Jump to content
The Education Forum

Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile


Guest James H. Fetzer

Recommended Posts

Monk:

Fair enough. Unfortunately, prejudices are part of the human experience. We are all "victims" of our experiences. No argument. I would like to move on.

Best,

Doug Weldon

Doug, correct me if I'm wrong but hasn't Jim Fetzer indicated his desire

to not continue on this thread?

I don't see what is accomplished by beating up on Jim and Judyth any further.

Wouldn't it be better to allow the man to withdraw as gracefully as possible?

I think it a service to all to let this thread be hijacked.

Cliff:

I was not aware of that. Jim posted three times yesterday and did not mention anything. The last thing I knew was that Jim stated that Judyth was going to answer the questions I and others raised.

Best,

Doug Weldon

On the Deep Politics Forum 05/04/10 at 8:52 pm Jim Fetzer wrote the

following:

This is the third or fourth time I have tried to end the thread. I learned quite a lot about the character of JFK research as it is practiced on The Education Forum. I feel badly that I did not do a better job of keeping current here. I have appreciated your comments, some of which were rather important. This is a far more hospitable forum, but I need to sort out the attacks on Judyth, which were fast and furious there. It was the following discovery, however, that broke my interest in pursuing this any further. Reason appears to have has no effect on those who are committed! I found this simply dumbfounding.

Sounds to me like a guy who's had enough.

This entire exercise played out years ago on alt.ass.mcadams with Dave Reitzes

as the relentless prosecutor and Martin Shackelford as the hapless JVB defender.

Ugly.

I saw this coming on the Ed Forum, btw. Check out post #4 on this thread.

Prescient, no?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

"This is the third or fourth time I tried to end the thread..." Prof. Fetzer

Wait, wait, not yet, there's still a question on the table. Kathleen wants to know if Oswald practiced safe sex.

And 400 more hits to reach six figures. Let's go for it.

Does the administration's statistics show of a more popular thread?

BK

Edited by William Kelly
Link to post
Share on other sites
"This is the third or fourth time I tried to end the thread..." Prof. Fetzer

Wait, wait, not yet, there's still a question on the table. Kathleen wants to know if Oswald practiced safe sex.

And 400 more hits to reach six figures. Let's go for it.

Does the administration's statistics show of a more popular thread?

BK

Someone correct me if I'm wrong -- but isn't the record holder a thread

devoted to Larry Hancock's Someone Would Have Talked?

You know...real research...

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Jim:

I listened to the entire podcast of Judyth. Overall, she presented herself very well and with more personality than I have seen in prior interviews. The bottom line will continue to be if her assertions check out. The only question I heard addressed that I raised was the first one about the handwriting. It appeared that she is not going to have it examined but then offered a handwriting analysis herself. Again, she cannot be the analyst for her own evidence. No expert is going to reach a conclusion in a few minutes as she suggested. Some of the responses were unusual such as about the motorcade going past John Connolly's apartment on Turtle Creek Road. I thought he lived in the governor's mansion. Was she suggesting someone was filming the motorcade for him from the apartment? She also offerred that people on the forum did not know how to deal with witnesses, only documents. I assure you I have dealt with more witnesses than you can possibly imagine and I am certain that others here have experiences. Corroboration is very important. I am waiting to see how things turn out with things she has claimed to have done. Legitimate questions are being pursued. I am puzzled why you are proclaiming she is authentic while these questions are still in the air. I am keeping an open mind and seeing if her assertions are true. She will always create a doubt unless she has the handwriting properly analyzed. I was also puzzled about the monkeys. She kept saying thousands of pounds of monkeys , not thousands of monkeys, but then talked about 65 pound monkeys. She later talked about the marmousett(sic) monkeys but thousands of pounds of these would be thousands of monkeys. It may be my misunderstanding but it was not clear to me. I have yet to listen to her witnesses but will do so. It matters not to me if they are prominent or homeless or whatever but everyone judging this will weigh their demeanor, etc. I don't know if someone is confronting them with question. I wish I could question them.

I recall that Lifton wrote that he would post the tape with Judyth as an mp3 for all to hear if Judyth would sign a release. Wouldn't that be the most fair method since it is not you that needs to be convinced but rather than all the people who are interested in her story? They are the ultimate jury. Nobody is going to judge this because of what you, I,David, Barb, Jack, etc.ay. They will judge for themselves. There is one major point on which I disagree with you. I think people on this forum have been very fair to her. They have made observations and asked good questions. Rather than attack them for not being observant as you I think you need to understand that these are people truly interested in the assassination. Are people not interested going to even pay attention to this? Between your 152 I.Q. and my 75 I.Q. I am certain the vast majority of the people following this will fall somewhere in between and it is not you or I, but it is the court of public opinion that will need to be persuaded.

Doug Weldon

Link to post
Share on other sites

At that time, Jack, many states required a blood test as well ... and Judyth mentions they needed to get a blood test in her book. The test was a VDRL which is a test for syphilis ... the test had to be ordered as a "pre-marital" so that a signed certificate would be issued with the (hopefully!) negative results. Couples then took their health certificates to the courthouse to get their marriage license. No official signed health certificates, no marriage license.

Bests,

Barb :-)

I forgot about blood tests. As I recall, they take several days to do the lab work. The quickie marriage

elopement overnight to Mobile could have taken a week, including the lab work and waiting period,

the ceremony, and the honeymoon. What is Judyth's timeline on the elopement?

And she never did respond to my friend's claim that she and Baker were married in Florida, not Alabama.

Were announcements of the marriage printed in any newspaper? If they were in New Orleans, as she

says, why did they go to Mobile to tie the knot? Why not just get married in romantic New Orleans?

Jack

Jack,

VDRLs were mostly done at hospital labs and reference labs .... labs at clinics generally didn't do them unless their patient population required that test often. Too spendy to keep the reagents on hand otherwise. The clinic/lab where I worked in San Diego, we sent them out to our reference lab ... and generally had them back the next day, or the day after tops. But it was not a same day test. That's not to say that one couldn't wheedle and whine their way into getting a lab to do a quicker turnaround for them if they had their blood drawn early enough in the day, but that wasn't something someone planning to get married could expect/plan on.

Judyth's timeline in her book is that Robert was to arrive on the morning of May 1 and they would go straight to the courthouse to buy their license and get married. He arrived, they went to the courthouse ... and learned there was a 2 day waiting period in Louisiana. Neither of them had checked the details ahead of time. So, then they went to the library and looked up nearby states and discovered there was no waiting period in Alabama .... so the next morning they drove to Mobile.

She says they went and bought their marriage license and were then sent to the hospital for their blood tests .... and as soon as their blood was drawn, they were given the certificates they needed to go around the corner and get married. In a footnote she relates that for years she had "believed" they got the results right on the spot, but then realizing that would have been "clinically impossible" and that "what happened" was that they were sent the results by mail, or as related in the text, she writes in parentheses that "the test results, if positive, would have been sent to us."

Procedurally, this makes no sense .... as the purpose for the law was to prevent people with syphilis from marrying and spreading the joy. I don't know how they operated in Alabama in 1963 .... will have to find out. Nor does it make sense to me that after a celebratory dinner, they went back to the hospital pharmacy to pick up her birth control pills. Ya know what they call people who start taking their birth control pills on their wedding night? Mommy & Daddy. And what doctor ordered them?

And, yes, I noticed, she hasn't answered your question.

Barb :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
[...snip]

Mr Weldon, do you really believe that my reaction to someone's prejudice, stereotyping and discrimination against a group of people who have only one defining characteristic is "exaggerated"? It is this type of "lazy discrimination" that results in most of the problems we see in our world today, and unfortunately the problems seen many, many times before to varying degrees of hostility.

Actually, Jim's friends have more than one defining characteristic--they are also social psychologists, among other accomplishments. But, of course, you are correct, Lee: Any and all "definitions" that might lessen the negative impact perceived by those prejudice against homeless persons is minimized, if not, totally ignored.

That's how hatred works...it's better done from a position of ignorance, not a position of strength.

Edited by Greg Burnham
Link to post
Share on other sites
admitted acting as judge, jury and executioner against a homeless person - who was inebriated I might add, and therefore unlikely to be able to defend himself against such a spineless attack. [/color]

Please show me the post in which I claimed to "attack" a homeless person Greg

Dont accuse me of something I did not say

I think you need to go back and read what I wrote very slowly

All I did was tell him to please not use that type of vulgar language in front of my wife and other customers

Edited by Dean Hagerman
Link to post
Share on other sites

Since I do not have an email address for Ed Haslam, I would like to thank him

here for sending me a complimentary copy of DR. MARY'S MONKEY. At first glance

it is much thicker and more profusely illustrated than MARY, FERRIE AND THE

MONKEY VIRUS, its predecessor. I will read it when I have time...especially to get

his take on JVB. Thanks, Ed.

Jack

Link to post
Share on other sites
MonK:

Your point is well taken but I think these criticisms of Dean are exaggerated.

I did not and have not criticized Dean. I called a spade a spade.

Any of us, rightly or wrongly and probably wrongly, would be more skeptical of the testimony of a homeless person.
[my emphasis]

Doug -- "probably" ? You know better than that. It is not a "probably" situation--! It is absolutely wrong. If you are appealing to an argument of "human frailty or the human condition" that is all fine and good as a mitigating circumstance by which to justify Dean's perspective--but it fails to justify the lack of logic in the argument.

Unfortunately, prejudices are part of the human experience. We are all "victims" of our experiences. No argument. I would like to move on.

Let's put it this way.

If Dean's thought processes were say, used in the context of race, he would be referred to as a "racist" would he not?

If his thought processes were used in the context of gender, he would be referred to as a "sexist", would he not?

If these same thought processes were used in the context of homosexuals, he would be referred to as a "homophobe."

If these same thought processes were used in the context of teenagers or children, he would be an "adultist."

We wouldn't put up with it if Dean made the same arguments and comments about "people" with disabilities. If he made the same comments about "mexican people" I'm sure people would have something to say. If he suggested that all "muslims are the same" because of his experiences with a minority of "muslims" I'd react in the exactly same way.

Why are people less concerned when stereotypes and anti-social prejudices are used when it covers a group of people not governed and protected by legislation?

Mr Weldon, do you really believe that my reaction to someone's prejudice, stereotyping and discrimination against a group of people who have only one defining characteristic is "exaggerated"? It is this type of "lazy discrimination" that results in most of the problems we see in our world today, and unfortunately the problems seen many, many times before to varying degrees of hostility.

Lee:

I agree with you. My only point was that this thread not be turned into a stone throwing contest. The point was made and I am certain Dean understood it.

Doug Weldon

Link to post
Share on other sites

The point was made

I understand it

I have exchanged PMs with Jim about it and he accepted my apology

Thats all, I do not like homeless people because of what happened to me, I was not born hating homeless people

Link to post
Share on other sites
Since I do not have an email address for Ed Haslam, I would like to thank him

here for sending me a complimentary copy of DR. MARY'S MONKEY. At first glance

it is much thicker and more profusely illustrated than MARY, FERRIE AND THE

MONKEY VIRUS, its predecessor. I will read it when I have time...especially to get

his take on JVB. Thanks, Ed.

Jack

There are two chapters that deal with Judyth Vary Baker. Jim Fetzer has reproduced them more than once

in the course of this thread. His posts came from a revised version of Mary, Ferrie & the Monkey Virus

but they are the same virtually verbatim as the two chapters in Dr Mary's Monkey.

Haslam will recommend that you read JVB's first book, Lee Harvey Oswald, in order to make up your own mind.

I will be surprised if you find out anything you don't already know, or hasn't been discussed in this thread.

Maybe Jim will answer your questions more readily than he answered mine.

Edited by Michael Hogan
Link to post
Share on other sites
Awesome pictures Stephen!

Thanks for posting them, they are now saved to my computer

I take it they were shot when they found Ferrie dead?

Kathy C

Yes. 2/22/67

I know, that is OT, Steven. But, since you are Ferrie-Expert, may I ask you what is your opinion about his death? Two typed suicide-letters were found...but the coroner said he died of natural causes. Funny thing. Isn't it? Maybe you have already solved that mystery? (The same day Ferries good friend del Valle was brutally killed...coincidence?)

KK

Link to post
Share on other sites
David,

......You have a motive that drives you--to protect your investment in your

manuscript, which I presume has to be tossed if Judyth is correct.

David Lifton has probably spent spent many sleepless nights since this thread commenced,

worried that Jim Fetzer was going to prove to the world that Judyth Baker is the "real deal."

I'm sure that Jim is aware that Ed Haslam had a very strong motive to believe JVB's story,

a belief that Haslam has admitted is based largely on faith. (i.e. his belief in her "as a person.")

Haslam knew that his first book, Mary, Ferrie & the Monkey Virus (1995) suffered from the

lack of a "living witness." In the five years since he self-published it, Haslam sold 2000 copies,

1000 of which were Xeroxed.

In 2000, after becoming aware of Judyth Baker via 60 Minutes, Haslam's first thoughts were

of concern "that 60M could easily discredit her story as a means of discrediting my story." (Page 285, DMM)

Thus it was established early on that Haslam had a vested interest in JVB being the "real deal."

Link to post
Share on other sites
David,

......You have a motive that drives you--to protect your investment in your

manuscript, which I presume has to be tossed if Judyth is correct.

David Lifton has probably spent spent many sleepless nights since this thread commenced,

worried that Jim Fetzer was going to prove to the world that Judyth Baker is the "real deal."

I'm sure that Jim is aware that Ed Haslam had a very strong motive to believe JVB's story,

a belief that Haslam has admitted is based largely on faith. (i.e. his belief in her "as a person.")

Haslam knew that his first book, Mary, Ferrie & the Monkey Virus (1995) suffered from the

lack of a "living witness." In the five years since he self-published it, Haslam sold 2000 copies,

1000 of which were Xeroxed.

In 2000, after becoming aware of Judyth Baker via 60 Minutes, Haslam's first thoughts were

of concern "that 60M could easily discredit her story as a means of discrediting my story." (Page 285, DMM)

Thus it was established early on that Haslam had a vested interest in JVB being the "real deal."

Michael,

That may be a fair-enough criticism, but let's keep the field level. Lifton is notoriously anti-Garrison, so anything that would corroborate the Garrison investigation in any way seems to be an anathema to him. Thus, Lifton has a vested interest in trying to destroy Judyth.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...