Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Since Judyth has no idea what challenges your family faces, she obviously cannot have been attempting to buttress her position at your expense.

JUDYTH REPLIES (IN CONSIDERABLE DETAIL) TO DOUG WELDON

"I believe I exhibit a portion of an autistic savant syndrome, insofar as I get lost, literally, by stepping into any new territory. My ability to recognize live faces (not on computer tests, where I get 100%) is strikingly bad....a portion of my brain doesn't work as it does with other people, when I am standing up or walking. Accompanying that, however, was an ability to remember almost everything I read or heard. Yes, I remember, Doug. With terrific accuracy."

in my opinion, this suggestion by judyth that she is an autistic savant might be her most preposterous claim yet (and as you all know there is a lot of competition for that dubious distinction).

i have a daughter with severe autism and so over the years have had to learn a great deal about that condition.

read the story of judyth's life in her own words at http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/boring.txt

if you take that account at face value you will find nothing in it that is consistent with a diagnosis of autism. i don't know, for instance, of any autistic person who has a thousand friends.

i very much resent judyth's attempt to use the condition that has made my family life such a challenge in an attempt to buttress her pathetic fantasies about Lee Harvey oswald.

[Kevin Greenlee]

i have a daughter with severe autism

As you've just said Kevin, there are varying degrees and types of autism.

hi lee-

i agree there are many different positions on the autism spectrum. over the last 7 years i've done much research on the different degrees of the condition and regularly interact with adults and children who are anywhere from mildly autistic to severely so, like my daughter. i have also watched and listened to and read many interviews with judyth- as well as paid attention to discussion of her. in my opinion, the woman does not exhibit the characteristics that would lead to even a "mildly" autistic diagnosis. i believe she is trying to grasp at what she perceives is a convenient explanation for her improbable detailed recollection of 1963.

[Kevin Greenlee]

if you look at the very first line of my post you will see i explicitly wrote "i do not know mr. lifton."

When David Lifton has the integrity to send me the cassette of his (one and only) conversation with Judyth so I can listen to it, I will be glad to reassess my opinions on that basis. Since you appear to be in contact with him, tell him he should share his "evidence" with me so I can evaluate it myself.

Mr. Fetzer-

you have said many times that David Lifton disbelieves Judyth solely because of her disastrous "Cancun" gaffe. i do not know mr. lifton and in fact disagree with the conclusions he presented in "best evidence." i have, however, always had the highest regard for his skills as a researcher and for his personal integrity. i thought, then, that i would take a moment to point out that you have done him an injustice. in numerous newsgroup postings in the year or so after his conversation with Judyth, he mentioned many reasons why he disbelieved her. you should be able to easily find them all with a google search. i will quote a bit from a message you can find in its entirety at

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspir...ca7348809?hl=en

"Here are two more things Judyth told me last March:

(1) Judyth told me that she co-wrote a science fiction story with Lee Oswald.

Question to Shackelford: Did she tell you this tale, too, Martin? and you

have the manuscript? Is it in her hand only‹or is some of Lee Oswald¹s

purported handwriting in that document? Is that one of the documents you

have been trying to hawk to media outlets? Is this one of the Oswald

so-called "writings"??

(2) When I asked Judyth how she would answer the question of how she could

have had so much foreknowledge and yet not reported it to the authorities

(prior to 11/22/63), part of her long rambling answer was that, in order to

get greater protection for JFK on his Dallas visit, Lee fomented the

Stevenson incident. That¹s right: Lee fomented the Adlai Stevenson incident

so that the authorities would beef up protection on Kennedy.

Question to Martin Shackelford: Did she tell you this tale, too? Any

comment? Do you find it reasonable? Just another one of the adventures in

the life of (or perhaps, more accurately, in the mind of) Judyth

Wonderwoman?

I also want to repeat, and remind anyone reading this post, of other things

she said to me last March, 2000 (some of these are repeats from a previous

post; some are new):

ITEM: Judyth told me that she (and her co-workers in Florida) "knew" the

assassination was going to happen, and so prepared to watch it on TV. (Just

consider the implications of that statement, which was said most

deliberately).

ITEM: Judyth told me that her income was $12.000 per year and that she had

declared bankruptcy in the recent past. She also claimed that she turned

down one million dollars (or some huge comparable sum of money) from a

tabloid for her story.

Question to Martin Shackelford: Did she tell you this? Do you find that

plausible? That a woman in such modest economic circumstances would turn

down a million dollars?

ITEM: Judyth told me that despite her connection with all these evens in

1963, she had no idea of‹and never heard of‹the Garrison investigation at the

time it was occurring. And in fact, Judyth said she didn¹t get re-interested

in all this until she saw the movie JFK, in 1991. (And she even had the

details wrong there: it was not released as video until some time later in

1992, yet Judyth said one of her children brought the video home; and that¹s

when she first saw the movie‹on video, in 1991).

Question to Shackelford: Did she tell you this? Forget the error about

format. Do you find that plausible‹that she didn¹t know about the Garrison

investigation at the time it was occurring?

ITEM: Judyth told me that at the "cancer lab" at Dave Ferrie¹s apartment,

they "processed" 4,000 mice per month.

Question to Shackelford: Did she tell you this, too? Do you find that

plausible? Do you understand what it would mean to be "processing" 4,000

mice per month? (Martin: do you know anyone who has a pet gerbil? Do you

know what it would mean to have 4,000 of them house in Ferrie¹s apartment?)

ITEM: Judyth told me, in connection with her alleged knowledge of Lee¹s visit

to lecture at the Jesuit college at Spring Hill, Alabama, that Robert Kennedy

made a phone call there.

Question to Shackelford: Did she tell you this? Do you find that plausible?

That Robert Kennedy was calling Lee Oswald at the Jesuit House of Studies,

and that she, Judyth Baker, knew about this?

SUMMARY COMMENT: I don¹t think one has to know the "order" in which these

facts go to find them implausible. These items are---individually or

collectively‹inherently implausible."

this has nothing to do with Lifton but reading again Judyth's claim that oswald organized the rough time Adlai Stevenson had in Dallas reminds me of Judyth's claim that oswald also had a hand in planning the route of the JFK motorcade. talk about "inherently implausible!"

you have also suggested, Mr. Fetzer, that Lifton did no research or study on any of Judyth's claims. that also is not true. Below you will find a link to a lengthy message where he analyzes a claim Judyth made again in her most recent posting- that she had to clock oswald out of work.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspir...c1cb707a4?hl=en

A brief excerpt: " this "smoking time-clock" business...illustrate(s) just how Judyth probably went about fabricating this

fictional "Lee and me" story in the first place. She reads the record

and looks for "holes"—factual interstices—where she can "insert"

herself."

Sounds right on the money to me.

There is more at stake than the opinions of those on this forum, Lee. We are talking about crucial events in the history of this nation. If I have to lose some friends in defense of (what I am completely convinced is) the truth about Judyth and Lee, then that is the price that I have to pay. But I am not going to sacrifice my integrity and commitment to truth for those who may have lost their way and who have attacked me and Judyth for bad reasons. That they have yet to read DR. MARY'S MONKEY speaks volumns about their dedication to the search for truth. I simply don't know what else to say.

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

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

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

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

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

I don't get this Jim.

Why can't you have both?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards

Lee

Let's flip it Jim.

If you place truth over friendships then there is only truth and no friendships, so my question is this; what the hell is the point in having the truth if this is what it costs? What a sad lonely existence it would be having all the answers. If you change the level of the discourse with each other then things might improve. But shouting "my truth is better than your truth" at each other is getting you and everyone else with an interest in this thread nowhere.

If you are all getting angry with one another because you can't agree what the bloody truth is, then there's a problem wouldn't you say?

My post, although written to you, was to everyone getting hot under the collar on this thread. Apologies if you took it as some sort of direct attack Jim. I was, in fact, directly attacking ALL individuals on this thread who have somewhat "lost the plot!!"

I'm going for a large single malt and a pint of Guinness - I recommend everyone else do the same.

Regards

Marcus Aurelius Jr.

P.S. I was going to respond to David Lifton's last posting in this thread because I felt it was insulting to every member of the board. I ultimately decided "what's the point", he only ever responds to people that he considers to be in the same "intellectual class" as himself and I would have invited the wrath of many other members. So I left it...

...I recommend, from time to time, you do the same

[Doug Weldon]

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't get this Jim.

Why can't you have both?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards

Lee

Jim:

If you read my post, you will note I did read Dr. Mary's Monkey. I did not e-mail Jack about you or Judyth, I did watch Judyth on TMWKK. I did listen to her interview on Black ops in 2004. I did follow the thread very carefully on Rich's forum. Judyth did not decline to speak with me. I have read everything here. My comments are specific to Judyth and not simply witnesses in general. Unless Judyth is an idiot savant I do not believe she can remember specific days, moments, and the exact dialog from so many years ago. I do not believe the Oswald we have tapes of sounded like that. He would make Obama sound like Gomer Pyle. I have acknowledged that Armstrong made errors. We all do. I have been attacked as a person and researcher , accused directly, and by innuendo of being dishonest. My intelligence and reasoning ability has been ridiculed by you. Whether Judyth is accurate about some things or all things her credibility as a witness has been destroyed, not by others or David or Jack, but by herself.

Doug Weldon

[Kathleen Collins]

Judyth is about as "real deal" as Anna Anderson

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Anderson

Yes, the Anastasia Syndrome or The Living Lindbergh Baby. There have been men who claimed they were the Lindbergh baby and that another infant was found dead. Of course, it wasn't true. There are a number of examples. I remember some young man posing as the son of Sidney Portier. Several women claimed to be Marilyn Monroe's daughter, whom she gave up for adoption supposedly.

When Judyth was on Rich D.'s forum, everything she said was vague. You would ask her questions and she'd answer that she was too sick to go into detai about her relationship with LHO. I, too, tried to coax her into telling us something. I thought we had a nice exchange. Then she disappeared. Did the people who brought her overseas, stay with her and make sure she had decent housing and access to medical help?

Now someone here, I think Doug Weldon, said she fills all the holes in the Lee Harvey Oswald saga. I agree. Back on jfkresearch.com she talked around things and wasn't specific about anything. She was always ill. She is still ill. But she did a hell of a lot of research since then. (She left Rich's forum, then said he called her a "slut." He in no way did.)

But I wonder about this lady. Why did her science projects not continue? Because the cancer inducer was top secret and Kennedy died? Why would the President's death stop cancer research, even though it was from the CIA? And throwing Oswald into this story. It's ludicrous.

I wish her the best though. She's had a rough life and was so talented.

Kathy C

[Kathleen Collins]

And when it comes to more serious questions about the alleged differences between "Harvey" and "Lee", such as their alleged difference in eye color, the claim that "Harvey" was born in Hungary, that "Lee" had a missing tooth, and such, the situation becomes even more bizarre. Judyth has presented a brilliant study of the eye-color issue, which, in my opinion, lays the issue to rest. The alleged difference almost certainly did not exist. And she has observed that the man she knew had no trace of a Hungarian accent, but only a slight Cajun accent, which suggests that that claim is unsupportable, too.

I wondered what a Cajun accent sounds like. Here's an example from Youtube.com. I don't think it sounds like Harvey at all. And I certainly don't hear such an accent from Robert Oswald.

Kathy C

[Kathleen Collins]

ON ED HASLAM,WHY NOT BECAUSE AFTER ALL HE HAS WRITTEN TWO BOOKS, WHICH I HAVE AND READ, HE IS THE AUTHOR RESEARCHER OF SUCH, YET IN ALL THE YEARS THAT IT TOOK HIM TO DO SO, HE NEGLECTED TO DO OR COMPLETE HIS RESEARCH, HE DID NOT FIND AS FAR AS WE KNOW NOR NAME HIS OLD GIRLFRIEND NOR GET HER INFORMATION NOR STATEMENT RECALLING HER INFORMATION PERTAINING TO SAID PARTY, HE DID NOT GO TO THE N/O ARCHIVES WITHIN THE CITY BEFORE KATRINA RUINED ALL,SO I HAVE READ, TO SEARCH FOR THE INFORMATION OF WHOM OWNED OR RENTED THAT APARTTMENT HOUSE AT THE TIME OF THE PARTY, NOR OBTAIN THE COPIES OF DOCUMENTS OF WHOM WERE LIVING THERE,HE ALSO MENTIONED YEARS BACK OF BEING REMINDED OF SUCH BY SEEING THE NAME JUDY BAKER ON AN OFFICE DOOR, BEFORE JUDYTH WAS IN CONTACT WITH HIM, I BLIEVE ALSO WHEN HE WAS ON THE ALTS YEARS BACK IT WAS JUDY BAKER THAT THEN EVENTUALLY CHANGED TO JUDYTH,SO PERHAPS NOW IT SHOULD BE ED'S WORK TO BE CRITIQUED UPON, IN A NEW THREAD AND ASKED SOME DIRECT QUESTIONS OF THE WHY NOTS,ABOUT WHAT IS OR HAS NOT BEEN DONE NOR VERIFIED WITHIN HIS BOOK AND RESEARCH, OUT OF WHICH JUDYTH BAKER AND HER INFormation FIRST WAS INTRODUCED, IF JOHN ARMSTRONG'S WORK, AND MANY OTHER'S SUCH AS YOURSELF, CAN BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR WORK THEN WHY HAS ED HASLAM HAD A FREE PASS,IMO SO FAR, THAT IS WHAT IT APPEARS TO BE...WHERE IS HIS VERIFICATION DOCUMENTATION AND PROOF OF WHAT HE HAS WRITTEN ABOUT HIM MEETING ANOTHER JUDYTH BAKER WHO HELD A PARTY WHO WAS INTERESTED IN LHO AND EVEN THOUGH ED WAS HE REFUSED TO TALK WITH HER...ED NEEDS TO NOW PROVIDE OTHERS HIS PROOF SO THAT RESEARCHERS DO NOT THINK THAT ALL THIS COULD HAVE JUST BEEN PERHAPS ANOTHER CONVENIENT STORY ..WITH BEST REGARDS....B

Bernice, I believe the New Orleans property ownership records are online. I found this after reading your post regarding Katrina. As an example:

http://qpublic.net/la/orleans/search.html

[Dean Hagerman]

So what am I supposed to do? Dean says I should choose Jack (and Lifton and Weldon) and abandon Judyth.

Yes this is what I said

And yes I believe you should abandon Judyth and her tall tales to maintain your old friendships with Jack, David and Doug

Jim I am looking out for your best interests

I do not care about Judyth

I do however care about you, I have stood behind you from the day I finished reading "Assassination Science"

Thats why it hurts me to see the friendships being ruined, the last thing I want you to think is that im against you Jim because im not!

Im against what Judyth is doing to you, I have asked over and over for you to step back and look at whats going on Jim, but I feel like you think im against you

Put yourself in my shoes for one second Jim

I grew up in the 1980s with David Lifton and later Jack White (After I saw Jack on TMWKK and reading about him in Crossfire and other books) as my heroes

Then after reading "Bloody Treason" I became a believer in alteration, then came your three books with awesome parts by Jack and David

I felt like I belonged to a group that believed in what I believed in

Jim I have spent 95% of my assassination research on the alteration films and photos since 1997

And YOU were my voice Jim

YOU were my leader in the alteration cause

YOUR books became the most important books when it came to my research

TGZFH became my bible Jim and I looked up to you as my leader

Now I am seeing Judyth ruin the friendships that were formed and came together on TGZFH

Just watch the video of you and Jack together at the end of his presentation at the Duluth Confrence

Its like the group I am proud to be a part of is being torn apart by Judyth

Not by you or Jack or David or Doug

Its Judyth who is doing this Jim

Please read this with an open mind Jim

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

JUDYTH RESPONDS TO JACK WHITE ABOUT THE POST THAT UPSET ME SO VERY MUCH

NOTE: This is the post from Jack that caused me to severe our relationship. I will associate with

Jack in professional activities, but I regarded this post as grossly abusive, inappropriate and wrong.

If Jack were to concede that he was wrong to post this, I would welcomed that, but I don't expect it.

JUDYTH REPIES:

Well, let's look at this interesting remark, kindly provided by Jack White, who states that it is anonymous (go ahead, be a coward!):

"I have believed for years.

===for years, huh? Nobody new on the scene===

that sexual frustration lies at the root of JVB’s motives –

==Sounds like David Lifton or one of his pals again...It's their mantra...perhaps because sexual frustration is THEIR problem?===

that she is more to be pitied than deplored. The sad but indisputable fact is that she is now overweight and unattractive

== I find aging to be an adventure. I've lost 50 pounds and have recovered from the assault that put me in the hospital in 2007. As for unattractive, at almost 67, I find myself, as always, with several close male friends 3-15 years younger than I am as my dearest companions. I can't afford to marry, and neither can they. Blame social security, not looks!.==

and was once rather attractive (amply endowed, as she has pointed out on occasion), showing much promise in her academic abilities which never came to fruition. She has lived a life peppered with disappointment,

==Whoa, there! All the disappointment in my life have come from people who behave like this one is behaving--judging someone they've never met. I know they never met me because those who have know how much the gift of life means to me, how happy I am making other people happy. ....I feel sorry for people who have noting better to do than to make nasty, personal remarks about someone they have never met.

As a writer, poet, artist, song-writer, and activist for human rights and vaccine awareness,as well as the mother of five fine citizens who make me proud, any sufferings and verbal abuse I've endured have been worth it to wake up the country about the dangers of vaccines and the fact that a government coup placed an illegal and destructive cabal into America that took the life of an innocent man I loved. I've seen 35% of the world, and with archaeology as an avocation, intend to see it all. My life has been rich and full, no regrets!==

unable to get along with people for more than a few weeks. Every relationship – mostly with men – eventually goes down the toilet."

==This bloke doesn't know a thing about me...The only part of the sentence above that's true is that most of my closest friendships are with men. I've always had a lot of men in my life. Perhaps because they know I love being around them! I've had several chances to marry. But I can't afford to marry because I'd lose social security.

I am a gregarious person who loves Allan, Kjell, and George, close friends now for three years. When I am in Sweden, which is half the time, we are together for everything. I was disappointed when the volcano stopped a chance for me to meet a close, longtime friend, Dr. Platzman. And I deeply miss my family and friends in the US.==jvb==

It seems that most researchers (wisely) do not want to become involved in the thread re JVB. For

some reason many of them seem to focus on emailing me to vent their feelings at a safe venue. So

far about a dozen have emailed me varying messages about JVB. Here is a typical EXCERPT from one

received just today (anonymous for obvious reasons):

"I have believed for years that sexual frustration lies at the root of JVB’s motives – that she is more to be pitied than deplored. The sad but indisputable fact is that she is now overweight and unattractive and was once rather attractive (amply endowed, as she has pointed out on occasion), showing much promise in her academic abilities which never came to fruition. She has lived a life peppered with disappointment, unable to get along with people for more than a few weeks. Every relationship – mostly with men -- eventually goes down the toilet."

There are many other unsolicited emails. They are wise to not enter the public area of controversy. This

has been going on for ten years now, with new supporters taking up the torch when others become

disenchanted. How much longer will it go on?

Jack

Edited April 25, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Great, Doug! You actually read post #1443 and this is the best you can come up with? I am sorry, Doug, but we are never going to see eye-to-eye on this. I have not meant to insult you, but I find your treatment of her grossly inadequate. Nevertheless, I wish you the best for the future and admire your research of the past. Be sure to let me know when you get specific about Armstrong.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't get this Jim.

Why can't you have both?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards

Lee

Jim:

If you read my post, you will note I did read Dr. Mary's Monkey. I did not e-mail Jack about you or Judyth, I did watch Judyth on TMWKK. I did listen to her interview on Black ops in 2004. I did follow the thread very carefully on Rich's forum. Judyth did not decline to speak with me. I have read everything here. My comments are specific to Judyth and not simply witnesses in general. Unless Judyth is an idiot savant I do not believe she can remember specific days, moments, and the exact dialog from so many years ago. I do not believe the Oswald we have tapes of sounded like that. He would make Obama sound like Gomer Pyle. I have acknowledged that Armstrong made errors. We all do. I have been attacked as a person and researcher , accused directly, and by innuendo of being dishonest. My intelligence and reasoning ability has been ridiculed by you. Whether Judyth is accurate about some things or all things her credibility as a witness has been destroyed, not by others or David or Jack, but by herself.

Doug Weldon

Edited April 22, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Bernice Moore]

ON ED HASLAM,WHY NOT BECAUSE AFTER ALL HE HAS WRITTEN TWO BOOKS, WHICH I HAVE AND READ, HE IS THE AUTHOR RESEARCHER OF SUCH, YET IN ALL THE YEARS THAT IT TOOK HIM TO DO SO, HE NEGLECTED TO DO OR COMPLETE HIS RESEARCH, HE DID NOT FIND AS FAR AS WE KNOW NOR NAME HIS OLD GIRLFRIEND NOR GET HER INFORMATION NOR STATEMENT RECALLING HER INFORMATION PERTAINING TO SAID PARTY, HE DID NOT GO TO THE N/O ARCHIVES WITHIN THE CITY BEFORE KATRINA RUINED ALL,SO I HAVE READ, TO SEARCH FOR THE INFORMATION OF WHOM OWNED OR RENTED THAT APARTTMENT HOUSE AT THE TIME OF THE PARTY, NOR OBTAIN THE COPIES OF DOCUMENTS OF WHOM WERE LIVING THERE,HE ALSO MENTIONED YEARS BACK OF BEING REMINDED OF SUCH BY SEEING THE NAME JUDY BAKER ON AN OFFICE DOOR, BEFORE JUDYTH WAS IN CONTACT WITH HIM, I BLIEVE ALSO WHEN HE WAS ON THE ALTS YEARS BACK IT WAS JUDY BAKER THAT THEN EVENTUALLY CHANGED TO JUDYTH,SO PERHAPS NOW IT SHOULD BE ED'S WORK TO BE CRITIQUED UPON, IN A NEW THREAD AND ASKED SOME DIRECT QUESTIONS OF THE WHY NOTS,ABOUT WHAT IS OR HAS NOT BEEN DONE NOR VERIFIED WITHIN HIS BOOK AND RESEARCH, OUT OF WHICH JUDYTH BAKER AND HER INFormation FIRST WAS INTRODUCED, IF JOHN ARMSTRONG'S WORK, AND MANY OTHER'S SUCH AS YOURSELF, CAN BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR WORK THEN WHY HAS ED HASLAM HAD A FREE PASS,IMO SO FAR, THAT IS WHAT IT APPEARS TO BE...WHERE IS HIS VERIFICATION DOCUMENTATION AND PROOF OF WHAT HE HAS WRITTEN ABOUT HIM MEETING ANOTHER JUDYTH BAKER WHO HELD A PARTY WHO WAS INTERESTED IN LHO AND EVEN THOUGH ED WAS HE REFUSED TO TALK WITH HER...ED NEEDS TO NOW PROVIDE OTHERS HIS PROOF SO THAT RESEARCHERS DO NOT THINK THAT ALL THIS COULD HAVE JUST BEEN PERHAPS ANOTHER CONVENIENT STORY ..WITH BEST REGARDS....B

Bernice, I believe the New Orleans property ownership records are online. I found this after reading your post regarding Katrina. As an example:

http://qpublic.net/la/orleans/search.html

THANKYOU KATHY AFTER KATRINA AS WE FOLLOWED THERE WAS A NEWSPAPER REPORT THEY HAD ALL BEEN LOST IN THE ARCHIVES IN THE BASEMENTS, I WILL LOOK INTO THESE AGAIN THANKS...B

Edited April 22, 2010 by Bernice Moore

[Kathleen Collins]

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspir...ca7348809?hl=en

"Here are things Judyth told me last March:

(2) When I asked Judyth how she would answer the question of how she could

have had so much foreknowledge and yet not reported it to the authorities

(prior to 11/22/63), part of her long rambling answer was that, in order to

get greater protection for JFK on his Dallas visit, Lee fomented the

Stevenson incident. That¹s right: Lee fomented the Adlai Stevenson incident

so that the authorities would beef up protection on Kennedy.

Question to Martin Shackelford: Did she tell you this tale, too? Any

comment? Do you find it reasonable? Just another one of the adventures in

the life of (or perhaps, more accurately, in the mind of) Judyth

Wonderwoman?

I also want to repeat, and remind anyone reading this post, of other things

she said to me last March, 2000 (some of these are repeats from a previous

post; some are new):

ITEM: Judyth told me that she (and her co-workers in Florida) "knew" the

assassination was going to happen, and so prepared to watch it on TV. (Just

consider the implications of that statement, which was said most

deliberately).

When and why was she in Florida when Kennedy was assassinated? I thought she was in New Orleans when that happened. And she and her co-workers (working on cancer inducement?) watched the TV because they all knew Kennedy was going to be assassinated? These had to be underworld people. She was working with them?

Kathy C

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

JIM RESPONDS TO BERNICE WITH REGARD TO REASONING ABOUT JUDYTH BAKER

Bernice,

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

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

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

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

the impostor?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

at the famous cancer research center discussed above.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

get-Castro project.[10]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

apartment.[11]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

to kill Kennedy instead.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jim

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't get this Jim.

Why can't you have both?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards

Lee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edited April 25, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Kevin Greenlee]

Mr. Fetzer-

i enjoyed your last post and was particularly interested in your admission that the oswald reading list was, even for you, "a bit much." this, of course, raises some very interesting questions. we have been led to believe that ms. baker has an amazingly accurate memory, that the events of 1963 were of great emotional import to her and that we should therefore trust implicitly every jot and tittle she chooses to impart to us about that momentous era. apparently that is no longer the case. perhaps you can enlighten us, professor- how are non academics such as myself supposed to figure out which portions of her amazing account are so implausible they must be true (or however it was you phrased it) and which parts are simply "a bit much"?

i wonder too about something else. what was it that motivated judyth to concoct that reading list? was it a desire to make oswald look better? do you concede that that same motivation could lead her to create other embellishments? do you believe there are in fact other embellishments in her tale? what are they? at what point do the embellishments- in your opinion- fatally wound her credibility? i am quite genuinely interested in your response to these questions.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Well, Kevin, I was sure as soon as I expressed the least concern, someone would jump on it--just as you have. The broader argument that might be made is that this is simply one more example of an initially implausible claim that may also turn out to be true--just as has occurred with the rest of her story. Which of the 17 points that I have listed, after all, do you not accept? Because, in my view, there is more than enough grounds to accept all of them. I am very troubled by the double-standard: unless Judyth has every single point exactly right, she is thereby completely and totally discredited! Yet others commit blunders and are not berated.

That is not a rational attitude, but it is the attitude that has been displayed by most of her critics, among whom I take it you are one. No doubt, parts of her story are going to be flawed. But that is only to be expected. What I find remarkable is that the core of her story stands not only unrefuted but actually confirmed. Are you another case where I have to ask how much of the evidence you have reviewed? In my opinion, within the limits of human frailty, Judyth has told us the truth as she knows it--and what she has to tell us transforms our understanding of the assassination of the 35th President of the United States. That is all any of us can do.

Let me elaborate on the double-standard. When Doug Weldon condemns Judyth, he simultaneously approves of John Armstrong, dismissing complaints about his work on the ground that there are bound to be some errors. But those that I have identified, including the "index" mistake, the wrong date of the founding of the Warren Commission, the scant evidence for "Harvey" having been at Beauregard Junior High the semester before "Lee" arrives at the same school, and especially the story of "Lee"'s missing tooth--where Lillian Murret remembers paying for his dental bill, when she is "Harvey"'s aunt, not "Lee"'s, illustrates the absurdity of the situation.

No matter how major the blunder, Armstrong gets a free pass. No matter how minor the mistake, Judyth gets pilloried. This is the kind of intellectual corruption that I simply cannot abide. If Jack or Doug or Lifton had acknowledged some of her points, including those about Armstrong, I would not feel so strongly about the abuse to which she has been subjected. But when Jack won't even read her posts, Lifton won't share his "evidence", and Weldon is permissive toward Armstrong but brutal with Judyth, I take exception. I am not going to allow it to stand without making a point about it, which is one reason I am glad you made this post. Thanks!

Mr. Fetzer-

i enjoyed your last post and was particularly interested in your admission that the oswald reading list was, even for you, "a bit much." this, of course, raises some very interesting questions. we have been led to believe that ms. baker has an amazingly accurate memory, that the events of 1963 were of great emotional import to her and that we should therefore trust implicitly every jot and tittle she chooses to impart to us about that momentous era. apparently that is no longer the case. perhaps you can enlighten us, professor- how are non academics such as myself supposed to figure out which portions of her amazing account are so implausible they must be true (or however it was you phrased it) and which parts are simply "a bit much"?

i wonder too about something else. what was it that motivated judyth to concoct that reading list? was it a desire to make oswald look better? do you concede that that same motivation could lead her to create other embellishments? do you believe there are in fact other embellishments in her tale? what are they? at what point do the embellishments- in your opinion- fatally wound her credibility? i am quite genuinely interested in your response to these questions.

Edited April 22, 2010 by James H. Fetzer