Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[Glenn Viklund]

Doug W.

Your argumentation in this thread is very reasonable indeed. The only one who fail to recognize this is Mr Fetzer.

"Judyth has certain things correct but they are things that can be researched or things that can be fabricated."

This, really, is the core of most of the discussions. Fetzer is not aware of previous statements JVB has done, so when the story is changed he has no capability to detect this. Instead it's "old drivel" etc. Fetzer does not understand how much this story has grown, how much it has changed or how JVB has argued around the issues over the past decade. He expects everyone else - like himself - to take Judyth on her *present* word. It is, just as you've stated previously, no longer possible to distinguish that which was "her story", from that which is derived from this mammuth research effort that she's conducting.

Fetzer does not see the difference between a witness and a researcher. In this case it makes all the difference. It's not JVBs research results that are in question, it's her "witness" statements that are.

Edited May 2, 2010 by Glenn Viklund

[Glenn Viklund]

Hello Glen Viklund:

Everyone who pursues this case seeks some kind of closure. The sad aspect of Jim Fetzer’s quest—and he has been involved in pursuing the matter of the JFK assassination for many years—is that after all these years of work, “closure” for him, it would appear, comes down to believing the fictional tale(s) of a sad deluded woman.

Rest assured that nothing is ever going to change his mind. No argument about inherent implausibility, nor any argument based on data, is going to matter. He has bought into this 100% and so he’s going to go down with the ship—which more and more is “his” ship—all the while genuinely believing he is leading the way towards enlightenment.

Moreover, matters have now progressed to the point where he genuinely believes those who oppose him are a “cult,” and he is leading the way to “the truth.”

As an auto bumper sticker I recently saw says, “GOD protect me from your followers!”

DSL

5/2/10; 2:30 AM PDT

Los Angeles, CA

David,

Unfortunately, I have to agree. Your forecast is probably spot on.

GV

[Glenn Viklund]

Fetzer:

"There's nothing hysterical about my postings."

Fetzer, a couple of hours earlier:

"Typical example of your methodology: quote the part you think will smear

me without explaining the context! Every one of those comments was well-

justified by the posts to which I was responding. Why don't you show us you

are not a completely disgraceful con-artist by going through and adding the

background context against which they must be understood? Of course, you

won't do that, because it would expose you as a fraud and a charlatan! As I

previously remarked, each of your posts demonstrates the depth of your own

corruption. This is about as nice an example as I can image! Some of these

"quotes", by the way, were not even from me. If anyone wants to study the

incompetence of Glenn Viklund, this is a great place to start. Give us more!"

:lol:

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Jack,

Thanks for the clarification. I misunderstood you. I thought that you

meant, having heard it all before, you were not reading posts that you

supposed were covering issues you had heard before! I apology for my

misinterpretation. What you meant was that you are not reading the

QUOTATIONS OF PREVIOUS POSTS that you have already read. Sure!

Let me ask if you have listened to my two-hour interview with her on

"The Real Deal" or watched the seven YouTubes I have just put up? I

think there is quite a lot of information there that you have not heard

before, from the first (about how she came to New Orleans) to the last

(her contacts with Hemming). Have you read DR. MARY'S MONKEY yet?

I am sorry for the misunderstanding and certainly withdraw my claim.

You and everyone else on this thread have the right to your own opinion

about this and other matters. THAT WAS NEVER MY POINT. My remarks

had to do with the meaning of "rationality" and the consideration that,

unless you consider evidence on both sides, you are not being rational.

If you are able to follow up on these interviews, I will be interested to

know what you find. In my opinion, there is no chance in the world she

is fabricating, fantasizing, or making these things up. She knows Lee,

she knows New Orleans, she knows Ochsner, Ferrie, Sherman, and all

kinds of other things only someone who had lived through it would know.

Thanks for the clarification.

Jim

Jim...the line red bold faced is BLATANTLY UNTRUE! In fact I have

said over and over I have read every posting in this interminable

thread. What I have said is that I do not read each and every repetition

of every message. The same message is repeated dozens of times,

and I skip through ALL THE REPETITIONS. You are being unfair

to me by continuing to repeat this.

You knew before you started this stout defense of JVB that I HAD

ALREADY JUDGED JVB A PHONY WHEN SHE FIRST CAME ON THE

SCENE NEARLY 10 YEARS AGO. Everything you have posted has

previously been posted on the Rich DellaRosa forum. Rich gave her

every chance and finally declared her a fraud, as did many of us.

Back then it was Shackelford who was her "lawyer". Now it is you.

So to indicate that "I don't give you the time of day" is an attempt

to deceive, since you already knew my position, and you had nothing

NEW to offer. It is you who did not give my well studied previous

position the time of day! You assume you are correct because the

information is new to you...but it is very old to many of us.

Yes...many of us HAVE PRE-JUDGED it because it is the SAME OLD

INFORMATION.

I guess what you mean is that some of us who have heard all this

before should lend you tacit support BY KEEPING QUIET because we

are friends. Now what kind of person would let untruths stand if he

believes the contrary. That is exactly what you think you are doing,

because you find JVB "the real deal". That is your right, and I defend

your right to hold that belief. You are less charitable, expressing in

extreme terms that David, Doug, I and others HAVE NO RIGHT TO

OPPOSE YOU.

Sincerely,

Jack

name='James H. Fetzer' date='May 1 2010, 11:34 PM' post='191490']

Let me be frank. I have become disillusioned with Jack, with Lifton, and

with you. As many times as I have come to each of your defense, I would

have thought that, if I were convinced that Judyth is "the real deal", you

three would have given her the time of day BECAUSE I BELIEVE IN HER.

This has nothing to do with whether you ultimately came down on her side

or not. But Jack has adamantly refused to even read her posts, claiming

that he won't read repetitive or repetitious posts. BUT HOW COULD HE

KNOW IF HE ISN"T READING THEM? He wants to defend HARVEY & LEE.

Lifton has trashed Judyth for a very long time based upon his one-hour+

phone conversation. Because I have doubts about the arguments he has

made based upon it, I ask for copy that I might "review the evidence" for

myself. But he has a book on Oswald that is in jeopardy, if she is right.

When you came up with this utter rubbish about a murder charge, I was

in disbelief. You have told Judyth (literally) that she should shut up or

face arrest! That is completely outrageous. She deserves to be admired

for speaking out. In my opinion, you are acting to intimidate a witness.

I must have bruised your ego and you have been offended. There's nothing

"hysterical" about my posts. I am simply fed up with the extent to which

the three of you have engaged in abusive conduct, initially toward her, now

toward me. I no longer expect a fair shake from any of the three of you.

Jim

[Dean Hagerman]

There's nothing "hysterical" about my posts.

In my opinion, there is no chance in the world she is fabricating, fantasizing, or making these things up.

Jim

I will take the time this morning to watch all of the Youtube videos that you posted

Can you read that last line I quoted and ask yourself if you are being fair to the "Cult" (Myself, David, Jack , Doug, Barb, Glen etc By the way who is the Jim Jones/Marshal Applewhite of this Anti Judyth Cult? )from this lat statement you dont seem to have any room for other opinions ?

[Pamela Brown]

DL said:Everyone who pursues this case seeks some kind of closure. The sad aspect of Jim Fetzer’s quest—and he has been involved in pursuing the matter of the JFK assassination for many years—is that after all these years of work, “closure” for him, it would appear, comes down to believing the fictional tale(s) of a sad deluded woman.

This is one of the mantras of the 'closed' camp. Lifton seems to think that by repeating it, it will become more persuasive. Unfortunately, the statement reflects more on his state of mind than it does on Judyth. Lifton is unable even to release a copy of his illegal tape to Jim Fetzer, and unable to quit posting on a thread he vowed to leave weeks ago. That is sad.

Edited May 2, 2010 by Pamela McElwain-Brown

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Dean,

I have had hundreds of email exchanges with Judyth and have now interviewed her for nine YouTubes and a two-hour "The Real Deal"

program. I have dealt with a vast number of people during my lifetime and devoted my career to logic, critical thinking, and scientific

reasoning. I am probably the most accomplished professional scholar on this thread if not the entire forum. I have published more

than 150 articles and my 29th book, THE PLACE OF PROBABILITY IN SCIENCE, will appear shortly, possibly even this month. Based

upon my interactions with her, she is completely sincere, knowledgeable about science, and dedicated to truth, not just about her

experiences in New Orleans about about a wide range of other subjects. She has an IQ of around 160 and is superb at research.

Her knowledge of these events is too specific and too detailed and cannot possibly be the result of fantasizing or fictionalizing. Of

this, I have absolutely no doubt. Conveying that to others, such as her skeptics on this forum, however, is another matter entirely.

My knowledge and experience with her, alas!, cannot be transferred to anyone else. Moreover, my confidence in logic and evidence

to persuade others who are predisposed to not believe her has taken a serious hit during the course of this thread. Today, moreover,

I was sent an article that analyzes a phenomenon that, I believe, illuminates and clarifies what has been going on here, where all the

studies support the same finding: if a dodgy fact fits with your prejudices, a correction only reinforces these. If your goal is to move

opinion, this depressing finding suggests that smears work and, what's more, corrections don't challenge them much: because for

people who already agree with you, it only make them agree even more. I have talked about prior probs and posterior probs, but

not about the human tendency, apparently widespread, to disregard evidence contrary to your probs and selectively reinforce them

My failure, I believe, is not of logic or of evidence, but my inability to appreciate the nature of human psychology in a case like this.

Henceforth, therefore, I intended to emulate Jack's practice of presenting the results of his research without engaging in debate or

defense. I have some important evidence yet to present, but I am going to abandon any pretense of trying to convince anyone of

anything when it comes to Judyth, because logic and evidence cannot overcome the reinforcing power of attempted corrections. It

pains me to conclude that my professional career has been devoted to attempting to correct or compensate for a widespread and

powerful entrenched psychological tendency (which has the character of a predisposition for "special pleading", which is selecting

the evidence that supports a predetermined conclusion and ignoring the rest) but, based upon my experience with this thread, the

studies cited in this article from The Guardian explain what has been going on and I have simply been unable to see it. My appeals

to logic and evidence are largely in vain. So I have, after all, been dealing with human psychology rather than with rational minds.

Jim

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/20...election-smears

How putting the facts straight entrenches deeply-held prejudices

Ben Goldacre

The Guardian

1 May 2010

Elections are a time for smearing, and the Daily Mail's desperate story about Nick Clegg and the Nazis is my favourite so far. Generally the truth comes out, in time. But how much damage can smears do?

Daily Mail splash on Nick Clegg days after he was favourably compared to Winston Churchill The Daily Mail story on Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg days after he was favourably compared to Winston Churchill.

An experiment published this month in the journal Political Behaviour sets out to examine the impact of corrections, and what they found was more disturbing than expected: far from changing people's minds, if you are deeply entrenched in your views, a correction will only reinforce them.

The first experiment used articles claiming that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction immediately before the US invasion. The 130 participants were asked to read a mock news article, attributed to Associated Press, reporting on a Bush campaign stop in Pennsylvania during October 2004.

The article described Bush's appearance as "a rousing, no-retreat defence of the Iraq war" and quoted a line from a genuine Bush speech from that year, suggesting that Saddam Hussein really had WMD, which he could have passed to terrorists. "There was a risk, a real risk, that Saddam Hussein would pass weapons or materials or information to terrorist networks, and in the world after September 11," said Bush, "that was a risk we could not afford to take."

The 130 participants were then randomly assigned to one of two conditions. For half, the article stopped there. For the other half, the article included a correction: it discussed the release of the Duelfer report, which documented the lack of Iraqi WMD stockpiles or an active production programme immediately prior to before the US invasion.

After reading the article, subjects were asked to state whether they agreed with the statement: "Immediately before the US invasion, Iraq had an active weapons of mass destruction programme, the ability to produce these weapons, and large stockpiles of WMD, but Saddam Hussein was able to hide or destroy these weapons right before US forces arrived." Their responses were measured on a five-point scale ranging from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree".

As you would expect, those who self-identified as conservatives were more likely to agree with the statement. More knowledgeable participants (independently of political persuasion) were less likely to agree. Then the researchers looked at the effect of whether you were also given the correct information at the end of the article, and this was where things got interesting. They had expected the correction would become less effective in more conservative participants, and this was true, up to a point: so for very liberal participants, the correction worked as expected, making them more likely to disagree with the statement that Iraq had WMD when compared with those who were very liberal but received no correction.

For those who described themselves as left of centre, or centrist, the correction had no effect either way. But for people who placed themselves ideologically to the right of centre, the correction wasn't just ineffective, it backfired: conservatives who received a correction telling them that Iraq did not have WMD were more likely to believe that Iraq had WMD than people given no correction. Where you might have expected people to dismiss a correction that was incongruous with their pre-existing view, or regard it as having no credibility, it seems that such information actively reinforced their false beliefs.

Maybe the cognitive effort of mounting a defence against incongruous new facts entrenches you further. Maybe you feel marginalised and motivated to dig in your heels. Who knows? But these experiments were then repeated, in various permutations, on the issue of tax cuts (or rather, the idea that tax cuts had increased national productivity so much that tax revenue increased overall) and stem cell research.

All the studies found the same thing: if a dodgy fact fits with your prejudices, a correction only reinforces these. If your goal is to move opinion, this depressing finding suggests that smears work and, what's more, corrections don't challenge them much: because for people who already agree with you, it only make them agree even more.

There's nothing "hysterical" about my posts.

In my opinion, there is no chance in the world she is fabricating, fantasizing, or making these things up.

Jim

I will take the time this morning to watch all of the Youtube videos that you posted

Can you read that last line I quoted and ask yourself if you are being fair to the "Cult" (Myself, David, Jack , Doug, Barb, Glen etc By the way who is the Jim Jones/Marshal Applewhite of this Anti Judyth Cult? )from this lat statement you dont seem to have any room for other opinions ?

Edited May 4, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Doug,

While we will be responding to several of the issues that you raise, I have

one for you. What have you done to pursue the prosecution of one James

Files, who has provided a detailed confession of his role as an assassin of

JFK? I might be more impressed with the zeal of your pursuit of Judyth,

if I thought there is any chance this is not a case of selective prosecution.

Since Files' confession has been around for some time and you are no

doubt aware of it, has your determination to track down evil-doers been

displayed in this case? Because it seems to me to have none of the kinds

of ambiguity that surround Judyth's case, where I am convinced that you

are attempting to intimidate a witness and violating canons of legal ethics.

Jim

Viklund, I should have added you as a cheerleader for the anti-Judyth cult.

In case you haven't noticed, I have posted rebuttals to virtually every one

of the vast number of criticisms that have been lodged against her. Why in

the world would you think that I would believe in Judyth without doing my

own homework? I have explained many times why your claims about her

stay in Sweden are baseless on their face. Jack has made many worthless

criticisms and does not even bother to read the most important work about

Judyth. Lifton won't share his precious cassette, no doubt because it would

reveal aspects of their conversation that he wants to conceal. Weldon has

gone off the deep end with this absurdity about bringing murder charges

against her. None of you has ever conceded that she had anything right!

This kind closed-mindedness in the face of contrary evidence is distinctive

of a cult. I plan to tackle some issues that remain, but I have no reason to

think anti-Judyth zealots like the four of you will ever change your minds.

Fetzer:

"There is nothing here that impugns the integrity of Judyth."

You've by now gotten arguments from 15-20 of the most experienced JFK researchers, and from several others too. I cannot recollect that the two of you have accepted one single argument to this day from the other side as of yet. You are lecturing others about how to deal with arguments, and still you are far from acting this way yourself.

What I remember from the mod group back in 2008 is that you are doing exactly what Shackelford did then. He's not around anymore - I wonder for how long you'll be around with this nonsense?

Jim:

A hysterical response does not change reality. The simple facts are Judyth, if she is truthful, participated in creating a substance to kill Castro. Judyth became awre that the substance was going to be used on person(s) who lacked the capacity to know what was going to happen to them. She objected, knew that tests were being done, but did nothing. She visited one of the subjects who was dying in agony and again did nothing. Tell me why this is not muurder. There are a number of attorneys on this forum. Dean Hartwell has stated that he is a law school graduate and he is a supporter of you and Judyth. I am open to analysis but you, with no experience in the law, are not in a position to simply ignore or dismiss such. Let the attorneys come forward and tell me where my analysis is faulty. I was very careful in charging people with crimes because I knew that decision I would make would forever change the life of the person I accused no matter what the final outcome would be. I took the responsibility very seriously. This case would need a corpus, an identifiable victim(s), but if that could be established it would be a very powerful case for murder. Whether that legal obstacle could be overcome the fact is, again if Judyth is telling the truth and its a big if unless more bona fide evidence for her veracity can be presented, this is a woman who would be morally guilty of murder.

I have watched to the you-tube videos. Judyth has certain things correct but they are things that can be researched or things that can be fabricated. Apparently there is even a research team that is assissting the preparation of her book. When I watch the you-tube videos I see someone being tossed softballs and the interviewer clapping for her without pursuing the inconsistencies that are known to exist in her changing of stories. Judyth elaborated on the fine hotel in Kankun in this thread but her stories go all over the place. I have been to Chichen Itza and throughout Mexico. Chichen Itza was very remote in 1963 and in many ways it still is in that it is still a long drive from Cancun today. I am open to the hard facts that would enhance her credibility. They are very simple but you continue to ignore them.

1. Have a professional analysis of the supposed writing of Oswald.

2. Have Judyth produce the tape she says she has that she claims gives a totally different account of her encounter with Mary Ferrell.

3. Tell how they were going to get these quickie divorces and find crooked priests in Mexico when she was not even sure they were going.

4. Where did Oswald learn Russian and why did Marina say he could not read it very well? What evidence is there that he read Pushkin. Listening to an opera does not qualify. Where are the books? How did Oswald get books from New York to Marina when he was never in New York in 1963?

5. Where is the evidence of the science fiction book Judyth and Oswald were writing together? What evidence is there that Oswald was interested in science fiction?

There are many more questions but this would be a good place to start. These are very fair. Do you realize what a competent attorney could do in shredding Judyth right now. Bugliousi, despite his despicable book, would salivate at the chance to cross examine Judyth. How many people on this forum do you believe are convinced by Judyth so far? My guess would be less than 10 and all the rhetoric is not going to change that until she and you begin to address the hard evidence as noted above. If I am wrong submit a list of people on this forum whom you believe support your position with the evidence presented to date. Monk is very analytical but I have to believe that even he has questions before he would totally commit to his support for her veracity. I am willing to weigh the evidence but until such issues can be addressed this is nothing more than historical fiction. Name calling is not going to change these fundamental issues. Judyth would be far better served by simply addressing them.

Doug Weldon

Edited May 2, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Dean Hagerman]

She has an IQ of around 260

Jim

Out of all of the statements you have made about Judyth this is the most absurd by far

260!

Say this out loud Jim.... Judyth has an IQ of 260!

Holy cow Jim

I dont care what you say Jim there is no way in hell that Judyth has an IQ of even over 200

Let me list some IQs for you Jim

Sigmund Freud IQ 156

Stephen Hawking IQ 160

Garry Kasparov IQ 190

Bobby Fischer IQ 187

Bill Gates IQ 160

FDR IQ 147

Hermann Goering IQ 138

Paul Allen IQ 160

And lets finish with what is in my opinion the highest possible IQ

Marilyn Vos Savant IQ 228

No way Judyth has an IQ of of anywhere close to 260, that is the most absurd thing I have ever read in my life

How can you even type something like that Jim, you know that an IQ that high is impossible!

Edited May 2, 2010 by Dean Hagerman

[Dean Hagerman]

On another note I am half way done watching the Judyth Youtube vids that you posted Jim

I will report back when I am finished

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

It's called a "typo", Dean. I fixed it. Thanks for catching it. Let me know what you find.

She has an IQ of around 260

Jim

Out of all of the statements you have made about Judyth this is the most absurd by far

260!

Say this out loud Jim.... Judyth has an IQ of 260!

Holy cow Jim

I dont care what you say Jim there is no way in hell that Judyth has an IQ of even over 200

Let me list some IQs for you Jim

Sigmund Freud IQ 156

Stephen Hawking IQ 160

Garry Kasparov IQ 190

Bobby Fischer IQ 187

Bill Gates IQ 160

FDR IQ 147

Hermann Goering IQ 138

Paul Allen IQ 160

And lets finish with what is in my opinion the highest possible IQ

Marilyn Vos Savant IQ 228

No way Judyth has an IQ of of anywhere close to 260, that is the most absurd thing I have ever read in my life

How can you even type something like that Jim, you know that an IQ that high is impossible!

Edited May 2, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Dean Hagerman]

It's called a "typo", Dean. I fixed it. Thanks for catching it. Let me know what you find.

Good call

Im almost done with the videos

[Dean Hagerman]

Jim

I have just finished every video you posted with Judyth

I promise you I watched them with an open mind

I feel the exact same about Judyth after watching them Jim

She is not telling the truth

Just listen to her fantastic stories about meeting Hemming and him just telling Judyth about all of his activities like its no big deal

Just listen to her talk about David Ferrie and the fact that she was at his house for Parties and all this research, I mean come on there is no way in hell any of it is true

Jim I did what you asked, the videos have no evidence that Judyth and LHO were lovers

All they are is Judyth telling fairy tales

Edited May 2, 2010 by Dean Hagerman

[Jack White]

There are multiple ways of verifying some of the Judyth tales:

1. File a FOIA request with the CIA and FBI regarding their files on Judyth Vary/Judyth Vary Baker

in 1963 in relation to New Orleans, Lee Harvey Oswald, David Ferrie, Guy Banister, Alton Oschner,

Carlos Marcello, Clay Shaw, Fidel Castro, Reily Coffee, Jackson Hospital, medical research, monkey

virus, etc. It is known that the FBI had extensive files on many of these subjects and had many

of them UNDER CONSTANT SURVEILLANCE, noting all of their contacts. Any mention of Vary/Baker

in relation to any of these subjects would be substantiation perhaps that some portions of her

story is true. However, the ABSENCE of ANY mention of Vary/Baker might be equally revealing.

The CIA was running some of these operations, so their records would be revealing, even if

heavily redacted.

2. Locate Robert Baker, her former husband, and pose many reasonable questions regarding the

period of 1963 and any knowledge he has regarding the activities of his wife. One researcher

pointed out to me that there is a conflict even in the circumstances of the Baker marriage. This

source says that the quickie elopement did not happen as JVB describes. This source says that

she and Baker were married in Florida in a traditional wedding, and this can be proved by

marriage license and other records. If this is true (I have no way of knowing), then why would

JVB say that Baker showed up in New Orleans and demanded an immediate marriage, so they

eloped? If she is wrong about how and when she was married, this would cast a large cloud over

anything else she says.

3. Check college records. My source says that Judyth and Robert were classmates at the

University of Florida (Gainesville?) BEFORE she went to New Orleans. If she was a student

there before going to New Orleans, why does her story omit this detail?

There are other obvious civil records which can be consulted. Why not cease the arguing and

do some primary research?

Jack

[Jack White]

I continue to be intrigued by the use of the term THOUSANDS OF POUNDS OF MONKEYS which

were allegedly used by the Mary/Ferrie/Vary medical team.

In the early days of the Judyth Saga, we were told of the experiments in Ferrie's apartment

using MICE. Correct me if I am wrong, but I do not remember ANY mention of MONKEYS.

All the attention was on mice, and Judyth's expertise with growing mice cancers.

Then, in 1995, Haslam authored "Mary, Ferrie and the Monkey Virus"...a book searching

for the origin of the AIDS virus.

Thereafter, Judyth's stories included monkeys in the research. But therein lies a problem.

A number of mice in a small apartment is not much of a problem. But monkeys ARE MUCH

LARGER THAN MICE. Monkeys are social and intelligent, and to be useful for research must

be kept in natural circumstances to stay healthy. They require LARGE CAGES and much

more care than mice. A large number of large cages would be out of the question in Ferrie's

small crowded apartment. Using "thousands of pounds of monkeys" could not happen there.

So JVB came up with using marmosets, a very small South American monkey that weighs

about a third of a pound (3 marmosets = 1 pound; 3000 marmosets = 1000 pounds).

So if adult marmosets were used, the group "processed" more than 3000 marmosets.

The logistics of this are staggering, as well as the time required. But wait...Judyth then

said that adult marmosets were not used, but thumb-sized baby marmosets. But literature

on marmosets says they live in highly socialized family groups, and develop psychological

problems when separated from the group. The literature emphasizes that if separated

from its parents, a baby quickly becomes sick and dies. So to use baby marmosets, it

is necessary to have the baby's parents present. So Judyth's story changes to the project

using all kinds of monkeys...thus back to the larger cages...and the logistics required:

large cages, care and attention to feeding and maintaining the health of the monkeys,

the comings and goings of crates of monkeys to the small apartment, the noise of monkey

chatter, the smell, disposal of monkey wastes, and disposal of dead monkeys. Keeping

several dozen monkeys in an apartment as described would amount to running a small

zoo. A zookeeper would be required to maintain the large number of monkeys.

Logistical constraints and TIME REQUIRED for cancers to develop, grow, and be

analyzed seem to rule out the team using monkeys. JVB should have stayed with her

original story of mice, which was more possible logistically.

I am still researching the TIME REQUIRED to grow cancers in MICE and MONKEYS.

All of the team's research is crowded into a two month period in the summer of 1963.

A time study of the time required for meaningful research may prove JVB's undoing.

Jack