Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[Stephen Roy]

For some reason, I keep hearing a Beatles song in my head...

All through the day, I me mine, I me mine, I me mine

All through the night, I me mine, I me mine, I me mine

Now the frightened are leaving it, everyone's weaving it, coming on strong all the time

All through your life, I me mine

[Pamela Brown]

SR says: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.

[Pamela Brown]

SR says: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.

Roy might want to take his own advice.

Why not at the very least acknowledge that Jim Fetzer listens to everything that is being said here, and chooses to think for himself? It would be a mistake to equate 'listening' with 'being swayed'. Anyone who wishes to keep an open mind seems to be a thorn in the side. Jim Fetzer will not fall to the appeal to the masses Roy seems to be pushing.

[Jack White]

Thank you, Pat. Very cogent observations. Jim IS wrong, IN THIS ONE INSTANCE.

He and I disagree on several subjects (OJ Simpson, evolution, etc.) but none with

this vehemence on his part. He and I agree on 90 percent of various things...

but now because I do not defer to his judgment on JVB, I have suddenly become

inferior in all respects. He cannot see that I HAVE NOT CHANGED, but his perception

has. He accuses me of prejudice against Judyth. OF COURSE I HAVE PREJUDGED HER,

about 10 years ago when she first came forward! I studied ALL THE EVIDENCE at that

time and reached a judgment. Jim has presented NOTHING NEW which would change

my opinion. The woman is living out a fantasy.

Jack

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.

[Stephen Roy]

SR says: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.

Roy might want to take his own advice.

Why not at the very least acknowledge that Jim Fetzer listens to everything that is being said here, and chooses to think for himself? It would be a mistake to equate 'listening' with 'being swayed'. Anyone who wishes to keep an open mind seems to be a thorn in the side. Jim Fetzer will not fall to the appeal to the masses Roy seems to be pushing.

What ARE you talking about? He never acknowledges points I've brought up, resorting again to attacks. Fetzer does not listen to other people here, but you are right that he thinks for himself. And yes, anyone who wishes to keep an open mind is a thorn in his side. Nobody expects him to "fall", because he really doesn't care what others think.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

JIM RESPONDS TO PAT SPEER FOR A GROUNDLESS (AND BIASED) POST

This is a baseless post from Pat Speer. I continue to support Doug Weldon's research on

the Lincoln limousine. I continue to support Jack White's past research (apart from some

doubts that are bothering me about HARVEY & LEE). I continue to support David Lifton's

past research on the medical evidence, body alteration, and the Zapruder film. Indeed, I

have in the past even supported Josiah Thompson's work until he convinced me that he is

no longer seeking the truth by going to the extent of even disavowing his own best work

in the form of the proof of the "double hit" in SIX SECONDS, which he no longer supports.

I have even been defending Lifton and Horne against DiEugenio during the course of this

thread. And I have reported Speer's observation of the blunder about the founding of the

Warren Commission here. When I observe that HARVEY & LEE may turn out to be a hoax,

that is not to claim that the case has been proven but that, as I've explained several times,

for John and Jack to have established the existence of "two Oswalds", they had to establish

the existence of THREE: the one they call "Harvey", the one they call "Lee", and the phony

history the CIA was creating for "Harvey", as he said to Judyth on more than one occasion.

The fact of the matter is that I have probably spent more time on more threads defending

Jack White, Doug Weldon, and David Lifton than anyone else in the history of this forum.

So I take objection to Speer's groundless verbal assault upon me here. That I fault them

for being closed-minded about Judyth in the course of this thread is not the same thing as

to impugn their integrity or their research in general. They each appear to have their own

reasons for not giving Judyth a fair shake. Speer is off-base. There is nothing wrong with

my giving each of them credit when they are right and faulting them when they are wrong.

Here is a perfect example of my efforts to nudge Jack into being more reasonable about all of this:

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 appears 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",

research in New Orleans by a man who knows the city like the back his hand and lays it

out for those who can actually read and understand the words he writes, and much more,

which I have laid out in several blogs, some nine YouTube interviews, and two two-hour

interviews on "The Real Deal", virtually none of which you have ever bothered to read or

watch. I have spent overwhelmingly more time dealing with her than anyone else who

is posting. Your utterly irresponsible conduct during the course of this thread has caused

me to question your competence. Having to deal with you here has been among the most

disappointing experiences of my adult life. And you are doing nothing to redeem yourself.

I really don't care about the twits who post so frequently. But I do care about you. Take

the time to respond to the questions that I have raised before I have to write you off as

a lost cause. If you begin by answering the questions I have raised, there may be hope.

I am becoming increasingly concerned about Jim. He seems to be under some sort of spell

where his normally brilliant judgment is becoming progressively impaired. He is obsessed with

JVB out of all proportion to her relative unimportance to solving the JFK murder. If her tales

had any relevance or importance, it would be a different matter. Even if her stories were

100% true, they are insignificant.

Jack

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 James H. Fetzer

[Jack White]

While perusing (leafing thru) Dr. Mary's Monkey, I had a sudden thought

about BIOWEAPONS. I have read many reports about the CIA's arsenal

of covert and deadly toxins used for secret killings. The alleged dart fired

by the Umbrellaman was said to contain a paralyzing agent. Mary Ferrell

told me that LBJ was said to have been done in by a slice of apple pie

served to him by his secret service agent; the pie contained sodium

morphate, according to Mary, and was undetectible. And so on and on.

So why in the world did the CIA need some amateurs concocting a

secret cancer BIOWEAPON to kill Castro?

Such a scheme sounds like a Keystone Kops Komedy skit. Three

amateurs...Larry, Curly and Moe...injecting mice and monkeys in a

hurried skit trying to get a fatal cancer concoction!

Whatever its faults, the CIA in 1963 was a sophisticated organization

with multiple sophisticated resources and talented scientists. It was

NOT a Mickey Mouse operation. There is NO WAY that it would operate

in the manner described by JVB.

Jack

[Pat Speer]

JIM RESPONDS TO PAT SPEER FOR A GROUNDLESS (AND BIASED) POST

This is a baseless post from Pat Speer. I continue to support Doug Weldon's research on

the Lincoln limousine. I continue to support Jack White's past research (apart from some

doubts that are bothering me about HARVEY & LEE). I continue to support David Lifton's

past research on the medical evidence, body alteration, and the Zapruder film. Indeed, I

have in the past even supported Josiah Thompson's work until he convinced me that he is

no longer seeking the truth by going to the extent of even disavowing his own best work

in the form of the proof of the "double hit" in SIX SECONDS, which he no longer supports.

I have even been defending Lifton and Horne against DiEugenio during the course of this

thread. And I have reported Speer's observation of the blunder about the founding of the

Warren Commission here. When I observe that HARVEY & LEE may turn out to be a hoax,

that is not to claim that the case has been proven but that, as I've explained several times,

for John and Jack to have established the existence of "two Oswalds", they had to establish

the existence of THREE: the one they call "Harvey", the one they call "Lee", and the phony

history the CIA was creating for "Harvey", as he said to Judyth on more than one occasion.

The fact of the matter is that I have probably spent more time on more threads defending

Jack White, Doug Weldon, and David Lifton than anyone else in the history of this forum.

So I take objection to Speer's groundless verbal assault upon me here. That I fault them

for being closed-minded about Judyth in the course of this thread is not the same thing as

to impugn their integrity or their research in general. They each appear to have their own

reasons for not giving Judyth a fair shake. Speer is off-base. There is nothing wrong with

my giving each of them credit when they are right and faulting them when they are wrong.

I was not trying to "verbally assault" you, Jim, but to be fair. I was trying to point out that Jack, unlike yourself, understands that many, including those with whom he has spent many hours, will not always agree with him. Apparently, you feel my characterization was incorrect and that you in fact share this understanding.

If so, would you not agree that your description of Harvey and Lee--a project on which Jack worked, and wholeheartedly supports--as a "hoax," was excessive? As stated, a "hoax" implies deliberate deception. Do you honestly believe John Armstrong knows his theory of two Oswalds is false? I recall an instance where I called Robert Livingston a "fraud," because I didn't believe his story, and you quite correctly shot me down, as I had (and have) no reason to believe his story was not just untrue, but a lie (where the teller of a falsehood KNOWS what they are saying is untrue.)

To be clear, I have strong doubts about both the two Oswald theory and Judyth's story, but agree with you in that IF Judyth's story can be shown to be factual, it would be significant, and dramatically alter history's perception of Oswald.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

In the sense in which I was using the term "hoax", it meant a false story that has taken in

a large segment of the research community. I did not mean to imply that Jack and John

are "agents" in any sense of the word. But I do think that their predispositions toward a

(rather fantastic) theory were reinforced by the discovery of (what I take to have been) a

false evidentiary trail to create a phony history for Lee H. Oswald to allow him to return to

civilian life. Greg Parker seems to have done a lot of research that tends to confirm what I

believe: that they mistook the false history for a real one and never seriously considered

that they themselves might have committed a blunder from scratch! The first indications

I had that something is not right--the saga of the "missing tooth"--actually caused Jack

to advance the (completely speculative) hypothesis that Lillian, Dutz, Robert, Marina, and

Marguerite ALL KNEW OF THE EXISTENCE OF "TWO OSWALDS" EVEN THOUGH NONE OF

THEM EVER UTTERED A PEEP! When Jack makes "documentation" his middle name but

responds to an obvious criticism with SPECULATION UNSUPPORTED BY DOCUMENTATION,

my suspicion that something is profoundly wrong is reinforced. I agree that all of us can

make mistakes, but that is not reason to fault me when I point them out in Jack, David,

or Doug, whose performance ON THIS SPECIFIC THREAD has left so much to be desired.

And I greatly appreciate your concurrence that, if Judyth's story were accepted as true,

then it substantially alters our understanding of the assassination, which Jack is utterly

unable to bring himself to concede, even though I have explained it to him many times!

JIM RESPONDS TO PAT SPEER FOR A GROUNDLESS (AND BIASED) POST

This is a baseless post from Pat Speer. I continue to support Doug Weldon's research on

the Lincoln limousine. I continue to support Jack White's past research (apart from some

doubts that are bothering me about HARVEY & LEE). I continue to support David Lifton's

past research on the medical evidence, body alteration, and the Zapruder film. Indeed, I

have in the past even supported Josiah Thompson's work until he convinced me that he is

no longer seeking the truth by going to the extent of even disavowing his own best work

in the form of the proof of the "double hit" in SIX SECONDS, which he no longer supports.

I have even been defending Lifton and Horne against DiEugenio during the course of this

thread. And I have reported Speer's observation of the blunder about the founding of the

Warren Commission here. When I observe that HARVEY & LEE may turn out to be a hoax,

that is not to claim that the case has been proven but that, as I've explained several times,

for John and Jack to have established the existence of "two Oswalds", they had to establish

the existence of THREE: the one they call "Harvey", the one they call "Lee", and the phony

history the CIA was creating for "Harvey", as he said to Judyth on more than one occasion.

The fact of the matter is that I have probably spent more time on more threads defending

Jack White, Doug Weldon, and David Lifton than anyone else in the history of this forum.

So I take objection to Speer's groundless verbal assault upon me here. That I fault them

for being closed-minded about Judyth in the course of this thread is not the same thing as

to impugn their integrity or their research in general. They each appear to have their own

reasons for not giving Judyth a fair shake. Speer is off-base. There is nothing wrong with

my giving each of them credit when they are right and faulting them when they are wrong.

I was not trying to "verbally assault" you, Jim, but to be fair. I was trying to point out that Jack, unlike yourself, understands that many, including those with whom he has spent many hours, will not always agree with him. Apparently, you feel my characterization was incorrect and that you in fact share this understanding.

If so, would you not agree that your description of Harvey and Lee--a project on which Jack worked, and wholeheartedly supports--as a "hoax," was excessive? As stated, a "hoax" implies deliberate deception. Do you honestly believe John Armstrong knows his theory of two Oswalds is false? I recall an instance where I called Robert Livingston a "fraud," because I didn't believe his story, and you quite correctly shot me down, as I had (and have) no reason to believe his story was not just untrue, but a lie (where the teller of a falsehood KNOWS what they are saying is untrue.)

To be clear, I have strong doubts about both the two Oswald theory and Judyth's story, but agree with you in that IF Judyth's story can be shown to be factual, it would be significant, and dramatically alter history's perception of Oswald.

[Glenn Viklund]

So why in the world did the CIA need some amateurs concocting a

secret cancer BIOWEAPON to kill Castro?

Such a scheme sounds like a Keystone Kops Komedy skit. Three

amateurs...Larry, Curly and Moe...injecting mice and monkeys in a

hurried skit trying to get a fatal cancer concoction!

Jack

Jack,

Spot on. Apart from the fantasy world of Judyth, they didn't - as we all know.

I also want to comment on your reflections of your friend, Jim Fetzer. As a newbie around this block, I do agree with your conclusion. Exactly what it is that he's lost, I'm not sure.

As a newbie - or to use Fetzer's words, a nobody - I can't get around the question: where has Jim Fetzer ever earned his clout, his respect?? Where in the world has this rude, unreasonable man, who's completely without any kind of ability to judge what he is told or what he is reading, been able to achieve this standing, not only within the CT community, but, AT ALL?

They way he has argued about the issues in this thread is amateurish, at best. The way I see his judgment, is poor, at best. The way he has treated his friends is disgusting, at best. The way he has lived up to his own standards - as lectured here - is ridiculous. The way he has destroyed the misson he entered here, on the other hand, is very impressive - a bulls eye performance in this respect.

And the way he has treated me and other "twits" should have rendered him the boot, about a month ago. Just like so many others in history, he is so full of himself and his causes, that he is far beyond reason. BIG mouth, small ears - a disastrous combination. When was the last time Jim Fetzer turned a corner and did not discover a conspiracy?

You, Michael Hogan, Barb, Doug Weldon and a few others make a lasting impression on a newbie. Fetzer does not. In my view he should start his apologizing journey with Dean, and after that turn to the rest of the opponents to Judyth in this thread.

Best to you, Jack.

GV

Edited May 10, 2010 by Glenn Viklund

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

And, as I read the situation, the key player in developing a rapid-growing

cancer bioweapon would have been Alton Ochsner. I think you are missing

that, for him, it was convenient to do this in his backyard, New Orleans, as

opposed to any other location. This is very sophisticated stuff and, by luring

Judyth to New Orleans, where Mary Sherman was in residence, he could do

what needed to be done in the way of a secret project without leaving home!

I strongly encourage you to study the life of Alton Ochsner, whose bio sketch

has been published already on this forum as the first of a series of five posts,

which, so far as I can discern, have not been appreciated by the members of

this thread. Check out his friends, Jack, and you will understand this better.

While perusing (leafing thru) Dr. Mary's Monkey, I had a sudden thought

about BIOWEAPONS. I have read many reports about the CIA's arsenal

of covert and deadly toxins used for secret killings. The alleged dart fired

by the Umbrellaman was said to contain a paralyzing agent. Mary Ferrell

told me that LBJ was said to have been done in by a slice of apple pie

served to him by his secret service agent; the pie contained sodium

morphate, according to Mary, and was undetectible. And so on and on.

So why in the world did the CIA need some amateurs concocting a

secret cancer BIOWEAPON to kill Castro?

Such a scheme sounds like a Keystone Kops Komedy skit. Three

amateurs...Larry, Curly and Moe...injecting mice and monkeys in a

hurried skit trying to get a fatal cancer concoction!

Whatever its faults, the CIA in 1963 was a sophisticated organization

with multiple sophisticated resources and talented scientists. It was

NOT a Mickey Mouse operation. There is NO WAY that it would operate

in the manner described by JVB.

Jack

[Pamela Brown]

What ARE you talking about? He never acknowledges points I've brought up, resorting again to attacks. Fetzer does not listen to other people here, but you are right that he thinks for himself. And yes, anyone who wishes to keep an open mind is a thorn in his side. Nobody expects him to "fall", because he really doesn't care what others think.

If Roy can take a step back toward objectivity, which he says he values, perhaps he can see that he is creating a strawman. Jim Fetzer may not say what Roy wants him to or think he should, but he is evaluating all the information on this thread and weighing it in his own way. Keep in mind he has to sift through information based on Roy's bias against anything involving Ferrie and conspiracy.

Why should he care about what others think? Isn't that just an appeal to the masses? Why not allow him to work things through in his own way and respect his right to disagree with you?

[John Dolva]

Why should he care? Who gives a .... . But he does care. A lot. The meanderings of this thread shows it clearly. So why does he care? What is it that he does care about. The most. His ego? His truth? His credibility? Cancer sufferers?

[Greg Burnham]

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.

Indeed, Stephen. I find it uncomfortable to be in between these two "friends" right now. However, it's more important to remain, not only well reasoned, but reasonable...a subtle, albeit powerful, distinction.

[Glenn Viklund]

Why should he care? Who gives a .... . But he does care. A lot. The meanderings of this thread shows it clearly. So why does he care? What is it that he does care about. The most. His ego? His truth? His credibility? Cancer sufferers?

Himself. Period.

Read this thread and this will convince anyone. This Judyth matter is probably the last desperat attempt to achieve attention. The last obscure organisation he initiated, 9/11, which of course he is chairing himself, is going down the drain just as fast as he himself is. Only, he is just as unaware of the fact as he is of his standing in the JVB matter.

Edited May 10, 2010 by Glenn Viklund