Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[Jack White]

Was that description FROM 1963?

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.

[Glenn Viklund]

Greg,

Fair enough. I would agree to your description, in general. However, Jim himself has repeatedly, also in this thread stated that "he doesn't know her story" [ie. history..]. So the claim that he is some sort of prominence as far as JVB sounds somewhat exaggerated.

You missed the point. That's OK. Maybe I was unclear. I'll try again. The descriptive phrase "prominent researcher" is independent of this new subject (JVB). It is a "perception" as to the expected quality of research forthcoming from the individual based upon proven track record, among other things.

The problem is that even though he lacks depth of this story, he keeps defending it as if this was the end of civilisation. As we all have seen, this defence has not been convincing. Most probably, Mr Fetzer has with his actions in this thread, achieved the opposite. I mean, you cannot act like an elephant in a China store without consequenses, right?

Well, I don't understand your point as it relates to my post...perhaps it doesn't.

As I alluded on another page, lacking skill in the art of persuasion (rhetoric) is germaine to the conversation, but is not indicative of the objective facts. This is both a blessing, but mostly a curse. For if the truth is not effectively communicated due to lack of finesse, it is a pity. Conversely, if falsehood is triumphant due to an abundance of finesse, but lacking in substance, that is a crime. However, only in the case of a xxxx who lacks finesse is the disregard for the art of rhetoric a good thing.

Know what I mean, Huckleberry?

"Know what I mean, Huckleberry?"

Hehe...:-) I like that, Greg.

Let's see:

"It is a "perception" as to the expected quality of research forthcoming from the individual based upon proven track record, among other things."

Yes, I can agree to this.

"As I alluded on another page, lacking skill in the art of persuasion (rhetoric) is germaine to the conversation, but is not indicative of the objective facts. This is both a blessing, but mostly a curse. For if the truth is not effectively communicated due to lack of finesse, it is a pity"

As we've seen a telling example of here, yes. (And, no one does herself any favors by acting like an elephant, as far as the art of persuasion)

"Conversely, if falsehood is triumphant due to an abundance of finesse, but lacking in substance, that is a crime. However, only in the case of a xxxx who lacks finesse is the disregard for the art of rhetoric a good thing"

Obviously. An ***hole is always an ***hole. No matter "rethorical skills".

I did perhaps not explain myself very well, agreed. The point that I did not make, and should have, is that Fetzer has shown a lot of skills in this thread, no doubt about that. The skills that I expected have, however, so far not been displayed. I was expecting balance, objectivity and some sort of reasoning. This was not to be, not by any stretch.

I was more thinking of the reality of research, when did Mr Fetzer do any research? This whole thread has been one continuos story of him referring to others. Most notably a few books, beside JVB. Apart from this, it seems Fetzer's role has been that of an administrator; of Judyth's claims. I cannot recollect one instance in this JVB thing where Fetzer has referred to his own research. That is, besides listening and accepting Judyth's version of events. But this hardly qualifies.

This was my point. Would that be "prominence"?

[Greg Burnham]

Greg,

Fair enough. I would agree to your description, in general. However, Jim himself has repeatedly, also in this thread stated that "he doesn't know her story" [ie. history..]. So the claim that he is some sort of prominence as far as JVB sounds somewhat exaggerated.

You missed the point. That's OK. Maybe I was unclear. I'll try again. The descriptive phrase "prominent researcher" is independent of this new subject (JVB). It is a "perception" as to the expected quality of research forthcoming from the individual based upon proven track record, among other things.

The problem is that even though he lacks depth of this story, he keeps defending it as if this was the end of civilisation. As we all have seen, this defence has not been convincing. Most probably, Mr Fetzer has with his actions in this thread, achieved the opposite. I mean, you cannot act like an elephant in a China store without consequenses, right?

Well, I don't understand your point as it relates to my post...perhaps it doesn't.

As I alluded on another page, lacking skill in the art of persuasion (rhetoric) is germaine to the conversation, but is not indicative of the objective facts. This is both a blessing, but mostly a curse. For if the truth is not effectively communicated due to lack of finesse, it is a pity. Conversely, if falsehood is triumphant due to an abundance of finesse, but lacking in substance, that is a crime. However, only in the case of a xxxx who lacks finesse is the disregard for the art of rhetoric a good thing.

Know what I mean, Huckleberry?

"Know what I mean, Huckleberry?"

Hehe...:-) I like that, Greg.

Let's see:

"It is a "perception" as to the expected quality of research forthcoming from the individual based upon proven track record, among other things."

Yes, I can agree to this.

"As I alluded on another page, lacking skill in the art of persuasion (rhetoric) is germaine to the conversation, but is not indicative of the objective facts. This is both a blessing, but mostly a curse. For if the truth is not effectively communicated due to lack of finesse, it is a pity"

As we've seen a telling example of here, yes. (And, no one does herself any favors by acting like an elephant, as far as the art of persuasion)

"Conversely, if falsehood is triumphant due to an abundance of finesse, but lacking in substance, that is a crime. However, only in the case of a xxxx who lacks finesse is the disregard for the art of rhetoric a good thing"

Obviously. An ***hole is always an ***hole. No matter "rethorical skills".

I did perhaps not explain myself very well, agreed. The point that I did not make, and should have, is that Fetzer has shown a lot of skills in this thread, no doubt about that. The skills that I expected have, however, so far not been displayed. I was expecting balance, objectivity and some sort of reasoning. This was not to be, not by any stretch.

I was more thinking of the reality of research, when did Mr Fetzer do any research? This whole thread has been one continuos story of him referring to others. Most notably a few books, beside JVB. Apart from this, it seems Fetzer's role has been that of an administrator; of Judyth's claims. I cannot recollect one instance in this JVB thing where Fetzer has referred to his own research. That is, besides listening and accepting Judyth's version of events. But this hardly qualifies.

This was my point. Would that be "prominence"?

Glenn,

Perhaps we are not as far apart as I once imagined. It is possible that I will catch some flack for this post, but I "ain't scared of no ghost" --so here goes.

IMHO, Jim's arguments might be overly dependant upon his admittedly exceptional ability to "judge character" when evaluating Judyth's claims. And he may, in fact, still be correct. However, that is not persuasive--and it should NOT be persuasive--in a public forum. The fact that I personally know and respect Jim and trust his judgment should properly influence my opinion of his support of her claims and, therefore, my opinion of her claims. And it does. Coupled with that, is the fact that I met her myself 10 years ago and believed her to be telling me the truth. I met her at the request of a very close friend of mine, the late, Gerry Patrick Hemming. Gerry was a very tough case. He was disinclined to trust anyone about anything unless they were family or select friends. In fact, Gerry was very critical of those who he thought had written books that were, in his view, based upon the author having "read a lot of books on the subject" and then borrowed "facts not in evidence" as an illegitimate cite to authority. That he believed the bulk of Judyth's story is remarkable.

Having said that, it might be less than appropriate for Jim to expect that others would rely upon his judgment of her bona fides when evaluating her claims. It is understandable that he would rely on his "gut" which has proved reliable in the past, but it may not be...persuasive to others.

Just my 2 cents.

[Kathleen Collins]

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

Dean

How much of that book has he read? I bet only passages that Judyth points out to him. Harvey and Lee is a long, long book. You have to take time and digest the material. If he reads it in the future, then wonderful. I don't expect anyone to read that book overnight and wouldn't trust anyone who said they did.

Kathy C

[Kathleen Collins]

GJ [Good job] JG.

I remember Greg Burnham yelling at me because I laughed when I heard some woman claimed she had a love affair with Lee Harvey Oswald.

Off topic?

Kathy C

I have never yelled at you. I have never met you. I have never spoken with you in person or on the phone. How could I ever have yelled at you?

Kathy, when I first joined this forum you reached out to me in private email and I agreed that it was best to let bygones be bygones. Are you having a change of heart?

Greg, I meant the post to be funny. You were "angry" when I scoffed about Judyth. And now years later we're on this thread. Yes, everything is in the past. No, we never spoke, but we did write.

Kathy C

[Greg Burnham]

GJ [Good job] JG.

I remember Greg Burnham yelling at me because I laughed when I heard some woman claimed she had a love affair with Lee Harvey Oswald.

Off topic?

Kathy C

I have never yelled at you. I have never met you. I have never spoken with you in person or on the phone. How could I ever have yelled at you?

Kathy, when I first joined this forum you reached out to me in private email and I agreed that it was best to let bygones be bygones. Are you having a change of heart?

Greg, I meant the post to be funny. You were "angry" when I scoffed about Judyth. And now years later we're on this thread. Yes, everything is in the past. No, we never spoke, but we did write.

Kathy C

Oh, I get it now! haha -- The "smiley face" helps.

[Jack White]

Remarkably, there is a timeline of newspaper mentions of MARMOSETS for medical

research available on the internet.

In the 1930s, there are two mentions that it might be possible. In the 1940s there was

one mention that it might be possible.

In the 1950s, there were no mentions.

In the 1960s, there were some mentions that the government was considering replacing

rhesus monkeys with marmosets. I could find NO mention that by 1963 marmosets were

widely used in medical research.

It appears that JVB's claim of using marmosets may be premature.

Jack

Edited April 24, 2010 by Jack White

[Josiah Thompson]

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.....

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

Professor Fetzer, you are just bluffing. Just as this month you can’t produce any evidence for the claim that “Judyth was lured to New Orleans by Alton Ochsner,” so last month you could not produce evidence for your claim that someone, somewhere had produced evidence that a bullet hole though a windshield looked like what we see in Altgens #6. So now it turns out that you have no proof of this at all, that someone named “Lewis” who traveled through the south shooting up old cars tells you that in his destruction of old cars he was able to produce a bullet hole like what you see in Altgens #6. Did he really tell you this? We don’t know. If he did, has he ever seen Altgens #6? And where’s the proof? Did he not send you a photo proving his amazing feat? You say no. That means you have no evidence whatsoever for what you’ve been claiming for weeks. What a surprise!

Lacking evidence, you spew bile in every direction hoping against hope that it may distract folks from seeing what you’re up to. It doesn’t. Given what I’ve seen in the last couple of weeks this forum has gotten your number. You’re like a poker player who bluffed once too often and now the other players see right through him. You make up things about the different damages produced to windshields by different velocity bullets. You make up things about me and about other people. You even make up things about your great contributions to historical research. None of it works, however, once folks get onto the fact that you’re doing it. Give it up.

Josiah Thompson

Edited April 24, 2010 by Josiah Thompson

[Pat Speer]

Perhaps we are not as far apart as I once imagined. It is possible that I will catch some flack for this post, but I "ain't scared of no ghost" --so here goes.

IMHO, Jim's arguments might be overly dependant upon his admittedly exceptional ability to "judge character" when evaluating Judyth's claims. And he may, in fact, still be correct. However, that is not persuasive--and it should NOT be persuasive--in a public forum. The fact that I personally know and respect Jim and trust his judgment should properly influence my opinion of his support of her claims and, therefore, my opinion of her claims. And it does. Coupled with that, is the fact that I met her myself 10 years ago and believed her to be telling me the truth. I met her at the request of a very close friend of mine, the late, Gerry Patrick Hemming. Gerry was a very tough case. He was disinclined to trust anyone about anything unless they were family or select friends. In fact, Gerry was very critical of those who he thought had written books that were, in his view, based upon the author having "read a lot of books on the subject" and then borrowed "facts not in evidence" as an illegitimate cite to authority. That he believed the bulk of Judyth's story is remarkable.

Having said that, it might be less than appropriate for Jim to expect that others would rely upon his judgment of her bona fides when evaluating her claims. It is understandable that he would rely on his "gut" which has proved reliable in the past, but it may not be...persuasive to others.

Just my 2 cents.

Greg, I exchanged a number of emails with Hemming, and even spoke to him on the phone once. At one point, shortly before he died, I was brought on board a proposed project on Hemming. In preparation for what was supposed to be a far-reaching series of interviews with Hemming, I read his HSCA testimony, along with his interviews in Twyman and Hancock. I also re-read his emails to me and every post he'd ever made on this Forum. This led me to conclude he was a BS artist. He would claim things he suspected (such as the name of the shooter in the Dal-Tex) as fact, etc... But that would have been forgivable if he hadn't also--with regularity--lied through his teeth about things. It was almost as if he hated all researchers, and thought we were chumps, but couldn't stop himself from messing with us, and feeding us crap.

In my case, after a series of emails on ballistics, silencers, and Werbell, etc, in which he appeared to be sharing his genuine thoughts, he started running on about how he was the last American at Dien Ben Phu, a battle that happened in May 1954. He was not at Dien Ben Phu. His HSCA testimony makes it clear he was still in High School at the time. I realized then that Gerry was basically the guy at the corner bar who tells you a long story about the friends he'd lost in Nam, and the time he spent in the jungle, etc, who tells you a completely different story a week later.

I mean, think about it... Gerry claimed to have been friends with Che Guevara, to have secretly been working for Angleton and to have had several run-ins with Oswald. Now that would be bad enough, but he also claimed to have been at Sirhan's house the morning after RFK was killed. He had no documentation to support any of this, of course, and although gifted with words, never sought to write it down so something could come of it.

If he bought into Judyth's story it may have been because he saw in her a bit of himself... or not.

Edited April 24, 2010 by Pat Speer

[Glenn Viklund]

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

Professor Fetzer, you are just bluffing. Just as this month you can’t produce any evidence for the claim that “Judyth was lured to New Orleans by Alton Ochsner,” so last month you could not produce evidence for your claim that someone, somewhere had produced evidence that a bullet hole though a windshield looked like what we see in Altgens #6. So now it turns out that you have no proof of this at all, that someone named “Lewis” who traveled through the south shooting up old cars tells you that in his destruction of old cars he was able to produce a bullet hole like what you see in Altgens #6. Did he really tell you this? We don’t know. If he did, has he ever seen Altgens #6? And where’s the proof? Did he not send you a photo proving his amazing feat? You say no. That means you have no evidence whatsoever for what you’ve been claiming for weeks. What a surprise!

Lacking evidence, you spew bile in every direction hoping against hope that it may distract folks from seeing what you’re up to. It doesn’t. Given what I’ve seen in the last couple of weeks this forum has gotten your number. You’re like a poker player who bluffed once too often and now the other players see right through him. You make up things about the different damages produced to windshields by different velocity bullets. You make up things about me and about other people. You even make up things about your great contributions to historical research. None of it works, however, once folks get onto the fact that you’re doing it. Give it up.

Josiah Thompson

Josiah,

Fetzer wants there to be a spiral nebula, so therefore there is.

Fetzer wants JVBs story to be true, so therefore it is.

Glenn

Edited April 24, 2010 by Glenn Viklund

[John Dolva]

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main...gAsBadPublicity

''No Such Thing As Bad Publicity

"The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about."

— Oscar Wilde

"In other words, I drew a weird, confusing cartoon that no one got and that wasn't funny, and went on to even greater fame and fortune. I love this country."

Gary Larson, about "Cow Tools"

As the saying goes, there's "no such thing as bad publicity". The reasoning is that even if people are trying to raise a big stink about how some work is immoral, incorrect, offensive, or corrupting the youth of the world, they're still giving it attention and increasing how well-known it is.

Technically, there is such a thing as bad publicity: For example, if it turns out a car model or another product has a flaw that endangers the lives of everyone who uses them, and this is highly publicized, the amount of people buying it is going to steeply drop.

This trope refers to a book, show, movie, or anything else that gains popularity because Moral Guardians draw attention to it. Strangely, the Moral Guardians never seem to learn from the fact that they're doing a good job of making their objects of hate more popular. Musicians love this trope.

Whether or not the author of the work purposely made it controversial in order to invoke this phenomenon varies.

Compare Forbidden Fruit, Rated M For Money, Attention Whore, Streisand Effect. See Bile Fascination for when the same thing happens due to rumors of the bad quality of a work. When there is an ostensible moral against something that looks appealing anyway, then Truffaut Was Right.''

[Glenn Viklund]

Greg,

Fair enough. I would agree to your description, in general. However, Jim himself has repeatedly, also in this thread stated that "he doesn't know her story" [ie. history..]. So the claim that he is some sort of prominence as far as JVB sounds somewhat exaggerated.

You missed the point. That's OK. Maybe I was unclear. I'll try again. The descriptive phrase "prominent researcher" is independent of this new subject (JVB). It is a "perception" as to the expected quality of research forthcoming from the individual based upon proven track record, among other things.

The problem is that even though he lacks depth of this story, he keeps defending it as if this was the end of civilisation. As we all have seen, this defence has not been convincing. Most probably, Mr Fetzer has with his actions in this thread, achieved the opposite. I mean, you cannot act like an elephant in a China store without consequenses, right?

Well, I don't understand your point as it relates to my post...perhaps it doesn't.

As I alluded on another page, lacking skill in the art of persuasion (rhetoric) is germaine to the conversation, but is not indicative of the objective facts. This is both a blessing, but mostly a curse. For if the truth is not effectively communicated due to lack of finesse, it is a pity. Conversely, if falsehood is triumphant due to an abundance of finesse, but lacking in substance, that is a crime. However, only in the case of a xxxx who lacks finesse is the disregard for the art of rhetoric a good thing.

Know what I mean, Huckleberry?

"Know what I mean, Huckleberry?"

Hehe...:-) I like that, Greg.

Let's see:

"It is a "perception" as to the expected quality of research forthcoming from the individual based upon proven track record, among other things."

Yes, I can agree to this.

"As I alluded on another page, lacking skill in the art of persuasion (rhetoric) is germaine to the conversation, but is not indicative of the objective facts. This is both a blessing, but mostly a curse. For if the truth is not effectively communicated due to lack of finesse, it is a pity"

As we've seen a telling example of here, yes. (And, no one does herself any favors by acting like an elephant, as far as the art of persuasion)

"Conversely, if falsehood is triumphant due to an abundance of finesse, but lacking in substance, that is a crime. However, only in the case of a xxxx who lacks finesse is the disregard for the art of rhetoric a good thing"

Obviously. An ***hole is always an ***hole. No matter "rethorical skills".

I did perhaps not explain myself very well, agreed. The point that I did not make, and should have, is that Fetzer has shown a lot of skills in this thread, no doubt about that. The skills that I expected have, however, so far not been displayed. I was expecting balance, objectivity and some sort of reasoning. This was not to be, not by any stretch.

I was more thinking of the reality of research, when did Mr Fetzer do any research? This whole thread has been one continuos story of him referring to others. Most notably a few books, beside JVB. Apart from this, it seems Fetzer's role has been that of an administrator; of Judyth's claims. I cannot recollect one instance in this JVB thing where Fetzer has referred to his own research. That is, besides listening and accepting Judyth's version of events. But this hardly qualifies.

This was my point. Would that be "prominence"?

Glenn,

Perhaps we are not as far apart as I once imagined. It is possible that I will catch some flack for this post, but I "ain't scared of no ghost" --so here goes.

IMHO, Jim's arguments might be overly dependant upon his admittedly exceptional ability to "judge character" when evaluating Judyth's claims. And he may, in fact, still be correct. However, that is not persuasive--and it should NOT be persuasive--in a public forum. The fact that I personally know and respect Jim and trust his judgment should properly influence my opinion of his support of her claims and, therefore, my opinion of her claims. And it does. Coupled with that, is the fact that I met her myself 10 years ago and believed her to be telling me the truth. I met her at the request of a very close friend of mine, the late, Gerry Patrick Hemming. Gerry was a very tough case. He was disinclined to trust anyone about anything unless they were family or select friends. In fact, Gerry was very critical of those who he thought had written books that were, in his view, based upon the author having "read a lot of books on the subject" and then borrowed "facts not in evidence" as an illegitimate cite to authority. That he believed the bulk of Judyth's story is remarkable.

Having said that, it might be less than appropriate for Jim to expect that others would rely upon his judgment of her bona fides when evaluating her claims. It is understandable that he would rely on his "gut" which has proved reliable in the past, but it may not be...persuasive to others.

Just my 2 cents.

Greg,

I respect that you and Fetzer are friends and that you certainly know him better than I do. Of Hemming I have no knowledge, so I can't comment about him. Prior to this thread, I'd seen Fetzer quite extensively through U-tube clips, through some of what he's written and no one interested in the JFK assassination can possibly miss his name popping up now and then. I actually felt some empathy with Fetzer when he was hammered by Bill O'Reilly.

Today, I feel no empathy with Mr Fetzer. What he has shown in this thread is disgusting. No wonder other CTers refer to him as a "ranting madman". I would have expected something entirely different from a former professor. I'd be expecting him to answer questions, I'd be expecting him to be able to show judgement, I'd be expecting him to be able to qualify his standings in this matter. I would also have expected him to welcome a proper vetting of JVBs story, as Barb has pointed out several times. None of this has been the case here. Greg, I think you would agree that it's remarkable how Barb is repeatedly praised by most everyone, while Fetzer is breaking up relationsships. If one looks back at their respective actions in this thread, this makes a lot of sense.

Just as an illustration, I showed beyond a shadow of a doubt, how JVB was making up a lot of stories around her asylum issue. Fetzer's reaction to this was - besides the standard insults and ramblings - to quite simply ignore the whole thing. And, he still does. This is not how you deal with facts, and he should of course know that.

So when it comes to his judgement, as it's been displayed in this thread, no that will not be good enough. Absolutely not. In my opinion, his actions have probably scared people away from supporting JVB, rather than the opposite.

Glenn

Edited April 24, 2010 by Glenn Viklund

[Evan Burton]

Can I remind people there is no need to repeat verbatim the previous posts made by someone unless there is a specific reason to do so. Having to scroll through repeats of posts is annoying (to me).

A request: Please, don't quote unless it is pertinent to your own post.

[Glenn Viklund]

Pat Speer wrote:

"I mean, think about it... Gerry claimed to have been friends with Che Guevara, to have secretly been working for Angleton and to have had several run-ins with Oswald. Now that would be bad enough, but he also claimed to have been at Sirhan's house the morning after RFK was killed. He had no documentation to support any of this, of course, and although gifted with words, never sought to write it down so something could come of it."

This sounds very much like perfect pre-requisites to qualify for incorporation into Fetzers argumentation.

Edited April 24, 2010 by Glenn Viklund

[Don Jeffries]

Thank you, Evan.

This thread is aleady more than long enough without all that extraneous old text from previous posts. Hit the "delete" button before you post- it's easy!

Edited April 24, 2010 by Don Jeffries