Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[Glenn Viklund]

Jimmy,

This is quite an accusation:

"Viklund may be the greatest mediocrity to post on this thread. Not only did Judyth have friends who could vouch for her status but the fact that she remained in Sweden long after she would have been deported if his reports were true demonstrated that they were false on their face. There has been no merit to anything he has posted. After having to ask Monk if I were "a prominent researcher", he has tried to save face by saying he had seen me on YouTube! It was a pathetic exercise and extremely revealing about his knowledge of the state of research on JFK and those who have made contributions. Even now, I doubt that he could name the four national conferences I chaired or co-chaired, the titles of the three books I have edited, the URLs of any of the web sites where I discuss JFK, the name of the 4 1/2 hour documentary I produced, or any of the articles I have published on this topic. The guy is a newbie but wants to be taken seriously. I can't imagine why. He doesn't know what he's talking about."

Now, get out of your hole. And let's discuss the issues.

1) Judyth vouched. Not valid, you've got to come up with something better.

2) She remained nowhere, beyond that of the authorities will.

3) No "saving face" - the truth, Jimmy - heard of that?

4) I have never claimed knowledge beyond the asylum issue, where I will demolish you every day of the week. Starting now?

5) I have not claimed to know anything beyond the asylum issue. Ever.

6) I don't give a xxxx about what you have done or chaired, you have blown all credibility here. All of it, period.

7) You, unlike me, have done no research about JVBs asylum issue, where she lied faster than horses run.

These are the facts, Jimmy. Whether you like it or not. Challenge them and I will be happy to respond.

Edited April 26, 2010 by Glenn Viklund

[Greg Burnham]

5) I have not claimed to know anything beyond the asylulm issue. Ever.

Hmmm. Then what business do you have posting comments beyond that scope? Any comments beyond that scope are, by definition, ill conceived, inappropriate, out of place, best left unsaid, and could be the words of a mad man with an over blown image of himself; or otherwise absurd.

Edited April 26, 2010 by Greg Burnham

[Kevin Greenlee]

Kevin,

I displayed a "general garment" without naming names in my post. Are you claiming a custom fit? On the other hand, perhaps my observation doesn't apply to you? That's not for me to determine and I didn't point any fingers. It was just meant as food for thought...

Greg-

Fair enough!

[Michael Hogan]

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, I really think that Jim Fetzer, as much as the topic itself, is the reason for this thread's staying power.

His stamina has been remarkable. The sheer volume and content of his postings have been amazing to me.

He has adopted sort of a scorched earth policy in dealing with people that refuse to see things his way. He

has advanced many arguments, some better than others in my opinion. I respect his resolve in defending what

he sincerely, passionately and steadfastly believes to be the truth. I do believe that his lapses into

bellicosity have harmed his arguments and his persona. I also believe that he allowed Jack White

to frame the debate to an extent by allowing John Armstrong's book to assume such a prominent position

in the JVB/LHO debate. If Jim abandons posting on this thread, I would expect things to drastically

taper down and run out of momentum. I believe that Jim Fetzer has been the gasoline that fueled this engine.

All the other ingredients for a record-breaking thread came together in a perfect storm. There was a contentious,

take one side or the other issue (not dissimilar to body alteration, Zapruder alteration, or two Oswalds*),

involvement of a number of prominent researchers, an irresolvable clash of intellects and egos (certainly not just

Mr Fetzer and Mr White), a diversion into other theories, a predictable devolvement into arguments about motivations,

competence, experience, application of logic, and on and on. All these factors motivated many members to be very

vigorous in their posting.

*(I do not mean to equate these three things with JVB's story in any other respect)

What began as a fundamental disagreement between Jim Fetzer and Jack White quickly escalated into

a situation that resulted in a long-standing friendship becoming severely damaged. By the time David Lifton

entered the fray, it was clear that most members that were posting had made up their minds about Judyth Baker

long ago. This frustrated Jim Fetzer and he began responding to every criticism, no matter by whom. A lot of

researchers and members weighed in. The drama of researchers that can't get along with each other has always

made for long threads. Jim Fetzer's rift (for lack of a better word) with Doug Weldon was startling.

Then Judyth Baker, through Jim, became active in her own defense. This was a catalytic development;

it served to give the thread even more life and momentum.

This thread serves as a fascinating glimpse into the different prisms we all employ when it comes to

viewing events surrounding President Kennedy's murder. I have learned a lot about how certain researchers

and members view things fundamentally and how they react to opposing views.

I think that in respect to the main thrust of this thread, it is important to separate Baker's claims

of having a loving relationship with Lee Oswald from the rest of her story. It is this particular aspect

of her narrative that is so radioactive, so to speak.

When Jim Fetzer initiated this thread it was clear that he was accepting of JVB's story as it pertains to Oswald.

He appeared to be unaware that Ed Haslam's book Dr. Mary's Monkey supported his position. Later in the thread,

he seemed to get up to speed and Haslam's book quickly became one of the major cornerstones of his argument.

Jim has posted the two pertinent chapters that deal with JVB's story.

Maybe partially in response to Jack White's exhortations to read Harvey & Lee, Jim Fetzer wants to make sure that

everyone reads Haslam's book. But as I see it, Haslam really offers little in the way of evidence beyond what is

commonly known and nothing in the way of proof that JVB and LHO were lovers. Ed Haslam urged the readers of

Dr Mary's Monkey to make up their own minds by reading Baker's two-volume book Lee Harvey Oswald. Haslam has

seemingly backed away from that position and is now urging people to wait for Judyth Baker's new book. He has posted

three times (I think) on this thread and has taken the position that discussing the JVB/LHO story will not really be productive

until her new book comes out and people read it. Jim Fetzer didn't really take that advice and instead still chooses to actively

direct readers to Dr Mary's Monkey. That strategy has not been very effective. I must note that earlier in this thread, Jim Fetzer

issued me a strong and classy apology for some of the things he said to me. Although I still disagree with him about Dr Mary's Monkey

as it pertains to JVB/LHO, he has since said some very nice things about me. I appreciate both.

One of the positive things that has come out of this thread is your joining EF and participating, Greg. I think many

members have appreciated the balanced and informed positions you have taken whether they agree with you or not.

Maybe marriage has mellowed you a little, but I'm glad you still care.

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Intriguing. This is one of your more constructive posts. I will ask Judyth about it when I have the chance. She is traveling. And if something like this were to substantiate her claims, then you, Barb, will admit she IS "the real deal"?

If you can obtain and post a notarized certificate/report of authemticity from a professional, court qualified documents examiner attesting that the handwriting in Judyth's Pocket Aristotle book was written by Lee Harvey Oswald, it will go a long way toward substantiating her claim that she knew Lee Harvey Oswald in New Orleans in 1963. And that would be a tremendous step for her, the importance is not lost on you! Would it prove that she is the "real deal" with all of her claims overall? Of course not.

Does it give you any pause that Judyth has not pushed to have this book examined by such a qualified professional over the last 10 years? Or that she hadn't even mentioned this potentially explosive piece proof to you?

[Greg Burnham]

One of the positive things that has come out of this thread is your joining EF and participating, Greg. I think many members have appreciated the balanced and informed positions you have taken whether they agree with you or not.

Maybe marriage has mellowed you a little, but I'm glad you still care.

[emphasis added]

I like your analysis of what transpired, Mike. Also, many thanks for the kind words. And your last observation [in bold] is possibly more astute than you even know!

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Bill,

I replied to you in post #1636, if you check it. The ID appears to have been to gain easier access to the hospital,

but I will also ask Judyth. There other "Judyth" appears to have been an op. What else could she possibly be?

Jim

Prof. Fetzer has stated that I have endorsed the idea that the particle accellerator was at David Ferrie's apartment. I have done no such thing.

I accept the fact that it was at the Public Health Hospital, and I ask two questions:

1) Who is the OTHER Judyh Vary Baker who Ed Haslam met?

2) Why did Oswald make a fake vaccine card from the Public Health Hospital bearing the name of Dr. Alek Hidell?

What could he have possibly used it for?

And my questions are not directed at Prof. Fetzer, who doesn't seem to be able to undertand anything and makes simple things confusing.

BK

QUOTE (Jack White @ Apr 22 2010, 05:16 PM)

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...&pid=190450

But Jim...Mary Sherman died at home in her apartment. If the LINEAR ACCELERATOR was located in the Public Health Hospital, how could it have been responsible for her death?

Have you read the reports of her death?

In post #1479, I identified the location of the linear particle accelerator:

None of it can be known with certainty, but the basic elements are very strongly supported. It would be a mistake to suppose that every aspect of her story has to be supported to the same degree as every other. Among the 17 findings that Haslam enumerates, which I have reiterated above, the most important and best supported concern Judyth's ability to conduct reseach on cancer, that she was induced to come to New Orleans by Alton Ochsner, that she met and worked with Mary Sherman, David Ferrie, and Lee Oswald, that Mary was killed by a massive source of electricity (almost certainly the linear particle accelerator at the Public Health Hospital), and that Judyth was summarily dismissed by Ochsner after she complained about the prisoner who was used in a (fatal) experiment conducted without informed consent.

In post #1495, he asks if the accelerator was located in Ferrie's apartment or lab across the street. Not to put too fine a point on it but, given this post, how can post #1474 be truthful?

QUOTE (Jack White @ Apr 22 2010, 04:32 PM)

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...&pid=190422

Here is a LINEAR PARTICLE ACCELERATOR. Did David Ferrie have his in his apartment

or his laboratory across the street?

Jack

I still have two unanswered questions on the table.

Who was the OTHER Judyth Vary Baker who Ed Haslam met?

And why did Oswald forge a fake vaccine card with Dr. Alek Hidel's name on it from the

US Public Service Hospital in New Orleans?

What could he have possibly used this card for? Was it necessary to get a visa to Mexico? Did he want to establish the existence of Dr. Hidell? Can anyone think of another good reason to create such a card?

Oswald reportedly checked out this hospital as a potential place for his second daughter to be born, but that plan was thwarted when Marina wrote to Ruth Paine via Art Young and said she would go with her to Texas for the baby to be born.

This is the hospital where the partical accellerator was said to be located, the one that killed Mary Sherman, though according to EH she was moved to her apartment to make it appear she was the victim of an intruder.

Of course there is the world's largest and new particle accellerator in Switzerland that also recently made the news:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15727

A would-be saboteur arrested today at the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland made the bizarre claim that he was from the future. Eloi Cole, a strangely dressed young man, said that he had travelled back in time to prevent the LHC from destroying the world.

http://crave.cnet.co.uk/gadgets/0,39029552,49305387,00.htm

The LHC successfully collided particles at record force earlier this week, a milestone Mr Cole was attempting to disrupt by stopping supplies of Mountain Dew to the experiment's vending machines. He also claimed responsibility for the infamous baguette sabotage in November last year.

Mr Cole was seized by Swiss police after CERN security guards spotted him rooting around in bins. He explained that he was looking for fuel for his 'time machine power unit', a device that resembled a kitchen blender.

Police said Mr Cole, who was wearing a bow tie and rather too much tweed for his age, would not reveal his country of origin. "Countries do not exist where I am from. The discovery of the Higgs boson led to limitless power, the elimination of poverty and Kit-Kats for everyone. It is a communist chocolate hellhole and I'm here to stop it ever happening."

This isn't the first time time-travel has been blamed for mishaps at the LHC. Last year, the Japanese physicist Masao Ninomiya and Danish string-theory pioneer Holger Bech Nielsen put forward the hypothesis that the Higgs boson was so "abhorrent" that it somehow caused a ripple in time that prevented its own discovery.

Professor Brian Cox, a former CERN physicist and full-time rock'n'roll TV scientist, was sympathetic to Mr Cole. "Bless him, he sounds harmless enough. At least he didn't mention bloody black holes."

Mr Cole was taken to a secure mental health facility in Geneva but later disappeared from his cell. Police are baffled, but not that bothered.

[Glenn Viklund]

5) I have not claimed to know anything beyond the asylulm issue. Ever.

Hmmm. Then what business do you have posting comments beyond that scope? Any comments beyond that scope are, by definition, ill conceived, inappropriate, out of place, best left unsaid, and could be the words of a mad man with an over blown image of himself; or otherwise absurd.

Greg,

'

Just like you, I have opinions. Who are never disguised as anything but - opinions. Regarding JVBs asylum issue, I have the knowledge, unlike Jimmy.

Glenn

[Greg Burnham]

Greg,

Just like you, I have opinions. Who are never disguised as anything but - opinions. Regarding JVBs asylum issue, I have the knowledge, unlike Jimmy.

Glenn

Yes, Glenn--opinions.

But, some of us have actually conducted research about the broader subject drawing conclusions and forming opinions based upon that research.

I didn't write my opinion about the asylum issue because I have no "standing" to speak intelligently about it. I also have no evidence that you or Dolva have any reliable evidence pertaining to it either--although you might. Therefore, I have refrained from commenting on an issue about which I don't know enough. I refrain from proving I am a fool by not offering ill conceived, inappropriate, best left unsaid, "opinions" -- of which I am ill informed.

By comparison, what have you done with regard to speaking about items with which you have NO KNOWLEDGE (by your own admission)?

You don't need to answer, we already know.

Now to be fair to you, perhaps you felt that Jim accused you inappropriately. Perhaps he did. However, inserting yourself into discussions that you are ill informed about (by your own admission) does nothing to add to the pursuit of truth. Beyond a simple denial an innocent man need not defend himself if there is no basis for the accusations. And certainly there was no need to continue the attack.

Edited April 26, 2010 by Greg Burnham

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Thank you for this extraordinarily interesting overview about this thread, Michael. You have performed a service by posting it. I have detected no weakening in Ed Haslam's support for Judyth, but he awaits the publication of her book to continue with the debate, when more documents and records will become available, which is a reasonable position.

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, I really think that Jim Fetzer, as much as the topic itself, is the reason for this thread's staying power.

His stamina has been remarkable. The sheer volume and content of his postings have been amazing to me.

He has adopted sort of a scorched earth policy in dealing with people that refuse to see things his way. He

has advanced many arguments, some better than others in my opinion. I respect his resolve in defending what

he sincerely, passionately and steadfastly believes to be the truth. I do believe that his lapses into

bellicosity have harmed his arguments and his persona. I also believe that he allowed Jack White

to frame the debate to an extent by allowing John Armstrong's book to assume such a prominent position

in the JVB/LHO debate. If Jim abandons posting on this thread, I would expect things to drastically

taper down and run out of momentum. I believe that Jim Fetzer has been the gasoline that fueled this engine.

All the other ingredients for a record-breaking thread came together in a perfect storm. There was a contentious,

take one side or the other issue (not dissimilar to body alteration, Zapruder alteration, or two Oswalds*),

involvement of a number of prominent researchers, an irresolvable clash of intellects and egos (certainly not just

Mr Fetzer and Mr White), a diversion into other theories, a predictable devolvement into arguments about motivations,

competence, experience, application of logic, and on and on. All these factors motivated many members to be very

vigorous in their posting.

*(I do not mean to equate these three things with JVB's story in any other respect)

What began as a fundamental disagreement between Jim Fetzer and Jack White quickly escalated into

a situation that resulted in a long-standing friendship becoming severely damaged. By the time David Lifton

entered the fray, it was clear that most members that were posting had made up their minds about Judyth Baker

long ago. This frustrated Jim Fetzer and he began responding to every criticism, no matter by whom. A lot of

researchers and members weighed in. The drama of researchers that can't get along with each other has always

made for long threads. Jim Fetzer's rift (for lack of a better word) with Doug Weldon was startling.

Then Judyth Baker, through Jim, became active in her own defense. This was a catalytic development;

it served to give the thread even more life and momentum.

This thread serves as a fascinating glimpse into the different prisms we all employ when it comes to

viewing events surrounding President Kennedy's murder. I have learned a lot about how certain researchers

and members view things fundamentally and how they react to opposing views.

I think that in respect to the main thrust of this thread, it is important to separate Baker's claims

of having a loving relationship with Lee Oswald from the rest of her story. It is this particular aspect

of her narrative that is so radioactive, so to speak.

When Jim Fetzer initiated this thread it was clear that he was accepting of JVB's story as it pertains to Oswald.

He appeared to be unaware that Ed Haslam's book Dr. Mary's Monkey supported his position. Later in the thread,

he seemed to get up to speed and Haslam's book quickly became one of the major cornerstones of his argument.

Jim has posted the two pertinent chapters that deal with JVB's story.

Maybe partially in response to Jack White's exhortations to read Harvey & Lee, Jim Fetzer wants to make sure that

everyone reads Haslam's book. But as I see it, Haslam really offers little in the way of evidence beyond what is

commonly known and nothing in the way of proof that JVB and LHO were lovers. Ed Haslam urged the readers of

Dr Mary's Monkey to make up their own minds by reading Baker's two-volume book Lee Harvey Oswald. Haslam has

seemingly backed away from that position and is now urging people to wait for Judyth Baker's new book. He has posted

three times (I think) on this thread and has taken the position that discussing the JVB/LHO story will not really be productive

until her new book comes out and people read it. Jim Fetzer didn't really take that advice and instead still chooses to actively

direct readers to Dr Mary's Monkey. That strategy has not been very effective. I must note that earlier in this thread, Jim Fetzer issued me a strong and classy apology for some of the things he said to me. Although I still disagree with him about Dr Mary's Monkey as it pertains to JVB/LHO, he has since said some very nice things about me. I appreciate both.

One of the positive things that has come out of this thread is your joining EF and participating, Greg. I think many

members have appreciated the balanced and informed positions you have taken whether they agree with you or not.

Maybe marriage has mellowed you a little, but I'm glad you still care.

Edited April 26, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Right! And while I am at it, I had might as well have a DNA comparison between remnants on the pages of the book and the body that was exhumed, verify that Judyth Vary was actually born "Judyth Vary", and resolve a host of other issues. Just when I think you might be a decent person, you demonstrate, as you have throughout this thread, that you are really just a hack. I am sorry, Barb Junkkarinen, but I have found no redeeming qualities in you as a human being.

Intriguing. This is one of your more constructive posts. I will ask Judyth about it when I have the chance. She is traveling. And if something like this were to substantiate her claims, then you, Barb, will admit she IS "the real deal"?

If you can obtain and post a notarized certificate/report of authemticity from a professional, court qualified documents examiner attesting that the handwriting in Judyth's Pocket Aristotle book was written by Lee Harvey Oswald, it will go a long way toward substantiating her claim that she knew Lee Harvey Oswald in New Orleans in 1963. And that would be a tremendous step for her, the importance is not lost on you! Would it prove that she is the "real deal" with all of her claims overall? Of course not.

Does it give you any pause that Judyth has not pushed to have this book examined by such a qualified professional over the last 10 years? Or that she hadn't even mentioned this potentially explosive piece proof to you?

Edited April 26, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Glenn Viklund]

Greg,

Just like you, I have opinions. Who are never disguised as anything but - opinions. Regarding JVBs asylum issue, I have the knowledge, unlike Jimmy.

Glenn

Yes, Glenn--opinions.

But, some of us have actually conducted research about the broader subject drawing conclusions and forming opinions based upon that research.

I didn't write my opinion about the asylum issue because I have no "standing" to speak intelligently about it. I also have no evidence that you or Dolva have any reliable evidence pertaining to it either--although you might. Therefore, I have refrained from commenting on an issue about which I don't know enough. I refrain from proving I am a fool by not offering ill conceived, inappropriate, best left unsaid, "opinions" -- of which I am ill informed.

By comparison, what have you done with regard to speaking about items with which you have NO KNOWLEDGE (by your own admission)?

You don't need to answer, we already know.

Hey Greg,

So far, I've found you reasonable, even funny at times.

I would have thought that you by now could take my word for the authenticity of my statements related to the asylum thing. In fact, I would have expected you to, by now. But if you don't, I'll provide the translation, just give me your notice. And yes, of course you are ill informed about this particular issue. She lied, she was caught and now Jimmy et al are trying to hide. Be my guest to join them, no problem.

Edited April 26, 2010 by Glenn Viklund

[Greg Burnham]

Greg,

Just like you, I have opinions. Who are never disguised as anything but - opinions. Regarding JVBs asylum issue, I have the knowledge, unlike Jimmy.

Glenn

Yes, Glenn--opinions.

But, some of us have actually conducted research about the broader subject drawing conclusions and forming opinions based upon that research.

I didn't write my opinion about the asylum issue because I have no "standing" to speak intelligently about it. I also have no evidence that you or Dolva have any reliable evidence pertaining to it either--although you might. Therefore, I have refrained from commenting on an issue about which I don't know enough. I refrain from proving I am a fool by not offering ill conceived, inappropriate, best left unsaid, "opinions" -- of which I am ill informed.

By comparison, what have you done with regard to speaking about items with which you have NO KNOWLEDGE (by your own admission)?

You don't need to answer, we already know.

Now to be fair to you, perhaps you felt that Jim accused you inappropriately. Perhaps he did. However, inserting yourself into discussions that you are ill informed about (by your own admission) does nothing to add to the pursuit of truth. Beyond a simple denial an innocent man need not defend himself if there is no basis for the accusations. And certainly there was no need to continue the attack.

Hey Greg,

So far, I've found you reasonable, even funny at times.

I would have thought that you by now could take my word for the authenticity of my statements related to the asylum thing. In fact, I would have expected you to, by now. But if you don't, I'll provide the translation, just give me your notice. And yes, of course you are ill informed about this particular issue. She lied, she was caught and now Jimmy et al are trying to hide. Be my guest to join them, no problem.

You thought I could "take your word" -- Are you kidding me right now? Seriously? I don't even know you. Isn't this one of the main criticisms you and others have for Jim? You all claim that he just "takes Judyth's word for it" and that is NOT acceptable to you! Yet, I have known Jim very, very well for a decade or so--and I interviewed Judyth about 10 years ago, so I have a basis for my judgment. You have nothing, by comparison--except for "gut" feeling.

But now you want me to "take your word for it" even though I have no basis upon which to accept your claims? How hypocritical! Jim has a foundation upon which to base his belief in Judyth!

You have provided me nothing. In fact, your presentation has been dispositive.

[Glenn Viklund]

Greg,

Just like you, I have opinions. Who are never disguised as anything but - opinions. Regarding JVBs asylum issue, I have the knowledge, unlike Jimmy.

Glenn

Yes, Glenn--opinions.

But, some of us have actually conducted research about the broader subject drawing conclusions and forming opinions based upon that research.

I didn't write my opinion about the asylum issue because I have no "standing" to speak intelligently about it. I also have no evidence that you or Dolva have any reliable evidence pertaining to it either--although you might. Therefore, I have refrained from commenting on an issue about which I don't know enough. I refrain from proving I am a fool by not offering ill conceived, inappropriate, best left unsaid, "opinions" -- of which I am ill informed.

By comparison, what have you done with regard to speaking about items with which you have NO KNOWLEDGE (by your own admission)?

You don't need to answer, we already know.

Now to be fair to you, perhaps you felt that Jim accused you inappropriately. Perhaps he did. However, inserting yourself into discussions that you are ill informed about (by your own admission) does nothing to add to the pursuit of truth. Beyond a simple denial an innocent man need not defend himself if there is no basis for the accusations. And certainly there was no need to continue the attack.

Hey Greg,

So far, I've found you reasonable, even funny at times.

I would have thought that you by now could take my word for the authenticity of my statements related to the asylum thing. In fact, I would have expected you to, by now. But if you don't, I'll provide the translation, just give me your notice. And yes, of course you are ill informed about this particular issue. She lied, she was caught and now Jimmy et al are trying to hide. Be my guest to join them, no problem.

You thought I could "take your word" -- Are you kidding me right now? Seriously? I don't even know you. Isn't this one of the main criticisms you and others have for Jim? You all claim that he just "takes Judyth's word for it" and that is NOT acceptable to you! Yet, I have known Jim very, very well for a decade or so--and I interviewed Judyth about 10 years ago, so I have a basis for my judgment. You have nothing, by comparison--except for "gut" feeling.

But now you want me to "take your word for it" even though I have no basis upon which to accept your claims? How hypocritical! Jim has a foundation upon which to base his belief in Judyth!

You have provided me nothing. In fact, your presentation has been dispositive.

Well,

You don't want to take my word. What I meant is that Barb has verified this, John Dolva has verified the document. It is ridiculous to start questioning the authenticity of these documents. What exactly is it that you require, simply?

All you guys are making fools of yourselfs by never accepting anything, not even stuff that since long has been cleared. I've never seen or heard, or met John Dolva in my life before I entered Edu. Your ridiculous paranoia about anything of which is new to you is just absolutely insane. But that's your choice, Greg. I could not care less about your opinion of this. It's BS. Your default value of anyone you haven't heard of seems that of a sinister CIA agent - do you guys ever sleep at nite??

Edited April 26, 2010 by Glenn Viklund

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Kathy,

I asked you a question, "Have you ever done any research?"

You made the assertion, "Don't say I never did any research."

Well, I didn't. I thought you made a very odd and baseless

insinuation that Judyth had to direct me. I resented that.

It had no foundation. She doesn't even have the book. I'd

meant to thank you for "THE END". Let me thank you now.

Jim

Kathy,

Have you ever done any research? Did you think I had to read HARVEY & LEE to find the pages that concern "Lee"'s alleged "missing tooth"? Are you aware the book is organized in chronological fashion, that I had asked Jack to tell me the alleged differences between them, and that, when I encountered this "missing tooth" business, I tracked it down?

I mean, really! I have published more than 150 articles and reviews, my 29th book will appear next month, and I have received many honors and awards for my research. Yet you think JUDYTH would have to point out passages for me? I dare say, you have utterly no idea what you are talking about. Judyth does not even have a copy of HARVEY & LEE!

Did it even cross your mind that, after my reply to Dixie Dea in post #1575, which repeated points I had made in earlier posts, Judyth responded separately in post #1598? Would it have made sense for us to make separate posts if we were in synch about this? You appear to be a dear, but one more example of someone incapable of thinking things through.

Jim

Have I ever done any research? In my own limited (i.e., money) way, yes. As a matter of fact, the book we're discussing now I began to proof-read for a second edition. The reprint never happened. But I'm very well-versed in Harvey and Lee.

What happened to Lee after he was flown out of Dallas? John Armstrong believed he came back after a time with the name Donald O. Norton. Armstrong literally chased this guy around the country because of this belief. Yet, I don't know how Armstrong found out about Donald O. Norton, but he wasn't going to publish this part of the story unless he had absolute proof.

Now when I was on Rich's forum, the belief was the man people thought was Lee Oswald (Donald O. Norton) was a redhead and had a brother also a redhead. I believe that I have photos of Norton, which I found on the Internet, knowing his interests. I also saw a photo of a curious-looking man and as the photo came downwards the name was "Ralph Geb." I wrote the name down and googled it later on and was shocked. "Ralph Geb" was involved with impersonating LHO before the assassination.

I felt this was important, but nobody seemed interested. Rich had gotten seriously ill. He said to me he didn't care if Lee Oswald showed up that day and confessed.

I wish John Armstrong would write his book on Donald O. Norton.

Since 1979 I became interested in a murder that was committed in Nov. 1963 in West Hollywood. Karyn Kupcinet was the daughter of Chicago columnist and talk show host, Irv Kupcinet. I have collected things about her and read anything I could about her. In the mid-90's no one on the Internet knew anything about her. Now she has become popular because, firstly, my diligence. Also, it's an unsolved celebrity murder and had to do, imo, with Jack Ruby. Most people around her believed Hope Lange's brother, David, killed her. But there are some of us who think there may be a connection with the Chicago Mob. I understand a Private Detective is looking into it. I don't want to be off-topic, so I'll stop here.

Don't say I never did any research. Do you know how much I wish to go to the conventions held in Dealey Plaza and elsewhere? Don't have the dough yet.

And (sniff!), that's my sad story...

Kathy C

Edited April 26, 2010 by James H. Fetzer