Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[Jack White]

I would like to read the SCIENCE FICTION which JVB and LHO co-wrote.

I know that she has a copy, since she throws nothing away. Please ask

her to post the manuscript...or at least a few pages of it.

A work co-written by LHO would bring big bucks!

Jack

[Barb Junkkarinen]

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?

Doug Weldon

Oswald's favorite Opera was The Queen of Spades (Pushkin) ... according to Marina, in Minsk, they saw the opera and had an album that Oswald listened to constantly. Among his personal items taken from the Paine's after the assassination was a program from the opera.

The obvious question is when is Oswald in New York in 1963 or how does he buy them in New York, with his American Express card? Furthermore, they are sent to Marina, not to Lee. It is easy to comprehend Marina reading them but unless someone has deep roots in the Soviet Union it would be very difficult. This observation is not from myself, a Midwestern attorney, but from a native of the Soviet Union. Also, note the books were sent to Marina. When did Oswald read them, while he was working, working for Bannister,doing the cancer research, preparing for his abort team, writing a science fiction book with Judyth, or during his trysts with Judyth when he was driving her around?

I am curious. Where does JVB say it was Oswald learned Russian?

In her book, Judyth relates laying in bed and Oswald reading to her from Pushkin's Queen of Spades ... the book being written in Russian and him translating into English as he read it to her. That would take quite the fluency in both understanding and reading Cyrillic to be able to relate it all orally in English as he read ... your native Russian would agree?

According to Marina, Oswald did not read Russian well, and never read Russian for pleasure. In Marina & Lee, which Judyth herself cites for some things, it says, pg 147, :

"Marina was impressed by Alik's Russian..........Although she was

proud of the way her husband spoke, Marina noticed weaknesses too. She

observed that he never read Russian for pleasure, and when he went to

the public library, with the whole of Russian literature before him,

he never took out a volume in Russian.......

.....Marina thinks he read so little Russian because he was lazy.

Neither he or she knew that he had a reading disability

that must have made it tedious and frustrating to wrestle with the

strange Cyrillic symbols."

I repeat: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).

I was surprised by the response to Barb to this question. At first you agreed it was a good question and then you dismissed her. Did Judyth refuse to cooperate with this? The proof of such would enhance her credibility with me.

Doug Weldon

I agree, Doug ... and given Fetzer's initial enthusiasm followed by such disdain, I too wonder if he hadn't already received a "no" from Judyth.

If the handwriting in her book is certified to be that of Lee Harvey Oswald, it would certainly provide her with a verified link to having known Oswald ... which is something she does not currently have.

Bests,

Barb :-)

[Dean Hartwell]

Hi Jack,

Thank you for your reply. For reasons that will become obvious, there is a question I have of you first:

Do you believe that, even if true, Judyth's story is not relevant to our understanding of the JFK assassination?

If that is the case, I do not think my response is going to matter to you.

If that is not the case, I direct your attention to "James Fetzer: 14 Reasons to Believe in Judyth Vary Baker"

http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/03/14...udyth-vary.html

Impartial independent documentation for Judyth's story on this site includes:

- A paycheck showing that Judyth Anne Baker worked for Wm. Reily & Co., Inc. in New Orleans in 1963

- Witnesses, including William “Mac” McCullough and Anna Lewis, who saw Judyth and Lee together. Lewis is on videotape saying she and her husband double-dated with them.

- her identification of a Customs Agent whom Lee had introduced her to.

Dean

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

INDEPENDENT DOCUMENTATION is needed to verify claims. Self-serving claims are not evidence nor

documentation. An impartial independent source is needed.

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Doug,

No, I haven't discounted it. Judyth has been traveling and unavailable. I said

I would run it by her, but my impression is that Barb is going to make it all but

impossible to satisfy standards of documentation that would ever satisfy her. I

think it is a bit of a run-around, but I am glad to hear that it would impress you.

The standard is quite obvious and has already been mentioned ... have the writing

examined by a professional certified, court qualified documents examiner ... and post

his signed notarized report/findings.

There's no run around here on my part.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

JIM DISCUSSES THE NATURE OF REASON AND RATIONALITY IN RESEARCH

My purpose here is simply to place the current thread within the framework of three

kinds of rationality and to explain why--what is no doubt apparent to everyone who

has been following it--we are so far beyond the point of diminishing returns. Some

of what I am saying here has been said before but has not sunk in. I'll begin with

(1) rationality of ends =df adopting goals that are logically, physically, and historically

possible, at the minimum, especially when you have the background, the ability and

the resources to make their attainment within the realm of realizable objectives.

(2) rationality of action =df the tendency to act upon your beliefs and motives in order

to accomplish your goals, especially by adopting methods and means that are suitable

for that purpose, which can be measured by their reliability, effectiveness, and speed.

(3) rationality of belief =df distributing your beliefs (or the strength of your beliefs) in

proportion to objective measures of evidential support, when they are applied to the

available relevant evidence, where the requirement of total evidence clearly applies.

Evidence can assume different forms, of course, such testimonial evidence or physical

evidence, which is "relevant" when its truth or falsity or presence or absence makes

a difference to (or affects the likelihood of) the truth or falsity of the issue in dispute.

Ends are irrational when they are logically impossible, relative to the laws of logic

(proving that 2 + 2 = 5), physically impossible, relative to the laws of nature (such

as traveling faster than the speed of light), or historically impossible, relative to the

history of the world to time t (wanting to be the first man to marry Elizabeth Taylor).

Rationality of action and rationality of belief are especially interesting, where neuroses

(such as an approach-avoidance complex, for example) tend to exemplify an incapacity

to adopt methods appropriate to attain your goals, and psychoses (such as schizophrenia,

among others) exemplify an incapacity to adopt beliefs that are suitably related to the

world by virtue of being true or even approximately true, which is a cognitive impairment.

These are independent dimensions, where someone could be high in rationality of action

but low in rationality of belief or high in rationality of belief but low in rationality of action.

Perhaps most interestingly, if one's aim or goal were to discredit a source of information as

an agency assignment, they might know the targeted individual is speaking the truth based

upon inside information, yet persist in attempting to discredit the source by advancing any

number of grounds in trying to create the impression that what they are telling us is false.

There is a profound difference between logic and psychology, of course, because logic is

concerned with the normative principles that define reasoning when it is either valid (as

an example of conclusive deductive reasoning, where the conclusion cannot be false if

its premises are true) or proper (as an example of inconclusive inductive reasoning,

where the conclusion can still be false even when the premises are true). But there can

be a gap between the principles of logic and our own personal habits of mind, namely:

Persons are rational in relation to their beliefs when there is an appropriate correspondence

(which need not be an exact alignment) between their degrees of subjective certitude and

the objective degrees of evidential support. Persons should properly be incredulous about

what cannot possibly be true (such as that 2 + 2 = 5 in pure mathematics or that rabbits

are not animals in ordinary English) and completely credulous about what cannot possibly be

false (that 2 + 2 = 4 in pure mathematics and that bachelors are unmarried in ordinary English).

With respect to measures of truthfulness, therefore, we might employ a truth-quotient index

as a ratio of true statements made to statements made. Persons who are truthful obviously

have high truth-quotient indices, while those who are not have low. In a case where it is

suspected that a person might be a non-truth teller, presumably their truth quotient index

will be low. And that is certainly going to be the case for someone who is presumed to be a

fabricator (teller of tall tails). If such a person's story seems far-fetched initially, then that

creates the presumption that they are not truth-tellers because they have what appears to be

a low truth-quotient. But should it turn out that initially implausible elements of their story are

true, the situation reverses itself dramatically. That has happened repeatedly with Judyth.

The study of the impact of new evidence upon our beliefs (or degrees of belief) is among

the most extensively studied subjects in the philosophy of science and epistemology, where

the predominant approach is known as "Bayesianism" for its appeal to a theorem due to a

mathematician by the name of Thomas Bayes. It interprets probability as a measure of the

strength of our beliefs in relation to the evidence available to us. There are objectivist and

subjectivist interpretations of Bayesianism, but the core of the objectivist interpretation has

it (correctly) that there are definable objective standards relating evidence to hypotheses.

I have remarked that many of Judyth's reports about her life with the man she knew are

highly implausible, which means that they are difficult to believe and, on initial consideration,

appear to be more likely to be false than true. The point I have made is that, when claims

that are initially implausible turn out to be true (or, at least, supported by better arguments

than the alternatives), that has the effect of greatly increasing the credibility of the source.

Monk concedes that this is a human psychological tendency, but expresses hesitation over

whether it is warranted rationally as a matter of logic. The answer, however, is that it is.

Your beliefs about an hypothesis h1, such as that Judyth Vary Baker knew Lee Oswald in

New Orleans, given the evidence e1 available to you initially, which might be formalized

as P(h1/e1) = r1, is called your prior probability. When you gain new evidence, call it e2,

the difference it makes can be measured by the difference between your prior probability

and your posterior, P(h1/e1 & e2) = r2. The new evidence might increase, decrease, or

leave the value of r2 in relation to r1. When it increases the value of r2 in relation to r1,

then it is called "positively" relevant. If it lowers the value of r2 in relation to r1, then

"negatively" relevant. If r2 = r1, the new evidence qualifies as neutral or as "irrelevant".

Ed Haslam appears to have nailed down the key questions to ask, which are discussed, in

particular, at http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/04/ed...rys-monkey.html,

where I have an extract from an updated edition of MARY, FERRIE, AND THE MONKEY VIRUS:

1. Is "this Judyth" the real Judyth Vary Baker from Bradenton, Florida? Or is she

the impostor?

2. Did Judyth know Lee Harvey Oswald in New Orleans in 1963? If she does not have

reasonable proof to support this claim, then there is little point in pondering her story.

3. Was Judyth trained to handle cancer-causing viruses before she went to New Orleans

in 1963? If 1 and 2 above are true, then this point would qualify her as a suspect for

"the technician" that I wrote about in "The Pandemic" chapter.

As he explains, the answers appear to be "Yes", "Yes", and "Yes". And I find it increasingly

difficult to believe that anyone who has studied the evidence could disagree with him on this.

I suggest Nigel Turner's "The Love Affair" and Haslam's chapter are very good places to start.

But if you disregard the evidence and won't even readi posts I have put up on Judyth's behalf,

it won't matter to you. I have several blogs about Ed Haslam and DR. MARY'S MONKEY, which

is the new edition of MARY, FERRIE, AND THE MONKEY VIRUS, which reports new research in

his extremely thorough and painstaking investigations of all of these events in New Orleans.

In addition, on my blog I have also archived Ed's four hour appearance on "Coast to Coast"

and his one hour interview with me, two YouTube interviews with Judyth and blogs about her,

where her book, ME & LEE, will soon appear. Several times I have tried to end the debate

on this thread because there are many advantages to considering the new information that

will be presented in her book. In the meanwhile, however, she will be my featured guest on

"The Real Deal" tomorrow evening from 5-7 PM/CT on revereradio.net. I encourage those

who want to know her better to catch the program. I find her to be completely convincing

and I am going to do what I can to make sure others have access to what she has to tell us.

Anyone who is responsive to new evidence would be expected to have their priors affected

by the acquisition of new evidence in ways that correspond to objective standards. Those

who are non-responsible to new evidence have priors that are not affected by new evidence,

which can represent "closed mindedness". Indeed, one method for pursuing truth is to adopt

the method of tenacity, which means that, when you are subjectively satisfied with what you

believe, then you simply disregard any new evidence. That has been the case with many on

this forum, including, as a prime example, Jack White. No matter what Judyth could present,

Jack is not going to change his mind about her. His prior, which is approximately zero, will be

his posterior, even if we had a video of Judyth and Lee talking with Marcello at the 500 Club!

The fact is that we have a witness, Anna Lewis, who has testified that she and her husband,

David, double-dated with Judyth and Lee in New Orleans and made a visit to the 500 Club,

where they actually met Carlos Marcello. There is more than enough evidence to establish

that Judyth was lured to New Orleans by Alton Ochsner, who wanted someone who had the

ability to conduct cancer research but who was not known to the public and could be tossed

aside when her usefulness had expended. She worked with Lee Oswland and David Ferrie

under the supervision of Mary Sherman on the development of a rapid form of cancer that

could be used as a bio-weapon to take out Castro. That did not occur, of course, but there

are reasons to believe it was used to kill Jack Ruby, who, like Lee Oswald, knew too much.

During the course of this thread, Judyth has produced documents and records that show

she was a talented science student who had precocious knowledge of certain aspects of

cancer research. She and Lee were hired on the same date by Riley Coffee Company, a

front that provided cover for their covert activities. She even signed Lee's work records,

even though her role was never explained to the Warren Commission. As Ed Haslam has

documented, Judyth and David and Mary (who referred to themsevles as "Mary, Ferrie,

and Vary") performed extensive studies with mice and monkeys, all of which was under

the ultimate supervision of Alton Ochsner. Mary was killed in what appears to have been

an arranged "accident", which took place as the commission was turning attention to LHO.

The basic measure of evidential support is that of likelihoods, where the likelihood of an

hypothesis h given evidence e is equal to the probability of evidence e if that hypothesis

were true. Judyth has made many implausible claims about her experiences with Lee in

New Orleans and her activities there. Her attitude, I might observe, is the opposite from

someone who was trying to insert herself into history by fabricating claims. Someone of

that disposition would make many vague or ambiguous claims, which would be difficult to

test. What is most striking about Judyth is that she makes many very precise claims that

make her story far more vulnerable to refutation than if she adopted the safer course. In

my opinion, that greatly enhances her credibility. She knows so much and in great detail.

Now the probability of making false claims when you are "the real deal" is extremely low,

which means that, if most of these claims are FALSE, then the likelihood that she is telling

the truth has to be extremely low. But should it turn out that, under further investigation,

to the extent we can test them, those claims turn out to be TRUE, the likelihood reverses

and becomes very high, since the discovery that those claims are true, especially when

they were initially implausible, provides powerful support for her position. But most of

those on this forum based their judgments exclusively upon the implausibility of those

claims and never bother to consider how many of them have later turned out to be true.

Indeed, it has troubled me during the course of this thread is that, time after time, Judyth

has produced support for initially implausible claims. Yet the vast majority of her critics

have not budged. They continue to disbelieve her, long after she has produced supporting

evidence. As an illustration, just follow the posts in which she responds to Jack. He must

have lodged dozens and dozens of criticisms of Judyth, where, so far as I have been able

to discern, none of them has turned out to be true. NOT ONE! He has even said that if Judyth

had not claimed to have had a romance with Lee, he might find her more believable. But, in

spite of the huge range of issues that have been discussed on this forum, he has never budged.

His priors have remained constant from the beginning and he has studiously avoided her posts.

Doug suggests that Judyth is a damaged witness because of her involvement in research on

JFK. But OF COURSE she is a damaged witness. After deciding to come forward and tell her

story, she has been abused and attacked--often quite viciously!--by those on the McAdams site,

where she initially attempted to present herself, but also on other forums, where she was treated

more or less equally dismissively. She had to conduct research to find out where those who were

attacking her were coming from. In my opinion, she has demonstrated great ability at research, far

greater than most of the members of this forum, including studies of photos, eye-color, linguistics

and much more. But her critics are unrelenting and do not give her credit on any count. NOT ONE!

Doug could be right about some of the details of her story, but its core appears to me to be intact.

He has suggested that aspects of her story may involve embellishments, such as recollecting the

details of conversations they had on various occasions. At one point, I agreed that the reading list

Judyth had provided "appeared to be a bit much", where it read more like a "wish list" than actual

reading by the man who was killed in Dallas. Yet, even here, Judyth had some support for what she

has to tell us in the form of a report by Marina about what Lee read. In fact, it turned out that Lee's

"reading list" had actually been published as an FBI document of the Warren Commission's hearings:

So Judyth wasn't wrong at all. Doug, of course, was not impressed, suggesting that perhaps she had

derived the list from her own study and research. But that is beside the point. Judyth made claims

about Lee's reading that Doug disputed. It turned out that she was right and Doug was wrong. But

he never wavered in disputing her or granted her the least credit for being right. I am reminded of

the attitude of the Bishops of Padua who, when confronted by Galileo's discovery that the moon was

irregular and pock-marked on its surface rather than a perfectly smooth sphere as Aristotle claimed,

said that he must not have been looking at the moon or that the appearance of the moon must change

when it is viewed through a telescope. There are always alternatives to evade the impact of evidence.

Our judgments about plausibility can be strongly affected by our own experience in life, where, I have

suggested, it is entirely within the realm of possibility that a man who is fluent in Russian, has lived in

Russia and married a Russian woman might have different tastes in books and poetry than, say, an

attorney from the mid-west who happens to live in Kalamazoo. Time after time, claims she has made

she has made that seemed initially implausible have turned out to be true. And Jack's latest gambit

about marmosets and monkeys appears destined for a similar fate. His own expert has already said

that cancer research in developing the Saulk vaccine, for example, involved research on thousands of

monkeys, as a necessary stage in the development of a product intended for use on human beings. And

the development of a bio-weapon involved similar stages of mice/monkey research. How could it not?

Without belaboring the point, the objectivity of research derives from the consideration that different

investigators considering the same ranger of alternative explanations and the same evidence using

the same rules of reasoning should arrive at the same conclusions about which hypotheses are true

(acceptable), which are false (rejectable) and which should be left in suspense (neither accepted or

rejected). The acquistion of new evidence, as I have explained, should make a difference, where the

course of this investigation should have changed some minds. So far as I have been able to discern,

however, that has not happened. Those who were skeptics have remained skeptics, while those who

were inclined to believe in her continue to believe in her. For me, it has been a solidifying experience,

because the more I have learned about Judyth, the more I respect her and the more I believe in her.

There have been some acute disappointments along the way. Jack White's obstinance has perplexed me.

Dean Hagerman's cheerleading has bothered me. Doug Weldon's prosecutorial attitude has been upsetting.

Some, too obvious to name, have played a constant role of harassment and belittlement. Others have

made more constructive contributions. Dean Hartwell, for example, has displayed (what I consider to be)

balance and objectivity. I have appreciated Pamela McElwain-Brown and Linda Minor, who have extended

support from time to time. And Gregory Burnham has made a number of posts that have been welcomed

by all sides. Perhaps the most interesting participant, from my point of view, has been Michael Hogan,

who is among the very few who have actually read DR. MARY'S MONKEY, which I consider to be the key

to understanding Judyth's story. So I thank all of you and others, too, for what you have had to say, even

when I haven't liked it and may have argued against it. I believe the enduring impact of this thread will be

in reinforcing my belief that Judyth is the person she claims to be and from whom we all have much to learn.

Judyth Vary Baker will be my featured guest Friday on "The Real Deal" from 5-7 PM/CT on revereradio.net.

TAM SHUD

Edited May 4, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

MY PSY OPS EXPERT REPLIES TO DEAN HAGERMAN AND GREG BURNHAM

I'll respond to a couple of questions and clarify some issues. First, to respond to Dean Hagerman, who says I am a lame psyops expert. He wants to know why I can't post myself, and am I afraid. First, I read the background posts and looked at some materials to give my opinion on what the issues are from a psyops perspective as a favor to Jim Fetzer because he asked me if I would do that. I have no desire to join the forum.

My goal is to help Jim by bringing clarity to any psyop related issues of the Judyth Vary story. I am not afraid of Dean Hagerman or anyone else on the forum and I could care less what anyone thinks of me. Nor do I have anything to prove to anyone at this stage in my life. I suggest that Dean settles down and relaxes. I have not made any personal attacks on him. If he doesn't agree with my impressions, that is fine, so what, he is entitled to his beliefs, and so am I. I have attained all the success in life I wanted to and have nothing to prove. I suggested to Jim that my name be withheld so as to not draw attention away from the important issues at hand since I would appear to some who try to fully research my background as a shadowy figure and it would quickly become a rabbit hole and a waste of time. This is not the issue at hand and would detract from the Judyth Vary story and the discussion about it on this forum. But if you or anyone else can make a good argument that I am incorrect in my assertions from a psyop perspective, then email it to Jim and he will send it on to me, or post it here, but also include a suggestion for a better, more reasonable and plausible explanation. I think most posters on this forum would like to see truth distilled out of any such issue as this, especially with the possible serious long term effects these issues may have for American Society. All good truth junkies need a fix of plausibility every so often.

Jim Fetzer has known me for many years, knows my bona fides including educational and professional credentials for certain and knows personally at least one very experienced individual that I have associated with. Jim knows that I have extensive knowledge of psyops and that is why he asked me for my impression on this. I suggest that as with any other information or arguments posted that they be evaluated point by point for their reasonableness and plausibility, rather than fixating on the person stating those points. My impression from a psyops perspective are best evaluated on their own terms, point by point and each person can choose to agree, disagree and state what evidence they have for doing so if they want to. If folks think my input is worthless, then just don't read it.

As I stated before I do not know all the details of Judyth Vary's story and am not competent to evaluate it as to whether it is factual at any point, since that would require a long term detailed examination of the available evidence. What I do know is when something looks like a duck, walks like a duck, it is a duck. This whole controversy around Judyth Vary's story appears to me as the footprints of a very sophisticated psyop associated with an illegal domestic deep cover black op, with several interwoven side ops. I have explained how these ops are typically constructed to incorporate means to discredit important witnesses and aspects of the op later. Have you ever wondered why David Ferrie was selected by the company as an adolescent and later treated to lose all his hair, sort of pushed over the edge into absurdity (i.e. "dirtied up" to create his deviation amplification)? Things were likely done to him to make him angry, sexually confused and dysfunctional and easily discreditable. This smacks of mindkontrol. Can you say intel's "special little child" mind kontrol program?

Maybe many things were done to create false tracks and leads to later create a rich cover-up for this op. Whatever the overall goals were, it sure seems reasonable that there was a deep cover black op going on involving professional intel agents such as LHO, David Ferrie and others involved with intel such as Ochsner and Inca. In any of these deep cover domestic ops, considerable planning goes into creating false leads, side ops and ways to generate deniability, massive discrediting of actual players and any witnesses who later talk. Intel had become very specialized even during the late 1950's and 1960's and was easily capable of setting up and running an op that would later generate a massive web of confusion and discrediting of any witnesses or players involved. And look at the web of confusion that was constructed around Lee Harvey Oswald long before the JFK Assassination.

And Mary Sherman's strange death smacks of intel cover-up and so far Ed Haslam's suggested explanation of how it occurred seems the most reasonable and plausible. Is it a fair assumption to make that Judyth Vary was drawn into a very sophisticated deep cover cover op that was at least peripherally involved with the JFK Assassination? Yes this is a reasonable conclusion.

And to answer Greg Burnham's question about disassociation as a gift that allows survival [in a victim of psyops].

This is a very astute, very important question and shows sophisticated insight into how psyop victims respond to stress and also how mind kontrol victims also can respond to stress. Yes, Greg is correct with this assertion and this has always formed the basis of psyops and Mengelian/Nazi mind kontrol imported after WW2 and still used extensively to this very day by intel all over the world. And it may explain how much of the confusion has arisen in all the disputes and contoversy about the specifics of Judyth Vary's story. Some continuing psyops are designed to freeze dry a person while creating enough stress to force certain mental compartmentalizations, and this is especially so if a TI has been subjected to any prior sophisticated mind kontrol or psyops before. Another interesting thing related to this point is that it is not uncommon to find some rapid WCAs and LNutters cover-up op or assets to have themselves been mind kontrolled to varying degrees, as I have found in the past.

It is reasonable to believe that Judyth Vary was brought into a very sophisticated and serious deep cover covert op at least peripherally associated with the JFK Assassination due to her association with Ochsner and likley association with trained deep cover intel op LHO and intelligence asset Ferrie. Jim Fetzer knows for sure that I am well informed about this because he has seen documentation on this from me.

I think it is a fair assumption that Judyth Vary was brought into a sophisticated deep cover intel op and used for several functions which so far may not be altogether clear. It is even possible she could have been brought in to set up a false cover or to function as a discrediting agents to protect the op. Who would ever believe her anyway. Even if some, much or all of her story was true, it is just too incredible for most to accept any of it without very thorough and complete documentation. And of course there could have been certain disconnects built in with what she was led to believe and what is documentable for or against. The fact that there is so much disagreement about her story on the forum suggests that she was and still is the byproduct of a very sophisticated deep cover black op, and this result smacks of the success of those that constructed and carried out this op and maintained it's cover-up over the years. And maintaining a cover-up can involve a controlled leak, depending on the overall goals of the op.

One more thing. LHO was a trained intel op with a history of using sex in his work and being treated for an STD he obtained in the process. It isn't much of a jump to believe that he seduced Judyth Vary and had a fling with her. Ops specialize on eliciting confidence in their marks. But that being said, that in and of itself doesn't mean that LHO didn't fall in love with Judyth Vary and didn't start developing "role distance" with his professional intel role, or starting relizing he was set up. And consider this, LHO may have been a mind Kontrol victim himself, MK Ultra style. Many deep cover professional intel ops are. A substantial amount of research on what MKUltra ops were exists on the internet and in declassified documents and records from Congressional Hearings, especially the Sec. of Energy Leary Hearings. It is a well known fact that almost every deep cover black op done domestically since the mid 1950's has at least to some degree involved Mengelian MK Ultra Mind Kontrol in some of the players. The possibility of mind kontol in some of the players may be something in this whole Judyth Vary story issue that needs to be further investigated. This of course if true only makes her story even more important.

my psy ops expert

Jim

Who is this stupid lame Psy Ops expert you are posting for?

Why cant he create his own account with his own name and post his thoughts under it instead of you doing it for him?

Is he scared?

Why dont you post his name?

Until you post his name or until he posts his lame "Psy Ops" reports on members of this forum himself then how do you expect anyone to care about what he has to say?

Ask your friend to do a Psy Ops report on my lemming like research

Edited May 4, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Stephen Roy]

Not to suggest that I have somewhat more experience with research and scholarship than Mr. Roy,

but DR. MARY'S MONKEY is every thorough, every detailed, and very painstaking. I would be very

glad to compare Ed Haslam's work with that of Stephen Roy. Where are your books and articles?

[

By "references," I think Jack means citations of evidence to support the assertions in the book. Photos and maps cobbled from the Internet or other sources, which do not prove or disprove anything, are not citations of evidence. While helpful, a bibliography does not point a reader to specific citations of evidence. The index is not a citation of evidence.

The list above mentions about 314 end notes. In a 344 page book, that's less than one footnote per page. And there is a difference between footnotes which cite sources (SNs), and those which are parenthetical explanatory notes (ENs).

Chapters 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12 offer mostly source notes.

Of the 5 endnotes for chapter 2, 2 are Source Notes while 3 are Explanatory Notes.

Of the 7 endnotes for chapter 4, 1 is an SN while 6 are ENs.

Of the 13 endnotes for chapter 7, 6 are SNs while 7 are ENs.

There are no endnotes for chapter 10.

Of the 11 endnotes for chapter 11, 1 is an SN while 10 are ENs.

Of the 15 endnotes for chapter 13, 1 is an SN while 14 are ENs.

Of the 2 endnotes for chapter 14, 1 is an SN while 1 is an EN.

Of the 20 endnotes for the Appendix, 20 are ENs.

Of the 16 endnotes for the Epilogue, 16 are ENs.

So there are less source notes - actual references - than the list above suggests. There are a number of things in the book for which there are no cited sources. What matters is not quantity, but citations for the parts of the book most relevant to JFK researchers.

Clever repose for a scholar like you. Ignore my detailed point, and advance right to the "I'm smarter than everyone" card. Where does that tactic come up in Critical Thinking?

It's beneath me to do this, but I can play, too. I have somewhat more experience with research and scholarship on the topic of the New Orleans milieu and David Ferrie in particular. A scholar like you should be seeking information and opinion from someone with my chops. Have you ever deigned to ask any of the experts in the New Orleans milieu what they think of all this?

No, the book you so highly tout is not "every" thorough, not "every" detailed and not painstaking. It's a good read and a good story, but it is not good history or evidence.

You must not be reading my posts, for I posted this a few days ago. Before he published, Ed was a guy who wrote a book with Dave Ferrie as a central character; I am...a guy who wrote a book with Dave Ferrie as a central character. Ed worked on it for about 2 years and self-published it. I've worked on mine for more than 20 years. I've actually collected thousands of pages of primary documents and interviewed many primary witnesses. Do you want to continue with this?

If you really want to compare, you can compare the fiar questions I've asked here with the book. What is the evidence that Ferrie had an "underground laboratory?" What is the evidence that Ferrie worked with Mary Sherman?

[Barb Junkkarinen]

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.

Greg, What I said was that confirmation of LHO's writing in her book would establish that she knew him ... but it would not confirm any of her claims beyond that. And you have agreed.

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!

The "least important" of her claims?? Helloooo? That she knew Oswald is the **base** ... the springboard ... for all of her claims about her adventures in New Orleans that summer and beyond! According to Judyth, Oswald introduced her to Ferrie and Ochsner and Mary Sherman .... lets not forget "Sparky" and Marcello and Thornley and most any other alleged assassination player you care to name. Oswald worked with her in Ferrie's kitchen, she trained him to handle the "bioweapon" for transport. He took her to the mental hospital in Jackson to make sure the "patient" there who had been injected with their little cocktail would die.

She supposedly learned all about the assassination that was coming down from Oswald .... then throw in the love affair, plans to disappear together after the assassination, etc .... and you think her claim of LHO's handwriting in her book, which would establish that she even knew him, is the "least important"?

It is her other claims that are potentially important.

Her other claims regarding New Orleans and the assassination *all* rely on her having known Oswald. Thus far, there has been no verifiable evidence that she even knew him. Having this handwriting confirmed could do that for her.

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.

I didn't say it would prove very little. :-) It potentially can prove she at least knew him. Given she has no verifiable proof of that to date, yeah, I think that is important. And it is impossible to see why anyone who supports Judyth, who believes in her, wouldn't want to run right out and get this evidence verified.

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

That is not my point. I believe I have made my point clear several times now. She has made a claim. This claim is the bedrock of her claims about her life and involvement in New Orleans and the assassination. There is a way to get this claim confirmed or denied (though it is possible that an examiner would not be able to confirm or deny, the results could be inconclusive).

This is research. There is a claim. It is a claim that can be confirmed or denied by a professional. One wouldn't expect that concept to be like pulling teeth. :-)

Barb :-)

[Stephen Roy]

MY PSY OPS EXPERT REPLIES TO DEAN HAGERMAN AND GREG BURNHAM

Have you ever wondered why David Ferrie was selected by the company as an adolescent and later treated to lose all his hair, sort of pushed over the edge into absurdity (i.e. "dirtied up" to create his deviation amplification)? Things were likely done to him to make him angry, sexually confused and dysfunctional and easily discreditable. This smacks of mindkontrol. Can you say intel's "special little child" mind kontrol program?

Gotcha. This is complete and utter horsecrap. It NEVER HAPPENED.

Selected by WHAT company as an adolescent? Between 1918, when he was born, and 1938, when he turned 20? Which company existed during those years?

Treated to lose all his hair? So that Alopecia Areata he was diagnosed with by the Cleveland Clinic in the 1930s was ALL JUST A RUSE? And the reports of the people at the seminary who said his hair was falling out are ALL JUST A RUSE? And those early pictures of him with little bald spots are ALL JUST A RUSE?

Keep going. Tell us more about David Ferrie, from a "psyops perspective."

[Greg Burnham]

MY PSY OPS EXPERT REPLIES TO DEAN HAGERMAN AND GREG BURNHAM

Have you ever wondered why David Ferrie was selected by the company as an adolescent and later treated to lose all his hair, sort of pushed over the edge into absurdity (i.e. "dirtied up" to create his deviation amplification)? Things were likely done to him to make him angry, sexually confused and dysfunctional and easily discreditable. This smacks of mindkontrol. Can you say intel's "special little child" mind kontrol program?

Gotcha. This is complete and utter horsecrap. It NEVER HAPPENED.

Selected by WHAT company as an adolescent? Between 1918, when he was born, and 1938, when he turned 20? Which company existed during those years?

Treated to lose all his hair? So that Alopecia Areata he was diagnosed with by the Cleveland Clinic in the 1930s was ALL JUST A RUSE? And the reports of the people at the seminary who said his hair was falling out are ALL JUST A RUSE? And those early pictures of him with little bald spots are ALL JUST A RUSE?

Keep going. Tell us more about David Ferrie, from a "psyops perspective."

Stephen,

You're killing me! LOL -- "The Company" is a euphemism for the CIA.

[Barb Junkkarinen]

My biggest fear was that Cheney would die and Bush would become President.

Great post overall, Doug, but this is the best comment of the week! LOL ... love it. And ... me too.

Bests,

Barb :-)

[Barb Junkkarinen]

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.

The doors ... and windows ... have been wide open for 10 years now in multiple forums where Judyth has participated, on multiple websites and blogs of hers, in a book, etc ... but when it comes to objective verifiable documentation, not much has blown in. And therein lays a major problem for Judyth.

Perhaps you can work with Fetzer and Judyth in getting her Pocket Aristotle evaluated appropriately ... based on her claim that it contains LHO's handwriting, that little book can establish that she did know him ... so far, nothing else has established that.

Edited April 29, 2010 by Barb Junkkarinen

[Greg Burnham]

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.

Greg, What I said was that confirmation of LHO's writing in her book would establish that she knew him ... but it would not confirm any of her claims beyond that. And you have agreed.

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!

The "least important" of her claims?? Helloooo? That she knew Oswald is the **base** ... the springboard ... for all of her claims about her adventures in New Orleans that summer and beyond! According to Judyth, Oswald introduced her to Ferrie and Ochsner and Mary Sherman .... lets not forget "Sparky" and Marcello and Thornley and most any other alleged assassination player you care to name. Oswald worked with her in Ferrie's kitchen, she trained him to handle the "bioweapon" for transport. He took her to the mental hospital in Jackson to make sure the "patient" there who had been injected with their little cocktail would die.

She supposedly learned all about the assassination that was coming down from Oswald .... then throw in the love affair, plans to disappear together after the assassination, etc .... and you think her claim of LHO's handwriting in her book, which would establish that she even knew him, is the "least important"?

It is her other claims that are potentially important.

Her other claims regarding New Orleans and the assassination *all* rely on her having known Oswald. Thus far, there has been no verifiable evidence that she even knew him. Having this handwriting confirmed could do that for her.

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.

I didn't say it would prove very little. :-) It potentially can prove she at least knew him. Given she has no verifiable proof of that to date, yeah, I think that is important. And it is impossible to see why anyone who supports Judyth, who believes in her, wouldn't want to run right out and get this evidence verified.

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

That is not my point. I believe I have made my point clear several times now. She has made a claim. This claim is the bedrock of her claims about her life and involvement in New Orleans and the assassination. There is a way to get this claim confirmed or denied (though it is possible that an examiner would not be able to confirm or deny, the results could be inconclusive).

This is research. There is a claim. It is a claim that can be confirmed or denied by a professional. One wouldn't expect that concept to be like pulling teeth. :-)

Barb :-)

Barb,

It is the least important of her claims if it does NOT establish anything beyond itself! Them having known each other, in and of itself, means nothing. It is unbelievable to me that you are acting this "clever". Let's assume for the sake of conversation that the handwriting expert confirmed it was Oswald's writing. At this point you would concede what exactly? Anything? Perhaps you'd concede "the least important" claim? I can hear you now: "Based on this analysis, yes, they probably knew each other, but so what? That still doesn't prove anything else!" IMO: Since Jim doesn't need that confirmation in order to believe her, he isn't compelled to pursue it. And, since her detractors still wouldn't be convinced even with the confirmation, he's again not compelled to pursue it.

[Doug Weldon]

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.

Greg, What I said was that confirmation of LHO's writing in her book would establish that she knew him ... but it would not confirm any of her claims beyond that. And you have agreed.

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!

The "least important" of her claims?? Helloooo? That she knew Oswald is the **base** ... the springboard ... for all of her claims about her adventures in New Orleans that summer and beyond! According to Judyth, Oswald introduced her to Ferrie and Ochsner and Mary Sherman .... lets not forget "Sparky" and Marcello and Thornley and most any other alleged assassination player you care to name. Oswald worked with her in Ferrie's kitchen, she trained him to handle the "bioweapon" for transport. He took her to the mental hospital in Jackson to make sure the "patient" there who had been injected with their little cocktail would die.

She supposedly learned all about the assassination that was coming down from Oswald .... then throw in the love affair, plans to disappear together after the assassination, etc .... and you think her claim of LHO's handwriting in her book, which would establish that she even knew him, is the "least important"?

It is her other claims that are potentially important.

Her other claims regarding New Orleans and the assassination *all* rely on her having known Oswald. Thus far, there has been no verifiable evidence that she even knew him. Having this handwriting confirmed could do that for her.

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.

I didn't say it would prove very little. :-) It potentially can prove she at least knew him. Given she has no verifiable proof of that to date, yeah, I think that is important. And it is impossible to see why anyone who supports Judyth, who believes in her, wouldn't want to run right out and get this evidence verified.

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

That is not my point. I believe I have made my point clear several times now. She has made a claim. This claim is the bedrock of her claims about her life and involvement in New Orleans and the assassination. There is a way to get this claim confirmed or denied (though it is possible that an examiner would not be able to confirm or deny, the results could be inconclusive).

This is research. There is a claim. It is a claim that can be confirmed or denied by a professional. One wouldn't expect that concept to be like pulling teeth. :-)

Barb :-)

Barb,

It is the least important of her claims if it does NOT establish anything beyond itself! Them having known each other, in and of itself, means nothing. It is unbelievable to me that you are acting this "clever". Let's assume for the sake of conversation that the handwriting expert confirmed it was Oswald's writing. At this point you would concede what exactly? Anything? Perhaps you'd concede "the least important" claim? I can hear you now: "Based on this analysis, yes, they probably knew each other, but so what? That still doesn't prove anything else!" IMO: Since Jim doesn't need that confirmation in order to believe her, he isn't compelled to pursue it. And, since her detractors still wouldn't be convinced even with the confirmation, he's again not compelled to pursue it.

Monk:

Jim may not need that confirmation to believe anything about her but others do to have some substantial evidence she knew Oswald. It is not dispositive of all her claims but it is important. Judyth is the one who proffers that it is Oswald's writing. Why not get it examined? She has had the ability to do this for years. What's the big deal? Her failure to do so only raises suspicion.

Doug Weldon

[Greg Burnham]

Monk:

Jim may not need that confirmation to believe anything about her but others do to have some substantial evidence she knew Oswald. It is not dispositive of all her claims but it is important. Judyth is the one who proffers that it is Oswald's writing. Why not get it examined? She has had the ability to do this for years. What's the big deal? Her failure to do so only raises suspicion.

Doug Weldon

Doug,

I'm not against getting it examined at all. But, let's be clear:

Her "failure" to get it examined does not disprove any of her claims any more than confirmation of the writing would prove any of her claims beyond their having known each other.

However, if the writing is shown to be inconsistent, that would seriously damage Judyth's credibility. I asked Barb if that was her aim--which is her prerogative, but she denied it. Given the above, could it possibly be anything else?