Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[Greg Burnham]

Jack and all,

As a point of fact:

I have not always agreed with Jim in this thread and I have opposed the relevance of JVB's story to the JFK assassination. Yet, contrary to the allegations of her detractors, Jim has not attacked me as a result of my disagreeing with him or my lack of committing to fully support JVB. Therefore, he has not, in fact, "attacked" anyone or everyone who fails to embrace JVB's story.

He has said that he was "taken aback" by some of my positions; he has said he was "grieved" by them, as well. But, he has never attacked me.

I suggest that if one does not draw first blood (or had not in the past drawn first blood) against JVB, Jim would respond in kind. It's a fine line sometimes...

GO_SECURE

monk

IMO censorship is not appropriate, and I so posted when it happened.

Again, I HAVE NOT ATTACKED YOU regarding anything. I have questioned

many statements by JVB and being neither logical nor factual. I keep your

support for her story SEPARATE from what she says. You cannot refrain

from attacking anyone who opposes her story and/or your support. You

need to get back your OBJECTIVITY like you had before you became

obsessed with Judyth.

I have no problem with you posting the photos I furnished here, on DPF,

your blog or ANYWHERE. I believe you should allow reasoned opposition,

however, instead of declaring that everyone must believe as you do.

The above DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN ATTACK. As you say, you seem

to be losing your grip! Get a handle!

Jack

Edited May 15, 2010 by Greg Burnham

[Pamela Brown]

GB said re Jim Fetzer: Therefore, he has not, in fact, "attacked" anyone or everyone who fails to embrace JVB's story.

Good insight, and fair. To restate what you said -- nobody should be put under attack simply for disagreeing with another's opinion. It is up to Judyth to win people over, or not -- not people battling each other.

It doesn't matter to me either if you are persuaded by Judyth's statements or not. Hers is a complex situation, coming forth after many years, complete with book, talking about an almost un-researched area. She has compounded her issues of credibility by becoming a researcher too; how is one to know what she learned first-hand and what she acquired in some other way?

Ideally, she would be allowed simple dignity of a witness who has some objective documentation putting her in proximity of LHO at Reily. Her situation in that regard is not unlike Madeline Brown's, and no matter how much of a furor Madeline's statements caused, she was still treated with respect by the research community. Madeline was just a witness, though; others did her research for her and helped her write her book.

Edited May 15, 2010 by Pamela Brown

[Jack White]

I have no problem with you posting the photos I furnished here, on DPF, your blog or ANYWHERE.

Jack,

I have uploaded the images onto a restricted website. Anyone wishing access to the images should contact myself or other mods, and we will supply you with the details.

I am the one who furnished the images to Jim after keeping them largely private

for many years. I have no need nor desire to access them.

[Jack White]

GB said re Jim Fetzer: Therefore, he has not, in fact, "attacked" anyone or everyone who fails to embrace JVB's story.

Good insight, and fair. To restate what you said -- nobody should be put under attack simply for disagreeing with another's opinion. It is up to Judyth to win people over, or not -- not people battling each other.

It doesn't matter to me either if you are persuaded by Judyth's statements or not. Hers is a complex situation, coming forth after many years, complete with book, talking about an almost un-researched area. She has compounded her issues of credibility by becoming a researcher too; how is one to know what she learned first-hand and what she acquired in some other way?

Ideally, she would be allowed simple dignity of a witness who has some objective documentation putting her in proximity of LHO at Reily. Her situation in that regard is not unlike Madeline Brown's, and no matter how much of a furor Madeline's statements caused, she was still treated with respect by the research community. Madeline was just a witness, though; others did her research for her and helped her write her book.

Comparing JVB to Madeleine is comparing apples and oranges. Most of what Madeleine said is verifiable.

My wife was acquainted with a girl who at that time was the mistress of LBJ's lawyer. Madeleine's main

proof of her affair with Lyndon was his lawyer, who arranged "lifetime" payments for Madeleine and

Steve. However, Steve's "lifetime" was cut prematurely short by "galloping cancer", and Lady Bird

saw to it that the lawyer stopped all payments to Madeleine...except the only one which LBJ had

paid up FOR LIFE. That was a lifetime membership with all costs paid to THE TOP OF THE CLIFF CLUB.

Madeleine had MANY proofs of her relationship to LBJ. Judyth has no such proofs.

Jak

[Jack White]

Arguments about the Mannlicher-Carcano are moot. It was not used in the assassination.

Jack

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Monk makes a key point. I am only provoked by those who offer their opinions WITHOUT STUDYING THE EVIDENCE.

It's the same way with Jack in relation to HARVEY & LEE. Those who have not read DR. MARY'S MONKEY, viewed

"The Love Affair", listened to my interviews, read my blogs, and watched the YouTubes with Judyth draw my ire. I

ultimately don't care if someone decides one way or the other, as long as they have studied the relevant evidence.

Most of those posting here, even including my dear friend, Jack, alas, have not bothered to do that, which I resent.

Jack and all,

As a point of fact:

I have not always agreed with Jim in this thread and I have opposed the relevance of JVB's story to the JFK assassination. Yet, contrary to the allegations of her detractors, Jim has not attacked me as a result of my disagreeing with him or my lack of committing to fully support JVB. Therefore, he has not, in fact, "attacked" anyone or everyone who fails to embrace JVB's story.

He has said that he was "taken aback" by some of my positions; he has said he was "grieved" by them, as well. But, he has never attacked me.

I suggest that if one does not draw first blood (or had not in the past drawn first blood) against JVB, Jim would respond in kind. It's a fine line sometimes...

GO_SECURE

monk

IMO censorship is not appropriate, and I so posted when it happened.

Again, I HAVE NOT ATTACKED YOU regarding anything. I have questioned

many statements by JVB and being neither logical nor factual. I keep your

support for her story SEPARATE from what she says. You cannot refrain

from attacking anyone who opposes her story and/or your support. You

need to get back your OBJECTIVITY like you had before you became

obsessed with Judyth.

I have no problem with you posting the photos I furnished here, on DPF,

your blog or ANYWHERE. I believe you should allow reasoned opposition,

however, instead of declaring that everyone must believe as you do.

The above DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN ATTACK. As you say, you seem

to be losing your grip! Get a handle!

Jack

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Well, there is Kathy Santi, who knew her at the University of Florida and with whom she discussed going to Tulane to study medicine. There is Anna Lewis, who, with her husband, David, "double-dated" with Judyth and Lee. There is the "disappearing witness", who was present in early testimony taken by members of Garrison's staff but was gradually phased out in official documents and reports. The barber and the daughter of the state senator, Mary Morgan, observed a woman in Lee H. Oswald's car during a visit to her home in Clinton. The only plausible candidate for that woman is Judyth Vary Baker. There is all the circumstantial evidence in DR. MARY'S MONKEY. There's a lot of evidence, Jack. You want to ignore it so you can pretend it does not exist. She and Lee were in completely different situations. Madeleine was having an affair with the man who would become President of the United States. Judyth was having an affair with an undercover op, who appears to have been was working for the CIA, ONI, and FBI. They were not at liberty to publicize their affair. Moreover, their rapid-cancer bio-weapon appears to have been a success. Jack Ruby and (now) Steven Brown both appear to have been among its victims. It is one of the greatest disappointments of my life that my dear friend cannot bring himself to acknowledge the abundant evidence in this case.

GB said re Jim Fetzer: Therefore, he has not, in fact, "attacked" anyone or everyone who fails to embrace JVB's story.

Good insight, and fair. To restate what you said -- nobody should be put under attack simply for disagreeing with another's opinion. It is up to Judyth to win people over, or not -- not people battling each other.

It doesn't matter to me either if you are persuaded by Judyth's statements or not. Hers is a complex situation, coming forth after many years, complete with book, talking about an almost un-researched area. She has compounded her issues of credibility by becoming a researcher too; how is one to know what she learned first-hand and what she acquired in some other way?

Ideally, she would be allowed simple dignity of a witness who has some objective documentation putting her in proximity of LHO at Reily. Her situation in that regard is not unlike Madeline Brown's, and no matter how much of a furor Madeline's statements caused, she was still treated with respect by the research community. Madeline was just a witness, though; others did her research for her and helped her write her book.

Comparing JVB to Madeleine is comparing apples and oranges. Most of what Madeleine said is verifiable.

My wife was acquainted with a girl who at that time was the mistress of LBJ's lawyer. Madeleine's main

proof of her affair with Lyndon was his lawyer, who arranged "lifetime" payments for Madeleine and

Steve. However, Steve's "lifetime" was cut prematurely short by "galloping cancer", and Lady Bird

saw to it that the lawyer stopped all payments to Madeleine...except the only one which LBJ had

paid up FOR LIFE. That was a lifetime membership with all costs paid to THE TOP OF THE CLIFF CLUB.

Madeleine had MANY proofs of her relationship to LBJ. Judyth has no such proofs.

Jak

Edited May 15, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Michael Hogan]

.....There is all the circumstantial evidence in DR. MARY'S MONKEY.

Those who have not read DR. MARY'S MONKEY.....

Haslam tells his readers that:

"Lee personally met with Mafia boss Carlos Marcello on several occasions in 1963."

"Jack Ruby visited David Ferrie's apartment one day when Judyth and Lee were there.

Ferrie introduced him to Judyth as Sparky Rubenstein. Judyth was surprised that Ferrie

briefed Ruby on their bio-weapon project. (Why not? They all worked for Marcello.) Ruby

recognized Lee , and said that he used to see him at parties when he was a boy."

(From the footnotes to Chapter 13)

Of course anyone that wants to read Jim's entire post can click on the little arrow that points left.

Where the author (humorously, I presume) calls it (DMM) "part conspiracy and part factual",

as though the conspiracy elements were not factual.

Edited May 15, 2010 by Michael Hogan

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Here's the review, which is not mine and appeared on the Toronto Craig's

List: http://toronto.en.craigslist.ca/tor/rnr/1739686632.html I really don't

get why Michael implies that this is my review. One of the mysteries of this

thread, I suppose, like an author who seems to (perversely) imply that the

factual parts are not conspiratorial and the conspiratorial parts not factual.

.....There is all the circumstantial evidence in DR. MARY'S MONKEY.

Those who have not read DR. MARY'S MONKEY.....

Haslam tells his readers that:

"Lee personally met with Mafia boss Carlos Marcello on several occasions in 1963."

"Jack Ruby visited David Ferrie's apartment one day when Judyth and Lee were there.

Ferrie introduced him to Judyth as Sparky Rubenstein. Judyth was surprised that Ferrie

briefed Ruby on their bio-weapon project. (Why not? They all worked for Marcello.) Ruby

recognized Lee, and said that he used to see him at parties when he was a boy."

(From the footnotes to Chapter 13)

Of course anyone that wants to read Jim's entire post can click on the little arrow that points left.

Where the author (humorously, I presume) calls it (DMM) "part conspiracy and part factual",

as though the conspiracy elements were not factual.

Edited May 15, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Michael Hogan]

I did not imply it was your review. Please.

Are you claiming it is a fact that Oswald met Marcello and

Ferrie introduced Sparky Rubenstein to Judyth Baker?

Haslam does.

[Jack White]

Jim...again you are misinformed. I have read ALL of the JVB stories OVER AND OVER AND OVER for at least

ten years. I have seen (and taped) THE LOVE STORY, as well as all of Nigel's series. I am now reading Dr.

Mary's Monkey. I have read some of your blog, not all. I have not watched the YouTube interviews because

I do not have the time. You are way off base accusing me of being ignorant of the JVB story. I have read/heard

it all many times and am not convinced. That YOU are convinced does not sway me. That you are convinced

OJ is guilty also does not sway me. Jason killed Nicole and Ron.

I am under no obligation to spend more excessive time considering each NEW Judith variation. I have many

more important things to do...like having skin cancers on my face and scalp removed, and getting dental implants

to replace a broken bridge. When you get to be 83, you too may find other things more important than Judyth.

Jack

[Mike Williams]

83???? God bless ya Jack! May you have many many many more!

Mike

[Jack White]

Let's make a list of all who knew about the SECRET MONKEY PROJECT.

1. Baker

2. Oswald

3. Ferrie

4. Dr. Oschner

5. Dr. Sherman

6. Dr. Haslam Sr.

7. Banister

8. Marcello

9. Sparky Rubenstein

10. and David Atlee Phillips, of course;

...maybe James Files and Chauncy Holt;

...why not Charles Harrelson, E.H. Hunt and Allen Dulles;

...and probably Larry, Moe and Curly...any more?

...a REALLY SECRET COMPARTMENTALIZED COVERT OPERATION!

Jack

.....There is all the circumstantial evidence in DR. MARY'S MONKEY.

Those who have not read DR. MARY'S MONKEY.....

Haslam tells his readers that:

"Lee personally met with Mafia boss Carlos Marcello on several occasions in 1963."

"Jack Ruby visited David Ferrie's apartment one day when Judyth and Lee were there.

Ferrie introduced him to Judyth as Sparky Rubenstein. Judyth was surprised that Ferrie

briefed Ruby on their bio-weapon project. (Why not? They all worked for Marcello.) Ruby

recognized Lee , and said that he used to see him at parties when he was a boy."

(From the footnotes to Chapter 13)

Of course anyone that wants to read Jim's entire post can click on the little arrow that points left.

Where the author (humorously, I presume) calls it (DMM) "part conspiracy and part factual",

as though the conspiracy elements were not factual.

Edited May 15, 2010 by Jack White

[Greg Burnham]

During the Cuban Missile Crisis both Kennedy and Khruschev allowed each other to "save face" while maintaining their position. IOW, they gave each other a "graceful way out" without caving in.

If they had employed the same strategy displayed by some of those participating in this thread, we would have all been fried to a crisp!

Edited May 15, 2010 by Greg Burnham

[Glenn Viklund]

Jack and all,

As a point of fact:

I have not always agreed with Jim in this thread and I have opposed the relevance of JVB's story to the JFK assassination. Yet, contrary to the allegations of her detractors, Jim has not attacked me as a result of my disagreeing with him or my lack of committing to fully support JVB. Therefore, he has not, in fact, "attacked" anyone or everyone who fails to embrace JVB's story.

He has said that he was "taken aback" by some of my positions; he has said he was "grieved" by them, as well. But, he has never attacked me.

I suggest that if one does not draw first blood (or had not in the past drawn first blood) against JVB, Jim would respond in kind. It's a fine line sometimes...

GO_SECURE

monk

This is absolute nonsense. You need to go back and do some reading in this thread.

Jim Fetzer has ATTACKED several people even with regards to who they are, just for starters. This has been his instant reaction to their first posting in this thread. Myself, Dolva, Williams, to name a few. Paranoia, Greg, ever heard of that?

I've seen a lot of stupid things in this thread, but I am still surprised to see anyone actually defending his outrageously indefensible manors and the way he has conducted himself. He has broken every rule in the book over and over again, here. Hundreds of times, no doubt. AND, the mud has been directed towards every single one who has opposed his ridiculous, clownish way of argue about this matter.

On the other hand, Fetzers desperation to find support for his standings, has been just as clear. No matter how silly, how wrong, how insignificant or outright irrelevant the argument, anyone who has supported him has been embraced as "brave and forthcoming". Those are the people that are "very clever", "very intelligent", "very observant" and, indeed, the only ones who have actually read the "facts and evidence".

Nonsensical has gotten a whole new meaning through the course of this thread. Open your eyes, Greg.

Edited May 15, 2010 by Glenn Viklund