Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

MEASURING UP: THE 'LEE' AND 'HARVEY' PHOTO COMPARISON

NOTE: This is not intended as a dismissal of the massive documentary trail John Armstrong, HARVEY & LEE: HOW THE CIA FRAMED OSWALD (2003), but as a commentary on some of the evidence that has been adduced in support of Armstrong's thesis of "the two Oswalds". Even if some of the "evidence" is not well-founded, that does not mean his thesis is false. Because of her background in physical anthropology, however, Judyth is well-positioned to address the photographs.

JUDYTH EXPLAINS:

TIME TO TALK ABOUT THE TWO PHOTOS THAT SOME PEOPLE THINK MEANS TWO DIFFERENT SKULLS, RE 'LEE' AND 'HARVEY'. FIRST OF ALL, I HAVE A SLIGHT ADVANTAGE WITH A DEGREE IN PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY, WHICH IS A B.S., NOT A B.A.

I HAD TO LEARN TO MEASURE AND RECONSTRUCT ACTUAL HUMAN AND PRIMATE SKULLS AND SKELETONS OF ALL AGES AND FROM VARIOUS GEOLOGIC TIME PERIODS--FROM MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD TO MODERN TIMES.

THE TWO PHOTOS BELOW HAVE OFTEN BEEN USED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT 'HARVEY' AND 'LEE' ARE DIFFERENT PEOPLE. BUT THERE ARE GOOD REASONS TO DOUBT THAT THAT IS THE CASE:

THEY LOOK DIFFERENT. IF IT'S THE SAME PERSON, THEN WHAT HAPPENED?

DISTORTED PHOTOS OF LEE AS SHOWN ON THE EDUCATION FORUM AND ELSEWHERE REQUIRE DISTORTION CORRECTIONS.

MEASUREMENTS ARE NOW THE SAME--THE WIDTH BEWEEN THE EYEBROWS WHERE THEY MEET IN THE CENTER AND THE SIZE OF THE EYES ARE BOTH CORRECTED.

THE DISTORTION WAS 10%--SIGNIFICANT. THE PHOTO CALLED “HARVEY” WAS SHOWN AS ‘TOO FAT.’ WHEN THE DISTORTION IS CORRECTED, THE SKULL SHAPES MATCH ‘LEE’ EVEN THOUGH THE ‘LEE’ FIGURE IS YOUNGER, AND THE CHEEKBONES ARE NOT YET WELL-DEVELOPED.

STILL, THE RECEDING HAIRLINE ON THE RIGHT (LEE’S LEFT) HAS ALREADY BEGUN. THE UNIQUE EYEBROW LINES ARE ALSO THE SAME—E.G. LEE’S RIGHT EYEBROW—TO THE LEFT FOR US.

THE NOSE HAS SLIGHTLY MATURED, AS EXPECTED, AND BECOME SLIGHTLY MORE DOMINANT AS THE FACIAL BONES MATURED. EVEN THOUGH THE ARREST PHOTO SHOWS A SWOLLEN LEFT EYE, SLIGHTLY RAISING THE EYEBROW, THE SAME EYEBROW LINE IS PRESENT FOR ‘HARVEY’ AND ‘LEE.’

FURTHER, THE EARS--WHEN DISTORTION IS REMOVED--ARE EXACTLY THE SAME. THE ‘YOUNG’ LEE TO THE RIGHT IS THE SAME AS THE 24-YEAR-OLD LEE, CENTER.

HOWEVER, FOR SOME REASON, PHOTO TO THE LEFT WAS WIDENED, DISTORTING THE SKULL, SHORTENING THE JAWLINE, AND MAKING THE SPACE BEWEEN THE EYES TOO GREAT.

THE PHOTOS ABOVE THESE THREE ARE ALL SHOWN AT THE SAME EYE-WIDTHS. THE EAR WIDTHS ALSO FALL INTO PLACE A THE SAME TIME A IDENICAL DISTANCES APART FROM EACH OHER—SAME SKULL.

I HAVE VISION PROBLEMS, SO THIS SUDY CAN BE DUPLICATED WITH PRECISE MEASUREMENTS (10%, 12%, ETC.). WIDENING DISTORTIONS HAPPEN WITH LENSES. THAT’S WHY PEOPLE TENDED TO LOOK ‘FATTER’ WHEN TV’S HAD CURVED SCREENS.

AND WHEN A PHOTO IS TAKEN OF A PHOTO, INSTEAD OF A DIREC COPY BEING MADE, AND THEN IT’S COPIED AGAIN, SIMILAR DISTORTIONS CAN OCCUR.

HERE IS A 10% DISTORTION OF CARLOS BRINGUIER’S PHOTO ON THE RIGHT. These are ‘THE SAME’ photos. But if we have different photos of Bringuier, notice what we can do:

THESE ARE THE SAME PEOPLE…BUT THE PHOTO TO LEFT HAS 10% DISTORTION.

IS ONE ‘CARLOS’ AND THE OTHER AN IMPOSTOR--A ‘CARLITO’? OF COURSE NOT.

WE MUST RECOGNIZE HOW TO ANALYZE USING UNDISTORTED PHOTOS—MANY OF LEE H. OSWALD’S PHOTOS HAVE BEEN ALTERED, RETOUCHED…

WE AKE THE OUTER EAR MEASUREMENT, THE MEASUREMENTS AT THE OUTER EDGE OF THE EYES, THE WIDTH FROM PUPIL TO PUPIL, THE WIDTH BETWEEN EYEBROWS, THE SHAPE OF EARS AND EYEBROWS, AND BE AWARE OF MATURING BONE STRUCTURES.

SO MUCH CAN HAPPEN IN JUST A FEW YEARS…

OTHERS MAY WISH TO GO BEYOND THE ATTACHED INTRODUCTORY STUDY, TAKING MEASUREMENTS FOR YOURSELVES ON PHOTOS CORRECTED FOR DISTORTION.

BUT DO YOUR HOMEWORK AND LEARN ABOUT SKULL AND BONE STRUCTURE IN MATURING INDIVIDUALS BEFORE DECIDING ABOUT 'HARVEY' AND 'LEE'.

ALWAYS BE AWARE THAT PHOTO RETOUCHING WAS DONE, PHOTO FLIPPING, TOO, AND OCCASIONAL DELIBERATE DISTORTIONS....

A COUPLE OF COURSES IN FORENSIC ANTHROPOLOGY, WHERE YOU HAVE TO RECONSTRUCT FACES FROM SKULLS, CAN BE USEFUL, TOO.

JVB

Edited March 20, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

JUDYTH SPEAKS ABOUT ARMSTRONG, NEWMAN, and GARRISON

“The Three Musketeers”

I respect the hard work of John Armstrong, who spent years collecting information and files that might otherwise have been obscured forever. In particular, Armstrong has contributed immensely to our understanding that Lee Oswald was impersonated without his knowledge. (LHO was also aware of a number of [temporary or transient] impersonations.)

Two other warriors, who have helped bring down the Warren Commission’s house of cards, made similar extraordinary and sincere efforts to open our eyes and obtain information that otherwise might have been lost or misinterpreted: I mean John Newman and Jim Garrison. This trio saved some of the crown jewels of the case from obscurity and misinterpretation.

I’ve come a long way since first being shown Robert Groden’s The Search for Lee Harvey Oswald. I had no knowledge of any of the books out here, for the most part, because I avoided ever looking. I had seen Lee shot on TV, and the shock of that made it impossible for me to even speak of it.

When I first spoke out, the first years—1999-2003—I would cry when talking about certain events. I had not confronted those memories for decades, except in the silent reaches of my mind, when about once a year, in the 1980s, I began going over everything I could remember, afraid I would forget. I also wrote a series of long letters to my son for him to publish after my death.

Upon finally getting the courage to see the film JFK—which I viewed alone at the end of 1998—the day after my daughter married and left home for her honeymoon—I was engulfed with shame and fury that (1) I had not spoken out and (2) that so much I thought would be known about Lee—had historians been honest—had been twisted almost beyond recognition. The truth about Lee was still buried, along with his body. How could I dare keep silent any longer?

For in that film, Oliver Stone had noted that silence was cowardice. Tha’s when I hung my head in shame. I got together the various pieces of evidence—some hidden behind pictures, others in a Bible, etc.—and laid it all out on the bed. These items needed reams of explanation to make sense. Would I be given a chance to explain it all? Would my good name be ruined? I had already moved to Louisiana, in hopes of running into some witnesses—I hoped they were not all dead. I later found a few who remembered me and Lee together.

I did not know about warriors such as “The Three Musketeers” who had already brought so much before the people—only to have the media ignore it or, in Garrison’s case—to pillory him. What I did know was that I was angry. My country was being ruined by the same people who had killed JFK.

I got on my knees and prayed. I was afraid. With shaking hands, I sent a FAX to a TV investigative program. The woman replied that she was simply overwhelmed and told me she was sending the story on to "60 Minutes".

After they interviewed me several times by telephone, they flew me to New York. It would be the first of many trips there and elsewhere, as "60 Minutes" valiantly tried to get a program filmed, against opposition that finally “slammed the door” in their faces.

A literary agent had a friend who was a producer at "60 Minutes", and we soon connected, but the agent edited the book I gave him severely. It wasn’t the ‘real’ book, anyway, so after flagging a lot of the changes with bold type, I let it go. Besides, I never even put a timeline in that book. The book was just to see who would bite. Then they’d get the letters written to my son. I just wanted to talk to editors face-to-face.

Only if I met with sincerity would I reveal the precious information I had. By no means was I going to simply release it all at once. I knew very well that evidence being released in batches at that time by the ARRB might be combed through and obscure mention of bioweapons, etc. could result in evidence destruction.

So when I was shown photos of Lee in Groden’s book, I knew by then that Lee had been demonized. I felt obliged to point out how many photos showed a smiling, sociable Lee. I also pointed out that there were many photos of Lee—this was no ‘loner’ who was friendless, whose life was at a dead end. He was a daddy of two brilliant little babies, had a pretty wife, had entered the USSR while still a teenager, had lived in such disparate places as Japan, California, and Moscow, was fluent in Russian, and yes, he had his romantic conquests. I was assuredly in that category. Lee Oswald had every reason to want to live. He was barely 24.

Yes, I’ve come a long way since seeing all those photos. I didn’t realize that the title of that volume might have implied that more than one Lee Oswald had been around as one or more distinct entities for some time.

I have no problem with multiple impersonation attempts or multiple files, since Lee told me about how ‘secretaries’ had changed his middle name to ‘Henry,’ etc. He could have observed these things without realizing what the name changes in those files were really about. Or maybe he did? Dr. Fetzer has kindly made me aware of an important discussion thread I hope to be able to read when I get new glasses(!). What I did see was that a CIA man could have a name change for work on a clandestine project, keeping his ‘original’ file clean of such escapades.

Lee said he had been ‘borrowed’ from another agency to work with the CIA.

Since I knew Lee had been impersonated—he told me of a number of instances—I have had no worry over photos. Speaking from my present short-term memory, still, as I recall, most photos in Groden’s book of “Lee” were of the same Lee I knew. With my training in anthropology, I had no problem ‘wondering’ about certain photos that might have concerned others. I could see the facial structure as it matured, and much more.

I had no problem about height differences, either, and intend to relay what I know about a comment Lee made about boot camp. Our discussion about heights came about because Lee, Dave Ferrie, and Jack Ruby all happened to be the same height. At least, that was our visual impression.

Lee said in boot camp they were lined up according to height. Lee was not the shortest in the line, but he was far from the tallest. One incident involved rope climbing, where, because he was ‘shorter,’ he said so many had already gone across the ropes that the ropes were wet with sweat, and he slipped back down the ropes and fell. The sergeant ran over and kicked him in the kidney for falling, and he urinated blood that night.

His boot camp photographs offer no indication of what he was going through:

Lee said if he’d not been measured “about an inch taller” than he really was, he’d have been even further back in the line. Lee said they “let him stretch a little” because he was a barely17-year-old kid—surely “still growing.” But Lee said he went through so much stress and worked so hard to succeed as a Marine, given that he had a slighter build than almost all of the others—that he never grew much taller. He was 5’ 9” + a bit, barefoot, and 5’ 10” in shoes. He was average height, he same height as my dad, not a shrimp, but he wasn’t built for heavyweight wrestling. He got through by sheer guts and determination.

Yes, Lee made it. He was tough enough. When he was arrested, he was wearing a Marine ring—I had also seen it. Semper fi!—“Always faithful!”—was the Marine Corps’ motto. He believed he would die on Nov. 22—as he told me himself. But on his finger was his outcry: Lee Oswald was a patriot.

Slowly, people are learning the truth about Lee. People are daring to speak out. Here is one blog I wish to share, demonstrating the turn of the tide: “Fly Caught In Fed Gov Web From Which Escape Was Impossible”, with more at hubpages.com/hub/Patriot-Lee-Harvey-Oswald.

UNITED STATES PATRIOT LEE HARVEY OSWALD!

Lee Did Not Shoot Anybody

So Much For Loyalty Among Marines

Former United States Marine Lee Harvey Oswald was framed for the murder of a president and an on-duty Dallas policeman. His name and that of his entire family carries a stigma almost half a century later. In my estimation Lee never fired a gun at either the president or that policeman. No honor among thieves? How about honor among Marines? There was none for Lee!

Trained Him Well Enough To Kill Him

The intelligence training Lee received from the United States enabled him to keep his mouth shut following his set-up arrest in Dallas, Texas. The former Marine alerted superiors to the plot which he believed would be cut off. Unfortunately, his alerts reached Lucifer via a Hell portal. He realized this fact too late.

Silent Interrogation No Oversight

Do not believe for a second that no notes or recordings were made while Lee was interrogated by members of the Dallas Police Departnment and others. I fully believe Lee explained the situation in detail which is why those who heard remained silent. Conspiracies require silence. Plenty of it!

Lee Deserving Of Sympathy

I cannot help but feel an overwhelming sense of pity and sympathy whenever I see images of Lee being paraded around the Dallas Police Department like a prize turkey. Even child-molesting scumbags are granted legal advice. Lee was denied a legal representative despite numerous requests for one. Patsies about to be framed cannot have bothersome legal eagles representing them. That is a conspiracy requirement. It was met!

The Patsy Murdered No One

Lee never fired a rifle at the president nor did he gun down a Dallas policeman later. He proclaimed that during his confinement. It was easy to tell from his behavior that he was in serious trouble. Not from any alleged murders he did not commit but that his intelligence buddies had set him up, left him out to dry and rammed a Marine bayonet into his back. He was right!

Final Plea For Justice

Lee made one final attempt to reveal all during his interrogation. That is why the transparent lie of nothing being taken down was forced into place. Then it became a matter of thr memory of those present. The conspirators were firmly in charge.

The Aborted Transfer

Why was Lee held up by lawmen during his transfer until his assassin was in place? Well, but that is a whole new topic for another hub.

__________________________

John M. Newman spent 20 years with the U.S. Army Intelligence. This included serving in in Thailand, the Philippines, Japan, and China. He eventually became executive assistant to the director of the National Security Agency (NSA).

After leaving the NSA Newman joined the University of Maryland where he taught courses in Soviet, Chinese Communist, East Asian, and Vietnam War history, as well as Sino-Soviet and U.S.-Soviet relations. (There's more at Spartacus).

We need the John Armstrongs, the John Newmans, the Jim Garrisons, to bring forth all the records that still exist. Especially all the military records. These three men have done their country a service. No doubt, Lee would be proud of them. I am.

JVB

Edited March 20, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Mike Williams]

"In 1957, Oswald shot a 212, which qualified him as a "Sharpshooter". That is reasonably good shooting, a score in the range that I myself attained (where one year, but only one, as I recall, I quaified as "Expert"). But in 1958 he did not qualify at all, which is very odd. And in 1959, he barely qualified with a 191. Those working the pits are keeping track of a shooter's score, of course, and it has been known to happen that, if the last shot made the difference between qualifying and not, they might give the shooter the benefit of the doubt. But there can be no doubt that, with a 191 in 1959, he was a poor shot, which his fellow Marines would all have known.

But that does not meant that he would have told a prospective girlfriend as much, where it is more likely that he might have said that, when he was in recruit training, he had shot 212 and qualified as a "Sharpshooter". That is hardly the only exaggeration that young Marines have been know to tell young women who interested them. So I think Judyth's report needs to be understood in context. What is actually far more fascinating to me as a former Marine is that in 1958 he did not qualify at all, which is in violation of a general order that applies to all Marines, from the highest ranking general to the lowest private--even including the Commandant of the Corps."-ALA Fetzer

First off they are not called the "pits" they are called the "butz" Second of all anyone who fires a 191 maybe a poor shot by Marine standards, but this score is far above average for the civilian world.

Third, could you show me just which General Order that it would violate by not qualifying with a rifle?

A Marines General Orders are as follows...

1. To take charge of this post and all government property in view.

2. To walk my post in a military manner, keeping always on the alert, and observing everything that takes place within sight or hearing.

3. To report all violations of orders I am instructed to enforce.

4. To repeat all calls from posts more distant from the guardhouse than my own.

5. To quit my post only when properly relieved.

6. To receive, obey, and pass on to the sentry who relieves me, all orders from the Commanding Officer, Officer Of the Day, and officers, and non-commissioned officers of the guard only.

7. To talk to no one except in the line of duty.

8. To give the alarm in case of fire or disorder.

9. To call the corporal of the guard in any case not covered by instructions.

10. To salute all officers, and all colors and standards not cased.

11. To be especially watchful at night and, during the time for challenging, to challenge all persons on or near my post, and to allow no one to pass without proper authority.

About the only thing Fetzer posts in that blathering dialog that even remotely smacks of truth is that he qualified only once as "Expert". This to me comes as no surprise as he is so often off the mark.

24 years, 24 expert ratings, I am rather proud of that accomplishment...

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

I never heard of Mike Williams, but he has committed an elementary fallacy of equivocation. There is a set of "general orders" of the kind he sets forth, but what I was talking about is the standing policy that every Marine, from the highest ranking general to the lowest private, must qualify with a rifle every year, without exception! If that is something of which he is unaware, then he did not serve in the U.S. Marine Corps. I take it this fellow was never a Series Commander, either, so who knows what else may have passed him by.

My guess would be that this guy did not wander into this forum on his own to attack me on a thread about Judyth Vary Baker! No, I would bet that this guy was encouraged to make this post and to use a word like "blather", which is not a common Marine Corps expression but the kind of word Josiah would have wanted him to use. His suggestion that I am "so often off the mark" suggests that he has vast familiarity with my work, which would be rather surprising. But he is a better marksman than was I! Well done, Mike Williams!

"In 1957, Oswald shot a 212, which qualified him as a "Sharpshooter". That is reasonably good shooting, a score in the range that I myself attained (where one year, but only one, as I recall, I quaified as "Expert"). But in 1958 he did not qualify at all, which is very odd. And in 1959, he barely qualified with a 191. Those working the pits are keeping track of a shooter's score, of course, and it has been known to happen that, if the last shot made the difference between qualifying and not, they might give the shooter the benefit of the doubt. But there can be no doubt that, with a 191 in 1959, he was a poor shot, which his fellow Marines would all have known.

But that does not meant that he would have told a prospective girlfriend as much, where it is more likely that he might have said that, when he was in recruit training, he had shot 212 and qualified as a "Sharpshooter". That is hardly the only exaggeration that young Marines have been know to tell young women who interested them. So I think Judyth's report needs to be understood in context. What is actually far more fascinating to me as a former Marine is that in 1958 he did not qualify at all, which is in violation of a general order that applies to all Marines, from the highest ranking general to the lowest private--even including the Commandant of the Corps."-ALA Fetzer

First off they are not called the "pits" they are called the "butz" Second of all anyone who fires a 191 maybe a poor shot by Marine standards, but this score is far above average for the civilian world.

Third, could you show me just which General Order that it would violate by not qualifying with a rifle?

A Marines General Orders are as follows...

1. To take charge of this post and all government property in view.

2. To walk my post in a military manner, keeping always on the alert, and observing everything that takes place within sight or hearing.

3. To report all violations of orders I am instructed to enforce.

4. To repeat all calls from posts more distant from the guardhouse than my own.

5. To quit my post only when properly relieved.

6. To receive, obey, and pass on to the sentry who relieves me, all orders from the Commanding Officer, Officer Of the Day, and officers, and non-commissioned officers of the guard only.

7. To talk to no one except in the line of duty.

8. To give the alarm in case of fire or disorder.

9. To call the corporal of the guard in any case not covered by instructions.

10. To salute all officers, and all colors and standards not cased.

11. To be especially watchful at night and, during the time for challenging, to challenge all persons on or near my post, and to allow no one to pass without proper authority.

About the only thing Fetzer posts in that blathering dialog that even remotely smacks of truth is that he qualified only once as "Expert". This to me comes as no surprise as he is so often off the mark.

24 years, 24 expert ratings, I am rather proud of that accomplishment...

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

ABOUT DR. WATTS WEBB, ONE OF JACK RUBY'S PHYSICIANS:

JUDYTH WRITES:

Dr. Watts Webb was one of Jack Ruby's most important doctor at Parkland. Brought in to Parkland for the occasion, researcher Linda Minor has brought out the fact that in 1962, Webb was involved with cystic fibrosis research. George DeMohrenschildt was involved in setting up a national cystic fibrosis foundation that involved Jackie Kennedy, I believe, as an honorary board member, which, of itself, means little. However, an article about freezing hearts, with the same doctor involved, is of concern:

I have reason to believe that the bioweapon we worked with was brought to Texas. I had to send glycerides and other chemicals to Mound Park Veteran's Hospital, and from there it went on to New Orleans and, we fear, sent on to Texas.

These rare glyceride compounds were used in liquid nitrogen freezing experiments.

Webb in 1965, before Ruby's death, is seen working with liquid nitrogen, freezing human hearts, etc. The bioweapon was placed in deep freeze and very few people were working with liquid nitrogen at the time. This doctor was in research actively. What was he doing 'taking care of' Jack Ruby? Answer, he is here because Ruby has cancer, but note: it was also said that they thought Ruby's cancer came from the pancreas.

How did they come to that conclusion?

Under the microscope, the monkey-virus-morphed cancer cells we had worked with originally came from a human pancreas, as I've said for years--and were modified and passed through mice, then primates, finally human(s) to create a galloping lung cancer.

They were very surprised at autopsy to find Jack Ruby's pancreas was not cancerous. It was all in his lungs (of course).

Watts could have had access to the frozen bioweapon. Jack Ruby insisted he was being injected with cancer cells--he knew from us in New Orleans that such was possible--and Al Maddox is on record about it. We have an article showing ruby told multiple people that he had been injected.

The immune system would fight it off for some time, but Ruby was ill with a 'cold'--possibly his immune system fighting off the cancer--when he was taken from prison too weak to be transferred out of state for his new trial.

I saw newspaper articles re Ruby's 'cough' went under x-ray. He was in that room for 45 minutes, long enough for multiple exposures. He was soon reported with a 'dry cough', which is consistent with reactions to overexposure to x-rays.

He died less than a month later--precise time frame for our prisoner(s) at Jackson. According to the internet, Watts is still alive.

JVB

[John Dolva]

Jim, I don't think you need to be a poster or whatever to recognise your blather. Again you resort to casting aspersions on persons, making that the issue.

Anyway, absent Tom, Al and others it's great to have a shooter amongst us.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

MORE ON BIOWEAPONS DEVELOPMENT AND ALL THAT

JUDYTH WRITES:

Dear Jim,

Edward T. Haslam has investigated the matter from the bioweapon end.

He wrote, quite aptly, that the affair between Lee H. Oswald and Judyth Baker that "60 Minutes" wanted to bring out--and wanted badly to bring out! They tried three times. I kept revealing more and more information about a bioweapon.

They did not want to go there.

Haslam called it "the 600 pound gorilla" staring them in the face.

Perhaps it is the combination of the LHO link WITH the bioweapon that has caused so many problems, because some of the same people were involved in both areas.

Consider:

1) A very wealthy and famous doctor, Alton Ochsner, with strong ties to the CIA, Big Oil and the Military and a right-winger whose best-friends list reads like the roster of everyone suspected of plotting to kill JFK--even including the owner of the building in which Oswald is located---is secretly working to try to develop an answer to the monkey-virus-contaminated polio vaccine that caused the death of his own grandson.

2) At his side is famed cancer research scientist and surgeon Dr. Mary Sherman. Some of her friends' careers were destroyed because they were whistleblowers about the contaminated polio vaccine that took Ochsner's grandson' s life. She shared a common interest in his crusade.

3) Scientist Bernice Eddy and others had been politically destroyed for demonstrating that polio vaccine injections were killing monkeys. It was soon learned that a cancer-causing monkey virus had been allowed to contaminate the polio vaccine--a virus that caused cancer in monkeys and other mammals.

4) Today, 60% of cancer tumors checked for the monkey virus check positive. This virus was not present in the world's population before millions of doses of polio vaccines were manufactured using contaminated monkey kidney tissues to grow the polio virus on. Children born to parents who got the contaminated vaccine also have the virus.

5) Haslam established the secrecy of the project.

6) It was realized that population control could be in the hands of those who administer vaccines with certain viruses added. Because many viruses lie latent until triggered by a low immune system, stress, etc., nobody would connect a vaccine with cancer or some other 'natural' disease. Even live cancer cells can be injected without being seen.

7) Around 1962, Ochnser announces that doctors must get into the fight against communism--he has already the co-founded INCA. He is now in charge of 'roasting' monkey virus infected cancers, trying to find an answer to the polio vaccine problem, and realizes he has the chance to create a bioweapon at about the same time the Bay of Pigs occurred.

8) Ochsner had trained doctors now isolated in Cuba and cut off. They are angry at Castro for losing prestigious training opportunities in the US and resent being sent to the USSR instead. Ochsner has contacts in Cuba who could deliver a bioweapon for use against Castro.

9) Ochsner has been closest to Clint Murchison, Hoover, Clay Shaw, LBJ, CIA founder Donovan, Nixon, and important military figures as well. His list of closest friends reads like a roster for JFK assassination ring suspects.

Continued . . .

[Mike Williams]

I never heard of Mike Williams, but he has committed an elementary fallacy of equivocation. There is a set of "general orders" of the kind he sets forth, but what I was talking about is the standing policy that every Marine, from the highest ranking general to the lowest private, must qualify with a rifle every year, without exception! If that is something of which he is unaware, then he did not serve in the U.S. Marine Corps. I take it this fellow was never a Series Commander, either, so who knows what else may have passed him by.

My guess would be that this guy did not wander into this forum on his own to attack me on a thread about Judyth Vary Baker! No, I would bet that this guy was encouraged to make this post and to use a word like "blather", which is not a common Marine Corps expression but the kind of word Josiah would have wanted him to use. His suggestion that I am "so often off the mark" suggests that he has vast familiarity with my work, which would be rather surprising. But he is a better marksman than was I! Well done, Mike Williams!

"In 1957, Oswald shot a 212, which qualified him as a "Sharpshooter". That is reasonably good shooting, a score in the range that I myself attained (where one year, but only one, as I recall, I quaified as "Expert"). But in 1958 he did not qualify at all, which is very odd. And in 1959, he barely qualified with a 191. Those working the pits are keeping track of a shooter's score, of course, and it has been known to happen that, if the last shot made the difference between qualifying and not, they might give the shooter the benefit of the doubt. But there can be no doubt that, with a 191 in 1959, he was a poor shot, which his fellow Marines would all have known.

But that does not meant that he would have told a prospective girlfriend as much, where it is more likely that he might have said that, when he was in recruit training, he had shot 212 and qualified as a "Sharpshooter". That is hardly the only exaggeration that young Marines have been know to tell young women who interested them. So I think Judyth's report needs to be understood in context. What is actually far more fascinating to me as a former Marine is that in 1958 he did not qualify at all, which is in violation of a general order that applies to all Marines, from the highest ranking general to the lowest private--even including the Commandant of the Corps."-ALA Fetzer

First off they are not called the "pits" they are called the "butz" Second of all anyone who fires a 191 maybe a poor shot by Marine standards, but this score is far above average for the civilian world.

Third, could you show me just which General Order that it would violate by not qualifying with a rifle?

A Marines General Orders are as follows...

1. To take charge of this post and all government property in view.

2. To walk my post in a military manner, keeping always on the alert, and observing everything that takes place within sight or hearing.

3. To report all violations of orders I am instructed to enforce.

4. To repeat all calls from posts more distant from the guardhouse than my own.

5. To quit my post only when properly relieved.

6. To receive, obey, and pass on to the sentry who relieves me, all orders from the Commanding Officer, Officer Of the Day, and officers, and non-commissioned officers of the guard only.

7. To talk to no one except in the line of duty.

8. To give the alarm in case of fire or disorder.

9. To call the corporal of the guard in any case not covered by instructions.

10. To salute all officers, and all colors and standards not cased.

11. To be especially watchful at night and, during the time for challenging, to challenge all persons on or near my post, and to allow no one to pass without proper authority.

About the only thing Fetzer posts in that blathering dialog that even remotely smacks of truth is that he qualified only once as "Expert". This to me comes as no surprise as he is so often off the mark.

24 years, 24 expert ratings, I am rather proud of that accomplishment...

So you were discussing Marine Policy, I see. I have never heard Marine Policy referred to as General Orders. I suggest before you make such statements you know the subject matter. Try reading : Marine Corps Order (MCO) 3574.2J - ENTRY LEVEL AND SUSTAINMENT LEVEL MARKSMANSHIP TRAINING WITH THE M16A2 SERVICE RIFLE AND M9 SERVICE PISTOL.

Never heard of Mike Williams, did you bother to look at my profile here, or do you prefer to work off of assumptions. You know you don't have too answer that, the correct reply is readily apparent. I have to say Bill O'Reilly hit the nail on the head.

How in the world would you expect anyone to take you seriously? How could you expect anyone to take your word as anything but contemptible?

You Sir are a joke, and any opinions you have on Judith Baker, or anything else for that matter, should be closely scrutinized, as Barb and many others of good sense have so readily done.

[Mike Williams]

Jim, I don't think you need to be a poster or whatever to recognise your blather. Again you resort to casting aspersions on persons, making that the issue.

Anyway, absent Tom, Al and others it's great to have a shooter amongst us.

Mr. Dolva,

Thank you Sir. I have been out of the hunt for a time, and am happy to be back. It is good to see you so obviously have Fetzer figured out. Rather transparent to say the least.

Tom Purvis is MIA? how very disappointing, as I enjoy very much talking to Tom. He is one of the few who actually understands the ballistics of the case! And Al Carrier is certainly a top notch individual. I may not agree with all of their conclusions, but their ideas are well thought and heart felt. They are the genuine article!

At any rate Mr. Dolva it is my pleasure to meet you Sir, and I look forward to chatting in the future.

Mike Williams

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Well, I looked at your profile and it was bereft of information. If you put in 24 years, what was your rank when you got out? What was your MOS? I find it very peculiar that you show up on this important thread with rubbish. And that you are continuing suggests that I am right in my belief that Tink led you here. Is that true or false, Marine? It is embarrassing to see a former Marine serving as a stooge for those who want to obfuscate the truth about JFK.

I never heard of Mike Williams, but he has committed an elementary fallacy of equivocation. There is a set of "general orders" of the kind he sets forth, but what I was talking about is the standing policy that every Marine, from the highest ranking general to the lowest private, must qualify with a rifle every year, without exception! If that is something of which he is unaware, then he did not serve in the U.S. Marine Corps. I take it this fellow was never a Series Commander, either, so who knows what else may have passed him by.

My guess would be that this guy did not wander into this forum on his own to attack me on a thread about Judyth Vary Baker! No, I would bet that this guy was encouraged to make this post and to use a word like "blather", which is not a common Marine Corps expression but the kind of word Josiah would have wanted him to use. His suggestion that I am "so often off the mark" suggests that he has vast familiarity with my work, which would be rather surprising. But he is a better marksman than was I! Well done, Mike Williams!

"In 1957, Oswald shot a 212, which qualified him as a "Sharpshooter". That is reasonably good shooting, a score in the range that I myself attained (where one year, but only one, as I recall, I quaified as "Expert"). But in 1958 he did not qualify at all, which is very odd. And in 1959, he barely qualified with a 191. Those working the pits are keeping track of a shooter's score, of course, and it has been known to happen that, if the last shot made the difference between qualifying and not, they might give the shooter the benefit of the doubt. But there can be no doubt that, with a 191 in 1959, he was a poor shot, which his fellow Marines would all have known.

But that does not meant that he would have told a prospective girlfriend as much, where it is more likely that he might have said that, when he was in recruit training, he had shot 212 and qualified as a "Sharpshooter". That is hardly the only exaggeration that young Marines have been know to tell young women who interested them. So I think Judyth's report needs to be understood in context. What is actually far more fascinating to me as a former Marine is that in 1958 he did not qualify at all, which is in violation of a general order that applies to all Marines, from the highest ranking general to the lowest private--even including the Commandant of the Corps."-ALA Fetzer

First off they are not called the "pits" they are called the "butz" Second of all anyone who fires a 191 maybe a poor shot by Marine standards, but this score is far above average for the civilian world.

Third, could you show me just which General Order that it would violate by not qualifying with a rifle?

A Marines General Orders are as follows...

1. To take charge of this post and all government property in view.

2. To walk my post in a military manner, keeping always on the alert, and observing everything that takes place within sight or hearing.

3. To report all violations of orders I am instructed to enforce.

4. To repeat all calls from posts more distant from the guardhouse than my own.

5. To quit my post only when properly relieved.

6. To receive, obey, and pass on to the sentry who relieves me, all orders from the Commanding Officer, Officer Of the Day, and officers, and non-commissioned officers of the guard only.

7. To talk to no one except in the line of duty.

8. To give the alarm in case of fire or disorder.

9. To call the corporal of the guard in any case not covered by instructions.

10. To salute all officers, and all colors and standards not cased.

11. To be especially watchful at night and, during the time for challenging, to challenge all persons on or near my post, and to allow no one to pass without proper authority.

About the only thing Fetzer posts in that blathering dialog that even remotely smacks of truth is that he qualified only once as "Expert". This to me comes as no surprise as he is so often off the mark.

24 years, 24 expert ratings, I am rather proud of that accomplishment...

So you were discussing Marine Policy, I see. I have never heard Marine Policy referred to as General Orders. I suggest before you make such statements you know the subject matter. Try reading : Marine Corps Order (MCO) 3574.2J - ENTRY LEVEL AND SUSTAINMENT LEVEL MARKSMANSHIP TRAINING WITH THE M16A2 SERVICE RIFLE AND M9 SERVICE PISTOL.

Never heard of Mike Williams, did you bother to look at my profile here, or do you prefer to work off of assumptions. You know you don't have too answer that, the correct reply is readily apparent. I have to say Bill O'Reilly hit the nail on the head.

How in the world would you expect anyone to take you seriously? How could you expect anyone to take your word as anything but contemptible?

You Sir are a joke, and any opinions you have on Judith Baker, or anything else for that matter, should be closely scrutinized, as Barb and many others of good sense have so readily done.

[Terry Mauro]

I never heard of Mike Williams, but he has committed an elementary fallacy of equivocation. There is a set of "general orders" of the kind he sets forth, but what I was talking about is the standing policy that every Marine, from the highest ranking general to the lowest private, must qualify with a rifle every year, without exception! If that is something of which he is unaware, then he did not serve in the U.S. Marine Corps. I take it this fellow was never a Series Commander, either, so who knows what else may have passed him by.

My guess would be that this guy did not wander into this forum on his own to attack me on a thread about Judyth Vary Baker! No, I would bet that this guy was encouraged to make this post and to use a word like "blather", which is not a common Marine Corps expression but the kind of word Josiah would have wanted him to use. His suggestion that I am "so often off the mark" suggests that he has vast familiarity with my work, which would be rather surprising. But he is a better marksman than was I! Well done, Mike Williams!

"In 1957, Oswald shot a 212, which qualified him as a "Sharpshooter". That is reasonably good shooting, a score in the range that I myself attained (where one year, but only one, as I recall, I quaified as "Expert"). But in 1958 he did not qualify at all, which is very odd. And in 1959, he barely qualified with a 191. Those working the pits are keeping track of a shooter's score, of course, and it has been known to happen that, if the last shot made the difference between qualifying and not, they might give the shooter the benefit of the doubt. But there can be no doubt that, with a 191 in 1959, he was a poor shot, which his fellow Marines would all have known.

But that does not meant that he would have told a prospective girlfriend as much, where it is more likely that he might have said that, when he was in recruit training, he had shot 212 and qualified as a "Sharpshooter". That is hardly the only exaggeration that young Marines have been know to tell young women who interested them. So I think Judyth's report needs to be understood in context. What is actually far more fascinating to me as a former Marine is that in 1958 he did not qualify at all, which is in violation of a general order that applies to all Marines, from the highest ranking general to the lowest private--even including the Commandant of the Corps."-ALA Fetzer

First off they are not called the "pits" they are called the "butz" Second of all anyone who fires a 191 maybe a poor shot by Marine standards, but this score is far above average for the civilian world.

Third, could you show me just which General Order that it would violate by not qualifying with a rifle?

A Marines General Orders are as follows...

1. To take charge of this post and all government property in view.

2. To walk my post in a military manner, keeping always on the alert, and observing everything that takes place within sight or hearing.

3. To report all violations of orders I am instructed to enforce.

4. To repeat all calls from posts more distant from the guardhouse than my own.

5. To quit my post only when properly relieved.

6. To receive, obey, and pass on to the sentry who relieves me, all orders from the Commanding Officer, Officer Of the Day, and officers, and non-commissioned officers of the guard only.

7. To talk to no one except in the line of duty.

8. To give the alarm in case of fire or disorder.

9. To call the corporal of the guard in any case not covered by instructions.

10. To salute all officers, and all colors and standards not cased.

11. To be especially watchful at night and, during the time for challenging, to challenge all persons on or near my post, and to allow no one to pass without proper authority.

About the only thing Fetzer posts in that blathering dialog that even remotely smacks of truth is that he qualified only once as "Expert". This to me comes as no surprise as he is so often off the mark.

24 years, 24 expert ratings, I am rather proud of that accomplishment...

So you were discussing Marine Policy, I see. I have never heard Marine Policy referred to as General Orders. I suggest before you make such statements you know the subject matter. Try reading : Marine Corps Order (MCO) 3574.2J - ENTRY LEVEL AND SUSTAINMENT LEVEL MARKSMANSHIP TRAINING WITH THE M16A2 SERVICE RIFLE AND M9 SERVICE PISTOL.

Never heard of Mike Williams, did you bother to look at my profile here, or do you prefer to work off of assumptions. You know you don't have too answer that, the correct reply is readily apparent. I have to say Bill O'Reilly hit the nail on the head.

How in the world would you expect anyone to take you seriously? How could you expect anyone to take your word as anything but contemptible?

You Sir are a joke, and any opinions you have on Judith Baker, or anything else for that matter, should be closely scrutinized, as Barb and many others of good sense have so readily done.

************************************************

Fetzer IS a veteran of the Marine Corps, Williams.

Semper Fi, Fetz.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

MORE ON BIOWEAPONS DEVELOPMENT AND ALL THAT

JUDYTH WRITES:

Ochsner was in charge of JFK's May 1962, visit to New Orleans and has collected medical info and security info on JFK.

10) Oswald becomes deeply embroiled in the plot to kill Castro. (To me it does not matter whether or not this was simply to get LHO to Mexico City. He was sent to Mexico City and he tried to fulfill his mission there, while he was actually being set up.) He carries a bioweapon developed by Ochsner's underground scientists with him. At several points, relative unknowns are involved to break the links and keep key persons isolated from each other in the two worlds of espionage and bioweapons. Oswald was one of few who was linked to both and, for that reason, his elimination was necessary.

11) The bioweapon leaves Ochsner's hands in Houston when LHO passes through there and is given a second container in exchange for what he has brought from New Orleans (fresher bioweapon materials). Haslam suggests that the real bioweapon at this time may have left LHO's hands and a prop was sent with him down to Mexico City. There are pros and cons on this consideration.

12) New information: LHO meets with somebody he had had known in the USSR, who was Cuban, in his attempt to find his contact. Many events occur, some blurred due to impersonations that later can be used to frame Oswald.

13) Those who maneuvered Oswald to Mexico City were also later enticing him into the assassination ring and allowing him to feel he had saved the president at least once, which kept him in position. It is suggested that we do not think this branch of the plot to kill Kennedy knew about his involvement with the bioweapon.

BUT now the government is informed that they dare not BLAME LHO in Mexico City and push the Castro connection.

WHY?

14) if LHO's true mission there were uncovered--lured to Mexico City with the bioweapon--then Oswald as anti-Castro would be exposed, and the plot to kill Castro would be exposed. Ochsner would be exposed and the entire plot against Kennedy, which began in New Orleans, would reach over to Dallas through Ochsner's many links in Dallas. They all point to a cabal and a Coup.

15) Ochsner, very aware of the danger, IMMEDIATELY brings out a recording where LHO is trumpeted as being a Marxist: "Portrait in Red". Garrison suspects Ferrie and questions him, but the FBI takes over and lets Ferrie go.

16) Mexico City inquiries shut down and a fake photo, etc., is sent. The impersonations and so on are shoveled out of sight. LHO MUST appear as a lone nut with no connections. Any connection to a girlfriend, Banister, Ferrie, Ochsner, and so forth is buried under bland Rely records. 'Evidence' that LHO is 'stupid,' a 'loser' and prone to violence is manufactured or enhanced.

17) On Nov. 22 LHO removes his wedding ring and leave money for Marina. If he escapes alive, he will go to Laredo and from there had access to a plane. He and Judyth Baker will secretly marry and hide out awhile.

18) But LHO is betrayed in a movie theatre where he goes from seat to seat, apparently looking for his contact to get him to a small airport. Police swarm the theatre and he is arrested and soon charged with JFK's murder. A policeman is also killed to make the Dallas police revved up enough to shoot LHP on the spot, but he eludes death.

19) We have Clay Shaw and Dean Andrews, an attorney in New Orleans, plus more, moving in to 'help' LHO. An offer to provide an attorney from the Mafia occurs, masked just enough so Jack Ruby, who knows about the secret labs, is forced to shoot LHO, a man he actually knew and liked.

20) LHO now can't talk and can be blamed as a 'lone nut' for JFK's murder, though LHO is on record as admiring JFK. He can be used as a Castro-lover/Communist to provoke war against the USSR or to invade Cuba.

Continued . . .

[John Dolva]

Thank you Mike. You are welcome.

Likewise There are differences on matters between Tom and I, Al and I, Tom and Al and Al and Tom etc but overall the presence of an authority is most welcome.

Toms computer has been out of action for some time but he's finding time to post from the Library (I understand) lately. Again, very informative posts.

[Mike Williams]

"Well, I looked at your profile and it was bereft of information. If you put in 24 years, what was your rank when you got out? What was your MOS? I find it very peculiar that you show up on this important thread with rubbish. And that you are continuing suggests that I am right in my belief that Tink led you here. Is that true or false, Marine? It is embarrassing to see a former Marine serving as a stooge for those who want to obfuscate the truth about JFK."

My rank was Master Gunnery Sgt. My MOS was in my profile had you taken the time to read it. I assure you Tink did not lead me here, as I have my own mind to follow. I simply call em as I see em.

You are correct it is an embarrassment to see a Former Marine serve as a stooge and obfuscate the truth about JFK, so I have to ask, why do you do it?

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

MORE ON BIOWEAPONS DEVELOPMENT AND ALL THAT

JUDYTH WRITES:

21) The bioweapon is safely in the hands of the US govt's secret agencies at this point, for use on targets anywhere: Jack Ruby gets injected with cancer cells. He knows all about it and tells people, but nobody will believe him.

Today reports of injected cancer have come from many sources, but in late 1999, John McAdams tells his newsgroup that Dr. Mary Sherman was not a cancer researcher, and that somebody at his university has assured him that people can't get cancer via injections.

22) Back in 1963, Johnson creates Vietnam War and Agent Orange is employed, which is itself a bioweapon.

23) Bioweapon enhancement continues and we believe AIDS came from it or similar. There is much to say on this topic. Spurious claims that it originated earlier were based on normal rates of generators, not on enhanced rates by using radiation to create 'monsters.'

24) Nixon pulls all virus study and bioweapon development in cancer to Fort Detrick. He declares a "War on Cancer" but in fact, bioweapon development using cancer and viruses go underground where nobody can see what's going on anymore--

25) Bioweapon development continues under cover.

26) Baker shows that the bioweapon developers were involved in the Kennedy assassination and in particular exposes Ochsner and backs up what Haslam had found. Haslam had not connected all the dots between a bioweapon, the accused assassin's role in it, how the bioweapon was removed from Ochsner's control, and the murder of LHO primarily to make certain he never breathed a word about New Orleans. He could not connect the dots because he needed a link in the secret labs who would stand forth as a witness.

27) Baker, stung by Oliver Stone's movie "JFK", where she read words saying that we are cowards if we remain silent, decided to speak out before it was too late.

Then all hell broke loose over Baker's head, as she knew it would.

Comment: Ruth Paine and Michael Paine know a great deal.

What is being developed currently is aimed at population control methods disguised as virus attacks ('flu') but the vaccines being used may contain latent killer viruses for population control. At any time they can be added to infect a selected population. The simian monkey virus and its endless combinations lie in wait for years before creating cancer or something else.

This is my take, though rough and incomplete. . . .

Edited March 21, 2010 by James H. Fetzer