Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

JIM ADDRESSES SOME QUESTIONS TO JACK:

Let me see if I have this straight. You are the guy (at least, one

among several) who has claimed that there is this difference in

appearance between the guy you call "Harvey" and call "Lee":

Judyth has presented (what she calls) a pristine version of the

photo you have been relying upon, in part, for your distinction:

Now you are telling me (by lampooning my photograph) that

this kind of alteration can effortlessly be done by computer.

In which case I ask, if you have known this all along, then

how can you have placed emphasis on photos easily faked?

[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.

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.

Your words convey the unmistakable air of impartiality. I'm sure your observations must be correct on both counts.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

JUDYTH DELIVERS "BIG NEWS" TO JACK WHITE

TO THE QUESTION OF DRIVER'S LICENSE, LEE SAID HE HAD A DRIVER'S LICENSE FROM TEXAS, WHICH HE LEFT IN TEXAS WHEN HE CAME TO NEW ORLEANS. I DO NOT KNOW WHAT BECAME

OF IT. [NOTE: BUT HE DID KNOW HOW TO DRIVE AND THAT HE DID NOT MAY BE SIMPLY A SMALL PART OF "HARVEY & LEE" MYTHOLOGY.]

HE DID NOT USE IT BECAUSE HE SAID IT HAD BEEN 'FLAGGED.' THAT HE WAS 'A KNOWN COMMUNIST' OR SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT . I WAS GOING TO WRITE ABOUT THE DRIVER'S LICENSE AS "EYE COLOR UNKNOWN" AND THEN MENTION HIS SERVICE CARD. BUT IN THE END

I SIMPLY INCLUDED HIS MILITARY ID.

NOTE: THE "NOTE" WAS ADDED TO THE FIRST PARAGRAPH BY ME RATHER THAN BY JUDYTH.]

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.

Edited March 30, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

A SAMPLE OF THE PAP I THAT AM RECEIVING FROM JACK WHITE

From email I received from Jack today, Tue, 30 Mar 2010 14:00:16:

Re: Jim...I am worried about your reputation and credibility....

JACK WRITES: I put forth the greatest researcher I know, MARY FERRELL,

who was at first intrigued that a new witness came forward after 30+ years,

and then spent a year studying her claims and interviewing her, and

finally concluded that she was a fraud. I have received 7 or 8 unsolicited

emails from a variety of researchers denouncing JVB, and you for your

enthusiastic support of the "Castro did it" scenario which she promotes.

. . .

SO I WROTE BACK TO JACK DISPUTING THIS "CASTRO DID IT" CLAIM

AND AT THE SAME TIME WROTE TO JUDYTH TO INQUIRE ABOUT IT:

RE ANY SUCH FOOLISHNESS AS "CASTRO DID IT"--I HAVE NEVER SAID SUCH

AN ABSURD THING. WE WERE TRYING TO GET RID OF CASTRO AS A POTENTIAL

NUCLEAR WEAPON THREAT.

I HAVE SAID FROM THE BEGINNING THAT THE SAME GOVT/INTELLIGENCE/MAFIA/

MILITARY/RIGHT-WING OIL FAT CATS, ETC. WHO CREATED A MUTUAL ADMIRATION

SOCIETY AT FIRST WENT AFTER CASTRO, BUT THROUGH CIA AND THEIR CABAL,

TURNED THE GOVT'S GROWING ASSASSINATION EXPERTISE AGAINST KENNEDY

-- FOR GOOD REASON -- IF IT WERE BLAMED ON CASTRO, THEY COULD INVADE

AND EVERYBODY COULD FACE THE SECOND COMING OF CHRIST IN A NUCLEAR

HOLOCAUST.

SOMEBODY HAD THE GOOD SENSE TO PULL THE BLAME AWAY FROM CASTRO

BEFORE THE CABAL GOT ITS WAY. THUS ALL THE BACK-PEDALING RE MEXICO CITY,

PAINTING LEE AS A LONE NUT INSTEAD.

THIS WAS STRICTLY A COUP, AN INSIDE JOB AIDED BY LAYERS OF MAFIA AND

INTELLIGENCE OPERATIVES AND COVERED UP BY JFK'S ENEMIES WITH SO MUCH

TO GAIN--FROM LBJ TO MILITARY, TO RIGHT-WINGERS, TO HOOVER.

CASTRO AND JFK WERE MAKING HEADWAY WHEN JFK WAS KILLED. MADE JFK

LOOK LIKE A 'COMMIE LOVER.' I BECOME ANGRY THINKING ABOUT IT AND IT

HELPS ME KEEP ON FIGHTING.

I HAVE ALWAYS SAID IT WAS A COUP, EVEN BACK IN 1999 WHEN RESEARCHERS

VETTING ME SEEMED RELUCTANT TO BREATHE THE WORD OUT LOUD. I HAVE

NEVER SAID ANYTHING DIFFERENT.

So I say about this, someone has his head where the sun doesn't shine and --

here's a big clue! -- it ain't Judyth! If Jack can't do better than to push rubbish

in my direction in his efforts to affect my position, then he shouldn't write at all!

Jim

[Greg Burnham]

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.

Jim,

I recall from my interview with Judyth that she has a clear memory of LHO driving. She didn't mention any "drivers' license" as far as I can remember, but she did tell me that he drove. I have no RELIABLE independent evidence that confirms or refutes her claim.

[Jack White]

1. I did not lampoon your photograph. I used it to show how easily TODAY

computers can alter a photo, which I think is relevant TODAY. However, this

could not be done in 1963 as has been implied nor can it be done by repeated

scanning. Distortion COULD be done accidentally in 1963 unless photos were

printed on PLASTIC BASED photo paper, which did not shrink. Claims of

distortion should not be made unless one knows what one is talking about.

By the way, which Jim Fetzer image did you pick as being unaltered? You

have one chance in six...which did you pick?

2. The DPD mug shot of Harvey is radically different from the passport photo

of Lee. Their skulls are not the same shape. Part of the problem is that you

have looked at an old image that lacks fidelity, because it was scanned from

a 40 year old slide. I will do a comparison with greater fidelity so you can see

the difference.

3. Photos TODAY can be easily faked. In 1963, photos could be faked, but the

fakery had to be done by experts in photography and retouching. You are

correct that we do not know for sure the provenance of many photos. But

I emphasize that NO PHOTOS EXTANT (PUBLISHED) IN 1963 have been

faked in the intervening years. Thus the DPD mug shots of LHO which were

published in 1963 cannot have been faked or altered since 1963.

So I put emphasis on the study of the 1963 evidence photos, knowing that

if they were genuine then, they are genuine now. If they were faked then,

the challenge is to find the fake ones. That is what I have done for 40+ years.

I daresay that my expertise at this far exceeds JVB.

Jack

JIM ADDRESSES SOME QUESTIONS TO JACK:

Let me see if I have this straight. You are the guy (at least, one

among several) who has claimed that there is this difference in

appearance between the guy you call "Harvey" and call "Lee":

Judyth has presented (what she calls) a pristine version of the

photo you have been relying upon, in part, for your distinction:

Now you are telling me (by lampooning my photograph) that

this kind of alteration can effortlessly be done by computer.

In which case I ask, if you have known this all along, then

how can you have placed emphasis on photos easily faked?

[Jack White]

1. I did not lampoon your photograph. I used it to show how easily TODAY

computers can alter a photo, which I think is relevant TODAY. However, this

could not be done in 1963 as has been implied nor can it be done by repeated

scanning. Distortion COULD be done accidentally in 1963 unless photos were

printed on PLASTIC BASED photo paper, which did not shrink. Claims of

distortion should not be made unless one knows what one is talking about.

By the way, which Jim Fetzer image did you pick as being unaltered? You

have one chance in six...which did you pick?

2. The DPD mug shot of Harvey is radically different from the passport photo

of Lee. Their skulls are not the same shape. Part of the problem is that you

have looked at an old image that lacks fidelity, because it was scanned from

a 40 year old slide. I will do a comparison with greater fidelity so you can see

the difference.

3. Photos TODAY can be easily faked. In 1963, photos could be faked, but the

fakery had to be done by experts in photography and retouching. You are

correct that we do not know for sure the provenance of many photos. But

I emphasize that NO PHOTOS EXTANT (PUBLISHED) IN 1963 have been

faked in the intervening years. Thus the DPD mug shots of LHO which were

published in 1963 cannot have been faked or altered since 1963.

So I put emphasis on the study of the 1963 evidence photos, knowing that

if they were genuine then, they are genuine now. If they were faked then,

the challenge is to find the fake ones. That is what I have done for 40+ years.

I daresay that my expertise at this far exceeds JVB.

Jack

JIM ADDRESSES SOME QUESTIONS TO JACK:

Let me see if I have this straight. You are the guy (at least, one

among several) who has claimed that there is this difference in

appearance between the guy you call "Harvey" and call "Lee":

Judyth has presented (what she calls) a pristine version of the

photo you have been relying upon, in part, for your distinction:

Now you are telling me (by lampooning my photograph) that

this kind of alteration can effortlessly be done by computer.

In which case I ask, if you have known this all along, then

how can you have placed emphasis on photos easily faked?

[Jack White]

Jim...when JVB fell upon us from nowhere ten years ago, she did not announce

"this is a Castro did it scenario". In fact she said it was the CIA. However,

RESEARCHERS IMMEDIATELY SPECULATED that it was to connect the JFK hit

to Castro, because it was all connected to the New Orleans milieu surrounding

the Cuban operation, Fair Play for Cuba Committee, Banister, Ferie, Garrison, Shaw

Ochsner, et al. IT FOCUSED ON CASTRO AND CUBA. It focused on Baker making

a cancer weapon to kill Castro. It focused on LHO going to Mexico to deliver

the cancer vial, but by chance the plot was foiled by a hurricane.

I told you ALL OF THE ABOVE, but you selected ONLY the phrase CASTRO DID IT

in order to ridicule me. I find that disturbing.

It is not I who said this anyway...it was researchers years ago, as I told you.

You are quoting me selectively to make me look silly.

Jack

A SAMPLE OF THE PAP I THAT AM RECEIVING FROM JACK WHITE

From email I received from Jack today, Tue, 30 Mar 2010 14:00:16:

Re: Jim...I am worried about your reputation and credibility....

JACK WRITES: I put forth the greatest researcher I know, MARY FERRELL,

who was at first intrigued that a new witness came forward after 30+ years,

and then spent a year studying her claims and interviewing her, and

finally concluded that she was a fraud. I have received 7 or 8 unsolicited

emails from a variety of researchers denouncing JVB, and you for your

enthusiastic support of the "Castro did it" scenario which she promotes.

. . .

SO I WROTE BACK TO JACK DISPUTING THIS "CASTRO DID IT" CLAIM

AND AT THE SAME TIME WROTE TO JUDYTH TO INQUIRE ABOUT IT:

RE ANY SUCH FOOLISHNESS AS "CASTRO DID IT"--I HAVE NEVER SAID SUCH

AN ABSURD THING. WE WERE TRYING TO GET RID OF CASTRO AS A POTENTIAL

NUCLEAR WEAPON THREAT.

I HAVE SAID FROM THE BEGINNING THAT THE SAME GOVT/INTELLIGENCE/MAFIA/

MILITARY/RIGHT-WING OIL FAT CATS, ETC. WHO CREATED A MUTUAL ADMIRATION

SOCIETY AT FIRST WENT AFTER CASTRO, BUT THROUGH CIA AND THEIR CABAL,

TURNED THE GOVT'S GROWING ASSASSINATION EXPERTISE AGAINST KENNEDY

-- FOR GOOD REASON -- IF IT WERE BLAMED ON CASTRO, THEY COULD INVADE

AND EVERYBODY COULD FACE THE SECOND COMING OF CHRIST IN A NUCLEAR

HOLOCAUST.

SOMEBODY HAD THE GOOD SENSE TO PULL THE BLAME AWAY FROM CASTRO

BEFORE THE CABAL GOT ITS WAY. THUS ALL THE BACK-PEDALING RE MEXICO CITY,

PAINTING LEE AS A LONE NUT INSTEAD.

THIS WAS STRICTLY A COUP, AN INSIDE JOB AIDED BY LAYERS OF MAFIA AND

INTELLIGENCE OPERATIVES AND COVERED UP BY JFK'S ENEMIES WITH SO MUCH

TO GAIN--FROM LBJ TO MILITARY, TO RIGHT-WINGERS, TO HOOVER.

CASTRO AND JFK WERE MAKING HEADWAY WHEN JFK WAS KILLED. MADE JFK

LOOK LIKE A 'COMMIE LOVER.' I BECOME ANGRY THINKING ABOUT IT AND IT

HELPS ME KEEP ON FIGHTING.

I HAVE ALWAYS SAID IT WAS A COUP, EVEN BACK IN 1999 WHEN RESEARCHERS

VETTING ME SEEMED RELUCTANT TO BREATHE THE WORD OUT LOUD. I HAVE

NEVER SAID ANYTHING DIFFERENT.

So I say about this, someone has his head where the sun doesn't shine and --

here's a big clue! -- it ain't Judyth! If Jack can't do better than to push rubbish

in my direction in his efforts to affect my position, then he shouldn't write at all!

Jim

[Jack White]

Wrong again! That is not the LHO military ID. It is specifically the Department of Defense ID issued

to discharged veterans, enabling them to purchase goods at a post exchange. So it is a CIVILIAN

ID of a former service man. But even it is a fake, as is well known. Why? Because the photo on

it was THE MINSK PHOTO, made in Russia. Now why would a DoD ID card have a Russian photo

on it? Well, it shouldn't. Not only that...but the Minsk photo itself is a faked photo!

Not only is the card faked and the photo faked, a different version of it exists with a different

photo and a different signature, I believe located by Dick Russell. Both cards are shown below.

Several articles have been written about this card. I think one of mine is in The Fourth Decade,

which can be found at the Mary Ferrell website.

So not only did you and JVB not know what this card was (not driver's license, not military ID),

neither of you knew that the card had been provably fabricated and known for many years among

researchers. If you are not aware of basics like this, why should anyone believe anything JVB says?

Jack

JUDYTH DELIVERS "BIG NEWS" TO JACK WHITE

TO THE QUESTION OF DRIVER'S LICENSE, LEE SAID HE HAD A DRIVER'S LICENSE FROM TEXAS, WHICH HE LEFT IN TEXAS WHEN HE CAME TO NEW ORLEANS. I DO NOT KNOW WHAT BECAME

OF IT. [NOTE: BUT HE DID KNOW HOW TO DRIVE AND THAT HE DID NOT MAY BE SIMPLY A SMALL PART OF "HARVEY & LEE" MYTHOLOGY.]

HE DID NOT USE IT BECAUSE HE SAID IT HAD BEEN 'FLAGGED.' THAT HE WAS 'A KNOWN COMMUNIST' OR SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT . I WAS GOING TO WRITE ABOUT THE DRIVER'S LICENSE AS "EYE COLOR UNKNOWN" AND THEN MENTION HIS SERVICE CARD. BUT IN THE END

I SIMPLY INCLUDED HIS MILITARY ID.

NOTE: THE "NOTE" WAS ADDED TO THE FIRST PARAGRAPH BY ME RATHER THAN BY JUDYTH.]

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.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

JIM REPLIES TO JACK'S RESPONSE TO HIM

1. My guess would be that it's the third from the right, for what it's worth.

2. You agree then (with Judyth) that the "passport photo" posted on the

forum lacks fidelity because of repeated scanning, yet it has appeared on

this thread without qualification. Shouldn't that have been noted before?

3. Thanks for the clarification about the various photos published in 1963.

Absent your explanation in this post, it certainly appeared to me Judyth

had made an observation that I had not heard before on this forum. And

I suppose that remains the case, since you are posting this after her post.

1. I did not lampoon your photograph. I used it to show how easily TODAY

computers can alter a photo, which I think is relevant TODAY. However, this

could not be done in 1963 as has been implied nor can it be done by repeated

scanning. Distortion COULD be done accidentally in 1963 unless photos were

printed on PLASTIC BASED photo paper, which did not shrink. Claims of

distortion should not be made unless one knows what one is talking about.

By the way, which Jim Fetzer image did you pick as being unaltered? You

have one chance in six...which did you pick?

2. The DPD mug shot of Harvey is radically different from the passport photo

of Lee. Their skulls are not the same shape. Part of the problem is that you

have looked at an old image that lacks fidelity, because it was scanned from

a 40 year old slide. I will do a comparison with greater fidelity so you can see

the difference.

3. Photos TODAY can be easily faked. In 1963, photos could be faked, but the

fakery had to be done by experts in photography and retouching. You are

correct that we do not know for sure the provenance of many photos. But

I emphasize that NO PHOTOS EXTANT (PUBLISHED) IN 1963 have been

faked in the intervening years. Thus the DPD mug shots of LHO which were

published in 1963 cannot have been faked or altered since 1963.

So I put emphasis on the study of the 1963 evidence photos, knowing that

if they were genuine then, they are genuine now. If they were faked then,

the challenge is to find the fake ones. That is what I have done for 40+ years.

I daresay that my expertise at this far exceeds JVB.

Jack

JIM ADDRESSES SOME QUESTIONS TO JACK:

Let me see if I have this straight. You are the guy (at least, one

among several) who has claimed that there is this difference in

appearance between the guy you call "Harvey" and call "Lee":

Judyth has presented (what she calls) a pristine version of the

photo you have been relying upon, in part, for your distinction:

Now you are telling me (by lampooning my photograph) that

this kind of alteration can effortlessly be done by computer.

In which case I ask, if you have known this all along, then

how can you have placed emphasis on photos easily faked?

[Greg Burnham]

1. I did not lampoon your photograph. I used it to show how easily TODAY

computers can alter a photo, which I think is relevant TODAY. However, this

could not be done in 1963 as has been implied nor can it be done by repeated

scanning. Distortion COULD be done accidentally in 1963 unless photos were

printed on PLASTIC BASED photo paper, which did not shrink. Claims of

distortion should not be made unless one knows what one is talking about.

By the way, which Jim Fetzer image did you pick as being unaltered? You

have one chance in six...which did you pick?

Great points all, Jack! BTW: I think that ALL of the FETZER photos were altered.

2. The DPD mug shot of Harvey is radically different from the passport photo

of Lee. Their skulls are not the same shape. Part of the problem is that you

have looked at an old image that lacks fidelity, because it was scanned from

a 40 year old slide. I will do a comparison with greater fidelity so you can see

the difference.

Apples and oranges--so to speak.

3. Photos TODAY can be easily faked. In 1963, photos could be faked, but the

fakery had to be done by experts in photography and retouching. You are

correct that we do not know for sure the provenance of many photos. But

I emphasize that NO PHOTOS EXTANT (PUBLISHED) IN 1963 have been

faked in the intervening years. Thus the DPD mug shots of LHO which were

published in 1963 cannot have been faked or altered since 1963.

So I put emphasis on the study of the 1963 evidence photos, knowing that

if they were genuine then, they are genuine now. If they were faked then,

the challenge is to find the fake ones. That is what I have done for 40+ years.

I daresay that my expertise at this far exceeds JVB.

Jack

Indeed. Moreover, again as devil's advocate for the sake of argument, are we to assume that JVB even knew LHO based on her preposterous (on its face) claims? Is this argument really sound? That: the more incredible her claims, the more they are probably true? Weak, IMO. There is merit to the argument, IMO, but only with much more evidence that is solidly VERIFIABLE independent of the subject's [JVB] testimony. I do agree with Jim's "stretch" in one way, though. It's just resting on too many "if's" IMO.

To accept such a "stretch" for me requires more PERSONAL knowledge of the witness than I currently have...and to invest further is too risky for me.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

JIM REPLIES TO A SECOND RESPONSE FROM JACK TO HIM

Yes, OK, but it is the equivalent. In any case, that was my mistake, not Judyth's. So you can

attack me for it. The point about the photograph is very interesting. I will ask Judyth about

that. At one point in time, I had an ID signed by the same officer Ayers who signed this one.

I am glad to know that you know more about this specific ID than do I and perhaps Judyth as

well. Nether of us poses as an expert on IDs and especially forged documents. I continue to

view her as more knowlegable about the man she knew in New Orleans than any other source.

I am especially interested in knowing David Lifton's opinions about "the two Oswalds". Since

I take it you are staking your reputation on "Harvey & Lee" just as I am committed to Judyth,

it will be interesting to discover whether David holds with you and John on this or with Judyth.

Incidentally, are you willing to grant that Judyth may know more about whether or not the

man she knew in New Orleans could or could not drive? I also heard from another member

that Lee didn't have a driver's license. He might have added, "to the best of his knowledge".

Wrong again! That is not the LHO military ID. It is specifically the Department of Defense ID issued

to discharged veterans, enabling them to purchase goods at a post exchange. So it is a CIVILIAN

ID of a former service man. But even it is a fake, as is well known. Why? Because the photo on

it was THE MINSK PHOTO, made in Russia. Now why would a DoD ID card have a Russian photo

on it? Well, it shouldn't. Not only that...but the Minsk photo itself is a faked photo!

Not only is the card faked and the photo faked, a different version of it exists with a different

photo and a different signature, I believe located by Dick Russell. Both cards are shown below.

Several articles have been written about this card. I think one of mine is in The Fourth Decade,

which can be found at the Mary Ferrell website.

So not only did you and JVB not know what this card was (not driver's license, not military ID),

neither of you knew that the card had been provably fabricated and known for many years among

researchers. If you are not aware of basics like this, why should anyone believe anything JVB says?

Jack

JUDYTH DELIVERS "BIG NEWS" TO JACK WHITE

TO THE QUESTION OF DRIVER'S LICENSE, LEE SAID HE HAD A DRIVER'S LICENSE FROM TEXAS, WHICH HE LEFT IN TEXAS WHEN HE CAME TO NEW ORLEANS. I DO NOT KNOW WHAT BECAME

OF IT. [NOTE: BUT HE DID KNOW HOW TO DRIVE AND THAT HE DID NOT MAY BE SIMPLY A SMALL PART OF "HARVEY & LEE" MYTHOLOGY.]

HE DID NOT USE IT BECAUSE HE SAID IT HAD BEEN 'FLAGGED.' THAT HE WAS 'A KNOWN COMMUNIST' OR SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT . I WAS GOING TO WRITE ABOUT THE DRIVER'S LICENSE AS "EYE COLOR UNKNOWN" AND THEN MENTION HIS SERVICE CARD. BUT IN THE END

I SIMPLY INCLUDED HIS MILITARY ID.

NOTE: THE "NOTE" WAS ADDED TO THE FIRST PARAGRAPH BY ME RATHER THAN BY JUDYTH.]

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.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Maybe you missed my point. I was suggesting that, the more implausible

her claims on their face, when they turn out to be true, after all, that has

the effect of enhancing her credibility. I think you have missed a premise.

1. I did not lampoon your photograph. I used it to show how easily TODAY

computers can alter a photo, which I think is relevant TODAY. However, this

could not be done in 1963 as has been implied nor can it be done by repeated

scanning. Distortion COULD be done accidentally in 1963 unless photos were

printed on PLASTIC BASED photo paper, which did not shrink. Claims of

distortion should not be made unless one knows what one is talking about.

By the way, which Jim Fetzer image did you pick as being unaltered? You

have one chance in six...which did you pick?

Great points all, Jack! BTW: I think that ALL of the FETZER photos were altered.

2. The DPD mug shot of Harvey is radically different from the passport photo

of Lee. Their skulls are not the same shape. Part of the problem is that you

have looked at an old image that lacks fidelity, because it was scanned from

a 40 year old slide. I will do a comparison with greater fidelity so you can see

the difference.

Apples and oranges--so to speak.

3. Photos TODAY can be easily faked. In 1963, photos could be faked, but the

fakery had to be done by experts in photography and retouching. You are

correct that we do not know for sure the provenance of many photos. But

I emphasize that NO PHOTOS EXTANT (PUBLISHED) IN 1963 have been

faked in the intervening years. Thus the DPD mug shots of LHO which were

published in 1963 cannot have been faked or altered since 1963.

So I put emphasis on the study of the 1963 evidence photos, knowing that

if they were genuine then, they are genuine now. If they were faked then,

the challenge is to find the fake ones. That is what I have done for 40+ years.

I daresay that my expertise at this far exceeds JVB.

Jack

Indeed. Moreover, again as devil's advocate for the sake of argument, are we to assume that JVB even knew LHO based on her preposterous (on its face) claims? Is this argument really sound? That: the more incredible her claims, the more they are probably true? Weak, IMO. There is merit to the argument, IMO, but only with much more evidence that is solidly VERIFIABLE independent of the subject's [JVB] testimony. I do agree with Jim's "stretch" in one way, though. It's just resting on too many "if's" IMO.

To accept such a "stretch" for me requires more PERSONAL knowledge of the witness than I currently have...and to invest further is too risky for me.

[Jack White]

The FAKE Department of Defense ID card which was mistaken for a driver's license or military ID

was considered so important by John Armstrong and me that we featured it on the COVER of John's

book; maybe Jim and JVB failed to notice.

Note the split-face composite of different faces at the bottom of the cover.

Jack

PS. Note the capital N on the card. This signifies that the card was issued by the NAVY. LHO was

a MARINE. I have somewhere a collection of cards sent by researchers. The cards uniformly say

A (army), N (navy), M (marines) and AF (air force). This is interesting. Note the eye color is

gray/brown, somewhat as JVB claims...although other sources list many different eye colors.

I say this is a non issue, since eye color often was listed by others with varying color pperception.

Edited March 31, 2010 by Jack White

[Jack White]

Jim wrote (my replies in bold):

1. My guess would be that it's the third from the right, for what it's worth.

WRONG. EVERY ONE OF THE IMAGES HAD THE WIDTH MODIFIED. Here

are the modifications...105%, 99%, 97% 95% 93% and 90%. You be the

judge of what it is worth.

2. You agree then (with Judyth) that the "passport photo" posted on the

forum lacks fidelity because of repeated scanning, yet it has appeared on

this thread without qualification. Shouldn't that have been noted before?

ABSOLUTELY NOT! Repeated scanning should make no difference. On my

old FW history website I repeatedly use hundreds of rescanned images,

and I have never known them to vary more than one pixel when rescanned.

3. Thanks for the clarification about the various photos published in 1963.

A darkroom rule of thumb was that a print NOT printed on plastic base "paper"

would SHRINK perpendicular to the paper grain one-eight inch on an 8x10 print.

I ALWAYS USED RESIN COATED PAPERS TO ELIMINATE SHRINKAGE IN PRINTS.

Jack

JIM REPLIES TO JACK'S RESPONSE TO HIM

1. My guess would be that it's the third from the right, for what it's worth.

2. You agree then (with Judyth) that the "passport photo" posted on the

forum lacks fidelity because of repeated scanning, yet it has appeared on

this thread without qualification. Shouldn't that have been noted before?

3. Thanks for the clarification about the various photos published in 1963.

Absent your explanation in this post, it certainly appeared to me Judyth

had made an observation that I had not heard before on this forum. And

I suppose that remains the case, since you are posting this after her post.

1. I did not lampoon your photograph. I used it to show how easily TODAY

computers can alter a photo, which I think is relevant TODAY. However, this

could not be done in 1963 as has been implied nor can it be done by repeated

scanning. Distortion COULD be done accidentally in 1963 unless photos were

printed on PLASTIC BASED photo paper, which did not shrink. Claims of

distortion should not be made unless one knows what one is talking about.

By the way, which Jim Fetzer image did you pick as being unaltered? You

have one chance in six...which did you pick?

2. The DPD mug shot of Harvey is radically different from the passport photo

of Lee. Their skulls are not the same shape. Part of the problem is that you

have looked at an old image that lacks fidelity, because it was scanned from

a 40 year old slide. I will do a comparison with greater fidelity so you can see

the difference.

3. Photos TODAY can be easily faked. In 1963, photos could be faked, but the

fakery had to be done by experts in photography and retouching. You are

correct that we do not know for sure the provenance of many photos. But

I emphasize that NO PHOTOS EXTANT (PUBLISHED) IN 1963 have been

faked in the intervening years. Thus the DPD mug shots of LHO which were

published in 1963 cannot have been faked or altered since 1963.

So I put emphasis on the study of the 1963 evidence photos, knowing that

if they were genuine then, they are genuine now. If they were faked then,

the challenge is to find the fake ones. That is what I have done for 40+ years.

I daresay that my expertise at this far exceeds JVB.

Jack

JIM ADDRESSES SOME QUESTIONS TO JACK:

Let me see if I have this straight. You are the guy (at least, one

among several) who has claimed that there is this difference in

appearance between the guy you call "Harvey" and call "Lee":

Judyth has presented (what she calls) a pristine version of the

photo you have been relying upon, in part, for your distinction:

Now you are telling me (by lampooning my photograph) that

this kind of alteration can effortlessly be done by computer.

In which case I ask, if you have known this all along, then

how can you have placed emphasis on photos easily faked?