Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[Glenn Viklund]

Two different authorities on MARMOSET monkeys who have been

following this thread have sent me information which seems to

demolish the statement of JVB that she, Ferrie and LHO "processed

thousands of pounds of monkeys" in their apartment laboratory

cancer virus experiments. Here are some quotes I received this morning

from a PhD who is an author of scientific papers regarding medical

experiments using marmosets (I have added bold face to emphasize

certain points):

QUOTE:

The picture that someone googled to include in the EF thread is that of C. jacchus babies. Within months they double in size and then those juveniles double in size. Adult common marmosets are the size of large rats. The reason I wanted to join the thread was to clarify that although they are small they do need huge amounts of space. They only thrive in family groups and they need to leap around and graze on branches or they get sick. You would be looking at a minimum of two cubic metres for a pair of adults. Consequently, keeping large numbers (say more than 10) is not something you can do at home. They do tend to screech a lot, by the way. You do know it when you are near a primate colony . . .

From my reading of the thread the claim was that Judyth used large numbers of C. jacchus. The only way you could do this in a domestic setting is to put them in shoe-box size cages and they would just get sick and die. There is no question about it: the only way to keep them healthy enough for research purposes is to give them large amounts of space and keep them as family units. Even then you can get health problems.

No one would ever use an animal for research that was unhealthy and likely to die due to lack of space and activities. No point at all. If ‘testing in a primate’ was seen as the final stage in the development of a bioweapon then it would have been easier, cheaper and safer to have used some monkeys from an existing research colony. I find it quite likely that the US military would have had access to a primate colony, for instance. I would also want to check that the product worked in large primates, not C. jacchus. But, again, that’s just my opinion.

I suggest that the bioweapons story is Judyth’s ‘big lie’ - something so outrageous that intelligent people should spend no time analysing it.

Jack,

Here we go again - and who could be surprised?

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Jack,

Good work getting experts on marmosets! I think you have missed the point that the research being conducted had to be done with infant animals whose immune systems were undeveloped. They were also doing research with Rhesus and other species of monkeys. Just as you previously confounded "thousands of pounds of monkeys" with "thousands of monkeys", you seem to be suggesting that they could not have been using marmosets, when we already have an official statement about their use for biomedical research (if you check my earlier posts about this). The marmosets were not being stored for lengthy intervals of time. They were being used and destroyed.

The development of a bioweapon for human targets required several stages of development in different species. It was important that the cancers being developed in mice were being transferred to primates in anticipation of their transfer to humans. The use of these monkeys was therefore indispensable in producing an effective weapon. Judyth's talk about "pounds", by the way, is because she was dealing with tumors that were often as large as the original animals themselves. If you were reading some of the sources that I have recommended, you would probably have a better grasp of the issues. No doubt, the most important of all will turn out to be ME & LEE.

Jim

Two different authorities on MARMOSET monkeys who have been

following this thread have sent me information which seems to

demolish the statement of JVB that she, Ferrie and LHO "processed

thousands of pounds of monkeys" in their apartment laboratory

cancer virus experiments. Here are some quotes I received this morning

from a PhD who is an author of scientific papers regarding medical

experiments using marmosets (I have added bold face to emphasize

certain points):

QUOTE:

The picture that someone googled to include in the EF thread is that of C. jacchus babies. Within months they double in size and then those juveniles double in size. Adult common marmosets are the size of large rats. The reason I wanted to join the thread was to clarify that although they are small they do need huge amounts of space. They only thrive in family groups and they need to leap around and graze on branches or they get sick. You would be looking at a minimum of two cubic metres for a pair of adults. Consequently, keeping large numbers (say more than 10) is not something you can do at home. They do tend to screech a lot, by the way. You do know it when you are near a primate colony . . .

From my reading of the thread the claim was that Judyth used large numbers of C. jacchus. The only way you could do this in a domestic setting is to put them in shoe-box size cages and they would just get sick and die. There is no question about it: the only way to keep them healthy enough for research purposes is to give them large amounts of space and keep them as family units. Even then you can get health problems.

No one would ever use an animal for research that was unhealthy and likely to die due to lack of space and activities. No point at all. If ‘testing in a primate’ was seen as the final stage in the development of a bioweapon then it would have been easier, cheaper and safer to have used some monkeys from an existing research colony. I find it quite likely that the US military would have had access to a primate colony, for instance. I would also want to check that the product worked in large primates, not C. jacchus. But, again, that’s just my opinion.

I suggest that the bioweapons story is Judyth’s ‘big lie’ - something so outrageous that intelligent people should spend no time analysing it.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Pamela,

Nice point! I am really having a difficult time with Doug Weldon. He not only appears to be intimidating a witness who is a whistleblower to one of the great crimes of our time (and you can take your pick between the assassination and the contaminated polio virus), when he should be advocating for her right to step forth and expose this corruption, but he seems to have no hesitation in supporting Davd Lifton's refusal to share the cassette he has been touting all these years.

Do I detect the least whiff of inconsistency from our prosecutor?

Egad! Shouldn't the relentless crime-fighter be cracking down on illegal recordings of conversations? Shouldn't he be making the case for prosecuting David Lifton? Why do I think he should be protective of Judyth for blowing the whistle and critical of Lifton for withholding evidence? I just don't get his attitude about prosecuting a crucial witness or suborning the withholding of evidence. I guess he will tell me that I am making this "personal" again. I must be missing something.

Jim

JF said to DL:I have asked several times that you send me a copy of the cassette of your conversation with Judyth that I might have the opportunity to evaluate your "evidence" for myself.

Until Lifton provides you with a copy of the illegally-taped interview with Judyth so that it can be evaluated by someone who does not have an agenda against her, nothing that he says about it should be given much weight. As Lifton is not being forthcoming, it follows that there is a reason for it. That he keeps repeating his interpretation of it is telling. How can we not ask 'what is he hiding'?

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

One of Jack's experts also copied me on an email to Jack. Jack did

not include the following paragraph, which I find rather significant:

> Yes, there were indeed research colonies of C. jacchus in the USA in the

> early 1960's. In the 50¹s and 60¹s you could just freight large monkeys such

> as rhesus from India. Salk used thousands of rhesus monkeys to develop his

> vaccine. The push to use smaller monkeys came largely in response to blocks

> on export and I had thought that research with C. jacchus was a later

> development. However, after some rapid research there is now no question in

> my mind that at the time of the alleged experiments marmoset colonies had

> been established in the USA and that the know-how to set up such colonies

> would be available. You would need qualified vets, mind you. Who would need

> to be sworn to secrecy . . .

He says, "Salk used thousands of rhesus monkeys to develop his vaccine."

So why didn't Jack include that observation when he posted this commentary?

Not only were monkeys commonly used in cancer research, according to Jack's

own expert, but when you consider that the marmosets Judyth has described

were only being kept for brief intervals of time, his remarks about the care and

storage of families for sustained durations do not appear to be remotely relevant.

Not to suggest that Jack's source is biased himself, but his categorical dismissal

of bioweapon research as "Judyth's big lie" simply dumbfounds me. Is this guy

oblivious of the CIA's interest in projects like this or of its suppression of the 1st

of its "family jewels" or of the circumstances of Jack Ruby's death, for example?

I would not want to suggest that Jack is picking and choosing the evidence he

presents (about this or any other aspect of Judyth's case), but it is curious he

would omit the most interesting comment (about Salk's use of "thousands of

monkeys") from his post. (And we can all appreciate Jack's use of boldface.)

Two different authorities on MARMOSET monkeys who have been

following this thread have sent me information which seems to

demolish the statement of JVB that she, Ferrie and LHO "processed

thousands of pounds of monkeys" in their apartment laboratory

cancer virus experiments. Here are some quotes I received this morning

from a PhD who is an author of scientific papers regarding medical

experiments using marmosets (I have added bold face to emphasize

certain points):

QUOTE:

The picture that someone googled to include in the EF thread is that of C. jacchus babies. Within months they double in size and then those juveniles double in size. Adult common marmosets are the size of large rats. The reason I wanted to join the thread was to clarify that although they are small they do need huge amounts of space. They only thrive in family groups and they need to leap around and graze on branches or they get sick. You would be looking at a minimum of two cubic metres for a pair of adults. Consequently, keeping large numbers (say more than 10) is not something you can do at home. They do tend to screech a lot, by the way. You do know it when you are near a primate colony . . .

From my reading of the thread the claim was that Judyth used large numbers of C. jacchus. The only way you could do this in a domestic setting is to put them in shoe-box size cages and they would just get sick and die. There is no question about it: the only way to keep them healthy enough for research purposes is to give them large amounts of space and keep them as family units. Even then you can get health problems.

No one would ever use an animal for research that was unhealthy and likely to die due to lack of space and activities. No point at all. If ‘testing in a primate’ was seen as the final stage in the development of a bioweapon then it would have been easier, cheaper and safer to have used some monkeys from an existing research colony. I find it quite likely that the US military would have had access to a primate colony, for instance. I would also want to check that the product worked in large primates, not C. jacchus. But, again, that’s just my opinion.

I suggest that the bioweapons story is Judyth’s ‘big lie’ - something so outrageous that intelligent people should spend no time analysing it.

[Greg Burnham]

This is just one interpretation of what we may be seeing take place here:

1) Lifton may not want to provide physical evidence (proof) that he broke the law, if that is, in fact what he did. Sorry, if that is incorrect, David, but I'm just trying to make sense of this. So, on the one hand, by providing the tape it would allow the alleged evidence of her being less than truthful speak for itself; on the other hand, it would prove the commission of an illegal act.

Jim, I also think (if the above is true) the more you bring up the legality of its status the more elusive its disposition will become.

2) I don't think that "whistleblower" applies, in this case or at this juncture. Here's why: If I'm not mistaken, an individual is protected from retaliation under the law for whistleblowing about illegal activity on the part of their employer. The law makes retaliation illegal separtely from the original charge, if there is one or not. In other words, if the employee is reporting what they believe in good faith to be illegal activity, whether or not that ends up to be true, the employee is protected from retaliation by the employer.

I don't see how that applies to this situation. It's like trying to stretch a condom over a watermelon, it just won't fit!

monk

Pamela,

Nice point! I am really having a difficult time with Doug Weldon. He not only appears to be intimidating a witness who is a whistleblower to one of the great crimes of our time (and you can take your pick between the assassination and the contaminated polio virus), when he should be advocating for her right to step forth and expose this corruption, but he seems to have no hesitation in supporting Davd Lifton's refusal to share the cassette he has been touting all these years.

Do I detect the least whiff of inconsistency from our prosecutor?

Egad! Shouldn't the relentless crime-fighter be cracking down on illegal recordings of conversations? Shouldn't he be making the case for prosecuting David Lifton? Why do I think he should be protective of Judyth for blowing the whistle and critical of Lifton for withholding evidence? I just don't get his attitude about prosecuting a crucial witness or suborning the withholding of evidence. I guess he will tell me that I am making this "personal" again. I must be missing something.

Jim

JF said to DL:I have asked several times that you send me a copy of the cassette of your conversation with Judyth that I might have the opportunity to evaluate your "evidence" for myself.

Until Lifton provides you with a copy of the illegally-taped interview with Judyth so that it can be evaluated by someone who does not have an agenda against her, nothing that he says about it should be given much weight. As Lifton is not being forthcoming, it follows that there is a reason for it. That he keeps repeating his interpretation of it is telling. How can we not ask 'what is he hiding'?

Edited April 29, 2010 by Greg Burnham

[Jack White]

I am not confounded.

An adult marmoset monkey weighs a third of a pound.

Three marmosets = a pound.

Thousands of pounds of monkeys = more than 3000 monkeys.

That's lotsa monkeys. For a kitchen lab. Or any lab. Anywhere.

Using newborn marmosets means even more monkeys, since two parents are needed to produce a newborn baby.

Kits, cats, sacks and wives...how many marmosets were going to St. Ives?

Jack

[Jack White]

As requested by the expert, I did indeed pick and choose MATERIAL RELEVANT TO JVB and this thread.

He requested (which you omitted) that I not use the entire material. I considered the mention of the

research of Jonas Salk and rhesus monkeys IRRELEVANT TO THIS THREAD, so I omitted it.

Also, in the material left out, which you quote, I considered including, but left out:

You would need qualified vets, mind you. Who would need to be sworn to secrecy.

Were Ferrie, Vary and LHO qualified veterinarians?

Jack

One of Jack's experts also copied me on an email to Jack. Jack did

not include the following paragraph, which I find rather significant:

> Yes, there were indeed research colonies of C. jacchus in the USA in the

> early 1960's. In the 50¹s and 60¹s you could just freight large monkeys such

> as rhesus from India. Salk used thousands of rhesus monkeys to develop his

> vaccine. The push to use smaller monkeys came largely in response to blocks

> on export and I had thought that research with C. jacchus was a later

> development. However, after some rapid research there is now no question in

> my mind that at the time of the alleged experiments marmoset colonies had

> been established in the USA and that the know-how to set up such colonies

> would be available. You would need qualified vets, mind you. Who would need

> to be sworn to secrecy . . .

He says, "Salk used thousands of rhesus monkeys to develop his vaccine."

So why didn't Jack include that observation when he posted this commentary?

Not only were monkeys commonly used in cancer research, according to Jack's

own expert, but when you consider that the marmosets Judyth has described

were only being kept for brief intervals of time, his remarks about the care and

storage of families for sustained durations do not appear to be remotely relevant.

Not to suggest that Jack's source is biased himself, but his categorical dismissal

of bioweapon research as "Judyth's big lie" simply dumbfounds me. Is this guy

oblivious of the CIA's interest in projects like this or of its suppression of the 1st

of its "family jewels" or of the circumstances of Jack Ruby's death, for example?

I would not want to suggest that Jack is picking and choosing the evidence he

presents (about this or any other aspect of Judyth's case), but it is curious he

would omit the most interesting comment (about Salk's use of "thousands of

monkeys") from his post. (And we can all appreciate Jack's use of boldface.)

Two different authorities on MARMOSET monkeys who have been

following this thread have sent me information which seems to

demolish the statement of JVB that she, Ferrie and LHO "processed

thousands of pounds of monkeys" in their apartment laboratory

cancer virus experiments. Here are some quotes I received this morning

from a PhD who is an author of scientific papers regarding medical

experiments using marmosets (I have added bold face to emphasize

certain points):

QUOTE:

The picture that someone googled to include in the EF thread is that of C. jacchus babies. Within months they double in size and then those juveniles double in size. Adult common marmosets are the size of large rats. The reason I wanted to join the thread was to clarify that although they are small they do need huge amounts of space. They only thrive in family groups and they need to leap around and graze on branches or they get sick. You would be looking at a minimum of two cubic metres for a pair of adults. Consequently, keeping large numbers (say more than 10) is not something you can do at home. They do tend to screech a lot, by the way. You do know it when you are near a primate colony . . .

From my reading of the thread the claim was that Judyth used large numbers of C. jacchus. The only way you could do this in a domestic setting is to put them in shoe-box size cages and they would just get sick and die. There is no question about it: the only way to keep them healthy enough for research purposes is to give them large amounts of space and keep them as family units. Even then you can get health problems.

No one would ever use an animal for research that was unhealthy and likely to die due to lack of space and activities. No point at all. If ‘testing in a primate’ was seen as the final stage in the development of a bioweapon then it would have been easier, cheaper and safer to have used some monkeys from an existing research colony. I find it quite likely that the US military would have had access to a primate colony, for instance. I would also want to check that the product worked in large primates, not C. jacchus. But, again, that’s just my opinion.

I suggest that the bioweapons story is Judyth’s ‘big lie’ - something so outrageous that intelligent people should spend no time analysing it.

Edited April 29, 2010 by Jack White

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

They were using tiny marmosets, which was necessary because

they needed to inject them before their immune systems were

developed. I think you need to do more research, my friend.

You seem to be doing a lot of monkey business on this thread.

I am not confounded.

An adult marmoset monkey weighs a third of a pound.

Three marmosets = a pound.

Thousands of pounds of monkeys = more than 3000 monkeys.

That's lotsa monkeys. For a kitchen lab. Or any lab. Anywhere.

Using newborn marmosets means even more monkeys, since two parents are needed to produce a newborn baby.

Kits, cats, sacks and wives...how many marmosets were going to St. Ives?

Jack

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Yes, you seem to be omitting anything that does not conform to your predetermined conclusions.

You won't watch "The Love Affair", you haven't read DR. MARY'S MONKEY, you certainly are not

about to buy ME & LEE. How much other evidence are you willing to ignore in your determined,

relentless, and ongoing effort to discredit Judyth? All you are accomplishing is discrediting you.

As requested by the expert, I did indeed pick and choose MATERIAL RELEVANT TO JVB and this thread.

He requested (which you omitted) that I not use the entire material. I considered the mention of the

research of Jonas Salk and rhesus monkeys IRRELEVANT TO THIS THREAD, so I omitted it.

Also, in the material left out, which you quote, I considered including, but left out:

You would need qualified vets, mind you. Who would need to be sworn to secrecy.

Were Ferrie, Vary and LHO qualified veterinarians?

Jack

One of Jack's experts also copied me on an email to Jack. Jack did

not include the following paragraph, which I find rather significant:

> Yes, there were indeed research colonies of C. jacchus in the USA in the

> early 1960's. In the 50¹s and 60¹s you could just freight large monkeys such

> as rhesus from India. Salk used thousands of rhesus monkeys to develop his

> vaccine. The push to use smaller monkeys came largely in response to blocks

> on export and I had thought that research with C. jacchus was a later

> development. However, after some rapid research there is now no question in

> my mind that at the time of the alleged experiments marmoset colonies had

> been established in the USA and that the know-how to set up such colonies

> would be available. You would need qualified vets, mind you. Who would need

> to be sworn to secrecy . . .

He says, "Salk used thousands of rhesus monkeys to develop his vaccine."

So why didn't Jack include that observation when he posted this commentary?

Not only were monkeys commonly used in cancer research, according to Jack's

own expert, but when you consider that the marmosets Judyth has described

were only being kept for brief intervals of time, his remarks about the care and

storage of families for sustained durations do not appear to be remotely relevant.

Not to suggest that Jack's source is biased himself, but his categorical dismissal

of bioweapon research as "Judyth's big lie" simply dumbfounds me. Is this guy

oblivious of the CIA's interest in projects like this or of its suppression of the 1st

of its "family jewels" or of the circumstances of Jack Ruby's death, for example?

I would not want to suggest that Jack is picking and choosing the evidence he

presents (about this or any other aspect of Judyth's case), but it is curious he

would omit the most interesting comment (about Salk's use of "thousands of

monkeys") from his post. (And we can all appreciate Jack's use of boldface.)

Two different authorities on MARMOSET monkeys who have been

following this thread have sent me information which seems to

demolish the statement of JVB that she, Ferrie and LHO "processed

thousands of pounds of monkeys" in their apartment laboratory

cancer virus experiments. Here are some quotes I received this morning

from a PhD who is an author of scientific papers regarding medical

experiments using marmosets (I have added bold face to emphasize

certain points):

QUOTE:

The picture that someone googled to include in the EF thread is that of C. jacchus babies. Within months they double in size and then those juveniles double in size. Adult common marmosets are the size of large rats. The reason I wanted to join the thread was to clarify that although they are small they do need huge amounts of space. They only thrive in family groups and they need to leap around and graze on branches or they get sick. You would be looking at a minimum of two cubic metres for a pair of adults. Consequently, keeping large numbers (say more than 10) is not something you can do at home. They do tend to screech a lot, by the way. You do know it when you are near a primate colony . . .

From my reading of the thread the claim was that Judyth used large numbers of C. jacchus. The only way you could do this in a domestic setting is to put them in shoe-box size cages and they would just get sick and die. There is no question about it: the only way to keep them healthy enough for research purposes is to give them large amounts of space and keep them as family units. Even then you can get health problems.

No one would ever use an animal for research that was unhealthy and likely to die due to lack of space and activities. No point at all. If ‘testing in a primate’ was seen as the final stage in the development of a bioweapon then it would have been easier, cheaper and safer to have used some monkeys from an existing research colony. I find it quite likely that the US military would have had access to a primate colony, for instance. I would also want to check that the product worked in large primates, not C. jacchus. But, again, that’s just my opinion.

I suggest that the bioweapons story is Judyth’s ‘big lie’ - something so outrageous that intelligent people should spend no time analysing it.

[Dean Hartwell]

We keep going round and round on specific issues on this thread. We need to focus on a more general purpose.

For those who do not believe Judyth, I have a question:

What would it take to convince you she is telling the truth?

You may say "more evidence" or "documentation" but I would like to know:

What type of evidence or what kind of documentation?

What kind of evidence could you reasonably expect that has not been shown to you?

If there is no way to convince you, I am not sure what purpose this thread would serve you.

Thank you,

Dean

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Monk,

No one is about to go after Lifton for recording a conversation, even though it was illegal. That is not my intention nor Judyth's

nor anyone elses. So this business about protecting himself from legal repercussions is a subterfuge, a deceit, and an excuse

to immunize himself from the potential of having (what I take to have been) exaggerated claims refuted by his own evidence.

As for the point about "whistleblowing", you can define it narrowly or broadly, but do you personally have any doubt that what

Judyth is talking about (the contaminated polio vaccine, the bioweapon research, relationships between Alton Ochsner, Ferrie,

Mary, Vary, and Lee and links to the assassination) is a VERY BIG STORY that exposes corruption at the core of US covert ops?

Have you read the latest take by my psy ops expert on Judyth's story? I think he makes a very compelling case for why her

account fits into the profile of cover ops in this country, why she was an appropriate choice for this assignment, and why she

has been subjected to such a systematic and sustained effort to discredit her and assassinate her character. Did you read it?

There is a lot of trifling and splitting hairs going on here. This is a form of WHISTLEBLOWING in the highest traditions of our

country, more or less roughly on a part with Daniel Ellsberg's release of THE PENTAGON PAPERS. As Ed Haslam explains in

DR. MARY'S MONKEY, the contaminated vaccine story alone may be the greatest scandal in the history of the United States.

Jim

This is just one interpretation of what we may be seeing take place here:

1) Lifton may not want to provide physical evidence (proof) that he broke the law, if that is, in fact what he did. Sorry, if that is incorrect, David, but I'm just trying to make sense of this. So, on the one hand, by providing the tape it would allow the alleged evidence of her being less than truthful speak for itself; on the other hand, it would prove the commission of an illegal act.

Jim, I also think (if the above is true) the more you bring up the legality of its status the more elusive its disposition will become.

2) I don't think that "whistleblower" applies, in this case or at this juncture. Here's why: If I'm not mistaken, an individual is protected from retaliation under the law for whistleblowing about illegal activity on the part of their employer. The law makes retaliation illegal separtely from the original charge, if there is one or not. In other words, if the employee is reporting what they believe in good faith to be illegal activity, whether or not that ends up to be true, the employee is protected from retaliation by the employer.

I don't see how that applies to this situation. It's like trying to stretch a condom over a watermelon, it just won't fit!

monk

Pamela,

Nice point! I am really having a difficult time with Doug Weldon. He not only appears to be intimidating a witness who is a whistleblower to one of the great crimes of our time (and you can take your pick between the assassination and the contaminated polio virus), when he should be advocating for her right to step forth and expose this corruption, but he seems to have no hesitation in supporting Davd Lifton's refusal to share the cassette he has been touting all these years.

Do I detect the least whiff of inconsistency from our prosecutor?

Egad! Shouldn't the relentless crime-fighter be cracking down on illegal recordings of conversations? Shouldn't he be making the case for prosecuting David Lifton? Why do I think he should be protective of Judyth for blowing the whistle and critical of Lifton for withholding evidence? I just don't get his attitude about prosecuting a crucial witness or suborning the withholding of evidence. I guess he will tell me that I am making this "personal" again. I must be missing something.

Jim

JF said to DL:I have asked several times that you send me a copy of the cassette of your conversation with Judyth that I might have the opportunity to evaluate your "evidence" for myself.

Until Lifton provides you with a copy of the illegally-taped interview with Judyth so that it can be evaluated by someone who does not have an agenda against her, nothing that he says about it should be given much weight. As Lifton is not being forthcoming, it follows that there is a reason for it. That he keeps repeating his interpretation of it is telling. How can we not ask 'what is he hiding'?

Edited April 29, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Stephen Roy]

When I have the chance, I am going to post an extended reply about the meaning of "rationality" in this

context. Let me simply observe at the moment that a basic requirement of scientific reasoning is known

as "the requirement of total evidence", which insists that, in the search for truth, reasoning must be based

upon all of the available relevant evidence. Those who are basing their reasoning only upon portions of the

available evidence are committing the fallacy known as "special pleading", which is also know as the method

of selection and elimination (by selecting the evidence that agrees with a predetermined point of view and

eliminating the rest). As I shall explain, if you have not viewed "The Love Affair", read DR. MARY'S MONKEY

or--once it becomes available--ME & LEE, you cannot have satisfied that requirement, which means that, in

the strict sense, your conclusion will not properly qualify as "rational" because it is not based upon all of the

available relevant evidence. And that remains the case even if you ultimately concluded that you disbelieve

in Judyth or if you ultimately conclude that you believe in her. I will expand upon this in a post tomorrow.

This is an attempt to use jargon to limit the universe of evidence to that which the writer thinks supports his case, and to define disagreement as irrational.

It limits the evidence in quantity by failing to include relevant evidence from other sources.

It limits the evidence in quality by failing to consider if the cited evidence is verifiable.

What scholar would define the universe of evidence related to a controversial issue at just three items of unknown verifiability? Is that "all of the available relevant evidence" or just portions of it? What scholar would cite a book which that hasn't even been published yet as a requirement for rationality? How does one define rationality?

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but there is ample exposure to lines of argument AGAINST Judyth and her

story. My point is that, unless you are also considering the lines of argument SUPPORTING Judyth and her

story, you are not satisfying the requirement of total evidence, which insists that, in the search for truth,

you must base your reasoning on all the available relevant evidence. That means you are not entitled to

pick and choose by selecting the evidence that agrees with a predetermined conclusion and eleminating the

rest. Mr. Roy seems rather cavalier in his willingness to disregard some of the most important sources of

evidence SUPPORTING Judyth and her story, which does not surprise me, because the requirement applies

to those who are attempting to discover the truth. Those with different aims are at liberty to violate it, as I

have repeatedly demonstrated to be the case with Jack White several times in my most recent posts. When

it comes to reason and rationality, this guy simply does not know what he is talking about. And from what

we have heard from Ed Haslam, he appears to disregard this requirement in his own research on Ferrie, too.

Another (stunning) example, of course, is to criticize a post (about rationality) before I have even put it up!

When I have the chance, I am going to post an extended reply about the meaning of "rationality" in this

context. Let me simply observe at the moment that a basic requirement of scientific reasoning is known

as "the requirement of total evidence", which insists that, in the search for truth, reasoning must be based

upon all of the available relevant evidence. Those who are basing their reasoning only upon portions of the

available evidence are committing the fallacy known as "special pleading", which is also know as the method

of selection and elimination (by selecting the evidence that agrees with a predetermined point of view and

eliminating the rest). As I shall explain, if you have not viewed "The Love Affair", read DR. MARY'S MONKEY

or--once it becomes available--ME & LEE, you cannot have satisfied that requirement, which means that, in

the strict sense, your conclusion will not properly qualify as "rational" because it is not based upon all of the

available relevant evidence. And that remains the case even if you ultimately concluded that you disbelieve

in Judyth or if you ultimately conclude that you believe in her. I will expand upon this in a post tomorrow.

This is an attempt to use jargon to limit the universe of evidence to that which the writer thinks supports his case, and to define disagreement as irrational.

It limits the evidence in quantity by failing to include relevant evidence from other sources.

It limits the evidence in quality by failing to consider if the cited evidence is verifiable.

What scholar would define the universe of evidence related to a controversial issue at just three items of unknown verifiability? Is that "all of the available relevant evidence" or just portions of it? What scholar would cite a book which that hasn't even been published yet as a requirement for rationality? How does one define rationality?

Edited April 29, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Pat Speer]

JF said to DL:I have asked several times that you send me a copy of the cassette of your conversation with Judyth that I might have the opportunity to evaluate your "evidence" for myself.

Until Lifton provides you with a copy of the illegally-taped interview with Judyth so that it can be evaluated by someone who does not have an agenda against her, nothing that he says about it should be given much weight. As Lifton is not being forthcoming, it follows that there is a reason for it. That he keeps repeating his interpretation of it is telling. How can we not ask 'what is he hiding'?

Pamela, this is really unfair and short-sighted. David is a well-respected researcher. Although many researchers disagree with David's conclusions, no one of whom I am aware has ever caught him in a flat-out lie. If he says he has a tape, he has a tape, and doesn't need to send a copy to Jim or anyone else.

FWIW, I, too, think he should make it available. But his credibility as a researcher and person far outweighs Judyth's at this point.

Is Judyth willing to bet HER credibility no such tape exists?

Is she?

If not, WHY NOT?

It seems likely that Judyth is holding back because she knows she said what David says she said, and that David is holding the tape for strategic reasons. Because he is waiting for her to call him a xxxx... So that he then can whip it out and prove her wrong...

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Pat,

If you had been following the thread and reading all the posts, you might have a better idea what is at issue here. No one disputes the existence of a recording of a conversation between Judyth and David Lifton. But Lifton has used the tape to make many allegations that are unflattering to Judyth BASED UPON THE CONVERSATION RECORDED ON THE TAPE. One of those, for example, is his allegation that Judyth was talking about her and Lee visiting Cancun, which, Lifton observes, did not exist at the time. But Judyth was referring to the village of Kankun, which preceded it. My contention is that, since they are phonologically indistinguishable, I cannot imagine how David Lifton, who was unaware of the existence of the village of Kankun, could possibly be justified in drawing this unfavorable inference. For that reason, I have asked that he share the tape with me. I need a copy of the tape rather than a transcript to insure that I am hearing what he heard (the same sounds in the same order) for the purpose of assessing the interpretation (or the meaning) that he imposed upon them. I hope this makes it clear why his withholding the cassette is a form of suppression of evidence, especially when he has, over the years, made so much of his peremptory "disproof" of Judyth's authenticity based upon this single conversation between them. As for credibility, as I have explained several times, I have had overwhelmingly more contact with Judyth via emails and conversations than anyone else on this thread. She is extremely forthright and as honest as the day is long. I therefore find it incredible that all of these worthies who pretend to the status of "researchers" are so willing to dismiss her on the say-so of others, typically without bothering to even consider the impressive evidence substantiating her account in "The Love Affair", DR. MARY'S MONKEY, and many others sources I have repeatedly mentioned on this site. And, since new information, documents, and records will be presented in ME & LEE, Judyth's own book will no doubt become a primary source for the investigation of these mysterious activities in New Orleans. I simply want to evaluate the tape for myself.

Jim

JF said to DL:I have asked several times that you send me a copy of the cassette of your conversation with Judyth that I might have the opportunity to evaluate your "evidence" for myself.

Until Lifton provides you with a copy of the illegally-taped interview with Judyth so that it can be evaluated by someone who does not have an agenda against her, nothing that he says about it should be given much weight. As Lifton is not being forthcoming, it follows that there is a reason for it. That he keeps repeating his interpretation of it is telling. How can we not ask 'what is he hiding'?

Pamela, this is really unfair and short-sighted. David is a well-respected researcher. Although many researchers disagree with David's conclusions, no one of whom I am aware has ever caught him in a flat-out lie. If he says he has a tape, he has a tape, and doesn't need to send a copy to Jim or anyone else.

FWIW, I, too, think he should make it available. But his credibility as a researcher and person far outweighs Judyth's at this point.

Is Judyth willing to bet HER credibility no such tape exists?

Is she?

If not, WHY NOT?

It seems likely that Judyth is holding back because she knows she said what David says she said, and that David is holding the tape for strategic reasons. Because he is waiting for her to call him a xxxx... So that he then can whip it out and prove her wrong...

Edited April 29, 2010 by James H. Fetzer