Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[Dean Hagerman]

MY PSY OPS EXPERT REPLIES TO DEAN HAGERMAN AND GREG BURNHAM

I'll respond to a couple of questions and clarify some issues. First, to respond to Dean Hagerman, who says I am a lame psyops expert. He wants to know why I can't post myself, and am I afraid. First, I read the background posts and looked at some materials to give my opinion on what the issues are from a psyops perspective as a favor to Jim Fetzer because he asked me if I would do that. I have no desire to join the forum.

My goal is to help Jim by bringing clarity to any psyop related issues of the Judyth Vary story. I am not afraid of Dean Hagerman or anyone else on the forum and I could care less what anyone thinks of me. Nor do I have anything to prove to anyone at this stage in my life. I suggest that Dean settles down and relaxes. I have not made any personal attacks on him. If he doesn't agree with my impressions, that is fine, so what, he is entitled to his beliefs, and so am I. I have attained all the success in life I wanted to and have nothing to prove. I suggested to Jim that my name be withheld so as to not draw attention away from the important issues at hand since I would appear to some who try to fully research my background as a shadowy figure and it would quickly become a rabbit hole and a waste of time. This is not the issue at hand and would detract from the Judyth Vary story and the discussion about it on this forum. But if you or anyone else can make a good argument that I am incorrect in my assertions from a psyop perspective, then email it to Jim and he will send it on to me, or post it here, but also include a suggestion for a better, more reasonable and plausible explanation. I think most posters on this forum would like to see truth distilled out of any such issue as this, especially with the possible serious long term effects these issues may have for American Society. All good truth junkies need a fix of plausibility every so often.

Jim Fetzer has known me for many years, knows my bona fides including educational and professional credentials for certain and knows personally at least one very experienced individual that I have associated with. Jim knows that I have extensive knowledge of psyops and that is why he asked me for my impression on this. I suggest that as with any other information or arguments posted that they be evaluated point by point for their reasonableness and plausibility, rather than fixating on the person stating those points. My impression from a psyops perspective are best evaluated on their own terms, point by point and each person can choose to agree, disagree and state what evidence they have for doing so if they want to. If folks think my input is worthless, then just don't read it.

As I stated before I do not know all the details of Judyth Vary's story and am not competent to evaluate it as to whether it is factual at any point, since that would require a long term detailed examination of the available evidence. What I do know is when something looks like a duck, walks like a duck, it is a duck. This whole controversy around Judyth Vary's story appears to me as the footprints of a very sophisticated psyop associated with an illegal domestic deep cover black op, with several interwoven side ops. I have explained how these ops are typically constructed to incorporate means to discredit important witnesses and aspects of the op later. Have you ever wondered why David Ferrie was selected by the company as an adolescent and later treated to lose all his hair, sort of pushed over the edge into absurdity (i.e. "dirtied up" to create his deviation amplification)? Things were likely done to him to make him angry, sexually confused and dysfunctional and easily discreditable. This smacks of mindkontrol. Can you say intel's "special little child" mind kontrol program?

Maybe many things were done to create false tracks and leads to later create a rich cover-up for this op. Whatever the overall goals were, it sure seems reasonable that there was a deep cover black op going on involving professional intel agents such as LHO, David Ferrie and others involved with intel such as Ochsner and Inca. In any of these deep cover domestic ops, considerable planning goes into creating false leads, side ops and ways to generate deniability, massive discrediting of actual players and any witnesses who later talk. Intel had become very specialized even during the late 1950's and 1960's and was easily capable of setting up and running an op that would later generate a massive web of confusion and discrediting of any witnesses or players involved. And look at the web of confusion that was constructed around Lee Harvey Oswald long before the JFK Assassination.

And Mary Sherman's strange death smacks of intel cover-up and so far Ed Haslam's suggested explanation of how it occurred seems the most reasonable and plausible. Is it a fair assumption to make that Judyth Vary was drawn into a very sophisticated deep cover cover op that was at least peripherally involved with the JFK Assassination? Yes this is a reasonable conclusion.

And to answer Greg Burnham's question about disassociation as a gift that allows survival [in a victim of psyops].

This is a very astute, very important question and shows sophisticated insight into how psyop victims respond to stress and also how mind kontrol victims also can respond to stress. Yes, Greg is correct with this assertion and this has always formed the basis of psyops and Mengelian/Nazi mind kontrol imported after WW2 and still used extensively to this very day by intel all over the world. And it may explain how much of the confusion has arisen in all the disputes and contoversy about the specifics of Judyth Vary's story. Some continuing psyops are designed to freeze dry a person while creating enough stress to force certain mental compartmentalizations, and this is especially so if a TI has been subjected to any prior sophisticated mind kontrol or psyops before. Another interesting thing related to this point is that it is not uncommon to find some rapid WCAs and LNutters cover-up op or assets to have themselves been mind kontrolled to varying degrees, as I have found in the past.

It is reasonable to believe that Judyth Vary was brought into a very sophisticated and serious deep cover covert op at least peripherally associated with the JFK Assassination due to her association with Ochsner and likley association with trained deep cover intel op LHO and intelligence asset Ferrie. Jim Fetzer knows for sure that I am well informed about this because he has seen documentation on this from me.

I think it is a fair assumption that Judyth Vary was brought into a sophisticated deep cover intel op and used for several functions which so far may not be altogether clear. It is even possible she could have been brought in to set up a false cover or to function as a discrediting agents to protect the op. Who would ever believe her anyway. Even if some, much or all of her story was true, it is just too incredible for most to accept any of it without very thorough and complete documentation. And of course there could have been certain disconnects built in with what she was led to believe and what is documentable for or against. The fact that there is so much disagreement about her story on the forum suggests that she was and still is the byproduct of a very sophisticated deep cover black op, and this result smacks of the success of those that constructed and carried out this op and maintained it's cover-up over the years. And maintaining a cover-up can involve a controlled leak, depending on the overall goals of the op.

One more thing. LHO was a trained intel op with a history of using sex in his work and being treated for an STD he obtained in the process. It isn't much of a jump to believe that he seduced Judyth Vary and had a fling with her. Ops specialize on eliciting confidence in their marks. But that being said, that in and of itself doesn't mean that LHO didn't fall in love with Judyth Vary and didn't start developing "role distance" with his professional intel role, or starting relizing he was set up. And consider this, LHO may have been a mind Kontrol victim himself, MK Ultra style. Many deep cover professional intel ops are. A substantial amount of research on what MKUltra ops were exists on the internet and in declassified documents and records from Congressional Hearings, especially the Sec. of Energy Leary Hearings. It is a well known fact that almost every deep cover black op done domestically since the mid 1950's has at least to some degree involved Mengelian MK Ultra Mind Kontrol in some of the players. The possibility of mind kontol in some of the players may be something in this whole Judyth Vary story issue that needs to be further investigated. This of course if true only makes her story even more important.

my psy ops expert

Jim

Who is this stupid lame Psy Ops expert you are posting for?

Why cant he create his own account with his own name and post his thoughts under it instead of you doing it for him?

Is he scared?

Why dont you post his name?

Until you post his name or until he posts his lame "Psy Ops" reports on members of this forum himself then how do you expect anyone to care about what he has to say?

Ask your friend to do a Psy Ops report on my lemming like research

Weak

[Doug Weldon]

Monk:

Jim may not need that confirmation to believe anything about her but others do to have some substantial evidence she knew Oswald. It is not dispositive of all her claims but it is important. Judyth is the one who proffers that it is Oswald's writing. Why not get it examined? She has had the ability to do this for years. What's the big deal? Her failure to do so only raises suspicion.

Doug Weldon

Doug,

I'm not against getting it examined at all. But, let's be clear:

Her "failure" to get it examined does not disprove any of her claims any more than confirmation of the writing would prove any of her claims beyond their having known each other.

However, if the writing is shown to be inconsistent, that would seriously damage Judyth's credibility. I asked Barb if that was her aim--which is her prerogative, but she denied it. Given the above, could it possibly be anything else?

Monk:

I would agree with Barb. If it is not Oswald's signature it would and should damage Judyth's credibility. It is Judyth who is asserting that it is Oswald's writing. How would you explain it if the handwriting is not Oswald's? Yes, she has a lot to lose, but she has a lot to gain. You are correct, it is an issue of credibility. If Judyth was in court and testifying and the writing turns out not to be Oswald's then she would be confronted with it and it would weigh on her credibility about everything she states.

She is in the court of public opinion. If it is not his writing Judyth would be far better served by saying it's not. It's simple. If it's legitimate let's prove it. If not, explain why she claimed it was. It's difficult to accept her legitimacy on anything if she cannot jump such a simple hurdle. Barb is absolutely correct. It would be proof that she knew him. I cannot fathom any other way that she could have obtained the writing. This is not smearing Judyth. It is giving her an opportunity to present solid evidence.

Doug Weldon

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but there is ample exposure to lines of argument AGAINST Judyth and her

story. My point is that, unless you are also considering the lines of argument SUPPORTING Judyth and her

story, you are not satisfying the requirement of total evidence, which insists that, in the search for truth,

you must base your reasoning on all the available relevant evidence. That means you are not entitled to

pick and choose by selecting the evidence that agrees with a predetermined conclusion and eleminating the

rest.

So, you considered the 3 annual reports from the National Science Foundation I posted that do not show grants and scholarships or any funds given to Judyth in 1961, 1962 or 1963 as she claims? You made no comment on it. Yet have posted several times that no one has produced anything that "laid a glove" on her claims.

So, you considered the correspondence I posted from the American Cancer Society wherein they state that after a thorough search, they have no records for funds, grants, equipment (as Judyth claims) to Judyth? You made no comment on it. Yet have posted several times that no one has produced anything that "laid a glove" on her claims.

So, you considered the letter I posted from Reily Coffee saying they did have a "one time" green glass give away .... in 1959-1960, not in 1963 as Judyth claims.

You made no comment on it. Yet have posted several times that no one has produced anything that "laid a glove" on her claims.

And more, of course ... at the most you fob things off as if they were kryptonite ... attacking the messangers regularly, telling everyone how superior you are ...and best of all .... running with everything Judyth tells you as fact. Yeah, that's logic and reasoning.

So, you considered the actual Swedish migration court documents that Glenn Viklund posted ... and translated, and John Dolva also translated and stated that Glenn was exactly correct? But, hey, at least you commented on those ... by alleging all sorts of nasty things about Glenn and his motives and his character ... but still ignored the information .... even though you were given the name of the person at the migration board, their phone number, email address and snail mail address ... responding that Judyth has friends to vouch for her spin on it all.

You have not considered anything that counters your "predetermined conclusion" despite you acknowledging that you do not know her whole story, you have not read her first book, and Lord knows you haven't read all her posts and blogs and web content over the last 10 years .... yet you denigrate and arrogantly strut what you think is your superiority over those who have been watching, reading and even participating in the Judyth issue for much of the last decade.

Read your speeches to yourself. There is a difference between talking the talk ... and walking the walk.

[Barb Junkkarinen]

INDEPENDENT DOCUMENTATION is needed to verify claims. Self-serving claims are not evidence nor

documentation. An impartial independent source is needed.

Exactly, Jack. Some claims are not able to be verified ... all the more important that anything that can be verified, is verified ... for if the one making the claims is shown to have been credible on things that can be verified, it builds up confidence in their veracity for evaluating things they say that cannot be verified.

Barb :-)

[Barb Junkkarinen]

MY PSY OPS EXPERT REPLIES TO DEAN HAGERMAN AND GREG BURNHAM

Have you ever wondered why David Ferrie was selected by the company as an adolescent and later treated to lose all his hair, sort of pushed over the edge into absurdity (i.e. "dirtied up" to create his deviation amplification)? Things were likely done to him to make him angry, sexually confused and dysfunctional and easily discreditable. This smacks of mindkontrol. Can you say intel's "special little child" mind kontrol program?

Gotcha. This is complete and utter horsecrap. It NEVER HAPPENED.

Selected by WHAT company as an adolescent? Between 1918, when he was born, and 1938, when he turned 20? Which company existed during those years?

Treated to lose all his hair? So that Alopecia Areata he was diagnosed with by the Cleveland Clinic in the 1930s was ALL JUST A RUSE? And the reports of the people at the seminary who said his hair was falling out are ALL JUST A RUSE? And those early pictures of him with little bald spots are ALL JUST A RUSE?

Keep going. Tell us more about David Ferrie, from a "psyops perspective."

Stephen,

You're killing me! LOL -- "The Company" is a euphemism for the CIA.

Ya *think*? LOL And the CIA was born *when* ... relative to the date of Ferrie's birth and his

turning 20? One would think that at least Fetzer's unnamed comic psy ops "expert" would know that!

Barb :-)

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Trying to revived dead issues is Glenn Viklund, who has been in collusion with

Barb Junkkarinen and John McAdams to discredit Judyth, which, of course, has

been documented previously on this thread. We know that he is mistaken, since

she was allowed to live in Sweden and not deported, which would have happened

if Viklund's "song and dance" had any merit. So please cease this endless quest

to have everyone chasing their tails, when we already know the score. Thanks!

After all the posts about what Sweden gives to people in their "asylum process" ... like staying in the country and being cared for during the process, you post this lame old thing. Which tells us one thing for certain, imo ... you never even went to the Swedish migration website and read about what does and does not happen to asylum seekers who land on their porch. And, you certainly never contacted the actual migration court to verify the information, despite having been given all of the contact info.

You don't anything about Glenn being "mistaken" ... all you know is what Judyth tells you. But, hey, it's your girl, so why chase your tail around the actual court documents or the actual asylum seeker info available to all. And you preach to others about research, evidence and reasoning. ROTFL.

[Barb Junkkarinen]

They were using tiny marmosets,...

Ahh, that explains it ... they were *tiny* marmosets ... no wonder she forgot about

them and they weren't part of her original story ...

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Barb,

Sheesh--this is getting tedious, no? Going in circles isn't useful at all, except to get dizzy--and that's no fun. So, no that's not my purpose. However, sometimes folks "talk at each other" and don't make a connection for whatever reason. That doesn't necessarily mean that either side (of the debate) is disingenuous, cognitively impaired, ill informed, stupid... etc. Sometimes they just aren't "on the same page" so to speak. I'm trying to find out which "pages" everyone agrees to and which ones seem at odds--and go from there. So far, just finding that out is like pulling teeth!

Hmmm. Let's see...below, you asked me:

"Barb, do you reject the authenticity of the documents Jim referenced above? If so, why?"

And I replied, "The time cards and the credit report are authentic documents ... easily found in the volumes. It is not their authenticity that anyone has questioned, as far as I know." (Those are the documents he referenced.)

No teeth pulling there. I replied directly to your question ... as I did to your previous question as well.

Bests,

Barb :-)

This is ridiculous, Monk. Judyth and Lee were hired on the same day. She maintained his work and payroll records, which even have her initials on them. Doubting this is beyond the realm of reason.

Try not to speak, my friend--it's not ridiculous--not yet. I'm still questioning this "witness" -- I would prefer to hear the witness answer the question. Barb seems to reject any evidence that you or Judyth provide. So that won't work by itself. But, perhaps she has an answer consistent with the evidence that she herself has discovered?

But, now that Jim has "opened the door" to this subject... Barb, do you reject the authenticity of the documents Jim referenced above? If so, why?

Greg,

I am not a "witness." But then you know that. I just replied to Fetzer's comment in his reply to you a few minutes ago. I commented on the time cards there. I don't know what he means by "work records" ... the credit report, perhaps? The time cards and the credit report are authentic documents ... easily found in the volumes. It is not their authenticity that anyone has questioned, as far as I know.

I reject "evidence" that is really not evidence at all. Posting cyber reams of the claimant's excuses, explanations and additional claims does not substantiate the claim it's all being offered up for as "evidence" in the first place. But then I expect you realize that as well. :-)

But it does look like perhaps you enjoy going in circles.

Barb :-)

[Stephen Roy]

MY PSY OPS EXPERT REPLIES TO DEAN HAGERMAN AND GREG BURNHAM

Have you ever wondered why David Ferrie was selected by the company as an adolescent and later treated to lose all his hair, sort of pushed over the edge into absurdity (i.e. "dirtied up" to create his deviation amplification)? Things were likely done to him to make him angry, sexually confused and dysfunctional and easily discreditable. This smacks of mindkontrol. Can you say intel's "special little child" mind kontrol program?

Gotcha. This is complete and utter horsecrap. It NEVER HAPPENED.

Selected by WHAT company as an adolescent? Between 1918, when he was born, and 1938, when he turned 20? Which company existed during those years?

Treated to lose all his hair? So that Alopecia Areata he was diagnosed with by the Cleveland Clinic in the 1930s was ALL JUST A RUSE? And the reports of the people at the seminary who said his hair was falling out are ALL JUST A RUSE? And those early pictures of him with little bald spots are ALL JUST A RUSE?

Keep going. Tell us more about David Ferrie, from a "psyops perspective."

Stephen,

You're killing me! LOL -- "The Company" is a euphemism for the CIA.

Jeez, Monk- Give me more credit than that! I didn't just fall off the turnip truck!

The "psyops expert" claimed Ferrie was recruited by CIA as an adolescent, which would have been between 1918 and 1938. "The Company" didn't exist then, nor did its predecessor, the OSS. In fact, Ferrie's first contact with the CIA occurred much later.

And he also goofed in claiming that CIA somhow "treated" Ferrie to make him lose his hair. I have medical records, seminary records, letters between Ferrie and his dad and pictures which establish that Ferrie developed Alopecia Areata in the early 1930s, long before "the Company" was formed.

[Greg Burnham]

MY PSY OPS EXPERT REPLIES TO DEAN HAGERMAN AND GREG BURNHAM

Have you ever wondered why David Ferrie was selected by the company as an adolescent and later treated to lose all his hair, sort of pushed over the edge into absurdity (i.e. "dirtied up" to create his deviation amplification)? Things were likely done to him to make him angry, sexually confused and dysfunctional and easily discreditable. This smacks of mindkontrol. Can you say intel's "special little child" mind kontrol program?

Gotcha. This is complete and utter horsecrap. It NEVER HAPPENED.

Selected by WHAT company as an adolescent? Between 1918, when he was born, and 1938, when he turned 20? Which company existed during those years?

Treated to lose all his hair? So that Alopecia Areata he was diagnosed with by the Cleveland Clinic in the 1930s was ALL JUST A RUSE? And the reports of the people at the seminary who said his hair was falling out are ALL JUST A RUSE? And those early pictures of him with little bald spots are ALL JUST A RUSE?

Keep going. Tell us more about David Ferrie, from a "psyops perspective."

Stephen,

You're killing me! LOL -- "The Company" is a euphemism for the CIA.

Jeez, Monk- Give me more credit than that! I didn't just fall off the turnip truck!

The "psyops expert" claimed Ferrie was recruited by CIA as an adolescent, which would have been between 1918 and 1938. "The Company" didn't exist then, nor did its predecessor, the OSS. In fact, Ferrie's first contact with the CIA occurred much later.

And he also goofed in claiming that CIA somhow "treated" Ferrie to make him lose his hair. I have medical records, seminary records, letters between Ferrie and his dad and pictures which establish that Ferrie developed Alopecia Areata in the early 1930s, long before "the Company" was formed.

This is really getting silly now, huh?

[Michael Hogan]

I have read Stephen Roy's comments on this thread and have found them to be generally understated and

reasonable. His observations of Haslam's footnotes are fair ones, in my opinion. I think I understand why it is

easier for Jim Fetzer to respond with comments like the ones below, rather than actually address the point

or points that Stephen Roy made.

(In the course of writing this, I see that Stephen Roy has responded for himself, so I am going to keep this

post shorter than I originally intended.)

In Dr Mary's Monkey, Chapter 13 (The Witness) is the "money chapter" in terms of evidence presented

as to whether or not Judyth Baker had a love affair with Lee Oswald. In his book Haslam poses the question

a little differently: "Did Judyth know Lee Harvey Oswald in New Orleans in 1963?" Haslam answers his own

question by offering a surprisingly brief amount of evidence: the Reily pay stubs and the Anna Lewis interview.

That's mostly it; not nearly enough of substance to make a convincing case they knew each other, let alone were lovers.

Jim Fetzer can lecture members about his standards of scholarship and logic, but those lectures do little to prove

whether or not LHO and JVB were lovers. And Jim continues to maintain that Dr Mary's Monkey is a vital key in

understanding this alleged relationship.

The footnotes that Haslam uses in Chaper 13 are in many cases, just an extension of Haslam's speculations.

I am only going to post a few excerpts. Lest I am accused of "special pleading" the full footnotes appear verbatim

in Jim's blog.

(Chapter 17 of Mary, Ferrie & The Monkey Virus(revised) and Chapter 13 of Dr Mary's Monkey

are the same virtually verbatim, down to the footnotes.)

Haslam presents his footnotes in narrative form, as an extension of the chapter's text:

7) On their return trips from Reily, Judyth and Lee exhibited more caution.

Though they rode the same bus, they did not sit together. They would ride the bus

past their apartments, past the U.S. Public Health Service Hospital, and get off at

Audubon Park, where they could speak and socialize freely....

10) Lee Oswald's family had been Mafia connected since he was a child. Lee attended

parties at Marcello's house, and was remembered from those days by people that Judyth met.

Lee also worked as an errand boy, running between Marcello's clubs and restaurants.

Lee personally met with Mafia boss Carlos Marcello on several occasions in 1963....

12) Jack Ruby visited David Ferrie's one day when Judyth and Lee were there. Ferrie introduced

him to Judyth as Sparky Rubenstein. Judyth was surprised that Ferrie briefed Ruby on their

bio-weapon project. (Why not? They all worked for Marcello.) Ruby recognized Lee, and said that

he used to see him at parties when he was a boy.. This means that Jack Ruby knew about Oswald's

connection to the underground medical laboratory when he shot him, and he knew about the cancer

cocktail that could be used to silence him as he awaited trial for Oswald's murder....

14) Publicly, I have always taken the position that Oswald's guilt or innocence is ultimately irrelevant

to whether an underground medical laboratory in New Orleans was using mutated monkey viruses to

develop a biological weapon, and whether that project is responsible for the epidemics we see today.

My neutrality on Oswald is a position that has become increasingly difficult for me to maintain.

To my eyes, Lee was the perfect patsy....

Much of Haslam's footnotes in Chapter 13 constitute interesting speculations, apparently based upon

what he was told by Judyth Baker. He mixes these speculations in with factoids such as Dan Rather

viewing the Zapruder film or Langley being the location of CIA headquarters, perhaps with the wish

the reader will view the speculations as factoids also.

Ed Haslam may (or may not) be on firmer ground in respect to the rest of his book, but when it comes

to whether or not LHO and JVB had a love relationship, to claim that his documentation is "copious"

or that his research is "scholarly" does not bear scrutiny.

It continues to baffle me why Jim insists that Dr Mary's Monkey presents any original evidence that

Judyth Baker and Lee Oswald were lovers. If that evidence is there, I would like to see him

enumerate it.

Not to suggest that I have somewhat more experience with research and scholarship than Mr. Roy,

but DR. MARY'S MONKEY is every thorough, every detailed, and very painstaking. I would be very

glad to compare Ed Haslam's work with that of Stephen Roy. Where are your books and articles?

This business about "documentation" astonishes me. There is copious documentation in Ed's book.

Where did you derive the impression of "absence of documentation"? Here are some facts about it:

DR. MARY'S MONKEY (2007), xi + 374 pages.

Foreword by Jim Marrs

Prologue (two photos, one is a photo/map)

Chapter 1 (17 photos including photo maps, 47 end notes, many with multiple references)

Chapter 2 (6 photos, 5 end notes with references)

Chapter 3 (one photo, 14 end notes with references)

Chapter 4 (6 photos, including one photo map, 7 end notes with references)

Chapter 5 (18 photos, including photo maps, 30 end notes with references)

Chapter 6 (12 photos, including photo maps, 12 end notes with references)

Chapter 7 (16 photos, photo maps, graphics, 13 end notes with references)

Chapter 8 (17 photos, 63 end notes with references)

Chapter 9 (17 photos, including 3 graphs, 42 end notes with references)

Chapter 10 (4 photos, including photo maps, many quotes from reports)

Chapter 11 (18 photos, diagrams, maps, 11 end notes with references)

Chapter 12 (3 photos, two maps, 17 end notes with references)

Chapter 13 (8-9 photos and graphics, 15 end notes with references)

Chapter 14 (three photos, including two photo maps, two end notes with references)

Appendix (13 photos, including several photo maps, 20 end notes with references)

Epilogue (10 photos, 16 end notes with references)

Document A (one photo, 6 pages)

Document B (one page/cancer rates)

Document C (three pages, autopsy report)

Bibliography (8 pages)

Index (10 pages)

This is actually one of the best "documented" books for the general public that I have ever read.

By "references," I think Jack means citations of evidence to support the assertions in the book. Photos and maps cobbled from the Internet or other sources, which do not prove or disprove anything, are not citations of evidence. While helpful, a bibliography does not point a reader to specific citations of evidence. The index is not a citation of evidence.

The list above mentions about 314 end notes. In a 344 page book, that's less than one footnote per page. And there is a difference between footnotes which cite sources (SNs), and those which are parenthetical explanatory notes (ENs).

Chapters 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12 offer mostly source notes.

Of the 5 endnotes for chapter 2, 2 are Source Notes while 3 are Explanatory Notes.

Of the 7 endnotes for chapter 4, 1 is an SN while 6 are ENs.

Of the 13 endnotes for chapter 7, 6 are SNs while 7 are ENs.

There are no endnotes for chapter 10.

Of the 11 endnotes for chapter 11, 1 is an SN while 10 are ENs.

Of the 15 endnotes for chapter 13, 1 is an SN while 14 are ENs.

Of the 2 endnotes for chapter 14, 1 is an SN while 1 is an EN.

Of the 20 endnotes for the Appendix, 20 are ENs.

Of the 16 endnotes for the Epilogue, 16 are ENs.

So there are less source notes - actual references - than the list above suggests. There are a number of things in the book for which there are no cited sources. What matters is not quantity, but citations for the parts of the book most relevant to JFK researchers.

[Jack White]

They were using tiny marmosets,...

Ahh, that explains it ... they were *tiny* marmosets ... no wonder she forgot about

them and they weren't part of her original story ...

Tiny marmosets die quickly without their parents. Marmosets live in FAMILIES and require large cages.

Marmosets were not used for medical research in 1963.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Judyth knows entirely too much in great detail (historically, situationally, and psychologically) to not have

been there. Here reports are completely authentic to me. Of course, those who have no interest won't give

her the time of day. But this is an assessment that has been confirmed over and over during my interactions

with Judyth. Would that I could transfer the quantity and quality of my experience with her to this thread. I

suggest you listen to my interview with Judyth Baker tomorow night on "The Real Deal" from 5-7 PM/CT. Let

me know if you listen to the show whether your reactions are similar to my own. I have never thought that

everyone would agree with me, but I have hoped that most of you would consider the evidence pro and con.

I have read Stephen Roy's comments on this thread and have found them to be generally understated and

reasonable. His observations of Haslam's footnotes are fair ones, in my opinion. I think I understand why it is

easier for Jim Fetzer to respond with comments like the ones below, rather than actually address the point

or points that Stephen Roy made.

(In the course of writing this, I see that Stephen Roy has responded for himself, so I am going to keep this

post shorter than I originally intended.)

In Dr Mary's Monkey, Chapter 13 (The Witness) is the "money chapter" in terms of evidence presented

as to whether or not Judyth Baker had a love affair with Lee Oswald. In his book Haslam poses the question

a little differently: "Did Judyth know Lee Harvey Oswald in New Orleans in 1963?" Haslam answers his own

question by offering a surprisingly brief amount of evidence: the Reily pay stubs and the Anna Lewis interview.

That's mostly it; not nearly enough of substance to make a convincing case they knew each other, let alone were lovers.

Jim Fetzer can lecture members about his standards of scholarship and logic, but those lectures do little to prove

whether or not LHO and JVB were lovers. And Jim continues to maintain that Dr Mary's Monkey is a vital key in

understanding this alleged relationship.

The footnotes that Haslam uses in Chaper 13 are in many cases, just an extension of Haslam's speculations.

I am only going to post a few excerpts. Lest I am accused of "special pleading" the full footnotes appear verbatim

in Jim's blog.

(Chapter 17 of Mary, Ferrie & The Monkey Virus(revised) and Chapter 13 of

Dr Mary's Monkey are the same virtually verbatim, down to the footnotes.)

Haslam presents his footnotes in narrative form, as an extension of the chapter's text:

7) On their return trips from Reily, Judyth and Lee exhibited more caution.

Though they rode the same bus, they did not sit together. They would ride the bus

past their apartments, past the U.S. Public Health Service Hospital, and get off at

Audubon Park, where they could speak and socialize freely....

10) Lee Oswald's family had been Mafia connected since he was a child. Lee attended

parties at Marcello's house, and was remembered from those days by people that Judyth met.

Lee also worked as an errand boy, running between Marcello's clubs and restaurants.

Lee personally met with Mafia boss Carlos Marcello on several occasions in 1963....

12) Jack Ruby visited David Ferrie's one day when Judyth and Lee were there. Ferrie introduced

him to Judyth as Sparky Rubenstein. Judyth was surprised that Ferrie briefed Ruby on their

bio-weapon project. (Why not? They all worked for Marcello.) Ruby recognized Lee, and said that

he used to see him at parties when he was a boy.. This means that Jack Ruby knew about Oswald's

connection to the underground medical laboratory when he shot him, and he knew about the cancer

cocktail that could be used to silence him as he awaited trial for Oswald's murder....

14) Publicly, I have always taken the position that Oswald's guilt or innocence is ultimately irrelevant

to whether an underground medical laboratory in New Orleans was using mutated monkey viruses to

develop a biological weapon, and whether that project is responsible for the epidemics we see today.

My neutrality on Oswald is a position that has become increasingly difficult for me to maintain.

To my eyes, Lee was the perfect patsy....

Much of Haslam's footnotes in Chapter 13 constitute interesting speculations, apparently based upon

what he was told by Judyth Baker. He mixes these speculations in with factoids such as Dan Rather

viewing the Zapruder film or Langley being the location of CIA headquarters, perhaps with the wish

the reader will view the speculations as factoids also.

Ed Haslam may (or may not) be on firmer ground in respect to the rest of his book, but when it comes

to whether or not LHO and JVB had a love relationship, to claim that his documentation is "copious"

or that his research is "scholarly" does not bear scrutiny.

It continues to baffle me why Jim insists that Dr Mary's Monkey presents any original evidence that

Judyth Baker and Lee Oswald were lovers. If that evidence is there, I would like to see him

enumerate it.

Not to suggest that I have somewhat more experience with research and scholarship than Mr. Roy,

but DR. MARY'S MONKEY is every thorough, every detailed, and very painstaking. I would be very

glad to compare Ed Haslam's work with that of Stephen Roy. Where are your books and articles?

This business about "documentation" astonishes me. There is copious documentation in Ed's book.

Where did you derive the impression of "absence of documentation"? Here are some facts about it:

DR. MARY'S MONKEY (2007), xi + 374 pages.

Foreword by Jim Marrs

Prologue (two photos, one is a photo/map)

Chapter 1 (17 photos including photo maps, 47 end notes, many with multiple references)

Chapter 2 (6 photos, 5 end notes with references)

Chapter 3 (one photo, 14 end notes with references)

Chapter 4 (6 photos, including one photo map, 7 end notes with references)

Chapter 5 (18 photos, including photo maps, 30 end notes with references)

Chapter 6 (12 photos, including photo maps, 12 end notes with references)

Chapter 7 (16 photos, photo maps, graphics, 13 end notes with references)

Chapter 8 (17 photos, 63 end notes with references)

Chapter 9 (17 photos, including 3 graphs, 42 end notes with references)

Chapter 10 (4 photos, including photo maps, many quotes from reports)

Chapter 11 (18 photos, diagrams, maps, 11 end notes with references)

Chapter 12 (3 photos, two maps, 17 end notes with references)

Chapter 13 (8-9 photos and graphics, 15 end notes with references)

Chapter 14 (three photos, including two photo maps, two end notes with references)

Appendix (13 photos, including several photo maps, 20 end notes with references)

Epilogue (10 photos, 16 end notes with references)

Document A (one photo, 6 pages)

Document B (one page/cancer rates)

Document C (three pages, autopsy report)

Bibliography (8 pages)

Index (10 pages)

This is actually one of the best "documented" books for the general public that I have ever read.

By "references," I think Jack means citations of evidence to support the assertions in the book. Photos and maps cobbled from the Internet or other sources, which do not prove or disprove anything, are not citations of evidence. While helpful, a bibliography does not point a reader to specific citations of evidence. The index is not a citation of evidence.

The list above mentions about 314 end notes. In a 344 page book, that's less than one footnote per page. And there is a difference between footnotes which cite sources (SNs), and those which are parenthetical explanatory notes (ENs).

Chapters 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12 offer mostly source notes.

Of the 5 endnotes for chapter 2, 2 are Source Notes while 3 are Explanatory Notes.

Of the 7 endnotes for chapter 4, 1 is an SN while 6 are ENs.

Of the 13 endnotes for chapter 7, 6 are SNs while 7 are ENs.

There are no endnotes for chapter 10.

Of the 11 endnotes for chapter 11, 1 is an SN while 10 are ENs.

Of the 15 endnotes for chapter 13, 1 is an SN while 14 are ENs.

Of the 2 endnotes for chapter 14, 1 is an SN while 1 is an EN.

Of the 20 endnotes for the Appendix, 20 are ENs.

Of the 16 endnotes for the Epilogue, 16 are ENs.

So there are less source notes - actual references - than the list above suggests. There are a number of things in the book for which there are no cited sources. What matters is not quantity, but citations for the parts of the book most relevant to JFK researchers.

Edited April 30, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

What I can't believe is that you edited the sentence and quoted me out of context.

The point I was making was the same point I have made today, namely: that you

qualify as rational in your beliefs only when they are based upon all the available

relevant evidence. You have been systematically disregarding what I consider to

be the most important relevant evidence that supports Judyth's position. I can't

object to your ultimate conclusion (for or against her), which is your decision. I

was making the conceptual point that, unless you have considered the evidence

on both sides of an issue, you haven't satisfied the requirement of total evidence

and your position is not rational. By selecting the evidence that supports a pre-

determined conclusion, you could prove that all coins are silver, that all humans

are male, and that every number is odd. But those conclusions, even supported

by infinitely many instances as in the case of odd numbers) would not make the

corresponding beliefs "rational". I was making a point about rationality of belief,

where you appear to be considering only the evidence on one side of the case.

I should explain that his has nothing to do with whether or not you ultimately believe in

Judyth. That is a conclusion that each of us had to determine for themselves. My point

is that, unless you have considered the evidence that I have identified, ...... you don't have the right to have

an opinion about Judyth--at least, not one that qualifies as "rational".

I cannot believe that Jim Fetzer wrote the above.

So nobody has the right to have an opinion unless it meets the teacher's criteria?

Jim, you were a teacher too long. You are no longer talking to "students".

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

MY PSY OPS EXPERT REFLECTS ON DR. MARY'S MONKEY AND THE JUDYTH BAKER STORY

NOTE: Consider this to be an indulgence at the end of an historic thread. His analysis seems to me to be far closer to the mark

than those coming from other members of this forum. This was written a few days ago and I only just realized I had it in hand.

Those who find his observations of no value are welcome to disregard them. I have valued his opinions for close to 20 years.

Jim, I read Edward Haslam's excellent book Dr. Mary's Monkey carefully and have thought it over in detail. I have come to some conclusions based on my prior knowledge of the background situation I was informed about many years ago.

There were two factions in the JCS (high military command within the shadow govt):

1. The first faction was the "rabid dogs of war" like curtis lemay, lemnitzer etc. that wanted all out "get it over with", "give us your best shot" nuclear war with the soviets. Supposedly the movie dr. strangelove or how I learned to love the bomb" movie was made about lemay. This faction set up castro to succeed and flip against the cia and turn to the soviets, hoping to provoke a confrontation with the soviets which would lead to a complete nuclear exchange with the USA making a first strike after faking a first single misslile attack from the soviets (as an inside job-operation northwoods type), thus to set off WW3 to get it over once and for all "dr. strangelove style".

2. The second faction was the super slick war profiteers like ed lansdale who wanted "perpetual limited wars" to keep the weapon sales flowing and keep the military industrial complex (ie shadow govt) strong. These were the super slick intel boys who were much smarter and very deceptive compared to the "rabid dogs of war". And there were certain very powerful individuals in the shadow govt connected to old european black nobility, nazis and the vatican that wanted to protect castro since cuba was essentially a catholic country and castro was a member of the council on foreign relations and was rumored to be under the protection of david rockefeller (ie the involvement of cardinal spellmen). That is why castro was always warned in advance of any assassination attempt against him even before it happened and the complete details of the bay of pigs planned attack too.

3. Both factions saw JFK as a huge threat and his demise was planned via many different channels even before he was elected. His personal physician admiral burkley purposely misdiagnosed his tuberculosis of the spine as addisons disease and prescribed steroids which made JFK hyper sexual. The mob provided him with many tempting willing females such as exner, monroe and the cia provided him with mary meyer and her lsd from timothy leary, and the military presented also him with a hotty looking female agent from east germany to consort with. JFK would have probably died from his medical complications before he would have ever completed a second term in office if he was re-elected (and that was likely).

4. The mad dogs wanted to kill castro and take back cuba for their compatriots in the mob. This faction decided to kill JFK when he made it clear he wouldn't allow castro to be assassinated or cuba to be invaded (JFK was concerned that this would trigger WW3 and Khrushev had warned him about his own mad dogs who wanted a complete nuclear exchange with the USA too. This option also became acceptable to the super slick intel faction (the allen dulles boys), so there was a convergence of motives between the two factions. This convergence took the JFK assassination from the planning stage to the operational stage. But the super slick intel boys wanted to use the JFK assassination as a means to get rid of the mad dogs, to push them aside. This would be done by convincing everyone involved including the warren commission members that the assassination tracked back to cuba and even the soviets and that WW3 was imminent if this was not completely covered up, and that WW3 would result in complete annihilation of the human species due to long term radiation fallout in addition to the massive nuclear exchanges.

5. In addition, the super slick intel faction also decided that castro was going to be preserved as their "special bad boy" to help promote the idea of the domino theory of communism was spreading to south america from him, as a means of stocking the fires of a continued military buildup and also increased weapons production and associated profits, thus always preparing for the next war in a perpetual chain.

6. And it was agreed that ochsner's program would be shut down and taken to an even more top secret covert status after trying to make everyone believe it was to be shut down forever. And Jim, you can bet they have increased the size of this "above top secret" project many, many times over Ochsner's operation. It is now rumored that they are spending billions per year on the development of catalytic (two part) viruses that can be activated by food additives, or electronically or by chemtrails, and on nano-particle sized electronic (cpu) chips that can be consumed via food air or liquid and will cross the blood brain barrier to be "flashed" electronically by pulsed digital microwaves in order to stimulate certain areas of the brain in order to modulate moods.

7. And I believe that Oswald was working for Bobby Kennedy as a double agent and that the superslicks knew this all along because they had completely infiltrated Bobby's office and staff and had all his conversations recorded. And they had at least one close confident of Bobby working as a double agent also.

NOW COMES THE BIG QUESTION: Why was dr. mary sherman assassinated in the manner she was?

ANSWER: Because it was decided by both factions that JFK was the problem to be eliminated, and there were not going to be any more assassination attempts against castro since he would be their southern hemisphere bad boy to be used to set a pretext for another later big war in south america to keep the perpetual war machine going. And the superslicks wanted to create a cover story that the bioweapon program had been discontinued when actually they decided it was so important they were going to set up it elsewhere and classify it at an even deeper black op level (above top secret). And they wanted to kill Dr. Mary Sherman to keep her from testifying about Ochsner's secret program and the bioweapons program for killing castro and as well the units findings about how to cure the cancer virus that were being injected with polio vaccines and other vaccines. The gruesome aspects of Dr. Shermans murder were to be a very strong "blood shock" warning to everyone to keep their mouths shut about everything related to Ochsner's top secret program.

AND HERE IS THE KEY POINT TO PONDER: The superslicks represented BIG PHARMA and BIG MEDICINE interests, two of the largest businesses in the world and DID NOT WANT THE CANCER VIRUS REMOVED FROM THE VACCINES WHICH DELIVERED THEM OR TREATED IN THOSE VICTIM/PATIENTS THAT HAD UNKNOWINGLY RECEIVED THEM.

So everyone in the shadow govt got what they wanted. Both factions got rid of JFK and got their continuing wars with the continuing weapons production and associate war profiteering. The mad dogs were put in their place by the threat that they could be blamed for the JFK Assassination because they were directly implicated and a lot of evidence was set up to lead directly to them by the superslick faction.

So the public is once again the BIG LOSER in all this, being lied to about vaccines being safe, not told that the SV-40 and other maybe worse stealth viruses had been given to them in the numerous vaccinations they had been required to get.

Now Jim, you can see why the nexus between Ed Haslam's excellent research and the Judyth Vary story is so important. By combining these publicly you have taken the Garrison investigation out of hibernation and moved it where it should have and would have gone if Judyth Vary had surface earlier. Of coarse intel may have assassinated her then if they saw this occurring. Maybe the time that has passed will not make it possible for the whole story to come out. Certainly if it does, you can bet BIG PHARMA and BIG MEDICINE will do their best to sidetrack and discredit the story to protect themselves from criminal liability, huge lawsuits and increased public scrutiny. And this would also threaten the eugenics program of the shadow govt in addition, who needs to keep the public sick, poor dent slaves and dumbed down.

Jim, this is my take on the New Orleans matter of Ochsner et al and JVB that you have put together so well. Many times the truth turns out to be stranger than fiction and that is what happened here with the Haslam/JVB nexus. It's just too much for many JFK researchers to handle. It will take time for this to sink in.

The way this matter is coming together it is completely incredulous to many JFK Assassination researchers and the WC apologists and Lone nutters are now pulling their hair out as they realize these new findings from the Haslam/Vary nexus completely shreds what little was left of their positions. That is why they are protesting so loudly with no real substance to their counter arguments (THEY DOTH PROTEST TOO MUCH WHEN THEY HAVE NOTHING OF SUBSTANCE).

Edited May 4, 2010 by James H. Fetzer