Jump to content
The Education Forum

Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile


Guest James H. Fetzer

Recommended Posts

At this point in our debate, I am presenting a three-question survey to determine whether the debate is worth continuing.

"Our debate"? You haven't been part of this thread for quite awhile ... and for only a few posts overall. That is certainly your choice.

Just a few days ago, Jim asked the moderators to move some off topic (for this thread) posts that were flourishing into an interesting discussion on another matter, to a new thread of their own so that those here could continue uninterrupted with the good discussions taking place in this thread. And Evan graciously did just that.

As in all threads, the best indicator of whether or not a thread is seen as "worth continuing" is best indicated by the traffic on the thread ... number of reads, number of posts, number of posters. This thread has had over 40 posts put up by at least 10 different posters in just the last 24 hours. And we have new issues that have come up in the last couple of days that are being addressed, Adele Edisen herself joining in with a few posts. And, of course, having the subject of the thread available and weighing in with her own comments is a valuable opportunity for all interested in the subject.

Threads members do not find "worth continuing" just naturally die out on their own.

On this thread, the traffic and new issues being raised and addressed speaks louder than any "worth continuing" survey.

Barb :-)

Barb,

There is merit to some of what you say. Traffic and new issues can indicate a good debate. And all of us, I am sure, would like to be in a good debate.

But my questions go to the issue of whether the sides debate with an open mind or a closed one. The more closed minds, the more likely a poor debate.

I asked my questions with all sincerity. Whether anyone chooses to respond is their choice and I will respect it.

Dean

I don't doubt your sincerity, Dean. As for open and closed minds ... on any debates in this arena .... ebbs and flows like the tides and just about as often in many respects, me thinks. But presenting issues, facts and evidence ... and documentation ... can never be a bad thing, imo. It may be lost on some, but it won't be lost on all. Anytime we can step back and consider things from the other guy's perspective, it's a good thing ... and it is how we can all learn ... whether it changes our mind or not.

Barb :-)

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

Top Posters In This Topic

Barb Junkkarinen

post May 24 2010, 06:34 PM

Jack,

Does Adele recall *ever* having written an email to Judyth on which she may have cc'd Mary,

and in which she gave Mary and Judyth her snail mail instructions?? Or is it just the "gushy girl-talk"

parts she says she did not write?

I just want to be sure I have this straight.

Thanks,

Barb :-)

Barb, Jack, and others,

I hope that everyone realizes that I am not overwhelmed or upset if some people do not believe what I say. I am a scientist, well-trained to deal with scientific issues with which I am familiar. Dr. Anton J. Carlson, called the "Father of American Physiologists" because he trained so many of them, always asked this relevant question of students for the factual basis for their statements or hypotheses. The question was, "What is the evidence?"

That is ingrained in my thinking, even in ordinary life. What, why, how? And, who?

When I ask a simple question of a person who speaks the same language as I do, I expect an understandable answer, a true answer. If someone tells me they were introduced to someone, then I assume names were used. I was told that she was introduced to Rivera by Dr. Alton Ochsner. If I am told his skin color was "white", and there were no other physical characteristics given, then the man, obviously, was not Rivera.

Rivera's complexion was remarkably dark in color. It was darker than "olive-skinned" and much darker than "ecru" or light tan. Human skin color has so many variations, depending upon the amount of melanin in the skin, carotene, blood flow, and as every artist knows, the reflected light which plays upon the skin at any particular time. Exposure to the sunlight and genetic factors, as well as pathological factors, determine skin tones.

Now, on to Barb's question concerning the e-mail letters attributed to me. Let me ask everyone if they have ever received an e-mail letter from someone else, either addressed directly to them, or copied to them, or forwarded to them, in their mail box, which contained all that routing information? I get an e-mail like that when I make an error in the e-mail address that I am sending to someone else, and Mail Daemon, as it's called by my server, kicks it back to me. Can anyone explain all that jargon on an ordinary e-mail?

After that three-hour phone call, the next day I contacted someone who had previously been referred to me by Mary Ferrell whom she thought knew a great deal about the assassination. I asked him if he had ever heard or known about Judyth's story. I related what she had said and her request to me to support her story, which I could not possibly do, as I knew nothing more than what she had told me. She also had told me she would come to my home to show me her evidence. He replied that he had never heard of her or her story, and thought it might be a fantasy, some kind of hoax. He also advised not to speak to her or admit her into my home should she appear on my doorstep. This is one reason why I never would have written the "gushy" letter to her, with the "gigantic internet hug."

I did write postcards and notes to all my friends informing them of the change of address from the street address to the post office box, but that had been four years prior to the date on this particular e-mail. I had sent one to Mary Ferrell because we had corresponded for many years by postal mail by then because I did not have a computer and was not online. Mary and I spoke often on the telephone, even after I did get a computer. I would not have had a need to tell Mary in 2000 that she should use my P.O. Box address.

So, go figure....

Adele

I thank you, Adele, for stepping up to this and giving very clear, very understandable and very direct responses.

And I thank you too for your other posts as well. Interesting information.

Since you were at Tulane in 1963, and had experience in other institutions in New Orleans as well, I wonder if you might have known or heard anything about

there being a linear particle accelerator anywhere in New Orleans ... particularly at the US Public Service Hospital?

Bests to you,

Barb :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
At this point in our debate, I am presenting a three-question survey to determine whether the debate is worth continuing.

"Our debate"? You haven't been part of this thread for quite awhile ... and for only a few posts overall. That is certainly your choice.

Just a few days ago, Jim asked the moderators to move some off topic (for this thread) posts that were flourishing into an interesting discussion on another matter, to a new thread of their own so that those here could continue uninterrupted with the good discussions taking place in this thread. And Evan graciously did just that.

As in all threads, the best indicator of whether or not a thread is seen as "worth continuing" is best indicated by the traffic on the thread ... number of reads, number of posts, number of posters. This thread has had over 40 posts put up by at least 10 different posters in just the last 24 hours. And we have new issues that have come up in the last couple of days that are being addressed, Adele Edisen herself joining in with a few posts. And, of course, having the subject of the thread available and weighing in with her own comments is a valuable opportunity for all interested in the subject.

Threads members do not find "worth continuing" just naturally die out on their own.

On this thread, the traffic and new issues being raised and addressed speaks louder than any "worth continuing" survey.

Barb :-)

Barb,

There is merit to some of what you say. Traffic and new issues can indicate a good debate. And all of us, I am sure, would like to be in a good debate.

But my questions go to the issue of whether the sides debate with an open mind or a closed one. The more closed minds, the more likely a poor debate.

I asked my questions with all sincerity. Whether anyone chooses to respond is their choice and I will respect it.

Dean

I don't doubt your sincerity, Dean. As for open and closed minds ... on any debates in this arena .... ebbs and flows like the tides and just about as often in many respects, me thinks. But presenting issues, facts and evidence ... and documentation ... can never be a bad thing, imo. It may be lost on some, but it won't be lost on all. Anytime we can step back and consider things from the other guy's perspective, it's a good thing ... and it is how we can all learn ... whether it changes our mind or not.

Barb :-)

A person ought to have an OPEN MIND while gathering and studying evidence.

The next step is to evaluate the evidence and reach a conclusion based on it.

This leads to a CLOSED MIND, which is having a conclusion about the evidence.

A closed mind is desirable after evaluating all available evidence.

The worst state of mind is an EMPTY MIND, not to be confused with an open mind.

Some people who believe JVB have an empty mind...unable to evaluate evidence.

Jack

PS... a closed mind can be REOPENED by new evidence.

Edited by Jack White
Link to post
Share on other sites
A LETTER FROM HOWARD PLATZMAN TO MARY FERRELL RE JUDYTH

NOTE: This is an interesting reflection of Howard's state of mind at the time

and of the strength of his belief both in Judyth Vary Baker and in Mary Ferrell.

Subj: With all due respects...a plea

Date: 12/8/01 11:46:12 PM Eastern Standard Time

From: Howpl

To: maryf...@cprompt.net

Dear Mary,

etc etc

Just after my trip to Dallas, I wrote a letter to you I didn't send (it's

down below). It includes a few thoughts on what J has said is behind your

recent decision not to go any further in your public support of her. At

the very least, I hope it shows that I am thinking about you and about

....

Anyway, I am writing to you today feeling very strongly about what I think

you can still do for J, health permitting. I am aware that your health is

up and down, and that you have, in part for that reason, decided that you

would like the continued relationship between the two of you to speak for

itself. Please let me explain why I think this might not be the best idea.

Let me start with a question that I think cuts pretty deeply. What do you

think scares Lifton and Conway more, the thought that you will make a

statement or the thought that you won't? I believe they would do ANYTHING

to keep your relationship with her a matter of friendship and private

support. When all is said and done, J's detractors will exploit your not

going on the record to the hilt. "You see," they will say, "that witch,

Judyth, tried to brainwash poor Mary, but Mary still refused to back her

publicly." They will think that, as much as J tried to get closer to you,

to ingratiate herself with you, that you still refused to go on record and

that this refusal must mean something. That's what they will say -- anyone

who knew about J to begin with, that is. The others who never heard about

J may not ever hear about her. And that's a second very important

consideration.

Instead of focusing on those who will accuse her no matter what, how about

those many more people who love you, or at least respect you, and would

find such an endorsement meaningful? Without solid communication from Mary

Ferrell herself, they only have Martin's word or mine that Mary Ferrell

supports Judyth Baker. That has not been good enough thus far, and will

never be. Your archives needed saving and protecting: so does your support

for J and your reasons for it.

The best way you can defuse the argument that you are being exploited is

by SHOWING yourself to be sound of mind. Ideally, people will want to see

you talking and gesturing. We will no doubt be accused of taking advantage

of an old woman of deteriorating mind, but the more you are shown, the

more people can see you reason aloud, the clearer it will be that you are

sound in mind and freely speaking it.

Perhaps it could be filmed as a conversation, in part at least, so you can

be seen interacting in a natural way. A videotaped statement that speaks

for itself will put an end to your having to explain yourself to everyone.

As with J's own efforts, it gets tiring to try to convince people one at a

time. I don't want to see either of you locked into battle on all fronts.

You both need platforms, but you are already your own platform; J needs

your support for hers. Then each of you could make your own decision about

whether to stay on the platform and take on all comers -- or walk away.

Both paths confer dignity. Private bickering with a tiny knot of people

won't help either of you. This infighting will also keep the official

story intact, because J's detractors certainly have no interest in making

your private support of her public. That interest lives with you. There

should be a record of your speaking to those who have no special interest

in J's being real or fake, but only want the truth.

Here is an alternative option (or you could elect to do both):

Write something substantial. Something that expresses in detail how you

came to know Judy and why you believe her. No worries, then, about going

on film. These are losses, I believe, but a sensible discussion with a

signature is useful, maybe even more useful. (If only we had tapes or even

transcripts of all the conversations and interrogations. I have mine, but

I'm not you.)

What it comes down to, Mary, is that I think you should look at J as the

crowning achievement to what you have dedicated your life to. I know you

have prided yourself on neutrality. But you have also prided yourself on

your knowledge, which goes a whole lot deeper and gets a whole lot more

personal than mine or Martin's or even Jim's. You are, finally, entitled

to express your opinion and have it stand. You've earned that right. In

fact, I might even argue that, after a lifetime of objectivity, it's now

an obligation. You are, quite frankly, in the best position to know a

fraud from the real thing. The most credible opinions should not be tucked

away for private viewing only. Please let the world know that you gave

Judy the third degree for over a year and that you have many reasons for

believing her.

Mary, they think Judy is taking advantage of you. If you make a statement

on her behalf, they will say she bamboozled a sick woman of deteriorating

mind. You may be ill, but from what I hear, your mind is as sharp as ever.

You told me at the start that you didn't want to see your friends fighting

with each other. Well, we are way past that point now. Your moral

authority in the field is unchallenged. If you truly believe Judy is

telling the truth, and I have been given every reason to think you do,

then Judy becomes your reward for a life devoted to truth. She is your

crowning achievement and you are her best hope. I beg of you: figure a way

to make yourself heard and understood in a way that leaves no doubt about

the state of your mind or the firmness of your belief.

Two and a half years ago, I was this close to believing that possibly,

just possibly, Oswald did it alone. I was pretty much convinced he was a

communist. Judy has profoundly changed my mind and my life, as she has

changed Martin's. David Lifton makes fun of me for saying that Judy has

become like a sister to me. Sorry, David, I'm human. We humans have to

unite because there are many more of "them" than I ever thought going into

this adventure. I know it's not black and white; it just seems that way

sometimes. I can understand the truly nice people like XXXXXXXXXXX who

open the door just a little and then close it shut when they feel

threatened -- when their "research" is threatened by Judy's

existence...because they have become as one with their theories, their

gussied up best guesses. They treat a witness like she was another

researcher! And then when she begins to research, they accuse her of

fabricating her story from it. This is no-win no-way.

HERE IS WHERE I DECIDED I WOULDN'T SEND THIS TO YOU..

So now you know what I'm thinking. You will not find me on your doorstep

tomorrow, camera in hand. But I didn't want to go down without at least

making my plea.

If you would like to speak with me at any time, my number at home is

XXXXXXXXXX. You may also call me at work at XXXXXXXXXX..

Best to you,

Howard

3: March 11, 2002: Judyth wrote Mary a very strong email telling Mary it wasn't too late for her to take it all back, etc,

saying in one part:

"It is not too late to post a retraction of your statement, Mary, ** at

least on the points that I'm lying, delusional, and/or 'dangerous.' **

For

the sake of your own reputation, consider it. ** I will be presenting

solid evidence to defend myself against your negative statements

concerning my sanity, my veracity, my witness, and my character. ** I

will have to describe the actions and words of those who have aupported me--

and those who attacked me, and how they attacked me --in my second book.

I do not wish to affect anyone's reputation adversely.

Please consider your options now, in light of emerging evidence. The

evidence will continue to come forth. Nothing can stop it. There will

be too much of it.

History can be very unkind to those who tweak the truth to fit their

own theories. I hope you do what is right."

I find this two e-mails to be intimidating, coercive, and disturbing.

Doug Weldon

Link to post
Share on other sites
I find this two e-mails to be intimidating, coercive, and disturbing.

Doug Weldon

I couldn't agree with you more, Doug. IMO, the vast majority of her detractors have asked for reasonable corroboration of her claims, which to date has not been forthcoming. If the claim (that there exists abundant proof) that Judyth made in these emails was true, I fail to understand why it was so important to her to acquire Mary's endorsement. However, if such evidence or proof was non-existent it would be very important to recruit someone of Mary's caliber to lend credibility to her story in the absence of corroborative evidence.

Edited by Greg Burnham
Link to post
Share on other sites
A LETTER FROM HOWARD PLATZMAN TO MARY FERRELL RE JUDYTH

NOTE: This is an interesting reflection of Howard's state of mind at the time

and of the strength of his belief both in Judyth Vary Baker and in Mary Ferrell.

Subj: With all due respects...a plea

Date: 12/8/01 11:46:12 PM Eastern Standard Time

From: Howpl

To: maryf...@cprompt.net

Dear Mary,

etc etc

Just after my trip to Dallas, I wrote a letter to you I didn't send (it's

down below). It includes a few thoughts on what J has said is behind your

recent decision not to go any further in your public support of her. At

the very least, I hope it shows that I am thinking about you and about

....

Anyway, I am writing to you today feeling very strongly about what I think

you can still do for J, health permitting. I am aware that your health is

up and down, and that you have, in part for that reason, decided that you

would like the continued relationship between the two of you to speak for

itself. Please let me explain why I think this might not be the best idea.

Let me start with a question that I think cuts pretty deeply. What do you

think scares Lifton and Conway more, the thought that you will make a

statement or the thought that you won't? I believe they would do ANYTHING

to keep your relationship with her a matter of friendship and private

support. When all is said and done, J's detractors will exploit your not

going on the record to the hilt. "You see," they will say, "that witch,

Judyth, tried to brainwash poor Mary, but Mary still refused to back her

publicly." They will think that, as much as J tried to get closer to you,

to ingratiate herself with you, that you still refused to go on record and

that this refusal must mean something. That's what they will say -- anyone

who knew about J to begin with, that is. The others who never heard about

J may not ever hear about her. And that's a second very important

consideration.

Instead of focusing on those who will accuse her no matter what, how about

those many more people who love you, or at least respect you, and would

find such an endorsement meaningful? Without solid communication from Mary

Ferrell herself, they only have Martin's word or mine that Mary Ferrell

supports Judyth Baker. That has not been good enough thus far, and will

never be. Your archives needed saving and protecting: so does your support

for J and your reasons for it.

The best way you can defuse the argument that you are being exploited is

by SHOWING yourself to be sound of mind. Ideally, people will want to see

you talking and gesturing. We will no doubt be accused of taking advantage

of an old woman of deteriorating mind, but the more you are shown, the

more people can see you reason aloud, the clearer it will be that you are

sound in mind and freely speaking it.

Perhaps it could be filmed as a conversation, in part at least, so you can

be seen interacting in a natural way. A videotaped statement that speaks

for itself will put an end to your having to explain yourself to everyone.

As with J's own efforts, it gets tiring to try to convince people one at a

time. I don't want to see either of you locked into battle on all fronts.

You both need platforms, but you are already your own platform; J needs

your support for hers. Then each of you could make your own decision about

whether to stay on the platform and take on all comers -- or walk away.

Both paths confer dignity. Private bickering with a tiny knot of people

won't help either of you. This infighting will also keep the official

story intact, because J's detractors certainly have no interest in making

your private support of her public. That interest lives with you. There

should be a record of your speaking to those who have no special interest

in J's being real or fake, but only want the truth.

Here is an alternative option (or you could elect to do both):

Write something substantial. Something that expresses in detail how you

came to know Judy and why you believe her. No worries, then, about going

on film. These are losses, I believe, but a sensible discussion with a

signature is useful, maybe even more useful. (If only we had tapes or even

transcripts of all the conversations and interrogations. I have mine, but

I'm not you.)

What it comes down to, Mary, is that I think you should look at J as the

crowning achievement to what you have dedicated your life to. I know you

have prided yourself on neutrality. But you have also prided yourself on

your knowledge, which goes a whole lot deeper and gets a whole lot more

personal than mine or Martin's or even Jim's. You are, finally, entitled

to express your opinion and have it stand. You've earned that right. In

fact, I might even argue that, after a lifetime of objectivity, it's now

an obligation. You are, quite frankly, in the best position to know a

fraud from the real thing. The most credible opinions should not be tucked

away for private viewing only. Please let the world know that you gave

Judy the third degree for over a year and that you have many reasons for

believing her.

Mary, they think Judy is taking advantage of you. If you make a statement

on her behalf, they will say she bamboozled a sick woman of deteriorating

mind. You may be ill, but from what I hear, your mind is as sharp as ever.

You told me at the start that you didn't want to see your friends fighting

with each other. Well, we are way past that point now. Your moral

authority in the field is unchallenged. If you truly believe Judy is

telling the truth, and I have been given every reason to think you do,

then Judy becomes your reward for a life devoted to truth. She is your

crowning achievement and you are her best hope. I beg of you: figure a way

to make yourself heard and understood in a way that leaves no doubt about

the state of your mind or the firmness of your belief.

Two and a half years ago, I was this close to believing that possibly,

just possibly, Oswald did it alone. I was pretty much convinced he was a

communist. Judy has profoundly changed my mind and my life, as she has

changed Martin's. David Lifton makes fun of me for saying that Judy has

become like a sister to me. Sorry, David, I'm human. We humans have to

unite because there are many more of "them" than I ever thought going into

this adventure. I know it's not black and white; it just seems that way

sometimes. I can understand the truly nice people like XXXXXXXXXXX who

open the door just a little and then close it shut when they feel

threatened -- when their "research" is threatened by Judy's

existence...because they have become as one with their theories, their

gussied up best guesses. They treat a witness like she was another

researcher! And then when she begins to research, they accuse her of

fabricating her story from it. This is no-win no-way.

HERE IS WHERE I DECIDED I WOULDN'T SEND THIS TO YOU..

So now you know what I'm thinking. You will not find me on your doorstep

tomorrow, camera in hand. But I didn't want to go down without at least

making my plea.

If you would like to speak with me at any time, my number at home is

XXXXXXXXXX. You may also call me at work at XXXXXXXXXX..

Best to you,

Howard

3: March 11, 2002: Judyth wrote Mary a very strong email telling Mary it wasn't too late for her to take it all back, etc,

saying in one part:

"It is not too late to post a retraction of your statement, Mary, ** at

least on the points that I'm lying, delusional, and/or 'dangerous.' **

For

the sake of your own reputation, consider it. ** I will be presenting

solid evidence to defend myself against your negative statements

concerning my sanity, my veracity, my witness, and my character. ** I

will have to describe the actions and words of those who have aupported me--

and those who attacked me, and how they attacked me --in my second book.

I do not wish to affect anyone's reputation adversely.

Please consider your options now, in light of emerging evidence. The

evidence will continue to come forth. Nothing can stop it. There will

be too much of it.

History can be very unkind to those who tweak the truth to fit their

own theories. I hope you do what is right."

I find this two e-mails to be intimidating, coercive, and disturbing.

Doug Weldon

Yes, Doug, exactly. Mary was being pressured ... and bullied, imo. And then she had people show up

unannounced with a tape recorder, and then different people with a video camera. It wouldn't have been any surprise, imo, if Mary had told them whatever they wanted to hear just to get them to leave her alone. But Mary was feisty ... and there is no indication she did that.

Here is the complete March 11, 2002 e-mail, it has been posted on the net more than once over the years, this time was in June '08:

Return-path: <ElectLady63@aol.com>

From: ElectLady63@aol.com

Full-name: ElectLady63

Message-ID: <7d.23a72e8f.29be39a4@aol.com>

Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 11:47:32 EST

Subject: It's been 88 days now since Mary's e-mail was posted branding

Judyth as a fraud

To: maryferr@cprompt.net, debra@jfklancer.com

CC: mshack@concentric.net, ElectLady63@aol.com, Howpl@aol.com

MIME-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: multipart/alternative;

boundary="part2_12e.dd6730c.29be39a4_boundary"

X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10556

THE STATEMENT BELOW APPEARED TODAY ON THE NEWSGROUP. I HAVE REFRAINED

FROM POSTING ANYTHING FOR WEEKS, BUT AS YOU SEE, THEY WISH TO CONTINUE THE

ATTACK ANYWAY.

THEY WILL BE SORRY.

FURTHER DOWN, PLEASE NOTE AN IMPORTANT NEW PIECE OF EVIDENCE SUPPORTING MY

WITNESS.

Re: Martin *still* won't accept what Mary Ferrell wrote

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=judyth&a...d&selm=2002

0310173623.14539.00000512%40mb-da.aol.com&rnum=1

... research task successfully. It's been 88 days now since Mary's e-mail

was posted

branding Judyth as a fraud and you still haven't been able to verify it,

or so ...

alt.assassination.jfk

<http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&group=alt.assassination.jfk> -

0 Mar 2002 by JLeyden900 - View Thread (79 articles)

><http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&threadm=20020310173623.14539.0000051

2%40mb-da.aol.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D

judyth%26num%3D100%26hl%3Den%26scoring%3Dd>

Re: Oliver Stone's JFK

<http://groups.google.com/groups?q=judyth&hl=en&scoring=d&selm=3c84

5021.5933084%40mcadams.posc.mu.edu&rnum=2>

Mary and Debra-- you might be interested to learn that yesterday, it was

announced publically that SV-40 and cancer have been linked through polio

contaminated materials since 1963 (Lancet-- two separate reports confirm:

one article of many reprinted at bottom of this email).... .

I TOLD you we put cancer in it.

If you continue to hang with your friends against me, as more evidence

comes out, you will be found historically to have been on the wrong side.

I wrote in 1999 that SV-40 and cancer were linked together in our project.

The newsgroup 'experts' said otherwise.

Now they've been proven wrong.

AM I A FRAUD?

The evidence keeps piling up, though you are not in the loop anymore to

receive these pieces of evidence and information.

FYI: Robert Baker has acknowledged to me and my supporters in an email to

us that he was making false statements, "playing with an empty hand." I

can send you the email if you like.

FYI: an important new supporter has emerged, with access to eyes only CIA

documents not yet released, who has agreed to verify important sections of

my story. He is a current government official.

Note that an affidavit exists that Lee stopped at the border returning

from Mexico City and visited the US Public Health Service there. I know

why.

I am a witness; you are only collectors of information. You were never

there yourself.

It is not too late to post a retraction of your statement, Mary, at

least on the points that I'm lying, delusional, and/or 'dangerous.' For

the sake of your own reputation, consider it. I will be presenting

solid evidence to defend myself against your negative statements

concerning my sanity, my veracity, my witness, and my character. I will

have to describe the actions and words of those who have aupported me--

and those who attacked me, and how they attacked me --in my second book.

I do not wish to affect anyone's reputation adversely.

Please consider your options now, in light of emerging evidence. The

evidence will continue to come forth. Nothing can stop it. There will

be too much of it.

History can be very unkind to those who tweak the truth to fit their

own theories. I hope you do what is right.

Judyth Vary Baker

[....]

Bests,

Barb :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I read in one of the earlier emails where (if I remember correctly), Mary persuaded Judyth

to go to a local psychological clinic for testing, and that Judyth reported back to Mary that

she did so and she "passed their tests".

Did I just imagine this? Does anyone know any more? I find this very peculiar.

Jack

Link to post
Share on other sites
I read in one of the earlier emails where (if I remember correctly), Mary persuaded Judyth

to go to a local psychological clinic for testing, and that Judyth reported back to Mary that

she did so and she "passed their tests".

Did I just imagine this? Does anyone know any more? I find this very peculiar.

Jack

Hi Jack ... nope, your imagination is not working overtime ... it happened. Actually, I am not sure

that Mary told her to go for psychological testing, but Judyth did report to Mary that she had gone for two.

Martin has posted about the tests on the mod group ... and Judyth tells Mary about the tests on that "accidental"

tape recording we've been discussing.

Here is an excerpt of a post Martin did in 2008, I have bolded the comments about the psych tests:

>>They talked for a while about

>>their dogs. Judyth asked Mary if Mary thought Judyth was a fraud--

>>Mary laughs and says "No." Mary then asks Judyth if she has been

>>able yet to talk with Marina, and Judyth says no, except for a brief

>>phone conversation in which Marina declined to meet. They then

>>helped Mary with something on her bed that was poking the back of

>>her neck. Judyth asks Mary if it was true, as someone had claimed,

>>that Mary had said she threw Judyth out, and that she had feared

>>Judyth was going to hurt her--Mary responds, "No, baby." Lynda

>>reads the e-mail and attachment to Mary, who is asked if she wrote

>>it. Mary responds "No, there's no [indistinct]." Mary then asks if her

>>name was on the e-mail, and is told it was. Mary then asked Lynda

>>and Debbee about their jewelry business, and they talked about that

>>for a while. Judyth talks about a psych evaluation she had at a clinic

>>in Garland, Texas, which concluded she was normal, and Mary remarks

>>that "They ARE good." It sounded as though she might have recommended

>>the place to Judyth to clear up some of the claims made about her.

>>No one hearing the tape could give any credibility to the bizarre claim

>>that Mary was "scared out of her wits" and made to lie on tape. That's

>>crap, to say the least.

That post, part of a long thread, can be found here, May 20, 2008 at 12:18pm:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassi...amp;lnk=ol&

He talks about the tests in other posts in the thread as well, and here is the section of the partial transcript

of the "accidental" recording Martin provided where Judyth herself told Mary about having the psychological tests done:

Judyth: Anyway, I did take the psychology exams, and believe it or not,

I know none of my friends are going to believe it, but I'm perfectly

normal.

[General laughter]

Mary: [Laughs] Where did you take it?

Judyth: I went two different places. One was a clinic out in Garland and

the other is a pain medicine center. Two different sets.

Judyth: You know they're good.

Mary: They are good.

????: And they said she's [indistinct] normal.

????: Absolutely. 100 per cent normal.

Bests,

Barb :-)

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

Kathy, I simply used the first one that addressed the issue when I did not immediately find the one that I had used before. Why don't you go back to the earlier posts I have made about this and check that one out? It is not difficult for one with your advanced research skills to enter the word, "circumcision, partial", and see what you can find. In fact, making the kind of case you are making here is quite frankly ridiculous. You should not be depending on me to do your research but doing it on your own. This kind of complaint is a cheap shot, but hardly the first that has occurred on this thread. Why don't you give this matter a bit more thought and ask what is the most likely explanation for Jack White to have viewed autopsy photos and concluded that he appears to be uncircumcised--photos you can view for yourself--yet for Earl Rose to have reported that he was circumcised? I submit that the hypothesis of partial circumcision, which is common, offers the best explanation for the data. In my opinion, that some find it so difficult to accept this simple point indicates the strength of their bias. No alternative--uncircumcised or circumcised--can explain the data as well. Jim

Kathy,

I don't get it. I observe that many of Judyth's critics don't even use the internet as a research tool and you (I take it) reply with

"BULL----", but when you visit a specific link (you don't like), you complain (to me or Todd?), "Was that the best you could do?",

which suggests that you really don't know how to use the internet as a research tool. So your response has confirmed my point.

After Jack had observed (based upon his own study of the autopsy photographs we have available at present) that it seemed to

him that LHO was uncircumcised, but that Earl Rose had remarked that he was, I began considering the possibility that they were

both right, where a partial circumcision seems to fit. I know you don't like it, but that is no argument. Please try to do better.

Jim

The phrase is not in common currency, so it would be unsurprising were he

to simply say "circumcised" when it was a partial but not a complete one. I

can't see this issue carrying any weight at all when partial circumcision fits.

But Jim... Dr. Rose's autopsy report said circumcised, not partially circumcised.

Are you saying he was mistaken? There would be a noticeable difference.

Jack

Most of Judyth's critics don't even use the internet for research. BULL----! I suggested some time back to enter, "circumcision, partial", to check this out. I found several articles about it. If Jack White could look at the Oswald autopsy photographs and say that, in his opinion, he appeared to be uncircumcised, yet the autopsy report says he was, it looks to me as though the evidence supports the conclusion that he had a PARTIAL CIRCUMCISION. What other hypothesis can explain more of the available evidence? That is applying logic to the data, which appears to be too much to expect from most of you on this thread. Here's one link: http://www.askmen.com/dating/dzimmer_100/1...ve_answers.html

The Final Cut

A doctor told me that I do not need to be circumcised if I can pull back the foreskin on my penis without any problems. I can do this, however, I do believe that I have an excess of foreskin. Is it possible to remove some of it, only like the little extra bit that is there? If so, will there be any long-term effects due to the removal of a bit of my foreskin?

Todd

Hello Todd,

Partial circumcision is a common procedure that's favored by many men as a happy medium. The removal of just the contractile tip allows the foreskin to retract upon erection, but still retain its protective quality as a natural shield for the head of the flaccid penis.

I went to the link you provided. It was a god------ sleazy website. Was that the best you could do? I couldn't get any info there because they wanted my email address to join. Why not a medical publication? Something with class and trustworthy medical knowledge. Not some lonely hearts boob talking to a teenager.

Kathy C

Prof. Fetzer, I am on the Internet for hours everyday looking things up. I did not look up circumcision. But I did go to the link where you sent us. When search engines receive a search phrase, a lot of summaries come up. Couldn't you have found somewhere in the results a better website to show us? I don't want to look at sleazy broads. And they wanted my email address so I could join. In other words, if I wanted to see the information you were providing, I'd have to join the site first. Can you not see this? Anyone going to that link would have to enter their email address -- and possibly pay something -- in order to learn about partial circumcision! So, congratulations. I guess you're a member there now. Lucky you!

Kathy C

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to post
Share on other sites
I find this two e-mails to be intimidating, coercive, and disturbing.

Doug Weldon

My thoughts as well Doug and Greg

What is Judyth trying to do? Its like she is trying to strong arm Mary

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

JUDYTH ON THE ALTERED HEADER OF THE MARY FERRELL EMAIL

NOTE: Judyth send me a message to copy the content at the link she sent, but

when I clicked on it, the content had disappeared, which did not surprise me.

Now it's back. Apparently, it was my mistake in doing a copy and paste, when

it was there. In fact, very little surprises me about this case any more, given

the intense effort to discredit Judyth, whose story upsets a great many vested

interests, from those of the US government to independent students, such as

David Lifton and John Armstrong, not to mention those of many lesser players.

I am not used to dealing with headers and have integrated an attachment with

the rest of the text. Judyth has now confirmed and corrected my earlier post.

JUDYTH WRITES:

Read carefully--and you wIll see that email headers can be checked to see if they

have been faked. THE ORIGINAL HEADER (GRAPHIC BELOW) WAS PHOTOCOPIED

BY MCADAMS. I and ohers downloaded it after I realized that the header revealed

some very odd things about the history of where the email went.

THEN I SHOWED WHAT WAS WRONG WITH IT, AND IT VANISHED. INSTEAD, A

'NEW' HEADER, WITH MCADAMS PROCLAIMING IT CAME DIRECLY TO HIM, WAS

OFFERED.

BUT--THERE WAS A PROBLEM.

HE EVENTUALLY ALSO PUBLISHED A 'PERMISSION' HE SAID MARY FERRELL WROTE,

WHICH HE HAD KEPT BACK UNTIL AFTER HER DEATH.

THIS HE EVENTUALLY PUBLISHED WITH ITS HEADER.

BUT THE HEADER ON BOTH EMAILS HAS THE SAME WEIRD ERROR IN IT-- IDENTICAL

ERRORS, IN FACT. BOTH SAY THEY WERE SENT DEC. 7, A THE EXACT SAME TIME.

BOTH ARRIVED ON DEC. 12, THOUGH ONE ARRIVED FOUR HOURS LATER THAN

THE OTHER ONE.

PLEASE READ CAREFULLY, BECAUSE THESE EMAILS WERE USED TO ATTEMPT TO

DESTROY MY REPUTATION. I EVEN BELIEVED MARY FERRELL SENT THE EMAIL AT

FIRST, UNTIL I LOOKED AT THE HEADER AND REALIZED IT HAD BEEN SENT FROM

MARY FERRELL TO DEBRA CONWAY, NOT DIRECTLY TO JOHN MCADAMS AS HAD BEEN

CLAIMED. I LOOKED CLOSER AND SAW THAT PORTIONS OF THE HEADER HAD ALSO

APPARENTLY BEEN ALTERED.

WHEN I MENTIONED THIS, THE HEADER WAS REPLACED WITH A HAND-TYPED

VERSION BY DAVE REITZES.

BUT THE VERY SAME HEADER INFO APPEARS AGAIN FOR MARY'S 'PERMISSION'--

AN IMPOSSIBILITY, UNLESS THE MARQUETTE SERVER LOG-IN WAS FOR FIVE FULL

DAYS BY MCADAMS. THAT IS UNLIKELY. MARQUETTE'S SERVER INFORMATION SHOWS

THAT ONE MUST LOGIN TO USE MU'S EMAIL SERVICES-- PROBABLY THE CASE IN 2001

AS WELL. IT WAS THAT WAY AT THE UNIVERSITIES I HAVE ATTENDED.

ON JULY 12, 2008, MCADAMS SAID, "I DON'T THINK I'VE POSTED THIS BEFORE" AND

THEN POSTED THE 'PERMISSION' EMAIL WITH THE HEADER CARRYING THE SAME

STRANGE DEC. 7-DEC. 12 PROBLEM, EVEN THE VERY SAME TIME ---IMPOSSIBLE IN TWO

SEPARATE EMALS SUPPOSEDLY WRITTEN AT DIFFERENT TIMES. READ THIS CAREFULLY.

UNDERSTANDING IT MEANS A GREAT DEAL.

IT PROVES COOPERATION BETWEEN THESE PEOPLE TO PRODUCE THE 'MARY

FERRELL DENUNCIATION' THAT MARY SAID SHE ACTUALLY DID NOT WRITE.

NOTE: You're ALL smart -- but I never made it clear enough before, thinking

everybody could read headers and see the clumsy fake header that Mr. Reitzes

typed in to take the place of the original. I was in the political asylum system at this

date in July 2008 and had no access to Internet and did not know that the bogus

header had been adapted for use a second time!

copy the two emails and their fake headers here:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassi...amp;lnk=ol&

Atttached--please read it after copying their header--is STEP ONE IN PROVING TO

YOU THAT THE 'MARY FERRELL' EMAIL WAS HANDLED BY OTHERS BEFORE REACHING

ITS FINAL DESTINATION. THE ORIGINAL HEADER SHOWS IT WAS SENT DIRECTLY TO

DEBRA CONWAY FIRST. THIS HAS BEEN ALTERED TO SHOW IT GOING DIRECTLY TO

JOHN MCADAMS.

I SUPPOSE HE CAN CLAIM THAT HE WAS SENT TWO IDENTICAL EMAILS, BOTH FROM

MARY BUT ONE UNACCOUNTABLY BEING SENT TO HIM FROM DEBRA CONWAY FIRST.

HOWEVER, THE 'DENUNCIATION' EMAIL WITH THE NEW HEADER PAUSES FOR FIVE

DAYS IN MIDAIR. (SEE BELOW.) THE DEC. 7 DATE IS FOUR DAYS BEFORE MARY AND I

MET IN HER APARTMENT, OF WHICH SHE SPEAKS IN THE EMAIL. OR ARE WE TO

SUPPOSE THAT THE LOG-IN LASTED FOR FIVE SOLID DAYS?

JVB

CRUCIAL: SHOWN IN THIS POST IS THE ALTERED HEADER OF THE 'DENOUNCING' EMAIL.

NOTE WHAT I HAVE PLACED IN BOLD SO YOU CAN MATCH IT TO THE NEXT EMAIL,

WHERE MARY FERRELL 'GIVES PERMISSION' FOR HER EMAIL TO BE POSTED, DESPITE

THE FACT THAT SHE WROTE THAT SHE HERSELF NEVER IN HER LIFE POSTED TO A

NEWSGROUP: BUT SHE WOULD ALOW MCADAMS TO DO SO?

NUMBER ONE: THE DENUNCIATORY EMAIL HEADER (REPLACED ORIGINAL):

Return-Path: <maryf...@cprompt.net>

Received: from cprompt.net ([199.34.20.66]) by postmarq.mu.edu

(Netscape Messaging Server 4.15 marquette Dec 7 2001

06:47:59)

(showing the server time when someone is logged in?)

with ESMTP id GO93R800.052 for <John.McAd...@marquette.edu>;

Wed, 12 Dec 2001 15:59:32 -0600 (CLOCK OK)

Received: from mary-xp.cprompt.net [209.51.4.178] by cprompt.net with

ESMTP

(SMTPD32-6.00) id A1F9D9600CC; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 15:54:01 -0600

Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011212154557.01b8e...@cprompt.net>

X-Sender: maryf...@cprompt.net

X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1

Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 15:56:06 -0600

To: dlif...@earthlink.net,rchap...@mem.net,de...@jfklancer.com,

parad...@gtw.net,PaulH...@uclink.berkeley.edu,John.McAd...@marquette.edu

From: Mary Ferrell <maryf...@cprompt.net>

Subject: Judyth Baker

Mime-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: multipart/mixed;

boundary="=====================_755792484==_"

BUT THE PROBLEM IS, THE LOG IN ON THE SERVER IS PRECISELY THE SAME INSTANT

FOR BOTH EMAILS....HE DID NOT LOG OFF FOR FIVE DAYS? NOTE THE 'PERMISSION'

EMAIL HEADER FROM MARY FERRELL ACCORDING TO JOHN MCADAMS, WHO POSTED

IT AFTER HER DEATH

<quote on>

Return-Path: <maryf...@cprompt.net>

Received: from cprompt.net ([199.34.20.66]) by postmarq.mu.edu

(Netscape Messaging Server 4.15 marquette Dec 7 2001

06:47:59)

(showing the server time when someone logged in?)

with ESMTP id GO9C8V00.FCG for <John.McAd...@marquette.edu>;

Wed, 12 Dec 2001 19:02:55 -0600 (CLOCK NOW TOO SLOW)

Received: from mary-xp.cprompt.net [209.51.4.178] by cprompt.net with

ESMTP

(SMTPD32-6.00) id ACFFF830132; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 18:57:35 -0600

Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011212185718.01ad2...@cprompt.net>

X-Sender: maryf...@cprompt.net

X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1

Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 19:02:56 -0600

To: John.McAd...@marquette.edu

From: Mary Ferrell <maryf...@cprompt.net>

Subject: Judyth Baker

Mime-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

Dear John,

I don't really know what to say in response to your request

about publishing my statement about Judyth. I guess it is inevitable

that it will "get out." I suppose I wouldn't have sent it to you had

I not known that you would want to put it on the Internet.

When I was in the hospital almost all of 1997, you were kind

enough to send me a lovely Get-well card. I did appreciate it. And,

then, recently you asked me my opinion of Judyth and said that you

would keep it in confidence if I asked you to do so. I was terribly

rude and didn't even reply to you.

I appreciate your asking permission now and I guess my answer

is -- use the statement the way you see fit.

Sincerely,

Mary Ferrell

NOW HERE ARE THE DETAILS OF INTEREST ON THE TWO EMAIL HEADERS,

ONE SENT SUPPOSEDLY ON DEC. 12 SOME FOUR HOURS AFTER THE OTHER:

1) Received: from cprompt.net ([199.34.20.66]) by postmarq.mu.edu

(Netscape Messaging Server 4.15 marquette Dec 7 2001

06:47:59)

with ESMTP id GO93R800.052 for <John.McAd...@marquette.edu>;

Wed, 12 Dec 2001 15:59:32 -0600

2) Received: from cprompt.net ([199.34.20.66]) by postmarq.mu.edu

(Netscape Messaging Server 4.15 marquette Dec 7 2001

06:47:59)

with ESMTP id GO9C8V00.FCG for <John.McAd...@marquette.edu>;

Wed, 12 Dec 2001 19:02:55 -0600

AN EXAMPLE SHOWN ON THE INTERNET OF A TYPICAL HEADER, SHOWS ALMOST

THE EXACT SAME DATE FOR "RECEIVED" AND 'WITH". LOOK AT THIS:

Received:Return-Path: <2.253141.31353834323037.b@mailb.travelpn.com>

Received: from p136.travelocity.com (p136.travelocity.com [151.193.165.14])

by mail.totalputz.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i3CFm97B007068

for <shagdevil@totalputz.com>; Mon, 12 Apr 2004 11:48:09 -0400

Received: from tcyhlp135 (172.30.66.213)

by p136.travelocity.com (PowerMTA™ v2.0r4) id hfat3i04e18r; Mon, 12 Apr 2004 10:48:03 -0500

(envelope-from <2.253141.31353834323037.b@mailb.travelpn.com&gt

(NOTE THE ONE HOUR DIFFERENCE DUE TO TIME ZONE GOING FROM 400 TO 500)

THE HOUR'S DIFFERENCE IS BECAUSE THE EMAIL WAS SENT ACROSS A TIME ZONE.

Note there is only a 6-second lapse, though. Note that the day is the same.

But McAdams shows us a message sent Dec, 7 that does not arrive until Dec. 12--

AND THEY ARE BOTH SENT AT THE VERY SAME TIMES! (06:47:59) YET THEY ARE

SUPPOSED TO BE TWO DIFFERENT EMAILS SENT FOUR HOURS APART.

COPY THIS FOR YOURSELF TO CAPTURE THE INFORMATION THAT I HAVE BELOW.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassi...amp;lnk=ol&

1) MCADAMS’ ALTERED EMAIL HEADER TRIES TO SHOW DEBRA CONWAY WAS NOT INVOLVED

2) A PHOTO OF THE ORIGINAL HEADER SHOWING DEBRA CONWAY WAS INVOLVED FROM

THE BEGINNING (see below)

3) THE ALTERED HEADER SUBSTITUTED FOR THE ORIGINAL SCAN SHOWS THE SAME LOG-IN

ON THE SERVER FOR BOTH EMAILS, FIVE DAYS EARLIER, WITH THE SAME TIME TO THE

SECOND FOR BOTH LOG-INS.

THE HEADERS CAN BE SEEN AT:

Source: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassi...amp;lnk=ol&

BELOW is the HEADER MCADAMS POSTED for the email FROM MARY FERRELL, REPLYING TO JVB

(AND CC'ING MCADAMS) THAT SHE HAD NEVER POSTED IN HER LIFE ON A NEWSGROUP. (IT

ALSO HAS THE DEC. 7, 6:47:59 HOUR..IS THIS SOME KIND OF INTERNAL CLOCK WITH MARQUETTE?).

THIS ONE SHOWS IT WAS RECEIVED ON THURSDAY, DEC. 13, AT 21:19:17. YET THE TIME MCADAMS

SENT IT IS 16:25:13. The time zone is the same.

Return-Path: <maryf...@cprompt.net>

Received: from cprompt.net ([199.34.20.66]) by postmarq.mu.edu

(Netscape Messaging Server 4.15 marquette Dec 7 2001

06:47:59)

with ESMTP id GOBD8500.V4B for <John.McAd...@marquette.edu>;

Thu, 13 Dec 2001 21:19:17 -0600

Received: from mary-xp.cprompt.net [209.51.4.178] by cprompt.net with

ESMTP

(SMTPD32-6.00) id A9889C8013A; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 16:19:52 -0600

Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011213162046.01adf8f8@cprompt.net>

X-Sender: maryf...@cprompt.net

X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1

Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 16:25:13 -0600

To: dlif...@earthlink.net,rchap...@mem.net,cabu...@us.ibm.com,

Joanmel...@aol.com,parad...@gtw.net,John.McAd...@marquette.edu

From: Mary Ferrell <maryf...@cprompt.net>

Subject: Fwd: Mary, why did you post to the newsgroup?

Mime-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

I have never posted anything to a news group in my life.

Mary

PERSONS EMAILED on ‘his’ HEADER FOR THE EMAIL HE SAID HE RECEIVED

FROM MARY DENOUNCING ME:

John McAdams

Robert Chapman

Paul Hoch

David Lifton

Debra Conway

HERE’S THE HEADER MCADAMS NOW POSTS WITH THAT EMAIL:

Return-Path: <maryf...@cprompt.net>

Received: from cprompt.net ([199.34.20.66]) by postmarq.mu.edu

(Netscape Messaging Server 4.15 marquette Dec 7 2001

06:47:59)

with ESMTP id GO93R800.052 for <John.McAd...@marquette.edu>;

Wed, 12 Dec 2001 15:59:32 -0600

Received: from mary-xp.cprompt.net [209.51.4.178] by cprompt.net with

ESMTP

(SMTPD32-6.00) id A1F9D9600CC; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 15:54:01 -0600

Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011212154557.01b8e...@cprompt.net>

X-Sender: maryf...@cprompt.net

X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1

Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 15:56:06 -0600

To: dlif...@earthlink.net,rchap...@mem.net,de...@jfklancer.com,

parad...@gtw.net,PaulH...@uclink.berkeley.edu,John.McAd...@marquette.edu

From: Mary Ferrell <maryf...@cprompt.net>

Subject: Judyth Baker

Mime-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: multipart/mixed;

boundary="=====================_755792484==_"

HERE IS THE ORIGINAL AS IT WAS POSTED BEFORE IT WAS REWRITTEN:

20kyb7c.jpg

Note that you can see where it was sent first (right above the from line are the recipients)

but this particular email was to Debra Conway--see the first 'received' line: Debra Conway

through 'robin'. he time stamp shows 'PST' which means "Pacific Standard Time." This is

Calfornia. Earthlink is widely used in Califoria, as well. There is a 2-hour time differential

between Texas and California.

INTERESTINGLY, MARY WROTE THAT IT WAS “WITH GREAT REGRET” THAT SHE SENT

“THE FOLLOWING ATTACHMENT”. WE HAVE DEBRA CONWAY SAYING THAT MARY DID NOT

KNOW HOW TO POST AN ATTACHMENT.

WE MUST ASK WHY MARY CREATED AN ATTACHMENT THAT SHE DID NOT KNOW HOW TO

POST, AND THAT SHE SUPPOSEDLY ASKED DEBRA CONWAY TO HELP HER LEARN HOW,

ACCORDING TO CONWAY.

WE MUST THEN ASK WHY THIS EMAIL WAS SENT TO DEBRA CONWAY AND MCADAMS

POSTED DEBRA'S EMAIL INSTEAD OF HIS OWN, IF MARY WROTE ALL OF THE EMAIL BY

HERSELF WITHOUT HELP FROM DEBRA CONWAY AS THEY CLAIM.

I NOTED SOME STRANGE TIME PROBLEMS WITH THE HEADER:

THE TIME INDICATES THAT THIS EMAIL was received from 'robin" for DEBRA CONWAY

on 12 Dec. 2001 AT 10:59:02, PST (Pacific Standard Time)

THAT WAS 12:59:02 , MARY FERRELL'S TIME, IN TEXAS.

THERE WAS AN APPARENT EFFORT (OR THE SCAN WAS DAMAGED)

TO MAKE THE TIME LOOK LIKE 12:59:32, WHICH IS WHAT I ALSO NOTICED WITH SOME

CONCERN. BUT THE PST STAMP TELLS US THAT THIS WASN'T TEXAS. SO EVEN WITH A

CHANGE TO 12:59:32 THE 'DIFFERENT' TIME WOULD BE 2:59:32 FOR MARY FERRELL.

THAT STILL MADE NO SENSE. MARY SUPPOSEDLY SENT THE EMAIL OUT AT 15:56:06

--almost 4:00 PM, NOT almost 3:00 PM.

This email apparently existed for hours before 3:56:06 (15:56:06 INT. TIME) when

Mary Ferrell sent it out.

-----------------------------------------------------------

"Every time an e-mail moves through a different mail server, a new Received header

line is added to the beginning of the message headers list. It ...topmost is the newest,

created by the server nearest to you, and you should rely on this one only..." REF:

http://www.mailsbroadcast.com/email.broadc...l.broadcast.htm

------------------------------------------------------------

Note that "received" (top line) is supoosed to be LATER than "sent."

THE ATTACHMENT

MARY FERRELL WOULD HAVE WRITTEN A NORMAL EMAIL.

SHE WOULD NOT HAVE DECIDED FOR THE FIRST TIME, EVER, TO CREATE AN ATTACHMENT,

NEEDING THE ‘HELP’ OF FRIENDS TO DO SO. WHAT REALLY BOTHERS ME IS THAT I HAD

SEEN A FLOPPY IN MARY’S POSSESSION CALLED “JUDYTH.DOC” WHICH HAD ONLY MY

BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION IN IT, FOR INCLUSION IN HER CHRONOLOGY. DEBRA

CONWAY REFUSED TO ALLOW ‘JUDYTH BAKER’ EVENTS TO BE INSERTED IN FERRELL’S

CHRONOLOGY. LANCER FOR A TIME THEN REFUSED TO SELL FERRELL’S CHRONOLOGY.

FERRELL FINALLY GAVE IN. SHE REMOVED THE INFORMATION AND PUT IT IN THE “JUDYTH.DOC”

FLOPPY FILE THAT I SAW (A RED FLOPPY DISKETTE). SO HOW DID THE ATTACHMENT GET TO BE

CALLED “Judyth.doc” – AS HER COMPUTER WOULD WANT TO RENAME THE DOC TO SOMETHING

ELSE (SHE HAD “JUDYTH.DOC” ON HER COMPUTER AS WELL, AND THE CONTENTS WERE NOTHING

LIKE WHAT IS IN THE EMAIL—IT WAS ALL DATES AND DATA.).

JVB

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

JUDYTH REPLIES TO DOUG WELDON ABOUT HIS PLACE IN HISTORY

Jim:

I should have noted thaat Barb contributed the e-mail with the portion I quote above. Please tell Judyth she is free to include me in her book as one who questioned her sanity, veracity, witness, and character. If she is honest she will write that I attacked her by asking her to produce evidence that she failed to produce and asked questions she refused to answer. I will take my chances with history.

Doug Weldon

1) SPECIFICALLY, WHAT EVIDENCE DID MR. WELDON ASK ME TO PRODUCE? IT WAS HE WHO ASKED FOR A PHOTOGRAPH OF LEE AND ME TOGETHER? WHAT ELSE DID HE ASK ME TO PRODUCE?

WHAT ARE YOUR SPECIFIC REQUESTS, MR. WELDON? ALL I EVER SAW WAS A POST THAT SAID YOU HAD SOME QUESIONS TO ASK. I NEVER SAW A QUESTION. REPLY, PLEASE.

2) WHAT QUESTIONS HAS MR. WELDON ASKED THAT I HAVE REFUSED TO ANSWER? BE SPECIFIC, MR. WELDON. I AM UNABLE TO SEE THE EDUCATON FORUM--IT IS BLOCKED TO MY VIEW. UNLESS SENT TO ME, I AM UNAWARE HAT YOU ASKED ANY QUESTIONS OF ME, ONLY THAT YOU SAID YOU HAD SOME QUESTIONS.

WHAT HAVE I 'REFUSED' TO ANSWER? SHOW ME WHAT I HAVE REFUSED TO ANSWER.

3) 'ANYONE' CAN QUESTION 'ANYONE'S' SANITY. IT SEEMS MR. WELDON IS COMFORTABLE FOLLOWING THE MANDATE OF THE DAVID LIFTON MANIFESTO.

Jim and Doug,

If I might make a few comments. Please, either or both of you, correct me if I'm wrong in my understanding of your respective positions, which I personally find to both have merit and flaws. (Or just tell me to shut up--that's OK too). I think that both of you will at times use verbiage in a way that the other takes too literally or at least applies a literal interpretation to an inappropriate portion of the response. So that "what it means" to the speaker, is misconstrued because of "what it sounds like" to the listener-- IMHO.

First, Doug, if I'm correctly interpreting your meaning, you're stating that the BEST corroboration of JVB's taped statements, is the contents of the actual tape itself. If, when it's produced, we can assume or establish that it is not altered, I would tend to agree with that--all other things be equal. I think Jim would agree with that, but I'm not sure. It sounds resonable to me though. It's not like you said, "if there was a tape, then I'd believe..." -- She opened the door to the tape issue by claiming she had it. I doubt this first sectoin is the part that caused the miscommunication.

[emphasis added below]

...I am sure you understand how important the actual tape is in weighing JVB's credibility and veracity. She stated that she has the tape. She simply has to provide you with a copy otherwise she is again the only corroboration for her statements...

However, you ended the sentence this way:

... which is worthless.

Jim interprets that as meaning "Since it has been established that JVB's word counts for nothing, then...." which he objects to as fallacious and an unfair characterization. He would be correct, IF that was your intended meaning, but it was not. Your meaning is that NOBODY can ALONE corroborate their OWN statements, including JVB! The circularity of allowing anyone to do so is absurd on its face. So, in that sense, any such self corroboration--offered by anyone about their own claims, is worthless, in that it has no substantiation value by itself.

And one has to assume that she is not telling the truth.

Again, if taken literally, one could interpret you to mean: "If she doesn't produce that which she claims she has, then she IS definitely lying." -- Except, that's not what you meant--I think. What you said, sounds like that, but that would also be fallacious. Your meaning, in my interpretation, is that: "If she doesn't produce the evidence she claims is in her possession to corroborte her story, then we must proceed as if that evidence does not exist. IOW: We cannot admit "invisible" evidence.

Again, she is the one who has claimed that she has the tape.

This one is hard for me to help rationalize for the same reason Jim stated. It seems like a double standard is being employed here in the most bias manner. There is one notable difference, however. Lifton is a known quantity among researchers. This doesn't make him infallible, but his integrity has been well established and is not in question. Judyth's has not been well established yet. This does not mean she lacks it, just that many people have yet to be persuaded.

Monk and Jim:

I have no control over Lifton and whether or not he releases his tape. I, in my evaluation, am treating Lifton's tape as if it does not exist, because I have no idea what it says. Jim supposedly has connections with Judyth. It is Judyth who is purporting her story to be true but there are many doubts raised in this thread and the overwhelming number of people polled on this thread do not believe her. She has two concrete pieces of evidence that can establish her truth and veracity. One is the LHO writing on the book. Judyth is refusing to have this authenticated. It is in her possession. In our legal system, if existing evidence is not produced, the triers of fact are instructed to treat that evidence against the interest of those purporting its veracity. I am thus concluding that, if analyzed, that writing would not be that of Oswald.

A story has been described that portrays an incident with Mary Ferrell that suggests Mary did not believe or want to see Judyth. Judyth, says that fortunately she has an audiotape in her possession which contradicts that. The "Best Evidence" is that audiotape. If she refuses to produce it I can only conclude 1. there is no such tape and she lied 2. there is a tape but her refusal to produce it, under the law, would require people trying to determine facts to conclude that the tape does not support her position. Again, she lied. When someone lies in our legal system the jury is instructed that they can disregard ANY or ALL of that person's testimony.

These ARE the only two pieces of evidence that can stand by themselves. Judyth is either telling the truth about them or lying. There is no third alternative. I will be willing to call Anna Lewis, speak with her, and record the conversation. I cannot tell if she was coerced or influenced in any way. I am told that Judyth and some of her supporters were present. They had an agenda so it does, on its face, presents an indirect form of coercion. Jim, on the circumcision issue, wrote that Judyth told you that her intimacy with Oswald was in the dark, so it would be easy to conclude that she might not be clear on the circumcision issue. Barb states, thatin her book, Judyth claims her trysts were in the afternoon. Which is correct?

I believe the proofs on this thread have been very detrimental to Judyth. Her replies not only stretch credulity, they are often preposterous. You indicated that I was more rational than many, but yet again she fails to produce any evidence or answer any of the questions, I, or many others, have raised in this thread.

To anyone not familiar with Judyth this would reflect the impression I believe they might get reading this thread.

Characters JFK and RFK

RFK:

We received another gushing letter from a high school student who does even understand if you are president yet.

JFK:

Please send out one of our standard form letters thanking her.

RFK:

NSA has decoded this letter and we now understand that this high school student is offering her services to our country for the National Good. We understand that other students in her grade are dissectiing frogs and worms but we believe this student is on the verge of discovering a cure for cancer. This is something that the top PHD's in the country who have been working for years have been unable to even approach.

JFK:

Do we have proof?

RFK:

Absolutely. We have documentation that she won a ribbon at a high school science fair.

JFK:

That's enough for me. Clear her for our highest level of security clearance. We'll hook her up with our top two cancer researchers in the country, Commander David Ferrrie and General Lee Oswald. Just to be safe, since we know how Oswald can be, we'll once again have him do our standard genital disguise. If possible, assign her a 00 number so that she has a license to kill.

RFK:

Consider it done. SShould we do a clearance on her? What if one day she takes her secrets and tries to claim asylum in a socialist country?

JFK:

(Laughs) Don't be ridiculous. Afrer my presidency there will be no more socialist countries. Also, please give her an intensive course in Russian. Once we lick the cancer and any Castro issues she would be the perfect person to negotiate the end of the Cold War.

RFK:

Got it!

JFK:

Tell her to say hi to "Sparky" for me.

Doug Weldon

I thought it would be good to attach Judyth's e-mail to Mary Ferrell to the above. Sadly, JVB does not produce any worthwhile evidence and unless she can, her story will be a lost footnote in history and history will judge her as a fraud and will question everything she states below.

I will be presenting

solid evidence to defend myself against your negative statements

concerning my sanity, my veracity, my witness, and my character. ** I

will have to describe the actions and words of those who have aupported me--

and those who attacked me, and how they attacked me --in my second book.

I do not wish to affect anyone's reputation adversely.

Please consider your options now, in light of emerging evidence. The

evidence will continue to come forth. Nothing can stop it. There will

be too much of it.

History can be very unkind to those who tweak the truth to fit their

own theories. I hope you do what is right."

Doug Weldon

Jim:

I should have noted thaat Barb contributed the e-mail with the portion I quote above. Please tell Judyth she is free to include me in her book as one who questioned her sanity, veracity, witness, and character. If she is honest she will write that I attacked her by asking her to produce evidence that she failed to produce and asked questions she refused to answer. I will take my chances with history.

Doug Weldon

Doug Weldon

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

JUDYTH REPLIES TO JACK ABOUT HER PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING

I read in one of the earlier emails where (if I remember correctly), Mary persuaded Judyth

to go to a local psychological clinic for testing, and that Judyth reported back to Mary that

she did so and she "passed their tests".

Did I just imagine this? Does anyone know any more? I find this very peculiar.

Jack

JACK NEVER HAS COMPASSION OR BEEN GENTLE WITH ME.

1) I WAS HOSPITALIZED WITH A CONCUSSION THAT AFFECTED MY WALKING, CREATED DOUBLE VISION, AND SHORT TERM MEMORY PROBLEMS. THE REASON I HAD A TAPE RECORDER WITH ME WAS PRIMARILY DUE TO MY SHORT TERM MEMORY PROBLEMS.

2) MARY AND I WERE CLOSE FRIENDS, DESPITE HOW IT IS NOW MADE TO SEEM.

SHE COMPLAINED BITTERLY THAT CHAPMAN, CONWAY, LIFTON AND MCADAMS WERE PRESSURING HER TO DROP ME AS A FRIEND. WHY DID SHE LET ME INTO HER APARTMENT WHEN THE NURSE ASKED IF SHE WANTED TO SEE US? ALL SHE HAD TO DO WAS SAY 'NO.'

WHY DID SHE LET THE SECOND GROUP IN? THIS IS THE FIRST I KNEW HAT HEY HAD A VIDEO CAMERA WITH THEM. THERE IS NO 'TEAM JUDYTH'--THESE PEOPLE VISITED MARY ON THEIR OWN AND I AM THE LAST TO HEAR THE DETAILS.

SHE COULD HAVE SAID 'NO' TO THEM, TOO--NOT ALLOWED THEM INSIDE--BUT DID NOT.

3) MARY HAD TOLD ME ABOUT HER EXPERIENCES AFTER SHE BROKE HER HIP. SHE ALSO TOLD ME ABOUT HER MOOD SWINGS AND HER ANGER PROBLEMS. ANYBODY WHO KNEW MARY WELL KNOWS THIS WAS TRUE ABOUT HER. SHE WAS ALSO INCREDIBLY KNOWLEDGABLE ABOUT THE CASE. SHE WOULD HAVE THROWN ME OUT ON MY EAR IN SHORT ORDER HAD SHE DETECTED ANY FALSEHOOD IN ME. SHE PUT UP WITH NO JUNK! THOSE WHO THINK OTHERWISE MUST CONCLUDE THAT SHE WAS ACTING AS A SPY. SHAME ON THEM!

ALL WHO KNEW HER ALSO KNOW SHE COULD NOT BE BULLIED AND WAS FEISTY. I WAS CERTAINLY NO THREAT TO THE WOMAN ALSO KNOWN AS "THE DRAGON LADY."

I HAD NO CHOICE, HOWEVER, AS TO WHICH CLINIC I WENT TO. MY HELPFUL GEICO REPRESENTATIVE SELECTED THE CLINICS AND PAID FOR ALL THE TESTS TO ASSESS THE EXENT OF MY TRAUMA. I'VE HAD DOUBLE VISION EVER SINCE.

I read in one of the earlier emails where (if I remember correctly), Mary persuaded Judyth

to go to a local psychological clinic for testing, and that Judyth reported back to Mary that

she did so and she "passed their tests".

Did I just imagine this? Does anyone know any more? I find this very peculiar.

Jack

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...