Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Yes! Jack's performance on this thread is so admirable that, when confronted

with the conundrum that, according to John Armstrong, "Harvey"'s aunt paid

for "Lee"'s dental work, he surmises that Lillian and Dutz, his brother, Robert,

his wife, Marina, and his mother, Marguerite, all KNEW that there were "two

Oswalds", yet NONE of them has ever uttered a PEEP. This is a nice example

of Jack's methodological inconsistency: he demands DOCUMENTATION when he

deals with Judyth, but on a crucial issue like this one, when there is a threat

to the veracity of HARVEY & LEE, he can advance any speculation he likes and

rest completely satisfied, no matter how LACKING it may be in documentation.

Yet he receives nothing but praise from some of his fans! Incredible but true!

JACK ; YOU ARE SO SHARP IT IS UNBELIEVEABLE THAT YOU ARE 83.....YOU RUN CIRCLES AROUND SO MANY, AND ARE FAR AHEAD OF THE REST MOST TIMES, THANKS...

Bernice,

Jack's performance in this thread is admirable. The way Jack is conducting himself should be a lesson especially to certain friends of his.

GV

Edited May 8, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Michael Hogan]

From the prologue of Dr Mary's Monkey:

You will find this book as much of a personal odyssey as a journalistic work. But that's what happens

when you investigate a murder only to discover an epidemic. Either way the destination is the same.

I will tell you why I am deeply suspicious of certain activities that occurred in New Orleans in the 1960's

and why you should be too. We will begin with what I personally saw and heard over the years. To that

we add years of research.

Then we get questions. Fair and honorable questions. Questions which

deserve answers. Questions which have their own purpose, their own energy, even their own dignity. (italics added)

Questions which will eventually help us coax this Orwellian monster out of its swamp of secrecy.

Ed Haslam seems to imply that Dr Mary's Monkey raises more questions than it answers. With regard

to the two chapters that deal with Judyth Vary Baker, that certainly seems to be the case to me.

Haslam leaves it to the readers' imagination as to whom will answer these questions.

On page 291 of DMM, Ed Haslam asked this question: "Did Judyth know Lee Harvey Oswald in New Orleans in 1963?"

Haslam does not ask the much more difficult question: Were LHO and JVB lovers?

Haslam had seven years from the time he first contacted Judyth Baker until the publication of Doctor Mary's Monkey

to research this question. He had ample opportunity to converse with JVB at will. And in seven years he could come up

with only two pieces of evidence: The Reily pay stubs and Dankbaar's interview with Anna Lewis. Seven years of research?

And that's the only evidence Haslam could provide to answer his own question?

Question: What research did Haslam conduct (primary or otherwise) regarding the alleged LHO/JVB affair during those seven years?

On page 287 of DMM Haslam asks another question: "It makes one wonder: Who really made 60M's decision to abort? And why?"

Haslam gives no indication he ever tried to find out. Two pages earlier, he gave a possible answer for why:

As the dimensions of the story grew, so did 60M's demands for hard evidence. 60M was not about

to risk its credibility over an unsupported story involving a homemade biological weapon and the accused

assassin of the President

without hard evidence. (italics added)

. This is when they contacted me, because

I had already written a book that sounded on-point. (In the next sentence, Haslam says that 60M had not yet read his book!)

Yes, they had my book, but no, they had not read it yet. I insisted that the 60M investigator read it, every word

cover-to-cover, which she later said that she did on her flight back to New York.

No, I did not have the hard evidence about this woman that they were looking for. (italics added)

But I never

said that I did. From my perspective, I was particularly concerned that 60M could easily discredit her story as a means of

discrediting my story. Such were my intitial thoughts.

Question: Which Judyth Baker is Haslam talking about in the last paragraph?

Question: Sixty Minutes contacted Haslam on their own volition, sent him a packet of materials detailing their

prospective story, and flew one of their unnamed investigators to interview him....all without reading his book?

Jim Fetzer has called Haslam's book one of the most scholarly and well-researched books that he has encountered.

Yet it was pointed out to him that Haslam's footnotes in the JVB chapters are rife with unsupported speculations.

(Such as Lee Oswald personally meeting Carlos Marcello several times in 1963 and David Ferrie knowing Jack Ruby

well enough to introduce him to JVB as Sparky Rubinstein). These episodes belong in the Appendix entitled Judyth's Story,

not in the footonotes of another chapter that attempts to ascertain the truthfulness of Haslam's witness.

Much earlier in this thread I spent a considerable amount of time trying to get Jim to answer my questions about

Dr Mary's Monkey. (Not the ones that appear above) Since this is the book that Jim has repeatedly touted

and insisted members read, I think that it is reasonable that he at least make an attempt to address the questions,

even if he prefers not to answer them. Jim did tell me that he referred them to Ed Haslam, but in the course of this thread

Haslam has made it clear that he does not feel it is productive to discuss the Judyth Baker story until her new book comes out.

In much abbreviated form, these were three of them:

Question: Even though Haslam had JVB "correct and corroborate" her story that he published in DMM, why did he

never divulge to her that he was writing a book in which she would play a key role? (That is what JVB claimed)

Question: When did Haslam contact Judyth Baker for the first time?

Question: Why has Haslam made no effort to find the people (including his girl friend at the time) that attended

the other JVB's party in 1972? They could have corroborated his story to 60 Minutes, or to readers of Dr Mary's Monkey.

It is both frustrating and irritating to me that neither Jim nor Ed Haslam want to address any of these rather simple questions.

"Fair and honorable questions. Questions which deserve answers. Questions which have their own purpose, their

own energy, even their own dignity."

During the course of this thread Jim Fetzer became aware of Ed Haslam's Dr Mary's Monkey and ever since that point

he has used it to suggest that it would answer questions and demonstrate that Lee Oswald and Judyth Baker were lovers.

Aside from repeating and refining Baker's story, Haslam's book does little to achieve that end.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

This is great, Michael. What I have said (to the best of my recollection) is that DR. MARY'S MONKEY

is one of the best referenced works I have read written for THE GENERAL PUBLIC. It is far from the

most scholarly books I have read or published, for that matter. Please get your points straight. Ed

has told me more than one occasion that there is a general agreement between those involved with

Judyth that they should not make public statements until ME & LEE appears, no doubt because it is

chock full of new documents, records, and information. Judyth has been very guarded about saying

all she has to say out of concern for her own safety and well being, even though it is my advice that

the more she says, the less she has to fear, since there is less reason to take her out. My impression

is that the book is being printed and that we should not have much longer to wait for a major event!

I not only interviewed him on "The Real Deal" but we have spoken since. He, like me, believes in her.

Some of your questions perplex me, because I have already answered them. Certainly, having said

more than once that I regard you as among the more serious and subtle students of this case, I am

not inclined to neglect you. I find it most interesting that Ed Haslam has reported his own experience

of meeting an impostor "Judyth Vary Baker". It would be some time before he would discover this to

be the case, of course, only after "60 Minutes" contacted him. But that is quite stunning. Why would

the agency go to the trouble to create a fake "Judyth Vary Baker" unless the original one was actually

real and posed a threat to exposing its ops? Not all the evidence relevant to Judyth is to be found in

the pages of that book, of course. Her friend Anna Lewis has testified that she and her husband David

"double-dated" with Judyth and Lee in New Orleans. And her friend Kathy Santi, M.D., has written to

ask why she did not earn her medical degree at Tulane, which they had discussed back in Gainesville.

And the ongoing efforts to make her a "disappearing witness" are powerful proof of her authenticity.

That you would suggest I have claimed Ed's book "proves they were lovers" simply offends me, since

I cannot recall having ever made such a claim. Evidence of their intimacy derives from other sources.

As for your questions, he only met the real "Judyth Vary Baker" when "60 Minutes" brought them into

contact, which Howard Platzman has explained. As for not telling her that he was writing a book, you

seem to be confounding Judyth's initial encounters with him (when he did not mention that) with her

later knowledge about it (when he asked her to review what he had written). I wouldn't have thought

you couldn't figure that one out on your own. As for pursuing the other persons at the party where he

met the impostor "Judyth Vary Baker", I don't know if it has ever crossed his mind. It is an interesting

idea, however, and I will certainly discuss it with him. If you watched the YouTubes I have done with

Judyth, I don't think there is much doubt about her relationship with Lee. Some of the stories that

she tells (about the pronuciation of "New Orleans", for example) are spot-on. And if you listened to

Ed Haslam's four hours on "Coast to Coast AM", you would have no doubt that he believes in Judyth.

http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/04/ed...ey-part-ii.html

From the prologue of Dr Mary's Monkey:

You will find this book as much of a personal odyssey as a journalistic work. But that's what happens

when you investigate a murder only to discover an epidemic. Either way the destination is the same.

I will tell you why I am deeply suspicious of certain activities that occurred in New Orleans in the 1960's

and why you should be too. We will begin with what I personally saw and heard over the years. To that

we add years of research.

Then we get questions. Fair and honorable questions. Questions which

deserve answers. Questions which have their own purpose, their own energy, even their own dignity. (italics added)

Questions which will eventually help us coax this Orwellian monster out of its swamp of secrecy.

Ed Haslam seems to imply that Dr Mary's Monkey raises more questions than it answers. With regard

to the two chapters that deal with Judyth Vary Baker, that certainly seems to be the case to me.

Haslam leaves it to the readers' imagination as to whom will answer these questions.

On page 291 of DMM, Ed Haslam asked this question: "Did Judyth know Lee Harvey Oswald in New Orleans in 1963?"

Haslam does not ask the much more difficult question: Were LHO and JVB lovers?

Haslam had seven years from the time he first contacted Judyth Baker until the publication of Doctor Mary's Monkey

to research this question. He had ample opportunity to converse with JVB at will. And in seven years he could come up

with only two pieces of evidence: The Reily pay stubs and Dankbaar's interview with Anna Lewis. Seven years of research?

And that's the only evidence Haslam could provide to answer his own question?

Question: What research did Haslam conduct (primary or otherwise) regarding the alleged LHO/JVB affair during those seven years?

On page 287 of DMM Haslam asks another question: "It makes one wonder: Who really made 60M's decision to abort? And why?"

Haslam gives no indication he ever tried to find out. Two pages earlier, he gave a possible answer for why:

As the dimensions of the story grew, so did 60M's demands for hard evidence. 60M was not about

to risk its credibility over an unsupported story involving a homemade biological weapon and the accused

assassin of the President

without hard evidence. (italics added)

. This is when they contacted me, because

I had already written a book that sounded on-point. (In the next sentence, Haslam says that 60M had not yet read his book!)

Yes, they had my book, but no, they had not read it yet. I insisted that the 60M investigator read it, every word

cover-to-cover, which she later said that she did on her flight back to New York.

No, I did not have the hard evidence about this woman that they were looking for. (italics added)

But I never

said that I did. From my perspective, I was particularly concerned that 60M could easily discredit her story as a means of

discrediting my story. Such were my intitial thoughts.

Question: Which Judyth Baker is Haslam talking about in the last paragraph?

Question: Sixty Minutes contacted Haslam on their own volition, sent him a packet of materials detailing their

prospective story, and flew one of their unnamed investigators to interview him....all without reading his book?

Jim Fetzer has called Haslam's book one of the most scholarly and well-researched books that he has encountered.

Yet it was pointed out to him that Haslam's footnotes in the JVB chapters are rife with unsupported speculations.

(Such as Lee Oswald personally meeting Carlos Marcello several times in 1963 and David Ferrie knowing Jack Ruby

well enough to introduce him to JVB as Sparky Rubinstein). These episodes belong in the Appendix entitled Judyth's Story,

not in the footonotes of another chapter that attempts to ascertain the truthfulness of Haslam's witness.

Much earlier in this thread I spent a considerable amount of time trying to get Jim to answer my questions about

Dr Mary's Monkey. (Not the ones that appear above) Since this is the book that Jim has repeatedly touted

and insisted members read, I think that it is reasonable that he at least make an attempt to address the questions,

even if he prefers not to answer them. Jim did tell me that he referred them to Ed Haslam, but in the course of this thread

Haslam has made it clear that he does not feel it is productive to discuss the Judyth Baker story until her new book comes out.

In much abbreviated form, these were three of them:

Question: Even though Haslam had JVB "correct and corroborate" her story that he published in DMM, why did he

never divulge to her that he was writing a book in which she would play a key role? (That is what JVB claimed)

Question: When did Haslam contact Judyth Baker for the first time?

Question: Why has Haslam made no effort to find the people (including his girl friend at the time) that attended

the other JVB's party in 1972? They could have corroborated his story to 60 Minutes, or to readers of Dr Mary's Monkey.

It is both frustrating and irritating to me that neither Jim nor Ed Haslam want to address any of these rather simple questions.

"Fair and honorable questions. Questions which deserve answers. Questions which have their own purpose, their

own energy, even their own dignity."

During the course of this thread Jim Fetzer became aware of Ed Haslam's Dr Mary's Monkey and ever since that point

he has used it to suggest that it would answer questions and demonstrate that Lee Oswald and Judyth Baker were lovers.

Aside from repeating and refining Baker's story, Haslam's book does little to achieve that end.

Edited May 8, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

I am talking about the core of her account: of having been lured to New Orleans

by Alton Ochsner, of having met Lee H. Oswald early on, of having been taken to

visit Ochsner by Oswald, of meeting David Ferrie and Mary Sherman, of working

with them on a covert bioweapon project, of having a personal relationship with

Lee and such. DR. MARY'S MONKEY lays out the context for all of these events.

Ed Haslam has reiterated his confidence in Judyth on my show and C2C as well.

Living witnesses, such as Kathy Santi, M.D., have confirmed aspects of Judyth's

story. Others, such as Anna Lewis, have confirmed others. The history of the

"disappearing witness" and the existence of an impostor "Judyth Vary Baker"

are striking indications that what she is telling us is true. I know you specialize

in looking for minor inconsistencies across time, but given the treatment that

she has received across forums, they are not surprising and you exploit them.

Those who visit my blog can find not only Haslam's "Coast to Coast" interview

but also my interview with Haslam on "The Real Deal". I and my webmaster.

Lola, went to the trouble of making YouTubes out of our radio interview and

enclosed more than 70 photos and graphics supplementing what we were

discussing. It is not appropriate for person you to continue to post without

listening and viewing the videos, unless, of course, your objective is in fact

to obfuscate the evidence and discourage the study of what she has to tell us.

http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/04/ed...ey-part-ii.html

Well, if it was Platzman's mistake, then why are you holding it against Judyth?

I appreciated it when you said that the "Avary Baker" business was moot. But

when have you admitted that you have made a mistake or acknowledged she

is right about "double-dating", Lee's eye-color, or "the disappearing witness"?

I am not holding any of Platzman's confusion against Judyth. The three statements about what this cancer cocktail *was* cleary changed over time. None of them reflect SV-40 being the AIDS virus, in fact the one description that mentions SV-40 clearly states it is not related to the AIDS virus. What...do you think Howard wrote that stuff? Perhaps he was confused because it kept changing. :-)

The salient point is that her claims and tellings have not remained unchanged over time, as you asserted. Not by a long shot! You don't know the history and trail of her claims that have morphed over the last 10 years.

On "Avary" ... I call them the way I see them. And you glided right over that salient point as well ... She writes a review of Haslam's first book in January 2000 ... in October 2000, 9 mos later, she is emphatically telling Dave Reitzes that she has "NO BOOKS" ... that she doesn't need books because it''s all in her head. And, interestingly enough, it was not until *after* she had read Haslam's book that SV-40 became part of her story. Hello?

I do not acknowledge that she is "right" about double-dating or "the disappearing witness." On Oswald's eye color ... and anything else Harvey & Lee, she is entitled to her opinions after studying the materials ... just like any other researcher. Harvey & Lee stands or falls on its own merit, so does her story. IF Harvey & Lee is wrong ... that does not make Judyth right. They are two separate "theories."

Barb is counting on no one reading this carefully, because it shows Judyth admitting a mistake and correcting

her false impression that SV-40 was the same as AIDS. That turned out to be wrong, which she acknowledged.

That is showing more intellectual integrity than most of her critics on this thread, who never admit mistakes or

acknowledge when she is right about "double-dating" with Anna, Lee's eye-color, or "the disappearing witness".

I hope everyone reads carefully. And more carefully than you .... as the one admitting a mistake was Howard Platzman, as noted below, :

" Howard Platzman, alt.assassination.jfk post, August 31, 2003: "The outline is meant as a catch-all. It has had errors in it before and it probably has errors in it now. . . . Anyway, the medical stuff is not that easy to understand and I got parts of it wrong myself, so please tread with caution. SV-40 is not HIV, but they are related. Initially, I thought they were the same. Both attack the immune system and both jumped species from monkey to man."

JUDYTH’S STORY HAS REMAINED CONSTANT ACROSS TIME

The serum in which the cancer cells were placed included a virus that could knock out the immune system, thus enhancing the strength of the already powerful cancer cells. This material -- scraped from the kidneys of sick monkeys -- was, in fact, the AIDS virus.(75)

The serum in which the cancer cells were placed included a virus that could knock out the immune system, thus enhancing the strength of the already powerful cancer cells. This material -- scraped from the kidneys of sick monkeys -- was, in fact, a precursor to the AIDS virus.(76)

The serum in which the cancer cells were placed included a virus that could knock out the immune system, thus enhancing the strength of the already powerful cancer cells. This material -- scraped from the kidneys of sick monkeys -- was, in fact, Simian Virus 40 (SV-40), unrelated to the AIDS virus.(77)

Note that the first two quotes above are from material written before Judyth read Haslam's first book in late 1999/early 2000 (her amazon review, posted earlier today, is dated January 19, 2000) .... the third quote is from later ... after she is known to have read and reviewed Haslam's book.

Dave Reitzes, whose link David Lifton posted a few days ago, has done a great job collecting and sourcing a lot

of the changes in Judyth's claims/story "across time" ... including the above.

The numbered source notes:

75. Judyth Vary Baker with Howard Platzman, Ph.D, "Deadly Alliance: Outline of the Conspiracy": "The serum in which the cancer cells were placed included a virus that knocks out the immune system, thus enhancing the strength of the already powerful cancer cells. This material -- scraped from the kidney's [sic] of sick monkeys -- was, in fact, the AIDS virus."

76. Judyth Vary Baker with Howard Platzman, Ph.D, "Deadly Alliance," alternate draft provided to Robert Vernon, posted by Vernon at alt.assassination.jfk, August 30, 2004: "The serum in which the cancer cells were placed included a virus that knocks out the immune system, thus enhancing the strength of the already powerful cancer cells. This material -- scraped from the kidney's [sic] of sick monkeys -- was, in fact, the PRECURSOR OF THE AIDS virus. Note: This material, DERIVED FROM VIRAL CONTAMINANTS FOUND in the early polio vaccine and other applications, is now the subject of an important new book on the origin of AIDS, Edward Hooper's The River." "Judyth's Story," outline provided to Robert Vernon on December 23, 1999, posted by Vernon at alt.assassination.jfk, August 30, 2004: "The serum in which the cancer cells were placed included a virus that knocks out the immune system, thus enhancing the strength of the cancer cells. This material -- from the kidney's [sic] of sick monkeys -- is now the subject of a new book on the origin of AIDS." Judyth Vary Baker, Internet forum post, October 9, 2004: "Read the book. [Note: Judyth acknowledged in an Internet forum post of September 27, 2004, that despite five years of trying, she has been unable to find a publisher for her book.] The matter is too complex to be explained by Mr. Reitzes, who is relying on a portion of an incomplete summary of the process written by somebody else."

77. Rene Zwaap, "An American Hero," De Groene Amsterdammer, June 21, 2003 (based on an interview with Judyth Vary Baker), automated translation, posted by John McAdams to alt.assassination.jfk, July 8. 2003: "[Oswald] got a hurry course over it go around with the transport of living cancer cells, that in a special chemical liquid living could become hold. By that technique was worked with SV-40, material that were pulled from the kidneys [of monkeys], that also became uses by the development of the polio vaccine. The target of the operation was Castro with it to infect. He stood known as a lover of cigars and nobody will it thus strangely of look up as he lung cancer would get." Howard Platzman, alt.assassination.jfk post, August 31, 2003: "The outline is meant as a catch-all. It has had errors in it before and it probably has errors in it now. . . . Anyway, the medical stuff is not that easy to understand and I got parts of it wrong myself, so please tread with caution. SV-40 is not HIV, but they are related. Initially, I thought they were the same. Both attack the immune system and both jumped species from monkey to man."

Dave's site:

http://www.jfk-online.com/judyth-story.html

And thanks to Dave for having had things in one place, all sourced, for a very long time now ... a real time saver.

Barb :-)

Edited May 8, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Doug Weldon]

This is a feeble response, counselor, in view of the existence of living witnesses,

the "disappearing" witness, and your apparent failure to even view (what are

now) eleven YouTube interviews. Judyth has explained why there would be

minor variations in the handwriting sample, where it was written with a tiny

pencil on soft paper and the letters did not all reproduce from the fax. Were

you actually more interested in discovering the truth rather than saving face,

you might actually be making constructive suggestions instead of covering up

the existence of material evidence that supports her case. I discussed your

(to my mind, grotesque) assertions that she might be charged with murder

with Ed Haslam and, to my surprise, he believes that she should not return

to the US even to promote her book because she might be arrested on such

a charge, no matter how trumped-up it may appear. So I think you are doing

a good job of witness intimidation and helping to silence a whistleblower in

perhaps the greatest scandal in American history--the mandated inocuation

of some 100,000,000 citizens with a vaccine contaminated with a virus that

causes cancer. If she ever needs an attorney, I will not be recommending you.

Jim:

This is bizarre. These posts seem to be a typical argumentative ploy that when you are on the defense and do not have a good response than you either create a diversion or go on the offense. As I mentioned before there would have to be a corpus for Judyth to be charged with murder and nobody knows who the victim was or if there was a victim. If one was identified she could easily be extradicted. My point was to note that if she was truthful she was morally and technically guilty of murder. At this point, after her refusal to have evidence (Oswald's writing) analyzed, to address questions, and to be wrong on such essential facts that she had a 50-50 chance of being correct simply by guessing, she has destroyed her own credibility. The circumscision issue appears to be the coup de grace. UltimatelyThis appears to be nothing more than a combination of research and fantasy. If anything, this might make a readable story of historical fiction but bears no resemblance to a truthful account. She has been caught in her own web of lies. She cannot even keep her own accounts straight. On your podcasts she talks about 65 pound monkeys. Any attorney in Louisiana would welcome her case if she was ever charged with murder. It would represent the text book case of the insanity defense. Her argument here has failed miserably. No case is ever going to be won by arguing to people that I am smarter than you and I believe her therefore you should believe her also. If you raise questions then I will personally attack you. It doesn't work and it did not work here. Judyth, with your help, sadly destroyed herself.

Doug Weldon

[Doug Weldon]

Early Judyth, excerpt from an e-mail ... from October 2000.

Subj: Re: test

Date: 10/6/00 3:49:50 AM Eastern Daylight Time

From: Americanwebworks

To: Dreitzes

CC: Howpl

b] For exakple, Debra Conway

asked me intimate questions about Lee, since she knew information from

things i never knew existed. Example: was lee circumcized? (no). [/b]

God bless you,Dave,

Judyth V. Baker

Per Oswald autopsy report:

The penis is circumcised.

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/w...H26_CE_3002.pdf

It's difficult to read LHO's autopsy. It's not too clear. But I noticed one thing: Did it actually say "the pubic hair has been shaved"? The only reason I think a man would shave his pubic hair is if he had crabs. And he was circumsized. How could Judyth say he wasn't? It's something a girl notices...

Kathy C

Kathy:

At that time it was very common for those in the homosexual community to shave their pubic hair. I would not place much stock in it as it could have been shaved in treating his wound to the abdomen.

Doug Weldon

[Pat Speer]

This is very peculiar. Even his mother says he was left-handed, while

Marina, Robert, and John say right-handed. How could his mother be

wrong about something like this? It suggests to me that he may have

been ambidextrous. I don't see this as carrying weight against Judyth.

I did some reading on this when I was studying sniping, and had come to the conclusion a left-handed sniper would have had an advantage firing on the motorcade over a right-handed sniper. While Oswald's mother thought he was left-handed, the only photos of Oswald firing a rifle show him to be firing right-handed. His wife, brother, and half-brother, moreover, all swore he was right-handed. Robert Oswald explains this, furthermore, by acknowledging that HE was left-handed, and that his mother often got the two of them confused.

The record is pretty clear, then, that Oswald was right-handed. If Judyth claims he was left-handed, it suggests she read Marguerite's testimony and took it at face-value. OOPS.

[Bernice Moore]

PAT...PHOTOS LHO PRACTICE RANGE..MARINES...b

[Michael Hogan]

Jim, with over 2300 posts on this thread it has simply become too unwieldly to go back and find all of your

exact comments about the scholarship and quality of Haslam's research. I do recall you using the words

for the general public in one instance, but the larger point is that you have always defended the scholarship

and research in Dr Mary's Monkey. Your comment about "getting my points straight" is gratuitous.

If you knew that there was a general agreement not to comment until JVB's new book comes out, why did you offer

to take those questions of mine to Ed? I had explained that I would rather you answer them; you are the one that

suggested it would be better if they (EH & JVG) did.

As far as answering my questions, you have not. You left it that you had contacted Ed Haslam about them and were

waiting for his reply. That is where things were left. If you dispute this, I will take the time and go back and find the post.

When did Haslam say he first contacted Judyth Baker? Your answer that Haslam only became aware

of the significance of two different JVB's after 60M contacted him goes without saying and was not responsive

at all to my question.

According to DMM it was after 60M decided not to air her story that he decided to contact Judyth Baker.

Do you agree with that? Please indulge me and refer to the bottom of page 287 of DMM.

I have watched virtually all of Haslam's videos. The more I watch Haslam, the less faith I have in him in terms

of his belief that Oswald and Baker were lovers. In his book, he also claims as fact that Oswald met Marcello

at parties and that Ferrie introduced JVB to Sparky Rubebnstein. He can believe that if he wants to, but he

states it as if it were a proven fact in his footnotes, of all places. If he has no evidence or research of his own to

offer regarding his belief that Oswald and Baker were lovers, then his book is of questionable value to this thread,

as far as I am concerned.

Are you acknowledging now that Dr Mary's Monkey offers no proof (or research by Haslam, for that matter) that

Lee Oswald and Judyth Baker were lovers? If you had told me that six weeks ago, I would not have spent all this

time asking the questions that I have.

The mention of the interview with Anna Davis does appear in Haslam's book. I would suggest that you get your

points straight, but that comment might be taken to be gratuitous.

Jim, you wrote:

"As for not telling her that he was writing a book, you seem to be confounding Judyth's initial encounters with him

(when he did not mention that) with her later knowledge about it (when he asked her to review what he had written)"

No Jim. I have explained this carefully to you several times. Let me know if you

want me to go back and find it. In this thread, Judyth explained that she did not tell

Haslam that her book, Lee Harvey Oswald, was unauthorized by her and

contained errors. She offered an explanation as to her reasons that included Platzman.

She said that if she had known Haslam was working on a book, she would have told him.

Judyth Baker said that Haslam's book was a complete surprise to her.

Do you want me to go back and find that?

I am not concerned with Oswald's genitals, David Lifton's tape, marmosets, missing teeth,

Haslam's encounter with Ed Butler, how Mary Sherman died, John Armstrong, and other esoterica.

I have never discussed any of that on this thread. I am interested in whether or not her story is true about

she and Oswald being lovers and what reasons you have for referring members to Dr Mary's Monkey

to answer this question. I have simply claimed that Haslam presents no real evidence or proof that this was so.

You could have conceded that long ago and saved me some time and effort.

Jim, I have watched Judyth Baker's YouTube videos. I find them unconvincing, to be charitable.

I have met Ed Haslam, watched his interviews, including the one with Jim Marrs, and I have read

every post on this thread. I have listened to what you and others have posted. I have read Judyth Baker's

book Lee Harvey Oswald, which Haslam urged all his readers to do. I am waiting for her new book,

but based upon what you and Judyth have presented here, I do not expect any new revelations that will prove

(or even persuade) that she had a love affair with Lee Oswald.

In the prologue of DMM, Haslam writes about the History Channel's decision to withdraw from

circulation the episode that dealt with Judyth Vary Baker. His failure to mention that the entire three

episodes were withdrawn (due to pressure from LBJ's supporters) and leave the reader with the belief

that Baker's story was the only episode that was withdrawn is misleading, to say the least.

And Jim, do you believe that Sixty Minutes contacted Haslam on their own volition, sent him a packet

of materials detailing their prospective story, and sent one of their unnamed investigators to interview him....

all without reading his book? Does that even make sense to you?

I know that you and Ed Haslam have had extended contact with her, but people should not have to rely

on your faith. Her story demands evidence and proof. If after seven years of researching, Haslam was unable to

offer any proof (and none has been forthcoming after the publication of DMM), it is difficult to be

optimistic that her new book will convince anyone. I guess we will wait and see.

Not only that, I have claimed that there are inconsistencies and vagaries in Haslam's account.

I have always confined my comments only to the two chapters that deal with Judyth Baker. If Haslam

expects anyone to believe his account of meeting another Judyth Baker in 1972 with absolutely

no evidence other than his recollections, the rest of his unsupported statements need to be rock-solid

in order to afford him the benefit of the doubt.

Edited May 8, 2010 by Michael Hogan

[Greg Burnham]

Very compelling post, Michael...IMHO.

Jim, with over 2300 posts on this thread it has simply become too unwieldly to go back and find all of your

exact comments about the scholarship and quality of Haslam's research. I do recall you using the words

for the general public in one instance, but the larger point is that you have always defended the scholarship

and research in Dr Mary's Monkey. Your comment about "getting my points straight" is gratuitous.

If you knew that there was a general agreement not to comment until JVB's new book comes out, why did you offer

to take those questions of mine to Ed? I had explained that I would rather you answer them; you are the one that

suggested it would be better if they (EH & JVG) did.

As far as answering my questions, you have not. You left it that you had contacted Ed Haslam about them and were

waiting for his reply. That is where things were left. If you dispute this, I will take the time and go back and find the post.

When did Haslam say he first contacted Judyth Baker? Your answer that Haslam only became aware

of the significance of two different JVB's after 60M contacted him goes without saying and was not responsive

at all to my question.

According to DMM it was after 60M decided not to air her story that he decided to contact Judyth Baker.

Do you agree with that? Please indulge me and refer to the bottom of page 287 of DMM.

I have watched virtually all of Haslam's videos. The more I watch Haslam, the less faith I have in him in terms

of his belief that Oswald and Baker were lovers. In his book, he also claims as fact that Oswald met Marcello

at parties and that Ferrie introduced JVB to Sparky Rubebnstein. He can believe that if he wants to, but he

states it as if it were a proven fact in his footnotes, of all places. If he has no evidence or research of his own to

offer regarding his belief that Oswald and Baker were lovers, then his book is of questionable value to this thread,

as far as I am concerned.

Are you acknowledging now that Dr Mary's Monkey offers no proof (or research by Haslam, for that matter) that

Lee Oswald and Judyth Baker were lovers? If you had told me that six weeks ago, I would not have spent all this

time asking the questions that I have.

The mention of the interview with Anna Davis does appear in Haslam's book. I would suggest that you get your

points straight, but that comment might be taken to be gratuitous.

Jim, you wrote:

"As for not telling her that he was writing a book, you seem to be confounding Judyth's initial encounters with him

(when he did not mention that) with her later knowledge about it (when he asked her to review what he had written)"

No Jim. I have explained this carefully to you several times. Let me know if you

want me to go back and find it. In this thread, Judyth explained that she did not tell

Haslam that her book, Lee Harvey Oswald, was unauthorized by her and

contained errors. She offered an explanation as to her reasons that included Platzman.

She said that if she had known Haslam was working on a book, she would have told him.

Judyth Baker said that Haslam's book was a complete surprise to her.

Do you want me to go back and find that?

I am not concerned with Oswald's genitals, David Lifton's tape, marmosets, missing teeth,

Haslam's encounter with Ed Butler, how Mary Sherman died, John Armstrong, and other esoterica.

I have never discussed any of that on this thread. I am interested in whether or not her story is true about

she and Oswald being lovers and what reasons you have for referring members to Dr Mary's Monkey

to answer this question. I have simply claimed that Haslam presents no real evidence or proof that this was so.

You could have conceded that long ago and saved me some time and effort.

Jim, I have watched Judyth Baker's YouTube videos. I find them unconvincing, to be charitable.

I have met Ed Haslam, watched his interviews, including the one with Jim Marrs, and I have read

every post on this thread. I have listened to what you and others have posted. I have read Judyth Baker's

book Lee Harvey Oswald, which Haslam urged all his readers to do. I am waiting for her new book,

but based upon what you and Judyth have presented here, I do not expect any new revelations that will prove

(or even persuade) that she had a love affair with Lee Oswald.

In the prologue of DMM, Haslam writes about the History Channel's decision to withdraw from

circulation the episode that dealt with Judyth Vary Baker. His failure to mention that the entire three

episodes were withdrawn (due to pressure from LBJ's supporters) and leave the reader with the belief

that Baker's story was the only episode that was withdrawn is misleading, to say the least.

And Jim, do you believe that Sixty Minutes contacted Haslam on their own volition, sent him a packet

of materials detailing their prospective story, and sent one of their unnamed investigators to interview him....

all without reading his book? Does that even make sense to you?

I know that you and Ed Haslam have had extended contact with her, but people should not have to rely

on your faith. Her story demands evidence and proof. If after seven years of researching, Haslam was unable to

offer any proof (and none has been forthcoming after the publication of DMM), it is difficult to be

optimistic that her new book will convince anyone. I guess we will wait and see.

Not only that, I have claimed that there are inconsistencies and vagaries in Haslam's account.

I have always confined my comments only to the two chapters that deal with Judyth Baker. If Haslam

expects anyone to believe his account of meeting another Judyth Baker in 1972 with absolutely

no evidence other than his recollections, the rest of his unsupported statements need to be rock-solid

in order to afford him the benefit of the doubt.

Edited May 8, 2010 by Greg Burnham

[Jack White]

My friend Jim is greatly uninformed about the matter of circumcision in the mostly rural SOUTH and

SOUTHWEST many years ago, I can say WITH GREAT AUTHORITY!

I was born in rural West Texas in a small town without a hospital in those early years. My birth was

accomplished with the assistance of my parents' landlady, Mrs. Douglas. I had no birth certificate,

as it was not customary to go through that formality years ago. I was first recorded in the census

of 1930 after my family had moved to Fort Worth. I was about 15 before I ever heard the word

"circumcision", and that was in church, in reference to ancient Jewish rituals in the Bible. When I

asked what the word meant, adults always changed the subject. It was a hush-hush subject.

When I was in high school I learned that it was a Jewish custom in which a rabbi snipped off the

foreskin of a newborn infant. I thought that was a really dumb thing to do. In physical education

class and later in athletic teams (of which I was team manager) all the boys showered in one

big tile room with about 20 shower-heads. There was always lots of horseplay in the shower

with all the guys naked. I can GUARANTEE you that 100 percent of the boys in the shower were

uncircumcised! This is personal observation, not some statistic. There was only ONE Jewish kid

in our school. He eventually got a doctor's exemption from showering with the other boys (showers

were mandatory) because he was embarrassed that his penis was different.

When I went into the Navy at age 17, physical exams were frequent. Our boot camp company

was made up exclusively of north and east Texans and Cajuns from Louisiana. We all showered

every evening in a latrine unit in the middle of the hut-tents. As I recall, I never saw a circumcised

recruit. Every physical exam had a long line waiting to be examined by a corpsman looking for

lice and VD...which was called a "short arm inspection." As the line of naked sailors with clothes

tied in a neat bundle in their shirt neared the exam, a corpsman said "peel it back and milk it down"

meaning pull back the foreskin and press the penis to examine for a pus excretion. This happened

at least every two or three weeks, to make sure no VD had been acquired on liberty in San Diego.

In addition, one of the early Navy Training Films was on the dangers of VD, and the importance

of daily washing of smegma, especially if having sexual contact. I would say that 99 percent of

the recruits in my boot camp company were uncircumcised.

So Jim absolutely is speaking from ignorance of the mores and customs of rural Texas and

Louisiana in 1945, of which I have extensive personal experience. Jim is from a northern

city and a later time, so his experience is far different than mine. He should retract his claim

that my description of circumcision in the rural south was nothing but rectal gas. His

exaggerated claim of omnicience in this matter is badly based.

Jack

Edited May 9, 2010 by Jack White

[Jack White]

PAT...PHOTOS LHO PRACTICE RANGE..MARINES...b

Bernice...I am glad that you saved all the photos I have posted for years.

I am the source that originally copied all those. One is from a print found

by John Armstrong. The others I copied from the "company yearbook"

of a man who was in the same marine unit as LHO.

They really make the rounds! Thanks.

Jack

Edited May 9, 2010 by Jack White

[Bernice Moore]

PAT...PHOTOS LHO PRACTICE RANGE..MARINES...b

Bernice...I am glad that you saved all the photos I have posted for years.

I am the source that originally copied all those. Two are from prints found

by John Armstrong. The others I copied from the "company yearbook"

of a man who was in the same marine unit as LHO.

They really make the rounds! Thanks.

Jack

B..''PACK RAT ''

BUT NOT ALL , YOU HAD A FEW YEARS START ON ME ON THE WEB...

Edited May 8, 2010 by Bernice Moore

[Jack White]

Michael...this is one of the most calm, polite and well-reasoned postings in this interminable thread.

There is so much more you could have covered, but confined yourself to a single topic.

Jack

Jim, with over 2300 posts on this thread it has simply become too unwieldly to go back and find all of your

exact comments about the scholarship and quality of Haslam's research. I do recall you using the words

for the general public in one instance, but the larger point is that you have always defended the scholarship

and research in Dr Mary's Monkey. Your comment about "getting my points straight" is gratuitous.

If you knew that there was a general agreement not to comment until JVB's new book comes out, why did you offer

to take those questions of mine to Ed? I had explained that I would rather you answer them; you are the one that

suggested it would be better if they (EH & JVG) did.

As far as answering my questions, you have not. You left it that you had contacted Ed Haslam about them and were

waiting for his reply. That is where things were left. If you dispute this, I will take the time and go back and find the post.

When did Haslam say he first contacted Judyth Baker? Your answer that Haslam only became aware

of the significance of two different JVB's after 60M contacted him goes without saying and was not responsive

at all to my question.

According to DMM it was after 60M decided not to air her story that he decided to contact Judyth Baker.

Do you agree with that? Please indulge me and refer to the bottom of page 287 of DMM.

I have watched virtually all of Haslam's videos. The more I watch Haslam, the less faith I have in him in terms

of his belief that Oswald and Baker were lovers. In his book, he also claims as fact that Oswald met Marcello

at parties and that Ferrie introduced JVB to Sparky Rubebnstein. He can believe that if he wants to, but he

states it as if it were a proven fact in his footnotes, of all places. If he has no evidence or research of his own to

offer regarding his belief that Oswald and Baker were lovers, then his book is of questionable value to this thread,

as far as I am concerned.

Are you acknowledging now that Dr Mary's Monkey offers no proof (or research by Haslam, for that matter) that

Lee Oswald and Judyth Baker were lovers? If you had told me that six weeks ago, I would not have spent all this

time asking the questions that I have.

The mention of the interview with Anna Davis does appear in Haslam's book. I would suggest that you get your

points straight, but that comment might be taken to be gratuitous.

Jim, you wrote:

"As for not telling her that he was writing a book, you seem to be confounding Judyth's initial encounters with him

(when he did not mention that) with her later knowledge about it (when he asked her to review what he had written)"

No Jim. I have explained this carefully to you several times. Let me know if you

want me to go back and find it. In this thread, Judyth explained that she did not tell

Haslam that her book, Lee Harvey Oswald, was unauthorized by her and

contained errors. She offered an explanation as to her reasons that included Platzman.

She said that if she had known Haslam was working on a book, she would have told him.

Judyth Baker said that Haslam's book was a complete surprise to her.

Do you want me to go back and find that?

I am not concerned with Oswald's genitals, David Lifton's tape, marmosets, missing teeth,

Haslam's encounter with Ed Butler, how Mary Sherman died, John Armstrong, and other esoterica.

I have never discussed any of that on this thread. I am interested in whether or not her story is true about

she and Oswald being lovers and what reasons you have for referring members to Dr Mary's Monkey

to answer this question. I have simply claimed that Haslam presents no real evidence or proof that this was so.

You could have conceded that long ago and saved me some time and effort.

Jim, I have watched Judyth Baker's YouTube videos. I find them unconvincing, to be charitable.

I have met Ed Haslam, watched his interviews, including the one with Jim Marrs, and I have read

every post on this thread. I have listened to what you and others have posted. I have read Judyth Baker's

book Lee Harvey Oswald, which Haslam urged all his readers to do. I am waiting for her new book,

but based upon what you and Judyth have presented here, I do not expect any new revelations that will prove

(or even persuade) that she had a love affair with Lee Oswald.

In the prologue of DMM, Haslam writes about the History Channel's decision to withdraw from

circulation the episode that dealt with Judyth Vary Baker. His failure to mention that the entire three

episodes were withdrawn (due to pressure from LBJ's supporters) and leave the reader with the belief

that Baker's story was the only episode that was withdrawn is misleading, to say the least.

And Jim, do you believe that Sixty Minutes contacted Haslam on their own volition, sent him a packet

of materials detailing their prospective story, and sent one of their unnamed investigators to interview him....

all without reading his book? Does that even make sense to you?

I know that you and Ed Haslam have had extended contact with her, but people should not have to rely

on your faith. Her story demands evidence and proof. If after seven years of researching, Haslam was unable to

offer any proof (and none has been forthcoming after the publication of DMM), it is difficult to be

optimistic that her new book will convince anyone. I guess we will wait and see.

Not only that, I have claimed that there are inconsistencies and vagaries in Haslam's account.

I have always confined my comments only to the two chapters that deal with Judyth Baker. If Haslam

expects anyone to believe his account of meeting another Judyth Baker in 1972 with absolutely

no evidence other than his recollections, the rest of his unsupported statements need to be rock-solid

in order to afford him the benefit of the doubt.

[Josiah Thompson]

Jim, with over 2300 posts on this thread it has simply become too unwieldly to go back and find all of your

exact comments about the scholarship and quality of Haslam's research. I do recall you using the words

for the general public in one instance, but the larger point is that you have always defended the scholarship

and research in Dr Mary's Monkey. Your comment about "getting my points straight" is gratuitous.

If you knew that there was a general agreement not to comment until JVB's new book comes out, why did you offer

to take those questions of mine to Ed? I had explained that I would rather you answer them; you are the one that

suggested it would be better if they (EH & JVG) did.

As far as answering my questions, you have not. You left it that you had contacted Ed Haslam about them and were

waiting for his reply. That is where things were left. If you dispute this, I will take the time and go back and find the post.

When did Haslam say he first contacted Judyth Baker? Your answer that Haslam only became aware

of the significance of two different JVB's after 60M contacted him goes without saying and was not responsive

at all to my question.

According to DMM it was after 60M decided not to air her story that he decided to contact Judyth Baker.

Do you agree with that? Please indulge me and refer to the bottom of page 287 of DMM.

I have watched virtually all of Haslam's videos. The more I watch Haslam, the less faith I have in him in terms

of his belief that Oswald and Baker were lovers. In his book, he also claims as fact that Oswald met Marcello

at parties and that Ferrie introduced JVB to Sparky Rubebnstein. He can believe that if he wants to, but he

states it as if it were a proven fact in his footnotes, of all places. If he has no evidence or research of his own to

offer regarding his belief that Oswald and Baker were lovers, then his book is of questionable value to this thread,

as far as I am concerned.

Are you acknowledging now that Dr Mary's Monkey offers no proof (or research by Haslam, for that matter) that

Lee Oswald and Judyth Baker were lovers? If you had told me that six weeks ago, I would not have spent all this

time asking the questions that I have.

The mention of the interview with Anna Davis does appear in Haslam's book. I would suggest that you get your

points straight, but that comment might be taken to be gratuitous.

Jim, you wrote:

"As for not telling her that he was writing a book, you seem to be confounding Judyth's initial encounters with him

(when he did not mention that) with her later knowledge about it (when he asked her to review what he had written)"

No Jim. I have explained this carefully to you several times. Let me know if you

want me to go back and find it. In this thread, Judyth explained that she did not tell

Haslam that her book, Lee Harvey Oswald, was unauthorized by her and

contained errors. She offered an explanation as to her reasons that included Platzman.

She said that if she had known Haslam was working on a book, she would have told him.

Judyth Baker said that Haslam's book was a complete surprise to her.

Do you want me to go back and find that?

I am not concerned with Oswald's genitals, David Lifton's tape, marmosets, missing teeth,

Haslam's encounter with Ed Butler, how Mary Sherman died, John Armstrong, and other esoterica.

I have never discussed any of that on this thread. I am interested in whether or not her story is true about

she and Oswald being lovers and what reasons you have for referring members to Dr Mary's Monkey

to answer this question. I have simply claimed that Haslam presents no real evidence or proof that this was so.

You could have conceded that long ago and saved me some time and effort.

Jim, I have watched Judyth Baker's YouTube videos. I find them unconvincing, to be charitable.

I have met Ed Haslam, watched his interviews, including the one with Jim Marrs, and I have read

every post on this thread. I have listened to what you and others have posted. I have read Judyth Baker's

book Lee Harvey Oswald, which Haslam urged all his readers to do. I am waiting for her new book,

but based upon what you and Judyth have presented here, I do not expect any new revelations that will prove

(or even persuade) that she had a love affair with Lee Oswald.

In the prologue of DMM, Haslam writes about the History Channel's decision to withdraw from

circulation the episode that dealt with Judyth Vary Baker. His failure to mention that the entire three

episodes were withdrawn (due to pressure from LBJ's supporters) and leave the reader with the belief

that Baker's story was the only episode that was withdrawn is misleading, to say the least.

And Jim, do you believe that Sixty Minutes contacted Haslam on their own volition, sent him a packet

of materials detailing their prospective story, and sent one of their unnamed investigators to interview him....

all without reading his book? Does that even make sense to you?

I know that you and Ed Haslam have had extended contact with her, but people should not have to rely

on your faith. Her story demands evidence and proof. If after seven years of researching, Haslam was unable to

offer any proof (and none has been forthcoming after the publication of DMM), it is difficult to be

optimistic that her new book will convince anyone. I guess we will wait and see.

Not only that, I have claimed that there are inconsistencies and vagaries in Haslam's account.

I have always confined my comments only to the two chapters that deal with Judyth Baker. If Haslam

expects anyone to believe his account of meeting another Judyth Baker in 1972 with absolutely

no evidence other than his recollections, the rest of his unsupported statements need to be rock-solid

in order to afford him the benefit of the doubt.

This is superb post. Quiet, well-argued and utterly devastating. You should be commeded for your amazing patience and willingness to hold Fetzer's feet to the fire even when he tries every ploy in the book to distract. Really admirable!

Josiah Thompson