Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[Pamela Brown]

It is unfair to say Lifton "was lying in wait". As I understand it, he

has a tape of the entire conversation, on which the interview can

be judged.

It is my understanding that Lifton sandbagged Judyth by taping her without her knowledge; this is the interview to which you refer.

When I say that it is my belief Lifton was 'lying in wait', I mean that because Judyth was involved in events in NOLA, which is an area that seems to be especially volatile for Lifton, I doubt that he had any intention of allowing himself to be persuaded by anything she had to say. So, in effect, I think he was gunning for her and just looking for things to use to that end. Hence the "Cancun/Kankun" non-issue has been made into something ridiculous in that nothing about it can be proven or disproven as neither Lee nor Judyth went anywhere.

[Mike Williams]

Does this sound like " an author who respects genuine data"?

It sure sounds like it to me, comparing Lifton's research to Pamela's research is like comparing a Porsche to a Yugo

Dean,

Thats odd I would discredit someones work based on their work, not based on how I felt about them personally. But then again, that is rational thinking, something so few seem to have.

[Michael Hogan]

Regardless of what one thinks about David Lifton, his research has stood the tests of time and critics.

Lifton was able to locate and interview so many important witnesses (many of whom were reluctant

to appear before government inquiries) and his results were nothing short of remarkable.

Our understanding of the medical coverup would be nowhere near what it is today without Lifton's significant

efforts to discover the truth. Time and time again Doug Horne proves this in his work, Inside the ARRB.

Lifton's track record of interviewing witnesses gives his opinions on this subject a certain amount of gravitas.

Judyth Baker claims:

"This is why Lifton attacked me -- hoping he would not have to rewrite his book."

"I believe Mr. Lifton had the sense that his book was ruined and he decided I could not possibly be a

bona fide witness after all that time so he decided to deep-six me rather than have to delay his book."

Claims like these (and others on this thread about Jack White and John Armstrong) do little to enhance her credibility.

Whenever anyone questions anything she has said over the years, she can always play this trump card:

"WELL, MR. LISTON (sic), ALL YOU HAVE DONE IS CONVINCED ME THAT YOU JUMPED TO YET

ANOTHER FALSE CONCLUSION. AS A WITNESS, I AM IN A SOMEWHAT BETTER POSITION

THAN YOU ARE, BECAUSE I WAS HERE. YOU NEVER EVEN MET LEE OSWALD."

Edited March 30, 2010 by Michael Hogan

[Pamela Brown]

Regardless of what one thinks about David Lifton, his research has stood the tests of time and critics.

Lifton was able to locate and interview so many important witnesses (many of whom were reluctant

to appear before government inquiries) and his results were nothing short of remarkable.

Our understanding of the medical coverup would be nowhere near what it is today without Lifton's significant

efforts to discover the truth. Time and time again Doug Horne proves this in his work, Inside the ARRB.

While IARRB contains some research gems, it was disappointing to me that there it was so much more a compendium of CT theories.

Lifton's contributions are not at issue, it is the lack of process at a high level that is.

[Jack White]

[Kathleen Collins]

Gary Mack tells me the boy on the left is Robert and the other boy on the right is John Pic. You can see the resemblance between Robert and John, but Lee looks less like them. Thanks, Gary.

Kathy C

Edited March 30, 2010 by Kathleen Collins

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

David,

I am glad you are here. Since you are still beating the drums over "Cancun", have you discounted what Judyth has had to say about it? I have put up several posts in response, the most recent being #703 on page 47, which is our email exchange. She has also addressed the issue in her latest reply to Barb, but I would have thought that was resolved by the "Cancun/Kankun" distinction. And of course she has also addressed your "find" about how he was dressed on the day that they met. I find her rebuttals convincing, but I take it you do not. That is not to say that she has everything right, but it seems to me that she has dealt with the issues you have raised based upon your one and only conversation with her.

In addition, you meant to send me an attachment, which seems to be missing, which is related to having figured out--what I take to have been their "educated guess"--that Lee's handler was David Atlee Phillips. Once again, I find what she has to say on this matter extremely plausible, while you do not. But do you have the attachment you meant to send to me when what you sent instead was the following and, if so, could you send the missing attachment now? And if you could send me a copy of your original cassette recording, I will review it and discuss it with Judyth and see about it.

More importantly, Judyth has pointed out some problems with photos that Jack has advanced in support of the "two Oswalds", where I am having a lot of trouble swallowing the idea of these two guys, often living in close proximity, leading parallel lives. The "passport" photo, for example, appears to present a more rounded face than the original, as she has also explained in a post that appears in the last few pages here. Please tell me if you believe in "Harvey & Lee" or if you have doubts and, if you have doubts, what are they? Inquiring minds would like to know. And are you still working on the book?

Jim

The one thing the "Cancun" issue does represent is an indication that Lifton was lying in wait for Judyth and thought he had something with which to discredit her. Whether "Cancun" existed as "Kankun" at that time, or whether LHO was speaking in irony, or whether there may have been some other reasonable explanation are not nearly as significant as the "process" that was taking place.

Lifton, as a researcher, decided that he had all the answers and that he could hold Judyth accountable to fit into whatever square hole he thought appropriate. Of course, this backfired, and everyone learned of Lifton's agenda.

Ironically, nobody will ever know what took place, as nothing ever came of it. Nobody went anywhere. Therefore, in the realm of understanding Judyth's statements, "Cancun" ought to remain toward the bottom of the list, not dragged out repeatedly as though there were something new to be gleaned.

But then, that's not Barb's way, is it? :-0

Pamela,

Insofar as Barb J. is concerned, Cancun ought to be at the top of the list, when it comes to the matter of judging Judyth's credibility, because--as the saying goes, "The Devil is in the details," and that is the case here. A similar matter came up when you went on the Internet and were glibly posting about having seen the Zapruder film at a New York City theater in the fall of 1964. Unfortunately (for you), that is your "Cancun."

As to your accusations about me, your post is completely false, and reflects a warped and slanted approach to the true facts, and my reason for telephoning Judyth on March 4, 2000.

I was not "lying in wait"--I never heard of Judyth until March, 2000. As presented to me by Robert Chapman (who had discussed the matter in depth with Mary Ferrell), the belief was (at that time) that here was someone who, incredibly, all the previous official investigation had somehow missed, and who had actually known Oswald. Let me assure you: I was so pleased to have the opportunity to speak with her--and perhaps have a real "scoop." So that was my attitude when I called her in March, 2000.

But unfortunately, it didn't work out that way--at all. Instead, over the course of the ensuing hour or more, it became rather evident that Judyth was someone who was not credible. She sounded neurotic and her whole manner was excessively dramatic and theatrical. She was sometimes hysterical, and her narrative was interspersed, as I recall, with fits of crying. As the telephone call progressed, and some of my questioning grew more pointed, I suspected she had studied the books (Mailer, McMillan) and research materials (Mary Ferrell's chronologies) and had created a story about herself and Oswald, one in which she systematically was attempting to insert herself into the historical record. Unfortunately, in describing what he was wearing the day she met him (4/26/63), she had the facts all wrong--describing him as dressed in workman's clothing, when he was in fact dressed in a suit and tie.

As to Cancun: I had no idea of the significance of her reference to Cancun and what she said on that score would never have meant a thing to me had the telephone call not been taped, and reviewed some days or weeks later by Robert Chapman. It wasn't until I shared a tape of the conversation with Robert Chapman that he spotted the significance of her Cancun statement. Because of his art research, Robert knew the area --and its history--and so he immediately recognized she had made a major gaffe: invoking the name of a place which did not exist, as such, at the time.

This is not all that dissimilar from you maintaining, with a straight face, that you saw the Zapruder film at a New York City theater in the fall of 1964, which is not possibly true, yet you expect to get away with that sort of nonsense, and maintain your credibility.

But back to Judyth, and my phone call of March, 2004, her mention of Cancun, and Robert Chapman's amazement at the statement because he knew the history of the area well, and knew that Cancun--as a resort--did not exist at the time, yet she not only mentioned it to me in that phone call, she had statements about meeting Lee in "a fine hotel in Cancun" in her manuscript.

When all this became known, Judyth apparently tried to backtrack. In one of her explanations (she always has "explanations" for the many inconsistencies and implausibilities in her account) she said that it was all the result of a third party having inserted information into her manuscript. Of course, that still left the matter of what she said in conversation with me. When she realized there was a taped record, along came a new excuse--the one stating that she was referring to the prior name of that area, or a village there.

Unfortunately, there was more than just a taped record. It not only was in her manuscript, there was an email record as well. In October 2000, she had already stated--in a long email to Mary Ferrell--that a pilot was supposed to fly her from Elgin AFB to Cancun. (Yes, she actually wrote "Cancun" and wrote that to Mary Ferrell).

All things considered, your accusations against me are without merit. Yes, I did have an "agenda" when I called Judyth on March 4, 2000, but it was the completely innocent agenda of any investigative writer. Because of my friendship with Robert Chapman and Mary Ferrell, I genuinely believed I was being afforded an opportunity to be one of the first to hear an account from someone who knew Oswald intimately, someone who had actually been a girlfriend. I had no idea on March 4, 2000, when I made the call, that I was about to engage in a conversation with a troubled woman who was suffering from the psychological malady called "pseudologia fantastica" (or "mythomania"). But this became evident as the phone call unfolded--and in the weeks and months (and even years) that followed.

Again, your accusations against me are without merit. In fact, they are as silly as your false claims that you saw the Zapruder film exhibited in a New York City theater in the fall of 1964.

On a personal note, and one unrelated to the matter of Judyth: if you want to know when it became evident to me that your research on the windshield could be safely set aside, and that Doug Weldon had in fact nailed down the facts in that area--the tipping point came with your false accusations against me regarding Judyth.

I never meant Judyth any harm. The phone call was placed in a state of innocence. She came off as a flaming neurotic--and I have a taped record to prove it. As an author who respects genuine data, I have no intention of getting further involved with a woman who, I am convinced, is attempting to market a counterfeit version of history.

DSL

3/29/10; 6:45 PM

Los Angeles, CA

Edited March 30, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Michael,

I am with you in my admiration for David's BEST EVIDENCE, where I regard the books that I have published on this subject to be sequels to his exceptional work. When I became serious about JFK research, I learned more from studying his book than all my other sources put together. And you are certainly correct that Doug Horne's research has confirmed Lifton's on several crucial points.

In spite of that, it appears to me that he has been extremely uncharitable in his dismissal of Judyth and that his reasons for doing so have not been good ones. They include the "Cancun/Kankun" question, the clothing Lee was wearing when they met, and their having figured out that David Atlee Phillips was Lee's CIA "handler"--not to mention the matter involving taking laxatives.

On all of these questions, however, I find what Judyth has had to say about them more convincing than David's complaints. Judyth has responded to him several times in posts on this forum and I have written to him about them, as post #703 on page 47 reflects. So I would recommend against drawing adverse conclusions about her on that basis at this point in time. Much more needs sorting out.

Jim

P.S. As for "LISTON", that was my oversight. As I presume you know, Judyth is nearly blind, in need of glasses, and using an old computer with a Hungarian keyboard. I have been correcting typos like this one, which I missed. I am sorry about that, but it should not be used against her. Even here, her explanation for his resistance may have more merit than his dismissal of her for the grounds alleged.

Regardless of what one thinks about David Lifton, his research has stood the tests of time and critics.

Lifton was able to locate and interview so many important witnesses (many of whom were reluctant

to appear before government inquiries) and his results were nothing short of remarkable.

Our understanding of the medical coverup would be nowhere near what it is today without Lifton's significant

efforts to discover the truth. Time and time again Doug Horne proves this in his work, Inside the ARRB.

Lifton's track record of interviewing witnesses gives his opinions on this subject a certain amount of gravitas.

Judyth Baker claims:

"This is why Lifton attacked me -- hoping he would not have to rewrite his book."

"I believe Mr. Lifton had the sense that his book was ruined and he decided I could not possibly be a

bona fide witness after all that time so he decided to deep-six me rather than have to delay his book."

Claims like these (and others on this thread about Jack White and John Armstrong) do little to enhance her credibility.

Whenever anyone questions anything she has said over the years, she can always play this trump card:

"WELL, MR. LISTON (sic), ALL YOU HAVE DONE IS CONVINCED ME THAT YOU JUMPED TO YET

ANOTHER FALSE CONCLUSION. AS A WITNESS, I AM IN A SOMEWHAT BETTER POSITION

THAN YOU ARE, BECAUSE I WAS HERE. YOU NEVER EVEN MET LEE OSWALD."

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

David,

An addendum about Pamela: You are displaying the same kind of stridently uncharitable attitude toward Pamela that you have previously shown toward Judyth.

In the first place, her research on the limo does not hinge upon whether or not she complained about your dismissal of Judyth. They are independent matters.

In the second place, she may have seen a film that she took to be the Zapruder as an honest mistake. Perhaps she has a faulty memory of having seen "Executive Action" (1973).

In the third place, just possibly she actually saw what she claims to have seen, where Rich DellaRosa, as you know, reported having seen "another film" on three different occasions.

As it happens, I believe that Doug is right and Pamela is wrong about the limo, but I would never think of dismissing her work on the limo based upon her attitude toward Judyth.

Jim

The one thing the "Cancun" issue does represent is an indication that Lifton was lying in wait for Judyth and thought he had something with which to discredit her. Whether "Cancun" existed as "Kankun" at that time, or whether LHO was speaking in irony, or whether there may have been some other reasonable explanation are not nearly as significant as the "process" that was taking place.

Lifton, as a researcher, decided that he had all the answers and that he could hold Judyth accountable to fit into whatever square hole he thought appropriate. Of course, this backfired, and everyone learned of Lifton's agenda.

Ironically, nobody will ever know what took place, as nothing ever came of it. Nobody went anywhere. Therefore, in the realm of understanding Judyth's statements, "Cancun" ought to remain toward the bottom of the list, not dragged out repeatedly as though there were something new to be gleaned.

But then, that's not Barb's way, is it? :-0

Pamela,

Insofar as Barb J. is concerned, Cancun ought to be at the top of the list, when it comes to the matter of judging Judyth's credibility, because--as the saying goes, "The Devil is in the details," and that is the case here. A similar matter came up when you went on the Internet and were glibly posting about having seen the Zapruder film at a New York City theater in the fall of 1964. Unfortunately (for you), that is your "Cancun."

As to your accusations about me, your post is completely false, and reflects a warped and slanted approach to the true facts, and my reason for telephoning Judyth on March 4, 2000.

I was not "lying in wait"--I never heard of Judyth until March, 2000. As presented to me by Robert Chapman (who had discussed the matter in depth with Mary Ferrell), the belief was (at that time) that here was someone who, incredibly, all the previous official investigation had somehow missed, and who had actually known Oswald. Let me assure you: I was so pleased to have the opportunity to speak with her--and perhaps have a real "scoop." So that was my attitude when I called her in March, 2000.

But unfortunately, it didn't work out that way--at all. Instead, over the course of the ensuing hour or more, it became rather evident that Judyth was someone who was not credible. She sounded neurotic and her whole manner was excessively dramatic and theatrical. She was sometimes hysterical, and her narrative was interspersed, as I recall, with fits of crying. As the telephone call progressed, and some of my questioning grew more pointed, I suspected she had studied the books (Mailer, McMillan) and research materials (Mary Ferrell's chronologies) and had created a story about herself and Oswald, one in which she systematically was attempting to insert herself into the historical record. Unfortunately, in describing what he was wearing the day she met him (4/26/63), she had the facts all wrong--describing him as dressed in workman's clothing, when he was in fact dressed in a suit and tie.

As to Cancun: I had no idea of the significance of her reference to Cancun and what she said on that score would never have meant a thing to me had the telephone call not been taped, and reviewed some days or weeks later by Robert Chapman. It wasn't until I shared a tape of the conversation with Robert Chapman that he spotted the significance of her Cancun statement. Because of his art research, Robert knew the area --and its history--and so he immediately recognized she had made a major gaffe: invoking the name of a place which did not exist, as such, at the time.

This is not all that dissimilar from you maintaining, with a straight face, that you saw the Zapruder film at a New York City theater in the fall of 1964, which is not possibly true, yet you expect to get away with that sort of nonsense, and maintain your credibility.

But back to Judyth, and my phone call of March, 2004, her mention of Cancun, and Robert Chapman's amazement at the statement because he knew the history of the area well, and knew that Cancun--as a resort--did not exist at the time, yet she not only mentioned it to me in that phone call, she had statements about meeting Lee in "a fine hotel in Cancun" in her manuscript.

When all this became known, Judyth apparently tried to backtrack. In one of her explanations (she always has "explanations" for the many inconsistencies and implausibilities in her account) she said that it was all the result of a third party having inserted information into her manuscript. Of course, that still left the matter of what she said in conversation with me. When she realized there was a taped record, along came a new excuse--the one stating that she was referring to the prior name of that area, or a village there.

Unfortunately, there was more than just a taped record. It not only was in her manuscript, there was an email record as well. In October 2000, she had already stated--in a long email to Mary Ferrell--that a pilot was supposed to fly her from Elgin AFB to Cancun. (Yes, she actually wrote "Cancun" and wrote that to Mary Ferrell).

All things considered, your accusations against me are without merit. Yes, I did have an "agenda" when I called Judyth on March 4, 2000, but it was the completely innocent agenda of any investigative writer. Because of my friendship with Robert Chapman and Mary Ferrell, I genuinely believed I was being afforded an opportunity to be one of the first to hear an account from someone who knew Oswald intimately, someone who had actually been a girlfriend. I had no idea on March 4, 2000, when I made the call, that I was about to engage in a conversation with a troubled woman who was suffering from the psychological malady called "pseudologia fantastica" (or "mythomania"). But this became evident as the phone call unfolded--and in the weeks and months (and even years) that followed.

Again, your accusations against me are without merit. In fact, they are as silly as your false claims that you saw the Zapruder film exhibited in a New York City theater in the fall of 1964.

On a personal note, and one unrelated to the matter of Judyth: if you want to know when it became evident to me that your research on the windshield could be safely set aside, and that Doug Weldon had in fact nailed down the facts in that area--the tipping point came with your false accusations against me regarding Judyth.

I never meant Judyth any harm. The phone call was placed in a state of innocence. She came off as a flaming neurotic--and I have a taped record to prove it. As an author who respects genuine data, I have no intention of getting further involved with a woman who, I am convinced, is attempting to market a counterfeit version of history.

DSL

3/29/10; 6:45 PM

Los Angeles, CA

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

JUDYTH REPLIES TO JACK'S INSINUATION ABOUT FAKING A NEWSPAPER

NOTE: The situation is becoming increasingly absurd. David Lifton has rejected her

for at least three reasons: (1) her use of the name "Cancun", (2) how Lee Oswald

was dressed when they first met, and (3) her claim that she and Lee had figured

out that David Atlee Phillips was Lee's CIA handler. In all three cases, Judyth's

rebuttals appear to be more persuasive than Lifton's objections, which he has now

compounded by displaying the same tendency to reject Pamela's research on the

limo for differing with him on Judyth! This is not the attitude of a serious scholar.

Similarly, Barb has attacked her about the location of the Mayaland Hotel where

they were going to vacation and, if not her, others for the use of a "betting line"

for their late-night phone calls and for suggesting that Lee take laxatives to get

him off the firing line on the day of the assassination. All of these claims, I agree,

seem to be a least somewhat farfetched upon initial consideration. Yet, to judge

on the basis of Judyth's replies, it seems to me that each of them is actually true.

And each time this happens, it enhances her standing as an authentic participant.

Now the crucial point I want to make is this. Lifton and others have claimed that

Judyth is a "fantasist" who is attempting to insert herself into history. But would

anyone who wanted to "insert herself into history" advance a story that had so

many implausible elements? I hardly think so. They would be very cautious in

arranging their story in order to eliminate virtually any implausible elements to

preserve the appearance of their claim. Judyth has not done that, which tells me

that the only way she can know these things is because she was actually there!

JUDYTH REPLIES:

Good grief! Of course this is not a newspaper article. Why didn't Jack read it more carefully? It is

one of those cute "I survived" certificates...also seen on T-shirts. This was a continuing education

class in "Gumbo University" -- see below -- that is REAL.

I taught a course -- Introduction to Archaeology" --and part of the course included the dig a Stelly

Mound...a STUDENT made this cute "Survivor" certificate for everyone who attended.

See attached list of students etc. -- and we actually had many more, because I also taught a class

in basic palaeontology, and THEY also signed up on a different sheet. I had some 30 people out

there on the dig, including my daughter and her fiance.

"Accused of posting a fake graphic?" Why didn't he look up "Gumbo University" to see if it existed

before posting yet another accusation against my character? Is this an example of Jack's research

abilities? No, it's an example of this great researcher's bias. He failed to do a cursory search to see

if "Gumbo University" existed. Which it does.

It pains me to have to respond, and I regret having to do so.

JVB

.

Edited March 30, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

JUDYTH ADDRESSES THE COLOR OF LEE H. OSWALD'S EYES

NOTE: This is a nice example of why I maintain that Judyth is better

at JFK research than 95% of all students of the assassination and of

most if not all of her critics. Here she presents a study of Lee's eye

colors compiled with comments, based upon my personal knowledge

of Lee--personal observation of Lee's actual eye colors--after running

across a "Harvey & Lee" statement that one of the subjects had blue

eyes and the other one had hazel eyes. If this is indeed the claim,

a study of the "hazel eye phenomenon" is called for. It is attached.

SEEING EYE TO EYE: A STUDY OF LEE H. OSWALD’S ‘HAZEL’ EYES

Judyth Vary Baker

The man that I knew as "Lee" considered his eyes to be blue-gray in color.

THEY WERE DESCRIBED AS "GREY" ON HIS PASSPORT APPLICATION, BUT AS "GREY-BROWN"

ON HIS MILITARY ID:

Mae Brussell reported these words, from 11:00-11:20 PM, Nov. 22, 1963:

"I was in Russia two years and liked it in Russia. . . . I am 5 ft. 9 in., weigh 140 lb., have brown hair, blue-gray eyes, and have no tattoos or permanent scars."

NOTE by Source: “Oswald had mastoidectomy scars [JVB: this scar was hidden in a simple procedure conducted while Lee was hospitalized in Minsk] and left upper-arm scars [JVB: this is true, but when Lee’s arm was straight, it was hard to see…if the autopsy was done with Lee in a stage of rigor mortis, the ventral arm scar might have been missed. ] both noted in Marine records. "Warren Report," pp. 614-618, lists information from Oswald obtained during this interview about members of his family, past employment, past residences.)..”

Source: http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/LHO.html

[Off the subject, but fascinating :Interestingly, Lee stipulated that if he dies:

(Beneficiary of Death Benefits): Marguerite OSWALD or John Edward PIC [Marguerite was also to receive his pay if he is listed as missing.] ==Where’s Robert Oswald?==And organizations to which Lee belonged while in the Armed Services:

ELSINORE PROGRESSIVE LEAGUE

EVERYBODY'S COMMITTEE TO OUTLAW WAR

IDAHO PENSION UNION

MASSACHUSETTS COMMITTEE FOR THE BILL OF RIGHTS

Source: http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/03/MS/mil.html

Oswald joined the military at age 17, not yet quite mature. Weights also could vary due to maturation or physical stressors. But the eye colors must be confusing to those who don’t understand the “hazel eye phenomenon” of the gray-blue/hazel eye.

The above records show a multiplicity of eye colors for Lee Harvey Oswald, including eye colors of “blue-gray,” “grey” and “grey-brown” – while a few more seem to have reported “hazel.”

One comment on the Inernet reporting “hazel” is this one:

“Armstrong never said they [the two "Oswalds"] both worked at the TSBD. Nor did he say they were identical in appearance. One was 5'7" and the other 5'10". One was 135 lbs, the other was 165. One had blue eyes, the other hazel."

Perhaps Armstrong was misquoted. Perhaps this was a distinction he, himself, did not make. Please correct me, Jack, if the statement above is wrong.

Lee H. Oswald was 5’9“ ( and a bit more, but seems to have been measured while in the state of incipient rigor mortis)…and really measured 5’ 10” in shoes in the morning, as my father was 5’ 10” and Lee was the same visual height. Since I was 5’2” he seemed tall to me. Lee looked like he’d lost weight from what was 160 pounds when I knew him to about 140 pounds (my visual estimate) in arrest photos. He told me he had lost weight and not to concern myself about it.

THE STATEMENT ABOVE ABOUT “HARVEY” AND “LEE” – MENTIONS THEIR TWO DIFFERENT EYE COLORS AS A WAY TO DISTINGUISH “HARVEY” FROM “LEE.” WHOEVER WROTE THAT NEVER MET LEE HARVEY OSWALD.

PEOPLE WHO HAVE HAZEL EYES REALIZE THAT HAZEL EYES MAY PRESENT A RANGE OF COLORS, DEPENDING ON THE COLOR OF CAST SHADOWS AND WHETHER THE OWNER OF SUCH EYES IS INSIDE OR OUTSIDE WHEN OBSERVED, AND DEPENDING ON WHAT ANGLE THE LIGHT COMES INTO THEIR EYES, AS WELL AS THE THICKNESS OF THE STROMA. LEE APPARENTLY HAD THIN STROMA (SEE BELOW).

My own mother was classified as having green eyes, amber eyes or hazel eyes, depending on what the people at the driver’s license bureau decided it was. She generally was classified as having hazel eyes, because indoors, they looked more brownish. Outdoors, they were green, but in direct sun looked golden. Other forms of hazel eyes turn bluish-gray in certain slants of light, but are generally considered hazel in color.

Lee had unusual blue-gray eyes with a ring of hazel around the iris and flecks of hazel around the pupil–and exhibited a kind of blue – when indoors or under incandescent light---but they seemed hazel if he was under fluorescent light or outdoors. I have seen his eye color described as blue-gray, blue and hazel, and all would be correct, depending on lighting and his moods, re chomatophores.

JVB: Lee described his own eyes as blue-gray, but they also had little flecks of hazel in a ring around the pupil and a few hazel flecks around the outside edge of the iris. He could be classed as having blue eyes or hazel eyes depending on the light – outside his eyes looked more blue, and inside, they looked more hazel. He could pass for both.

NOTE: “The perception of [eye] color depends on viewing conditions (e.g., the amount and kind of illumination, as well as the hue of the surrounding environment),...”.[16 ] (REF: Wikipedia)

I read that Marina had to look at the eyes of her dead husband to determine it was really him…great loss of blood can flatten facial tissues, and this occurred in Lee’s case.

FROM THE INTERNET:

“I have hazel green eyesbut when I wear blue or am in a low mood they take on an aqua blue tone. When I wear green or when I am angry they turn a brighter green. When I wear golds, yellows, or oranges, they get more of a golden tint. …’

”It cannot be the light. I have hazel eyes that change from a green, to blue, to an icy looking blue. They don't change with the color of clothes I'm wearing. They change by my moods which is weird. When I cry they seem to turn a blueish color, when I'm happy they seem to turn a greenish color. I've looked through all my pictures that I took and it's never the same eye color, which I think is really cool..”

file:///Users/jamesfetzer/Library/Caches/TemporaryItems/msoclip1/01/clip_image001.gif

Note about chromatophores:

Mammals and birds have only one class of chromatophore-like cell type: the melanocyte.

Eye color is a polygenic phenotypic character and is determined by the amount and type of pigments in the eye's iris.[1][2] Humans and animals have many phenotypic variations in eye color, as blue, brown, green and others. These variations constitute phenotypic traits.[3]

The genetics of eye color are complicated, and eye color is determined by multiple genes. Some of the eye-color genes include EYCL1 (a green/blue eye-color gene located on chromosome 19), EYCL2 (a brown eye-color gene) and EYCL3 (a brown/blue eye-color gene located on chromosome 15).

The once-held view that blue eye color is a simple recessive trait has been shown to be wrong. The genetics of eye color are so complex that almost any parent-child combination of eye colors can occur.[4][5]

In human eyes, these variations in color are attributed to varying ratios of eumelanin produced by melanocytes in the iris.[2] The brightly colored eyes of many bird species are largely determined by other pigments, such as pteridines, purines, and carotenoids.[6]

Three main elements within the iris contribute to its color: the melanin content of the iris pigment epithelium, the melanin content within the iris stroma, and the cellular density of the iris stroma. [7] In eyes of all colors, the iris pigment epithelium contains the black pigment, eumelanin.[2][7] Color variations among different irises are typically attributed to the melanin content within the iris stroma.[7]

The density of cells within the stroma affects how much light is absorbed by the underlying pigment epithelium.[7] OCA2 gene polymorphism, close to proximal 5′ regulatory region, explains most human eye-color variation.[8]

Blue eyes with a brown spot, green eyes and gray eyes are caused by an entirely different part of the genome. As Eiberg said: "The SNP rs12913832 [of the Herc2 gene] is found to be associated with the brown and blue eye color, but this single DNA variation cannot explain all the brown eye color variation from dark brown over hazel to blue eyes with brown spots."

In other words, witnesses could have reported Lee H. Oswald as having hazel eyes, gray-blue or blue eyes, depending on lighting and other factors, due to the fact that Lee possessed blue–gray elements as well as hazel elements in his eyes. [NOTE: Which means the alleged difference in eye color between "Harvey" and "Lee" may have no basis in fact.]

JVB

Edited April 6, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Jack White]

What DRIVER'S LICENSE? LHO could not drive and did not have a driver's license.

If JVB has a copy of one...THAT IS BIG NEWS.

[Jack White]

[Greg Burnham]

That one...

Edited March 30, 2010 by Greg Burnham

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

That was my mistake, Jack. Judyth had them bunched together, so I separated

them and added the identification of what we were viewing. I said "drivers'

license" when I should have said "military ID". But I think the claim that he

did not drive is false. I will invite Judyth to address that issue here shortly.

What DRIVER'S LICENSE? LHO could not drive and did not have a driver's license.

If JVB has a copy of one...THAT IS BIG NEWS.