Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[Jack White]

This, I hope, will be my FINAL posting on this subject. Someone or some agency

has designed the JVB affair TO DIVIDE RESEARCHERS. The have succeeded beyond

their expectations.

Let us all concede for a moment EVERY STATEMENT made by JVB is TRUE. What are

we left with which might advance the solution to the JFK case???

1. This teen science student was recruited by the CIA to assist David Ferrie in designing

a means of killing Fidel Castro using cancer cells.

2. This teen girl was introduced into high level anti-Castro Cuban persons in New Orleans,

including Carlos Marcello, Guy Bannister, Clay Shaw, Dr. Oschner and others.

3. This married teen girl was assisted by these anti-Castro persons on a few days notice

to become involved in a romance with a CIA asset who had been steered into employment

at a CIA asset company.

4. What agency recruits high school students to devise cancer infections to be used in

assassination attempts? What agency uses this student, a strange ex-pilot, a famed

doctor and medical researcher who is strangely murdered to devise cancer strains to

be delivered to Cuba to kill Castro?

5. Much later, this teen girl learned that her lover was involved in a plot to kill the president

but instead of reporting this plot, she aids and abets her lover's involvement.

Now where have we heard all of this before? Who or what agency has been heavily

involved in promoting the Cuban connection as the perpetrators of the assassination?

The answer is clear.

I hope this is my final word.

Carry on.

Jack

Jack, I have been very impressed with your postings on this thread.

Thank you John. I treat the evidence of JVB as I do all other evidence.

My first question is...IS IT LOGICAL?

It is not logical that the CIA needed a teen girl and a homosexual

airline pilot to devise "cancer weapons", because they have the vast

resources of Fort Detrick nearby. It is not logical that if a section of

the CIA was controlling a false defector who was then diverted to

an assassination plot, that the defector, LHO, would be allowed by

his controllers and surveillance to engage in a second activity, nor

become involved with a teenage girl. Framing a patsy for a planned

murder was serious business; LHO was plainly ordered to New Orleans

to be sheep dipped as a CASTRO SYMPATHIZER to aid his image

as a commie killer. It is logical that this was of paramount importance

to the plotters, and they would not risk it being derailed. It is logical

that the plotters KNEW EVERY MOVE OF THIER PATSY, had him under

surveillance at all times, and knew all of his associates. There is no

record of his association with Mary, Vary and Ferrie in the mice and

monkey business.

Jack

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Jack,

I like these posts (which does not mean that I agree with them) and I hereby

withdraw my disavowal of our friendship. I think we can survive in spite of

our differences about Judyth Vary. I want to publicly reaffirm our friendship!

Jim

This, I hope, will be my FINAL posting on this subject. Someone or some agency

has designed the JVB affair TO DIVIDE RESEARCHERS. The have succeeded beyond

their expectations.

Let us all concede for a moment EVERY STATEMENT made by JVB is TRUE. What are

we left with which might advance the solution to the JFK case???

1. This teen science student was recruited by the CIA to assist David Ferrie in designing

a means of killing Fidel Castro using cancer cells.

2. This teen girl was introduced into high level anti-Castro Cuban persons in New Orleans,

including Carlos Marcello, Guy Bannister, Clay Shaw, Dr. Oschner and others.

3. This married teen girl was assisted by these anti-Castro persons on a few days notice

to become involved in a romance with a CIA asset who had been steered into employment

at a CIA asset company.

4. What agency recruits high school students to devise cancer infections to be used in

assassination attempts? What agency uses this student, a strange ex-pilot, a famed

doctor and medical researcher who is strangely murdered to devise cancer strains to

be delivered to Cuba to kill Castro?

5. Much later, this teen girl learned that her lover was involved in a plot to kill the president

but instead of reporting this plot, she aids and abets her lover's involvement.

Now where have we heard all of this before? Who or what agency has been heavily

involved in promoting the Cuban connection as the perpetrators of the assassination?

The answer is clear.

I hope this is my final word.

Carry on.

Jack

Jack, I have been very impressed with your postings on this thread.

Thank you John. I treat the evidence of JVB as I do all other evidence.

My first question is...IS IT LOGICAL?

It is not logical that the CIA needed a teen girl and a homosexual

airline pilot to devise "cancer weapons", because they have the vast

resources of Fort Detrick nearby. It is not logical that if a section of

the CIA was controlling a false defector who was then diverted to

an assassination plot, that the defector, LHO, would be allowed by

his controllers and surveillance to engage in a second activity, nor

become involved with a teenage girl. Framing a patsy for a planned

murder was serious business; LHO was plainly ordered to New Orleans

to be sheep dipped as a CASTRO SYMPATHIZER to aid his image

as a commie killer. It is logical that this was of paramount importance

to the plotters, and they would not risk it being derailed. It is logical

that the plotters KNEW EVERY MOVE OF THIER PATSY, had him under

surveillance at all times, and knew all of his associates. There is no

record of his association with Mary, Vary and Ferrie in the mice and

monkey business.

Jack

Edited April 25, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

SOME REFLECTIONS ON THE APPEAL TO WHAT IS "LOGICAL" AND WHAT IS NOT

Truth can be stranger than fiction. When you look where you've been, sometimes

you had no idea where you were going. Judyth was talented at cancer research.

She was lured to New Orleans by Alton Ochsner. There was a problem with the

polio vaccine, which had to be treated covertly to avoid alarming the public. Dr.

Mary Sherman was engaged in research there. The experiments did involve mice

and monkeys. David Ferrie and others were involved in conducting that research.

It involved the use of a linear particle accelerator. Someone had to have assisted

her. Judyth and Lee were hired by Riley's on the same day. Judyth kept the time

cards and other records for Oswald. Anna Lewis has testified that she and David,

her husband, even "double-dated" with Judyth and Lee. Mary Sherman was killed,

apparently using a linear particle accelerator. The death scene at her apartment

was staged. Ochsner did inoculate his grandchildren, killing one, while inducing

polio in the other. Judyth does appear to have been summarily sacked after she

protested the use of a prisoner in a (fatal) experiment without informed consent.

David Ferrie appears to have been silenced; and Ruby, too, using the bio-weapon.

And a second "Judyth Vary Baker" was used to impersonate the real Judyth Vary.

What could be a greater stretch than the idea of "two Oswalds", both having the

same name, one called "Harvey", the other "Lee", who even attended the same

schools, though not at the same time, where one was born in Hungary, physically

unimposing but intellectually able, who spoke fluent Russian but could not drive,

while the other had a propensity for violence, could drive but could not speak any

Russian and who had no interest in political philosophy or matters intellectual,

both of whom had mothers by the same name, where one of them ("Lee") lost

a tooth at Beauregard Junior High School, but Lillian Murret, the aunt of the

other ("Harvey"), paid for his dental bill, where his brother, Robert, who looks

exactly like him, is not supposed to be related genetically and who could have

effortlessly impersonated him did not, even though, after the assassination, he

would give lectures and publish a book falsely blaming his brother for a crime

he did not commit, where not only Aunt Lillian but Robert, Marguerite, and

Marina all knew of the existence of both "Harvey" and "Lee", even though none

of them ever uttered a peep! Neither of these stories is "logical" in the sense

Jack intends. Yet, I submit, at least one of these stories appears to be true.

Jack,

I like these posts (which does not mean that I agree with them) and I hereby

withdraw my disavowal of our friendship. I think we can survive in spite of

our differences about Judyth Vary. I want to publicly reaffirm our friendship!

Jim

This, I hope, will be my FINAL posting on this subject. Someone or some agency

has designed the JVB affair TO DIVIDE RESEARCHERS. The have succeeded beyond

their expectations.

Let us all concede for a moment EVERY STATEMENT made by JVB is TRUE. What are

we left with which might advance the solution to the JFK case???

1. This teen science student was recruited by the CIA to assist David Ferrie in designing

a means of killing Fidel Castro using cancer cells.

2. This teen girl was introduced into high level anti-Castro Cuban persons in New Orleans,

including Carlos Marcello, Guy Bannister, Clay Shaw, Dr. Oschner and others.

3. This married teen girl was assisted by these anti-Castro persons on a few days notice

to become involved in a romance with a CIA asset who had been steered into employment

at a CIA asset company.

4. What agency recruits high school students to devise cancer infections to be used in

assassination attempts? What agency uses this student, a strange ex-pilot, a famed

doctor and medical researcher who is strangely murdered to devise cancer strains to

be delivered to Cuba to kill Castro?

5. Much later, this teen girl learned that her lover was involved in a plot to kill the president

but instead of reporting this plot, she aids and abets her lover's involvement.

Now where have we heard all of this before? Who or what agency has been heavily

involved in promoting the Cuban connection as the perpetrators of the assassination?

The answer is clear.

I hope this is my final word.

Carry on.

Jack

Jack, I have been very impressed with your postings on this thread.

Thank you John. I treat the evidence of JVB as I do all other evidence.

My first question is...IS IT LOGICAL?

It is not logical that the CIA needed a teen girl and a homosexual

airline pilot to devise "cancer weapons", because they have the vast

resources of Fort Detrick nearby. It is not logical that if a section of

the CIA was controlling a false defector who was then diverted to

an assassination plot, that the defector, LHO, would be allowed by

his controllers and surveillance to engage in a second activity, nor

become involved with a teenage girl. Framing a patsy for a planned

murder was serious business; LHO was plainly ordered to New Orleans

to be sheep dipped as a CASTRO SYMPATHIZER to aid his image

as a commie killer. It is logical that this was of paramount importance

to the plotters, and they would not risk it being derailed. It is logical

that the plotters KNEW EVERY MOVE OF THIER PATSY, had him under

surveillance at all times, and knew all of his associates. There is no

record of his association with Mary, Vary and Ferrie in the mice and

monkey business.

Jack

Edited April 26, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Karl Kinaski]

xxx

Edited October 29, 2010 by Karl Kinaski

[Kevin Greenlee]

Mr. Fetzer-

Here you go again. in your last post, you wrote "Judyth...was lured to New Orleans by Alton Ochsner." in previous posts, you listed this as the first of the 17 points you claimed had been proven about judyth and elaborated that it was among the most important and best supported of them. yet you are utterly unable to offer even a shred of evidence for this claim and in fact repeatedly attack me for asking you to do so.

you suggest i have not contributed much to this thread. i do not deny it. i have not devoted thousands of words to empty bluster, i have not bragged endlessly about my academic credentials, i have not personally attacked people who have disagreed with me, i have not tried to intimidate people by posting personal information about their children, i have not gone on and on about things i plainly know little about, i have not sacrificed long term friendships on the altar of a preposterous story, i have not refused to back up things i loudly and repeatedly claimed to be proven, i have not reposted a seemingly infinite series of emails from a woman whose credibility was thoroughly demolished years ago and i have not talked about how much i wanted the thread to end and then begun posting in it again a few hours later.

the fact of the matter is that it is clear to one and all that the reason you attack me for asking for evidence instead of simply providing the that evidence is because you have no evidence to offer. Game over. you lose. take the advice of your friend jack white and move on to something more productive.

[Glenn Viklund]

Mr. Fetzer-

Here you go again. in your last post, you wrote "Judyth...was lured to New Orleans by Alton Ochsner." in previous posts, you listed this as the first of the 17 points you claimed had been proven about judyth and elaborated that it was among the most important and best supported of them. yet you are utterly unable to offer even a shred of evidence for this claim and in fact repeatedly attack me for asking you to do so.

you suggest i have not contributed much to this thread. i do not deny it. i have not devoted thousands of words to empty bluster, i have not bragged endlessly about my academic credentials, i have not personally attacked people who have disagreed with me, i have not tried to intimidate people by posting personal information about their children, i have not gone on and on about things i plainly know little about, i have not sacrificed long term friendships on the altar of a preposterous story, i have not refused to back up things i loudly and repeatedly claimed to be proven, i have not reposted a seemingly infinite series of emails from a woman whose credibility was thoroughly demolished years ago and i have not talked about how much i wanted the thread to end and then begun posting in it again a few hours later.

the fact of the matter is that it is clear to one and all that the reason you attack me for asking for evidence instead of simply providing the that evidence is because you have no evidence to offer. Game over. you lose. take the advice of your friend jack white and move on to something more productive.

Kevin,

Thanks for tonights most outstanding laugh!

Have a nice weekend,

Glenn

[David G. Healy]

Mr. Fetzer-

...

i have not gone on and on about things i plainly know little about,

...

finally, something you've said makes sense..... (so, is whining part of your law practice?)

A newbie has it all figured out? carry on! Dr. Thompson, is this Len Colby replacement? LMAO!

Edited April 23, 2010 by David G. Healy

[Pamela Brown]

Jack,

I like these posts (which does not mean that I agree with them) and I hereby

withdraw my disavowal of our friendship. I think we can survive in spite of

our differences about Judyth Vary. I want to publicly reaffirm our friendship!

Jim

This, I hope, will be my FINAL posting on this subject. Someone or some agency

has designed the JVB affair TO DIVIDE RESEARCHERS. The have succeeded beyond

their expectations.

Let us all concede for a moment EVERY STATEMENT made by JVB is TRUE. What are

we left with which might advance the solution to the JFK case???

1. This teen science student was recruited by the CIA to assist David Ferrie in designing

a means of killing Fidel Castro using cancer cells.

2. This teen girl was introduced into high level anti-Castro Cuban persons in New Orleans,

including Carlos Marcello, Guy Bannister, Clay Shaw, Dr. Oschner and others.

3. This married teen girl was assisted by these anti-Castro persons on a few days notice

to become involved in a romance with a CIA asset who had been steered into employment

at a CIA asset company.

4. What agency recruits high school students to devise cancer infections to be used in

assassination attempts? What agency uses this student, a strange ex-pilot, a famed

doctor and medical researcher who is strangely murdered to devise cancer strains to

be delivered to Cuba to kill Castro?

5. Much later, this teen girl learned that her lover was involved in a plot to kill the president

but instead of reporting this plot, she aids and abets her lover's involvement.

Now where have we heard all of this before? Who or what agency has been heavily

involved in promoting the Cuban connection as the perpetrators of the assassination?

The answer is clear.

I hope this is my final word.

Carry on.

Jack

Jack, I have been very impressed with your postings on this thread.

Thank you John. I treat the evidence of JVB as I do all other evidence.

My first question is...IS IT LOGICAL?

It is not logical that the CIA needed a teen girl and a homosexual

airline pilot to devise "cancer weapons", because they have the vast

resources of Fort Detrick nearby. It is not logical that if a section of

the CIA was controlling a false defector who was then diverted to

an assassination plot, that the defector, LHO, would be allowed by

his controllers and surveillance to engage in a second activity, nor

become involved with a teenage girl. Framing a patsy for a planned

murder was serious business; LHO was plainly ordered to New Orleans

to be sheep dipped as a CASTRO SYMPATHIZER to aid his image

as a commie killer. It is logical that this was of paramount importance

to the plotters, and they would not risk it being derailed. It is logical

that the plotters KNEW EVERY MOVE OF THIER PATSY, had him under

surveillance at all times, and knew all of his associates. There is no

record of his association with Mary, Vary and Ferrie in the mice and

monkey business.

Jack

I did see this coming! Both of you are good men. Disagreement about certain aspects of that coupe de etat should not destroy friendships.

KK

Well said, Karl. Hopefully we can all move forward without hurt feelings and agree-to-disagree wherever necessary.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Let's see. This thread originated in February. You joined the forum on April 9th. You have made a total of 17 posts, most of which have been attempts to run me in circles. You know nothing about the case. You haven't even had time to read the posts on the thread. You don't seem to have read DR. MARY'S MONKEY. You post a lot of meaningless drivel that Josiah appears to have written. You seem to be a hack. If you had any sense of self-respect, you would not allow yourself to be used like a tool. In the Marine Corps we have a saying about people like you: "He wouldn't make a decent pimple on a corporal's butt!" You've taken up more time than you're worth.

Mr. Fetzer-

Here you go again. in your last post, you wrote "Judyth...was lured to New Orleans by Alton Ochsner." in previous posts, you listed this as the first of the 17 points you claimed had been proven about judyth and elaborated that it was among the most important and best supported of them. yet you are utterly unable to offer even a shred of evidence for this claim and in fact repeatedly attack me for asking you to do so.

you suggest i have not contributed much to this thread. i do not deny it. i have not devoted thousands of words to empty bluster, i have not bragged endlessly about my academic credentials, i have not personally attacked people who have disagreed with me, i have not tried to intimidate people by posting personal information about their children, i have not gone on and on about things i plainly know little about, i have not sacrificed long term friendships on the altar of a preposterous story, i have not refused to back up things i loudly and repeatedly claimed to be proven, i have not reposted a seemingly infinite series of emails from a woman whose credibility was thoroughly demolished years ago and i have not talked about how much i wanted the thread to end and then begun posting in it again a few hours later.

the fact of the matter is that it is clear to one and all that the reason you attack me for asking for evidence instead of simply providing the that evidence is because you have no evidence to offer. Game over. you lose. take the advice of your friend jack white and move on to something more productive.

Edited April 23, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

How do you know whether a post is REPEATED or REPETITIVE if you don't read them?

The monkeys were not kept in "the mouse house". They were probably kept at the

Tulane Primate Center in Covington, which, I gather, houses the largest collection of

research primates in the world. Some marmosets, which are thumb-sized primates,

not real monkeys, were housed at the mouse house, as Judyth has explained to me.

I do not know why this reply was posted a second time. I had opened it and was reading

it and when I closed it, it posted somehow. But as long as it reposted, I will add that

I have not said that I do not read Judyth posts. I have said I do not read REPEATED

OR REPETITIVE Judyth posts. Much of what she said is nonsense, and not much is

learned from reading it. But I do learn a few things like the monkeys that were kept in

Ferrie's lab, the linear particle accelerators they used, and that the "actual" lab

was across the street, instead of in Ferrie's apartment as previously claimed.

And IF Haslam's father, Dr. Ed Haslam, worked in the Oschner Clinic, it seems

a lack of full disclosure if Haslam fails to mention it. What IF the JVB follies are

a planned distraction to divert attention AWAY from Oschner's wrongdoings?

Jack

Haslam's MARY, FERRIE AND THE MONKEY VIRUS gives specific details of the death

of Mary Sherman, and shows the sensational stories in a New Orleans newspaper.

I just finished rereading that chapter. If Haslam knows what he was talking about,

then I am just quoting him...so you should say Haslam does not know what he

is talking about. Have you even read MARY, FERRIE AND THE MONKEY VIRUS?

Jack

You continue to make a fool of yourself, Jack! How many times do I have to tell

you that you don't know what you are talking about. This is beyond bewildering.

But Jim...Mary Sherman died at home in her apartment. If the LINEAR ACCELERATOR was located

in the Public Health Hospital, how could it have been responsible for her death?

Have you read the reports of her death?

COMMENT ON JACK'S METHODOLOGY

In post #1474, Jack asserted that he is reading all of the new posts, even

though he has said repeatedly that he is not reading those from Judyth.

In post #1479, I identified the location of the linear particle accelerator:

None of it can be known with certainty, but the basic elements are very strongly supported.

It would be a mistake to suppose that every aspect of her story has to be supported to the

same degree as every other. Among the 17 findings that Haslam enumerates, which I have

reiterated above, the most important and best supported concern Judyth's ability to conduct

reseach on cancer, that she was induced to come to New Orleans by Alton Ochsner, that she

met and worked with Mary Sherman, David Ferrie, and Lee Oswald, that Mary was killed by

a massive source of electricity (almost certainly the linear particle accelerator at the Public

Health Hospital), and that Judyth was summarily dismissed by Ochsner after she complained

about the prisoner who was used in a (fatal) experiment conducted without informed consent.

In post #1495, he asks if the accelerator was located in Ferrie's apartment or lab across the

street. Not to put too fine a point on it but, given this post, how can post #1474 be truthful?

Here is a LINEAR PARTICLE ACCELERATOR. Did David Ferrie have his in his apartment

or his laboratory across the street?

Jack

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

JIM REPLIES TO DOUG WELDON AND TO HIMSELF ABOUT LEE'S "READING LIST"

In a paragraph below in my response to Bernice, I made the following observation about Lee's reading list:

Other aspects of her story may involve embellishments, such as recollecting the details of conversations they

had on various occasions. I certainly agree that the "reading list" Judyth provided appears to be a bit much,

where it reads more like a "wish list" than actual reading by the man who was killed in Dallas. Yet, even here,

Judyth has some support for what she has to tell us in the form of a report by Marina about what Lee read.

Time after time, points she has made that seemed initially implausible have turned out to be true. Lee's list,

no matter how implausible, was substantiated by the FBI and became a formal document in the hearings:

So I think we have one more illustration of the dramatic difference it makes when claims that initially appear

to be implausible nevertheless turn out to be true. Once again, Judyth has been vindicated, where what she

contributed to the previous post was blurbs about the contents of those book. I have known Doug Weldon to

be fair-minded in the past. I would like to have some indication that he is willing to respond to new evidence!

JIM RESPONDS TO BERNICE WITH REGARD TO REASONING ABOUT JUDYTH BAKER

Bernice,

This is a bit long-winded, even "professorial". But then, what would you expect from a

retired professor? In my opinion, Ed Haslam has nailed down the key questions to ask,

discussed at http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/04/ed...ys-monkey.html:

1. Is “this Judyth” the real Judyth Vary Baker from Bradenton, Florida? Or is she

the impostor?

2. Did Judyth know Lee Harvey Oswald in New Orleans in 1963? If she does not have

reasonable proof to support this claim, then there is little point in pondering her story.

3. Was Judyth trained to handle cancer-causing viruses before she went to New Orleans

in 1963? If 1 and 2 above are true, then this point would qualify her as a suspect for “the

technician” that I wrote about in “The Pandemic” chapter.

As he explains, the answers appear to be "Yes", "Yes", and "Yes". And I find it increasingly

difficult to believe that anyone who has studied the evidence could disagree with him on this.

I have remarked that many of Judyth's reports about her life with the man she knew are

highly implausible, which means that they are difficult to believe and, on initial consideration,

appear to be more likely to be false than true. The point I have made is that, when claims

that are initially implausible turn out to be true (or, at least, supported by better arguments

than the alternatives), that has the effect of greatly increasing the credibility of the source.

Monk concedes that this is a human psychological tendency, but expresses hesitation over

whether it is warranted rationally as a matter of logic. The answer, however, is that it is.

The study of the impact of new evidence upon our beliefs (or degrees of belief) is among

the most extensively studied subjects in the philosophy of science and epistemology, where

the predominant approach is known as "Bayesianism" for its appeal to a theorem due to a

mathematician by the name of Thomas Bayes. It interprets probability as a measure of the

strength of our beliefs in relation to the evidence available to us. There are objectivist and

subjectivist interpretations of Bayesianism, but the core of the objectivist interpretation has

it (correctly) that there are definable objective standards relating evidence to hypotheses.

Your beliefs about an hypothesis h1, such as that Judyth Vary Baker knew Lee Oswald in

New Orleans, given the evidence e1 available to you initially, which might be formalized as

P(h1/e1) = r1, is called your prior probability. When you gain new evidence, call it e2, the

difference it makes can be measured by the difference between your prior probability and

your posterior, P(h1/e1 & e2) = r2. The new evidence might increase, decrease, or leave

the value of r2 in relation to r1. When it increases the value of r2 in relation to r1, then it

is called "positively" relevant. If it lowers the value of r2 in relation to r1, then "negatively"

relevant. And if r2 = r1, then the new evidence qualifies as neutral or even as "irrelevant".

Those who are responsive to new evidence would be expected to have their priors affected

by the acquisition of new evidence in ways that correspond to objective standards. Those

who are non-responsible to new evidence have priors that are not affected by new evidence,

which can represent "closed mindedness". Indeed, one method for pursuing truth is to adopt

the method of tenacity, which means that, when you are subjectively satisfied with what you

believe, then you simply disregard any new evidence. That has been the case with many on

this forum, including, as a prime example, Jack White. No matter what Judyth could present,

Jack is not going to change his mind about her. His prior, which is approximately zero, will be

his posterior, even if we had a video of Judyth and Lee talking with Marcello at the 500 Club!

The fact is that we have a witness, Anna Lewis, who has testified that she and her husband,

David, double-dated with Judyth and Lee in New Orleans and made a visit to the 500 Club,

where they actually met Carlos Marcello. There is more than enough evidence to establish

that Judyth was lured to New Orleans by Alton Ochsner, who wanted someone who had the

ability to conduct cancer research but who was not known to the public and could be tossed

aside when her usefulness had expended. She worked with Lee Oswland and David Ferrie

under the supervision of Mary Sherman on the development of a rapid form of cancer that

could be used as a bio-weapon to take out Castro. That did not occur, of course, but there

are reasons to believe it was used to kill Jack Ruby, who, like Lee Oswald, knew too much.

During the course of this thread, Judyth has produced documents and records that show

she was a talented science student who had precocious knowledge of certain aspects of

cancer research. She and Lee were hired on the same date by Riley Coffee Company, a

front that provided cover for their covert activities. She even signed Lee's work records,

even though her role was never explained to the Warren Commission. As Ed Haslam has

documented, Judyth and David and Mary (who referred to themsevles as "Mary, Ferrie,

and Vary") performed extensive studies with mice and monkeys, all of which was under

the ultimate supervision of Alton Ochsner. Mary was killed in what appears to have been

an arranged "accident", which took place as the commission was turning attention to LHO.

In general, for a person to be rational, there should be an approximate correspondence

between their degree of belief (or strength of conviction) and the strength of the evidence

for that belief when objective standards are applied to the available relevant evidence. As

a general indication of this relationship, consider the following schematization that applies:

where persons are rational in relation to their beliefs when there is an appropriate correspond-

ence (which need not be an exact alignment) between their degrees of subjective certitude and

the objective degrees of evidential support. Persons should properly be incredulous about what

cannot possibly be true (such as that 2 + 2 = 5 in pure mathematics, for example, or that rabbits

are not animals in ordinary English) and completely credulous about what cannot possibly be false

(such as that 2 + 2 = 4 in pure mathematics and that bachelors are unmarried in ordinary English).

With respect to measures of truthfulness, therefore, we might employ a truth-quotient index as a

ratio of true statements made to statements made. Persons who are truthful obviously have high

truth-quotient indices, while those who are not have low. In a case where it is suspected that a

person might be a non-truth teller, presumably their truth quotient index will be low. And that is

certainly going to be the case for someone who is presumed to be a fabricator (teller of tall tails).

If such a person's story seems far-fetched initially, then that creates the presumption that they are

not truth-tellers because they have what appears to be a low truth-quotient. But should it turn out

that initially implausible elements of their story are true, the situation reverses itself dramatically.

The basic measure of evidential support is that of likelihoods, where the likelihood of hypothesis

h given evidence e is equal to the probability of evidence e if that hypothesis were true. Judyth

has made many implausible claims about her experiences in New Orleans and her relationship with

Lee. The probability of making false claims when you are "the real deal" is extremely low, which

means that, if most of these claims are FALSE, then the likelihood that she is telling the truth has

to be extremely low. But if it should turn out that, under further investigation, most of those turn

out to be TRUE after all, then the likelihood reverses and becomes very high, since the discovery

that those claims are true, when they were initially implausible, powerfully supports her position.

What has troubled me during the course of this thread is that, time after time, Judyth has produced

support for initially implausible claims. Yet the vast majority of her critics have not budged. They

continue to disbelieve her, long after she has produced supporting evidence. As an illustration, just

follow the posts in which she responds to Jack. He must have lodged at least a dozen criticisms of

Judyth, where, so far as I have been able to discern, none of them has turned out to be true. He

has observed that if Judyth had not claimed to have had a romance with Lee, he might find her the

more believable. But, in spite of the huge range of issues that have been discussed on this forum,

he has never budged. His priors have remained constant and he has studiously avoided her posts.

Doug suggests that Judyth is a damaged witness because of her involvement in research on JFK.

But OF COURSE she is a damaged witness. After deciding to come forward and tell her story, she

has been abused and attacked--often quite viciously!--by those on the McAdams site, where she

initially attempted to present herself, but also on other forums, where she was treated more or less

equally dismissively. She had to conduct research to find out where those who were attacking her

were coming from. In my opinion, she has demonstrated great ability at research, far greater than

most of the members of this forum, including studies of photos, eye-color, linguistics and much more.

Doug is probably right about some of the details of her story, but its core appears to me to be intact.

After having dealt with Judyth extensvely, evaluated the arguments presented on this thread, and

studied DR. MARY'S MONKEY, among other sources (most of which are cited or archived in the blogs

I have done about her at http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com), I agree with this list of basic findings:

- 1. Judyth went to New Orleans in the 1963 at the invitation of Dr. Alton Ochsner.

- 2. Ochsner had known Judyth for several years and had previously arranged for her to be trained

at the famous cancer research center discussed above.

- 3. Ochsner promised Judyth early-admission to Tulane Medical School in return for her services in

Dr. Mary Sherman’s cancer lab at Ochsner Clinic. Ochsner also provided her with cancer research

papers on the state-of-the-art techniques such as cancer-causing viruses.

- 4. Judyth wound up working under Sherman’s direction in the underground medical laboratory in

David Ferrie’s apartment instead of in her cancer lab at the Ochsner clinic.

- 5. Judyth met Lee Oswald at the Post Office in what she thought was a chance encounter. In hind-

sight, she realized that this had to be intentional, since Lee was already working with David Ferrie,

Dr. Mary Sherman and Dr. Alton Ochsner on the bio-weapon at the time. Lee introduced her to “Dr.

David Ferrie” the following day and helped Judyth find an apartment.

- 6. When Judyth went to meet Dr. Ochsner in a room within the bowels of Charity Hospital, Lee

Oswald accompanied her to the appointment and went in first to meet with Dr. Ochsner alone.

- 7. Lee was working with ex-FBI agent Guy Banister as has been reported by many sources. Lee

took Judyth to meet Banister in his office to satisfy her concerns that the bio-weapons project is

really a secret government operation. Banister confirmed that Lee was working with them on a

get-Castro project.[10]

- 8. When Judyth went to Dr. Sherman’s apartment for a private dinner with her, David Ferrie was

the only other guest. Sherman and Ferrie discussed the nature of their project with Judyth. They

deemed the idea of using cancer-causing viruses to kill Castro as morally ethical since is might

prevent World War III. Lee phoned Judyth that same night at Sherman’s apartment. Dr. Mary

Sherman was the operational director of “the project.” Ferrie and Oswald were participants.

- 9. Lee escorted and transported Judyth all over town, including to Dr. Sherman’s apartment where

Judyth dropped off “the product” and related reports forSherman’s review. Lee was “the runner.”

- 10. Judyth and Lee were provided cover-jobs at Reily Coffee Company where they were allowed to

slip out several afternoons a week to work in the underground medical laboratory in David Ferrie’s

apartment.[11]

- 11. Lee Oswald’s connections to the Mafia in New Orleans are much stronger than have ever been

reported publicly.[12] Judyth and Lee ate-for-free at restaurants owned by Carlos Marcello and went

to his headquarters (500 Club and Town & Country Motel).

- 12. Lee’s role in the kill-Castro portion of the project was to transport the bio-weapon into Cuba.

The radio debates and film clips of Oswald’s leafleting were arranged by Ochsner (at Oswald’s request)

to make Oswald appear to be an authentic defector so he could get into Cuba more easily.

- 13. Judyth heard the subject of assassinating JFK was discussed at various times by various people,

including Ferrie, Sherman and Oswald. Part of the logic that was explained to Judyth was that they had

to hurry up and kill Castro with their bio-weapon before Ochsner’s friend ran out of patience and decided

to kill Kennedy instead.

- 14. After testing their bio-weapon on dozens of monkeys, they arranged to test it on a human “volunteer,”

a convict brought from Angola State Penitentiary to the Jackson State Mental Hospital in rural Louisiana for

that purpose. The weapon was successful. The man died in 28 days as a result.

- 15. Judyth wrote a letter to Dr. Ochsner protesting the use of an unwitting human in their bio-weapon test

and delivered it to his secretary.[13] Upon seeing the letter, Ochsner exploded in anger and threatened both

Judyth and Lee. Everything fell apart for Judyth as a result. Ochsner reneged on his offer to place Judyth in

Tulane Medical School. Lee was ordered to Dallas. Judyth went back to Florida with her husband.

- 16. For the next few months, Judyth and Lee stayed in contact by telephone, thanks to access to the Mafia’s

“secret” Miami-to-Las Vegas sports betting lines courtesy of David Ferrie. While the phone company and the

U.S. Government might not have been able to listen to their conversations, the Mafia would have been able to!

- 17. On Wednesday, November 20, 1963, Lee told Judyth that there would be a real attempt to kill President

Kennedy when he visits Dallas on Friday. It is the last time they talked.

Other aspects of her story may involve embellishments, such as recollecting the details of conversations they

had on various occasions. I certainly agree that the "reading list" Judyth provided appears to be a bit much,

where it reads more like a "wish list" than actual reading by the man who was killed in Dallas. Yet, even here,

Judyth has some support for what she has to tell us in the form of a report by Marina about what Lee read.

Given the strength of the evidence that supports the core of Judyth's story, I am hard pressed to compromise

on the basis of friendship. I have done my best to give Judyth a fair shake on this forum. I am convinced she

is genuine, even if others remain in doubt. The most interesting point that Bill makes and you also note is the

original "Judyth Vary Baker" whom Ed Haslam met. This is quite remarkable: there were two "Judyth Bakers".

What this tells me, however, is that Judyth has to be "the real deal" and posed such a threat that the agency

even went to the trouble to create an impostor. That is stunning in and of itself. Ed did not pursue the chance

to talk with her on a second occasion because his girlfriend did not want him to discuss politics, which is a shame.

I can understand the situation he was in. But if Judyth is not "the real deal", then why would it have bothered?

I would not have been so hard on some of my old friends had they displayed more open-mindedness about the

evidence she was presenting and the findings of others, especially Ed Haslam. But it has become increasingly

obvious that none of this new evidence has made any difference to the vast majority. Their posterior probs

are just the same as their initial priors. None of this has affected them. Which denotes a lack of rationality.

If they had said, "Well, you know, I don't know about that reading list, but the core of her story appears to be

true" or, "Well, I really believe in Armstrong, but you have raised some good points about the 'index' blunder,

the mistaken date for founding the Warren Commission, the "lost tooth" at Beauregard Junior High, and that

eye-color study and commentary on some of the photos deserve to be taken seriously." But no one did so.

This has been a draining experience, Bernice. I have lost several friends over this. Perhaps, with time, those

relationships can be repaired. And I know it must have been difficult for you. I know how much you like and

admire Jack and Doug and others involved in this dispute. I cannot abandon the search for truth about JFK on

the ground that it might cost me friends since, as I have explained, then there would be no truth, only friendships.

Jim

What's the deal, Lee? You want to play "amateur philosopher"? I hate to say it again, but when people I like abuse logic, ignore evidence, and make fallacious arguments, again and again and again, there is a point at which I have to question their competence or their integrity. Do you think I LIKE being at odds with some of my oldest and dearest friends? Jack White, David Lifton, and Doug Weldon have been close friends and allies in the past. For some reason, this Judyth thing has affected them in ways that, in my considered opinion, has taken them off the deep end.

For example, given my response to Pat, which of them has actually read DR. MARY'S MONKEY? Well, I am quite sure that Jack has not and that David will not. Doug is a possibility, but, to the best of my knowledge, he has not yet either. IF EVERYONE WOULD READ WHAT ED HASLAM HAS WRITTEN, based upon extremely patient and thorough research, MOST OF THIS CONTROVERSY WOULD SUBSIDE. I have posted a chapter of his from the revised version of MARY, FERRIE, AND THE MONKEY VIRUS, but so far as I can tell, no one here is actually reading it. That's the score.

Of course, I would like to have my friends and truth, too. But when Dean Hagerman, for example, tells me that I am letting Judyth disrupt my relationships with some of my old friends, I am confronted with a dilemma. I KNOW THAT JUDYTH IS THE REAL DEAL. I HAVE STUDIED HER, TALKED WITH HER, READ ABOUT HER, EVALUATED THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST HER, AND I AM CONVINCED. I HAVE NO DOUBT ABOUT IT. So what am I supposed to do? Dean says I should choose Jack (and Lifton and Weldon) and abandon Judyth. That is the conflict that I confront.

I can only do that if I abandon my commitment to truth. If I have to choose between friendships and truth, I have to side with truth. If friendships take precedence over truth, then there is no truth, only friendships. Given who I am, that is not something that I can do. I want to have both. Who does not? But if I am compelled to choose between friends who abuse logic, ignore evidence, and make fallacious arguments, again and again and again, I have no choice but to stand with truth and let friendships go. Forced to choose, my choice is truth.

And let me add one more point. I did not drag them into this. I created a thread to discuss Judyth because I find her story fascinating, not least of all because it transforms our understanding of the assassination, especially with regard to those mysterious days in New Orleans. What may have escaped notice in all of this is that Jack, David, and Doug HAVE BEEN ATTACKING ME. To the best of my knowledge, I have not initiated a single attack upon them. But I will not stand by and allow them to abuse a crucial witness whom I am convinced is telling the truth.

As for friendships, I value them greatly. But if we place friendships ahead of truth, then there is no truth, only friendships. And that is something I am not willing to do.

I don't get this Jim.

Why can't you have both?

I've always found the question of what is "truth" fascinating. Fact is Jim, the truth doesn't need us all to believe in it for it still to be true. Agreed?

If I don't believe that the sun rises each morning and sets each evening it doesn't make the fact that it does any less true does it?

If I believe that sound is faster than light it doesn't make the fact that light is faster than sound any less true does it?

Would you or Jack fall out with me and not treat me with respect because I believed that there is nothing after we die and you both believed in heaven?

If your wife turned around and told you that she didn't believe a word Judyth said, would you divorce her? I think not...

I'm awaiting some sanity to return and some further discussion of the issues if possible.

Regards

Lee

DR.JIM I WOULD LIKE TO TALK AT YOU FOR A FEW MINUTES, I THOUGHT ABOUT THIS FOR AWHILE AND THINK I SHOULD FOR OUR FRIENDSHIPS SAKE,

YOU ARE CORRECT I DO NOT LIKE SOME OF WHAT I HAVE READ WITHIN THIS VERY LONG THREAD AND I HAVE READ EVERY POST, AND NOT JUST BY YOU, BUT BY SOME OTHERS AS WELL, NO USE PICKING STRAWS AS I WILL NOT BE, MY THOUGHTS ARE MY BUSINESS..

LORDY I, HAVE WONDERED AT TIMES IF this thread would make a good subject for study for a thesis.

It is NOT somehow typical that it has been tried to turn this into a critique of John Armstrong''s work. , we have seen this done in other threads, No doubt Armstrong is open to criticism. as your books were and Lifton's still is, and doug weldon's will be, and so on, Who ISN'T? OPEN TO CRITICISM , I THOUGHT IN THIS THREAD The issue here WAS TO BE JUDYTH Baker and the evidence for her claims.i have seen what she has presented as such, but i admit i find it lacking as i did in her first set of books..

IT SEEMS TO ME AT TIMES WITHIN THE RESEARCH THAT WE START OUT OH SO SMART BUT GET OH SO MUCH STUPIDER AS THE THREADS GROW LONGER...

AND THE INTENTIONS AND THE SUBJECT GETS LOST..SOMETIMES THE SHORTER THE BETTER SUFFICES.

ALL WE NEED TO DO IMO IS TO treat PEOPLE with respect. AND treat FELLOW RESEARCHERS as your equals EVEN IF THEY ARE WITHOUT INITIALS AFTER THEIR NAMES AS SOME HAVE AND AS SOME SEEM TO LEAN ON TOO OFTEN,THOUGH ON THE OTHER HAND I AM NOT YOUR NOR MANYS PEER BECAUSE I HAVE NONE AFTER MY NAME BUT THEN YOU AND THEY CANNOT BE MINE EITHER AS YOU HAVE NOR THEY CAN EVER HAVE THE MANY CHILDREN I HAD,AND CHILDREN I RAISED, WE NEED TO STOP cALLING OTHERS names OR BELITTLING THEM,AND MAKING OTHER such IMPLICATIONS SUCH AS DERIDING THEM BECAUSE THEY SIMPLY DO NOT AGREE WITH YOU OR WITH SOMEONE YOU DO, SO WHAT IF SOMEONE DOES NOT, YOU CERTAINLY HAVE NEVER AGREED WITH ALL THAT ANYONE HAS RESEARCHED IN ALL THE YEARS I HAVE KNOWN YOU.AND PEOPLE NEED TO NOT BE CONDESCENDING AND THEY NEED TO TRY AND KEEP A CIVIL TONGUE IN THEIR HEADS...I AM NOT GOING TO ARGUE SPECIFICS OR DOTS WITH YOU,DR.JIM,EVEN IF THAT WAS WHAT YOU WANTED, WHICH I DOUBT,, I AM NOT GOING TO ALLOW YOU NOR ANYONE, PERHAPS TO ENCOURAGE SUCH,SO THAT EVENTUALLY YOU WOULD THROW AWAY ANOTHER FRIEND OR CHASE ANOTHER AWAY FROM YOU...AS FAR AS WHAT HAS OCCURRED WITHIN THS THREAD IT IS DONE, WHAT AMENDS WILL BE TAKEN IN THE FUTURE WILL BE IN THE FUTURE, '......NOW A VERY GOOD TOPIC THAT BILL KELLY MENTIONED, AND I WILL ASK, WHY IS IT AFTER ALL YOU AND JUDYTH HAVE HAD TO SAY ABOUT JACK'S ERRORS OR DOUG'S OR David lifton's opinions being wrong etc, why is it that you have not as far as i recall in this thread ever LEANED ON ED HASLAM,WHY NOT BECAUSE AFTER ALL HE HAS WRITTEN TWO BOOKS, WHICH I HAVE AND READ, HE IS THE AUTHOR RESEARCHER OF SUCH, YET IN ALL THE YEARS THAT IT TOOK HIM TO DO SO, HE NEGLECTED TO DO OR COMPLETE HIS RESEARCH, HE DID NOT FIND AS FAR AS WE KNOW NOR NAME HIS OLD GIRLFRIEND NOR GET HER INFORMATION NOR STATEMENT RECALLING HER INFORMATION PERTAINING TO SAID PARTY, HE DID NOT GO TO THE N/O ARCHIVES WITHIN THE CITY BEFORE KATRINA RUINED ALL,SO I HAVE READ, TO SEARCH FOR THE INFORMATION OF WHOM OWNED OR RENTED THAT APARTTMENT HOUSE AT THE TIME OF THE PARTY, NOR OBTAIN THE COPIES OF DOCUMENTS OF WHOM WERE LIVING THERE,HE ALSO MENTIONED YEARS BACK OF BEING REMINDED OF SUCH BY SEEING THE NAME JUDY BAKER ON AN OFFICE DOOR, BEFORE JUDYTH WAS IN CONTACT WITH HIM, I BLIEVE ALSO WHEN HE WAS ON THE ALTS YEARS BACK IT WAS JUDY BAKER THAT THEN EVENTUALLY CHANGED TO JUDYTH,SO PERHAPS NOW IT SHOULD BE ED'S WORK TO BE CRITIQUED UPON, IN A NEW THREAD AND ASKED SOME DIRECT QUESTIONS OF THE WHY NOTS,ABOUT WHAT IS OR HAS NOT BEEN DONE NOR VERIFIED WITHIN HIS BOOK AND RESEARCH, OUT OF WHICH JUDYTH BAKER AND HER INFormation FIRST WAS INTRODUCED, IF JOHN ARMSTRONG'S WORK, AND MANY OTHER'S SUCH AS YOURSELF, CAN BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR WORK THEN WHY HAS ED HASLAM HAD A FREE PASS,IMO SO FAR, THAT IS WHAT IT APPEARS TO BE...WHERE IS HIS VERIFICATION DOCUMENTATION AND PROOF OF WHAT HE HAS WRITTEN ABOUT HIM MEETING ANOTHER JUDYTH BAKER WHO HELD A PARTY WHO WAS INTERESTED IN LHO AND EVEN THOUGH ED WAS HE REFUSED TO TALK WITH HER...ED NEEDS TO NOW PROVIDE OTHERS HIS PROOF SO THAT RESEARCHERS DO NOT THINK THAT ALL THIS COULD HAVE JUST BEEN PERHAPS ANOTHER CONVENIENT STORY ..WITH BEST REGARDS....B

Edited April 26, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Josiah Thompson]

POSTSCRIPT: SOME REPLIES TO THOSE WHO HAVE CONTINUED TO POST

NOTE: It has come as no surprise to me that Josiah Thompson would seize this opportunity to take a cheap shot when I am attempting to end this thread in the expectation I would not respond. This is derived from the thread, "A shot fired through the front of the windshield", which was initiated by Doug Weldon. True to form, Josiah distorts the evidence obtained by Jim Lewis, who has traveled through the South firing through windshields and has found that the bullets not only create a spiral nebula-like image in the glass (corresponding to that seen in the Altens photo) but also the sound of a firecracker. I published a photo Jim sent me in THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003) on page 436, which is reproduced (but not well) in posts #472 and #473, which, in my opinion, resembles the spiral nebula-like image seen in the Altgens photograph. Contrary to this post, the evidence supports my position, not his...

Josiah, who has no interest in this question but only takes every opportunity to cast aspersions upon me, chimes in with, "Right on target, Kevin. But Fetzer's refusal to come up with any evidence for the claim you asked him about is only the April version of what we saw back in March." As we have already seen, however, Josiah isdistorting the evidence, essentially misquoting out of context. The most that could be said is that, as Jerry Logan observed in post #472, it would be better to have sharper images. I agree with that and, if I can track him down, I will ask Jim if he can provide some. But that is a far cry from claiming that a bullet fired through a windshield produces "obvious shattering of the glass... nothing at all like Fetzer's 'nebula', which is simply false but true to form. Since proof of Judyth's authenticity abounds, I conclude with more from Haslam.

As various posters have pointed out, Professor Fetzer does not argue. He does not present evidence for his positions. He bloviates and fumes.

Kevin Greenlee asked him politely to present some evidence... any evidence... for Fetzer’s claims about Judyth. Fetzer had claimed that “Judyth... was lured to New Orleans by Alton Ochsner.” He said that this was among “the most important and best supported of his claims.” So how does Fetzer respond to a perfectly reasonable request? He rants and rages, insults Greenlee but never comes up with a simple shred of evidence.

This is standard operating procedure for Fetzer. Earlier, he claimed that some guy in Texas had shot windshields and produced a hole that looked just like Fetzer’s “spiral nebula.” He’s still claiming this without any evidence. Take a look.

Here’s the Altgens photo with the undamaged windshield. Can you find what Fetzer is calling a bullet hole... his socalled “spiral nebula?”

Next. Here is the photo that the guy in Texas sent him.

Do you see anything in it that looks like Fetzer’s “spiral nebula?” I don’t. Rather, I see some damage to the windshield that may or may not be a through-and-through hole but looks like all the other bullet holes I’ve ever seen in windshields... a collar of shattered glass around the impact point.

For comparison, here’s a photo of a Honda that I pulled off the internet at random.

Neither the photographer nor me nor anyone else knows whether these are high velocity, medium velocity or low velocity shots. It doesn’t matter. The photos illustrate what I’ve seen numerous times in car shootings... the collar of shattered glass. You can see it present in Fetzer’s Texas photo but not present in the Altgens photo. As usual, the actual evidence shows the opposite of what Fetzer says it shows.

Fetzer simply declares things to be true whether or not he has any evidence for them. Kevin Greenlee and others have his number.

Josiah Thompson

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

JUDYTH RESPONDS TO BARB JUNKKARINEN AND TO GARY MACK

NOTE: This is a nice example of the failure to adhere to the principle of charity, where, within the realm

of the reasonable, you impose interpretations on statements persons make that maximize their truth, not

distort their meaning. Here are some classic examples involving the television coverage of JFK in Dallas.

Appealing to Gary Mack, like appearances by John Simkin, smacks of desperation. If Judyth Vary Baker

really were a flake, why in the world would there be so much time and effort devoted to discrediting her?

JUDYTH REPLIES

A television set perched over our heads showed the news, sports and

weather beginning at noon. I saw the news about JFK arriving in Dallas,

trying to maintain outward calm. All the TV programs were then in black

and white, but I could imagine that the roses Jackie Kennedy was

given probably complemented her dress.

The problem with this is that there was no hour long noon news show in Gainesville according to any of the TV stations, as well as someone I was referred to at the university, I contacted a few years ago. Even if there was even a half hour news show at noon in Gainesville, Florida ... that would only be 11am in Dallas ... and the Kennedy's arrived at 11:40am Dallas time. That would be 12:40pm in Gainesville. Not in time for any 1/2 hour noon news show.

==WHEN I SAID I SAW THE NEWS ABOUT KENNEDY ARRIVING IN DALLAS, IT WAS THE COVERAGE OF HIS ARRIVAL IN DALLAS-FORT WORTH. JACKIE WAS GIVEN FLOWERS AT THAT TIME. THEY HAD THE TV ON FOR THE NEWS, AS I REPORTED, BUT -- UNUSUAL -- THE TV SET WAS KEPT ON. A VOLLEYBALL TOURNAMENT WAS BEING HELD OUTSIDE, AND THE LUNCH HOUR WAS EXTENDED THAT FRIDAY.

PCR CLOSED DOWN ONLY ON THE 4TH OF JULY AND CHRISTMAS. BUT THERE WOULD BE BREAKS. THIS FRIDAY, THE 22ND, THE VOLLEYBALL GAME WAS PLAYING AND THOSE NOT INTERESTED IN THE GAME CAME INTO OUR LAB, WHICH HAD A TV SET MOUNTED ABOVE OUR HEADS.

THEY PULLED UP STOOLS AND WATCHED THE NEWS.

FOR SOME REASON -- PERHAPS BECAUSE THE VOLLEYBALL GAME WAS PLAYING -- BUT I WAS VERY WORRIED ABOUT WHAT COULD HAPPEN IN DALLAS AND VIEWED EVERYTHING WITH SUSPICION. OTHERS REMAINED IN THE LAB AND SOME OF THEM BEGAN DISCUSSING JFK. THEY DISCUSSED HIM WITH HATRED.

THE TV WAS STILL ON AT 1:30, AND THE VOLLEYBALL GAME HAD BEEN GOING ON NEARLY TWO HOURS BY THEN. I WAS WORKING, BUT EVERYBODY WAS STILL TALKING AND WATCHING TV -- VERY LITLE WORK BEING DONE. I WAS SUSPICIOUS AND NEVER FORGOT THAT, BECAUSE IT WAS SO UNUSUAL.

WHEN THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF JFK BEING SHOT WAS MADE, THESE PEOPLE CHEERED AND WHISTLED AND STAYED GLUED TO THE SET, MAKE OF IT WHAT YOU WILL -- A RADIO HAD ALSO BEEN TURNED ON TO NEWS PROGRAMS, SOMEONE HAD BROUGHT IT IN, TOO.

I ALWAYS BELIEVED SOMEBODY THERE KNEW SOMETHING, BUT PERHAPS I WAS SIMPLY OVER-SENSITIVE.

WATCHING THE NEWS OVER AND OVER, THE SCENES OF THE ARRIVAL IN DALLAS WERE IMPRINTED IN MY MEMORY. AS IN EVERYBODY ELSE'S.

THE CONDUCT OF THE SCIENTISTS AND TECHNICIANS THERE, THEIR RESPONSE WHEN HEARING KENNEDY WAS SHOT, WILL REMAIN WITH ME AS A HORRIBLE MEMORY FOREVER.

I have done the best I could to reconstruct that day. At the very least, everybody remembers where they were on that day and what was going on...I was alert, however, much earlier..These people also want me to be arrested for not 'warning' --when Lee had told me he was part of an abort team that was secretly being assembled to try to save JFK.

What would have happened if the killers knew about the abort team? Would the members have also been shot?

I had the choice to tell every detail I could possible recall or 'play it safe' and say what everybody knew. I have always done my very best to provide as many details as I could recall.==

THE GAYLORD FAMILY, OWNERS OF WTVT IN TAMPA EXPANDED AND OBTAINED KTVT IN DALLAS IN 1962.

http://www.big13.net/crawfordrice.htm

THEY HAD THE 11:00 NEWS, 12:00 NEWS, 6:00 NEWS AND 10:00 NEWS.

WESH TV OUT OF ORLANDO COVERED ALMOST ALL OF FLORIDA. Had first hour-long local news in the market starting in September 1963.

WFTV HAD 12:00 AND 6:00 NEWS....

In a message dated 9/7/2006 4:03:57 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, mshack@concentric.net writes:

From the website of the Gainesville TV station, WKMG:

http://www.local6.com/station/71239/detail.html

"In 1961 Channel 6 started the first full-time news department in Central Florida. Its newscasts expanded from 15 minutes to 25 minutes."

**********

"Most of Channel 6's programming came from CBS. However, because there were so few television stations at the time, WDBO also carried programming from ABC, NBC, and Dumont, the original third network. Soap operas have long been a television staple. It was no different then. Fans tuned in to "Search for Tomorrow", "Guiding Light" and "As The World Turns"."

The latter was the program on the air when CBS cut in with its first bulletin about the assassination. The station broadcast news in black and white until 1969.

The station's history doesn't address the question of when they began their noon newscasts, just that they have a half-hour noon news now.

The other possibility, received in the area, was the Tampa station, WTVT. It converted to a half-hour newscast in 1958. Because CBS offered a 15 min. news program, WTVT expanded its news to 45 min. to fill an hour time block.

The interview from which this information came didn't give the date when this happened, but said they dumped a 15 minute Eddie Fisher program. The Eddie Fisher program began in 1957 and was canceled in 1959.

Another article confirms that the hour-long news began in November 1958, called "Pulse."

At noon, there was a half-hour news program called "Pulse Midday." (http://www.big13.net/news/wtvt_news_3.htm)

In September 1963, "Pulse" expanded to 90 minutes. The news was black and white until 1966. (http://www.big13.net/news/wtvt_news_5.htm) It was a CBS affiliate.

Four days earlier it had covered JFK's visit (without Jackie) to Tampa.

"With a 5,000 square mile coverage area, Smith and his news team could always be counted on to be first and best."

So, WTVT in Tampa had at least a half hour noon news program in November 1963.

Overhead: Standard model televisions were sometimes mounted on shelves with sturdy brackets to carry their weight.

As for flowers, the Fort Worth arrival footage on Nov. 21 shows Jackie with flowers, as indicated by this still from a newsreel footage house, Buyout.com

Martin

Barb J. wrote:

A major problem with this is that the Kennedy's arrival at Love Field was only televised live

on Dallas/Ft. Worth TV stations.

As a DFW resident, I believe that this statement is not true. Gary Mack would know. A

live hookup in those days would require a special microwave signal hookup and large

bulky studio cameras, which were few back then. The local stations shot the arrival on FILM,

not live video feed. Ask Gary.

The only LIVE feed that weekend, as I recall, was the abortive LHO jail transfer and shooting.

Jack

Hi Jack,

I checked with Gary ... and yes, the arrival was broadcast live in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area.

Here is Gary's response in full:

Hi Barb,

In response to your question about TV coverage of JFK’s Dallas Love Field arrival, I checked a couple newspapers, but not all of them. From that “refresher” course and information I’ve picked up over the years, here is what I know:

1. WFAA-TV, the ABC affiliate here, did the pool coverage for themselves and any other local TV station that wanted to carry it. Their remote truck can be seen 45 seconds into this home movie recently acquired by The Sixth Floor Museum: http://jfk.org/go/collections/ward-warren-film Atop the truck is one of the two cameras they used and the person describing the events was the late WFAA news director, Bob Walker.

2. The 11-22-63 Dallas Morning News, which was co-owned with WFAA, listed the Kennedy arrival in its TV schedule for the day. Live coverage was to begin at 11:30am.

3. While I cannot prove it from the listings I read, it is my understanding that the other three local commercial stations – KRLD, WBAP and KTVT – decided after the press deadline to show the arrival live.

4. I have a vague memory that one or two other Texas TV stations, perhaps one in Tyler, planned to carry at least one of Kennedy’s speeches that day, though it is highly doubtful an out of town station would also include the Dallas arrival unless there was a speech.

5. WFAA also recorded the Love Field arrival on video tape for later use, as did CBS affiliate KRLD. Those original tapes are preserved at The Sixth Floor Museum. Existence of the KRLD tapes suggests they, too, carried the arrival live.

6. There is no indication in anything I have ever read or learned that any Kennedy appearance in Fort Worth or Dallas was ever shown live or even fed to any of the three networks (ABC, CBS, NBC), so it would be impossible to view those events outside of the Dallas-Fort Worth/North Texas area.

7. There was absolutely no live TV coverage anywhere along the motorcade route. All TV remote trucks are firmly accounted for, and without them there could be no live pictures. WFAA’s truck stayed at Love Field for they planned to show Kennedy’s departure back to Washington. KRLD’s truck was at the Trade Mart for pool coverage of that speech, which all four stations planned to show live. The KTVT truck did the pool coverage of the Fort Worth breakfast speech that morning, with assistance from the WBAP truck. Both vehicles were returning to their Fort Worth studios when the assassination happened.

And just so you know, my 34 years here both in broadcasting and at the Museum have put me in contact with many, many reporters, photographers, engineers and others from all four stations who covered those events. Many are personal friends to this day. Unfortunately, not everything we want to know now was documented at the time.

Gary Mack

P.S. Feel free to pass this along to anyone who wants to know.

So, yes, there was live coverage of the arrival at Love Field in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area .... but no other live coverage along the motorcade route.

This info and the time difference between Dallas and Florida make all 3 versions of Judyth's claims about what she and her co-workers saw on TV that day impossible. I am including those claims, as detailed in my original post, again below ... as well as the link to the Dutch radio interview of Judyth.

Hearing Judyth speak on the Dutch radio program is interesting.

Thanks, Jack .... a good thing to have doub;e checked with Gary, and thanks to Gary too.

From my original post:

Hi Kathy,

After his summer job in the Gulf was over, Judyth and her husband returned to Gainesville, Florida where he was completing his degree. This is when Judyth is purported to have worked as a lab assistant at PenChem. (Fetzer posted some check stubs from PenChem a few days ago.)

The story about the co-workers and what they saw on TV is one of the things that underwent some changes over the years.

1.This from an early draft of her book posted on the net .... in 2006, as I recall:

A television set perched over our heads showed the news. JFK and Jackie had

arrived at Love Field in Dallas. I tried to maintain an outward calm. The

TV programs then were in black and white, but I could imagine that the

roses Jackie Kennedy was [sic] given probably complemented her dress. I

prayed to a God I did not believe in that there would be a bubble top

placed over the limousine. When I saw the President and his wife enter a

vehicle without a bubble top, I felt sick.

A major problem with this is that the Kennedy's arrival at Love Field was only televised live

on Dallas/Ft. Worth TV stations.

2. In her book printed by Trafford, pg 626, it was this:

A television set perched over our heads showed the news, sports and

weather beginning at noon. I saw the news about JFK arriving in Dallas,

trying to maintain outward calm. All the TV programs were then in black

and white, but I could imagine that the roses Jackie Kennedy was

given probably complemented her dress.

The problem with this is that there was no hour long noon news show in Gainesville according to any of the TV stations, as well as someone I was referred to at the university, I contacted a few years ago. Even if there was even a half hour news show at noon in Gainesville, Florida ... that would only be 11am in Dallas ... and the Kennedy's arrived at 11:40am Dallas time. That would be 12:40pm in Gainesville. Not in time for any 1/2 hour noon news show.

3. In 2003,in a Dutch interview originally broadcast in

streaming audio, Judyth said this:

Oh, I knew what was going to happen. I was working at a lab where I had

been placed making special chemicals for our project in Florida and they

all got chairs out to watch the assassination on TV. . . . And I saw it

happen on TV, and we had worked so hard to stop that from happening.

The problems with that are obvious.

The complete interview is here .... narrated in Dutch, but Judyth speaks in English, it's just a few seconds under 14 minutes in length. The quote above is from the beginning of the interview:

Link to Judyth's 2003 Dutch Radio interview:

CLICK HERE

Bests,

Barb :-)

Edited April 25, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Stephen Roy]

I just got Dr. Mary's Monkey. I've just scanned a few chapters briefly. I'll read it over the weekend and have some comments on Monday.

[Dixie Dea]

Jim....Numerous times, you have mentioned something that I have been unclear about and unsure where you obtained the info. ...whether your own thoughts, from Judyth or from Armstrong's book. You do seem to be indicating that you have a problem accepting it and if you did read it in Armstrongs book and believe it to be an error, then I do have to agree with you, in this instance. It has been sometime since I read Armstrongs book, so I do not recall if this was an error in his book. But, since you have been freshly reading it, I am thinking this is where you obtained the info...although I cant imagine him making such an error....since it just doesn't fit. Although, I haven t read very many books that didnt have at least one error. I also feel that a book such as this, it could be quite easy to get mixed up and make an error.

However, when you say that Lillian Murret was Harveys aunt (rather then Lees aunt) ...that cant be true. Lillian was Margueretes sister Their maiden names were both Claverie. This is the Marguerete that was m'arried to Robert E. Lee Oswald, John Pic and Edwin Ekdahl. and her son was Lee. So Lillian, is the one in regard to the dentist story and it was about Lee (not Harvey). I have no idea if Lillian knew about Harvey or not though. The Marguerete that we are all most familiar with, was Harveys mother or someone acting in that capacity). Harvey is the one from NY who may have came from Hungary and according to Armstrong's book. No relation to Lillian Murret or that Marguerete. So...I am confused as to what you have been saying about this.

I have mentioned this several times in the past and you will probably call me idiotic, and most don't buy it either....but for a very long time, I have had the thoughts that LHO might be a twin. Why would his birth certificate still be hidden? I have other reasons, but am unable to get to my notes just now. However, Armstrong said in his book that there was no indication that he was a twin...it is still in my own thoughts though.

Dixie.