Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[Greg Burnham]

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

Jack,

I am positive that a main "disqualification" used to debunk JVB was the work of John Armstrong. This was quite awhile, as I recall, before the book was even released! Of course, that put me at a great disadvantage when attempting to refute the claims against her. Now, I admire and appreciate Armstrong's work, so it's not about that. But I am positive that the inconsistencies between JVB's account and Armstrong's account was an argued issue.

I did not say you and Rich were against everyone else! In fact, it was me who was against you and Rich (and just about everyone else)! I was almost alone on this side of the topic there. The majority were very skeptical, to put it kindly.

At that time, I was unable to confirm her story for reasons already stated--that had nothing to do with her. But, my personal impression was that she was telling the truth. I could not offer hard evidence to support that perception, however. So, in that sense, I was neutral--and still am.

Edited May 10, 2010 by Greg Burnham

[Michael Hogan]

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.

Jim, you are simply offended at your own imaginations. First of all, when you put those words in quotation

marks, you are implying that I wrote or said them. For you to do so is unfair and misleading. Such tactics

should be beneath a man that professes to be an expert when it comes to logic and rational thinking.

I have reproduced the entire post you were responding to below. Apparently this is the statement that you found offensive:

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.

Did you have a purpose in changing my wording, or was it just an act of intellectual laziness and/or sloppiness?

The quotation marks you used requires an exactitude, particularly when you are taking someone's statement out of context.

They are called quotation marks for a reason.

Furthermore, I didn't suggest you claimed anything. I claimed you suggested something. The distinction is important.

Although you corrected this in a subsequent post, the false impression you originally gave lingers.

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

prove

(bold added)

that she and Lee were "lovers", which is a nice piece of fantasy

The word "prove" is still your invention.

Jim, do you now concede that Ed Haslam's book does not demonstrate that Lee Oswald and Judyth Baker were lovers?

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.

[Kathleen Collins]

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.

You're forgiven. Really, I couldn't tell what it was.

Kathy C

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Let me acknowledge now that I misjudged Michael Hogan. This quotation thing is a bit much, since I have

conveyed the intent of his words. Given the word "proof" is a synonym for "demonstration", it is clear that

Hogan is simply playing with words. What he has been attributing to me, however, is completely misleading.

I have thought he was a serious student of these things and have taken his questions seriously, but no more.

He has been making false and misleading statements regarding my position, even in relation to Ed Haslam's

book. I said it was among the most scholarly I have read intended FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC, so he drops

the qualification to make it easier to attack me. I have never suggested that DR. MARY'S MONKEY shows

that Lee and Judyth were "lovers". No one who has actually read the book would think that. What I said

is that it lays the groundwork--REVEALS THE CONTEXT--within which Judyth's story can best be understood.

I have also previously answered the three questions he claims I have not, which is quite atrocious. Others

have suggested I was mistaken in my favorable opinion of him. I have resisted, but now I am convinced.

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.

Jim, you are simply offended at your own imaginations. First of all, when you put those words in quotation

marks, you are implying that I wrote or said them. For you to do so is unfair and misleading. Such tactics

should be beneath a man that professes to be an expert when it comes to logic and rational thinking.

I have reproduced the entire post you were responding to below. Apparently this is the statement that you found offensive:

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.

Did you have a purpose in changing my wording, or was it just an act of intellectual laziness and/or sloppiness?

The quotation marks you used requires an exactitude, particularly when you are taking someone's statement out of context.

They are called quotation marks for a reason.

Furthermore, I didn't suggest you claimed anything. I claimed you suggested something. The distinction is important.

Although you corrected this in a subsequent post, the false impression you originally gave lingers.

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

prove

(bold added)

that she and Lee were "lovers", which is a nice piece of fantasy

The word "prove" is still your invention.

Jim, do you now concede that Ed Haslam's book does not demonstrate that Lee Oswald and Judyth Baker were lovers?

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.

[Jack White]

Jim demands that I answer the following questions. My answers in bold/red.

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

of Ed Haslam's book?

I am not aware of any gross misrepresentations I have made.

How many times do I have to explain (1) that her story humanizes

the "lone, demented gunman",

Who gives a bigfatratsass about "humanizing" LHO? This is a murder investigation, not a

psychological profiling. We already know MORE than enough about LHO. Check the record

(I will refrain from saying read the book).

(2) that it exposes a secret bioweapons project

Howinell do you know that? Because Ed Haslam speculates about it? The

CIA did NOT need an underground secret bioweapon. They already had numerous

biological and chemical weapons at their disposal, and scientific experts at Fort

Detrick to produce more. Why would they assign a nut, a kook and a defector

(none with the know-how) to invent a BIOWEAPON. Show us proof, not speculation.

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".

This has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the JFK case, even if 100 percent true.

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

This is ENTIRELY SPECULATION on your part. because Number One Jewel is redacted,

NOBODY KNOWS what it is!

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.

I have NO COPIOUS FREE TIME. I budget and schedule my time tightly. When you are

83 you will understand the need for that. I devote less than 2 hours a day to the internet

and research.

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

I know of NO LHO AUTOPSY PHOTOS THAT ARE FAKED. Please show them to us.

(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

As far as I know, I am NOT mistaken about the particle accelerator. Haslam makes

some interesting speculations, but offers NO proofs.

and that

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

her apartment as you had previously claimed

I have NEVER stated that Dr. Mary's death occurred in her apartment. You are imagining

that. What I said was Haslam's theory of someone using the particle generator to kill her

and then to transport her remains across town to her apartment is an odd and unproven

theory. A particle accelerator uses MAGNETS as its source of propulsion, not electric

current, and it is wildly theoretical to say that the RADIATION produced could be used

to burn someone to death. Haslam offers NO PROOF for his theory.

, 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?

I have read all of your posts and found NOTHING in them that significantly explains why

JVB makes a scintilla of difference to understanding the JFK murder.

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

Your "appeal to authority" has no appeal because the "authorities" listed all (except

Hartwell) had/have a pecuniary interest in the Judyth story. Having a vested interest

in what a witness says disqualifies their impartiality. I am mystified about your rabid

interest in this.

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 read everything you have written. I have NO TIME to watch ten videos. I have

better things to spend several hours doing. I am 83 and running out of time fast. I have

none to waste.

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.

I have done absolutely NOTHING IRRESPONSIBLE. I resent this accusation. I have stated

what I think BASED ON INVESTIGATIONS OF THE SAME MATERIAL YEARS AGO, after which

I formed my present opinions...before you ever heard this strange woman's strange tales.

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 need not do ANYTHING TO REDEEM MYSELF. I have done nothing wrong. I simply disagree

with your crusade. I just wish you would give it a rest. You are doing more harm than good.

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.

Edited May 11, 2010 by Jack White

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

JIM REPLIES TO DOUG WELDON ABOUT THE "CIRCUMCISION" ISSUE

Since Judyth has been traveling, I have been unable to contact her for some

response to this ridiculous "circumcision" issue, which you, without asking

for any confirmation that it originated with her or allowing her to reply, have

taken to be the final nail in the coffin of her credibility. Having discussed this

with her long ago, I have not been worried about but I am instead concerned

about the apparent faking of Oswald autopsy photographs, not with regard to

this issue but with regard to a (not unrelated) question about his equipment.

I would have thought you might have noticed there was a collateral issue here.

But apparently now. The claim that Judyth alleged that Lee was uncicrumcised

appears to have originated with Debra Conway, not with Judyth. As I under-

stand it, Debra attributed that view to Judyth at a time they were on friendly

terms. Here is something that was posted on 7 May 2010 on another forum:

Chapman called me shortly after Debra Conway and i had met, and said, "Debra

tells me you said Oswald was not circumcized." Debra Conway had told me she

had received a photo of Lee entirely nude, and that she and Chapman had decided

to show it at the Lancer conference, with that area covered. We did not discuss

circumcision-- I did make a comment that Lee was 'well endowed.' It's important

to know that when Chapman called me and said Debra had told him that I said

Lee was not circumcised, AND THAT THE PHOTO SHE HAD SHOWN AT LANCER

CONFIRMED THIS, that many things ran through my mind. Someone had sent

her a bogus or altered photo, then, because Lee WAS circumcised! Fortunately,

her reputation was still OK because she had told me that area had been covered

with a black square when shown publicly. Poor Debra! She had been given a

bogus photo! And accepted it as genuine, even though the autopsy report said

clearly that Lee was circumcised!

The photograph in question interests me more than the attribution by Debra to

Judyth, which appears to have originated with Debra, not with Judyth. What I

am looking for is a copy of the photograph, which I obtained years ago and was

struck by the decedent's "impressive equipment". Dean Hagerman, in the mean-

while, has sent me some other autopsy photographs that appear to have been

faked, which are quite different and display "very modest" equipment. I have a

copy of the original--taken from above his left foot, a full-body nude image, in

black-and-white--while these new photos are partial and in color. But having

moved to Madison in 2006, I am unable to locate it at present. Something is

going on and it can have only one apparent purpose--to discredit the one and

only person who knows the details of Lee Harvey Oswald's life in New Orleans.

_______________________________________________________________

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

[Michael Hogan]

I have never suggested that DR. MARY'S MONKEY shows that Lee and Judyth were "lovers".

That's all I wanted to hear. Thanks.

[Jack White]

The LHO photos showing his "equipment" as Jim calls it were first seen in the 1980s...long before

anyone ever heard of Judyth...so they could not have been "faked" for her benefit.

Jack

[Josiah Thompson]

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.

Professor Fetzer has great difficulty getting anything right... as we’ve seen again and again on this thread. Once again, he bloviates far from the truth.

He says that he has “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 “double hit” om SIX SECONDS which he no longer supports..”

How many misstatements can a single sentence contain?

First, Fetzer has never ever supported any part of my work and certainly not the hypothesis offered in Six Seconds of a double hit on Kennedy’s head between Z frames 312 and 314. That is just for starters. Nor have I abandoned the hypothesis that Kennedy was hit twice in the head.... first from the front, next from the rear.

David Winp’s work has persuaded me that all the occupants of the limousine begin sliding forward in their seats at approximately Z 308. Only Kennedy, reacting to a bullet hit at Z 313, is thrown forcefully backward and to the left. The forward motion of his head that I believed occurred between Z 312 and Z313, Wimp explains was not real motion but apparent motion introduced by the smearing of Z 313 as Zapruder moved his camera in startle response. Insofar as I can determine at present, there is no forward motion between Z 312 and Z 313 that can be ascribed to a bullet hit.

However, the inside of the windshield was struck by a bullet fragment and lead removed from its interior surface. Frazier’s forensic team found blood and brain debris scattered as far forward as the hood ornament. Obviously, then Kennedy was hit in the head by a bullet fired from the rear. That bullet could not have been fired prior to Z313. It appears that bullet impacted Kennedy’s head at approximately Z 328, 0.7 tenths of a second after the Z 313 hit. It accelerated Kennedy’s head to he fastest forward speed it ever achieved and changed radically the appearance of the wound to his head. I am indebted to Keith Fitzgerald of Concord, New Hampshire for his excellent development of this evidence. Kennedy was hit in the head from the front at Z 313 and hit in the head from the rear at Z 328. At least that’s the way it looks to me now.

Fetzer’s understanding of all this is non-existent.

Josiah Thompson

[Dean Hagerman]

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.

Professor Fetzer has great difficulty getting anything right... as we’ve seen again and again on this thread. Once again, he bloviates far from the truth.

He says that he has “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 “double hit” om SIX SECONDS which he no longer supports..”

How many misstatements can a single sentence contain?

First, Fetzer has never ever supported any part of my work and certainly not the hypothesis offered in Six Seconds of a double hit on Kennedy’s head between Z frames 312 and 314. That is just for starters. Nor have I abandoned the hypothesis that Kennedy was hit twice in the head.... first from the front, next from the rear.

David Winp’s work has persuaded me that all the occupants of the limousine begin sliding forward in their seats at approximately Z 308. Only Kennedy, reacting to a bullet hit at Z 313, is thrown forcefully backward and to the left. The forward motion of his head that I believed occurred between Z 312 and Z313, Wimp explains was not real motion but apparent motion introduced by the smearing of Z 313 as Zapruder moved his camera in startle response. Insofar as I can determine at present, there is no forward motion between Z 312 and Z 313 that can be ascribed to a bullet hit.

However, the inside of the windshield was struck by a bullet fragment and lead removed from its interior surface. Frazier’s forensic team found blood and brain debris scattered as far forward as the hood ornament. Obviously, then Kennedy was hit in the head by a bullet fired from the rear. That bullet could not have been fired prior to Z313. It appears that bullet impacted Kennedy’s head at approximately Z 328, 0.7 tenths of a second after the Z 313 hit. It accelerated Kennedy’s head to he fastest forward speed it ever achieved and changed radically the appearance of the wound to his head. I am indebted to Keith Fitzgerald of Concord, New Hampshire for his excellent development of this evidence. Kennedy was hit in the head from the front at Z 313 and hit in the head from the rear at Z 328. At least that’s the way it looks to me now.

Fetzer’s understanding of all this is non-existent.

Josiah Thompson

Tink

Is Keith a member of this forum?

If not can you get him to join and talk about this new theory

I am very interested in what he (and of course you) have to say about this new theory

I still believe in your original double head shot between 312 and 314 as I have told you many times

But I am open to this new theory Tink, I want to study this myself

Thanks for sharing your new thoughts on this theory that is super important to me and my studies

Dean

[Doug Weldon]

JIM REPLIES TO DOUG WELDON ABOUT THE "CIRCUMCISION" ISSUE

Since Judyth has been traveling, I have been unable to contact her for some

response to this ridiculous "circumcision" issue, which you, without asking

for any confirmation that it originated with her or allowing her to reply, have

taken to be the final nail in the coffin of her credibility. Having discussed this

with her long ago, I have not been worried about but I am instead concerned

about the apparent faking of Oswald autopsy photographs, not with regard to

this issue but with regard to a (not unrelated) question about his equipment.

I would have thought you might have noticed there was a collateral issue here.

But apparently now. The claim that Judyth alleged that Lee was uncicrumcised

appears to have originated with Debra Conway, not with Judyth. As I under-

stand it, Debra attributed that view to Judyth at a time they were on friendly

terms. Here is something that was posted on 7 May 2010 on another forum:

Chapman called me shortly after Debra Conway and i had met, and said, "Debra

tells me you said Oswald was not circumcized." Debra Conway had told me she

had received a photo of Lee entirely nude, and that she and Chapman had decided

to show it at the Lancer conference, with that area covered. We did not discuss

circumcision-- I did make a comment that Lee was 'well endowed.' It's important

to know that when Chapman called me and said Debra had told him that I said

Lee was not circumcised, AND THAT THE PHOTO SHE HAD SHOWN AT LANCER

CONFIRMED THIS, that many things ran through my mind. Someone had sent

her a bogus or altered photo, then, because Lee WAS circumcised! Fortunately,

her reputation was still OK because she had told me that area had been covered

with a black square when shown publicly. Poor Debra! She had been given a

bogus photo! And accepted it as genuine, even though the autopsy report said

clearly that Lee was circumcised!

The photograph in question interests me more than the attribution by Debra to

Judyth, which appears to have originated with Debra, not with Judyth. What I

am looking for is a copy of the photograph, which I obtained years ago and was

struck by the decedent's "impressive equipment". Dean Hagerman, in the mean-

while, has sent me some other autopsy photographs that appear to have been

faked, which are quite different and display "very modest" equipment. I have a

copy of the original--taken from above his left foot, a full-body nude image, in

black-and-white--while these new photos are partial and in color. But having

moved to Madison in 2006, I am unable to locate it at present. Something is

going on and it can have only one apparent purpose--to discredit the one and

only person who knows the details of Lee Harvey Oswald's life in New Orleans.

_______________________________________________________________

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

Jim:

There is no way to prove or disprove what Judyth told Debra Conway. What is clear is Judyth's e-mail to Reitzes in 2000 in which Judyth notes that 0swald is uncircumcised. Unless you are contending that this e-mail has been altered it is very damning evidence against Judyth. have found these two posts by the late Rich DellaRossa to be very telling:

> Rich,

> Where did you get the idea that Nigel Turner expressed regret at

> making "The Love Affair"?

> Martin

From Nigel Turner. Up till then the most ridiculous offering from him was

The Corsican Connection. He outdid himself with an hour of judyth. Just

put it down to comic relief.

Rich

Judyth has demonstrated an ability to insert herself in books she reads.

She has also done so with Priscilla McMillan's "Marina & Lee."

We were waiting for her to read John Steinbeck's "The Grapes of Wrath" and

read how she moved from Oklahoma to California to become a fruit picker.

Rich

The sad aspect is that I have become persuaded that Judyth sincerely believes her story. I had a professor who was an FBI agent who worked on the Alger Hiss case. He told us that Alger Hiss began to tell a story so often that he could no distinquish between his fantasies and reality. I wanted to believe Judyth. Her story does not threaten me in any way. As I mentioned before I found the monkey virus story to be so interesting because in 2001 and 2002 (when TMWKK was filmed) I almost died from a cancer in which it has been demonstrated that a large portion of people with the cancer have evidence of a monkey virus. It is one of the few cancers that is on the increase. I respect Haslam's work from that aspect. Judyth's story would have been important.

Despite friendships I have to evaluate the evidence. There have been so many good questions and points posted here from Jack, Barb, Glenn, Stephen, Pat, Michael, and many others. Those questions remain void of answers. None of my questions were answered and Judyth's refusal to have the writing examined was very telling. I believe that she likely forged that writing. I have always promised myself that though I value the friendships I have made, the only thing that mattered to me was truth. After 31 years of following this case I can only present the evidence I have discovered. People can choose to accept or reject it. Barb has not been convinced by my evidence. She may one day be or not be. It doesn't bother me. Her questions and points about JVB have been excellent but also ignored or ridiculed.

I have to weigh evidence objectively. It is not only what I have been trained to do it is something I must do. I believe Judyth worked with Oswald. Beyond that there is no convincing evidence that she ever even knew him. However,there is someone who knew Oswald, who knew about him and can humanize him. Myself and many others have talked with Marina for a long time. She has a story to tell. Judyth does not.

I woud have to suspend logic and reason to believe Judyth. Listen to your podcasts. Judyth cannot even keep her own stories straight. She talks about 65 poiund monkeys even after she dismissed that idea here. Look at Ferrie's apartment. Can anyone truly believe that three people could comfortably fit in that kitchen yet do all of those experiements? Do you really believe that the CIA would choose David Ferrie, LHO, and a high school graduate to be responsible forsuch a momentous task?

I think Judyth wants to believe her fantasy. It would give her life the meaning she thinks it deserves. She wants it to be a best selling book and made into a movie. There are those who want to believe her so much that they suspend their own logic and reason to encourage her. I have stated that "History is the myth that people choose to believe." Believe what you want to believe but ultimately the story of JVB is simply a myth. I am sorry that it has created such division. Ultimately, whatever is believed, each person has the right to form their own opinions, without being demeaned or ridiculed. The poll here may give a snapshot of those beliefs. JVB has simply become a real life Walter Mitty. I think this thread has made her position worse. It would have been a great story had it not lacked credibility, substance, or the ring of truth. I wish Judyth the absolute best in her life. May she find comfort and peace in whatever she pursues.

Doug Weldon

[Bill Byas]

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

How do you know? Barb quoted Judyths' own words that Judyth changed her story about aids and monkey virus and Fetzer completely scrambled what Barb said. It looks like he did'nt LISTEN at all.

What about you? did you LISTEN? why did Judyth change her story?

[Bill Byas]

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!

What is the proof that Ochnser "lured" Judyth?

[Pamela Brown]

BB said:How do you know? Barb quoted Judyths' own words that Judyth changed her story about aids and monkey virus and Fetzer completely scrambled what Barb said. It looks like he did'nt LISTEN at all.

It was probably the other way around. It can be frustrating having story laid upon story about what some claim Judyth said that caused her 'story to change' v what Judyth actually said in context and later explained more fully or <gasp> even used different words.

[Michael Hogan]

....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.

I have shortened Judyth's reply. This is the pertinent paragraph:

"In addition, I did not know Haslam was writing another book. It came as a complete surprise,

or otherwise I would have warned him about the unauthorized status of the book."

So my question remains: 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)

JUDYTH REPLIES TO A REASONABLE QUESTION FROM MICHAEL HOGAN

NOTE: Judyth apparently caught something that I had missed, namely: what she takes

to have been a "very reasonable question" concerning the book published by Harrison

Livingstone. It completely slipped by me, so I am pleased to be able to publish Judyth's

response and extend an apology to Michael for my utter failure to recognize the question

.

JUDYTH REPLIES:

About the very reasonable question that has been broached, concerning the book, published by

Harrison Livingstone behind my back, which was an unauhorized edition due to many flaws and

problems, and why Ed Haslam could mention that my book was withdrawn without knowing that

it was an unauthorized book:

Here is how that happened:

.....Haslam heard about the book. I told him I stopped publication of the book, but I had been sent some

copies by Shackelford. I then sent him a copy. But I encountered a dilemma when it came to talking

about the book's problems to Haslam.

Shackelford and Livingstone wanted the true text to get into print as quickly as possible because some

thieves stole an unedited version of a book Dr. Platzman wrote, based on my emails. A lot was missing,

and some errors. Now it was in the hands of thieves. (They would end up sending it to people such as

McAdams, who now quote from this flawed version.)

Speed was more important to them than a good editing job, in my opinion. (Trine Day, this time, is doing

a good job.) In the end, Livingstone simply took it.

Martin preferred to support his old friend, to make a long story short.

I did not want to interfere, however, in any interviewng processes going on between Haslam and Shackelford.

In addition, I did not know Haslam was writing another book. It came as a complete surprise, or otherwise I would have warned

him about the unauthorized status of the book.

(Bold added)

Because he kept asking questions, I knew that inaccuracies in the book of concern did not affect what Haslam

learned from me. I never told Haslam why I withdrew the book, because I did not want him to have any

prejudice against Mr. Shackelford.

Shackelford occasionally had some odd misunderstandings: once he wrote that I had not been a Catholic. He

had never examined my early life, as Haslam did.

He was concerned only with the story of Oswald and me. Each researcher has his or her own style.

I hope this explains why I did not bring up why the book was withdrawn to Haslam. I don't think he ever knew

that Shackelford was involved in the matter. I don't know.

JVB