Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

JUDYTH VARY BAKER "VINDICATION" PAGE ON FACEBOOK

Who knows how many others Jack can add to his list of those who

believe in Judyth and therefore belong on his "mental health" list.

We already know that includes Jim Marrs, Nigel Turner, Ed Haslam,

Wim Dankbarr, and Jim Fetzer. How many others believe in her?

WEBSITE: Vindication for Judyth Vary Baker

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=3480...5669&ref=mf

DESCRIPTION: Judyth Vary Baker knows the truth that Lee Harvey

Oswald was innocent of any wrongdoing in the JFK assassination.

For telling this truth, she has been subjected to threats by those

who perpetuate the official lie and she has been forced to live

overseas. This group seeks her vindication as well as Lee's.

THERE ARE MORE THAN I AM ALLOWED TO POST. VISIT THE VINDICATION FOR JUDYTH PAGE.

[Pamela Brown]

And while the campaign continues, they consistently refuse to answer one simple question -- namely, why can't this one documented witness be allowed to speak in an open forum?

Hasn't she been speaking? We have pages and pages of it.

How disdainful that sounds, Kathy.

Let me try again. How many words has Judyth been allowed to speak in an open forum, without 'researchers' who embrace and kowtow to every other witness, documented or not and yet speak libelously against Judyth, refusing to allow those who are interested to weigh and evaluate Judyth's statements on their own. They also consider themselves to be at the same level as a witness, having no perspective to the fact that a researcher can only operate with second-hand information from which they can develop an hypothesis. Trying to libel a documented witness simply convolutes the process of getting information from them.

How many witnesses have you worked with?

[Jack White]

Were Jim to respond to his own posting, I am sure he would say something like:

"Argument from Consensus

Argumentum ad Numerum

Category:

Fallacies of Relevance > Appeal to Authority

Explanation:

This fallacy occurs any time the sheer numbers of people who agree to something is used as a reason to get you to agree to it and takes the general form:

1. When most people agree on a claim about subject S, the claim is true (normally an unstated premise). Claim X is one which most people agree on. Therefore, X is true.

This fallacy can take on the direct approach, where a speaker is addressing a crowd and makes a deliberate attempt to excite their emotions and passions in an attempt to get them to accept what he is saying. What we see here is the development of a sort of "mob mentality" — people go along with what they hear because they experience others also going along with it. This is, obviously enough, a common tactic in political speeches.

This fallacy can also take on an indirect approach, where the speaker is, or seems to be, addressing a single person while focusing on some relationship that individual has to larger groups or crowds."

Any "appeal to authority" DEPENDS on WHO the authority is and what is their

expertise. There are many levels of expertise and knowledge. A mere popularity

poll means little.

Right, Jim?

Put another way, we might say that G. W. Bush was one of the most popular

presidents ever because he was elected president twice by a majority of

voters. But this is contrary to poll ratings, historians and public opinion.

Also, I challenge some on the list...for instance Robert Chapman, who was

anti-JVB, as I recall. Photos and names are insufficient. Each should have a

relevant statement.

I am sure that Jim did not purposely post a logical fallacy.

[Greg Burnham]

Jack,

You are incorrect about Jim's argument being fallacious. His argument is not based on the existence (real or imagined) of a consensus opinion. That there are a number of persons in agreement about this subject (and a number who disagree) is a fact--not an argument. And Jim didn't unduly rely upon that fact in his presentation, IMO.

When you and I discussed/argued this subject years ago, I was similarly mystified by your argument that: "I know there were two Oswalds--Harvey and Lee--and since Judyth doesn't CONFIRM the existence of the second Oswald, her story is false."

In all due respect to you and to our 13 years of friendship, Jack, that argument is not valid. Her ignorance of the fact of a second Oswald doesn't have any bearing on the veracity of the remainder of her account. That which she doesn't know...she doesn't know. Perhaps she even denies the possibility--from her own experience? Even if she did, although she may not be accurate about that part--it still wouldn't invalidate the remainder of her testimony all by itself.

Were Jim to respond to his own posting, I am sure he would say something like:

"Argument from Consensus

Argumentum ad Numerum

Category:

Fallacies of Relevance > Appeal to Authority

Explanation:

This fallacy occurs any time the sheer numbers of people who agree to something is used as a reason to get you to agree to it and takes the general form:

1. When most people agree on a claim about subject S, the claim is true (normally an unstated premise). Claim X is one which most people agree on. Therefore, X is true.

This fallacy can take on the direct approach, where a speaker is addressing a crowd and makes a deliberate attempt to excite their emotions and passions in an attempt to get them to accept what he is saying. What we see here is the development of a sort of "mob mentality" — people go along with what they hear because they experience others also going along with it. This is, obviously enough, a common tactic in political speeches.

This fallacy can also take on an indirect approach, where the speaker is, or seems to be, addressing a single person while focusing on some relationship that individual has to larger groups or crowds."

Any "appeal to authority" DEPENDS on WHO the authority is and what is their

expertise. There are many levels of expertise and knowledge. A mere popularity

poll means little.

Right, Jim?

Put another way, we might say that G. W. Bush was one of the most popular

presidents ever because he was elected president twice by a majority of

voters. But this is contrary to poll ratings, historians and public opinion.

Also, I challenge some on the list...for instance Robert Chapman, who was

anti-JVB, as I recall. Photos and names are insufficient. Each should have a

relevant statement.

I am sure that Jim did not purposely post a logical fallacy.

Edited March 14, 2010 by Greg Burnham

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Well, you are talking about at least two fallacies. One is know as the appeal to popular sentiments. This is the fallacy of assuming that, just because an opinion is widespread, therefore it must be true. Most Americans believe we went to the moon but, as you and I are aware, the evidence tends to discount that.

The other is the appeal to authority. There are two forms, one of which is fallacious, the other not. Appealing to Einstein on relativity is non-fallacious, since he is an authority on that subject. Appealing to Einstein on politics, however, would generally be viewed as fallacious, since he is not an authority on politics.

Neither fallacy was being committed here. I was not suggesting that because Judyth is supported by this group, it is therefore established that she is authentic. Indeed, I presume that more students of JFK doubt that she is authentic than support her authenticity, so the argument would work the other way around.

Nor am I suggesting that, just because certain persons--Jim Marrs, Nigel Turner, Edward Haslam, and I, for example--support her that it must be the case that she is "the real deal". I was simply observing that there is a fairly substantial group of those who are students of the case who do support her and believe in her.

The point I was making is that, if you are going to assume that there were "two Oswalds" and condemn Judyth for not believing that--when there is no good reason why she should--then since you on that basis have concluded she is not "the real deal", you might as well dismiss the rest of us as well.

I am trying to get across that judging the beliefs of others based upon your own research--in relation to WHAT YOU THINK THEY SHOULD BELIEVE--is a fallacious methodology. IF we were all using the same evidence and the same alternative hypotheses and the same rules of reasoning, THEN we should converge.

But some, such as Judyth, are first and foremost WITNESSES, even though she has proven to be very adept at RESEARCH. Her beliefs about Lee Oswald are based upon her (presumptive) personal experience and there is no reason to dismiss her on the grounds that YOU BELIEVE that there were "two Oswalds".

And seeing that Greg Burnham has made my point perhaps even more concisely than have I, I would add, if my explanation does not convince you, my friend, then check out Monk's, because he put it about as clearly and as concisely as it could be explained--even by a professor of logic and critical thinking! Good post, Monk! Thanks.

Were Jim to respond to his own posting, I am sure he would say something like:

"Argument from Consensus

Argumentum ad Numerum

Category:

Fallacies of Relevance > Appeal to Authority

Explanation:

This fallacy occurs any time the sheer numbers of people who agree to something is used as a reason to get you to agree to it and takes the general form:

1. When most people agree on a claim about subject S, the claim is true (normally an unstated premise). Claim X is one which most people agree on. Therefore, X is true.

This fallacy can take on the direct approach, where a speaker is addressing a crowd and makes a deliberate attempt to excite their emotions and passions in an attempt to get them to accept what he is saying. What we see here is the development of a sort of "mob mentality" — people go along with what they hear because they experience others also going along with it. This is, obviously enough, a common tactic in political speeches.

This fallacy can also take on an indirect approach, where the speaker is, or seems to be, addressing a single person while focusing on some relationship that individual has to larger groups or crowds."

Any "appeal to authority" DEPENDS on WHO the authority is and what is their

expertise. There are many levels of expertise and knowledge. A mere popularity

poll means little.

Right, Jim?

Put another way, we might say that G. W. Bush was one of the most popular

presidents ever because he was elected president twice by a majority of

voters. But this is contrary to poll ratings, historians and public opinion.

Also, I challenge some on the list...for instance Robert Chapman, who was

anti-JVB, as I recall. Photos and names are insufficient. Each should have a

relevant statement.

I am sure that Jim did not purposely post a logical fallacy.

Edited March 14, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Jack, have you been following this link?  http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14604 There is a fellow Bill Simpich who has good things to say. I have the feeling that Judyth didn't know everything about Lee, even if she knew a lot. What interests me is whether John Armstrong was aware of these kinds of considerations about building false identities, using variations on names, and all the rest:

With or without his knowledge, it looks like Oswald was used for counter-espionage purposes as part of a CIA molehunt for Soviet spies within the agency

The names of both Lee Harvey Oswald and his wife Marina Prusakova were repeatedly misspelled as "Lee Henry Oswald" and "Marina Pusakova" in CIA messages during the time that Oswald was reported to have visited the Cuban and Soviet consulates in Mexico City. It wasn't just a typographical error. This error and others like it had been made repeatedly by the same person.

The CIA's Ann Egerter (also known as Egeter) told Congressional investigators that she worked at the office that spied on their own spies, known as the Counter-Intelligence/Special Investigations Group, or CI/SIG. Egerter assisted in the preparation of two separate CIA messages on 10/10/63, both referring to him as Lee Henry Oswald. One message inaccurately referred to Oswald as "approximately 35 years old, with an athletic build" and the other message more accurately described him as "born 18 Oct 1939, five foot ten inches, light brown wavy hair". In fact, Oswald's central CIA file was wrongly entitled by Egerter as "Lee Henry Oswald" several years earlier when he had defected from the Marines to the Soviet Union. By the time of the weekend of the assassination, even Walter Cronkite was calling him "Lee Henry Oswald".

There was another common practice among the agencies to invert Oswald's name as "Harvey Lee Oswald". Like most people, Lee Oswald never used his middle name except for official purposes. This practice of transposing his names emanated from CIA and military sources, and the FBI eventually picked up on it as well.

The House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) knew about this practice and looked for Oswald files under these various names during their investigation of this case during the 70s.

Just a few of many examples:

1. A remarkable 1972 handwritten memo entitled "Harvey Lee Oswald" states: "Today the DC/CI (Deputy Chief, Counter-intelligence) advised me that the Director had relayed via the DDP (Deputy Director of Plans) the injunction that the Agency was not, under any circumstances, to make inquiries or ask questions of any source or defector about Oswald."

2. Thomas Casasin, chief of CIA's Soviet Russia Division 6, wrote that at one point he had "operational interest in the Harvey story" that involved the theme of defection.

3. The Warren Commission documented someone named "Harvey Oswald" appeared at the Selective Service office in Austin to complain about his military discharge at the same time that another Oswald was heading to Mexico City.

4. Lt. Harvey Oswald was reported to be seen in a well-known bar in Havana with leading FPCC leader Robert Taber right after the Bay of Pigs invasion.

5. "Harvey Lee Oswald" has a list of approximately a hundred documents attributed to him. Many of them have been destroyed or cannot be found, including an entire FBI file under that name.

In the intelligence practice of having two or more files on a subject, the regular name is used for material that is meant for the public domain, while the transposed or misspelled name is for covert information. In that manner, an agency can tell the "truth" about the contents of their overt file, and hide its covert information in the covert file with the transposed or misspelled name.

Author and professor Peter Dale Scott cites many of the errors discussed above (and more) in his groundbreaking essay Oswald and the Hunt for Popov's Mole. Most of these errors were committed by highly educated agents like Egerter, whose careers depend on getting names right and accurately spelling the names of relevant parties.

Scott suggests that these errors are wholly deliberate, and that this pattern is one of the essential methods used by the CIA in a "molehunt" looking for Soviet spies that might be trying to penetrate the CIA itself. If a spy without proper clearances to the document were to repeat the misspelled name to another party, this "marked card" would point to the errant spy. Scott has written:

"In the game of molehunting, of course, the distinction between targeter and targeted is not a secure one. The situation is something like the parlor game of Murder, in which the culprit is"likely to be one of the investigators."

Egerter's boss James Angleton was the head of CIA counterintelligence. Angleton used CI/SIG in a ruthless manner, destroying the lives of innocent officers and anyone else who stood in the way of his hunt for Soviet agents supposedly penetrating the CIA. By the time Angleton was fired in the midst of the Watergate era, he was accused of being a Soviet mole himself. By 1980, Congress was forced to pass a bill to compensate the unfairly accused officers in what became known as the "Mole Relief Act".

This is from post #35 on the new thread.  Very interesting stuff. I ask because it seems to be to raise the possibility that Armstrong's "Harvey & Lee" thesis may have been constructed by selecting from evidence that he (Armstrong) himself may not have completely understood. Is something like that possible?

[Michael Hogan]

The other is the appeal to authority. There are two forms, one of which is fallacious, the other not. Appealing to Einstein on relativity is non-fallacious, since he is an authority on that subject. Appealing to Einstein on politics, however, would generally be viewed as fallacious, since he is not an authority on politics.

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8359.html

[Greg Burnham]

The other is the appeal to authority. There are two forms, one of which is fallacious, the other not. Appealing to Einstein on relativity is non-fallacious, since he is an authority on that subject. Appealing to Einstein on politics, however, would generally be viewed as fallacious, since he is not an authority on politics.

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8359.html

Jim was citing Einstein as an example only. Certainly because of Einstein's extensive outspokeness on ploitical issues, particularly ones relevant to nuclear weapons, it could be argued that some would consider his opinion profoundly relevant. I think the key phrase in Jim's example is "would generally be viewed as fallacious" -- But, either way, that wasn't his point. Perhaps if he had said, "Appealing to Einstein on the reproductive habits of 21st Century giraffes held in captivity -- would generally be viewed as fallacious..." that would have been preferable so as not to cause some to split hairs.

Edited March 14, 2010 by Greg Burnham

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Excellent, Monk! Yes, that was the point. I appreciate the counter-example to my illustration, but Monk has it right. Michael Hogan is a witty fellow. Next time, I will observed that Einstein was not an expert on cognitive ethology!

The other is the appeal to authority. There are two forms, one of which is fallacious, the other not. Appealing to Einstein on relativity is non-fallacious, since he is an authority on that subject. Appealing to Einstein on politics, however, would generally be viewed as fallacious, since he is not an authority on politics.

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8359.html

Jim was citing Einstein as an example only. Certainly because of Einstein's extensive outspokeness on ploitical issues, particularly ones relevant to nuclear weapons, it could be argued that some would consider his opinion profoundly relevant. I think the key phrase in Jim's example is "would generally be viewed as fallacious" -- But, either way, that wasn't his point. Perhaps if he had said, "Appealing to Einstein on the reproductive habits of 21st Century giraffes held in captivity -- would generally be viewed as fallacious..." that would have been preferable so as not to cause some to split hairs.

Edited March 14, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Barb Junkkarinen]

And while the campaign continues, they consistently refuse to answer one simple question -- namely, why can't this one documented witness be allowed to speak in an open forum?

Hasn't she been speaking? We have pages and pages of it.

How disdainful that sounds, Kathy.

Let me try again. How many words has Judyth been allowed to speak in an open forum, without 'researchers' who embrace and kowtow to every other witness, documented or not and yet speak libelously against Judyth, refusing to allow those who are interested to weigh and evaluate Judyth's statements on their own. They also consider themselves to be at the same level as a witness, having no perspective to the fact that a researcher can only operate with second-hand information from which they can develop an hypothesis. Trying to libel a documented witness simply convolutes the process of getting information from them.

How many witnesses have you worked with?

Judyth has spoken cyber reams on assorted newsgroups, websites and blogs. She has spoken freely on radio shows, she has published a book. But you are annoyed and consider it "attacking" that people don't gather silently at her feet like 'sheeple' and soak it all up, but that some seek to objectively verify elements of her account that can be fact checked. One has to wonder how you think research can move forward if people do nothing but listen to a self proclaimed witness tell her story without any efforts to determine if it is factually true.

What a difference having gotten seemingly "swept up in the momentum" has made in your attitude toward what research must be done:

Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk

From: pame...@primenet.com (pamela mcelwain-brown)

Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 03:24:59 GMT

Local: Thurs, Nov 2 2000 7:24 pm

Subject: Re: Judyth and Jack Ruby

David,

It seems as though you have no alternative but to invest a considerable

amount of time and energy attempting to objectively verify the statements

of this person. Coming from my research on the Weldon "Man from the

Rouge", I can sympathize, in that when even a part of the research

community is hyped about a *new witness* that momentum can have a tendency

to move more quickly than actual facts might warrant.

As I follow these threads, a bit belatedly, I must ask the question --

what difference does it make? If Judyth had continued to maintain her

anonymity, what would we not know about LHO that we do *know* now? It

seems that she provides LHO-Ruby connections, but that has been done by

other less new witnesses, such as Beverly Oliver, so that is not *new*

information. In addition, some of the statements attributed to Judyth

seem to be almost silly; so it is difficult to attach any value to them.

It had been my thinking that once a *witness* had at least a name, a job

description, a voice, and was willing to communicate with the research

community (things the MFTR was unable to do) that vetting such a witness

in terms of their relevance to the assassination would be a relatively

simple thing.

Not so, I am discovering.

Pamela

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassi...+verify+pamela#

[Guest John Gillespie]

Jim...You are a newcomer to the Judyth experience. Get a complete copy of

her written story, as told to Martin Shackleford and some other LNs, and check

it against documentation. Rich DellaRosa did this. John Armstrong did it. Mary

Ferrell did it. After 9 months or so of study, all found she did not pass the

smell test.

(You are the latest

in a LONG LIST of researchers she has chaarmed.)

___________________________

Whether intended or not, whether the work of something conscious or subconscious, the above may be the cleverest, subtlest surgical strike I've seen on the Forum, assuming Wim still spells his name as before.

Regaards,

JG

Edited March 14, 2010 by John Gillespie

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Jack,

Whatever explanations of fallacies, logical or otherwise, have come forth now, there is no doubt, despite Jim's saying otherwise now, that the whole point of his posting that facebook group ... complete with photos and names of those who joined it ... was a "look, it's not just me, see how many people believe her" thing. He did not relate it to anything to do with you or two Oswalds when he put the post up at all. And who knows how many of those people really know anything about Judyth's claims at all. I rather liked your post.

Barb :-)

Were Jim to respond to his own posting, I am sure he would say something like:

"Argument from Consensus

Argumentum ad Numerum

Category:

Fallacies of Relevance > Appeal to Authority

Explanation:

This fallacy occurs any time the sheer numbers of people who agree to something is used as a reason to get you to agree to it and takes the general form:

1. When most people agree on a claim about subject S, the claim is true (normally an unstated premise). Claim X is one which most people agree on. Therefore, X is true.

This fallacy can take on the direct approach, where a speaker is addressing a crowd and makes a deliberate attempt to excite their emotions and passions in an attempt to get them to accept what he is saying. What we see here is the development of a sort of "mob mentality" — people go along with what they hear because they experience others also going along with it. This is, obviously enough, a common tactic in political speeches.

This fallacy can also take on an indirect approach, where the speaker is, or seems to be, addressing a single person while focusing on some relationship that individual has to larger groups or crowds."

Any "appeal to authority" DEPENDS on WHO the authority is and what is their

expertise. There are many levels of expertise and knowledge. A mere popularity

poll means little.

Right, Jim?

Put another way, we might say that G. W. Bush was one of the most popular

presidents ever because he was elected president twice by a majority of

voters. But this is contrary to poll ratings, historians and public opinion.

Also, I challenge some on the list...for instance Robert Chapman, who was

anti-JVB, as I recall. Photos and names are insufficient. Each should have a

relevant statement.

I am sure that Jim did not purposely post a logical fallacy.

[Greg Burnham]

Judyth has spoken cyber reams on assorted newsgroups, websites and blogs. She has spoken freely on radio shows, she has published a book. But you are annoyed and consider it "attacking" that people don't gather silently at her feet like 'sheeple' and soak it all up, but that some seek to objectively verify elements of her account that can be fact checked. One has to wonder how you think research can move forward if people do nothing but listen to a self proclaimed witness tell her story without any efforts to determine if it is factually true.

That is somewhat of a "strawman" argument. I didn't read Pamela suggesting anything about any researchers gathering at Judyth's feet, being silent, acting like sheeple, or soaking it all up. I agree that responsible research requires the objective (in-good-faith) verification of elements of her account. But, nobody has even remotely suggested that Judyth's story not be fact checked.

I can't speak for Pamela, but I, for one, vigorously encourage such verification. What I object to is, however, the penchant of some to summarily dismiss her claims citing unsupported assertions about her mental health, her integrity, her motivation, or irrelevant pseudo-exclusionary evidence that is, in reality, not mutually exclusive at all. In my best estimation that behavior is counter-intuitive to the type of research that you claim to espouse.

[Barb Junkkarinen]

If she really knows nothing, why has so much happened to her and those around her? And please don't fall into the ongoing campaign's little trap of saying she's 'making it all up', implying that she 'deserves' what has happened to her, as that is just a pack of lies.

If she really knows something, why would such things have been happening to her for the last few years .... as she already let the cats out of the bag years ago .... and clearly has no documentation for anything beyond having worked at Reily and having been an outstanding science student, not even, it seems, any documentation for all the awful things she claims have happened to her.

The only things those who allegedly would want to harm her have to fear ... is getting caught trying to harm her. How dumb would that be?!

Think.

[Michael Hogan]

The other is the appeal to authority. There are two forms, one of which is fallacious, the other not. Appealing to Einstein on relativity is non-fallacious, since he is an authority on that subject. Appealing to Einstein on politics, however, would generally be viewed as fallacious, since he is not an authority on politics.

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8359.html

Jim was citing Einstein as an example only. Certainly because of Einstein's extensive outspokeness on ploitical issues, particularly ones relevant to nuclear weapons, it could be argued that some would consider his opinion profoundly relevant. I think the key phrase in Jim's example is "would generally be viewed as fallacious" -- But, either way, that wasn't his point. Perhaps if he had said, "Appealing to Einstein on the reproductive habits of 21st Century giraffes held in captivity -- would generally be viewed as fallacious..." that would have been preferable so as not to cause some to split hairs.

Yes, it was clear that he was only using that example to make a point.

I guess my point was that just because someone is well-known or famous in a certain field,

that in and of itself does not disqualify them as an authority in another field.

It was not an attempt to split hairs. I'm sorry it was taken that way.