Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[Pamela Brown]

Judyth already rebutted this drivel about "Cancun", Barb. Don't you have anything better than to recycle?

I almost hate to say it, but your are giving Judyth's critics a bad name. Maybe you need to reread the thread.

Barb has devoted years of time and effort trying to find any sort of tidbit which can then be distorted and then 'used' against Judyth. Your objective presentation of Judyth's information is just raining on her parade. You can anticipate that the level of rhetoric of her responses will be proportionate to the damage being inflicted.

[Karl Kinaski]

xxx

Edited October 25, 2010 by Karl Kinaski

[William Kelly]

This being Oscar week, I'd like to know what the story is on Judyth and Oswald going to the movies to see a James Bond movie.

Which movie was it, where and when did they see it, and what was Oswald's response to the film, having read he books?

Bill Kelly

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Judyth already rebutted this drivel about "Cancun", Barb. Don't you have anything better than to recycle?

I almost hate to say it, but your are giving Judyth's critics a bad name. Maybe you need to reread the thread.

Barb has devoted years of time and effort trying to find any sort of tidbit which can then be distorted and then 'used' against Judyth. Your objective presentation of Judyth's information is just raining on her parade. You can anticipate that the level of rhetoric of her responses will be proportionate to the damage being inflicted.

Lame try, Pam.

I posted Judyth's own words to her friends ... and the latest she had written for them to see.

Seems to have touched a couple nerves, which is telling, imo. There's already been plenty of howling rhetoric. But not from me. Fetzer, Judyth's new lackey, can hardly keep up with her output! You're doing your job well though. :-)

[William Kelly]

Okay, it was Dr. No, the first 007 movie with Sean Connery.

What then, were the circumstances of JVB and Oswald and seeing this film?

Is there a date?

I have to check Post 182?

Thanks,

BK

Just when I think you might be a semi-reasonable human being, you blow it by demonstrating you still have no idea what you are talking about. Try post #182, Bill. If you aren't going to read the posts, keep your mouth shut unless you want to look the fool (again)!

This being Oscar week, I'd like to know what the story is on Judyth and Oswald going to the movies to see a James Bond movie.

Which movie was it, where and when did they see it, and what was Oswald's response to the film, having read he books?

Bill Kelly

[William Kelly]

Okay,

I got it, from Barb J.,

Thanks Barb,

I just wanted to get that straight.

And didn't need the kiss or the song.

BK

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Judyth responds to Jack and Barb about photographs of "the two Marguerites":

A little ray of sun for these presently hard hours....Martha's family is now convinced from symptoms

reported that she did not die of the flu...and I just saw a summary of her last hour on earth and cried a lot more...

Meanwhile--Barb is quoting from the stolen book that the Dutch thieves sent to McAdams.

I had never had a chance to correct it.

When I later did, Barb, as she even dares to say, claims I changed my story.

This is so mean and trivial. God bless you all.

Soon I will show you what I have uncovered in the evidence about Marguerite,

using my medical knowledge.

I have Armstrong's photos where he divides the same woman in half to fit his theory.

Sadly, by coming against Armstrong, Jack White may feel all his hard work was for nothing.

I just pray and pray that Jack will see that collecting all that information has been very useful.

But Lois Gibson should have analyzed the head shots of Marguerite.

Briefly, the ears are the same, nose tip the same, distance between centers of eyes are the same...

Discrepancies in looks and height occurs with untreated thyroid problems,

which also accounts for coarsened features and a progressive loss of good sense.

All characteristic of Marguerite, of whom Lee said, "She's aging before her time", and we felt it was our fault.

The boys, the pressure of that...But it was probably her thyroid.

SOME MEDICAL SOURCES:

Underactive Thyroid (Thyroid Disorders)

Here is a useful summary: thyroid

People can develop thinning and coarsening of the hair, dry skin, drooping eyelids, slowed speech, and facial swelling.

Other underactive thyroid symptoms...

Lippincott Williams & Wilkins - 2006 - Medical - 442 pages

Note coarsening facial features, such as the patient's nose, lips, and ears, ...

which can develop secondary to diabetic neuropathy or thyroid dysfunction.

On top of this, osteoporosis can cause a dramatic change in height.

None of these possibilities were mentioned, so far as I am aware, by Armstrong,

who only looks for support for his theory, not at all aspects, I'm afraid, as he mentions

height changes in a woman who clearly is no longer well, has hair loss, coarsened facial features,

and is even obviously walking with some difficulty, talking slowly, and so on...

I'll make their Marguerite observations as accurate as possible and will do my best to present everything fairly.

I am not out to 'prove' Armstrong 'wrong.' I'm out to PROVE that there may be reasonable explanations,

and also, that ears, nose, etc. in people are landmarks forensically that have been ignored in Marguerite's case.

Then we'll tackle Lee's Stripling school records, since Lee told me something about that. Dr. John Williams

learned about this and it definitely changed his whole outlook on a 'second Lee Harvey Oswald" attending Stripling.

You'll see what I mean shortly....

Judyth already rebutted this drivel about "Cancun", Barb. Don't you have anything better than to recycle?

I almost hate to say it, but your are giving Judyth's critics a bad name. Maybe you need to reread the thread.

Barb has devoted years of time and effort trying to find any sort of tidbit which can then be distorted and then 'used' against Judyth. Your objective presentation of Judyth's information is just raining on her parade. You can anticipate that the level of rhetoric of her responses will be proportionate to the damage being inflicted.

Looks like you re on the ropes, Barb. Your beaten. Get over it...

This thread is the final punch for the Judyth-bashing-trolls all over the internet!

Congrats to Starsky and Hutch aka Jim and Judyth.

KK

[Stephen Roy]

Just a quick quote from the Forum Rules:

"(iv) Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers. Most importantly, the motivations of the poster should not be questioned."

[Peter Fokes]

There is more to do, some still in process, but after wallowing in that poop for so long I have taken a good long Judyth break ... and have been waiting for her new book to come out before posting more info ...

Bests,

Barb :-)

Careful, Barb. Beware that slope is a slippery one if you start climbing it again. Life is short.

RIP, Rich.

Peter Fokes

[Jack White]

Judyth responds to Jack and Barb about photographs of "the two Marguerites":

A little ray of sun for these presently hard hours....Martha's family is now convinced from symptoms

reported that she did not die of the flu...and I just saw a summary of her last hour on earth and cried a lot more...

Meanwhile--Barb is quoting from the stolen book that the Dutch thieves sent to McAdams.

I had never had a chance to correct it.

When I later did, Barb, as she even dares to say, claims I changed my story.

This is so mean and trivial. God bless you all.

Soon I will show you what I have uncovered in the evidence about Marguerite,

using my medical knowledge.

I have Armstrong's photos where he divides the same woman in half to fit his theory.

Sadly, by coming against Armstrong, Jack White may feel all his hard work was for nothing.

I just pray and pray that Jack will see that collecting all that information has been very useful.

But Lois Gibson should have analyzed the head shots of Marguerite.

Briefly, the ears are the same, nose tip the same, distance between centers of eyes are the same...

Discrepancies in looks and height occurs with untreated thyroid problems,

which also accounts for coarsened features and a progressive loss of good sense.

All characteristic of Marguerite, of whom Lee said, "She's aging before her time", and we felt it was our fault.

The boys, the pressure of that...But it was probably her thyroid.

SOME MEDICAL SOURCES:

Underactive Thyroid (Thyroid Disorders)

Here is a useful summary: thyroid

People can develop thinning and coarsening of the hair, dry skin, drooping eyelids, slowed speech, and facial swelling.

Other underactive thyroid symptoms...

Lippincott Williams & Wilkins - 2006 - Medical - 442 pages

Note coarsening facial features, such as the patient's nose, lips, and ears, ...

which can develop secondary to diabetic neuropathy or thyroid dysfunction.

On top of this, osteoporosis can cause a dramatic change in height.

None of these possibilities were mentioned, so far as I am aware, by Armstrong,

who only looks for support for his theory, not at all aspects, I'm afraid, as he mentions

height changes in a woman who clearly is no longer well, has hair loss, coarsened facial features,

and is even obviously walking with some difficulty, talking slowly, and so on...

I'll make their Marguerite observations as accurate as possible and will do my best to present everything fairly.

I am not out to 'prove' Armstrong 'wrong.' I'm out to PROVE that there may be reasonable explanations,

and also, that ears, nose, etc. in people are landmarks forensically that have been ignored in Marguerite's case.

Then we'll tackle Lee's Stripling school records, since Lee told me something about that. Dr. John Williams

learned about this and it definitely changed his whole outlook on a 'second Lee Harvey Oswald" attending Stripling.

You'll see what I mean shortly....

Judyth already rebutted this drivel about "Cancun", Barb. Don't you have anything better than to recycle?

I almost hate to say it, but your are giving Judyth's critics a bad name. Maybe you need to reread the thread.

Barb has devoted years of time and effort trying to find any sort of tidbit which can then be distorted and then 'used' against Judyth. Your objective presentation of Judyth's information is just raining on her parade. You can anticipate that the level of rhetoric of her responses will be proportionate to the damage being inflicted.

Looks like you re on the ropes, Barb. Your beaten. Get over it...

This thread is the final punch for the Judyth-bashing-trolls all over the internet!

Congrats to Starsky and Hutch aka Jim and Judyth.

KK

This nonsense shows a total lack of understanding.

On the SAME DATE it is documented that ONE MARGUERITE

OSWALD worked at Paul's Shoe Store in Fort Worth while

Lee Harvey Oswald attended Stripling Junior High School.

On that SAME DATE it is documented that ANOTHER MARGUERITE

OSWALD worked at a hosiery store on Canal Street in New

Orleans while another Lee Harvey Oswald attended Beauregard Junior

High School.

This information has NOTHING to do with photo analysis nor

forensic analysis nor medical analysis as NONSENSICALLY stated

above. Two LHOs, two Marguerites, same date, different cities.

That is as simple an explanation as can be made.

Any other interpretation is NONSENSE!

Read the book.

Jack

[Doug Weldon]

Judyth responds to Jack and Barb about photographs of "the two Marguerites":

A little ray of sun for these presently hard hours....Martha's family is now convinced from symptoms

reported that she did not die of the flu...and I just saw a summary of her last hour on earth and cried a lot more...

Meanwhile--Barb is quoting from the stolen book that the Dutch thieves sent to McAdams.

I had never had a chance to correct it.

When I later did, Barb, as she even dares to say, claims I changed my story.

This is so mean and trivial. God bless you all.

Soon I will show you what I have uncovered in the evidence about Marguerite,

using my medical knowledge.

I have Armstrong's photos where he divides the same woman in half to fit his theory.

Sadly, by coming against Armstrong, Jack White may feel all his hard work was for nothing.

I just pray and pray that Jack will see that collecting all that information has been very useful.

But Lois Gibson should have analyzed the head shots of Marguerite.

Briefly, the ears are the same, nose tip the same, distance between centers of eyes are the same...

Discrepancies in looks and height occurs with untreated thyroid problems,

which also accounts for coarsened features and a progressive loss of good sense.

All characteristic of Marguerite, of whom Lee said, "She's aging before her time", and we felt it was our fault.

The boys, the pressure of that...But it was probably her thyroid.

SOME MEDICAL SOURCES:

Underactive Thyroid (Thyroid Disorders)

Here is a useful summary: thyroid

People can develop thinning and coarsening of the hair, dry skin, drooping eyelids, slowed speech, and facial swelling.

Other underactive thyroid symptoms...

Lippincott Williams & Wilkins - 2006 - Medical - 442 pages

Note coarsening facial features, such as the patient's nose, lips, and ears, ...

which can develop secondary to diabetic neuropathy or thyroid dysfunction.

On top of this, osteoporosis can cause a dramatic change in height.

None of these possibilities were mentioned, so far as I am aware, by Armstrong,

who only looks for support for his theory, not at all aspects, I'm afraid, as he mentions

height changes in a woman who clearly is no longer well, has hair loss, coarsened facial features,

and is even obviously walking with some difficulty, talking slowly, and so on...

I'll make their Marguerite observations as accurate as possible and will do my best to present everything fairly.

I am not out to 'prove' Armstrong 'wrong.' I'm out to PROVE that there may be reasonable explanations,

and also, that ears, nose, etc. in people are landmarks forensically that have been ignored in Marguerite's case.

Then we'll tackle Lee's Stripling school records, since Lee told me something about that. Dr. John Williams

learned about this and it definitely changed his whole outlook on a 'second Lee Harvey Oswald" attending Stripling.

You'll see what I mean shortly....

Judyth already rebutted this drivel about "Cancun", Barb. Don't you have anything better than to recycle?

I almost hate to say it, but your are giving Judyth's critics a bad name. Maybe you need to reread the thread.

Barb has devoted years of time and effort trying to find any sort of tidbit which can then be distorted and then 'used' against Judyth. Your objective presentation of Judyth's information is just raining on her parade. You can anticipate that the level of rhetoric of her responses will be proportionate to the damage being inflicted.

Looks like you re on the ropes, Barb. Your beaten. Get over it...

This thread is the final punch for the Judyth-bashing-trolls all over the internet!

Congrats to Starsky and Hutch aka Jim and Judyth.

KK

This nonsense shows a total lack of understanding.

On the SAME DATE it is documented that ONE MARGUERITE

OSWALD worked at Paul's Shoe Store in Fort Worth while

Lee Harvey Oswald attended Stripling Junior High School.

On that SAME DATE it is documented that ANOTHER MARGUERITE

OSWALD worked at a hosiery store on Canal Street in New

Orleans while another Lee Harvey Oswald attended Beauregard Junior

High School.

This information has NOTHING to do with photo analysis nor

forensic analysis nor medical analysis as NONSENSICALLY stated

above. Two LHOs, two Marguerites, same date, different cities.

That is as simple an explanation as can be made.

Any other interpretation is NONSENSE!

Read the book.

Jack

I am not convinced yet by either Judyth or Madeline Brown. I can specify reasons but it boils down to a lack of corroboration. In regards to Judyth her account of Oswald appears to make him so sophisticated, suave, and living such a life that it makes the fictional James Bond look like a street urchin in comparison. I respect other opinions and hopefully this is not seen as bashing anyone but I am very far from being persuaded. I have to agree with Jack's observations above.

Best,

Doug Weldon

[Karl Kinaski]

This nonsense shows a total lack of understanding.

On the SAME DATE it is documented that ONE MARGUERITE

OSWALD worked at Paul's Shoe Store in Fort Worth while

Lee Harvey Oswald attended Stripling Junior High School.

On that SAME DATE it is documented that ANOTHER MARGUERITE

OSWALD worked at a hosiery store on Canal Street in New

Orleans while another Lee Harvey Oswald attended Beauregard Junior

High School.

This information has NOTHING to do with photo analysis nor

forensic analysis nor medical analysis as NONSENSICALLY stated

above. Two LHOs, two Marguerites, same date, different cities.

That is as simple an explanation as can be made.

Any other interpretation is NONSENSE!

Read the book.

Jack

Jack. The game with identities is well known in that never ending murder case. There were 4 to 6 Oswalds, (the Bolton-Ford Ossi, N.O, the Lincoln-Mercury Ossi, Dallas, the Odio-Ossi, Dallas, the firering ranch Ossi, Dallas, the mexico-city Ossi etc...), at last two JVBers, the Haslam-JVB, and the real one, and maybe there where two moms of Ossi. Jim and Judyth just say this, and I agree: there was no Oswald-CLONE, which is, as far as I understand, the main-idea of the Armstrong book...according to Prouty the CIA started to create an Oswald 201 file in Dec 1960. One purpose of such a file is to create parallel résumés of one person. It is flashy that the first documented incident with a false Oswald occurred just a month later in Oswalds Hometown N.O., on 20.1.1961, the day JFK was sworn into office.

I do not believe, there was any need or intention to play the game of identities prior.

To me the Oswald-Clone theorie is worthless. I am happy with the well documented appearances of Oswald-copycats. (Some of them looked completely different!...mexico city Ossi... )

Since I am not familiar with the Armstrong book: did Armstrong explain, why there was a need to create an Oswald-Clone well back in the fifties, when Ike was president, and nobody on earth knew who would be the next man in the O-Office?

PS The final proof of the JVBs Story, to me, was, when Haslam realized, in 2000 I think, that his monkey-virus story fit 100 percent with Judyths story. Note: they never met before, (except this strange incident with that false Judyth!)and they came out with their storys independently.

KK

Edited March 9, 2010 by Karl Kinaski

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Well, Doug, as one who had more than one hundred conversations with Madeleine, who has read her book

and interviewed her at Lancer (1999), which should be available from the production company, and whose

account of the Murchison ratification meeting the night before was corroborated by Nigel Turner and can be

found in "The Guilty Men" segment of "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" and whose incrimination of Lyndon has

been directly substantiated by Billy Sol Estes, A TEXAS LEGEND, and E. Howard Hunt, "The Last Confession

of E. Howard Hunt" in ROLLING STONE, and indirectly by Barr McClellan, BLOOD, MONEY, POWER, I believe

you have just the least bit exceeded the scope of your competence. I support you when you are right and

fault you when you are wrong. I think this is one of those times where you haven't done your homework.

Judyth responds to Jack and Barb about photographs of "the two Marguerites":

A little ray of sun for these presently hard hours....Martha's family is now convinced from symptoms

reported that she did not die of the flu...and I just saw a summary of her last hour on earth and cried a lot more...

Meanwhile--Barb is quoting from the stolen book that the Dutch thieves sent to McAdams.

I had never had a chance to correct it.

When I later did, Barb, as she even dares to say, claims I changed my story.

This is so mean and trivial. God bless you all.

Soon I will show you what I have uncovered in the evidence about Marguerite,

using my medical knowledge.

I have Armstrong's photos where he divides the same woman in half to fit his theory.

Sadly, by coming against Armstrong, Jack White may feel all his hard work was for nothing.

I just pray and pray that Jack will see that collecting all that information has been very useful.

But Lois Gibson should have analyzed the head shots of Marguerite.

Briefly, the ears are the same, nose tip the same, distance between centers of eyes are the same...

Discrepancies in looks and height occurs with untreated thyroid problems,

which also accounts for coarsened features and a progressive loss of good sense.

All characteristic of Marguerite, of whom Lee said, "She's aging before her time", and we felt it was our fault.

The boys, the pressure of that...But it was probably her thyroid.

SOME MEDICAL SOURCES:

Underactive Thyroid (Thyroid Disorders)

Here is a useful summary: thyroid

People can develop thinning and coarsening of the hair, dry skin, drooping eyelids, slowed speech, and facial swelling.

Other underactive thyroid symptoms...

Lippincott Williams & Wilkins - 2006 - Medical - 442 pages

Note coarsening facial features, such as the patient's nose, lips, and ears, ...

which can develop secondary to diabetic neuropathy or thyroid dysfunction.

On top of this, osteoporosis can cause a dramatic change in height.

None of these possibilities were mentioned, so far as I am aware, by Armstrong,

who only looks for support for his theory, not at all aspects, I'm afraid, as he mentions

height changes in a woman who clearly is no longer well, has hair loss, coarsened facial features,

and is even obviously walking with some difficulty, talking slowly, and so on...

I'll make their Marguerite observations as accurate as possible and will do my best to present everything fairly.

I am not out to 'prove' Armstrong 'wrong.' I'm out to PROVE that there may be reasonable explanations,

and also, that ears, nose, etc. in people are landmarks forensically that have been ignored in Marguerite's case.

Then we'll tackle Lee's Stripling school records, since Lee told me something about that. Dr. John Williams

learned about this and it definitely changed his whole outlook on a 'second Lee Harvey Oswald" attending Stripling.

You'll see what I mean shortly....

Judyth already rebutted this drivel about "Cancun", Barb. Don't you have anything better than to recycle?

I almost hate to say it, but your are giving Judyth's critics a bad name. Maybe you need to reread the thread.

Barb has devoted years of time and effort trying to find any sort of tidbit which can then be distorted and then 'used' against Judyth. Your objective presentation of Judyth's information is just raining on her parade. You can anticipate that the level of rhetoric of her responses will be proportionate to the damage being inflicted.

Looks like you re on the ropes, Barb. Your beaten. Get over it...

This thread is the final punch for the Judyth-bashing-trolls all over the internet!

Congrats to Starsky and Hutch aka Jim and Judyth.

KK

This nonsense shows a total lack of understanding.

On the SAME DATE it is documented that ONE MARGUERITE

OSWALD worked at Paul's Shoe Store in Fort Worth while

Lee Harvey Oswald attended Stripling Junior High School.

On that SAME DATE it is documented that ANOTHER MARGUERITE

OSWALD worked at a hosiery store on Canal Street in New

Orleans while another Lee Harvey Oswald attended Beauregard Junior

High School.

This information has NOTHING to do with photo analysis nor

forensic analysis nor medical analysis as NONSENSICALLY stated

above. Two LHOs, two Marguerites, same date, different cities.

That is as simple an explanation as can be made.

Any other interpretation is NONSENSE!

Read the book.

Jack

I am not convinced yet by either Judyth or Madeline Brown. I can specify reasons but it boils down to a lack of corroboration. In regards to Judyth her account of Oswald appears to make him so sophisticated, suave, and living such a life that it makes the fictional James Bond look like a street urchin in comparison. I respect other opinions and hopefully this is not seen as bashing anyone but I am very far from being persuaded. I have to agree with Jack's observations above.

Best,

Doug Weldon

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Judyth responds to Jack about "Harvey and Lee":

Check this photo against attached photos....

Is there more than one 'Judyth'? The lab one is a giveaway, but check it against this:

Would Jack White have decided that we were two--or even three?--different people?

I'll give you the answers to the photos after you look at all of them...The truth is easy to see......

Meanwhile...I am not allowed to download Jack's 'fat face' because I am not a member--they once

sent a collection of some forty photos and ordered, almost, rather than asked, me which ones were

Lee and which ones were Harvey.

This forces me to agree that there is a distinction that I accept.

I do not.

This is a logical trap.

"Which one did you know, Harvey or Lee?" is a rigged question. It assumes that some are "Harvey"

and some are "Lee" and, if I refuse to answer, I'm a cur.

But they are forcing me to make their logical differentiation.

I refuse to do so because they are forcing their logic based on how the arranged they photos.

You might ask (not Jack, who has seen my photos) an outsider--which ones are me and which are

an imposter?

It assumes an imposter.

And they assume an imposter that existed since childhood.

They are in error.

Please give me time to show it.

Do you understand why I just pointed out ones that I was sure were Lee? And by that, I meant

'Harvey' to them?

By stacking the deck with just two responses, they leave no room for discussion.

He's doing the same thing again, asking me which one it is, in the 'fat face'.

It is the wrong question.

It is not 'who did she know --Harvey? Or did she know Lee'?'

It is dangerous.

It is catching.

Above all, I have strong reasons to contend with it.

And will.

[NOTE: Having taught logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning for 35 years, I can confirm that

Judyth is on impeccable logical grounds in objecting that she is being presented with a conclusion to

which she should not assent. This is known as "the complex (or leading) question", which begs the

question (by taking for granted what needs to be proven on independent grounds). It is like asking,

"Have you stopped beating your wife?" or, perhaps, "Do you prefer to purchase the red Buick or the burgundy?"

You cannot answer "Yes" or "No" to the first questions without admitting you have beaten your wife or

"Red" or "Burgundy" to the second without acknowledging that you are going to buy a Buick. Likewise,

you cannot answer "Harvey" or "Lee" without granting that there were two Oswalds, Harvey and Lee.]

==Please tell Jack White that he forces me into a logical bind when he asks 'which' man I knew and loved.

He attempts to have me answer in his mode, that Lee was 'one' or the 'other' -- I refuse to respond to this

loaded question, which forces many errors into the big picture. Instead, I will present, one by one, my

arguments as to why the Armstrong thesis must be re-evaluated and in many aspects (not all, by any

means, since impersonators were frequent)--ultimately discarded.

Not a single bit of Armstrong's research and hard work--all those records he accumulated-- has actually

unearthed a single verified living member of this 'second Oswald's' family. Were they murdered afterwards?

Vanished forever? Maybe?

But there are better explanations.

One of the best is that Armstrong is wrong.

We have Donald Norton, who says he impersonated Oswald, He does not resemble either 'Lee' or 'Harvey',

however. Does Armstrong or Jack White assign him as 'Lee' or 'Harvey'? I refuse to pick out 'Harvey' or 'Lee'

as the person I knew and loved in New Orleans.

However, I promise to explain why, in the blogs.

Hopefully, we can get back to Lee Oswald, why he had to die, and why it matters, instead of mulling over photos that never,

unlike Abraham Bolden or Jim Douglass or Doug Horne or Jim Fetzer, actually brought us new information that jives together

and moves the case forward.

What it did, in a royal way, was to divert form the big picture.

These keep us going in circles.

Which one do 'you' think is 'Lee' and which one do 'you' think is 'Harvey'--shown this photo or that, Jim? Lola?

It's a trap.

Maybe unintentional, but the man never met me, ignored me.

His research cannot be trusted to be as thorough as Jack wishes us to believe.

There are gaping errors in logic. Including trying to force a witness to fall into the 'Lee' and 'Harvey' ID game.

This nonsense shows a total lack of understanding.

On the SAME DATE it is documented that ONE MARGUERITE

OSWALD worked at Paul's Shoe Store in Fort Worth while

Lee Harvey Oswald attended Stripling Junior High School.

On that SAME DATE it is documented that ANOTHER MARGUERITE

OSWALD worked at a hosiery store on Canal Street in New

Orleans while another Lee Harvey Oswald attended Beauregard Junior

High School.

This information has NOTHING to do with photo analysis nor

forensic analysis nor medical analysis as NONSENSICALLY stated

above. Two LHOs, two Marguerites, same date, different cities.

That is as simple an explanation as can be made.

Any other interpretation is NONSENSE!

Read the book.

Jack

Jack. The game with identities is well known in that never ending murder case. There were 4 to 6 Oswalds, (the Bolton-Ford Ossi, N.O, the Lincoln-Mercury Ossi, Dallas, the Odio-Ossi, Dallas, the firering ranch Ossi, Dallas, the mexico-city Ossi etc...), at last two JVBers, the Haslam-JVB, and the real one, and maybe there where two moms of Ossi. Jim and Judyth just say this, and I agree: there was no Oswald-CLON, which is, as far as I understand, the main-idea of the Armstrong book...according to Prouty the CIA started to create an Oswald 201 file in Dec 1960. One purpose of such a file is to create parallel résumés of one person. It is flashy that the first documented incident with a false Oswald occurred just a month later in Oswalds Hometown N.O., on 20.1.1961, the day JFK was sworn into office.

I do not believe, there was any need or intention to play the game of identities prior.

To me the Oswald-Clon theorie is worthless. I am happy with the well documented appearances of Oswald-copycats. (Some of them looked completely different!...mexico city Ossi... )

Since I am not familiar with the Armstrong book: did Armstrong explain, why there was a need to create an Oswald-Clon well back in the fifties, when Ike was president, and nobody on earth knew who would be the next man in the O-Office?

PS The final proof of the JVBs Story, to me, was, when Haslam realized, in 2000 I think, that his monkey-virus story fit 100 percent with Judyths story. Note: they never met before, (except this strange incident with that false Judyth!)and they came out with their storys independently.

KK

Edited March 9, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Doug Weldon]

Well, Doug, as one who had more than one hundred conversations with Madeleine, who has read her book

and interviewed her at Lancer (1999), which should be available from the production company, and whose

account of the Murchison ratification meeting the night before was corroborated by Nigel Turner and can be

found in "The Guilty Men" segment of "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" and whose incrimination of Lyndon has

been directly substantiated by Billy Sol Estes, A TEXAS LEGEND, and E. Howard Hunt, "The Last Confession

of E. Howard Hunt" in ROLLING STONE, and indirectly by Barr McClellan, BLOOD, MONEY, POWER, I believe

you have just the least bit exceeded the scope of your competence. I support you when you are right and

fault you when you are wrong. I think this is one of those times where you haven't done your homework.

Judyth responds to Jack and Barb about photographs of "the two Marguerites":

A little ray of sun for these presently hard hours....Martha's family is now convinced from symptoms

reported that she did not die of the flu...and I just saw a summary of her last hour on earth and cried a lot more...

Meanwhile--Barb is quoting from the stolen book that the Dutch thieves sent to McAdams.

I had never had a chance to correct it.

When I later did, Barb, as she even dares to say, claims I changed my story.

This is so mean and trivial. God bless you all.

Soon I will show you what I have uncovered in the evidence about Marguerite,

using my medical knowledge.

I have Armstrong's photos where he divides the same woman in half to fit his theory.

Sadly, by coming against Armstrong, Jack White may feel all his hard work was for nothing.

I just pray and pray that Jack will see that collecting all that information has been very useful.

But Lois Gibson should have analyzed the head shots of Marguerite.

Briefly, the ears are the same, nose tip the same, distance between centers of eyes are the same...

Discrepancies in looks and height occurs with untreated thyroid problems,

which also accounts for coarsened features and a progressive loss of good sense.

All characteristic of Marguerite, of whom Lee said, "She's aging before her time", and we felt it was our fault.

The boys, the pressure of that...But it was probably her thyroid.

SOME MEDICAL SOURCES:

Underactive Thyroid (Thyroid Disorders)

Here is a useful summary: thyroid

People can develop thinning and coarsening of the hair, dry skin, drooping eyelids, slowed speech, and facial swelling.

Other underactive thyroid symptoms...

Lippincott Williams & Wilkins - 2006 - Medical - 442 pages

Note coarsening facial features, such as the patient's nose, lips, and ears, ...

which can develop secondary to diabetic neuropathy or thyroid dysfunction.

On top of this, osteoporosis can cause a dramatic change in height.

None of these possibilities were mentioned, so far as I am aware, by Armstrong,

who only looks for support for his theory, not at all aspects, I'm afraid, as he mentions

height changes in a woman who clearly is no longer well, has hair loss, coarsened facial features,

and is even obviously walking with some difficulty, talking slowly, and so on...

I'll make their Marguerite observations as accurate as possible and will do my best to present everything fairly.

I am not out to 'prove' Armstrong 'wrong.' I'm out to PROVE that there may be reasonable explanations,

and also, that ears, nose, etc. in people are landmarks forensically that have been ignored in Marguerite's case.

Then we'll tackle Lee's Stripling school records, since Lee told me something about that. Dr. John Williams

learned about this and it definitely changed his whole outlook on a 'second Lee Harvey Oswald" attending Stripling.

You'll see what I mean shortly....

Judyth already rebutted this drivel about "Cancun", Barb. Don't you have anything better than to recycle?

I almost hate to say it, but your are giving Judyth's critics a bad name. Maybe you need to reread the thread.

Barb has devoted years of time and effort trying to find any sort of tidbit which can then be distorted and then 'used' against Judyth. Your objective presentation of Judyth's information is just raining on her parade. You can anticipate that the level of rhetoric of her responses will be proportionate to the damage being inflicted.

Looks like you re on the ropes, Barb. Your beaten. Get over it...

This thread is the final punch for the Judyth-bashing-trolls all over the internet!

Congrats to Starsky and Hutch aka Jim and Judyth.

KK

This nonsense shows a total lack of understanding.

On the SAME DATE it is documented that ONE MARGUERITE

OSWALD worked at Paul's Shoe Store in Fort Worth while

Lee Harvey Oswald attended Stripling Junior High School.

On that SAME DATE it is documented that ANOTHER MARGUERITE

OSWALD worked at a hosiery store on Canal Street in New

Orleans while another Lee Harvey Oswald attended Beauregard Junior

High School.

This information has NOTHING to do with photo analysis nor

forensic analysis nor medical analysis as NONSENSICALLY stated

above. Two LHOs, two Marguerites, same date, different cities.

That is as simple an explanation as can be made.

Any other interpretation is NONSENSE!

Read the book.

Jack

I am not convinced yet by either Judyth or Madeline Brown. I can specify reasons but it boils down to a lack of corroboration. In regards to Judyth her account of Oswald appears to make him so sophisticated, suave, and living such a life that it makes the fictional James Bond look like a street urchin in comparison. I respect other opinions and hopefully this is not seen as bashing anyone but I am very far from being persuaded. I have to agree with Jack's observations above.

Best,

Doug Weldon

Jim:

We can agree to disagree. If I could see one copy of a newspaper where Madeline said an account of the Murchison party was posted I could accept her account. Until then I cannot. I would like to accept her account because it supports all of the evidence I have including the overwhelming culpability of LBJ. Madeline was a witness who enjoyed her celebrity. It is not a criticism, but an observation. In 1998 you went to a lot of trouble to arrange a meeting between Madeline and myself. She knew I was an attorney. I did have some tough questions for her. She did not show up for that meeting. Then I saw her at dinner at Lancer and with your assistance we arranged another meeting. Again she did not show. I later phoned her. Again, she made an excuse not to talk. I made one more attempt months later and again I was thwarted. I saw her on a television show years before about President's mistresses and no mention was made of the LBJ incident. I do not question that she was LBJ's mistress but beyond that I cannot use her account. The other thing that bothers me is that if she loved LBJ so much why would she do so much to destroy his reputation? The jury is still out for me on her. It's like James Files demanding a trial so he could prove he shot Kennedy. What would be the result if he was successful? He could get the death penalty.

Judyth creates a lot of concern for me. The dialog that supposedly transpired between her and Lee would be laughable if it was written for the worst "B" movie ever made. I am not dismissing either of them. Either account would support many of the things I believed happened. I know you had a close relationship with Madeline. I will agree she was a very interesting woman. I hope I can find the proofs to agree with you.

Best,

Doug Weldon