Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[Jack White]

This is ridiculous, Monk. Judyth and Lee were hired on the same day. She maintained his work and

payroll records, which even have her initials on them. Doubting this is beyond the realm of reason.

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

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

Monk...I am with you. We have oodles (legal term) of statements by JVB that she knew LHO and LHO knew her,

both in the conventional and sexual sense. And most of us accept that as a given, since they worked at the same

company. But...tain't necessarily so. As you say, it depends on the size of the company. He was a factory worker,

she was an office worker. So where is the independent documentation? A statement by JVB is NOT documentation;

neither is a statement by Haslam...unless DOCUMENTED.

Jack

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Jack,

Why are you running away from a simple question, when you originated it?

You have insisted, over and over again, that Judyth's story is not "logical",

because it involves so many elements that you regard as implausible. But

surely you can admit the same is true of the story of "Harvey" and "Lee".

It, too, has many initially implausible elements. You insist that I have to

read HARVEY & LEE, which I have purchased and have begun to read. I

have encouraged you to read DR. MARY'S MONKEY, which you refuse to

purchase and avow you will never read! In both cases, the stories have

so many "implausible" elements that unless you become immersed in the

evidence, you can't make sense of them. What kind of a researcher does

that: excludes what a fellow student recommends as essential to under-

stand the case they are both engaged in studying? Tell me, Jack, since

that is the kind of "researcher" you have become--one who is unwilling

to consider some of the most important evidence about this very case.

Jim

SOME REFLECTIONS ON THE APPEAL TO WHAT IS "LOGICAL" AND WHAT IS NOT

Truth can be stranger than fiction. When you look where you've been, sometimes

you had no idea where you were going. Judyth was talented at cancer research.

She was lured to New Orleans by Alton Ochsner. There was a problem with the

polio vaccine, which had to be treated covertly to avoid alarming the public. Dr.

Mary Sherman was engaged in research there. The experiments did involve mice

and monkeys. David Ferrie and others were involved in conducting that research.

It involved the use of a linear particle accelerator. Someone had to have assisted

her. Judyth and Lee were hired by Riley's on the same day. Judyth kept the time

cards and other records for Oswald. Anna Lewis has testified that she and David,

her husband, even "double-dated" with Judyth and Lee. Mary Sherman was killed,

apparently using a linear particle accelerator. The death scene at her apartment

was staged. Ochsner did inoculate his grandchildren, killing one, while inducing

polio in the other. Judyth does appear to have been summarily sacked after she

protested the use of a prisoner in a (fatal) experiment without informed consent.

David Ferrie appears to have been silenced; and Ruby, too, using the bio-weapon.

And a second "Judyth Vary Baker" was used to impersonate the real Judyth Vary.

What could be a greater stretch than the idea of "two Oswalds", both having the

same name, one called "Harvey", the other "Lee", who even attended the same

schools, though not at the same time, where one was born in Hungary, physically

unimposing but intellectually able, who spoke fluent Russian but could not drive,

while the other had a propensity for violence, could drive but could not speak any

Russian and who had no interest in political philosophy or matters intellectual,

both of whom had mothers by the same name, where one of them ("Lee") lost

a tooth at Beauregard Junior High School, but Lillian Murret, the aunt of the

other ("Harvey"), paid for his dental bill, where his brother, Robert, who looks

exactly like him, is not supposed to be related genetically and who could have

effortlessly impersonated him did not, even though, after the assassination, he

would give lectures and publish a book falsely blaming his brother for a crime

he did not commit, where not only Aunt Lillian but Robert, Marguerite, and

Marina all knew of the existence of both "Harvey" and "Lee", even though none

of them ever uttered a peep! Neither of these stories is "logical" in the sense

Jack intends. Yet, I submit, at least one of these stories appears to be true.

[snip]...

Bizarre. LHO writing in the margins of her book would establish she knew him. Just how/why you would think it would automatically establish anything beyond that ... like working in some secret Ferrie kitchen cancer bioweapon lab is nonsensical. [snip]...

Barb,

While I agree with you that even if the above item is shown to be Oswald's writing it does not prove all of her other claims are true. However, why are you asking for this handwriting verification if its only purpose is to substantiate that which you have already conceded based on other evidence? If you have already conceded the high probability that they knew each other based on their concurrent employment at Reily's, why ask for this exercise in futility since, as you say, it won't prove anything beyond that which you already concede anyway?

Why must we ASSUME that LHO and JVB knew each other because they both worked at Reily's? We have only her word for it.

He was a machinery worker; she was an office worker. It is not uncommon that in a large company not every worker will know every other worker.

Edited May 4, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Of course, Jack seems oblivious of the practice of forging documents and records,

which can be used to "document" events and identities willy-nilly. The absence of

documents does not show something did not happen, just as the presence of the

same doesn't prove that they did. The situation here is ridiculous. I don't get it.

Some of the best researchers I have ever known have brains that turn to jelly

when something as controversial as Judyth appears on the scene. I am not at

all surprised that there should be a host of mediocre students here who can't

make heads or tails of Judyth's story and make up completely unreasonable

positions. Jack won't read DR. MARY'S MONKEY. Lifton won't declare that he

thinks HARVEY & LEE is beyond the pale. Weldon won't admit that there are

medical procedures that can be life-threatening, yet given informed consent,

no one would be guilty of murder if they didn't pan out. This is quite absurd.

This is ridiculous, Monk. Judyth and Lee were hired on the same day. She maintained his work and

payroll records, which even have her initials on them. Doubting this is beyond the realm of reason.

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

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

Monk...I am with you. We have oodles (legal term) of statements by JVB that she knew LHO and LHO knew her,

both in the conventional and sexual sense. And most of us accept that as a given, since they worked at the same

company. But...tain't necessarily so. As you say, it depends on the size of the company. He was a factory worker,

she was an office worker. So where is the independent documentation? A statement by JVB is NOT documentation;

neither is a statement by Haslam...unless DOCUMENTED.

Jack

[Jack White]

='James H. Fetzer' date='Apr 27 2010, 02:25 AM' post='190963']

Judyth will reply when she can, Jack. She has been traveling. Do you admit

that HARVEY & LEE is as "illogical" in your sense as Judyth's story? That you

are so adamant about reading DR. MARY'S MONKEY, given the role that you

are playing as among Judyth's leading criticis, discredits you completely, not

just in my mind but, I am quite sure, in the minds of many other researchers.

I doubt that I have ever been more disappointed in anyone else in my adult life.

Emphatically NO! There is no comparison between what JVB and Haslam say and

what Armstrong says. Armstrong is 98 PERCENT DOCUMENTATION. Baker and

Haslam are 98 PERCENT OPINION AND SPECULATION.

I have read MARY, FERRIE AND THE MONKEY VIRUS. I do not have DR. MARY'S

MONKEY, and do not have the budget nor desire to obtain the revised version

which includes the JVB material. I have read enough posted to understand

the other minor additions. I REPEAT, I have no interest in the JVB stories

EXCEPT FOR THE CHAOS SHE IS CAUSING AMONG RESEARCHERS, which may

be why she is thrust forward at this time. And I am NOT one of JVB's leading

critics. I am the leading critic of YOUR ADVOCACY OF HER STORIES. I am

extremely disappointed in your approach of trying to browbeat and insult

your position on opponents, INSTEAD OF OFFERING FACTS AND DOCUMENTATION.

I DO NOT CARE about JVB or her stories. Her romance with LHO, whether

true or not, does nothing to advance important JFK research.

Jack

[Dean Hagerman]

Mr. Fetzer-

I do not know Dean Hagerman but I suspect that- outside of the Judyth Baker issue- he and I would not agree about much concerning the assassination. But I wanted to mention that I read his posts very differently than you apparently do. I do not see him as a lemming, blindly following the opinions of others to fit in. Rather, it seems to me that throughout this thread he has thought for himself and painfully come to the conclusion that someone he has respected has feet of clay. He has done his best to express his concerns to you, Mr. Fetzer, and you have either ignored them or tried to lecture him as if he were a child. He deserves better.

Thank you very much Kevin

It hurts that a researcher I not only looked up to but based my research for the last 12+ years on not only said im a lemming and follow everybody else, but that I have done no research and basicly am not allowed to have an opinion

Thats great Jim, all the admiration I had for you, all the times I defended you, and all the praise I gave you is now gone

Thank you for showing me the real you, I used to think of you as the leader of the alteration cause of which I was a supporter of

Now I think of you as a nobody to me

I hope it made you feel good to insult me, just remember this, I have always stood behind you, and now I can see that standing behind you means jack sh*t to you, you are the only researcher ever that I have seen treat his supporters like his critics

Edited April 27, 2010 by Dean Hagerman

[Doug Weldon]

There are lots of cases involving "first time" medical procedures where the life of the

patient/subject could be lost if it were unsuccessful. The first heart-lung transplant,

the first kidney transplant, and loads of other cases. You are distracting attention by

exclusively focusing on the Ochsner case, since the history of medicine is replete with

cases of the kind I have in mind. Why can't you, of all people, simply concede that

you were not thinking of cases of this kind and that, as I have observed, there are

categories of cases--especially medical--where the lost of a life after having granted

"informed consent" would not quality as murder. No one would ever prosecute them.

Is that too much to ask? You seem to be unable to grant that the other side is right

ABOUT ANYTHING. The "reading list", for example, turned out to be substantiated

by an actual WARREN COMMISSION DOCUMENT. Do you still insist that Judyth was

wrong about that one, too, just as I am still wrong about the history of medicine?

Jim:

These are totally separate issues where first time medical procedures are used in attempts to prolong life where the failure to do something has the consequence of death. Loss of life is not the intended consequence of these tests. Would one perform a heart-lung transplant on a healthy person even if they consented?

This discussion is about Judyth, Oshner, Ferrie, and others. My comments were directed towards them and their circumstances. It was not a philosophical discussion I inserted in the middle of the thread. My comments were a direct response to a specific question, not a theoritical discussion about the history of medicine.

I questioned whether Oswald's favorite poet was Pushkin. I doubt if Pushkin would be available at the Dallas library in the early 1960's and he is far more complicated than these other books. Did the WC exhibit substantiate JVB or did she get a list from the exhibit and use it as part of a list she made up?

I do believe Judyth would take a giant step forward with her credibility if the book with Oswald's alleged handwriting would be analyed and verified. Though not dispositive of her entire story, it would be a concrete example of her veracity (or lack thereof).

Doug Weldon

[Jack White]

I think Jim has his information garbled here. From what I read, I gathered that

Oschner's granddaughter who died was administered the SABIN ORAL POLIO

VACCINE, which was administed NOT BY INJECTION, but by putting a drop of

the vaccine on a sugar cube, which was dissolved in the mouth. My elderly

grandmother (who was not at risk for polio!) took the Sabin concoction, and I

am convinced suffered bad side effects. And I don't think Oschner himself

gave the girl the dosage. The doses were administered FREE by the feds

on Sundays called SABIN ORAL SUNDAYS, at churches and schools. I did not

take the sugar cube because I was suspicious of drugs pushed by the govt.

Jack

Throughout the history of medicine, subjects have volunteered for experiments where the

outcomes were unknown and could result in death. It is interesting that Alton Ochsner in

fact injected his grandaughter and his grandson with the polio vaccine, which killed the boy

and induced polio into the girl. No one has ever suggested that Ochsner should be brought

up on murder charges. For a smart guy, you seem to be oblivious of the history of medicine.

The controversy has raged over informed consent, not whether the subjects actually survived.

Except, of course, if the participants, such as Mary Sherman, David Ferrie, and Judyth Vary,

had been told that the subject (who was a prisoner) had "volunteered" for an experiment by

the authority providing the experimental subject, such as Alton Ochsner, then none of those

who actually administered the vaccine would be guilty of anything remotely approximating

murder, in which case our former prosecutor's analysis does not apply. There is surely more

ground to believe this scenario than that Sherman, Ferrie, and Vary would murder anyone.

And the fact that when Judyth discovered that the experimental subject had died and had

not been extended the right of informed consent, his analysis appears to be unjustifiable.

Hi Jack,

I have a law degree though I do not have a license to practice law. Here is my opinion:

Murder requires a number of elements, all of which must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

It requires the homicide rule that one life must be taken by another. [COMMENT: Here, you apparently believe it to be a person's injection or part of a plan to inject the prisoner]

It requires that there be no valid excuse, justification or accident for the taking.

It requires that the person taking the life have "malice aforethought" or the intent to kill [COMMENT: Intent may be shown by words or by conduct - Where is the evidence of conduct calculated to take a life?]

Can you prove all of this beyond a reasonable doubt? There may be a taking (questionable), but no intent by anyone and instead the strong likelihood of accident. And as for "premeditation," without any proof of murder, there is no need to consider that.

I do not see any prosecutor coming anywhere near the fulfillment of the evidencial requirements.

Dean

JVB admits in participating in a premeditated murder. I am surprised that nobody wants

her brought to justice. Scientific experimentation is no justification for murder.

We have attorneys on the forum. How about a legal opinion?

Jack

Many assertions have been made AND ACCEPTED AS FACT that a mental patient was injected

with Judy's cancer virus, and promptly died.

Why is this accepted as true without any checking? Hospitals keep voluminous records on

patients. What was the name of this patient? Where is the death report? Who administered

the injection? Where was the patient buried? What was the date of the injection and the date

of death? Many questions, few answers.

If this incident happened as reported, it clearly is a case of MURDER. There is no statute

of limitations on murder. If JVB admits to creating this cancer virus and being a party to

administering it to some poor unfortunate mental patient...IT IS STILL MURDER, PREMEDITATED

MURDER...not a scientific experiment. JVB has CONFESSED to murder and gone unprosecuted.

Am I the only one who finds this extraordinary?

Jack

Dean:

I have both prosecuted and defended murders. If the person was injected with a substance that could foreseeably result in the death of that person then all people who participated in the process leading to the injection and knew that it would be injected into someone would be principals in the crime and intent could be implied and even first degree (premeditated) murder could be found. It would be if you started firing a machine gun into a crowd of people and afterwards saying you didn't mean to kill anyone. Even a reckless act without intent could result in manslaughter, or 2nd degree murder. The question is whether a person believed that such an act could lead to the death of the person. If JVB reasonably believed it could and participated then Jack is right. At the least, her failure to report the incident could make her an accessory after the fact.

Doug Weldon

Jim:

Please note I have prosecuted and DEFENDED murders. It is, of course, dependent on all of the facts. If the people knew the substance could likely result in the death of a person and they cooperated in it being administered to a person it is totally irrelevant whether the person volunteered or not. If they did not know it was going to be administered to an individual(s) and they participated in the coverup of the death they could be found guilty of accessory after the fact, a lesser crime. This is NOT a debatable point. It simply is what it is.

Doug Weldon

[Jack White]

David...you are quoting MY POST, not Dean's. Not important to your point, but you may want to fix it.

Jack

Hello Dean,

Re your statement, "I even bought 3 month subscriptions to the New Orleans

Item and the New Orleans Times-Picayune to get fuller coverage."

You are not/were not alone. In 1967, I am one of the small number of persons who lived thousands of miles from New Orleans but who--like you--paid for a subscription to the New Orleans States-Item (and, as I recall, the Times-Picayune as well, or maybe a friend ordered that one, and we exchanged). I have old manila file folders filled with articles. These subscriptions stayed in force for months, if not years, and when the case went to trial (Spring, 1969) that was the way to get line by line transcripts of a lot of the testimony.

So . . yes, I'm a member of that small club of "out of towners" who (like you) subscribed to the local New Orleans newspapers to keep up with what --back then--seemed to be the big break in the Kennedy case.

And yes, your point is (of course) well taken, and so now we come back to Judyth, that call I had with her in March, 2000, and her credibility. Its hard to believe anyone who had any of the connections Judyth claimed to have had could possibly have been unaware of these events unfolding in New Orleans (starting in February, 1967, as I recall) since they were the focus of major media attention. When Judyth made that statement, I was amazed, but then, it was one of a number of amazing statements made during that very unusual phone call. Had the call not been taped, and then carefully reviewed afterwards, it is one of those things that probably would have just slid by. When one is dealing with a dozen amazing statements, one after another after another, what does one do? What does one believe? One tries to be polite and behave reasonably--not realizing that any of this is to be taken seriously. That was my impression, as the call went on and on, and then finally ended.

DSL

4/26/10; 7:30 PM PDT

Los Angeles, CA

[Doug Weldon]

I think Jim has his information garbled here. From what I read, I gathered that

Oschner's granddaughter who died was administered the SABIN ORAL POLIO

VACCINE, which was administed NOT BY INJECTION, but by putting a drop of

the vaccine on a sugar cube, which was dissolved in the mouth. My elderly

grandmother (who was not at risk for polio!) took the Sabin concoction, and I

am convinced suffered bad side effects. And I don't think Oschner himself

gave the girl the dosage. The doses were administered FREE by the feds

on Sundays called SABIN ORAL SUNDAYS, at churches and schools. I did not

take the sugar cube because I was suspicious of drugs pushed by the govt.

Jack

Jack:

A difference in facts would change my analyses. My observations are based on what Jim wrote. There may be other facts that would affect my analysis. I have no doubt that the facts are more extensive than presented here. I have presented what facts could constitute murder.

Doug

[Jack White]

DOCUMENTATION does not mean providing documents, whether faked or genuine.

Documentation means INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION BY ONE OR MORE OTHER

PARTIES OR SOURCES.

JVB saying something is NOT DOCUMENTATION. But if JVB says something and

one or more INDEPENDENT WITNESSES SAY THE SAME THING, that is documentation.

Or documentation can be verifiable other INDEPENDENT information. If you say

you lived at 666 Main Street in Podunk, Texas in 1955, that is not documentation.

However, if a Podunk phone book for 1955 says you lived at 666 Main Street,

that is documentation.

Documentation is a different word than DOCUMENT. A document is a piece of

paper, and may be real or fake.

Jack

Of course, Jack seems oblivious of the practice of forging documents and records,

which can be used to "document" events and identities willy-nilly. The absence of

documents does not show something did not happen, just as the presence of the

same doesn't prove that they did. The situation here is ridiculous. I don't get it.

Some of the best researchers I have ever known have brains that turn to jelly

when something as controversial as Judyth appears on the scene. I am not at

all surprised that there should be a host of mediocre students here who can't

make heads or tails of Judyth's story and make up completely unreasonable

positions. Jack won't read DR. MARY'S MONKEY. Lifton won't declare that he

thinks HARVEY & LEE is beyond the pale. Weldon won't admit that there are

medical procedures that can be life-threatening, yet given informed consent,

no one would be guilty of murder if they didn't pan out. This is quite absurd.

This is ridiculous, Monk. Judyth and Lee were hired on the same day. She maintained his work and

payroll records, which even have her initials on them. Doubting this is beyond the realm of reason.

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

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

Monk...I am with you. We have oodles (legal term) of statements by JVB that she knew LHO and LHO knew her,

both in the conventional and sexual sense. And most of us accept that as a given, since they worked at the same

company. But...tain't necessarily so. As you say, it depends on the size of the company. He was a factory worker,

she was an office worker. So where is the independent documentation? A statement by JVB is NOT documentation;

neither is a statement by Haslam...unless DOCUMENTED.

Jack

Edited April 27, 2010 by Jack White

[Jack White]

I no longer purchase books for my JFK library. I am planning to donate my

collection to a major university. The reason I will not purchase and read

the REVISED Haslam book is that I have no interest in it. Nothing about JVB

interests me. The chaos she causes does.

Jack

Jack,

Why are you running away from a simple question, when you originated it?

You have insisted, over and over again, that Judyth's story is not "logical",

because it involves so many elements that you regard as implausible. But

surely you can admit the same is true of the story of "Harvey" and "Lee".

It, too, has many initially implausible elements. You insist that I have to

read HARVEY & LEE, which I have purchased and have begun to read. I

have encouraged you to read DR. MARY'S MONKEY, which you refuse to

purchase and avow you will never read! In both cases, the stories have

so many "implausible" elements that unless you become immersed in the

evidence, you can't make sense of them. What kind of a researcher does

that: excludes what a fellow student recommends as essential to under-

stand the case they are both engaged in studying? Tell me, Jack, since

that is the kind of "researcher" you have become--one who is unwilling

to consider some of the most important evidence about this very case.

Jim

SOME REFLECTIONS ON THE APPEAL TO WHAT IS "LOGICAL" AND WHAT IS NOT

Truth can be stranger than fiction. When you look where you've been, sometimes

you had no idea where you were going. Judyth was talented at cancer research.

She was lured to New Orleans by Alton Ochsner. There was a problem with the

polio vaccine, which had to be treated covertly to avoid alarming the public. Dr.

Mary Sherman was engaged in research there. The experiments did involve mice

and monkeys. David Ferrie and others were involved in conducting that research.

It involved the use of a linear particle accelerator. Someone had to have assisted

her. Judyth and Lee were hired by Riley's on the same day. Judyth kept the time

cards and other records for Oswald. Anna Lewis has testified that she and David,

her husband, even "double-dated" with Judyth and Lee. Mary Sherman was killed,

apparently using a linear particle accelerator. The death scene at her apartment

was staged. Ochsner did inoculate his grandchildren, killing one, while inducing

polio in the other. Judyth does appear to have been summarily sacked after she

protested the use of a prisoner in a (fatal) experiment without informed consent.

David Ferrie appears to have been silenced; and Ruby, too, using the bio-weapon.

And a second "Judyth Vary Baker" was used to impersonate the real Judyth Vary.

What could be a greater stretch than the idea of "two Oswalds", both having the

same name, one called "Harvey", the other "Lee", who even attended the same

schools, though not at the same time, where one was born in Hungary, physically

unimposing but intellectually able, who spoke fluent Russian but could not drive,

while the other had a propensity for violence, could drive but could not speak any

Russian and who had no interest in political philosophy or matters intellectual,

both of whom had mothers by the same name, where one of them ("Lee") lost

a tooth at Beauregard Junior High School, but Lillian Murret, the aunt of the

other ("Harvey"), paid for his dental bill, where his brother, Robert, who looks

exactly like him, is not supposed to be related genetically and who could have

effortlessly impersonated him did not, even though, after the assassination, he

would give lectures and publish a book falsely blaming his brother for a crime

he did not commit, where not only Aunt Lillian but Robert, Marguerite, and

Marina all knew of the existence of both "Harvey" and "Lee", even though none

of them ever uttered a peep! Neither of these stories is "logical" in the sense

Jack intends. Yet, I submit, at least one of these stories appears to be true.

[snip]...

Bizarre. LHO writing in the margins of her book would establish she knew him. Just how/why you would think it would automatically establish anything beyond that ... like working in some secret Ferrie kitchen cancer bioweapon lab is nonsensical. [snip]...

Barb,

While I agree with you that even if the above item is shown to be Oswald's writing it does not prove all of her other claims are true. However, why are you asking for this handwriting verification if its only purpose is to substantiate that which you have already conceded based on other evidence? If you have already conceded the high probability that they knew each other based on their concurrent employment at Reily's, why ask for this exercise in futility since, as you say, it won't prove anything beyond that which you already concede anyway?

Why must we ASSUME that LHO and JVB knew each other because they both worked at Reily's? We have only her word for it.

He was a machinery worker; she was an office worker. It is not uncommon that in a large company not every worker will know every other worker.

[Greg Burnham]

Monk...I am with you. We have oodles (legal term) of statements by JVB that she knew LHO and LHO knew her,

both in the conventional and sexual sense. And most of us accept that as a given, since they worked at the same

company. But...tain't necessarily so. As you say, it depends on the size of the company. He was a factory worker,

she was an office worker. So where is the independent documentation? A statement by JVB is NOT documentation;

neither is a statement by Haslam...unless DOCUMENTED.

Jack

Although this might not be exactly what's going on here, Jack--are you saying this is what it resembles?

Example of Begging the Question

Bill: "God exists." [Jim: Judyth is the real deal]

Jill: "How do you know." [Jack: How do you know?]

Bill: "Because the Bible says so." [Jim: Because Doctor Mary's Monkey says so.]

Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?" [Jack: Why should I believe DMM?]

Bill: "Because the Bible was written by those who believe in God." [Jim: Because DMM was written by someone who believes in Judyth]

==============================

Edited April 27, 2010 by Greg Burnham

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

A few comments in no particular order to some of you who are as upset as am I:

Dean Hagerman,

Some time back, I asked if you had read or watched a list of videos and documents

related to this case. You, as I recall, had studied exactly one! You have repeatedly

expressed enthusiasm for Barb's posts, when Barb, Viklund, and McAdams had been

shown to be collaborating to attack Judyth. They are not trustworthy sources, which

I had explained repeatedly. If you are not going to study the relevant sources--and

you are not alone in this respect--then you really are forfeiting the right to make an

informed contribution to the thread. I am sorry that I hurt your feelings, but how can

I respect you when you are not taking the steps that would make you better informed?

You have to figure these things out for yourself, Dean. There are too many here who

never intended to give her a fair shake and others who are only playing to the crowd.

I want you to be better than that--to rise above the crowd and do it all for yourself!

Keep studying, researching, and contributing to research about the assassination.

Jack White,

As an old hand, the same applies to you with overwhelmingly greater force. You have

had the most closed mind of anyone in this thread. Even Barb, of all people, has, at

least superficially, conveyed the appearance of being more open-minded. How can I

support you, even as a friend, when your research ethics--your standards for gaining

knowledge about this case, when you are so active--are so appalling? On issue after

issue, you have failed to do your homework. Surely I don't have to repeat the many

aspects of the case where you have made posts that were based on ignorance? And

you seem to wear your unwillingness to even read DR. MARY'S MONKEY as a bizarre

badge of honor. Neither you nor Doug or others are willing to grant that Judyth has

anything right or that you ever have anything wrong. You are not even granting that

HARVEY & LEE is as illogical as Judyith's story, in the sense you intend it. That is not

the conduct of any objective student but of a completely and absolutely closed mind.

Doug Weldon:

I am sorry to say that your style here has really disappointed me. I have been such

a huge fan that I did not expect you would be among those who, in my view, have not

given Judyth a fair shake. Many others, whom I need not name, have been there too,

but I had lesser expectations of them. Even on this matter of the death of a subject--

the prisoner who was given an injection--the issue, within a medical context, is one of

informed consent. The project to find a way to take out Castro had the typical murky

aspects of an agency op. Even killing Saddam Hussein was illegal, since Ford, Carter,

and Reagan had signed executive orders that proscribed the assassination of heads of

foreign governments. People die from medical procedures every day and, because they

granted informed consent, there is no implication that murders are involved. Jack only

made an issue of this as a form of harassment of Judyth. Nothing more, nothing less.

For you all,

I have been doing my best to present her story for an objective evaluation for persons

like the three of you. That you have responded as you have leaves me in doubt about

my confidence in human rationality. Jack should have been setting a model for others

on this forum, including Dean Hagerman. Instead, he has attempted to make a virtue

out of ignorance, as though persisting in the same state of mind were a rational state

of mind. He has embraced the method of tenacity, not even bothering to read the most

important book on the matter of this thread, while blindly defending HARVEY & LEE,

not acknowledging that Armstrong has made mistakes and that some of his opinions

--such as that the Murrets, Robert, Marina, and Marguerite ALL KNEW BOTH HARVEY &

LEE--are pure speculation unsupported by any evidence! I cannot treat my friends any

differently than I treat my critics when they are wrong. But I really had expected more.

Mr. Fetzer-

I do not know Dean Hagerman but I suspect that- outside of the Judyth Baker issue- he and I would not agree about much concerning the assassination. But I wanted to mention that I read his posts very differently than you apparently do. I do not see him as a lemming, blindly following the opinions of others to fit in. Rather, it seems to me that throughout this thread he has thought for himself and painfully come to the conclusion that someone he has respected has feet of clay. He has done his best to express his concerns to you, Mr. Fetzer, and you have either ignored them or tried to lecture him as if he were a child. He deserves better.

Thank you very much Kevin

It hurts that a researcher I not only looked up to but based my research for the last 12+ years on not only said im a lemming and follow everybody else, but that I have done no research and basicly am not allowed to have an opinion

Thats great Jim, all the admiration I had for you, all the times I defended you, and all the praise I gave you is now gone

Thank you for showing me the real you, I used to think of you as the leader of the alteration cause of which I was a supporter of

Now I think of you as a nobody to me

I hope it made you feel good to insult me, just remember this, I have always stood behind you, and now I can see that standing behind you means jack sh*t to you, you are the only researcher ever that I have seen treat his supporters like his critics

Edited April 27, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Jack,

I don't know how I missed this post. The point is BEFORE and AFTER. If

you consider the story of HARVEY & LEE before doing research on it, then

it looks wildly bizarre. If you consider the story of JUDYTH & LEE before

doing research on it, then it, too, looks wildly bizarre. That is the way in

which they are both equally "illogical". Can you possibly appreciate that?

You are offended over the comparison because you HAVE studied HARVEY

& LEE and are convinced that it is correct. I have only just begun reading

HARVEY & LEE, but I already have some doubts (about the "index", the

date of the creation of the Warren Commision, and, of course, the story

of the "missing tooth"), which undermine my confidence in HARVEY & LEE.

The difference, of course, is that I have HARVEY & LEE and am reading it,

while you do not have DR. MARY'S MONKEY and are not reading it. That

means there is a gross asymmetry in our approach. You do not seem to

understand that the reason Ed Haslam published DR. MARY'S MONKEY

is because he has new evidence based on his additional research.

I have been trying to get you to open your mind to the POSSIBILITY

that more may have been going on that you suppose, based upon your

earlier read of MARY, FERRIE, AND THE MONKEY VIRUS. May I at least

offer to send you a copy of DR. MARY'S MONKEY? Would you allow me

to do that in order to promote a greater degree of mutual understanding?

You regard John Armstrong as a serious researcher. I regard Ed Haslam

as a serious researcher. I have some concerns about HARVEY & LEE that

I am articulating. You have concerns about Ed Haslam's research but you

are not even bothering to read his book. At least admit that I may have a

point--that perhaps you should read DR. MARY'S MONKEY, after all. OK?

My belief is that, just as you found many initially implausible elements of

HARVEY & LEE have turned out to be correct, based upon your study of

the evidence, if you were to be equally open-minded about Judyth, you

would find many initially implausible elements of JUDYTH & LEE have

turned out to be correct. But you need to start with Haslam's new book.

Jim

='James H. Fetzer' date='Apr 27 2010, 02:25 AM' post='190963']

Judyth will reply when she can, Jack. She has been traveling. Do you admit

that HARVEY & LEE is as "illogical" in your sense as Judyth's story? That you

are so adamant about reading DR. MARY'S MONKEY, given the role that you

are playing as among Judyth's leading criticis, discredits you completely, not

just in my mind but, I am quite sure, in the minds of many other researchers.

I doubt that I have ever been more disappointed in anyone else in my adult life.

Emphatically NO! There is no comparison between what JVB and Haslam say and

what Armstrong says. Armstrong is 98 PERCENT DOCUMENTATION. Baker and

Haslam are 98 PERCENT OPINION AND SPECULATION.

I have read MARY, FERRIE AND THE MONKEY VIRUS. I do not have DR. MARY'S

MONKEY, and do not have the budget nor desire to obtain the revised version

which includes the JVB material. I have read enough posted to understand

the other minor additions. I REPEAT, I have no interest in the JVB stories

EXCEPT FOR THE CHAOS SHE IS CAUSING AMONG RESEARCHERS, which may

be why she is thrust forward at this time. And I am NOT one of JVB's leading

critics. I am the leading critic of YOUR ADVOCACY OF HER STORIES. I am

extremely disappointed in your approach of trying to browbeat and insult

your position on opponents, INSTEAD OF OFFERING FACTS AND DOCUMENTATION.

I DO NOT CARE about JVB or her stories. Her romance with LHO, whether

true or not, does nothing to advance important JFK research.

Jack

Edited April 27, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Dean,

I respect the right of everyone to their own opinions. That is their right. But

not all opinions are on a par. Some opinions are well-founded, while others

are not. To have a well-founded opinion requires expending time and effort

in research appropriate to the subject. It may involved reading articles and

books or even conducting experiments, when that is a reasonable alternative.

In the case of this thread, you have acknowledged that you have not read or

listened to most of the sources that I recommended that you should read or

listen to about this case. In addition, on numerous occasions, you have been

a cheerleader for Barb when she has produced something you considered to

be a hit on Judyth. That bothered me because Barb is so obviously biased.

I would not have been so hard on you if I knew you were studying more of

the relevant sources as you told me you would. If you actually have done

that, then I reduce my complaint proportionately. But unless you can tell

me that you actually have pursued more of the sources I recommended, I

have a hard time seeing how your opinion can be a well-founded opinion.

I have just read a book, STRANGER THAN FICTION, about 9/11, where the

author describes the lemming-like beliefs of the public when it is subjected

to manipulation by the mass media in parroting the official account of 9/11.

I have sensed a similar phenomenon in the course of this thread, where all

too many are offering opinions about Judyth that are not based on research.

I am sorry that I hurt your feelings. I have appreciated your support. My

purpose in berating you is that I believe you can do so much better than to

parrot the position of someone like Barb, who is doing everything she can to

manipulate opinions on this thread. All I ask is that you consider all of the

available evidence in reaching your own opinion and not simply follow along.

When you have the chance to read DR. MARY'S MONKEY, perhaps long from

now, drop me a line and tell me what you think. The author grew up in New

Orleans, even sat on Mary Sherman's lap as a child, and has done the best

work on this subject of anyone involved. It is a thorough, meticulous, and

painstaking piece of work, which is indispensable to understanding Judyth.

Best wishes,

Jim

Mr. Fetzer-

I do not know Dean Hagerman but I suspect that- outside of the Judyth Baker issue- he and I would not agree about much concerning the assassination. But I wanted to mention that I read his posts very differently than you apparently do. I do not see him as a lemming, blindly following the opinions of others to fit in. Rather, it seems to me that throughout this thread he has thought for himself and painfully come to the conclusion that someone he has respected has feet of clay. He has done his best to express his concerns to you, Mr. Fetzer, and you have either ignored them or tried to lecture him as if he were a child. He deserves better.

Thank you very much Kevin

It hurts that a researcher I not only looked up to but based my research for the last 12+ years on not only said im a lemming and follow everybody else, but that I have done no research and basicly am not allowed to have an opinion

Thats great Jim, all the admiration I had for you, all the times I defended you, and all the praise I gave you is now gone

Thank you for showing me the real you, I used to think of you as the leader of the alteration cause of which I was a supporter of

Now I think of you as a nobody to me

I hope it made you feel good to insult me, just remember this, I have always stood behind you, and now I can see that standing behind you means jack sh*t to you, you are the only researcher ever that I have seen treat his supporters like his critics