Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[Jack White]

It is unfortunate that two of my closest friends in the JFK assassination research community, Jack White and James Fetzer, have both contributed--and continue to contribute--to turning this topic from what it is about into "their story". In fact, if any media persons had been following this as a "Judyth story" at the beginning-- that story's significance would have long ago been lost in the quagmire of the Jim & Jack feud.

Originally, Jim was presenting Judyth's material and Jack was discrediting Judyth's material. Shortly thereafter, Jack (and others) began discrediting Judyth--not just her material. Then Jim (and others) began defending Judyth--not just her material. Then an incredibly stupid misdirection of hostility occured: they both began discrediting each other!

This is, no doubt, the most absurd behavior that I've ever witnessed among otherwise intelligent persons who are on the same side of the BIG PICTURE!

My advice: Attack ideas--not each other. This isn't about either of you! It's not about your respective competence as researchers--so don't make it about that. You disagree. Leave it there. It will only mean more than that if you force it to mean more. Allow each other a graceful way out. None of us is ever 100% right about anything. Who knows, fellas--one or both of you might not be this time?

Thanks, Monk! On target as usual. If I have offended Jim, I apologize. But I think he needs

to take a break from his crusade. He is ruining his credibility, to the detriment of all of us.

I was only pointing out that Lifton, Weldon, White, Armstrong, et al have not changed...it is Jim

that has changed, and he cannot see it.

Jack

[Bill Byas]

JIM MAKES ONE MORE EFFORT TO CONNECT WITH JACK (BUT IT APPEARS HOPELESS)

Why don't you respond to the questions I have raised about your gross misrepresentations

of Ed Haslam's book? How many times do I have to explain (1) that her story humanizes

the "lone, demented gunman",

What if its not true?

[Bill Byas]

JIM MAKES ONE MORE EFFORT TO CONNECT WITH JACK (BUT IT APPEARS HOPELESS)

Why don't you respond to the questions I have raised about your gross misrepresentations

of Ed Haslam's book? How many times do I have to explain (1) that her story humanizes

the "lone, demented gunman", (2) that it exposes a secret bioweapons project

Wheres the proof?

[Bill Byas]

JIM MAKES ONE MORE EFFORT TO CONNECT WITH JACK (BUT IT APPEARS HOPELESS)

Why don't you respond to the questions I have raised about your gross misrepresentations

of Ed Haslam's book? How many times do I have to explain (1) that her story humanizes

the "lone, demented gunman", (2) that it exposes a secret bioweapons project and (3) that

it leads back to the polio vaccine scandal

How?

[Bill Byas]

JIM MAKES ONE MORE EFFORT TO CONNECT WITH JACK (BUT IT APPEARS HOPELESS)

Why don't you respond to the questions I have raised about your gross misrepresentations

of Ed Haslam's book? How many times do I have to explain (1) that her story humanizes

the "lone, demented gunman", (2) that it exposes a secret bioweapons project and (3) that

it leads back to the polio vaccine scandal, which involved the mandated inoculation of some

100,000,000 young children and appears to have precipitated the epidemic of soft tissue

cancer that is taking place today. George Noory called it perhaps "the greatest scandal in

the history of the nation". (2) appears to have been #1 in the CIA's list of "family jewels",

the one that was redacted. If you don't understand what is going on any better than you

indicate, then you ought to be doing something else with your copious free time. Michael

Hogan even makes up the claim that I suggested DR. MARY'S MONKEY would prove that

she and Lee were "lovers", which is a nice piece of fantasy, and Junkkarinen displays no

interest in whether Oswald autopsy photographs have been faked (which is not the same

as the question of circumcision, which is not the primary issue that concerns me). It is all

too clear that this thread is disintegrating beyond repair. Please acknowledge to everyone

that you were mistaken about evidence of the present of the particle accelerator and that

you were completely wrong about Mary Sherman's death, which cannot have occurred at

her apartment as you had previously claimed, and that if you had only read DR. MARY'S

MONKEY months ago, you could have spared this thread 50 to 100 pointless posts. This

must be at least the fifth time I have explained to you why her story matters. Could you

kindly admit that now you understand why it matters? And stop making up fantasies to

explain my commitment to Judyth. I and Nigel Turner and Ed Haslam and Wim Dankbaar

and Howard Platzman and Dean Hartwell believe in her because she appear to us to be

telling the truth and there is a great deal of evidence to support her, including witnesses

like Kathy Santi and Anna Lewis, documentary records like "the disappearing witness"

Now were getting somewhere! Please tell us more.

[Greg Burnham]

Thanks, Monk! On target as usual. If I have offended Jim, I apologize. But I think he needs to take a break from his crusade. He is ruining his credibility, to the detriment of all of us. I was only pointing out that Lifton, Weldon, White, Armstrong, et al have not changed...it is Jim

that has changed, and he cannot see it.

Jack

[emphasis added]

Not to belabor the point, Jack, but I'm sure Jim would sincerely argue, rightly or wrongly, that it is you who has changed! Perhaps Jim felt an obligation to defend the "underdog" (Judyth) and when she was being attacked--he took it personally. If that is correct, it's not that big a deal. I'm surprised this "feud" went this far, but I understand how it did. It's the result of one party honestly being absolutely convinced (rightly or wrongly) that the "witness" is lying--and the other party honestly being absolutely convinced (rightly or wrongly) that the witness is the "real deal" who is being unfairly treated.

The error, IMHO, is the absoluteness of both of your individual, diametrically opposed, positions.

Edited May 10, 2010 by Greg Burnham

[Jack White]

Thanks, Monk! On target as usual. If I have offended Jim, I apologize. But I think he needs to take a break from his crusade. He is ruining his credibility, to the detriment of all of us. I was only pointing out that Lifton, Weldon, White, Armstrong, et al have not changed...it is Jim

that has changed, and he cannot see it.

Jack

[emphasis added]

Not to belabor the point, Jack, but I'm sure Jim would sincerely argue, rightly or wrongly, that it is you who has changed! Perhaps Jim felt an obligation to defend the "underdog" (Judyth) and when she was being attacked--he took it personally. If that is correct, it's not that big a deal. I'm surprised this "feud" went this far, but I understand how it did. It's the result of one party honestly being absolutely convinced (rightly or wrongly) that the "witness" is lying--and the other party honestly being absolutely convinced (rightly or wrongly) that the witness is the "real deal" who is being unfairly treated.

The error, IMHO, is the absoluteness of both of your individual, diametrically opposed, positions.

Thanks again, Monk. I reemphasize, I have not changed my position in regard to Baker, as you very

likely remember from this same charade years ago on Rich's forum. Were Rich not recently deceased,

I am sure he would join me in opposing this renewed push of the same old story. I have seen NO REASON

to change my previous well-considered opinion...so why should I? I oppose it for the same reasons that

Rich DellaRosa did. I wish he were still with us!

Jack

[Greg Burnham]

Thanks again, Monk. I reemphasize, I have not changed my position in regard to Baker, as you very

likely remember from this same charade years ago on Rich's forum. Were Rich not recently deceased,

I am sure he would join me in opposing this renewed push of the same old story. I have seen NO REASON

to change my previous well-considered opinion...so why should I? I oppose it for the same reasons that

Rich DellaRosa did. I wish he were still with us!

Jack

Jack,

IMHO--there was a charade on Rich's forum about this, but I still maintain that you and Rich were being unreasonable at that time. I miss Rich very much, too--but the arguments the two of you advanced at that time did not convince me and seemed to revolve around defending Harvey & Lee more than anything else. But, they did convince many others. I was, in fact, her lone champion on the forum back then about a decade ago! That said, I have not kept up with a lot of the intervening developments--so I can't disagree or agree with you one way or another about that part.

[Kathleen Collins]

What the hell is this?

An Oswald autopsy photo...

Kathy C

It's a cropped version of his right bicep (upper arm), I think. Actually, I have no idea. It's your picture--why post something if you don't know what it is?

Does it bother you when I try to inject a little humor into this long proceding? I got this off the Internet and the person who displayed it wasn't sure him/or herself what it was. I'm glad you identified it for me. I couldn't tell but now I can.

Also, John Simkin said I can ask questions.

Kathy C

[Greg Burnham]

Does it bother you when I try to inject a little humor into this long proceding? I got this off the Internet and the person who displayed it wasn't sure him/or herself what it was. I'm glad you identified it for me. I couldn't tell but now I can.

Also, John Simkin said I can ask questions.

Kathy C

Remember the last time this happened? I'm a little slow. Without the smiley faces, I get confused. My bad.

[Jack White]

Whoa, Monk...I do not remember Harvey and Lee being involved in any JVB discussions. Are you sure?

And I do not remember it being Rich and me against everyone else. There were many others of the

same opinion. I remember you being sort of neutral, and Rich banishing some Judythites for reasons I have

forgotten.

Jack

Thanks again, Monk. I reemphasize, I have not changed my position in regard to Baker, as you very

likely remember from this same charade years ago on Rich's forum. Were Rich not recently deceased,

I am sure he would join me in opposing this renewed push of the same old story. I have seen NO REASON

to change my previous well-considered opinion...so why should I? I oppose it for the same reasons that

Rich DellaRosa did. I wish he were still with us!

Jack

Jack,

IMHO--there was a charade on Rich's forum about this, but I still maintain that you and Rich were being unreasonable at that time. I miss Rich very much, too--but the arguments the two of you advanced at that time did not convince me and seemed to revolve around defending Harvey & Lee more than anything else. But, they did convince many others. I was, in fact, her lone champion on the forum back then about a decade ago! That said, I have not kept up with a lot of the intervening developments--so I can't disagree or agree with you one way or another about that part.

[Pat Speer]

Thanks, Monk! On target as usual. If I have offended Jim, I apologize. But I think he needs to take a break from his crusade. He is ruining his credibility, to the detriment of all of us. I was only pointing out that Lifton, Weldon, White, Armstrong, et al have not changed...it is Jim

that has changed, and he cannot see it.

Jack

[emphasis added]

Not to belabor the point, Jack, but I'm sure Jim would sincerely argue, rightly or wrongly, that it is you who has changed! Perhaps Jim felt an obligation to defend the "underdog" (Judyth) and when she was being attacked--he took it personally. If that is correct, it's not that big a deal. I'm surprised this "feud" went this far, but I understand how it did. It's the result of one party honestly being absolutely convinced (rightly or wrongly) that the "witness" is lying--and the other party honestly being absolutely convinced (rightly or wrongly) that the witness is the "real deal" who is being unfairly treated.

The error, IMHO, is the absoluteness of both of your individual, diametrically opposed, positions.

Thanks again, Monk. I reemphasize, I have not changed my position in regard to Baker, as you very

likely remember from this same charade years ago on Rich's forum. Were Rich not recently deceased,

I am sure he would join me in opposing this renewed push of the same old story. I have seen NO REASON

to change my previous well-considered opinion...so why should I? I oppose it for the same reasons that

Rich DellaRosa did. I wish he were still with us!

Jack

Even if one were to be an agnostic on the matter of Ms. Baker's truthfulness, one should have no trouble discerning a key difference in the behavior of Jack White and Jim Fetzer. Jack has asserted that Jim is completely out to lunch...IN THIS INSTANCE. Jim, on the other hand, has asserted that Jack's failure to agree with him on this matter has led him to doubt Jack's basic competence and/or integrity etc.

This is actually pretty much SOP for both men. Jack reserves the right to agree or disagree with anyone he wants. Although he has complained loudly about certain researchers who do little beyond attacking his research, he understands that there are well-intentioned researchers doing good work who don't agree with many of his conclusions. As a result. he is friendly and at times complimentary to those with whom he frequently disagrees, including men such as Gary Mack, Josiah Thompson, and Robert Groden. Not so Jim. From what I can gather, Jim sees himself as a consensus-builder, and gets extremely frustrated when people he feels should agree with him or defer to his judgment fail to do so. This leads him to lash out.

While he has most-famously lashed out against Josiah Thompson--who steadfastly refused to go along with Jim's proposition the Zapruder film is a fake--he is now going after Jack and the man he sees as competition for Jack's attention, John Armstrong. I mean, he really did write that he was inclined to think Harvey and Lee not just one man's incorrect take on the evidence, but "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the JFK research community," right? Calling the fruit of another man's research a "hoax," is not simply disagreeing with them, now is it? It's calling them a xxxx.

Edited May 10, 2010 by Pat Speer

[Doug Weldon]

Jack White' date='May 10 2010, 03:55 AM' post='192229

Thanks again, Monk. I reemphasize, I have not changed my position in regard to Baker, as you very

likely remember from this same charade years ago on Rich's forum. Were Rich not recently deceased,

I am sure he would join me in opposing this renewed push of the same old story. I have seen NO REASON

to change my previous well-considered opinion...so why should I? I oppose it for the same reasons that

Rich DellaRosa did. I wish he were still with us!

Jack

Jack,

I found these posts by Rich concerning Judyth on acj and aaj :

Judyth and Rich on her resignation, and the deletion of her posts :

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspir...9651e2455bfbf0a

About Judyth and JFK Research forum:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassi...0f9a8955df0685a

Judyth and Ed Haslam from the same area, Brandenton Fl:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassi...c0c366e47bde6c1

Judyth skeptical of H&L:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspir...740449f9766edf9

Kathy

Kathy:

Thanks. It is very interesting.

Best,

Doug Weldon

[Stephen Roy]

Not to belabor the point, Jack, but I'm sure Jim would sincerely argue, rightly or wrongly, that it is you who has changed! Perhaps Jim felt an obligation to defend the "underdog" (Judyth) and when she was being attacked--he took it personally. If that is correct, it's not that big a deal. I'm surprised this "feud" went this far, but I understand how it did. It's the result of one party honestly being absolutely convinced (rightly or wrongly) that the "witness" is lying--and the other party honestly being absolutely convinced (rightly or wrongly) that the witness is the "real deal" who is being unfairly treated.

The error, IMHO, is the absoluteness of both of your individual, diametrically opposed, positions.

Thanks, Greg. I appreciate the understanding and fairness of your suggestions in this and recent posts. I've been there: Knock-down, drag-out disagreements that escalate to fights and beyond, into personal stuff. Nobody wins, nobody is convinced either way. I hate seeing what this mammoth thread has done to some of our friends and associates. I wish some of the combatants could just chill and stop serial-posting long enough to see that the whole world does not hinge on believing or disbelieving. We're losing the ability to accept that smart people sometimes disagree.

[Stephen Roy]

Stephen, I know you initially were reluctant to get drawn into this thread. Once you were insulted

in such an ugly and unwarranted manner, I understand why it became impossible not to respond.

I think you can take solace in the fact that the overwhelming majority of members that have

read your posts on this thread know you have made consistent attempts to qualify your opinions,

balance your assertions, and refrain from straying far from things you have studied.

I believe that Forum members that are possessed with good judgment know exactly what

happened to you and why. And they know it reflects poorly on the ones that denigrated you.

PS) I would like to thank Greg Burnham, Jack White, Josiah Thompson, and Barb Junkkarinen

for their supportive comments. Those comments meant a lot to me and were appreciated.

Thanks, Michael. I keep hoping that some - especially Fetzer - will start LISTENING to what others have to say, to seriously answer our questions without resorting to dismissal and avoidance, but it's beginning to look very unlikely.