Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

APPARENTLY THINGS HAVE GOTTEN SO FAR OUT OF HAND THAT TINK THOMPSON HAS TO INTERVENE

This is unbelievably childish, but then, that's Josiah Thompson. I explained in the rather long thread that Doug

Weldon had initiated that there are multiple lines of proof that there was a through-and-through bullet hole in

the Lincoln windshield, which is actually visible in the Altgens. These included (i) that JFK had an entry wound

to his throat, (ii) that he had small shrapnel wounds to his face, (iii) that the sound of a firecracker accompanied

the early (many thought, the first) shot, (iv) that witnesses at Parkland Hospital observed the hole, including

a motorcycle officer who put a pencil through it, (v) that a reporter on the scene, Richard Dudman, wrote about

it in an article published in the St. Louis Post Dispatch, (vi) that others witnesses observed it in Washington, DC,

(vii) that it was taken back to Ford and reconstructed on Monday, 25 November 1963, where the official who was

in charge confirmed that the windshield they replaced had a through-and-through hole in it, where (viii) Weldon

has studied the trajectory, where the alignment from the above-ground sewer opening on the south end of TUP

provided an ideal location for making precisely such a shot. In that thread, I provided documentation for these

observations, citing the Parkland Press Conference, the Dudman article, and more in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE.

What you have to understand is that Josiah Thompson has an impermeable mind-set. No one's commitment to

the method of tenacity can compare. He will dispute every point I have made, down to the absurd claim that

the throat wound was actually an exit wound caused by a fragment of bone. This, even though we know--and I

have diagrams to support it--that it was a small, clean, round wound, which had the characteristics of a wound

of entry, and Malcolm Perry, M.D., who knew this wound "up close and personal", reported THREE TIMES during

the press conference that began at 2:16 PM that this was a "wound of entry", "the bullet was coming at him" and

the like. If this guy, who makes his living as a PI, knows no more than he displays here--where a bone fragment

would have caused a tearing, irregular wound with edges flaying outward--then he is completely incompetent. So

unless he is completely incompetent, he is peddling trash in an evident effort to confuse and confound the public.

When I pointed out that a student named Jim Lewis had been traveling around the South and firing high-velocity

bullets into wrecked cars to determine if he could hit dummies in the back seat and had discovered (a) that they

create the image of a spiral nebula in the windshields and ( that they make the sound of a firecracker passing

through, he has tried to dispute it, first, by showing photographs of windshields that were obviously NOT caused

by high-velocity bullets and, second, by featuring a close-up of the damage that may have been subtly altered.

All of this can be found in the thread, "A shot fired through the front of the windshield", which was initiated by

Doug Weldon. I had hoped that he might step up to the plate and correct the false impressions that Josiah has

been conveying, but he has chosen not to do that. I agree with the point Jerry Logan made in post #472 as a

response to mine (which I believe were) posts #469 and #470, namely, that it would be good to have sharper

images. But the point I make is that, from the side, it looks very much like the damage in the Altgens. And I

should also observe that Jim Lewis told me that the bullet holes looked like spiral nebulae. The fact that in this

very threat Josiah offers photos of windshields that WERE NOT HIT BY HIGH VELOCITY BULLETS illustrates the

fact that he will do ANYTHING to create a negative impression of me. He distorts my work whenever he can,

including publishing hatchet-job reviews of books of mine that he has never read. Remarkably, to support the

authenticity of the film, he has to accept the blow-out to the right-front that it shows, which is contradicted by

his endorsement of exactly one chapter in MURDER by Gary Aguilar, which proves the opposite. He is even in

the process of systematically discrediting his own work, SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS, apparently for the purpose

of setting himself up to deny the existence of any conspiracy to kill JFK for the fiftieth observance. Thus, for

example, he has disavowed the double-hit between frames 311 and 313, which was easily its most scientific

and objective contribution. If there has ever been a more despicable student of JFK, I cannot imaging who

that would be. Posner stands tall compared with this guy, because he does not pretend to be what he is not.

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

Edited April 25, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

JIM RESPONDS TO DIXIE DEA ABOUT "LEE"'S LOST TOOTH

From John Armstrong, HARVEY & LEE (2003), pages 91-92 and page 532:

Here is what I posted about these pages, Dixie, and addressed to Jack:

Since it was LEE who had the tooth knocked out, not HARVEY, as Jack makes very clear, why was HARVEY'S AUNT LILLIAN PAYING FOR LEE'S DENTAL BILL? And if she knew that "MARGUERITE" had taken him to the dentist, DID LILLIAN ALSO KNOW LEE'S MOTHER "MARGUERITE", TOO? If there is an answer to this question, I want to know. I want to get this straight.

Not only do we have EDWARD VOELBEL knowing both HARVEY and LEE, who were enrolled at the same junior high school consecutive semesters (but not at the same time), but LEE has a tooth knocked out, of which LILLIAN, who is HARVEY'S AUNT, is aware, even knowing that "MARGUERITE", LEE'S MOTHER, had taken LEE to the dentist, for which LILLIAN PAID?

Are you telling me that LILLIAN was not only HARVEY'S AUNT but also LEE'S AUNT? And that LILLIAN knew not only HARVEY'S MOTHER, who was named "MARGUERITE", but also LEE'S MOTHER, who was also named "MARGUERITE"? As Judyth has asked above, are you and Armstrong telling us that the entire MURRET FAMILY knew both HARVEY and LEE?

Jack replied by saying that Lillian and Dutz must have known them both.

I find that just the least bit incredible, but Jack has also suggested that

Robert, Marina, and Marguerite ALSO knew there were "two Oswalds",

even though none of them ever uttered a peep about it. That's why in

post #1561 about "logic" I suggest that HARVEY & LEE strains credulity.

By the way, Jack has demonstrated that Lee and his brother Robert were

so similar in their appearance as to be "dead ringers" for one another. It

has therefore crossed my mind that Robert has to be a prime candidate to

have impersonated his brother. There you have "two Oswalds", "Lee" and

"Robert", whose lives are less convoluted than those of "Harvey" and "Lee".

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.

Edited April 25, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Glenn Viklund]

In between his ramblings, rantings and insults to most everyone in this thread, Fetzer is repeating this question:

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

Mr Fetzer, are you pretending to not understand that? Coming from a professor, this is a bizarre question, no matter how many times you repeat it.

But let me try to answer it for you.

The reason is that a fake has nothing to do with the JFK assassination. It is perfectly understandable that so many people are protesting this womans totally unwarranted, false and utterly unsubstanciated claims of having anything to do with the JFK assassination. In fact, based on previous actions, this womans credibility is very close to zero. Therefore, nothing she says, nothing she does, nothing she claims, can be accepted without solid evidence. Nothing whatsoever. That's the position she's put herself in, after being caught lying on hundreds of occasions during the past decade.

Without having asked anyone else, it is an entirely reasonable assumption that this is the only reason for any interest in what you are promoting here, of you, or of this woman herself.

You have been rambling on for weeks about evidence. Kevin Greenlee asks you to provide those on only one of your points, of your so called evidence.

You fail to provide anything viable. You fail miserably. Your are doing exactly what Ms Baker has been doing over the past decade. Lots of claims, with nothing to back them up. Instead you provide Kevin with your standard rants. Useless BS that insults Kevin and everyone else here.

Mr Fetzer, your performance is way below par, way below.

Edited April 23, 2010 by Glenn Viklund

[Kevin Greenlee]

mr fetzer-

it is, of course, quite clear to one and all that you launch personal attacks upon me in a hilariously transparent (and rather ineffectual) attempt to distract attention from your complete inability to offer any evidence to back up the drivel you've been peddling in this thread for the last few months. with that in mind, i would like to make a quick comment or two or your recent interesting post to me.

you write: "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."

apparently you seem to believe that- much like athena- i sprung fully formed from my father's brow on april 9 of this year and that i celebrated that happy occasion by immediately joining this forum. i now inform you that that is not the case. even before mr. simkin graciously admitted me here, i was a sentient human being fully capable of writing, reading and even thinking about whatever struck my fancy. i have lurked here and on other jfk sites for a while, am fully familiar with ms. baker's ridiculous story and have read each and every post in this thread.

you write: "You post a lot of meaningless drivel that Josiah appears to have written."

this is a fine example of your well established tendency to casually toss about claims and accusations about which you do not have even the merest shred of supporting evidence. if you have any reason to believe that i am secretly josiah thompson please provide it. but, of course, you have no evidence. you never do.

once again, sir, i suggest that you take the advice of your friends and move on from this fight which you have so badly lost.

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.

[Kevin Greenlee]

i don't think i've mentioned it, glenn, but i really enjoy your posts. i also respect the research you did on judyth's immigration issue.

In between his ramblings, rantings and insults to most everyone in this thread, Fetzer is repeating this question:

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

Mr Fetzer, are you pretending to not understand that? Coming from a professor, this is a bizarre question, no matter how many times you repeat it.

But let me try to answer it for you.

The reason is that a fake has nothing to do with the JFK assassination. It is perfectly understandable that so many people are protesting this womans totally unwarranted, false and utterly unsubstanciated claims of having anything to do with the JFK assassination. In fact, based on previous actions, this womans credibility is very close to zero. Therefore, nothing she says, nothing she does, nothing she claims, can be accepted without solid evidence. Nothing whatsoever. That's the position she's put herself in, after being caught lying on hundreds of occasions during the past decade.

Without having asked anyone else, it is an entirely reasonable assumption that this is the only reason for any interest in what you are promoting here, of you, or of this woman herself.

You have been rambling on for weeks about evidence. Kevin Greenlee asks you to provide those on only one of your points, of your so called evidence.

You fail to provide anything viable. You fail miserably. Your are doing exactly what Ms Baker has been doing over the past decade. Lots of claims, with nothing to back them up. Instead you provide Kevin with your standard rants. Useless BS that insults Kevin and everyone else here.

Mr Fetzer, your performance is way below par, way below.

[Dean Hartwell]

In between his ramblings, rantings and insults to most everyone in this thread, Fetzer is repeating this question:

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

Mr Fetzer, are you pretending to not understand that? Coming from a professor, this is a bizarre question, no matter how many times you repeat it.

But let me try to answer it for you.

The reason is that a fake has nothing to do with the JFK assassination. It is perfectly understandable that so many people are protesting this womans totally unwarranted, false and utterly unsubstanciated claims of having anything to do with the JFK assassination. In fact, based on previous actions, this womans credibility is very close to zero. Therefore, nothing she says, nothing she does, nothing she claims, can be accepted without solid evidence. Nothing whatsoever. That's the position she's put herself in, after being caught lying on hundreds of occasions during the past decade.

Without having asked anyone else, it is an entirely reasonable assumption that this is the only reason for any interest in what you are promoting here, of you, or of this woman herself.

You have been rambling on for weeks about evidence. Kevin Greenlee asks you to provide those on only one of your points, of your so called evidence.

You fail to provide anything viable. You fail miserably. Your are doing exactly what Ms Baker has been doing over the past decade. Lots of claims, with nothing to back them up. Instead you provide Kevin with your standard rants. Useless BS that insults Kevin and everyone else here.

Mr Fetzer, your performance is way below par, way below.

Glenn,

Here is what I believe has happened on this thread:

Jim started this thread to discuss Judyth and her story as his topic.

He stated his hypothesis that Judyth's story is true.

He provided as evidence a number of sources, including Dr. Mary's Monkey, photographs and records regarding Judyth, interviews with Judyth, etc.

Others have responded, sometimes to these sources and sometimes with other information.

Jim has asked the critics to read these sources before making a judgment.

Some have done so, some have not.

It is reasonable for him to be frustrated with those who choose not to read the information that he bases his hypothesis on.

It is reasonable for him to be frustrated with those who go off the subject.

It should also be pointed out that he took the time to read Harvey and Lee to better understand some of the critics.

If you believe you have done the "homework" called for in order to judge Judyth's story, great!

If you don't think Jim has provided enough information for you after all these posts, or the right information, I may disagree, but I will simply leave it at that.

Dean

[Glenn Viklund]

i don't think i've mentioned it, glenn, but i really enjoy your posts. i also respect the research you did on judyth's immigration issue.

In between his ramblings, rantings and insults to most everyone in this thread, Fetzer is repeating this question:

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

Mr Fetzer, are you pretending to not understand that? Coming from a professor, this is a bizarre question, no matter how many times you repeat it.

But let me try to answer it for you.

The reason is that a fake has nothing to do with the JFK assassination. It is perfectly understandable that so many people are protesting this womans totally unwarranted, false and utterly unsubstanciated claims of having anything to do with the JFK assassination. In fact, based on previous actions, this womans credibility is very close to zero. Therefore, nothing she says, nothing she does, nothing she claims, can be accepted without solid evidence. Nothing whatsoever. That's the position she's put herself in, after being caught lying on hundreds of occasions during the past decade.

Without having asked anyone else, it is an entirely reasonable assumption that this is the only reason for any interest in what you are promoting here, of you, or of this woman herself.

You have been rambling on for weeks about evidence. Kevin Greenlee asks you to provide those on only one of your points, of your so called evidence.

You fail to provide anything viable. You fail miserably. Your are doing exactly what Ms Baker has been doing over the past decade. Lots of claims, with nothing to back them up. Instead you provide Kevin with your standard rants. Useless BS that insults Kevin and everyone else here.

Mr Fetzer, your performance is way below par, way below.

Thanks, Kevin.

I can assure you the pleasure is mutual. You are spot on, again and again.

Glenn

Edited April 24, 2010 by Glenn Viklund

[Jack White]

Jim...MARMOSET monkeys are not THUMBSIZED. Here is a photo of a BABY one next to a soft drink

can. Note the price....$2000 for one. I think that is a little expensive for research purposes.

Jack

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.

[Jack White]

I think Jim will admit again THAT HE HAS NOT YET READ HARVEY AND LEE. It is a massive book.

Jack

In between his ramblings, rantings and insults to most everyone in this thread, Fetzer is repeating this question:

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

Mr Fetzer, are you pretending to not understand that? Coming from a professor, this is a bizarre question, no matter how many times you repeat it.

But let me try to answer it for you.

The reason is that a fake has nothing to do with the JFK assassination. It is perfectly understandable that so many people are protesting this womans totally unwarranted, false and utterly unsubstanciated claims of having anything to do with the JFK assassination. In fact, based on previous actions, this womans credibility is very close to zero. Therefore, nothing she says, nothing she does, nothing she claims, can be accepted without solid evidence. Nothing whatsoever. That's the position she's put herself in, after being caught lying on hundreds of occasions during the past decade.

Without having asked anyone else, it is an entirely reasonable assumption that this is the only reason for any interest in what you are promoting here, of you, or of this woman herself.

You have been rambling on for weeks about evidence. Kevin Greenlee asks you to provide those on only one of your points, of your so called evidence.

You fail to provide anything viable. You fail miserably. Your are doing exactly what Ms Baker has been doing over the past decade. Lots of claims, with nothing to back them up. Instead you provide Kevin with your standard rants. Useless BS that insults Kevin and everyone else here.

Mr Fetzer, your performance is way below par, way below.

Glenn,

Here is what I believe has happened on this thread:

Jim started this thread to discuss Judyth and her story as his topic.

He stated his hypothesis that Judyth's story is true.

He provided as evidence a number of sources, including Dr. Mary's Monkey, photographs and records regarding Judyth, interviews with Judyth, etc.

Others have responded, sometimes to these sources and sometimes with other information.

Jim has asked the critics to read these sources before making a judgment.

Some have done so, some have not.

It is reasonable for him to be frustrated with those who choose not to read the information that he bases his hypothesis on.

It is reasonable for him to be frustrated with those who go off the subject.

It should also be pointed out that he took the time to read Harvey and Lee to better understand some of the critics.

If you believe you have done the "homework" called for in order to judge Judyth's story, great!

If you don't think Jim has provided enough information for you after all these posts, or the right information, I may disagree, but I will simply leave it at that.

Dean

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Good one, Jack. I will check with Judyth. Try these for size. I think she is right:

"The common marmoset (Callithrix jacchus) is a small, nonendangered New World primate that is native to Brazil and has been used extensively in biomedical research. Historically the common marmoset has been used in neuroscience, reproductive biology, infectious disease, and behavioral research. Recently, the species has been used increasingly in drug development and safety assessment. Advantages relate to size, cost, husbandry, and biosafety issues as well as unique physiologic differences that may be used in model development. Availability and ease of breeding in captivity suggest that they may represent an alternative species to more traditional nonhuman primates. The marmoset models commonly used in biomedical research are presented, with emphasis on those that may provide an alternative to traditional nonhuman primate species."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14524414

Jim...MARMOSET monkeys are not THUMBSIZED. Here is a photo of a BABY one next to a soft drink

can. Note the price....$2000 for one. I think that is a little expensive for research purposes.

Jack

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.

Edited April 26, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Jack is right. I have just begun poking around, but I have not been very impressed with what I have

found so far, as my response to Dixie Dea reflects. My comparison to Bugliosi's book, by the way, was

only to make the point that JUST BECAUSE A BOOK IS MASSIVE DOES NOT MEAN IT IS CREDIBLE. I

did not mean to imply any comparison between Vince's motivation and John's. That was all I meant.

I think Jim will admit again THAT HE HAS NOT YET READ HARVEY AND LEE. It is a massive book.

Jack

In between his ramblings, rantings and insults to most everyone in this thread, Fetzer is repeating this question:

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

Mr Fetzer, are you pretending to not understand that? Coming from a professor, this is a bizarre question, no matter how many times you repeat it.

But let me try to answer it for you.

The reason is that a fake has nothing to do with the JFK assassination. It is perfectly understandable that so many people are protesting this womans totally unwarranted, false and utterly unsubstanciated claims of having anything to do with the JFK assassination. In fact, based on previous actions, this womans credibility is very close to zero. Therefore, nothing she says, nothing she does, nothing she claims, can be accepted without solid evidence. Nothing whatsoever. That's the position she's put herself in, after being caught lying on hundreds of occasions during the past decade.

Without having asked anyone else, it is an entirely reasonable assumption that this is the only reason for any interest in what you are promoting here, of you, or of this woman herself.

You have been rambling on for weeks about evidence. Kevin Greenlee asks you to provide those on only one of your points, of your so called evidence.

You fail to provide anything viable. You fail miserably. Your are doing exactly what Ms Baker has been doing over the past decade. Lots of claims, with nothing to back them up. Instead you provide Kevin with your standard rants. Useless BS that insults Kevin and everyone else here.

Mr Fetzer, your performance is way below par, way below.

Glenn,

Here is what I believe has happened on this thread:

Jim started this thread to discuss Judyth and her story as his topic.

He stated his hypothesis that Judyth's story is true.

He provided as evidence a number of sources, including Dr. Mary's Monkey, photographs and records regarding Judyth, interviews with Judyth, etc.

Others have responded, sometimes to these sources and sometimes with other information.

Jim has asked the critics to read these sources before making a judgment.

Some have done so, some have not.

It is reasonable for him to be frustrated with those who choose not to read the information that he bases his hypothesis on.

It is reasonable for him to be frustrated with those who go off the subject.

It should also be pointed out that he took the time to read Harvey and Lee to better understand some of the critics.

If you believe you have done the "homework" called for in order to judge Judyth's story, great!

If you don't think Jim has provided enough information for you after all these posts, or the right information, I may disagree, but I will simply leave it at that.

Dean

[Glenn Viklund]

In between his ramblings, rantings and insults to most everyone in this thread, Fetzer is repeating this question:

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

Mr Fetzer, are you pretending to not understand that? Coming from a professor, this is a bizarre question, no matter how many times you repeat it.

But let me try to answer it for you.

The reason is that a fake has nothing to do with the JFK assassination. It is perfectly understandable that so many people are protesting this womans totally unwarranted, false and utterly unsubstanciated claims of having anything to do with the JFK assassination. In fact, based on previous actions, this womans credibility is very close to zero. Therefore, nothing she says, nothing she does, nothing she claims, can be accepted without solid evidence. Nothing whatsoever. That's the position she's put herself in, after being caught lying on hundreds of occasions during the past decade.

Without having asked anyone else, it is an entirely reasonable assumption that this is the only reason for any interest in what you are promoting here, of you, or of this woman herself.

You have been rambling on for weeks about evidence. Kevin Greenlee asks you to provide those on only one of your points, of your so called evidence.

You fail to provide anything viable. You fail miserably. Your are doing exactly what Ms Baker has been doing over the past decade. Lots of claims, with nothing to back them up. Instead you provide Kevin with your standard rants. Useless BS that insults Kevin and everyone else here.

Mr Fetzer, your performance is way below par, way below.

Glenn,

Here is what I believe has happened on this thread:

Jim started this thread to discuss Judyth and her story as his topic.

He stated his hypothesis that Judyth's story is true.

He provided as evidence a number of sources, including Dr. Mary's Monkey, photographs and records regarding Judyth, interviews with Judyth, etc.

Others have responded, sometimes to these sources and sometimes with other information.

Jim has asked the critics to read these sources before making a judgment.

Some have done so, some have not.

It is reasonable for him to be frustrated with those who choose not to read the information that he bases his hypothesis on.

It is reasonable for him to be frustrated with those who go off the subject.

It should also be pointed out that he took the time to read Harvey and Lee to better understand some of the critics.

If you believe you have done the "homework" called for in order to judge Judyth's story, great!

If you don't think Jim has provided enough information for you after all these posts, or the right information, I may disagree, but I will simply leave it at that.

Dean

Dean,

I respectfully disagree to your basic assumptions, on top of your list. Mr Fetzer gave the impression he was open minded. But it did not take many postings before it became clear that this was not the case. Early on, I provided the facts around her asylum issue. What did Mr Fetzer do? A few hours after I was registred, I was declared "a highly dubious source". That's not how people (re)act when looking for an open minded discussion, for answers. That is how they behave when they are paranoid.

Furthermore, I asked him then - to which I have still to receive an answer: If it turns out JVB has been lying about the asylum issue, would you then agree this have implications on her credibility? Not only has he never agreed about the lying - he has yet to answer whether it affects her credibility.

Dean, it's not reasonable by Fetzer to disregard stuff like this. Especially when he, as is the case here, is promoting her story as true - the real deal. He constantly disregards anything that is not in favor of JVB and sucks up to anyone positive. So whether coming from me, from Barb, from Jack, from Kevin or anyone else on the long list of critical people, we are all constantly and rudely dismissed.

As if this was not enough, instead of recognizing the warranted questions, he goes on to claim that "this" and "that" is now proven. Just like that.

I agree with you on the frustration part though. It is very understandable that Mr Fetzer is frustrated when such a huge number of people are disagreeing to his conclusions, even among his friends. Of course that's frustrating. And of course this frustration derives from the fact that he, or she for that matter, cannot properly respond to questions asked. I would be frustrated too. But unlike Fetzer, I'd take a long, hard look at my position. That's not for Mr Fetzer, however. He chooses the easy way, the ramblings, the rants and the insults, instead. Barb has again and again provided facts to no avail. Mr Fetzer's response is the same, he's treating her as all the rest of us.

And for some incomprehensible reason, he assumed he could get away with it, for free. Which was another disastrous judgment on his part, as this thread has shown.

So Dean, thanks for your very polite tone, but as you can see, I strongly disagree to most of your assumptions.

Nevertheless, I wish you to have a nice weekend!

Glenn

Edited April 23, 2010 by Glenn Viklund

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

It didn't take me long to size you up, Glenn. And precisely to whom am I supposed to be "sucking up"?

David Lifton? Doug Weldon? Jack White? Josiah Thompson? John Simkin? You are out of your league.

In between his ramblings, rantings and insults to most everyone in this thread, Fetzer is repeating this question:

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

Mr Fetzer, are you pretending to not understand that? Coming from a professor, this is a bizarre question, no matter how many times you repeat it.

But let me try to answer it for you.

The reason is that a fake has nothing to do with the JFK assassination. It is perfectly understandable that so many people are protesting this womans totally unwarranted, false and utterly unsubstanciated claims of having anything to do with the JFK assassination. In fact, based on previous actions, this womans credibility is very close to zero. Therefore, nothing she says, nothing she does, nothing she claims, can be accepted without solid evidence. Nothing whatsoever. That's the position she's put herself in, after being caught lying on hundreds of occasions during the past decade.

Without having asked anyone else, it is an entirely reasonable assumption that this is the only reason for any interest in what you are promoting here, of you, or of this woman herself.

You have been rambling on for weeks about evidence. Kevin Greenlee asks you to provide those on only one of your points, of your so called evidence.

You fail to provide anything viable. You fail miserably. Your are doing exactly what Ms Baker has been doing over the past decade. Lots of claims, with nothing to back them up. Instead you provide Kevin with your standard rants. Useless BS that insults Kevin and everyone else here.

Mr Fetzer, your performance is way below par, way below.

Glenn,

Here is what I believe has happened on this thread:

Jim started this thread to discuss Judyth and her story as his topic.

He stated his hypothesis that Judyth's story is true.

He provided as evidence a number of sources, including Dr. Mary's Monkey, photographs and records regarding Judyth, interviews with Judyth, etc.

Others have responded, sometimes to these sources and sometimes with other information.

Jim has asked the critics to read these sources before making a judgment.

Some have done so, some have not.

It is reasonable for him to be frustrated with those who choose not to read the information that he bases his hypothesis on.

It is reasonable for him to be frustrated with those who go off the subject.

It should also be pointed out that he took the time to read Harvey and Lee to better understand some of the critics.

If you believe you have done the "homework" called for in order to judge Judyth's story, great!

If you don't think Jim has provided enough information for you after all these posts, or the right information, I may disagree, but I will simply leave it at that.

Dean

Dean,

I respectfully disagree to your basic assumptions, on top of your list. Mr Fetzer gave the impression he was open minded. But it did not take many postings before it became clear that this was not the case. Early on, I provided the facts around her asylum issue. What did Mr Fetzer do? A few hours after I was registred, I was declared "a highly dubious source". That's not how people (re)act when looking for an open minded discussion, for answers. That is how they behave when they are paranoid.

Furthermore, I asked him then - to which I have still to receive an answer: If it turns out JVB has been lying about the asylum issue, would you then agree this have implications on her credibility? Not only has he never agreed about the lying - he has yet to answer whether it affects her credibility.

Dean, it's not reasonable by Fetzer to disregard stuff like this. Especially when he, as is the case here, is promoting her story as true - the real deal. He constantly disregards anything that is not in favor of JVB and sucks up to anyone positive. So whether coming from me, from Barb, from Jack, from Kevin or anyone else on the long list of critical people, we are all constantly and rudely dismissed.

As if this was not enough, instead of recognizing the warranted questions, he goes on to claim that "this" and "that" is now proven. Just like that.

I agree with you on the frustration part though. It is very understandable that Mr Fetzer is frustrated when such a huge number of people are disagreeing to his conclusions, even among his friends. Of course that's frustrating. And of course this frustration derives from the fact that he, or she for that matter, cannot properly respond to questions asked. I would be frustrated too. But unlike Fetzer, I'd take a long, hard look at my position. That's not for Mr Fetzer, however. He chooses the easy way, the ramblings, the rants and the insults, instead. Barb has again and again provided facts to no avail. Mr Fetzer's response is the same, he's treating her as all the rest of us.

And for some incomprehensible reason, he assumed he could get away with it, for free. Which was another disastrous judgment on his part, as this thread has shown.

So Dean, thanks for your very polite tone, but as you can see, I strongly disagree to most of your assumptions.

Nevertheless, I wish you to have a nice weekend!

Glenn

Edited April 23, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Greg Burnham]

For what it's worth, HEMMING believed her. And HEMMING was a hard case--a difficult man to convince of anything. He was probably tougher than most skeptics could ever be. He wouldn't have asked me to give her the time of day otherwise.

Hemming did know a lot but as one CIA insider told me, he was paid by the word. Hemming was one member of the Forum who was a disinformation agent.

John,

In all due respect, I wonder if you ever dared to call him a disinfo agent while he still was alive? I have literally hundreds of thousands of HEMMING's words--and they didn't cost me a dime. If you had been aware of his meager means you most likely wouldn't have said this. If I described his former living condition as "sub-modest" it would still be a drastic overstatement. HEMMING may have been a lot of things, but he wasn't a snitch and he wasn't for sale. For sure...

Edited April 23, 2010 by Greg Burnham

[Glenn Viklund]

It didn't take me long to size you up, Glenn. And precisely to whom am I supposed to be "sucking up"?

David Lifton? Doug Weldon? Jack White? Josiah Thompson? John Simkin? You are out of your league.

In between his ramblings, rantings and insults to most everyone in this thread, Fetzer is repeating this question:

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

Mr Fetzer, are you pretending to not understand that? Coming from a professor, this is a bizarre question, no matter how many times you repeat it.

But let me try to answer it for you.

The reason is that a fake has nothing to do with the JFK assassination. It is perfectly understandable that so many people are protesting this womans totally unwarranted, false and utterly unsubstanciated claims of having anything to do with the JFK assassination. In fact, based on previous actions, this womans credibility is very close to zero. Therefore, nothing she says, nothing she does, nothing she claims, can be accepted without solid evidence. Nothing whatsoever. That's the position she's put herself in, after being caught lying on hundreds of occasions during the past decade.

Without having asked anyone else, it is an entirely reasonable assumption that this is the only reason for any interest in what you are promoting here, of you, or of this woman herself.

You have been rambling on for weeks about evidence. Kevin Greenlee asks you to provide those on only one of your points, of your so called evidence.

You fail to provide anything viable. You fail miserably. Your are doing exactly what Ms Baker has been doing over the past decade. Lots of claims, with nothing to back them up. Instead you provide Kevin with your standard rants. Useless BS that insults Kevin and everyone else here.

Mr Fetzer, your performance is way below par, way below.

Glenn,

Here is what I believe has happened on this thread:

Jim started this thread to discuss Judyth and her story as his topic.

He stated his hypothesis that Judyth's story is true.

He provided as evidence a number of sources, including Dr. Mary's Monkey, photographs and records regarding Judyth, interviews with Judyth, etc.

Others have responded, sometimes to these sources and sometimes with other information.

Jim has asked the critics to read these sources before making a judgment.

Some have done so, some have not.

It is reasonable for him to be frustrated with those who choose not to read the information that he bases his hypothesis on.

It is reasonable for him to be frustrated with those who go off the subject.

It should also be pointed out that he took the time to read Harvey and Lee to better understand some of the critics.

If you believe you have done the "homework" called for in order to judge Judyth's story, great!

If you don't think Jim has provided enough information for you after all these posts, or the right information, I may disagree, but I will simply leave it at that.

Dean

Dean,

I respectfully disagree to your basic assumptions, on top of your list. Mr Fetzer gave the impression he was open minded. But it did not take many postings before it became clear that this was not the case. Early on, I provided the facts around her asylum issue. What did Mr Fetzer do? A few hours after I was registred, I was declared "a highly dubious source". That's not how people (re)act when looking for an open minded discussion, for answers. That is how they behave when they are paranoid.

Furthermore, I asked him then - to which I have still to receive an answer: If it turns out JVB has been lying about the asylum issue, would you then agree this have implications on her credibility? Not only has he never agreed about the lying - he has yet to answer whether it affects her credibility.

Dean, it's not reasonable by Fetzer to disregard stuff like this. Especially when he, as is the case here, is promoting her story as true - the real deal. He constantly disregards anything that is not in favor of JVB and sucks up to anyone positive. So whether coming from me, from Barb, from Jack, from Kevin or anyone else on the long list of critical people, we are all constantly and rudely dismissed.

As if this was not enough, instead of recognizing the warranted questions, he goes on to claim that "this" and "that" is now proven. Just like that.

I agree with you on the frustration part though. It is very understandable that Mr Fetzer is frustrated when such a huge number of people are disagreeing to his conclusions, even among his friends. Of course that's frustrating. And of course this frustration derives from the fact that he, or she for that matter, cannot properly respond to questions asked. I would be frustrated too. But unlike Fetzer, I'd take a long, hard look at my position. That's not for Mr Fetzer, however. He chooses the easy way, the ramblings, the rants and the insults, instead. Barb has again and again provided facts to no avail. Mr Fetzer's response is the same, he's treating her as all the rest of us.

And for some incomprehensible reason, he assumed he could get away with it, for free. Which was another disastrous judgment on his part, as this thread has shown.

So Dean, thanks for your very polite tone, but as you can see, I strongly disagree to most of your assumptions.

Nevertheless, I wish you to have a nice weekend!

Glenn

Mr Fetzer,

Read again.

Those you mention, DISAGREES with you on this matter.

How about, Kinaski, McElwain Brown to start with?

Sized me up? Mr Fetzer, you are acting like a clown - a little boy who didn't get his mom's good nite kiss.

You can't even size up your own disastrous failure in this thread. But that's fine - everyone else can.

The only feelings I have for you - is pity.

Sad to say.

Edited April 23, 2010 by Glenn Viklund