Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Jack,

This epitomizes the problem, Jack. You have no interest. You won't read

the book. But you continue to offer slashing comments that are adverse

to Judyth when, by your own admission, you have no interest in her and

you won't read the most important book written about her. Can't you see

what's wrong with this picture, Jack?

Jim

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.

[Michael Hogan]

JIM REPLIES TO DEAN HAGERMAN ABOUT TRUTH AND JUDYTH VARY BAKER

....I have been extremely frustrated to expend so much time

and effort to bring you Judyth's story only to discover that most of those posting on

this forum are not reading or studying the evidence, including DR. MARY'S MONKEY.

....In spite of my repeated entreaties, my impressionis that you have yet to read DR. MARY'S MONKEY,

even though you profess to be someone who admires my work. Words are cheap, Dean, and until you

show me that you have a better grasp of the evidence than Jack, for example, I can no longer respect you.

My point is that, unless you have considered the evidence that I have identified, over and over

again, including my blogs about Judyth, the YouTube interviews I have conducted, my

program with Ed Haslam, which has long been posted on my radio program's archives

and on my blogs at http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com, you don't have the right to have

an opinion about Judyth--at least, not one that qualifies as "rational". I spent all those

years teaching students how to think things through, and I am acutely disappointed so

many who have made posts couldn't have passed a freshman course in critical thinking.

You have opinions, but without reviewing the evidence, they can't qualify as good ones.

Jim, the scant evidence that appears in Dr Mary's Monkey supporting Judyth Baker's claim that she had

a relationship with Lee Oswald has more than been covered in this thread. You have even reproduced the

two chapters where Haslam deals with this issue. Yet you continue to contend that members need to read

his book in order to have a right to their opinions.

But you haven't read Armstrong's book and that hasn't prevented you from expressing your strong opinions about the

quality of his research and the quality of his conclusions. Seemingly, you base your opinions on nothing much more

than an index and a missing tooth. If you are going to apply the same standards of critical thinking to yourself as you did

to your students and members of this Forum, shouldn't it be incumbent on you to read Harvey & Lee in it's entirety

before attempting to discredit Armstrong as you have done?

Weeks ago I posed several questions to you about Ed Haslam's research. At first you ignored them. I posted them again

to no avail. At the time you were responding to almost anyone and everyone, yet you would not address my questions.

Frustrated, I posed just one question in hope that you would give me your take. You then asked me to repeat the rest of the

questions because you did not want to go to Haslam with one question at a time. I rephrased the questions and presented them to you.

I noticed that you had Ed Haslam respond to Stephen Roy's posts in a very short period of time, yet my questions still have gone unanswered.

I am going to repeat just one of them here. I am really more interested in your explanation than Ed Haslam's at this point in time.

He has alread publicly evinced a reluctance to discuss JVB/LHO until her new book comes out.

Judyth Baker has claimed that she did not tell Haslam about her first book being unauthorized and containing errors, but she would

have done so if she had known Haslam was writing a book. Haslam's book came to her as a great surprise.

However, in Dr Mary's Monkey, Haslam presents a chapter entitled Judyth's Story. He writes: "Judyth has been kind enough

to corroborate (and correct) my version of her account." It defies logic to think that Haslam would get her to do this without telling her

it was for a book he was writing.

Jim, do you find it odd that Ed Haslam would not tell Judyth Baker that he was writing a book (where she would play a

prominent role as his "witness"), particularly in light of the fact that he had her make corrections to and corroborations of

his chapter that dealt with her story?

Edited April 27, 2010 by Michael Hogan

[Jack White]

name='James H. Fetzer' date='Apr 27 2010, 11:49 AM' post='191007']

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

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.

NOT TRUE. MY MIND IS ALWAYS OPEN TO NEW INFORMATION. EVERYTHING PRESENTED HERE IS

OLD INFORMATION. WE WENT THROUGH ALL OF THIS TEN YEARS AGO ON THE DELLA ROSA

FORUM. IT IS NEW ONLY TO YOU.

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.

HOMEWORK IS UNNECESSARY. EVERYTHING PRESENTED HERE IS OLD INFORMATION. WE WENT

THROUGH ALL OF THIS TEN YEARS AGO ON THE DELLA ROSA FORUM. IT IS NEW ONLY TO YOU.

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.

I HAVE STATED MY REASONS FOR NOT SPENDING MONEY ON A BOOK I HAVE NO INTEREST IN. I HAVE NO INTEREST

IN THIS WOMAN AND HER PECULIAR TALES. I ALREADY HAVE HASLAM'S FIRST BOOK, AND THIS IS JUST A REHASH

WITH JVB ADDED. THIS IS ONLY COMMON SENSE, NOT AT ALL BIZARRE.

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.

APPARENTLY JVB WORKED AT REILY COFFEE COMPANY DURING THE VERY BRIEF PERIOD THAT LHO DID. I AM WILLING TO GRANT

THAT IS LIKELY TRUE. I GRANT THAT SHE WAS AN ABOVE AVERAGE SCIENCE STUDENT IN HIGH SCHOOL, FOR WHICH SHE PROVIDES

EVIDENCE. I HAVE SEEN NO INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE SUPPORTING ANY OTHER CLAIMS. HER STATEMENTS AND HASLAM'S OPINIONS

ARE NOT EVIDENCE. MY MIND IS OPEN TO ANY NEW AND DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE. I HAVE SEEN NONE. I HAVE A HIGHER STANDARD

OF PROOF THAN YOU DO.

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,

I AM NOT IGNORANT OF THE CLAIMS OF JVB. I HAVE READ ABOUT HER FOR TEN YEARS, AND KNOW ENOUGH TO HAVE CONCLUDED

THAT MANY OF HER CLAIMS DO NOT PASS THE SMELL TEST. I CONCLUDED THIS YEARS AGO, BEFORE YOU EVER HEARD OF HER.

YOU HAVE PRESENTED NO NEW INFORMATION, SO I SEE NO REASON TO CHANGE MY MIND. SHOW ME SOME NEW DOCUMENTATION

AND I WILL EVALUATE IT AND PERHAPS RECONSIDER IF I FIND ANYTHING CONVINCING. CALLING ME AN IDIOT IS NOT GOING TO

CHANGE MY MIND. EVIDENCE AND DOCUMENTATION MIGHT. SO FAR, I HAVE SEEN NONE.

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,

I CANNOT READ THIS BOOK BECAUSE I DO NOT HAVE IT AND DO NOT INTEND TO WASTE MONEY BUYING IT. WE ARE IN A RECESSION.

THE BOOK IS UNIMPORTANT TO ME. IT HAS NOTHING TO OFFER THAT HAS NOT BEEN COMMENTED ON HERE.

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!

ANY MISTAKES IN H&L ARE VERY MINOR. YOU ARE MISTAKEN ABOUT WHAT YOU CITE. YOU HAVE NOT READ THE BOOK. ALL OF THE

OSWALD FAMILY KNEW THAT LEE LENT HIS IDENTITY TO THE FALSE DEFECTOR. THIS IS NOT OPINION BUT BASED ON DOCUMENTATION.

I cannot treat my friends any

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

YOUR ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE IN ALL CASES BUT JVB IS USUALLY BRILLIANT. BUT YOU HAVE AN OBVIOUS BIAS AND BLIND SPOT

WHEN IT COMES TO THIS POOR WOMAN. I EXPECT BETTER FROM YOU. YOU HAVE LOST YOUR OBJECTIVITY AND ABILITY TO THINK

CLEARLY WHEN IT COMES TO HER. SADLY, IT REFLECTS NEGATIVELY ON YOUR PREVIOUS FINE WORK. NAME CALLING IS A

SIGN THAT YOU KNOW THAT YOUR ARGUMENTS ARE WEAK. YOU WILL NEVER WIN AN ARGUMENT BY CALLING EVERY RESEARCHER

AN IDIOT OR WORSE.

Edited April 27, 2010 by Jack White

[Stephen Roy]

ED HASLAM RESPONDS TO ME ABOUT STEPHEN ROY

Jim,

I am familiar with Stephen Roy (aka Blackburst) and have spoken to him

by telephone in the past. He knows all there is to know about one side of

David Ferrie's life. The problem is that he thinks that the side he knows

about is the only side... which it is not, in my estimation. And he does

not even believe that Ferrie had any mice! The little of his commentary that

I read over the years indicates to me that he mis-read or mis-interpreted

what I had to say. Frankly, I don't know if he is capable of learning

anything new, and I don't care what he says (or said) about DR. MARY'S

MONKEY. He is basically a self-appointed fringe pundit, and I am not

interested in doing a point-by-point debate with him to raise his stature.

I consider him part of the Layton Martens dis-information crowd. Whether he

is intentionally dis-informing, or whether he is simply mis-guided, matters

not to me. I prefer to ignore him, and ask that you help me to that end.

If ignored, I think he will fade into the background, where he belongs.

Thanks,

Ed Haslam

Heeere we go again...

I appreciate Jim Fetzer contacting Ed Haslam, and I appreciate Ed's response. I'm not sure whether Ed read my own words, or some distillation of them. I have no beef with Ed, and I wish him well on his project.

I don't recall ever speaking with Ed on the phone, but I have been unsuccessful in trying to initiate a polite discussion via e-mail or Personal Messages.

I thank Ed for the compliment in his second sentence, but I'm not sure which "side" of Ferrie he thinks I have missed. My study of Ferrie (about 20 years, every available document, interviews with many surviving acknowledged acquaintances) is a chips-fall-where-they-may endeavor. Of course I've heard of the allegation of a Ferrie-Sherman link. Of course I've read Ed's books - I ordered the first one from him, as I recall. And of course I've heard similar accounts. Taking an old school approach to research (evidence=working theories), I looked at the evidence in Ed's books and felt the need to take it further: Can I corroborate it through documents or primary interviews? Is there something wrong with that approach?

How can Ed know that I'm missing one "side" of Ferrie when he hasn't read my book (still being written)? I think he will be surprised at how fairly I have included everything, with little judgment. He may even find out a few things he didn't know.

Ed says I "don't believe that Ferrie had any mice." I can't expect Ed to have read everything I've posted on the internet or said at seminars, but I have found documentation and witnesses supporting the notion that Ferrie had mice in cages in 1957 at his home on Vinet Avenue, that he was interested in medicine and cancer research. I have not been able to find evidence to support the notion that he had such things in his apartment at 3330 Louisiana Avenue Parkway in 1963, and I am certain that he did not have such things in his apartment at the time of his death in 1967. Does Ed think that disqualifies me from having any opinions?

If I have "misread or misinterpreted" what Ed has said, I would be pleased to hear his corrections and concede my mistakes here. But he says he doesn't want to discuss specific points "to raise [my] stature." I am what I am, and I aspire to nothing greater. I don't seek stature, and I'm not unhappy with where I stand right now. I don't think that discussing a few points, in private or in public, is going to have any effect on my "stature." My only interest is in nailing down which information about Ferrie can be proven. Before it was published, Ed was a guy writing a book with Ferrie as a central character. Today, I am a guy writing a book with Ferrie as a central character. Maybe he'd be more comfortable with discussing these points after my book is published (or otherwise comes out).

Then comes a few gratuitous put-downs: "I don't know if he is capable of learning anything new, and I don't care what he says...a self-appointed fringe pundit...part of the Layton Martens disinformation crowd [whatever THAT is - SR]." I don't want to play that game. There is no degree in assassination research.

Then he says he will ignore me and advise others to ignore me so that I will fade into the background "where belong." So be it, I guess. That's the wrong choice on his part. The smart choice would be to at least attempt to politely discuss legitimate questions. Jim indicated that he would contact Ed about discussing these matters, but I guess it will not happen. An opportunity lost.

I congratulate Ed on writing an interesting and provocative book. I wish we had stronger evidence as to the existence of Ferrie's "underground medical laboratory," at either 3330 or 3225 Louisiana Avenue Parkway. I wish we had stronger evidence of the alleged relationship between Ferrie and Dr. Mary Sherman. I wish we had stronger evidence of other things in Dr. Mary's Monkey. As it stands, I cannot personally endorse the book as providing sufficient evidence to support these things in an authoritative manner.

[Jack White]

A very reasonable and restrained response to an ill-informed attack.

ED HASLAM RESPONDS TO ME ABOUT STEPHEN ROY

Jim,

I am familiar with Stephen Roy (aka Blackburst) and have spoken to him

by telephone in the past. He knows all there is to know about one side of

David Ferrie's life. The problem is that he thinks that the side he knows

about is the only side... which it is not, in my estimation. And he does

not even believe that Ferrie had any mice! The little of his commentary that

I read over the years indicates to me that he mis-read or mis-interpreted

what I had to say. Frankly, I don't know if he is capable of learning

anything new, and I don't care what he says (or said) about DR. MARY'S

MONKEY. He is basically a self-appointed fringe pundit, and I am not

interested in doing a point-by-point debate with him to raise his stature.

I consider him part of the Layton Martens dis-information crowd. Whether he

is intentionally dis-informing, or whether he is simply mis-guided, matters

not to me. I prefer to ignore him, and ask that you help me to that end.

If ignored, I think he will fade into the background, where he belongs.

Thanks,

Ed Haslam

Heeere we go again...

I appreciate Jim Fetzer contacting Ed Haslam, and I appreciate Ed's response. I'm not sure whether Ed read my own words, or some distillation of them. I have no beef with Ed, and I wish him well on his project.

I don't recall ever speaking with Ed on the phone, but I have been unsuccessful in trying to initiate a polite discussion via e-mail or Personal Messages.

I thank Ed for the compliment in his second sentence, but I'm not sure which "side" of Ferrie he thinks I have missed. My study of Ferrie (about 20 years, every available document, interviews with many surviving acknowledged acquaintances) is a chips-fall-where-they-may endeavor. Of course I've heard of the allegation of a Ferrie-Sherman link. Of course I've read Ed's books - I ordered the first one from him, as I recall. And of course I've heard similar accounts. Taking an old school approach to research (evidence=working theories), I looked at the evidence in Ed's books and felt the need to take it further: Can I corroborate it through documents or primary interviews? Is there something wrong with that approach?

How can Ed know that I'm missing one "side" of Ferrie when he hasn't read my book (still being written)? I think he will be surprised at how fairly I have included everything, with little judgment. He may even find out a few things he didn't know.

Ed says I "don't believe that Ferrie had any mice." I can't expect Ed to have read everything I've posted on the internet or said at seminars, but I have found documentation and witnesses supporting the notion that Ferrie had mice in cages in 1957 at his home on Vinet Avenue, that he was interested in medicine and cancer research. I have not been able to find evidence to support the notion that he had such things in his apartment at 3330 Louisiana Avenue Parkway in 1963, and I am certain that he did not have such things in his apartment at the time of his death in 1967. Does Ed think that disqualifies me from having any opinions?

If I have "misread or misinterpreted" what Ed has said, I would be pleased to hear his corrections and concede my mistakes here. But he says he doesn't want to discuss specific points "to raise [my] stature." I am what I am, and I aspire to nothing greater. I don't seek stature, and I'm not unhappy with where I stand right now. I don't think that discussing a few points, in private or in public, is going to have any effect on my "stature." My only interest is in nailing down which information about Ferrie can be proven. Before it was published, Ed was a guy writing a book with Ferrie as a central character. Today, I am a guy writing a book with Ferrie as a central character. Maybe he'd be more comfortable with discussing these points after my book is published (or otherwise comes out).

Then comes a few gratuitous put-downs: "I don't know if he is capable of learning anything new, and I don't care what he says...a self-appointed fringe pundit...part of the Layton Martens disinformation crowd [whatever THAT is - SR]." I don't want to play that game. There is no degree in assassination research.

Then he says he will ignore me and advise others to ignore me so that I will fade into the background "where belong." So be it, I guess. That's the wrong choice on his part. The smart choice would be to at least attempt to politely discuss legitimate questions. Jim indicated that he would contact Ed about discussing these matters, but I guess it will not happen. An opportunity lost.

I congratulate Ed on writing an interesting and provocative book. I wish we had stronger evidence as to the existence of Ferrie's "underground medical laboratory," at either 3330 or 3225 Louisiana Avenue Parkway. I wish we had stronger evidence of the alleged relationship between Ferrie and Dr. Mary Sherman. I wish we had stronger evidence of other things in Dr. Mary's Monkey. As it stands, I cannot personally endorse the book as providing sufficient evidence to support these things in an authoritative manner.

[Jack White]

JIM REPLIES TO DEAN HAGERMAN ABOUT TRUTH AND JUDYTH VARY BAKER

....I have been extremely frustrated to expend so much time

and effort to bring you Judyth's story only to discover that most of those posting on

this forum are not reading or studying the evidence, including DR. MARY'S MONKEY.

....In spite of my repeated entreaties, my impressionis that you have yet to read DR. MARY'S MONKEY,

even though you profess to be someone who admires my work. Words are cheap, Dean, and until you

show me that you have a better grasp of the evidence than Jack, for example, I can no longer respect you.

My point is that, unless you have considered the evidence that I have identified, over and over

again, including my blogs about Judyth, the YouTube interviews I have conducted, my

program with Ed Haslam, which has long been posted on my radio program's archives

and on my blogs at http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com, you don't have the right to have

an opinion about Judyth--at least, not one that qualifies as "rational". I spent all those

years teaching students how to think things through, and I am acutely disappointed so

many who have made posts couldn't have passed a freshman course in critical thinking.

You have opinions, but without reviewing the evidence, they can't qualify as good ones.

Jim, the scant evidence that appears in Dr Mary's Monkey supporting Judyth Baker's claim that she had

a relationship with Lee Oswald has more than been covered in this thread. You have even reproduced the

two chapters where Haslam deals with this issue. Yet you continue to contend that members need to read

his book in order to have a right to their opinions.

But you haven't read Armstrong's book and that hasn't prevented you from expressing your strong opinions about the

quality of his research and the quality of his conclusions. Seemingly, you base your opinions on nothing much more

than an index and a missing tooth. If you are going to apply the same standards of critical thinking to yourself as you did

to your students and members of this Forum, shouldn't it be incumbent on you to read Harvey & Lee in it's entirety

before attempting to discredit Armstrong as you have done?

Weeks ago I posed several questions to you about Ed Haslam's research. At first you ignored them. I posted them again

to no avail. At the time you were responding to almost anyone and everyone, yet you would not address my questions.

Frustrated, I posed just one question in hope that you would give me your take. You then asked me to repeat the rest of the

questions because you did not want to go to Haslam with one question at a time. I rephrased the questions and presented them to you.

I noticed that you had Ed Haslam respond to Stephen Roy's posts in a very short period of time, yet my questions still have gone unanswered.

I am going to repeat just one of them here. I am really more interested in your explanation than Ed Haslam's at this point in time.

He has alread publicly evinced a reluctance to discuss JVB/LHO until her new book comes out.

Judyth Baker has claimed that she did not tell Haslam about her first book being unauthorized and containing errors, but she would

have done so if she had known Haslam was writing a book. Haslam's book came to her as a great surprise.

However, in Dr Mary's Monkey, Haslam presents a chapter entitled Judyth's Story. He writes: "Judyth has been kind enough

to corroborate (and correct) my version of her account." It defies logic to think that Haslam would get her to do this without telling her

it was for a book he was writing.

Jim, do you find it odd that Ed Haslam would not tell Judyth Baker that he was writing a book (where she would play a

prominent role as his "witness"), particularly in light of the fact that he had her make corrections to and corroborations of

his chapter that dealt with her story?

Excellent, Michael. Interesting item is that I have it on good authority that Haslam is ghost-writing the "new Judyth book"...if

it ever comes out.

Jack

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Michael,

Part of this I agree with, part I do not. I have not published any chapters from

DR. MARY'S MONKEY. What I have published was from a revised version of his

earlier MARY, FERRIE, AND THE MONKEY VIRUS. Perhaps I did not explain that

sufficiently. I have not done any word-for-word comparison between the books.

About your questions regarding the first "Judyth Vary Baker", you are right that

I have not given you my take. From the book, it is apparent that Ed's girlfriend

did not want to discuss political issues with her friends, because she found it very

embarrassing. So when he was invited to visit with her, he chose not to accept.

That makes sense to me. My own wife, for example, has told me on a number

of occasions that she did not want me to talk about politics, where sometimes I

have and sometimes I have not, where she has let me know her opinion either

way. Avoiding meeting her at that time would have been one way to avoid that.

Moreover, my impression is that Ed was not as aware of Judyth's significance at

the time. When he subsequently had the chance to learn more about her--via

"60 Minutes" and Howard Platzman--of course, he jumped at it. This seems to

me to be appropriate to his evolving understanding of the case as he pursued it.

So I am not bothered by the fact that he was not immediately interested in the

first "Judyth". You wanted my take before I asked Ed about it. So that is what

I think. The most striking aspect of all of this, as I see it, is that Judyth had an

impersonator so early on, which is inconceivable if she were not "the real deal."

Here you are berating me over HARVEY & LEE. Well, I am reading it at Jack's

insistence, which, at this point in time, I grant to have been well-founded. It

was not really my expectation that "Harvey" and "Lee" would figure into this as

much as it has, but now, in retrospect, I suppose, it should have been obvious.

The very specific issue that had arisen about "Lee"'s missing tooth, which, as

I recall, arose in relationship to one of the photos Jack has used to prove the

existence of "two Oswalds", did not require reading the entire book. I even

posted the pages that were relevant to the issue and explained my concerns.

As for your questions about the books and Judyth's awareness and Ed's take

and all of that, they are well-positioned to answer them, while I am not. This

would not be the first time that something that initially seemed implausible or

even contradictory might be ironed out by contributions from the principals.

My take on the question you asked about the book, citing Judyth, the parts

about her and all is that obviously something has become garbled along the

way. There are many possible explanations, depending upon what is being

asked. But I don't see anything that I regard as "serious" at stake here.

I will ask Ed and also ask Judyth to respond to your question. As you know,

he wants to hold off until ME & LEE has appeared, because it includes more

information, documents, and records that we have had available in the past.

And Judyth has been traveling. But I will contact her for more about all this.

Jim

JIM REPLIES TO DEAN HAGERMAN ABOUT TRUTH AND JUDYTH VARY BAKER

....I have been extremely frustrated to expend so much time

and effort to bring you Judyth's story only to discover that most of those posting on

this forum are not reading or studying the evidence, including DR. MARY'S MONKEY.

....In spite of my repeated entreaties, my impressionis that you have yet to read DR. MARY'S MONKEY,

even though you profess to be someone who admires my work. Words are cheap, Dean, and until you

show me that you have a better grasp of the evidence than Jack, for example, I can no longer respect you.

My point is that, unless you have considered the evidence that I have identified, over and over

again, including my blogs about Judyth, the YouTube interviews I have conducted, my

program with Ed Haslam, which has long been posted on my radio program's archives

and on my blogs at http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com, you don't have the right to have

an opinion about Judyth--at least, not one that qualifies as "rational". I spent all those

years teaching students how to think things through, and I am acutely disappointed so

many who have made posts couldn't have passed a freshman course in critical thinking.

You have opinions, but without reviewing the evidence, they can't qualify as good ones.

Jim, the scant evidence that appears in Dr Mary's Monkey supporting Judyth Baker's claim that she had

a relationship with Lee Oswald has more than been covered in this thread. You have even reproduced the

two chapters where Haslam deals with this issue. Yet you continue to contend that members need to read

his book in order to have a right to their opinions.

But you haven't read Armstrong's book and that hasn't prevented you from expressing your strong opinions about the

quality of his research and the quality of his conclusions. Seemingly, you base your opinions on nothing much more

than an index and a missing tooth. If you are going to apply the same standards of critical thinking to yourself as you did

to your students and members of this Forum, shouldn't it be incumbent on you to read Harvey & Lee in it's entirety

before attempting to discredit Armstrong as you have done?

Weeks ago I posed several questions to you about Ed Haslam's research. At first you ignored them. I posted them again

to no avail. At the time you were responding to almost anyone and everyone, yet you would not address my questions.

Frustrated, I posed just one question in hope that you would give me your take. You then asked me to repeat the rest of the

questions because you did not want to go to Haslam with one question at a time. I rephrased the questions and presented them to you.

I noticed that you had Ed Haslam respond to Stephen Roy's posts in a very short period of time, yet my questions still have gone unanswered.

I am going to repeat just one of them here. I am really more interested in your explanation than Ed Haslam's at this point in time.

He has alread publicly evinced a reluctance to discuss JVB/LHO until her new book comes out.

Judyth Baker has claimed that she did not tell Haslam about her first book being unauthorized and containing errors, but she would

have done so if she had known Haslam was writing a book. Haslam's book came to her as a great surprise.

However, in Dr Mary's Monkey, Haslam presents a chapter entitled Judyth's Story. He writes: "Judyth has been kind enough

to corroborate (and correct) my version of her account." It defies logic to think that Haslam would get her to do this without telling her

it was for a book he was writing.

Jim, do you find it odd that Ed Haslam would not tell Judyth Baker that he was writing a book (where she would play a

prominent role as his "witness"), particularly in light of the fact that he had her make corrections to and corroborations of

his chapter that dealt with her story?

Edited April 27, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Stephen Roy]

Very interesting comments. I have read MFATMV but not DMM, since I do not intend to waste the money.

My opinion is similar to yours. I feel that Haslam (whose father was employed by Dr. Oschner) is sincerely

searching for some connection between the AIDS VIRUS and work his father may have been doing at the

Oschner Clinic. He also came across some indications that Garrison was focusing on any connections that

Oschner might have had to some of the players in the JFK affair. So in his first book he did a great deal of

speculation about possible ties, but with only deductions about things that Ferrie, Sherman, Oschner and

others MAY have been doing, but WITHOUT OFFERING ANY DOCUMENTATION. My remembrance from

reading the first book is that it was mostly "what if" scenarios about the creation of the AIDS virus, and

only coincidentally featured some of Garrison's suspects in the JFK murder. The first book DID NOT MENTION

JUDYTH VARY BAKER.

From reading this thread, I have learned something about his revised book, retitled DR. MARY'S MONKEY.

Here is what DMM seems to me to be: (I am sure Jim will correct me)

1. A cut and past job of much of the first book (Mary, Ferrie etc)

2. Some new information added to the first book.

3. A chapter on Judyth Vary Baker's story, and its possible ties to Dr. Sherman, et al.

4. Like the first book, long on speculation and opinion, short on documentation.

I am very disappointed that my friend Jim takes the SPECULATIONS and OPINIONS of the book and converts them

to FACTS and PROOFS. Proofs require documentation.

Haslam is to be commended for searching for the origin of the AIDS monkey virus. However, other evidence

I think shows that it was created at Fort Detrick, not in a makeshift kitchen lab in New Orleans. Mixing a search

for the AIDS virus in my opinion with the JFK investigation is a mistake. I think that the CIA may have been

involved in both, but otherwise they are unconnected.

Jack

The allegation of a Ferrie-Sherman link is another case in point. As best I can see in DMM, the evidence Haslam cites is a comment by his mother that Sherman worked with Ferrie, and Jim Garrison's Playboy interview (leaving aside, for a moment, the whole JVB debate). I have searched through Garrison's available files, and I can find no mention of Sherman. (I've also found no mention in available contemporaneous FBI, CIA and other files.) I've interviewed a number of Ferrie's surviving associates and friends, and I can find nobody who remembers him associating with Sherman by name, by description or by pictures. How can that be? Sherman is alleged to have spent significant time with Ferrie, some of it in his apartment, and a number of Ferrie's friends hung out there, stayed over there, even lived there for periods of time. How could they have seen no trace of her? I suppose it is possible that they never crossed paths, or that she was hidden.

I know a person who has done deep study of Sherman's life and death, who has not found evidence of a Ferrie-Sherman relationship. I know that the files of the late journalist Don Lee Keith, who wrote and published about Sherman, contain nothing on a Ferrie-Sherman relationship beyond one document written by reporter Hoke May, whose source was a conversation with Jim Garrison.

But I never say never. Perhaps the relationship existed, and perhaps it so secretive as to leave no trail among documents or witnesses. In any case, I would say that the allegation has to be flagged as not proven.

[Jack White]

Jack,

This epitomizes the problem, Jack. You have no interest. You won't read

the book. But you continue to offer slashing comments that are adverse

to Judyth when, by your own admission, you have no interest in her and

you won't read the most important book written about her. Can't you see

what's wrong with this picture, Jack?

Jim

I see no problem, Jim. I would read the book if I had it, but do not wish

to buy a book I do not want. I have read the previous book, and am led

to believe that the ONLY new information concerns JVB.

I AM NOT INTERESTED IN THE TALES OF JVB UNLESS THERE IS DOCUMENTATION.

I know all I want to know about her.

So far I have seen no documentation offered by readers of the book, including

you. Mostly Haslam offers opinions and theories, not documentation. However

I did find his theories interesting about the creation of the AIDS virus.

But as a subscriber to the COVERT ACTION INFORMATION BULLETIN before its

demise, I was studying the AIDS virus more than 30 years ago, and the information

presented strongly indicated that the mutated virus was created by the biowarfare

goons at Fort Detrick Maryland as a part of PROJECT GLOBAL 2000, which was

a eugenics campaign by the Pentagon to reduce world population. It was introduced

in Africa to kill off people of color. If you are not familiar with GLOBAL 2000, you

need to read up on it. It was to KILL OFF UNDESIRABLE people (non-white) through

disease (AIDS), small scale limited wars in ethnic countries, famine in poor nations,

and drug addiction. THE PROGRAM IS STILL IN EFFECT. Read up on EUGENICS.

The Bush family and SKULL AND BONES all promote eugenics. So while Haslam

offers some interesting information about AIDS...it is not ACCIDENTAL as he

purports. It is an instrument of global population control at highest levels to rid

the world of undesirables...blacks, homosexuals and arabs.

Jack

[Jack White]

Very interesting comments. I have read MFATMV but not DMM, since I do not intend to waste the money.

My opinion is similar to yours. I feel that Haslam (whose father was employed by Dr. Oschner) is sincerely

searching for some connection between the AIDS VIRUS and work his father may have been doing at the

Oschner Clinic. He also came across some indications that Garrison was focusing on any connections that

Oschner might have had to some of the players in the JFK affair. So in his first book he did a great deal of

speculation about possible ties, but with only deductions about things that Ferrie, Sherman, Oschner and

others MAY have been doing, but WITHOUT OFFERING ANY DOCUMENTATION. My remembrance from

reading the first book is that it was mostly "what if" scenarios about the creation of the AIDS virus, and

only coincidentally featured some of Garrison's suspects in the JFK murder. The first book DID NOT MENTION

JUDYTH VARY BAKER.

From reading this thread, I have learned something about his revised book, retitled DR. MARY'S MONKEY.

Here is what DMM seems to me to be: (I am sure Jim will correct me)

1. A cut and past job of much of the first book (Mary, Ferrie etc)

2. Some new information added to the first book.

3. A chapter on Judyth Vary Baker's story, and its possible ties to Dr. Sherman, et al.

4. Like the first book, long on speculation and opinion, short on documentation.

I am very disappointed that my friend Jim takes the SPECULATIONS and OPINIONS of the book and converts them

to FACTS and PROOFS. Proofs require documentation.

Haslam is to be commended for searching for the origin of the AIDS monkey virus. However, other evidence

I think shows that it was created at Fort Detrick, not in a makeshift kitchen lab in New Orleans. Mixing a search

for the AIDS virus in my opinion with the JFK investigation is a mistake. I think that the CIA may have been

involved in both, but otherwise they are unconnected.

Jack

The allegation of a Ferrie-Sherman link is another case in point. As best I can see in DMM, the evidence Haslam cites is a comment by his mother that Sherman worked with Ferrie, and Jim Garrison's Playboy interview (leaving aside, for a moment, the whole JVB debate). I have searched through Garrison's available files, and I can find no mention of Sherman. (I've also found no mention in available contemporaneous FBI, CIA and other files.) I've interviewed a number of Ferrie's surviving associates and friends, and I can find nobody who remembers him associating with Sherman by name, by description or by pictures. How can that be? Sherman is alleged to have spent significant time with Ferrie, some of it in his apartment, and a number of Ferrie's friends hung out there, stayed over there, even lived there for periods of time. How could they have seen no trace of her? I suppose it is possible that they never crossed paths, or that she was hidden.

I know a person who has done deep study of Sherman's life and death, who has not found evidence of a Ferrie-Sherman relationship. I know that the files of the late journalist Don Lee Keith, who wrote and published about Sherman, contain nothing on a Ferrie-Sherman relationship beyond one document written by reporter Hoke May, whose source was a conversation with Jim Garrison.

But I never say never. Perhaps the relationship existed, and perhaps it so secretive as to leave no trail among documents or witnesses. In any case, I would say that the allegation has to be flagged as not proven.

I find it interesting that you quote Haslam as saying " a comment by his mother that Sherman worked with Ferrie".

Of course this goes back to Haslam's FATHER BEING EMPLOYED BY OSCHNER. Dr. Ed Haslam worked at the Oschner

Clinic. Is this information relevant to (author) Ed Haslam's investigation? Is he trying to discover whether his father

played some role in the creation of the AIDS virus? Or is his motive something else?

It is not out of the realm of possibility that "trivializing" the AIDS virus as being created by some amateurs in

New Orleans is an orchestrated effort to deflect attention AWAY FROM THE BIOWARFARE GOONS AT FORT DETRICK.

Jack

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Well, it looks as if the research in New Orleans was transferred to Fort

Dietrick. Ed has done a great deal of research on all of this. Let's see

what can be done to get a copy of the book into your hands. Thanks!

Jack,

This epitomizes the problem, Jack. You have no interest. You won't read

the book. But you continue to offer slashing comments that are adverse

to Judyth when, by your own admission, you have no interest in her and

you won't read the most important book written about her. Can't you see

what's wrong with this picture, Jack?

Jim

I see no problem, Jim. I would read the book if I had it, but do not wish

to buy a book I do not want. I have read the previous book, and am led

to believe that the ONLY new information concerns JVB.

I AM NOT INTERESTED IN THE TALES OF JVB UNLESS THERE IS DOCUMENTATION.

I know all I want to know about her.

So far I have seen no documentation offered by readers of the book, including

you. Mostly Haslam offers opinions and theories, not documentation. However

I did find his theories interesting about the creation of the AIDS virus.

But as a subscriber to the COVERT ACTION INFORMATION BULLETIN before its

demise, I was studying the AIDS virus more than 30 years ago, and the information

presented strongly indicated that the mutated virus was created by the biowarfare

goons at Fort Detrick Maryland as a part of PROJECT GLOBAL 2000, which was

a eugenics campaign by the Pentagon to reduce world population. It was introduced

in Africa to kill off people of color. If you are not familiar with GLOBAL 2000, you

need to read up on it. It was to KILL OFF UNDESIRABLE people (non-white) through

disease (AIDS), small scale limited wars in ethnic countries, famine in poor nations,

and drug addiction. THE PROGRAM IS STILL IN EFFECT. Read up on EUGENICS.

The Bush family and SKULL AND BONES all promote eugenics. So while Haslam

offers some interesting information about AIDS...it is not ACCIDENTAL as he

purports. It is an instrument of global population control at highest levels to rid

the world of undesirables...blacks, homosexuals and arabs.

Jack

[Dean Hartwell]

Thanks, Dean, for the legal opinion. But here we have what amounts to a CONFESSION by one

of the conspiracy of perpetrators. What is the legal effect of a CONFESSION?

Jack

Jack,

A CONFESSION takes place when a person acknowledges their guilt.

An ADMISSION takes place when a person makes any statement.

Proof that someone's ADMISSION is really a CONFESSION is determined by the trier of fact, the judge or jury, in assessing the facts of the crime and the person's knowledge of the crime.

The legal effect of a CONFESSION is determined by the trier of fact when they decide how much weight to give it. A full confession would typically convince the jury of the person's guilt. If a person confessed before trial, they would, of course, likely plead guilty.

Edited April 27, 2010 by Dean Hartwell

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Jack,

This business about "documentation" astonishes me. There is copious documentation in Ed's book.

Where did you derive the impression of "absence of documentation"? Here are some facts about it:

DR. MARY'S MONKEY (2007), xi + 374 pages.

Foreword by Jim Marrs

Prologue (two photos, one is a photo/map)

Chapter 1 (17 photos including photo maps, 47 end notes, many with multiple references)

Chapter 2 (6 photos, 5 end notes with references)

Chapter 3 (one photo, 14 end notes with references)

Chapter 4 (6 photos, including one photo map, 7 end notes with references)

Chapter 5 (18 photos, including photo maps, 30 end notes with references)

Chapter 6 (12 photos, including photo maps, 12 end notes with references)

Chapter 7 (16 photos, photo maps, graphics, 13 end notes with references)

Chapter 8 (17 photos, 63 end notes with references)

Chapter 9 (17 photos, including 3 graphs, 42 end notes with references)

Chapter 10 (4 photos, including photo maps, many quotes from reports)

Chapter 11 (18 photos, diagrams, maps, 11 end notes with references)

Chapter 12 (3 photos, two maps, 17 end notes with references)

Chapter 13 (8-9 photos and graphics, 15 end notes with references)

Chapter 14 (three photos, including two photo maps, two end notes with references)

Appendix (13 photos, including several photo maps, 20 end notes with references)

Epilogue (10 photos, 16 end notes with references)

Document A (one photo, 6 pages)

Document B (one page/cancer rates)

Document C (three pages, autopsy report)

Bibliography (8 pages)

Index (10 pages)

This is actually one of the best "documented" books for the general public that I have ever read. It

breaks my heart to think where we might have gone on this thread if you had had a copy of it at hand.

You may now be starting to see why I kept encouraging you to read it. It is an excellent, very thorough,

meticulous and very detailed report of Ed Haslam's investigation. Perhaps this will give you an inkling of

why I have suggested in the past that you simply didn't know what you were talking about. You didn't.

Jim

Very interesting comments. I have read MFATMV but not DMM, since I do not intend to waste the money.

My opinion is similar to yours. I feel that Haslam (whose father was employed by Dr. Oschner) is sincerely

searching for some connection between the AIDS VIRUS and work his father may have been doing at the

Oschner Clinic. He also came across some indications that Garrison was focusing on any connections that

Oschner might have had to some of the players in the JFK affair. So in his first book he did a great deal of

speculation about possible ties, but with only deductions about things that Ferrie, Sherman, Oschner and

others MAY have been doing, but WITHOUT OFFERING ANY DOCUMENTATION. My remembrance from

reading the first book is that it was mostly "what if" scenarios about the creation of the AIDS virus, and

only coincidentally featured some of Garrison's suspects in the JFK murder. The first book DID NOT MENTION

JUDYTH VARY BAKER.

From reading this thread, I have learned something about his revised book, retitled DR. MARY'S MONKEY.

Here is what DMM seems to me to be: (I am sure Jim will correct me)

1. A cut and past job of much of the first book (Mary, Ferrie etc)

2. Some new information added to the first book.

3. A chapter on Judyth Vary Baker's story, and its possible ties to Dr. Sherman, et al.

4. Like the first book, long on speculation and opinion, short on documentation.

I am very disappointed that my friend Jim takes the SPECULATIONS and OPINIONS of the book and converts them

to FACTS and PROOFS. Proofs require documentation.

Haslam is to be commended for searching for the origin of the AIDS monkey virus. However, other evidence

I think shows that it was created at Fort Detrick, not in a makeshift kitchen lab in New Orleans. Mixing a search

for the AIDS virus in my opinion with the JFK investigation is a mistake. I think that the CIA may have been

involved in both, but otherwise they are unconnected.

Jack

The allegation of a Ferrie-Sherman link is another case in point. As best I can see in DMM, the evidence Haslam cites is a comment by his mother that Sherman worked with Ferrie, and Jim Garrison's Playboy interview (leaving aside, for a moment, the whole JVB debate). I have searched through Garrison's available files, and I can find no mention of Sherman. (I've also found no mention in available contemporaneous FBI, CIA and other files.) I've interviewed a number of Ferrie's surviving associates and friends, and I can find nobody who remembers him associating with Sherman by name, by description or by pictures. How can that be? Sherman is alleged to have spent significant time with Ferrie, some of it in his apartment, and a number of Ferrie's friends hung out there, stayed over there, even lived there for periods of time. How could they have seen no trace of her? I suppose it is possible that they never crossed paths, or that she was hidden.

I know a person who has done deep study of Sherman's life and death, who has not found evidence of a Ferrie-Sherman relationship. I know that the files of the late journalist Don Lee Keith, who wrote and published about Sherman, contain nothing on a Ferrie-Sherman relationship beyond one document written by reporter Hoke May, whose source was a conversation with Jim Garrison.

But I never say never. Perhaps the relationship existed, and perhaps it so secretive as to leave no trail among documents or witnesses. In any case, I would say that the allegation has to be flagged as not proven.

I find it interesting that you quote Haslam as saying " a comment by his mother that Sherman worked with Ferrie".

Of course this goes back to Haslam's FATHER BEING EMPLOYED BY OSCHNER. Dr. Ed Haslam worked at the Oschner

Clinic. Is this information relevant to (author) Ed Haslam's investigation? Is he trying to discover whether his father

played some role in the creation of the AIDS virus? Or is his motive something else?

It is not out of the realm of possibility that "trivializing" the AIDS virus as being created by some amateurs in

New Orleans is an orchestrated effort to deflect attention AWAY FROM THE BIOWARFARE GOONS AT FORT DETRICK.

Jack

Edited April 27, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Doug,

I entered "Lee Harvey Oswald, Puskin", and there's a letter from Marina to an aunt

and uncle about Lee sending her Tolstoy, Chekhov, and Pushkin. Not to make too

much of a point of it, but is it possible that someone who spoke Russian, who lived

in Russia, and who married a Russian wife might have tastes in reading, including

poetry, that might differ from those, for example, of a Midwestern attorney-at-law?

Jim

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

Edited April 27, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Greg Burnham]

I find it interesting that you quote Haslam as saying " a comment by his mother that Sherman worked with Ferrie".

Of course this goes back to Haslam's FATHER BEING EMPLOYED BY OSCHNER. Dr. Ed Haslam worked at the Oschner

Clinic. Is this information relevant to (author) Ed Haslam's investigation? Is he trying to discover whether his father

played some role in the creation of the AIDS virus? Or is his motive something else?

It is not out of the realm of possibility that "trivializing" the AIDS virus as being created by some amateurs in

New Orleans is an orchestrated effort to deflect attention AWAY FROM THE BIOWARFARE GOONS AT FORT DETRICK.

Jack

Jack,

Colonel Prouty was beyond being "absolutely convinced" that HIV/AIDS was the product of Fort Detrick. He treated that subject (as he treated every subject with which he was in a position to know) with the "quiet demeanor" afforded those who are certain. Why would he be so certain? He was there.

At one point, Fletch was given a desk within the Pentagon, specifically in the Unconventional Warfare Division of the USAF Directorate of Plans. This was in the same immediate section as the CIA's Lt. Colonel James Monroe. Prouty said: "His [Monroe's] activities covered this area of bio-warfare and the support of CIA activities in that area. During this time I became well aware of those activities and Fort Detrick was mentioned frequently. During my own work with the CIA, I attended many meetings in which such activity was the subject, and the function of Fort Detrick was a common discussion."

The year was 1955--which pre-dates NOLA 1963. Judyth was what, 11 years old at the time?

Rather than me transcribe everything here, suffice to say, Fletch made similar comments many times to me privately, but also is on record with them. The above comment was referring specifically to the 1969 Hearing Records of the testimony of Doctor Donald MacArthur at the House of Representatives Subcommittee on Department of Defense Appropriations. MacArthur was mking a case for $10 million dollars to be funded to create a "new infective micro-organism". Prouty said that within those hearing records we "find what most certainly may be considered as the locus of the origin of AIDS."

I encourage anyone further interested in the origin of HIV/AIDS and/or other bio-weapon development at Fort Detrick to obtain a copy of the House of Representatives Congressional Record of July 1st 1969 Page 18077, where Doctor Martin Dworkin, PhD--a Professor of Microbiology at the Medical School of the University of Minnesota testifies. Very compelling, indeed.

I would sooner believe that the Zapruder film was altered, not at the Hawkeye Plant in Rochester, but by Judyth, Ferrie, Oschner and Sherman in a "home film studio" than I would believe that the development of HIV/AIDS was even being attempted in a home made laboratory! Film alteration is at least a somewhat "linear system" with which to contend. By comparison, micro-biology is non-linear, extremely complex [read:chaotic], and therefore unpredictable. It would really take some doing...even at Fort Detrick!

Edited April 27, 2010 by Greg Burnham