Jump to content
The Education Forum

Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile


Guest James H. Fetzer

Recommended Posts

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. :unsure:

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

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Pat Speer
Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Edited by Kathy Beckett
Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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...