Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Good post, Monk. I case you missed my #1555, which is found on page 104, here is what

I had to say about John Simkin and his remarks in denigration of Gerald Patrick Hemming:

More surprising is that John Simkin would involve himself in this thread for the third or the

fourth time. I was just a bit taken aback by his last intervention, in which he stated--quite

categorically!--that Gerry Hemming is a disinformation agent. Since Hemming has threads

that are archived on this forum and characterizations like that one are supposed to violate

forum rules, I suppose he should have been censored by his own moderators. Others who

know vastly more about the assassination, such as James Richards and Noel Twyman, for

example, have found Hemming to be extremely reliable. The longest chapter in BLOODY

TREASON (1998), for example, is devoted to Hemming. If Hemming had disputed Judyth's

authenticity rather than endorsed it, I imagine he (Simkin) would have said nothing. That

he praises Jack's posts on this forum speaks volumes about his knowledge of this thread.

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

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

John,

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

Edited April 25, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

You don't seem to grasp that a nobody can't become a somebody by making posts that confirm they are a nobody.

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

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

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

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

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

But let me try to answer it for you.

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

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

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

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

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

Glenn,

Here is what I believe has happened on this thread:

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

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

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

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

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

Some have done so, some have not.

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

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

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

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

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

Dean

Dean,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nevertheless, I wish you to have a nice weekend!

Glenn

Mr Fetzer,

Read again.

Those you mention, DISAGREES with you on this matter.

How about, Kinaski, McElwain Brown to start with?

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

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

The only feelings I have for you - is pity.

Sad to say.

Edited April 23, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Glenn Viklund]

You don't seem to grasp that a nobody can't become a somebody by making posts that confirm they are a nobody.

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

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

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

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

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

But let me try to answer it for you.

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

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

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

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

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

Glenn,

Here is what I believe has happened on this thread:

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

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

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

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

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

Some have done so, some have not.

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

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

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

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

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

Dean

Dean,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nevertheless, I wish you to have a nice weekend!

Glenn

Mr Fetzer,

Read again.

Those you mention, DISAGREES with you on this matter.

How about, Kinaski, McElwain Brown to start with?

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

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

The only feelings I have for you - is pity.

Sad to say.

Ramble on, Jimmy! How nice to see the real "twit-maker" in action! Come on, you can do better than that?

[Dean Hartwell]

I apologize to everyone for misspeaking about the extent to which Jim has read Harvey and Lee.

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

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

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

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

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

Jack

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

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

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

But let me try to answer it for you.

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

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

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

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

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

Glenn,

Here is what I believe has happened on this thread:

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

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

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

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

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

Some have done so, some have not.

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

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

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

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

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

Dean

Edited April 23, 2010 by Dean Hartwell

[Greg Burnham]

I'm very curious about something. If Jim (or any prominent researcher) had started a thread that supported a claim that JFK had been murdered by....um space aliens, for instance...how much attention would it have received? I think, at first, some of his friends would have tried to "help him" out of concern for his well being perhaps, and that some of his detractors would have rejoiced in his folly and gleefully exploited the opportunity to "throw him under the bus" -- But, then what? More than likely, IMO, the thread would have died out fairly quickly.

But that's not what happened here. This thread is the longest in EF history. If it's all so nonsensical, why? I find it interesting that some of Judyth's detractors claim, on the one hand, that her story is so outlandish as to be easily dismissed as nonsense. Yet, on the other hand, they spend a tremendous amount of energy refuting claims that they characterize as having no merit. Why would it take such effort to demonstrate that something "obviously" ridiculous is ridiculous if it was, in fact, so obvious?

Perhaps there is no merit to these claims. That's not my point. But, if there is no merit to the claims and if they are as completely outlandish as her detractors claim, then why all the effort to refute them?

If ridiculous, it seems like it shouldn't have been that hard.

Edited April 23, 2010 by Greg Burnham

[Glenn Viklund]

I'm very curious about something. If Jim (or any prominent researcher) had started a thread that supported a claim that JFK had been murdered by....um space aliens, for instance...how much attention would it have received? I think, at first, some of his friends would have tried to "help him" out of concern for his well being perhaps, and that some of his detractors would have rejoiced in his folly and gleefully exploited the opportunity to "throw him under the bus" -- But, then what? More than likely, IMO, the thread would have died out fairly quickly.

But that's not what happened here. This thread is the longest in EF history. If it's all so nonsensical, why? I find it interesting that some of Judyth's detractors claim, on the one hand, that her story is so outlandish as to be easily dismissed as nonsense. Yet, on the other hand, they spend a tremendous amount of energy refuting claims that they characterize as having no merit. Why would it take such effort to demonstrate that something "obviously" ridiculous is ridiculous if it was, in fact, so obvious?

Perhaps there is no merit to these claims. That's not my point. But, if there is no merit to the claims and if they are as completely outlandish as her detractors claim, then why all the effort to refute them?

If ridiculous, it seems like it shouldn't have been that hard.

Greg,

Please explain - to a "nobody".

Is Jim a prominent researcher?

No pun intended here.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

You make a nice point, Monk. Why create an impostor "Judyth Vary Baker" if she were unimportant? Why continue to deny what she has to say if she is imagining things? The longer I have dealt with her, the more impressed I have become. I am convinced she IS "the real deal"!

I'm very curious about something. If Jim (or any prominent researcher) had started a thread that supported a claim that JFK had been murdered by....um space aliens, for instance...how much attention would it have received? I think, at first, some of his friends would have tried to "help him" out of concern for his well being perhaps, and that some of his detractors would have rejoiced in his folly and gleefully exploited the opportunity to "throw him under the bus" -- But, then what? More than likely, IMO, the thread would have died out fairly quickly.

But that's not what happened here. This thread is the longest in EF history. If it's all so nonsensical, why? I find it interesting that some of Judyth's detractors claim, on the one hand, that her story is so outlandish as to be easily dismissed as nonsense. Yet, on the other hand, they spend a tremendous amount of energy refuting claims that they characterize as having no merit. Why would it take such effort to demonstrate that something "obviously" ridiculous is ridiculous if it was, in fact, so obvious?

Perhaps there is no merit to these claims. That's not my point. But, if there is no merit to the claims and if they are as completely outlandish as her detractors claim, then why all the effort to refute them?

If ridiculous, it seems like it shouldn't have been that hard.

Edited April 25, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Greg Burnham]

Greg,

Please explain - to a "nobody".

Is Jim a prominent researcher?

No pun intended here.

Glenn,

Yes. The reason I used the phrase, a "prominent researcher", was two-fold. First, my question applies irrespective of the exact identity of the researcher [Fetzer or otherwise], and second, that the researcher is prominent suggests that they are not as easily immediately dismissed as a complete unknown would be who "offered an otherwise outlandish" claim. However, even a well respected researcher would be hard pressed to garner this much attention and draw this much debate if the claims were, in fact, so easily disproved and/or dismissed as nonsense.

I'm very curious about something. If Jim (or any prominent researcher) had started a thread that supported a claim that JFK had been murdered by....um space aliens, for instance...how much attention would it have received? I think, at first, some of his friends would have tried to "help him" out of concern for his well being perhaps, and that some of his detractors would have rejoiced in his folly and gleefully exploited the opportunity to "throw him under the bus" -- But, then what? More than likely, IMO, the thread would have died out fairly quickly.

But that's not what happened here. This thread is the longest in EF history. If it's all so nonsensical, why? I find it interesting that some of Judyth's detractors claim, on the one hand, that her story is so outlandish as to be easily dismissed as nonsense. Yet, on the other hand, they spend a tremendous amount of energy refuting claims that they characterize as having no merit. Why would it take such effort to demonstrate that something "obviously" ridiculous is ridiculous if it was, in fact, so obvious?

Perhaps there is no merit to these claims. That's not my point. But, if there is no merit to the claims and if they are as completely outlandish as her detractors claim, then why all the effort to refute them?

If ridiculous, it seems like it shouldn't have been that hard.

Edited April 24, 2010 by Greg Burnham

[Glenn Viklund]

Greg,

Please explain - to a "nobody".

Is Jim a prominent researcher?

No pun intended here.

Glenn,

Yes. The reason I used the phrase, a "prominent researcher", was two-fold. First, my question applies irrespective of the exact identity of the researcher [Fetzer or otherwise], and second, that the researcher is prominent suggests that they are not as easily immediately dismissed as would a complete unknown be who "offered an otherwise outlandish" claim.

I'm very curious about something. If Jim (or any prominent researcher) had started a thread that supported a claim that JFK had been murdered by....um space aliens, for instance...how much attention would it have received? I think, at first, some of his friends would have tried to "help him" out of concern for his well being perhaps, and that some of his detractors would have rejoiced in his folly and gleefully exploited the opportunity to "throw him under the bus" -- But, then what? More than likely, IMO, the thread would have died out fairly quickly.

But that's not what happened here. This thread is the longest in EF history. If it's all so nonsensical, why? I find it interesting that some of Judyth's detractors claim, on the one hand, that her story is so outlandish as to be easily dismissed as nonsense. Yet, on the other hand, they spend a tremendous amount of energy refuting claims that they characterize as having no merit. Why would it take such effort to demonstrate that something "obviously" ridiculous is ridiculous if it was, in fact, so obvious?

Perhaps there is no merit to these claims. That's not my point. But, if there is no merit to the claims and if they are as completely outlandish as her detractors claim, then why all the effort to refute them?

If ridiculous, it seems like it shouldn't have been that hard.

Greg,

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

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

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

JUDYTH RESPONDS TO DIXIE DEA ABOUT "HARVEY" AND "LEE"

DIXIE DEA REMARKS:

However, when you say that Lillian Murret was Harveys aunt (rather then Lees aunt) ...that cant be true. Lillian was Margueretes sister Their maiden names were both Claverie. This is the Marguerete that was married to Robert E. Lee Oswald, John Pic and Edwin Ekdahl. and her son was Lee. So Lillian, is the one in regard to the dentist story and it was about Lee (not Harvey). I have no idea if Lillian knew about Harvey or not though.

The Marguerete that we are all most familiar with, was Harveys mother or someone acting in that capacity).

Harvey is the one from NY who may have came from Hungary and according to Armstrong's book. No relation to Lillian Murret or that Marguerete. So...I am confused as to what you have been saying about this.

JUDYTH REPLIES:

Everyone will remain confused if they believe this convoluted argument that "Harvey is the one from New York...No relation to Lillian Murret or that Marguerite."

==WE ARE TOLD THAT HARVEY WENT TO THE USSR -- CORRECT? THAT HE WAS FLUENT FROM CHLDHOOD IN RUSSIAN.

YET LILLIAN MURRET SAYS ON P. 146 OF HER TESTIMONY TO THE WARREN COMMISSION THAT, WHEN HER HUSBAND REBUKED "HARVEY" FOR NOT TEACHING MARINA ENGLISH, HE REPLIED, "I AM NOT GOING TO TEACH HER, BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO LOSE MY RUSSIAN."

LEE PRACTICED HIS RUSSIAN IN MY PRESENCE AND SAID HE HAD TO WORK AT IT TO KEEP IT FLUENT. THIS WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN NECESSARY IF HE WERE "BORN AND RAISED FLUENT", AS ARMSTRONG INSISTS.

TWO WITNESSES -- LILLIAN MURRET AND I -- STATE THE SAME THING. GEORGE DEMOHRENSCHILDT ALSO MENTIONED THAT LEE WANTED TO KEEP PRACTICING RUSSIAN ON MARINA TO KEEP HIS RUSSIAN FLUENT.==

THERE'S MORE. LET'S FOLLOW THE LOGIC. HERE'S THE QUOTE:

"This is the Marguerete that was married to Robert E. Lee Oswald, John Pic and Edwin Ekdahl. and her son was Lee."

==NOTE THAT "LEE" PHYSICALLY RESEMBLES HIS BROTHERS, ROBERT AND JOHN PIC, WHEN THEY WERE YOUNG CHILDREN. YET THE SAME EYEBROW SHAPE, THE SAME EAR PATERN AND SHAPE, BELONGS TO "LEE" AS WELL AS TO "HARVEY", AS ANY FORENSIC STUDY EASILY PROVES. THE DISTINCTIVE LEFT EYEBROW IS THE SAME IN ALL 'LEE' CHILDHOOD PHOTOS AND MATCH "HARVEY" EYEBROWS.

THE REPLY THAT LILLIAN KNEW 'HARVEY' HAD BEEN SUBSITUTED FOR 'LEE' BY JACK WHITE DOES NOT MATCH WITH WHAT IS STATED BY "B."

THROUGHOUT HER TESTIMONY, LILLIAN MURRET STATES THAT SHE SEES THE SAME INDIVIDUAL THROUGHOUT -- THE "LEE" SHE KNEW AS AS A CHILD WAS LOVED BY HIS COUSINS (PG. 128): "THEY LOVED LEE..THEY ALWAYS LOVED LEE."

HIS COUSIN MARILYN, HOWEVER, DRIVES "HARVEY" AND MARINA TO LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN TO CATCH CRABS. WHITE AND OTHERS INSIST I KNEW "HARVEY" IN NEW ORLEANS. WELL, THE ENTIRE MURRET FAMILY MIUST THEN HAVE KEPT THEIR MOUTHS SHUT TIGHT ABOUT "HARVEY", BECAUSE THEY KNEW "LEE" UNTIL "HARVEY" SHOWED UP WITH MARINA.

WE HAVE "HARVEY" BEING BAWLED OUT BY HIS UNCLE AFTER HE IS BAILED OUT OF JAIL. ALL OF THESE INTERACTIONS WITH "HARVEY".

NOT A WHISPER ABOUT EVER SEEING "LEE'" EVEN ONCE.

THE CHILD THEY "LOVED" THEY NEVER NOTICE IS NOW BEING IMPERSONATED, AND THEY GO ALONG WITH IT -- LILLIAN, DUTZ, JOYCE, MARILYN, JOHN, AND GENE MURRET. GENE IS GOING TO BECOME A PRIEST AND IS IN SEMINARY AT SPRING HILL, WHERE "HARVEY" SPEAKS. GENE INVITED "HARVEY" THERE.

NOBODY HAS WHISPERED A WORD ABOUT THE SUBSTITUTION -- INCLUDING MARINA WHO IS SLEEPING WITH BOTH MEN, ACCORDING TO WHITE, IF NOT ARMSTRONG, AND A PECULIAR SATEMENT ABOUT MARGUERITE BY HER OWN SISTER, LILLIAN, WHO DEPLORES THE FACT THAT MARGUERITE HAS LOST HER LOOKS.

I HAVE EXPLAINED THAT MARGUERITE SHOWED EVERY SYMPTOM, INCLUDING HER EMPOTIONAL ONES, OF HYPOTHYROIDISM, WHICH AGES YOU RAPIDLY, CHANGES YOUR LOOKS DRASTICALLY, AND MAKES YOU GAIN WEIGHT. (I GOT IT, SO DID MARGUERITE.)

LILLIAN DOES MENTION A "HARVEY". HOWEVER, ON P. 110: SHE SAYS HE WAS A RELATIVE WHO VISITED THEM ONCE WHEN LEE WAS A BABY. THAT HE AND MARGUERIE HAD A FALLING OUT. THAT SHE NEVER SAW HIM AGAIN BUT THAT HE HAD LATER DIED.

WE NEVER, EVER HEAR LILLIAN CALLING "HARVEY" HARVEY. HE IS ALWAYS "LEE".

THAT MAKES SENSE IF HE IS THE SAME PERSON THAT HE HAS ALWAYS BEEN.

THAT MAKES SENSE IF THERE WAS NEVER A "HARVEY."

I WILL SOON HAVE THER BOOK, BUT FROM THE STANDING ON ONE'S HEAD THAT HAS TO BE DONE -- THE ENTIRE FAMILY HAS TO BE PRIVY TO THE SUBSTITUTION AND NEVER, EVER TELL -- WHEN THE SIMPLE TRUTH IS SIMPLE --SOME RECORDS WERE FALSIFIED NOT TO HIDE "HARVEY" AND "LEE" BUT TO HIDE WHAT LEE H. OSWALD DID, HAD BEEN DOING, AND WOULD BE DOING AS A MINOR BUT REAL DOUBLE AGENT UNDER DEEP COVER.

AS FOR BIRTH CERTIFICATE PROBLEMS, I, TOO HAD THEM.

MY REAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE WAS ALTERED.

I HAD TO HAVE A NEW ONE ISSUED WITH MY NAME RESTORED IN 1986. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT I AM A 'DIFFERENT JUDYTH VARY BAKER.==

JVB

Jim....Numerous times, you have mentioned something that I have been unclear about and unsure where you obtained the info. ...whether your own thoughts, from Judyth or from Armstrong's book. You do seem to be indicating that you have a problem accepting it and if you did read it in Armstrongs book and believe it to be an error, then I do have to agree with you, in this instance. It has been sometime since I read Armstrongs book, so I do not recall if this was an error in his book. But, since you have been freshly reading it, I am thinking this is where you obtained the info...although I cant imagine him making such an error....since it just doesn't fit. Although, I haven t read very many books that didnt have at least one error. I also feel that a book such as this, it could be quite easy to get mixed up and make an error.

However, when you say that Lillian Murret was Harveys aunt (rather then Lees aunt) ...that cant be true. Lillian was Margueretes sister Their maiden names were both Claverie. This is the Marguerete that was m'arried to Robert E. Lee Oswald, John Pic and Edwin Ekdahl. and her son was Lee. So Lillian, is the one in regard to the dentist story and it was about Lee (not Harvey). I have no idea if Lillian knew about Harvey or not though. The Marguerete that we are all most familiar with, was Harveys mother or someone acting in that capacity). Harvey is the one from NY who may have came from Hungary and according to Armstrong's book. No relation to Lillian Murret or that Marguerete. So...I am confused as to what you have been saying about this.

I have mentioned this several times in the past and you will probably call me idiotic, and most don't buy it either....but for a very long time, I have had the thoughts that LHO might be a twin. Why would his birth certificate still be hidden? I have other reasons, but am unable to get to my notes just now. However, Armstrong said in his book that there was no indication that he was a twin...it is still in my own thoughts though.

Dixie.

Edited April 26, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Greg Burnham]

Greg,

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

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

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

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

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

Know what I mean, Huckleberry?

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

If you want to know who I am, google "Jim Fetzer". Check out my academic web site or my Wikipedia entry.

Greg,

Please explain - to a "nobody".

Is Jim a prominent researcher?

No pun intended here.

Glenn,

Yes. The reason I used the phrase, a "prominent researcher", was two-fold. First, my question applies irrespective of the exact identity of the researcher [Fetzer or otherwise], and second, that the researcher is prominent suggests that they are not as easily immediately dismissed as would a complete unknown be who "offered an otherwise outlandish" claim.

I'm very curious about something. If Jim (or any prominent researcher) had started a thread that supported a claim that JFK had been murdered by....um space aliens, for instance...how much attention would it have received? I think, at first, some of his friends would have tried to "help him" out of concern for his well being perhaps, and that some of his detractors would have rejoiced in his folly and gleefully exploited the opportunity to "throw him under the bus" -- But, then what? More than likely, IMO, the thread would have died out fairly quickly.

But that's not what happened here. This thread is the longest in EF history. If it's all so nonsensical, why? I find it interesting that some of Judyth's detractors claim, on the one hand, that her story is so outlandish as to be easily dismissed as nonsense. Yet, on the other hand, they spend a tremendous amount of energy refuting claims that they characterize as having no merit. Why would it take such effort to demonstrate that something "obviously" ridiculous is ridiculous if it was, in fact, so obvious?

Perhaps there is no merit to these claims. That's not my point. But, if there is no merit to the claims and if they are as completely outlandish as her detractors claim, then why all the effort to refute them?

If ridiculous, it seems like it shouldn't have been that hard.

Greg,

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

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

[Kathleen Collins]

GJ [Good job] JG.

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

Off topic?

Kathy C

[Glenn Viklund]

If you want to know who I am, google "Jim Fetzer". Check out my academic web site or my Wikipedia entry.

Greg,

Please explain - to a "nobody".

Is Jim a prominent researcher?

No pun intended here.

Glenn,

Yes. The reason I used the phrase, a "prominent researcher", was two-fold. First, my question applies irrespective of the exact identity of the researcher [Fetzer or otherwise], and second, that the researcher is prominent suggests that they are not as easily immediately dismissed as would a complete unknown be who "offered an otherwise outlandish" claim.

I'm very curious about something. If Jim (or any prominent researcher) had started a thread that supported a claim that JFK had been murdered by....um space aliens, for instance...how much attention would it have received? I think, at first, some of his friends would have tried to "help him" out of concern for his well being perhaps, and that some of his detractors would have rejoiced in his folly and gleefully exploited the opportunity to "throw him under the bus" -- But, then what? More than likely, IMO, the thread would have died out fairly quickly.

But that's not what happened here. This thread is the longest in EF history. If it's all so nonsensical, why? I find it interesting that some of Judyth's detractors claim, on the one hand, that her story is so outlandish as to be easily dismissed as nonsense. Yet, on the other hand, they spend a tremendous amount of energy refuting claims that they characterize as having no merit. Why would it take such effort to demonstrate that something "obviously" ridiculous is ridiculous if it was, in fact, so obvious?

Perhaps there is no merit to these claims. That's not my point. But, if there is no merit to the claims and if they are as completely outlandish as her detractors claim, then why all the effort to refute them?

If ridiculous, it seems like it shouldn't have been that hard.

Greg,

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

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

I know who you are. What you've shown here suggests a huge mismatch vs your credentials.

[Greg Burnham]

GJ [Good job] JG.

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

Off topic?

Kathy C

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

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