you listened to my 1-hour Haslem interview? (7) Have you read my blog about DR. MARY'S MONKEY? (8) Have you listened to Ed's 4-hour C2C interview? (9) Are your opinions actually based upon research? (10) What is the value of opinions not based on research? Jim NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF FRIENDSHIP WITH JACK WHITE, WHO HAS FINALLY DISGUSTED ME We are no longer friends I hope your happy Judyth, look what your fake tales have done You are making a huge mistake Jim, I cant believe you are saying this to Jack over a woman who has you under her spell Everything she has told you is a lie Jim Jack I am behind you, Jim is wrong for doing this and Judyth has now become my most hated person involved (I dont even want to call her involved) in the JFK assassination Dean Edited April 25, 2010 by James H. Fetzer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted April 18, 2010 Share Posted April 18, 2010 (edited) My answers in Bold Dean,If I were not convinced she is genuine, I would not be here defending her. More than one of your posts has bothered me. I ask the following questions: (1) Have you ever actually met or spoken with Judyth Vary Baker? No, I have through Email from you asked her a question and got a reply, I would talk to Judyth, but as I told you Jim I do not want to talk to a woman I do not know about personal issues that are sensitive, I will leave it at that you know what im talking about. If Judyth is willing to talk to me I am willing to read and reply to her (2) Have you ever watched Nigel Turner's "The Love Affair"? I have watched it 10+ times, I love TMWKK and "The Love Affair" is my least favorite segment, followed very closly by French assassins (3) Have you read MARY, FERRIE, AND THE MONEY VIRUS? No (4) Have you read Ed Haslam's DR. MARY'S MONKEY? No (5) Have you read my blog about Judyth Vary Baker? Yes (6) Have you listened to my 1-hour Haslem interview? No (7) Have you read my blog about DR. MARY'S MONKEY? No (8) Have you listened to Ed's 4-hour C2C interview? No (9) Are your opinions actually based upon research? I have not researched any of Judyth's claims myself, however I have looked at alot of Barbs research on Judyth and what Barb has shown me is enough, I believe her research alone shuts down Judyth IMO (10) What is the value of opinions not based on research? I would say pretty high because most of us researchers have been around long enough to spot fakes, I dont need hard research to say that the stories Judyth Baker and James Files tell are false. In every post before the last one I have expressed my feelings towards Judyth, but I have also said how I stand behind you Jim, what bothers you? I hope its not my feelings for Judyth because they have nothing to do with my feelings about you Jim I almost fell out of my chair when I read you were no longer friends with Jack Look what she has done to you Jim Do not let her do this, I look up to you Jim, I think of you as my voice for my alteration theories, I believe 100% in alteration Jim and stand behind you But I can no longer do that because Judyth is wrong and she is loving the fact that she is breaking up your friendships I have some questions for you now Jim, please answer them as I answered yours 1. Is believing in and backing up Judyth's story worth destroying two friendships? 2. Are you willing to have all of your credibility destroyed like all the other researchers who stood by Judyth before? 3. What are you going to do and say when you find out that Judyth has been telling you a fake story? 4. How many times will it take to prove to you that Judyth is not telling the truth? 5. Why are you backing her up? 6. When did you start believing Judyth 7. Did she contact you or did you contact her? 8. Are you going to help her with her book? 9. Has Judyth's "research" been more important to you then Jack White's research? 10. Has Judyth's "research" been more important to you then David Lifton's research? 10. Do you believe Judyth over David Lifton? Edited April 18, 2010 by Dean Hagerman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted April 18, 2010 Share Posted April 18, 2010 Jack,In all due respect, my friend, IMO this is chicken xxxx. It was a cowardly act by the author of the message who was too uncertain of him or her self to claim responsibility for their position (if it can even be called that). It is a very low blow, not to Judyth mind you, but to yourself! Whoever the author is, you might consider the very real possibility that Judyth was not the target of the attack--you were. And, judging from Jim's reaction, it appears that they may have hit the bull's eye. There is a "signature" to these things, my friend. You know me--and you know my meaning. GO_SECURE monk It seems that most researchers (wisely) do not want to become involved in the thread re JVB. For some reason many of them seem to focus on emailing me to vent their feelings at a safe venue. So far about a dozen have emailed me varying messages about JVB. Here is a typical EXCERPT from one received just today (anonymous for obvious reasons):"I have believed for years that sexual frustration lies at the root of JVB’s motives – that she is more to be pitied than deplored. The sad but indisputable fact is that she is now overweight and unattractive and was once rather attractive (amply endowed, as she has pointed out on occasion), showing much promise in her academic abilities which never came to fruition. She has lived a life peppered with disappointment, unable to get along with people for more than a few weeks. Every relationship – mostly with men -- eventually goes down the toilet." There are many other unsolicited emails. They are wise to not enter the public area of controversy. This has been going on for ten years now, with new supporters taking up the torch when others become disenchanted. How much longer will it go on? Greg So its ok for Jim to post some silly Psy-Op garbage attacking Jack from an unkown person Why is it ok for Jim to do that but not ok for Jack? I dont understand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted April 19, 2010 Share Posted April 19, 2010 (edited) Dean, I have become convinced, based upon extensive contact, confirmed by Nigel Turner's segment, Ed Haslam's research, and evaluating more that 1,200 posts on this thread, that the attacks on Judyth are shoddy and, in almost every case, based upon flimsy proof and faulty arguments. Lifton, for example, rejects her because she talked about Cancun at a time it did not exist. But Judyth was talking about Kankun, which did, where I think it would have been impossible for Lifton to have discerned any phonetic difference between them. (I have asked for a cassette copy of the conversation, which he has refused to provide. I can imagine quite a number of reasons why he doesn't want me to hear it, but that is no basis for rejecting her as a phony.) In a similar vein, John Armstrong rejected her when she told him that, on some occasions, she had passed as Marina, because Marina was pregnant but Judyth was not. He did not allow her to explain what she meant. Jack White has enumerated about a dozen complaints against her, none of which turned out to be justifiable. Junkkiarinen is endlessly recyclying old material from the McAdams' site, where she and Viklund have been exposed as collaborating to attack her. The fact that she has been so massively abused in other forums is no excuse not to grant her a level playing field here. My role has not only been to post on her behalf but also to serve as a buffer between her and some of her less scrupulous critics. I have had a huge volume of contact with her, including hundreds and hundreds of emails and other forms of contact, including, of course, YouTube interviews and blogs about her. I find Ed Haslam's work thorough, meticulous, and very compelling in placing her within the context of cancer research involving David Ferrie, Dr. Mary Sherman, and Alton Ochsner, who was the key figure behind it all. When you consider what Ed has explained in his two books, most recently, DR. MARY'S MONKEY, I find it difficult to imagine how anyone could take such strong negative stances toward her. Anyone who wants to understand her story should read Ed's book. As for the comparison between my psy ops expert and this rubbish from Jack's anonymous source, if you don't understand the difference between a venomous ad hominem attack such as Jack posted and serious analytical reflections on what has been going on during the course of this thread, then I am at a loss as to what to tell you. In response to your other post, I am convinced she is "the real deal" and that almost all of the complaints about her are fabricated or exaggerated. For some reason, everyone here is allowed to have their opinions about Judyth except for me! If Judyth really is not the person she claims to be, then I cannot imagine why she is drawing so much attention. Surely this is not all for my benefit! I have done enough research on Judyth to draw my own conclusions. I am probably more versed in scholarship than anyone else on this forum. I believe in her and I cannot allow personal friendships to defeat my commit- ment to the search for truth. I defend others when I think they are right and oppose them when I think they are wrong. I have stood up for Jack and David on many occasions, but in this case, they are wrong. Jim Jack,In all due respect, my friend, IMO this is chicken xxxx. It was a cowardly act by the author of the message who was too uncertain of him or her self to claim responsibility for their position (if it can even be called that). It is a very low blow, not to Judyth mind you, but to yourself! Whoever the author is, you might consider the very real possibility that Judyth was not the target of the attack--you were. And, judging from Jim's reaction, it appears that they may have hit the bull's eye. There is a "signature" to these things, my friend. You know me--and you know my meaning. GO_SECURE monk It seems that most researchers (wisely) do not want to become involved in the thread re JVB. For some reason many of them seem to focus on emailing me to vent their feelings at a safe venue. So far about a dozen have emailed me varying messages about JVB. Here is a typical EXCERPT from one received just today (anonymous for obvious reasons):"I have believed for years that sexual frustration lies at the root of JVB’s motives – that she is more to be pitied than deplored. The sad but indisputable fact is that she is now overweight and unattractive and was once rather attractive (amply endowed, as she has pointed out on occasion), showing much promise in her academic abilities which never came to fruition. She has lived a life peppered with disappointment, unable to get along with people for more than a few weeks. Every relationship – mostly with men -- eventually goes down the toilet." There are many other unsolicited emails. They are wise to not enter the public area of controversy. This has been going on for ten years now, with new supporters taking up the torch when others become disenchanted. How much longer will it go on? Greg So its ok for Jim to post some silly Psy-Op garbage attacking Jack from an unkown person Why is it ok for Jim to do that but not ok for Jack? I dont understand Edited April 25, 2010 by James H. Fetzer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted April 19, 2010 Share Posted April 19, 2010 (edited) Dean, Combine this with what I have already said in response to your other post. If I become convinced that Judyth is not "the real deal", I will be the first to admit it. There have been hundreds and hundreds of exchanges about her in the course of this thread, and I have consistently found that her arguments are better than those of her critics. I have yet to find a single argument against her that has borne up upon inspection. Let me suggest that my critical faculties are not inferior to yours and that, in fact, after 35 years teaching logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning, I am not going to be very easily taken in. Be so kind as to grant the possibility that just maybe I have understood some of this better than you. Something that has troubled me about your involvement is that, when Judyth or I have pointed out a number of problems with HARVEY & LEE, I have not heard a peep about it from you. Jack has clearly been incapable of coming to grips with the points I have made about the "index" blunder, the point Pat Speer made about the date of founding of the Warren Commission, others Michael Hogan has pointed out, not to mention Judyth's study of the eye-color argument, the feeble witness who claimed "Harvey" had attended Beauregrard Jr. High the year before "Lee" began, and the whole "missing tooth" fiasco. She has also made important points about crucial photos and arguments for "the two Oswalds" theory. Why haven't you been evaluating these objections to Armstrong's work? Do I detect the least bias on your part? You continue to take one side, quite blatantly, and apparently on the basis of Junkkarinen's reiteration of old material. I find this extremely disappointing. But you are entitled to your opinions, just as Jack and I are entitled to ours. What I have found is that the reasons for believing Judyth out- weigh the reasons for rejecting her--and by a considerable margin. Before you lecture me about my friendships, which I value greatly but not more than the search for truth, I think you really ought to find time to read DR. MARY'S MONKEY, which provides the context within which all of this took place. Jim My answers in BoldDean,If I were not convinced she is genuine, I would not be here defending her. More than one of your posts has bothered me. I ask the following questions: (1) Have you ever actually met or spoken with Judyth Vary Baker? No, I have through Email from you asked her a question and got a reply, I would talk to Judyth, but as I told you Jim I do not want to talk to a woman I do not know about personal issues that are sensitive, I will leave it at that you know what im talking about. If Judyth is willing to talk to me I am willing to read and reply to her (2) Have you ever watched Nigel Turner's "The Love Affair"? I have watched it 10+ times, I love TMWKK and "The Love Affair" is my least favorite segment, followed very closly by French assassins (3) Have you read MARY, FERRIE, AND THE MONEY VIRUS? No (4) Have you read Ed Haslam's DR. MARY'S MONKEY? No (5) Have you read my blog about Judyth Vary Baker? Yes (6) Have you listened to my 1-hour Haslem interview? No (7) Have you read my blog about DR. MARY'S MONKEY? No (8) Have you listened to Ed's 4-hour C2C interview? No (9) Are your opinions actually based upon research? I have not researched any of Judyth's claims myself, however I have looked at alot of Barbs research on Judyth and what Barb has shown me is enough, I believe her research alone shuts down Judyth IMO (10) What is the value of opinions not based on research? I would say pretty high because most of us researchers have been around long enough to spot fakes, I dont need hard research to say that the stories Judyth Baker and James Files tell are false. In every post before the last one I have expressed my feelings towards Judyth, but I have also said how I stand behind you Jim, what bothers you? I hope its not my feelings for Judyth because they have nothing to do with my feelings about you Jim I almost fell out of my chair when I read you were no longer friends with Jack Look what she has done to you Jim Do not let her do this, I look up to you Jim, I think of you as my voice for my alteration theories, I believe 100% in alteration Jim and stand behind you But I can no longer do that because Judyth is wrong and she is loving the fact that she is breaking up your friendships I have some questions for you now Jim, please answer them as I answered yours 1. Is believing in and backing up Judyth's story worth destroying two friendships? 2. Are you willing to have all of your credibility destroyed like all the other researchers who stood by Judyth before? 3. What are you going to do and say when you find out that Judyth has been telling you a fake story? 4. How many times will it take to prove to you that Judyth is not telling the truth? 5. Why are you backing her up? 6. When did you start believing Judyth 7. Did she contact you or did you contact her? 8. Are you going to help her with her book? 9. Has Judyth's "research" been more important to you then Jack White's research? 10. Has Judyth's "research" been more important to you then David Lifton's research? 10. Do you believe Judyth over David Lifton? Edited April 19, 2010 by James H. Fetzer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted April 19, 2010 Share Posted April 19, 2010 Jim values friendships far less than I do. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted April 19, 2010 Share Posted April 19, 2010 My answers in BoldDean,If I were not convinced she is genuine, I would not be here defending her. More than one of your posts has bothered me. I ask the following questions: (1) Have you ever actually met or spoken with Judyth Vary Baker? No, I have through Email from you asked her a question and got a reply, I would talk to Judyth, but as I told you Jim I do not want to talk to a woman I do not know about personal issues that are sensitive, I will leave it at that you know what im talking about. If Judyth is willing to talk to me I am willing to read and reply to her (2) Have you ever watched Nigel Turner's "The Love Affair"? I have watched it 10+ times, I love TMWKK and "The Love Affair" is my least favorite segment, followed very closly by French assassins (3) Have you read MARY, FERRIE, AND THE MONEY VIRUS? No (4) Have you read Ed Haslam's DR. MARY'S MONKEY? No (5) Have you read my blog about Judyth Vary Baker? Yes (6) Have you listened to my 1-hour Haslem interview? No (7) Have you read my blog about DR. MARY'S MONKEY? No (8) Have you listened to Ed's 4-hour C2C interview? No (9) Are your opinions actually based upon research? I have not researched any of Judyth's claims myself, however I have looked at alot of Barbs research on Judyth and what Barb has shown me is enough, I believe her research alone shuts down Judyth IMO (10) What is the value of opinions not based on research? I would say pretty high because most of us researchers have been around long enough to spot fakes, I dont need hard research to say that the stories Judyth Baker and James Files tell are false. In every post before the last one I have expressed my feelings towards Judyth, but I have also said how I stand behind you Jim, what bothers you? I hope its not my feelings for Judyth because they have nothing to do with my feelings about you Jim I almost fell out of my chair when I read you were no longer friends with Jack Look what she has done to you Jim Do not let her do this, I look up to you Jim, I think of you as my voice for my alteration theories, I believe 100% in alteration Jim and stand behind you But I can no longer do that because Judyth is wrong and she is loving the fact that she is breaking up your friendships I have some questions for you now Jim, please answer them as I answered yours 1. Is believing in and backing up Judyth's story worth destroying two friendships? IF FRIENDSHIP OUT WEIGHTS THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH, THERE IS NO SEARCH FOR TRUTH, ONLY FRIENDSHIPS. 2. Are you willing to have all of your credibility destroyed like all the other researchers who stood by Judyth before? I SEE IT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. THE ARGUMENTS FOR JUDYTH ARE STRONGER THAN THOSE AGAINST HER. 3. What are you going to do and say when you find out that Judyth has been telling you a fake story? THIS IS CALLED "BEGGING THE QUESTION". WHAT WILL YOU DO WHEN YOU BELATEDLY REALIZE I AM RIGHT? 4. How many times will it take to prove to you that Judyth is not telling the truth? EGAD! I HAVE YET TO FIND ONE SERIOUS, PERSUASIVE ARGUMENT AGAINST HER PRESENTED ON THIS FORUM. 5. Why are you backing her up? BECAUSE I BELIEVE IN HER, JUST AS I HAVE BACKED UP LIFTON AND JACK WHEN I THOUGHT THAT THEY WERE RIGHT. 6. When did you start believing Judyth I ONLY BEGAN STUDYING HER SERIOUSLY SINCE 2007. THE MORE I HAVE LEARNED, THE MORE I HAVE BELIEVED IN HER. 7. Did she contact you or did you contact her? I THINK SHE SENT OUT AN EMAIL TO A HALF-DOZEN JFK STUDENTS, BUT I WAS THE ONLY ONE WILLING TO HEAR HER OUT. 8. Are you going to help her with her book? NO, HER BOOK IS BASICALLY DONE (ALL WITHOUT ME). IT SHOULD APPEAR IN THE NEXT FEW MONTHS, I WOULD PRESUME. 9. Has Judyth's "research" been more important to you then Jack White's research? MORE IMPORTANT ABOUT LEE HARVEY OSWALD BY A CONSIDERABLE MARGIN, BUT NOT, SAY, ABOUT THE ZAPRUDER FILM. 10. Has Judyth's "research" been more important to you then David Lifton's research? NOT IN RELATION TO THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE OR THE Z-FILM, BUT I HAVE LEARNED NOTHING ABOUT OSWALD FROM LIFTON. 10. Do you believe Judyth over David Lifton? ABOUT OSWALD AND NEW ORLEANS, I HAVE LEARNED A GREAT DEAL FROM ED AND FROM JUDYTH BUT NOTHING FROM LIFTON. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted April 19, 2010 Share Posted April 19, 2010 Jack,Did I read you right? Judyth concocted her story out of sexual frustration?!!!! This is what you've come up with after having Judyth, Jim, et al. box you into a corner post after post for weeks now? Hey, if everyone who is sexually frustrated did as you claim Judyth has done, then every reputed villain in living history would have a veritable harum of groupies. I would call this claim dime-store psychology, but it's hardly worth a plug nickel. It is, indeed, a spurious and downright shameful evasion of substantive issues and evidence, bordering, if not crossing the border, into character assassination. And then you deliver the coup d'grace: all those cards and letters coming in opining, of course, that Judyth's story is balderdash. Waving your e-mails in the air (sans the names of senders and recountings of their arguments) is too uncomfortably close to McCarthyism not to point out the resemblance. How about letting Judyth and those who have vetted her deeply and extensively know the names of those who would accuse us of being shoddy researchers or, worse, con artists. After watching this flogging go on for 10 years, on the basis of analyses about as trenchant as what has appeared in this forum, I thought I had seen every conceivable intellectual contortion. (I guess sexual frustration falls into the inconceivable category.) I pretty much know what school of criticism all these scholars adhere to -- the school that teaches how to weave predetermined conclusions out of endlessly told lies, misinterpretations, half-truths, micro-nitpicking, willful ignorance, glib put-downs, hearsay, and just plain nastiness. I have seen bits and pieces of the recent postings on Judyth on this forum, trying to decide whether I want to reenter the fray -- and ensure that the next 10 years age me 20 years, as the past 10 years have. I wore myself out as one researcher after the another, with some notable exceptions (Jim Fetzer is the latest), battered Judyth (and Martin Shackleford and me) with evasions and even silence (a notable example is John Simkin) when I wrote personally to each of them, mosttimes more than once, pleading for a give-and-take. My phone number has always been listed. Judyth's door has always been open (before she went into exile). Yet no critic EVER wrote or called. The list of names of those willing hide behind their computers and draw conclusions based on gut feeling or, worse, the conclusions of others who haven't themselves done the requisite research is long and depressing. To which I now have to add Jack White. You are not being fair to Judyth. I apologize for the anger in my tone. But I assure you, it is earned and justified. Howard It seems that most researchers (wisely) do not want to become involved in the thread re JVB. Forsome reason many of them seem to focus on emailing me to vent their feelings at a safe venue. So far about a dozen have emailed me varying messages about JVB. Here is a typical EXCERPT from one received just today (anonymous for obvious reasons): "I have believed for years that sexual frustration lies at the root of JVB’s motives – that she is more to be pitied than deplored. The sad but indisputable fact is that she is now overweight and unattractive and was once rather attractive (amply endowed, as she has pointed out on occasion), showing much promise in her academic abilities which never came to fruition. She has lived a life peppered with disappointment, unable to get along with people for more than a few weeks. Every relationship – mostly with men -- eventually goes down the toilet." There are many other unsolicited emails. They are wise to not enter the public area of controversy. This has been going on for ten years now, with new supporters taking up the torch when others become disenchanted. How much longer will it go on? Jack Some seem to think that JVB is the Virgin Mary reincarnate. Each person ought to have the right to evaluate her claims. The verdict is by no means unanimous. Think as you please. So will I. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Burnham Posted April 19, 2010 Share Posted April 19, 2010 Some seem to think that JVB is the Virgin Mary reincarnate. Each person ought to have the right to evaluate her claims. The verdict is by no means unanimous. Think as you please. So will I. Jack Sorry Jack, but that post totally lost me. The "Virgin Mary" reincarnate? --please. That's a "Virgin Strawman" if I ever saw one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Burnham Posted April 19, 2010 Share Posted April 19, 2010 (edited) GregSo its ok for Jim to post some silly Psy-Op garbage attacking Jack from an unkown person Why is it ok for Jim to do that but not ok for Jack? I dont understand Dean, So far, I haven't read any "silly Psy-op garbage attacking Jack" in this thread! Not by a long shot. [if I missed it, please direct me to the exact place, thanks]. In fact, (if a person didn't know and trust Jim already) the fact that his "Psy-Op friend" hasn't attacked Jack is perhaps the best evidence that Jim isn't writing those Psy-Op posts himself! I find it tedious that Jim has to "post for" both Judyth and his anonymous Psy-Op friend, to be sure, but the extent of the effort might be more to Jim's credit than anything else, IMO. I consider the mind, heart, and intentions of both Jack and Jim to be beyond suspicion. Hopefully, this venomous exchange will lead to a better understanding of the truth? Hard to imagine... Edited April 19, 2010 by Greg Burnham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamela Brown Posted April 19, 2010 Share Posted April 19, 2010 Jack White said:This is the first posting in a long while I can agree with. I am suspicious of ANY VACCINE promoted by the government...particularly the annual FLU VACCINE DE JOUR. Have you taken time to consider the curious fact that when Jack Ruby was diagnosed with cancer he said that he thought he had been injected with cancer cells? I believe Ruby was correct. Jack And what do you consider the source of that idea of Ruby's? I hope you are not going to say that Judyth told him. Jack I am asking for your opinion. Who was discussing cancer cell injections in the mid-60's? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barb Junkkarinen Posted April 19, 2010 Share Posted April 19, 2010 Who was discussing cancer cell injections in the mid-60's? How about the Surgeon General of the United States when he gave a public reprimand to certain doctors at NYC's Sloan-Kettering Cancer Research Institue for injecting live cancer cells into patients with known advanced cancer ... and into healthy individuals as a control group as well, some 400 subjects all together. The control group ... prison inmates mostly. Or those who wrote about it in the mid 60s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted April 19, 2010 Share Posted April 19, 2010 Jim Thank you for your replies The reason I have not replied about any of the posts about Armstrong is because I have not read his book. I am very upset with myself for not buying it when it came out, and my wife will not let me spend the $75.00-100.00 to buy the book. So I can not reply to anything that has to do with "Harvey and Lee" That would be very stupid on my part with out having read the book first I will purchase Dr Mary's Monkey per your suggestion and read it (as it is much less then H&L I will report back with my thoughts on it The bottom line is that I hate seeing you loose two friends over Judyth, aside from all the other stuff, that is what im really trying to say Jim Dean My answers in BoldDean,If I were not convinced she is genuine, I would not be here defending her. More than one of your posts has bothered me. I ask the following questions: (1) Have you ever actually met or spoken with Judyth Vary Baker? No, I have through Email from you asked her a question and got a reply, I would talk to Judyth, but as I told you Jim I do not want to talk to a woman I do not know about personal issues that are sensitive, I will leave it at that you know what im talking about. If Judyth is willing to talk to me I am willing to read and reply to her (2) Have you ever watched Nigel Turner's "The Love Affair"? I have watched it 10+ times, I love TMWKK and "The Love Affair" is my least favorite segment, followed very closly by French assassins (3) Have you read MARY, FERRIE, AND THE MONEY VIRUS? No (4) Have you read Ed Haslam's DR. MARY'S MONKEY? No (5) Have you read my blog about Judyth Vary Baker? Yes (6) Have you listened to my 1-hour Haslem interview? No (7) Have you read my blog about DR. MARY'S MONKEY? No (8) Have you listened to Ed's 4-hour C2C interview? No (9) Are your opinions actually based upon research? I have not researched any of Judyth's claims myself, however I have looked at alot of Barbs research on Judyth and what Barb has shown me is enough, I believe her research alone shuts down Judyth IMO (10) What is the value of opinions not based on research? I would say pretty high because most of us researchers have been around long enough to spot fakes, I dont need hard research to say that the stories Judyth Baker and James Files tell are false. In every post before the last one I have expressed my feelings towards Judyth, but I have also said how I stand behind you Jim, what bothers you? I hope its not my feelings for Judyth because they have nothing to do with my feelings about you Jim I almost fell out of my chair when I read you were no longer friends with Jack Look what she has done to you Jim Do not let her do this, I look up to you Jim, I think of you as my voice for my alteration theories, I believe 100% in alteration Jim and stand behind you But I can no longer do that because Judyth is wrong and she is loving the fact that she is breaking up your friendships I have some questions for you now Jim, please answer them as I answered yours 1. Is believing in and backing up Judyth's story worth destroying two friendships? IF FRIENDSHIP OUT WEIGHTS THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH, THERE IS NO SEARCH FOR TRUTH, ONLY FRIENDSHIPS. 2. Are you willing to have all of your credibility destroyed like all the other researchers who stood by Judyth before? I SEE IT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. THE ARGUMENTS FOR JUDYTH ARE STRONGER THAN THOSE AGAINST HER. 3. What are you going to do and say when you find out that Judyth has been telling you a fake story? THIS IS CALLED "BEGGING THE QUESTION". WHAT WILL YOU DO WHEN YOU BELATEDLY REALIZE I AM RIGHT? 4. How many times will it take to prove to you that Judyth is not telling the truth? EGAD! I HAVE YET TO FIND ONE SERIOUS, PERSUASIVE ARGUMENT AGAINST HER PRESENTED ON THIS FORUM. 5. Why are you backing her up? BECAUSE I BELIEVE IN HER, JUST AS I HAVE BACKED UP LIFTON AND JACK WHEN I THOUGHT THAT THEY WERE RIGHT. 6. When did you start believing Judyth I ONLY BEGAN STUDYING HER SERIOUSLY SINCE 2007. THE MORE I HAVE LEARNED, THE MORE I HAVE BELIEVED IN HER. 7. Did she contact you or did you contact her? I THINK SHE SENT OUT AN EMAIL TO A HALF-DOZEN JFK STUDENTS, BUT I WAS THE ONLY ONE WILLING TO HEAR HER OUT. 8. Are you going to help her with her book? NO, HER BOOK IS BASICALLY DONE (ALL WITHOUT ME). IT SHOULD APPEAR IN THE NEXT FEW MONTHS, I WOULD PRESUME. 9. Has Judyth's "research" been more important to you then Jack White's research? MORE IMPORTANT ABOUT LEE HARVEY OSWALD BY A CONSIDERABLE MARGIN, BUT NOT, SAY, ABOUT THE ZAPRUDER FILM. 10. Has Judyth's "research" been more important to you then David Lifton's research? NOT IN RELATION TO THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE OR THE Z-FILM, BUT I HAVE LEARNED NOTHING ABOUT OSWALD FROM LIFTON. 10. Do you believe Judyth over David Lifton? ABOUT OSWALD AND NEW ORLEANS, I HAVE LEARNED A GREAT DEAL FROM ED AND FROM JUDYTH BUT NOTHING FROM LIFTON. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now