Jump to content
The Education Forum

Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile


Guest James H. Fetzer

Recommended Posts

Well, what I am trying to determine is what value such evidence would really have for a skeptic? Jim asked you if you would concede that she was "the real deal" if the analysis panned out. And you, rightly IMO, replied that such confirmation would not make a believer out of you. So, my question is not directed at why Judyth (and/or Jim) should agree to this study, but why you have found it so important to suggest? It really seems, by your own admission, to have little value beyond supporting the least important of her claims! IOW: If all Judyth ever claimed was to have "known him" and even "had a fling" with him--would you even care? I wouldn't. I wouldn't even need proof. I would believe it or not--but who cares?

It is her other claims that are potentially important. However, you have already stated that the confirmation would not satisfy your burden of proof of those items. So, I don't think there is a point to it...at least not for your purposes. Unless you're trying to help Jim prove Judyth's case, I don't see your point--especially since, according to you, even a confirmation would prove very little, if anything.

Now, maybe you believe it would help prove her "wrong" or a xxxx if it did not pan out. Is that the point?

Greg,

I think it is not unlikely that they had exchanged a courtesy nod, good morning, good evening type of thing ... after all, they worked in the same building. [snip]

Thanks Barb,

You employed a double negative. So for clarity sake then, you think it IS likely that their paths crossed. Since that is the most you would concede even if the handwriting analysis panned out, its hardly worth the effort.

Yeah, little weird construct there ... sorry. On your clarification .... no, that is not what I meant. I have no way of knowing whether it would have been "likely" .... but there is no reason it would have been unlikely (or unusual), given that they worked in the same place.

You keep asserting things I have not said. :-) If the handwriting is certified by a qualified professional to be that of Lee Harvey Oswald, then I think that would establish that she did know him. To what degree .... that won't tell us. But if the writing is his, then they obviously had more than a nodding courtesy fellow employee in passing knowledge of one another.

One could get the idea that you are trying to create a preemptive excuse for not having the analysis done.:-) I can't think of one valid reason a claimant, with an item in hand that could establish part of their claim ... and an important part ... would not be begging to have it analyzed.

Can you?

Bests,

Barb :-)

Edited by Greg Burnham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

JIM REPLIES TO DEAN HAGERMAN ABOUT TRUTH AND JUDYTH VARY BAKER

I should explain that his has nothing to do with whether or not you ultimately believe in

Judyth. That is a conclusion that each of us had to determine for themselves. My point

is that, unless you have considered the evidence that I have identified, ...... you don't have the right to have

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

Even you have to be kidding with this one. Everyone has the right to make up their own mind ... but only if they

consider the evidence you have identified? What about all the evidence you fail to "identify" and that you choose to ignore ... oy.

And if you even expect to make a serious

contribution to assassination research, you are going to have to do better at research. In

my opinion, like so many others on this thread, you think you can know which side is up

by listening to others. You may have friends, but you appear to be far removed from truth.[/b]

Oh...so no one should listen to others .... but they must listen to you in order to be qualified to have a "rational" opinion. Yeah, uh-huh.

Near as anyone can tell, listening to ...and copy and pasting from ... others is all you have done. And none of it involves having verified any of her claims.

Most of it involves you running with Judyth's sayso. And you criticize Dean and others about their research? Gets richer by the minute. In my opinion, Dean and a few others here have made a serious contribution to this thread ... they have stood up to you, thought for themselves and refused to buckle under despite your bullying.

Tell us exactly which claims of Judyth you have researched and been able to verify ... or have even attempted to verify. Concisely and specifically. Here, I will go first:

Claim: A group of military officers had a night class in Russian started for Judyth in the Spring of 1960 at the local Jr. College.

Denied: 3 sources, including the college catalog for Fall 1959, shows a night Russian course had been offered since the school opened in the Fall of 1958.

Your turn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Being hired on the same day does not establish that they knew one another.

She was a secretary, an office worker. What looks like it could be a J appears on some of his time cards .... other initials/signatures appear on others. In any event, this does not establish that they knew one another.

Thinking that because they were hired on the same day and that her first initial *might* be on *some* of his time cards establishes that they had an affair and worked together in Ferrie's kitchen developing a cancer cocktail that would kill Castro ... now that is beyond the realm of reason. And way beyond any evidence she has been able to offer to substantiate those claims.

Like you said yourself:

It should be observed that no claim is a "fact" unless it happens to be

true. Indeed, in its stronger sense, "facts" are claims whose truth has

been verified. (James Fetzer, Sunday, Apr 5, 2009 8:37am Altgen's thread, yahoo group)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Greg,

I am not a "witness." But then you know that. I just replied to Fetzer's comment in his reply to you a few minutes ago. I commented on the time cards there. I don't know what he means by "work records" ... the credit report, perhaps? The time cards and the credit report are authentic documents ... easily found in the volumes. It is not their authenticity that anyone has questioned, as far as I know.

I reject "evidence" that is really not evidence at all. Posting cyber reams of the claimant's excuses, explanations and additional claims does not substantiate the claim it's all being offered up for as "evidence" in the first place. But then I expect you realize that as well. :-)

But it does look like perhaps you enjoy going in circles.

Barb :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know that I do not possess a copy of DR. MARY'S MONKEY so listing

the table of contents and number of footnotes does NOTHING to tell me about

any new documentation for JVB claims. You and I have different meanings

about what constitutes "documentation". Documentation is not a footnoted

source. Documentation is INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION from another source.

For instance, let's say Jim Fetzer saw a flying saucer land in his back yard

last night; that is not proof that it happened, but just a claim. BUT if your

neighbor saw the same event...that is confirmation or verification from an

independent source. If a driver passed by your house and saw the saucer

land, we can say that the event was WELL DOCUMENTED.

In reading JVB claims for ten years, I have seen NO CLAIM THAT IS

WELL DOCUMENTED....not from JVB, not from Haslam, not from Fetzer.

A listing of footnotes in a book I do not have is NOT documentation; it

is just a claim. Please take any one of JVB's CLAIMS and show how

Haslam DOCUMENTS it from a source other than Baker. Show how he

investigated and VERIFIED any claim of hers.

Jack

PS: you asked...(1) Why are you suggesting I read an outdated book about Judyth?

I did not suggest that you read an "outdated" book BY Judyth. I asked

whether you had read it. However if you think that I SUGGESTED THAT

YOU READ IT...it would be because you think she is the real deal, and

you might want to know if her claims have changed from book to book.

And why do you say the book is outdated? Have her claims changed?

I would think that might be of interest to you. Why chastise me for not

reading DMM when there is a pertinent book YOU have not read?

Jack,

In post #1797 I responded to your claims that you only read research

that is "documented" and that Ed Haslam's work was "not documented".

I am very curious how you formed that impression, especially since you

do not own and have not read his book. Please answer these questions:

(1) Why are you suggesting I read an outdated book about Judyth?

(2) Is that your idea of a constructive suggestion from you to me?

(3) How did you know that DR. MARY'S MONKEY is "not documented"?

(4) Since it is copiously documented, are you now eager to read it?

(5) Have you read my blogs on Judyth on jamesfetzer.blogspot.com?

(6) Have you read my blogs on Haslam on jamesfetzer.blogspot.com?

(7) Have you heard my interview with Ed on radiofetzer.blogspot.com?

(8) Have you listened to the 4-hour interview with Ed Haslam on "C2C"?

(9) You have not responded to my post #1797? Have you read it as yet?

Here's a copy of the relevant content of post #1797 for you to read here:

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

Speaking of reading books, Jim...HAVE YOU read the original Judyth

book (the "unauthorized" 2-volume set)? How does it differ from any

new "authorized" material? If I should read books, I assume that you

have done so, since you ARE interested.

Jack

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

Edited by Jack White
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should explain that his has nothing to do with whether or not you ultimately believe in

Judyth. That is a conclusion that each of us had to determine for themselves. My point

is that, unless you have considered the evidence that I have identified, ...... you don't have the right to have

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

I cannot believe that Jim Fetzer wrote the above.

So nobody has the right to have an opinion unless it meets the teacher's criteria?

Jim, you were a teacher too long. You are no longer talking to "students".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Exactly right, Jack. There is no documentation that has ever been produced that establishes she even knew LHO.

The handwriting in her book that she claims is LHO's, if certified by a professional examiner to actually have been

written by LHO, could change that. Why has it never been done ... or has it and the results never disclosed?

Bests,

Barb :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

patient/subject could be lost if it were unsuccessful.

An important and obvious difference in this case. If the "procedure" was UNsuccessful ... the subject would have lived.

Read that again.

The purpose of the test, according to Judyth, was to make sure the subject DID develop cancer, galloping

cancer ... and die ... from the little cancer cocktail Judyth made up for that express purpose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Amen, Jack!

Bests,

Barb :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fetzer:

"you don't have the right to have an opinion about Judyth--at least, not one that qualifies as "rational"."

Interesting statement, coming from you. Now, after what you've displayed in this thread with a complete lack of anything that backs your opinions up, you expect others to view your own opinion as " rational"?

Your rational for this seem entirely built on that JVBs claims to some degree are backed up by Haslam, and that JVB have faith in Haslam. Has there been any additional verifible facts added to the story in this thread? Has there been any new documents coming to light?

Since the answer to both questions is no, this cross referencing doesn't add much, if anything, in terms of evidence to support Judyth's story. Even if you write a third book, referencing to both Haslam's and JVBs it will likewise, not change anything. Unless there is hard, verifiable, evidence. The fact that the three of you believed in each other, well, that was already known and obvious.

On the other hand, your complete ignorance of hard evidence - as presented by me - that clearly questions JVBs credibility, is quite remarkable and certainly does nothing to strengthen your "rational".

To Jack:

You certainly have a point with regards to the marmosets. Just a quick check raises many questions. Whether used in the early 60's, well, probably doubtful but that can always be answered by referring to secret intelligence operations. So could, of course, any questions about quaranteen.

But, considering "thousands of pounds" of them, which would mean hundreds of these little creatures, it becomes more interesting. These little monkeys, it turns out, communicate through smell, among other things. This odor would, if you have hundreds of them, no doubt be picked up some distance away. Furthermore, these monkeys are vocal, very vocal as soon as they are distressed or bored, for whatever reason. Is it really possible to keep the smell and this noise away from neighbors? And, they need meticulous care in terms of food, water, room temperature and so forth. Otherwise mortality rates will be high, and their quality as subjects in medical research diminishes fast, they will not breed and so forth. Which is crucial for their well being.

Quite an operation, no doubt. To keep hundreds of them, how many caretakers around the clock, would this require, I wonder?

Edited by Glenn Viklund
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barb,

Sheesh--this is getting tedious, no? Going in circles isn't useful at all, except to get dizzy--and that's no fun. So, no that's not my purpose. However, sometimes folks "talk at each other" and don't make a connection for whatever reason. That doesn't necessarily mean that either side (of the debate) is disingenuous, cognitively impaired, ill informed, stupid... etc. Sometimes they just aren't "on the same page" so to speak. I'm trying to find out which "pages" everyone agrees to and which ones seem at odds--and go from there. So far, just finding that out is like pulling teeth! B)

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?

Greg,

I am not a "witness." But then you know that. I just replied to Fetzer's comment in his reply to you a few minutes ago. I commented on the time cards there. I don't know what he means by "work records" ... the credit report, perhaps? The time cards and the credit report are authentic documents ... easily found in the volumes. It is not their authenticity that anyone has questioned, as far as I know.

I reject "evidence" that is really not evidence at all. Posting cyber reams of the claimant's excuses, explanations and additional claims does not substantiate the claim it's all being offered up for as "evidence" in the first place. But then I expect you realize that as well. :-)

But it does look like perhaps you enjoy going in circles.

Barb :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GB said:I'm trying to find out which "pages" everyone agrees to and which ones seem at odds--and go from there. So far, just finding that out is like pulling teeth!

You will end up going around in circles with Barb on the issue of whether or not Judyth knew LHO based on the direct documentation putting them in the same place at the same time. Barb refuses to give any weight to this evidence. Others such as myself weigh it as sufficient to open the door to the fact that they knew each other.

In order to stop the cycle and maybe even create two threads of information, why don't we simply agree-to-disagree on the weight of this evidence? Then the posts of those who choose to dismiss this evidence can be weighed and evaluated on the basis that they believe JVB and LHO *did not* know each other, as can the posts of those who weigh it sufficiently to say that they did.

Edited by Pamela McElwain-Brown
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim has been quoted as saying:

"you don't have the right to have an opinion about Judyth--at least, not one that qualifies as 'rational'"

Jim has named the topic on this thread. It makes sense that he consider the foundation of the opinions given in response to what he says, including whether one has read his sources.

Can anyone reasonably form a rational opinion about the Warren Report without having read it? I would say no.

Other sources are welcome. It would help, though, if those who would draw from other sources to identify the significance of what they assert. For example, there has been a lot of talk about a book that may or may not have Oswald’s writing on it and I still don’t understand why it is important to our discussion.

Dean

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should explain that his has nothing to do with whether or not you ultimately believe in

Judyth. That is a conclusion that each of us had to determine for themselves. My point

is that, unless you have considered the evidence that I have identified, ...... you don't have the right to have

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

I cannot believe that Jim Fetzer wrote the above.

So nobody has the right to have an opinion unless it meets the teacher's criteria?

Jim, you were a teacher too long. You are no longer talking to "students".

I cant believe it either Jack

I was shocked when I read that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JF said:"you don't have the right to have an opinion about Judyth--at least, not one that qualifies as "rational"."

A simpler way of defining this issue might be to say that those who acknowledge that Judyth's objective documentation placing her at Reily at the same time as LHO opens the door for us to hear what she has to say are in one camp (which Jim is referencing as able to reason coherently, or 'rational') whereas those who choose to dismiss this evidence and then try to claim LHO and JVB *didn't* know each other are in another (unable to reason coherently and therefore 'not rational').

Either way, it is his opinion, and he is entitled.

I too weigh more heavily the statements of those who allow a door to remain open for Judyth as opposed to those determined to keep it shut.

Edited by Pamela McElwain-Brown
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...