Jump to content
The Education Forum

Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile


Guest James H. Fetzer

Recommended Posts

Guest James H. Fetzer

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"?

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 :-)

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

Top Posters In This Topic

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 :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest James H. Fetzer

Since Judyth is currently unavailable, I spoke with Howard Platzman about

this, and neither of us can figure out why anyone would think that Judyth

would dissemble about something so basic as her marriage to Baker. Jack

is doing his best to build a case, but neither of us thinks that he has one.

As near as I can determine, a marriage license in Mobile, Alabama can be

obtained only between 8 a.m. and 4:45 p.m. by adults OVER 18 WITH

VALID PHOTO ID. Persons UNDER 18 must have parental consent. Mobile

has a THREE-DAY WAITING PERIOD FOR NON-RESIDENTS BEFORE A WEDDING

CAN BE PERFORMED. Below are current requirements. They may have been

different in 1963.

ID Requirement in Alabama:

You will need valid Driver's License or Birth Certificate if you are over 18. All applicants must also provide a Social Security number.

Residency Requirement:

You do not have to be a resident of Alabama. However, some counties, like Mobile, require nonresidents to wait three days before being able to have a wedding ceremony performed.

An elopement to Mobile would appear to be more than an overnight affair.

Jack

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

Bests,

Barb :-)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jack

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest James H. Fetzer

Let me thank you, too, for these very appropriate comments. Like so many of

her critics, Dean Hagerman has not shown a flare for research. He could, for

example, have visited http://religionandmorality.net and read "About Us". He

has apologized for his brutishness and I have accepted it. Thank you for this.

You draw an inference from stereotypical claims about homeless in Seattle to two

persons I admire (for extremely good reasons) in London and trash them without

even reflecting upon what I told you about them.

Having spent the last 21 years living a half-block off Haight St. in San Francisco

I know a thing or two about homeless people. I encounter droves of them daily.

I live one block from the entrance to Golden Gate Park, where a lot of them find

refuge.

Every morning you see them straggling out of the park where they spent

the night hoping the park rangers overlook them.

Some of them are as Dean portrays -- annoying beggars who stand outside

eateries accosting people for spare change. Some will even enter the joint

while you're dining and bug you.

Some are not annoying at all as they stand back holding a beverage cup

for spare change and chant -- "Help for the homeless, help for the homeless."

Some write clever signs and sit on the sidewalk trying to turn their

cardboard witticisms into coins.

My favorite was a guy who tied a plastic microwave food-cover to his head

and chanted -- "Spare change for flying saucer man!" I gave him a quarter.

Others play the pathos card and look the very definition of despair. Many

are in despair!

Some have no home because of chronic poverty; some are drug addicts;

some have mental health issues; some are runaways.

Most of them in these parts are youngsters out on a grand adventure, their

heads full of visions of the Haight-Ashbury of lore. They're almost always

disappointed and move on.

You cannot readily characterize a "homeless person" one way or the other,

except to say they don't have a roof over their head.

I don't bust out spare change very often unless the person has been around

for 6 months or a year. Survival on the streets earns respect in my book.

JVB aside, Jim's friends sound like very interesting people!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest James H. Fetzer

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 RESPONDS TO DOUG WELDON (HE HOPES) FOR THE FINAL TIME

It defies belief that you would come onto this thread again without having

read the posts that intervened. When someone pointed out that you were

looking for more from me but I had indicated I was "signing off", you said

you had read the last three posts and had no idea. But the first of those

posts BEGAN with a statement that I had no desire to continue with this,

especially since studies discussed in The Guardian have established that,

when those who are committed to a certain point of view are presented

with corrective information, it REINFORCES their commitment instead of

causing them to adjust their beliefs. And that conclusion, which simply

dumbfounds me, has been powerfully confirmed by my experience here.

Many of your contributions, including this post, do nothing to reassure me.

After all, here's Doug Weldon, experienced prosecutor and processor of

witnesses extraordinaire. He makes this post without having even read

#2180. He appears to have completely missed #2055. He doesn't even

spell John Connally's name correctly. Let me offer a caricature of what

the petty participants on this forum would do with him. How can he post

when he isn't reading them? Sometimes he seems to know what he is

talking about, but other times he misses the boat by a mile! Here the

one posting can't even spell "Connally", but other times he has spelled

the name correctly. How can some of these posts come from someone

who is on top of things and others from someone who is not? Some of

them spell his name correctly, others do not. These inconsistencies are

difficult to explain unless, perhaps, there actually are "two Weldons"!

Indeed, I take it his commitment to HARVEY & LEE largely motivates

his interest in Judyth. Yet when she and I have raised questions about

the adequacy of John Armstrong's research--about the "index" to the

26 volumes, the date of founding of the Warren Commission, the eye-

color difference claim, the use of aspect-ratio distortions to bolster a

weak case for photographic support, and even "Harvey"'s aunt Lillian

purportedly paying for "Lee"'s dental work--there has been nothing to

my knowledge coming from Doug Weldon. Jack even began a thread,

"For Jim/Judyth" (now on page 12 of the index) to collate them. When

I point out that Jack's allegation about Judyth's story being "illogical"

applies equally to the story of HARVEY & LEE, we hear nothing from him.

Let me show how easy it would be to shred Doug Weldon on the stand.

"Mr. Weldon, you say you 'listened to the entire podcast'. Which one is

that? There are two two-hour interviews which have been posted there.

Which one did you listen to? You also say, 'the only question you heard

addressed was the one about handwriting'. But don't you know that she

had also done some eleven YouTube interviews, many of which deal with

specific questions that have been raised on the forum, such as the 'Can-

cun/Kankun' controversy? You suggest that Judyth should ask Lifton to

post the audio of his conversation with her if she will declare that she is

not going to bring a suit against him. But don't you know Judyth herself

has observed that the statute of limitations has surely run out on making

such a legal filing? You are an attorney, are you not? You don't know?"

"Included on the blogs Dr. Fetzer has created about her, you can find an

interview with Anna Lewis, who was a friend of Judyth's in New Orleans

and who, with her husband, David, 'double-dated' with Judyth and Lee.

Have you watched that video? Because there are living witnesses who

support Judyth's story. Another is a classmate from the University of

Florida in whom she confided about her plans to head for New Orleans

in the expectation of entering the Tulane Medical School. She, too, is

still alive and attests to the truth of Judyth's story. Her name is Kathy

Santa, M.D. How can an experienced attorney such as yourself be so

oblivious of the importance of living witnesses who support her story?"

"Mr. Weldon, you say you are puzzled that Dr. Fetzer finds Judyth to be

credible when there are lingering questions about aspects of her story,

such as details about the monkey business and her marriage to Robert.

Jack White has repeatedly confounded the weight of the monkeys with

their number. Have you ever corrected him about his blunder? Indeed,

have you ever corrected any of Judyth's critics for their mistakes? Why,

when Dr. Fetzer has had overwhelmingly more direct interaction with her

and two of his closest friends--who are nobody's fool--have lived with her

for a week in a modest rooming house, relating with her every minute of

the day, do you suppose that inferences you are drawing from purported

inconsistencies in minutia should be weighted more than their experience?

Why are you unwilling to grant the least force to their personal knowledge?"

"As an experienced attorney, are you unaware that witnesses repeatedly

subjected to interrogations about their stories commonly describe them in

slightly variant ways across time and under different circumstances, where

those minor inconsistencies do nothing to impeach the integrity of what they

have to tell us? Isn't there something about materiality that matters? And

if this witness has been subjected to multiple mischaracterizations on many

different forums, don't you think it becomes trifling to offer inconsistencies

that are artificial rather than genuine? Yet you appear to be unwilling to

acknowledge any of these obvious considerations. You do not even seem

willing to grant that someone subjected to impersonation is probably real!

Is your devotion to HARVEY & LEE so great you won't give her a fair shake?"

Not only have you apparently not read my "sign off" post #2180 but to the

best of my knowledge, you have never responded to the series of posts in

which I lay out some of the crucial aspects of Judyth's story, including one

about Ochsner (#2120), another on the consistency of Judyth's story over

time (#2121), another on Lee's handwriting and Judyth's sample (#2122),

an important one on "the disappearing witness" (#2123), and a fourth on

maintaining control of witnesses at East Louisiana State Hospital (#2124).

All of these provide substantial circumstantial evidence supporting Judyth's

story. But Weldon is so careless in dealing with them that he even claims

the comparison comes from Judyth when it comes from Howard Platzman.

For an experienced prosecutor, I would have thought the post about "the

disappearing witness" (#2123) would have caught your eye. There are

several early reports of a woman accompanying Lee Oswald, first, when

he enters a barbershop to have a hair cut, second, when he visits a state

representative whose daughter, Mary Morgan, observes the woman in an

old car from which Oswald has entered the house. In successive reports

about it, this person gradually disappears, to the extent that recent work

by associates of Jim DiEugenio maintains she was never there, as though

their much later work could possibly qualify as more reliable than earlier

work by Jim Garrison's staff! This appears to be a stunning example of a

methodological blunder, as I have taken pains to explain above (#2142).

Lest anyone suppose my disagreements with Jack White, David S. Lifton,

Doug Weldon, or Jim DiEugenio are rooted in past conflicts between us, I

am glad to take this opportunity to dispose of any such illusions, namely:

Jack and I have collaborated extensively in the past, where I published

his studies in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), MURDER IN DEALEY

PLAZA (2000), and THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003). He and I

have fought many battles together on the same side against the forces

of darkness in relation to JFK research. I have admired him greatly in

the past, but his utter unwillingness to open his mind to the possibility

that Judyth's story might be true has driven me up the wall. In spite

of my enormous affection for Jack, I am appalled by his ignorance of

basic aspects of the case, which I addressed, for example, in #2073.

As I have observed on more than one occasion, I learned more about

JFK from BEST EVIDENCE (1980) than from any other source when I

first became serious about JFK research and I consider my three books

as sequels to Lifton's studies. When DiEugeio attacked Doug Horne for

his support of Lifton's views, I defended Horne and Lifton against Jim,

as anyone can see (#2157). When Lifton's laptop was stolen from his

car in Santa Monica, he called me for help and I lent him $1,000 to buy

a replacement. But his attitude toward Judyth is simply inexcusable. He

could have contributed so much more, including about HARVEY & LEE.

I have long admired Jim DiEugenio for his dogged determination with

respect to Vincent Buliosi's RECLAIMING HISTORY, where John and I

republished all eight installments of his critique and more in our co-

edited journal, assassinationresearch.com. He has a background in

history, which meant that I was taken aback to discovery that he was

reviewing Horne's book and attacking his admiration for Lifton's work

without realizing that INSIDE THE ARRB vindicates Lifton's research!

That he would attempt to undermine "The Disappearing Witness" by

granting more weight to later interviews than to earlier ones (given

the fallibility of memories, the corruption of investigations of JFK and

the pressure that has no doubt been placed upon them) stunned me.

Doug Weldon speaks with a soft voice but has a considerable intellect.

I published his brilliant study of the Lincoln limousine in MURDER and I

have defended his research in many contexts, including a recent thread

on this very forum. Why he should denigrate his own IQ escapes me,

because he ordinarily qualifies as one of the more patient and thorough

-going students of JFK in town--with the striking exception of his work on

Judyth, which has been slipshod in the extreme. He has taken a casual

approach to this thread, reading intermittently and often posting without

catching up on the state of discussion, as he has done here (see above).

If his research on the limo had been this shoddy, I would not have used

it. Judyth appears to be a special case that tests the integrity of us all.

On the other hand, there have been interesting contributions from others

who were not well known to me, including Michael Hogan, Karl Kinaski,

and Pamela Brown, who have made subtle and penetrating comments,

with which I often agree. Others have been more predictable, such as

. . . . Well, you know their names. They practice the art of flooding the

thread each time I make a consequential post, in the hope that no one

is going to notice. Those who want to study the black arts could learn a

thing or two from them. I close with a tip of my hat to Dean Hartwell,

who has (from my point of view) been the most objective and balanced

of the contributors to this thread. And in recognition thereof, I present:

24e5r0g.jpg

Doug,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jim

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fetzer:

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

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

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

Jim:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Doug Weldon

Jim:

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

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

Doug Weldon

Jim:

I hope this is my last reply to this thread. I listened to both podcasts. Judyth never responded to any of the four questions I raised except to state she will not submit the alleged LHO writing to an independent handwriting analysis. I became even more concerned when I heard how much she knows about handwriting analysis annd offered her opinions on the writings.. It further raises my concern that the writing could be a careFul forgery. Yes, I am a poor typist and unfortunately this forum does not provide a spelling analysis. How would I possibly know what the statute of limitations or laws are in California? In many states if one party knows a conversation is being taped it is legal. I have no devotion to Harvey and Lee but there are many impressive points. I believe that very few of the pertinent questions in this forum have been adequately addressed. I think it likely that Judyth has convinced very few people on this forum and probably has done herself a disservice. Judyth asked why people on this forum did not ask her questions directly on this forum? It is the same logic she has used with many of her contentions. She ignores that she used you as a conduit for whatever points or questions she chose to address. It is time for this to end. Good luck on her book and movie rights. Ultimately she remains an elusive and damaged witness.

Doug Weldon

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest James H. Fetzer

Here's a nice example of the quality of Jack's recent arguments. What is

the basis for his claim that "Harvey" was circumcised but "Lee" was not?

Harvey (killed by Jack Ruby) WAS circumcised, according to his autopsy.

Lee, born a Lutheran and not a Jew in New Orleans in 1939, very likely was

NOT circumcised, as in those days it was not a routine operation, but a religious

ceremony, done by a rabbi.

I was born in 1940 and I was circumcised. Throughout high school and

in college and the Marine Corps, I virtually never encountered anyone who

was not. If I had to guess, I would say that less than 5%--probably closer

to 1%--of men in my experience were uncircumcised. Jack likes to claim

that he depends upon DOCUMENTATION. Not only does he have NONE to

support this claim but the statistical data based upon my experience runs

completely opposed. With a probably approaching .99, "Lee" was probably

circumcised, too. Jack is pulling his argument right out of his anal aperture.

Jim keeps saying "Jack is confounded by the difference in thousands of pounds of monkeys and

thousands of monkeys."

This is false, as I have said several times. A thousand pounds of marmosets = 3000 monkeys.

On the other hand, if KING KONG were the monkey in Ferrie's apartment, then a thousand pounds =

one monkey.

Jim is not reading every posting. I have said this at least twice.

I am not confounded. The monkey business is. We cannot get a straight answer from JVB about

the monkeys and their "processing", questions that have been asked several times.

Jack

Jack:

In the podcasts Judyth refers to 65 pound monkeys. The circumcision issue is very telling. How does Judyth get around her 2000 e-mail?

Doug Weldon

What about the marmosets? That was the big issue last week. A 65 pound monkey is huge (chimp or baboon) and

much more expensive than smaller species.

Harvey (killed by Jack Ruby) WAS circumcised, according to his autopsy. Lee, born a Lutheran and not a Jew in

New Orleans in 1939, very likely was NOT circumcised, as in those days it was not a routine operation, but a religious

ceremony, done by a rabbi.

I think the JVB amazon review using a pseudonym is suspicious.

Jack

Link to post
Share on other sites
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, :lol: AND ARE FAR AHEAD OF THE REST MOST TIMES, :lol: 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 by James H. Fetzer
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by James H. Fetzer
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by James H. Fetzer
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Michael Hogan
Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...