Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

JIM ADDS TO HIS REFLECTIONS ON JACK'S METHODOLOGY

Since I am completely confident that Jack White has never watched "The Love Affair" or the nine You

Tube interviews I have done with Judyth or my two two-hour interviews or the interview with Anna

Lewis, with whom she "double-dated" with Lee in New Orleans, I am quite sure that not even reading

Ed Haslam's book, which he has finally begun to undertake, could fill in all of the gaps in his almost

complete unfamiliarity with some of the most basic evidence in this case. Could he identify the name

of Kathy Santi, for example, or of David Lewis? Or has he studied "the disappearing witness"? He is

so extreme that he even wants to discount Ed Haslam's personal experience as a witness with regard

to the existence of an impostor "Judyth Vary Baker"! What could be more biased and irresponsible?

There seems to be one reason and one reason only why Jack has any interest in Judyth Vary Baker,

which is that what she has to tell us about Lee Harvey Oswald threatens to undermine HARVEY & LEE,

which I am inclined to believe is going to turn out to be the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the JFK

research community! And while the Zapruder film was indeed a "great hoax", it was not directed at

the JFK research community specifically in the way in which I believe this work has targeted us. Bear

in mind, we know that the CIA creates false histories so their undercover operatives can return to a

normal life. Judyth has explained that Lee told her that on more than one occasion. So to prove the

existence of "two Oswalds", they (Jack and John) would have had to prove the existence of THREE:

the man Judyth knew (whom they call "Havey"), the man they call "Lee", and the false history that

was created to allow the man Judyth knew to return to a normal life. They did not do that, but, in

my opinion, combined discoveries of a false documentary trail created by the agency with a variety

of research techniques, including leading witnesses and using unreliable testimony, to create the

image of a massive compilation. But the massiveness of the documentation Jack loves to cite does

not mean that HARVEY & LEE is a competent piece of research. RECLAIMING HISTORY is another

massively documented work with a staggering number of references and citations, but none of us

would be taken in on that account alone. I have already reported that, in the first five pages of

this book, the author cites the "index" to the 26 supporting volumes as though it ought to have

included references to the CIA (when it was only a name index) and ignores the fact that the 888-

page summary known as THE WARREN REPORT includes dozens of references to the CIA and, a

few pages later, talks about the FBI laundering Oswald's personal possessions by secretly taking

them to Washington, D.C., returning them and then, with great fanfare, loading them in a car to

take them to Washington again (allegedly for the first time) and talks about a report prepared by

the FBI "two weeks before the Warren Commission would be formed", which, as Pat Speer noted

at the time, was another blunder, since the commission was founded on 29 November 1963, not

to mention the absurdity of Lillian Murret, "Harvey"'s aunt, paying for "Lee"'s dental bill, which is

such a ridiculous story that Jack White was moved to claim that Lillian and Dutz, Robert, Marina,

and Marguerite ALL KNEW THERE WERE "TWO OSWALDS", EVEN THOUGH NONE OF THEM HAS

EVER UTTERED A PEEP. This is such a gratuitous stretch for which HE HAS NO DOCUMENTATION

that I suspect he knows this house of cards risks collapsing around him. Lola has therefore offered

a third alternative to my observation that he has either lost his competence or gone over to the dark

side, namely: that he is acting to protect his self-interest because Judyth's story conflicts with the

"two Oswalds". While that is very plausible and probably true, it is an EXPLANATION OF WHY HE

HAS LOST HIS COMPETENCE IN RELATION TO JFK RESEARCH, which is lamentable. Indeed, this is

quite stunning given his claims to have no bias against Judyth, as he has asserted repeatedly during

this thread. All in all, this is the kind of performance that gives conspiracy research a bad name.

Jim says that both he and Haslam believe in Judyth.

But I am compelled to point out that believing and believing in are two entirely different

concepts. Believing implies encountering a proven truth. Believing in implies FAITH

that an unproven truth is so.

And he uses the word TESTIMONY regarding Anna and David Lewis. I am led to believe that is

not so. As I understand it, they mention this in a video interview by Wim Dankbaar, who had a pecuniary

interest in anything which supported the JVB story. Nobody knows the details of this "interview", but

it was not "testimony".

Jack

This is great, Michael. What I have said (to the best of my recollection) is that DR. MARY'S MONKEY

is one of the best referenced works I have read written for THE GENERAL PUBLIC. It is far from the

most scholarly books I have read or published, for that matter. Please get your points straight. Ed

has told me more than one occasion that there is a general agreement between those involved with

Judyth that they should not make public statements until ME & LEE appears, no doubt because it is

chock full of new documents, records, and information. Judyth has been very guarded about saying

all she has to say out of concern for her own safety and well being, even though it is my advice that

the more she says, the less she has to fear, since there is less reason to take her out. My impression

is that the book is being printed and that we should not have much longer to wait for a major event!

I not only interviewed him on "The Real Deal" but we have spoken since. He, like me, believes in her.

Some of your questions perplex me, because I have already answered them. Certainly, having said

more than once that I regard you as among the more serious and subtle students of this case, I am

not inclined to neglect you. I find it most interesting that Ed Haslam has reported his own experience

of meeting an impostor "Judyth Vary Baker". It would be some time before he would discover this to

be the case, of course, only after "60 Minutes" contacted him. But that is quite stunning. Why would

the agency go to the trouble to create a fake "Judyth Vary Baker" unless the original one was actually

real and posed a threat to exposing its ops? Not all the evidence relevant to Judyth is to be found in

the pages of that book, of course. Her friend Anna Lewis has testified that she and her husband David

"double-dated" with Judyth and Lee in New Orleans. And her friend Kathy Santi, M.D., has written to

ask why she did not earn her medical degree at Tulane, which they had discussed back in Gainesville.

And the ongoing efforts to make her a "disappearing witness" are powerful proof of her authenticity.

That you would suggest I have claimed Ed's book "proves they were lovers" simply offends me, since

I cannot recall having ever made such a claim. Evidence of their intimacy derives from other sources.

As for your questions, he only met the real "Judyth Vary Baker" when "60 Minutes" brought them into

contact, which Howard Platzman has explained. As for not telling her that he was writing a book, you

seem to be confounding Judyth's initial encounters with him (when he did not mention that) with her

later knowledge about it (when he asked her to review what he had written). I wouldn't have thought

you couldn't figure that one out on your own. As for pursuing the other persons at the party where he

met the impostor "Judyth Vary Baker", I don't know if it has ever crossed his mind. It is an interesting

idea, however, and I will certainly discuss it with him. If you watched the YouTubes I have done with

Judyth, I don't think there is much doubt about her relationship with Lee. Some of the stories that

she tells (about the pronuciation of "New Orleans", for example) are spot-on. And if you listened to

Ed Haslam's four hours on "Coast to Coast AM", you would have no doubt that he believes in Judyth.

http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/04/ed...ey-part-ii.html

From the prologue of Dr Mary's Monkey:

You will find this book as much of a personal odyssey as a journalistic work. But that's what happens

when you investigate a murder only to discover an epidemic. Either way the destination is the same.

I will tell you why I am deeply suspicious of certain activities that occurred in New Orleans in the 1960's

and why you should be too. We will begin with what I personally saw and heard over the years. To that

we add years of research.

Then we get questions. Fair and honorable questions. Questions which

deserve answers. Questions which have their own purpose, their own energy, even their own dignity. (italics added)

Questions which will eventually help us coax this Orwellian monster out of its swamp of secrecy.

Ed Haslam seems to imply that Dr Mary's Monkey raises more questions than it answers. With regard

to the two chapters that deal with Judyth Vary Baker, that certainly seems to be the case to me.

Haslam leaves it to the readers' imagination as to whom will answer these questions.

On page 291 of DMM, Ed Haslam asked this question: "Did Judyth know Lee Harvey Oswald in New Orleans in 1963?"

Haslam does not ask the much more difficult question: Were LHO and JVB lovers?

Haslam had seven years from the time he first contacted Judyth Baker until the publication of Doctor Mary's Monkey

to research this question. He had ample opportunity to converse with JVB at will. And in seven years he could come up

with only two pieces of evidence: The Reily pay stubs and Dankbaar's interview with Anna Lewis. Seven years of research?

And that's the only evidence Haslam could provide to answer his own question?

Question: What research did Haslam conduct (primary or otherwise) regarding the alleged LHO/JVB affair during those seven years?

On page 287 of DMM Haslam asks another question: "It makes one wonder: Who really made 60M's decision to abort? And why?"

Haslam gives no indication he ever tried to find out. Two pages earlier, he gave a possible answer for why:

As the dimensions of the story grew, so did 60M's demands for hard evidence. 60M was not about

to risk its credibility over an unsupported story involving a homemade biological weapon and the accused

assassin of the President

without hard evidence. (italics added)

. This is when they contacted me, because

I had already written a book that sounded on-point. (In the next sentence, Haslam says that 60M had not yet read his book!)

Yes, they had my book, but no, they had not read it yet. I insisted that the 60M investigator read it, every word

cover-to-cover, which she later said that she did on her flight back to New York.

No, I did not have the hard evidence about this woman that they were looking for. (italics added)

But I never

said that I did. From my perspective, I was particularly concerned that 60M could easily discredit her story as a means of

discrediting my story. Such were my intitial thoughts.

Question: Which Judyth Baker is Haslam talking about in the last paragraph?

Question: Sixty Minutes contacted Haslam on their own volition, sent him a packet of materials detailing their

prospective story, and flew one of their unnamed investigators to interview him....all without reading his book?

Jim Fetzer has called Haslam's book one of the most scholarly and well-researched books that he has encountered.

Yet it was pointed out to him that Haslam's footnotes in the JVB chapters are rife with unsupported speculations.

(Such as Lee Oswald personally meeting Carlos Marcello several times in 1963 and David Ferrie knowing Jack Ruby

well enough to introduce him to JVB as Sparky Rubinstein). These episodes belong in the Appendix entitled Judyth's Story,

not in the footonotes of another chapter that attempts to ascertain the truthfulness of Haslam's witness.

Much earlier in this thread I spent a considerable amount of time trying to get Jim to answer my questions about

Dr Mary's Monkey. (Not the ones that appear above) Since this is the book that Jim has repeatedly touted

and insisted members read, I think that it is reasonable that he at least make an attempt to address the questions,

even if he prefers not to answer them. Jim did tell me that he referred them to Ed Haslam, but in the course of this thread

Haslam has made it clear that he does not feel it is productive to discuss the Judyth Baker story until her new book comes out.

In much abbreviated form, these were three of them:

Question: Even though Haslam had JVB "correct and corroborate" her story that he published in DMM, why did he

never divulge to her that he was writing a book in which she would play a key role? (That is what JVB claimed)

Question: When did Haslam contact Judyth Baker for the first time?

Question: Why has Haslam made no effort to find the people (including his girl friend at the time) that attended

the other JVB's party in 1972? They could have corroborated his story to 60 Minutes, or to readers of Dr Mary's Monkey.

It is both frustrating and irritating to me that neither Jim nor Ed Haslam want to address any of these rather simple questions.

"Fair and honorable questions. Questions which deserve answers. Questions which have their own purpose, their

own energy, even their own dignity."

During the course of this thread Jim Fetzer became aware of Ed Haslam's Dr Mary's Monkey and ever since that point

he has used it to suggest that it would answer questions and demonstrate that Lee Oswald and Judyth Baker were lovers.

Aside from repeating and refining Baker's story, Haslam's book does little to achieve that end.

Edited May 9, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Jack White]

I suggest that the building and installation of any linear particle accelerator would leave

a huge PAPER TRAIL and hundreds of WITNESSES who manufactured, installed, operated,

and then removed the complicated machine...unless it was classified TOP SECRET. Very

large sums of money were necessarily involved. Haslam produces no documents nor witnesses

for his speculation.

Jack

[Jack White]

I am becoming increasingly concerned about Jim. He seems to be under some sort of spell

where his normally brilliant judgment is becoming progressively impaired. He is obsessed with

JVB out of all proportion to her relative unimportance to solving the JFK murder. If her tales

had any relevance or importance, it would be a different matter. Even if her stories were

100% true, they are insignificant.

Jack

[Doug Weldon]

Since Judyth is currently unavailable, I spoke with Howard Platzman about

this, and neither of us can figure out why anyone would think that Judyth

would dissemble about something so basic as her marriage to Baker. Jack

is doing his best to build a case, but neither of us thinks that he has one.

I don't know why whomever suggested to Jack the possibility that they had already gotten married in Florida. It is easy

enough to check if anyone cares to do that. But when it comes to why Judyth would "dissemble about something so basic as her marriage to Baker" ... she did tell two distinctly different versions of her wedding day. Both told in great specific detail.

On thread page 151, post #2262, I replied to a question of Jack's saying this:

Judyth's timeline in her book is that Robert was to arrive on the morning of May 1 and they would go straight to the courthouse to buy their license and get married. He arrived, they went to the courthouse ... and learned there was a 2 day waiting period in Louisiana. Neither of them had checked the details ahead of time. So, then they went to the library and looked up nearby states and discovered there was no waiting period in Alabama .... so the next morning they drove to Mobile.

She says they went and bought their marriage license and were then sent to the hospital for their blood tests .... and as soon as their blood was drawn, they were given the certificates they needed to go around the corner and get married. In a footnote she relates that for years she had "believed" they got the results right on the spot, but then realizing that would have been "clinically impossible" and that "what happened" was that they were sent the results by mail, or as related in the text, she writes in parentheses that "the test results, if positive, would have been sent to us."

Procedurally, this makes no sense .... as the purpose for the law was to prevent people with syphilis from marrying and spreading the joy. I don't know how they operated in Alabama in 1963 .... will have to find out. Nor does it make sense to me that after a celebratory dinner, they went back to the hospital pharmacy to pick up her birth control pills.

That triggered a different memory in my head, so I did a little looking and found the original version from 2002. In it, she relates how they got to Mobile, stopped by the hospital to have their blood tests done, then went to the courthouse and got married, and then swung back by the hospital pharmacy to pick up her birth control pills.

Because I know about the premarital blood test (VDRL) from my personal laboratory work experience, which I had already also explained to Jack, I responded to Judyth's 2002 post saying this:

Hello, Judyth....

Am I reading this correctly ... you say you drove to Mobile, Alabama,

got the required blood test and got married .... all on the same

day?????

Thanks,

Barb :-)

Judyth responded with even more detail and was quite emphatic and specific:

Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk, alt.conspiracy.jfk

From: electlad...@aol.com (Judyth V. Baker)

Date: 6 Jan 2002 18:55:43 -0500

Local: Sun, Jan 6 2002 4:55 pm

Subject: Re: A Judyth Blooper? WRONG! WHY WAS HER MARRIAGE ON MAY 2, MR. LEYDEN?

Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

Yes, Barb--we sure did. Mobile is an easy drive from New Orleans. We

started before dawn, stopped at Providence Hospital, got our blood test

done about eight in the morning, had negative results in hand by two

o'clock, went through the tunnel, went to the courthouse, bought a

license, and by four o'clock, we were married. We returned quite late that

evening, but with that marriage certificate, I was later able to get birth

control pills. It seems we did not stop again at Providence Hospital for

these after all--at least I can;t prove the purchase on May 2 of birth

control pills. I did save one in its original wrapper--probably got them

later at Charity Hospital in New Orleans. I just checked my files, and

while I cannot prove where we bought the pills, I have ALL other

documents.

She goes on to add even more detail including saving "biologically relevant souvenirs" - the bandage

from her arm where the blood was drawn and one of her birth control pills taped to a postcard

from the restaurant where they ate ... or something. And she also said this:

I even

have the slip of paper from Providence Hospital, with the blood test

result and date, and the very bandage is with it that came from my arm

from the blood test --along with a little pink birth control

pill..biologically relevant souvenirs. I have very thorough records on

every single detail.

I cannot help but wonder if my question to her was the catalyst for the later change in her story as it appeared in her book a few years later. As I mentioned above, in the book version, she said she realized it would have been " clinically impossible" to have gotten the blood test results right away. So, despite writing in 2002 that she had all the dated documents and "very thorough records on every detail" ... the story changed. And it changed to a version that makes no sense given that the purpose of the blood test was to keep someone with syphilis from getting married. You get the needed health certificate after you pass the test, then you can buy your license and get married.

So, despite 2 different versions of the event, I am not certain we ever got the correct one. And while the details of her wedding day don't matter much in the grand scheme of things, what does matter is that she tells different stories .... both written with emphatic declaration, with specific detail ... and with claims of having the documents and records that detail it all.

If she can't get the details of her own wedding day straight in two tries ... how much confidence can anyone really have when she writes detailed accounts of things Oswald said or did, or what went on with mice & monkeys and anything else .... that it is any more accurate than either version of her wedding day stories?

There are no documents and reports that can be checked for verification as regards any of her story about the kitchen lab, the bioweapon ... or her love affair with LHO...and on and on. Without a track record of even the simplest claims she makes passing confirm/deny fact checking, there is a fatal credibility hurdle that neither she, nor anyone who just chooses to believe in her, can jump.

Barb:

My logical fear is that there will be many corrections in Judyth's book based upon the evidence and questions raised in this extremely long thread. In that respect, everyone of us, not just Jim, will have been "used" by Judyth to get her story airtight before her book comes out.

Doug Weldon

[Dean Hagerman]

Even if her stories were 100% true, they are insignificant.

This is where I agree with Jack 100%

How does a very short affair with LHO and Judyth, as well as Judyth claiming to meet all these strange people come into play with helping to solve the assassination?

I dont need Judyth to make me believe Oswald knew Ferrie, I already believe that!

I dont need Judyth to tell me that Oswald knew Bannister, I already believe that!

I dont need Judyth to tell me that Ferrie knew Shaw, I already believe that!

Edited May 9, 2010 by Dean Hagerman

[John Dolva]

Exactly, Doug. (I was wondering how long it would take for someone to come around to stating the obvious, except I don't think Jim has been used at all. It always was a beta test (my first post I think early on) and druming up focus for forthcoming royalties.)

Edited May 9, 2010 by John Dolva

[Pamela Brown]

DW said:My logical fear is that there will be many corrections in Judyth's book based upon the evidence and questions raised in this extremely long thread. In that respect, everyone of us, not just Jim, will have been "used" by Judyth to get her story airtight before her book comes out.

That is called 'poisoning the well'.

Nonetheless, since Judyth's book is not out yet and this thread has revisited a number of issues, it is logical to ask whether or not there may be a connection. It will be interesting to see what, if any of the statements made in this thread, are incorporated into it.

Edited May 9, 2010 by Pamela Brown

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Barb:

My logical fear is that there will be many corrections in Judyth's book based upon the evidence and questions raised in this extremely long thread. In that respect, everyone of us, not just Jim, will have been "used" by Judyth to get her story airtight before her book comes out.

Doug Weldon

Oh, Doug, absolutely ... without a doubt. This has been a "try it out, see how it flies" thing as much as it has been a well timed pre-release publicity thing. Overall, it has been a disaster for Judyth, imo. But I am sure she gleaned some trouble spots that need to be fixed or have an explanation ready for .... and myself and others have noted several changes that have already taken place in her story due to previously posted fact checking findings and arguments, as well as some new claims. Those have largely gone without comment on, but not unnoticed, by myself and others. As I posted early on in this thread and again not too many days ago ... I am not posting any findings or info not already "out there" ... and for good reason. I waited until after her first book came out to do and post fact checking findings, then when she announced a new book coming out, I stopped and have been on a little Judyth vacation .... not wanting to give her a heads up on anything else that has been, is in process or going to be fact checked. For the obvious reason just as you stated.

What Fetzer doesn't realize, because he just plowed full speed ahead without knowing or looking into the history of her story, is that her team used to try ....often unsuccessfully ... to keep Judyth off of the net and from jibber jabbering away because she is forever saying/adding new and conflicting things. Enter Fetzer who posts for her ... but without knowing the history of her claims, and keeps putting her out there with a microphone in front of her face besides. It's been quite interesting!

Bests,

Barb :-)

[Jack White]

I am becoming increasingly concerned about Jim. He seems to be under some sort of spell

where his normally brilliant judgment is becoming progressively impaired. He is obsessed with

JVB out of all proportion to her relative unimportance to solving the JFK murder. If her tales

had any relevance or importance, it would be a different matter. Even if her stories were

100% true, they are insignificant.

Jack

I worry that Jim accuses Lifton, Weldon, White and many others of changing from brilliant

researchers into terrible persons and worse researchers. None of us has changed. What has

changed is that Jim's judgment has become impaired because of his obsession with this

minor blip on the radar, which seems to him to be a 747, but is really just a bayou mosquito.

I hope that he takes a long vacation and comes back refreshed and is the old Jim who was

doing such great work till he got sidetracked with his ill advised sponsorship of dubious

claims. I hope his reputation is not irreparably damaged...for many valuable studies are

dependent on his talent for editorship.

He should not discuss the subject further till the book is released and we can all see

and discuss a single statement and not an ever-moving target.

Slow down, Jim. Stand back and look at this objectively. Examine all the counterclaims.

Many have merit. Take it easy, friend.

Jack

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

JIM MAKES ONE MORE EFFORT TO CONNECT WITH JACK (BUT IT APPEARS HOPELESS)

Why don't you respond to the questions I have raised about your gross misrepresentations

of Ed Haslam's book? How many times do I have to explain (1) that her story humanizes

the "lone, demented gunman", (2) that it exposes a secret bioweapons project and (3) that

it leads back to the polio vaccine scandal, which involved the mandated inoculation of some

100,000,000 young children and appears to have precipitated the epidemic of soft tissue

cancer that is taking place today. George Noory called it perhaps "the greatest scandal in

the history of the nation". (2) appears to have been #1 in the CIA's list of "family jewels",

the one that was redacted. If you don't understand what is going on any better than you

indicate, then you ought to be doing something else with your copious free time. Michael

Hogan even makes up the claim that I suggested DR. MARY'S MONKEY would prove that

she and Lee were "lovers", which is a nice piece of fantasy, and Junkkarinen displays no

interest in whether Oswald autopsy photographs have been faked (which is not the same

as the question of circumcision, which is not the primary issue that concerns me). It is all

too clear that this thread is disintegrating beyond repair. Please acknowledge to everyone

that you were mistaken about evidence of the present of the particle accelerator and that

you were completely wrong about Mary Sherman's death, which cannot have occurred at

her apartment as you had previously claimed, and that if you had only read DR. MARY'S

MONKEY months ago, you could have spared this thread 50 to 100 pointless posts. This

must be at least the fifth time I have explained to you why her story matters. Could you

kindly admit that now you understand why it matters? And stop making up fantasies to

explain my commitment to Judyth. I and Nigel Turner and Ed Haslam and Wim Dankbaar

and Howard Platzman and Dean Hartwell believe in her because she appear to us to be

telling the truth and there is a great deal of evidence to support her, including witnesses

like Kathy Santi and Anna Lewis, documentary records like "the disappearing witness",

research in New Orleans by a man who knows the city like the back his hand and lays it

out for those who can actually read and understand the words he writes, and much more,

which I have laid out in several blogs, some nine YouTube interviews, and two two-hour

interviews on "The Real Deal", virtually none of which you have ever bothered to read or

watch. I have spent overwhelmingly more time dealing with her than anyone else who

is posting. Your utterly irresponsible conduct during the course of this thread has caused

me to question your competence. Having to deal with you here has been among the most

disappointing experiences of my adult life. And you are doing nothing to redeem yourself.

I really don't care about the twits who post so frequently. But I do care about you. Take

the time to respond to the questions that I have raised before I have to write you off as

a lost cause. If you begin by answering the questions I have raised, there may be hope.

I am becoming increasingly concerned about Jim. He seems to be under some sort of spell

where his normally brilliant judgment is becoming progressively impaired. He is obsessed with

JVB out of all proportion to her relative unimportance to solving the JFK murder. If her tales

had any relevance or importance, it would be a different matter. Even if her stories were

100% true, they are insignificant.

Jack

Edited May 9, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Greg Burnham]

It is unfortunate that two of my closest friends in the JFK assassination research community, Jack White and James Fetzer, have both contributed--and continue to contribute--to turning this topic from what it is about into "their story". In fact, if any media persons had been following this as a "Judyth story" at the beginning-- that story's significance would have long ago been lost in the quagmire of the Jim & Jack feud.

Originally, Jim was presenting Judyth's material and Jack was discrediting Judyth's material. Shortly thereafter, Jack (and others) began discrediting Judyth--not just her material. Then Jim (and others) began defending Judyth--not just her material. Then an incredibly stupid misdirection of hostility occured: they both began discrediting each other!

This is, no doubt, the most absurd behavior that I've ever witnessed among otherwise intelligent persons who are on the same side of the BIG PICTURE!

My advice: Attack ideas--not each other. This isn't about either of you! It's not about your respective competence as researchers--so don't make it about that. You disagree. Leave it there. It will only mean more than that if you force it to mean more. Allow each other a graceful way out. None of us is ever 100% right about anything. Who knows, fellas--one or both of you might not be this time?

Edited May 10, 2010 by Greg Burnham

[Kathleen Collins]

As I am about to explain, there is a larger issue here than circumcision, though

I agree that that is a matter that Judyth should address. The concern which I

previously expressed toward Dean had less to do with circumcision and more

to do with faked autopsy photos. But then why should I find that surprising?

No. Judyth not knowing whether or not LHO was circumcised IS the issue. One cannot have an intimate relationship

and have to guess on that question. This issue is not a matter of any autopsy photos having been faked ... for what

purpose... to show an uncircumcised LHO? That some clown may have diddled with autopsy photos for their own purpose

or just to screw with people, maybe. What is the source of the photos, which ones are official matters, of course.

But the autopsy report says he was circumcised.

Judyth said he was not ... then later changed it to something akin to, 'of course he was, the autopsy report even reports that'.

Tilt. Capsized.

What the hell is this?

An Oswald autopsy photo...

Kathy C

[Greg Burnham]

What the hell is this?

An Oswald autopsy photo...

Kathy C

It's a cropped version of his right bicep (upper arm), I think. Actually, I have no idea. It's your picture--why post something if you don't know what it is?

Edited May 10, 2010 by Greg Burnham

[Michael Hogan]

Michael:

You and I seem to be among the few who have taken Fetzer's advice and obtained and read Dr. Mary's Monkey, watched/listened to the various YouTube and audio programs and read some of the related literature. While our main points of interest vary - for you, Baker; for me, Ferrie - I think we are seeing it the same way. I expected to see reasonably convincing evidence in support of key assertions, but I have not seen anything approaching that standard.

My key Ferrie questions are: Did Ferrie actually have an "underground medical laboratory" at any location? Did Ferrie actually work with Dr. Mary Sherman? I certainly see Haslam's belief that these things are true, but little if any verfiable, checkable evidence. We end up ultimately with circular corroboration: Baker confirms Haslam, and Haslam confirms Baker.

And my response from Fetzer has been even more troubling than yours. He challenges my qualifications to have an opinion. He invokes Haslam to suggest that I am nothing more than a jealous wannabe. He denigrates my research without making any attempt to see any of it. He tries to put me down by suggesting that my slow caution in my PART-TIME writing of my Ferrie biography doesn't meet his standard of churning out 29 books in even fewer years. Forum rules prevent me from using a word to describe how he has treated me.

I don't know where to go from here. It has become apparent that Fetzer is unwilling to consider contrary opinions and that he cannot discuss without schoolboy attempts at put-downs. I once respected Fetzer's ability to collate and analyze, but my respect has been diluted by his insistence that it will all become clear if we just have faith in his beliefs.

I have no beef with Haslam. I respect that he put his heart and soul into this book, and for all I know, the medical parts may have some substance. I have reservations about his mixing this all with the whole Ferrie and Oswald matter. I wish he had been more diligent in obtaining evidence, and that he was more willing to discuss these matters with people like you and me. And others. And I wish he had found a champion more interested in finding the truth than in proving himself right.

Stephen, I know you initially were reluctant to get drawn into this thread. Once you were insulted

in such an ugly and unwarranted manner, I understand why it became impossible not to respond.

I think you can take solace in the fact that the overwhelming majority of members that have

read your posts on this thread know you have made consistent attempts to qualify your opinions,

balance your assertions, and refrain from straying far from things you have studied.

I believe that Forum members that are possessed with good judgment know exactly what

happened to you and why. And they know it reflects poorly on the ones that denigrated you.

PS) I would like to thank Greg Burnham, Jack White, Josiah Thompson, and Barb Junkkarinen

for their supportive comments. Those comments meant a lot to me and were appreciated.

[Jack White]

What the hell is this?

An Oswald autopsy photo...

Kathy C

It's a cropped version of his right bicep (upper arm), I think. Actually, I have no idea. It's your picture--why post something if you don't know what it is?

That photo is from the FBI set. It apparently was taken to show the vaccination scar on the upper left arm,

but all the photos are very poor quality.

Jack