Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[Stephen Roy]

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?

Example: I entered this thread by giving my own informed opinion (which I have also done on this and other forums previously, including long before Fetzer discovered all this) that Haslam's books, whatever their merits, do not follow standard research methodology. The conclusions are not supported by the evidence. Fetzer could have drawn me out a bit to cite specifics, but instead he went on the attack (as he has with virtually every other poster in the thread).

Example: His "psy-ops expert" made a couple of crazy statements about Ferrie being recruited by "the Company" (and being made to lose his hair) years before CIA even existed. I corrected them. Rather than say, oh yes, he made some mistakes, Fetzer went silent.

Example: After claiming that research went on at the "underground laboratory" in Ferrie's "large kitchen," I posted photos showing that it was not large, that the trio would have tripped over each other, and that there was no sign of a lab, lab equipment, mice cages, etc. At this point, Fetzer announced that he was leaving the conversation.

I'm not trying to convince Fetzer; it is hopeless, as he is not interested in hearing (with COMPREHENSION) any contrary evidence. So yes, I guess those posts went to "the masses," as do Fetzer's and everyone else's posts in this thread. My "chops" on Ferrie and New Orleans are quite good (and profoundly better than Fetzer's), but he can feel free to "work things through in his own way" and post what he wants.

As will I.

[Stephen Roy]

Let me acknowledge now that I misjudged Michael Hogan...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...Others

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

Ruh roh, Rorge...

Michael:

I guess that, after a brief moment of favor in Fetzer's eyes, you now need to be attacked. Welcome to the club.

[Karl Kinaski]

Jack White:

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...

That is nonsense, Jack. To generate the magnetic-fields needed in part. acc. you need electric current...hight and dangerous enough to produce exact the kind of injury which was observed at M. Shermans arm.

KK

[Pamela Brown]

SR proclaims:My "chops" on Ferrie and New Orleans are quite good (and profoundly better than Fetzer's), but he can feel free to "work things through in his own way" and post what he wants.

LOL. Roy tries to keep a firm rein on his status as a self-proclaimed Ferrie expert. He seems to think he is entitled to that because he has managed to hold his material close to his chest for how many years?

[Jack White]

Jack White:

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...

That is nonsense, Jack. To generate the magnetic-fields needed in part. acc. you need electric current...hight and dangerous enough to produce exact the kind of injury which was observed at M. Shermans arm.

KK

OF COURSE the magnets are run by electricity! But the output is an extremely brief splitting of an atom, which produces

a momentary radiation. The OUTPUT of the machine in no way is electricity. Your toaster uses electricity, but its output

is toast, not electricity! If you have information that a particle accelerator can produce electrical burns, please share it.

I can find no such information.

Jack

[Stephen Roy]

SR proclaims:My "chops" on Ferrie and New Orleans are quite good (and profoundly better than Fetzer's), but he can feel free to "work things through in his own way" and post what he wants.

LOL. Roy tries to keep a firm rein on his status as a self-proclaimed Ferrie expert. He seems to think he is entitled to that because he has managed to hold his material close to his chest for how many years?

It's pointless for me to continue responding to Pamela McElwain-Brown, because she makes charges, I correct them, and she repeats the same erronous information again and again and again, as if by repetition it will stick. So I'll direct this toward readers:

I AM NOT A "SELF-PROCLAIMED" Ferrie expert. I do not use that expression. I am a Ferrie SPECIALIST. My comment above is far more understated, and a direct response to Fetzyr's belief that he knows more about things than other people.

My biography of Ferrie IS NOT FINISHED, as I'm only working on it part-time. I have shared material with many authors, researchers, producers etc.; I've posted a bunch of it here and elsewhere and I've spoken on it at JFK conferences.

If anybody sees her repeat these things again, please remind her that I've responded and they're NOT TRUE.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

It's the new ones that appear to have been faked, Jack. In fact, I can testify

to that being the case, since I have seen both the original (black-and-white)

and the more recent (color), where the original was a full-body, nude shot,

but the more recent is only of his penis. I wish you would read what I have

to say more carefully, Jack. If anyone can find the photo I am looking for--

which I have but cannot presently locate--please send me a copy or a scan.

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

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Michael Hogan has demonstrated (proven) that he is not serious about these things, when he continues to insist upon such distorted claims as this one: "Jim Fetzer has called Haslam's book one of the most scholarly and well-researched books that he has encountered," when I was talking about books published for the general public! I have published many more scholarly books of my own, but they are on technical subjects, including on the theoretical foundations of scientific knowledge, computer science, and artificial intelligence. Anyone can check out SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE, AI: ITS SCOPE AND LIMITS, or THE EVOLUTION OF INTELLIGENCE. I think I can even claim co-authorship for the most throughly researched article, "The NTSB Failed Wellstone", which I wrote with John Costella. The text only runs four-to-six pages but it includes six photographs and 115 notes. Practically every sentence is sourced. So I know full well that there are many more scholarly and well-researched books--but not for the general public! Indeed, as I have previously explained, I answered his three questions some time ago. And, as for his latest (in bold), if I am not mistaken, Judyth was speaking about Livingstone's book, not Ed's. If you read the whole text, Hogan has made a blunder about which the book she was discussing. If you read to the end, she is clearly not talking about Ed but a book that was withdrawn. If Hogan can't get something as plain and simple straight, no one should be surprised his posts are full of distortions--a lot of mistakes for a smart man to make.

....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

Edited May 11, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Pamela Brown]

SR declares:I AM NOT A "SELF-PROCLAIMED" Ferrie expert. I do not use that expression. I am a Ferrie SPECIALIST. My comment above is far more understated, and a direct response to Fetzyr's belief that he knows more about things than other people.

Ok, so Roy is to date an unpublished self-proclaimed Ferrie SPECIALIST. Roy seems blissfully unaware that Fetzer is nipping at his heels. And how many books has Fetzer published? :-0

Edited May 11, 2010 by Pamela Brown

[Michael Hogan]

Jim, I am going to show you that you are wrong. Right now, I don't have the time. You question you call my latest was posed weeks ago.

Michael Hogan has demonstrated (proven) that he is not serious about these things, when he continues to insist upon such distorted claims as this one: "Jim Fetzer has called Haslam's book one of the most scholarly and well-researched books that he has encountered," when I was talking about books published for the general public! I have published many more scholarly books of my own, but they are on technical subjects, including on the theoretical foundations of scientific knowledge, computer science, and artificial intelligence. Anyone can check out SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE, AI: ITS SCOPE AND LIMITS, or THE EVOLUTION OF INTELLIGENCE. I think I can even claim co-authorship for the most throughly research article, "The NTSB Failed Wellstone", which I wrote with John Costella. The text only runs four-to-six pages but it includes six photographs and 115 notes. Practically every sentence is sourced. So I know full well that there are many more scholarly and well-researched books--but not for the general public! Indeed, as I have previously explained, I answered his three questions some time ago. And, as for his latest (in bold), if I am not mistaken, Judyth was speaking about Livingstone's book, not Ed's. If you read the whole text, Hogan has made a blunder about which the book she was discussing. If you read to the end, she is clearly not talking about Ed but a book that was withdrawn. If Hogan can't get something as plain and simple straight, no one should be surprised his posts are full of distortions--a lot of mistakes for a smart man to make.

....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

[Jack White]

It's the new ones that appear to have been faked, Jack. In fact, I can testify

to that being the case, since I have seen both the original (black-and-white)

and the more recent (color), where the original was a full-body, nude shot,

but the more recent is only of his penis. I wish you would read what I have

to say more carefully, Jack. If anyone can find the photo I am looking for--

which I have but cannot presently locate--please send me a copy or a scan.

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

I agree with Jim that the 2 b/w Polaroids shot at the hospital differ from the color

penis photo shot by the FBI at the autopsy. The b/w shots show an erection while

the autopsy slides show it flaccid. I do not know the medical significance of this.

Unlike Jim, I have never considered this suspicious. I doubt that it is retouching.

I have been unable to locate my copies of either set of photos on my computer.

I know I have slides "somewhere".

Jack

[Karl Kinaski]

Jack White:

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...

That is nonsense, Jack. To generate the magnetic-fields needed in part. acc. you need electric current...hight and dangerous enough to produce exact the kind of injury which was observed at M. Shermans arm.

KK

OF COURSE the magnets are run by electricity! But the output is an extremely brief splitting of an atom, which produces

a momentary radiation. The OUTPUT of the machine in no way is electricity. Your toaster uses electricity, but its output

is toast, not electricity! If you have information that a particle accelerator can produce electrical burns, please share it.

I can find no such information.

Jack

A particle acc. facility contains an electric circuit, like your Toaster. If there is something wrong with it (damaged isolation, a short etc), you can die when you get in contact with it: whether it is a toaster, or a particle accelerator...but only a part. accelerator FACILITY got enough voltage to burn ones arm and the bone too...(that is what happened to Mary Shermanns arm)... (Shermann very likely was in contact with the electric circuit, not with the particle accelerator-tubular itself...which of course cannot cause the injury in question...it was obviously a murder-trap(like someone would manipulate your toaster in order to kill you), which should look like an accident. Bu it obviously didn't work...thats why they stabbed her in the heart to make sure thats she is dead, put her in her apartment, and disguised it as murder...the cops knew there was something wrong, but never conducted a serious investigation...

KK

Edited May 11, 2010 by Karl Kinaski

[Stephen Roy]

SR declares:I AM NOT A "SELF-PROCLAIMED" Ferrie expert. I do not use that expression. I am a Ferrie SPECIALIST. My comment above is far more understated, and a direct response to Fetzyr's belief that he knows more about things than other people.

Ok, so Roy is to date an unpublished self-proclaimed Ferrie SPECIALIST. Roy seems blissfully unaware that Fetzer is nipping at his heels. And how many books has Fetzer published? :-0

Yes, that first sentence is fairly accurate. Thanks!

Fetzyr is nipping at my heels??? Oh, I'm CRUSHED! Is that why the poll is at 82/6/11 right now?

I'm not looking at this as a contest. I've made some good observations here, and he just ignores me.

I believe he's published 29 books, as he keeps telling us. Your point? Does that disqualify...well, ALL the other posters here from having opinions? (Again, my knowledge of the New Orleans stuff is pretty good.)

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Jack,

No, he does not have an erection. (I suspect that is physically impossible

for dead men, since their blood pressure has gone to zero.) What it shows

is that he was very "well endowed". It is the most striking feature of this

photograph. The new ones, which I have, are completely different. They

show a very modest "endowment". There is only one possible target for

this, Judyth, who has described him as having "impressive equipment". I

can confirm that that is correct. But the more recent images contradict it.

This is another example of faking photos in the assassination, so it should

come as no surprise. What matters is (1) fakery and (2) targeting Judyth.

Jim

It's the new ones that appear to have been faked, Jack. In fact, I can testify

to that being the case, since I have seen both the original (black-and-white)

and the more recent (color), where the original was a full-body, nude shot,

but the more recent is only of his penis. I wish you would read what I have

to say more carefully, Jack. If anyone can find the photo I am looking for--

which I have but cannot presently locate--please send me a copy or a scan.

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

I agree with Jim that the 2 b/w Polaroids shot at the hospital differ from the color

penis photo shot by the FBI at the autopsy. The b/w shots show an erection while

the autopsy slides show it flaccid. I do not know the medical significance of this.

Unlike Jim, I have never considered this suspicious. I doubt that it is retouching.

I have been unable to locate my copies of either set of photos on my computer.

I know I have slides "somewhere".

Jack

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Absolutely right, Karl. And Ed found evidence of massive power to the basement, which

would have been necessary for the accelerator to function. The control lever appears to

have been electrified so she would get a massive dose of voltage. The fire at her apart-

ment would not even have burned at 500*F, when the mattress was smoldering, which

could not possibly have caused such damage to her body. Ed explains that cremation

machines that burn at around 2,000*F still leave bone residue. On page 323, Haslam

talks about Jack Nygard, who was vaporized when he was accidentally "stuck in the

path of his 5,000,000 volt linear particle accelerator near Seattle, Washington." It

would be a good thing if some of these critics could read with greater understanding.

Jack White:

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...

That is nonsense, Jack. To generate the magnetic-fields needed in part. acc. you need electric current...hight and dangerous enough to produce exact the kind of injury which was observed at M. Shermans arm.

KK

Edited May 11, 2010 by James H. Fetzer