Jump to content
The Education Forum

Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile


Guest James H. Fetzer

Recommended Posts

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

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

Top Posters In This Topic

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

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

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
....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

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

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