Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[Jack White]

Jim wrote below: (my reply in bold)

"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"."

Read Harvey and Lee to find out the complete investigation of the driving and driver's license

issue. There are several pages devoted to John's RESEARCH of the matter.

In a nutshell, it was LEE who could drive and HARVEY who could not. It was Harvey that

JVB knew. I do NOT GRANT that JVB know more about LHO's driving than John Armstrong.

Jack

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.

[William Kelly]

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.

Jack

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15121

In another thread, where I mentioned that Gary Powers had the same military ID on him when he was shot down over Russia as Oswald had on him when arrested, Colby asked for a citation. Well here it is:

http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/03/JD/00-H.html

It is also discussed here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...mp;#entry176065

Jean Davison's ArchiveThe Horne Files. provided by Jean Davison. Info on Horne Files, LaFontaine Allegations 01 Summary of LaFontaine Allegations 02 Answering Allegation of No ...www.acorn.net/jfkplace/03/JD.html - 2k - Cached - Similar pages

It also gives you a good idea of how Doug Horne thinks and writes as an analysist issuing a report. Clean, clear, concise.

None of this is mentioned in the book IARRB.

[Jack White]

Bill...you are correct. Other researchers told me that this DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CARD was issued upon discharge

and its purpose was to allow access to post exchanges. It is curious that Powers had one.

It is also curious that Oswald had a FAKED one, which is provable, since it had on it a photo taken in Minsk.

Jack

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.

Jack

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15121

In another thread, where I mentioned that Gary Powers had the same military ID on him when he was shot down over Russia as Oswald had on him when arrested, Colby asked for a citation. Well here it is:

http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/03/JD/00-H.html

It is also discussed here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...mp;#entry176065

Jean Davison's ArchiveThe Horne Files. provided by Jean Davison. Info on Horne Files, LaFontaine Allegations 01 Summary of LaFontaine Allegations 02 Answering Allegation of No ...www.acorn.net/jfkplace/03/JD.html - 2k - Cached - Similar pages

It also gives you a good idea of how Doug Horne thinks and writes as an analysist issuing a report. Clean, clear, concise.

None of this is mentioned in the book IARRB.

[Greg Burnham]

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.

I think you are correct, Jim. My mistake. That they "turn out to be true" --if that is indeed the case--is problematic for those who would dismiss her claims only because they appear to be implausible prima facia.

Have any of her detractors admitted that some of her most implausible claims did, in fact, turn out to be true? Are they still denying, avoiding, or ducking the issue? Or are they awaiting more proof beyond that which you have provided? Is such expectation (of evidence) warranted or not?

Jack, Barb, David:

What about Kan Kun for starters? Or Kankun -- or Cancun-- WHATEVER! What about her explanation of this apparent miscommuniction? David? Is it that hard to accept or even imagine such an innocuous explanation could actually be adequate to the evidence? Is it POSSIBLE that her explanation is true--even if hard to swallow?

[Kathleen Collins]

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.

Lee knew how to drive. Harvey didn't. Maybe in those days, many Russians didn't have cars.

Kathy C

[Jack White]

Monk...

Many JVB claims appear "plausible" and some cannot be "refuted", simply because all are

her OPINIONS, things she SAYS she witnessed, without proof offered. I do not care whether

her tales are true or not.

Some of her tales are irrelevant. What is the relevance to JFK studies if she claims an illicit

affair with a man she just met? What does it matter that she thinks she resembles Marina?

What does it matter that she thinks she and LHO pledged to meet somewhere in Mexico and

explore ancient ruins? What does it matter that she claims to have personally met Shaw,

Banister, Ferrie, Ochsner, Sherman, etc. etc.? Her knowing these well documented figures

adds NOTHING to the information already known. Her information changes frequently as

it suits her purpose. I will even grant that if everything she says is true it does not amount

to a bigratsass in the overall study of the investigation. Cancun or Kan Kun...who cares?

Thanks, Monk.

Jack

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.

I think you are correct, Jim. My mistake. That they "turn out to be true" --if that is indeed the case--is problematic for those who would dismiss her claims only because they appear to be implausible prima facia.

Have any of her detractors admitted that some of her most implausible claims did, in fact, turn out to be true? Are they still denying, avoiding, or ducking the issue? Or are they awaiting more proof beyond that which you have provided? Is such expectation (of evidence) warranted or not?

Jack, Barb, David:

What about Kan Kun for starters? Or Kankun -- or Cancun-- WHATEVER! What about her explanation of this apparent miscommuniction? David? Is it that hard to accept or even imagine such an innocuous explanation could actually be adequate to the evidence? Is it POSSIBLE that her explanation is true--even if hard to swallow?

[Greg Burnham]

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.

Lee knew how to drive. Harvey didn't. Maybe in those days, many Russians didn't have cars.

Kathy C

While it's true that "many Russians didn't [indeed the majority did not] have cars" -- and therefore Harvey didn't know how to drive (? I don't know why that would be assumed since Harvery was not Russian, but whatever) --still, if we are to accept Armstrong's account, the Oswald that Judyth knew was HARVEY not LEE. And the one Judyth claims to have known was (according to Armstrong) HARVEY (who could not drive) -- but who was known to Judyth (according to Judyth) as Lee (who could drive). Mind boggling--

Personally, I have a very difficult time accepting that any Soviet double-agent, or false defector, or infiltrator, or--in other words--SPY-- would not have been taught to drive for purposes of "cover story" if nothing else.

Edited March 31, 2010 by Greg Burnham

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

JACK CLAIMS THAT I COMMITTED A "SELECTIVE QUOTATION"

NOTE: Anyone can compare the original with the quoted passage

and verify for themselves that there was nothing "selective" about

the passage I quoted, which I have italicized here. Study the whole

and consider it. I find it offensive that Jack made such an allegation.

Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 14:00:16 -0500 [02:00:16 PM CDT]

From: "Jack & Sue White" <jwjfk@flash.net>

To: jfetzer@d.umn.edu

Cc: "Jack & Sue White" <jwjfk@flash.net>

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

Jim...the only thing you are doing wrong is that you are "too close" to the

subject to be OBJECTIVE...in the opinions of many SOLID RESEARCHERS

who have looked into the matter. You need to be more OBJECTIVE and

look at BOTH sides. You need to be more questioning of her claims instead

of accepting everything she says. You need to research some of the claims

yourself, as others have done...or at least study these counterclaims.

You need to consider the reputations of some of the great researchers who

studied JVB intensively for months or years, and decided the stories were

fraudulent. 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.

I am glad you are reading Armstrong's book. If you read it objectively

and without bias supporting JVB, you will begin to understand how the

false defector program worked. Though H&L has nothing to do with

JVB, what you learn from John's research will help you evaluate some

of her claims.

As you say, she is a very good researcher (if she does it all herself,

in her condition), since many of her claims can be found by researching

the works of others. She takes bits and pieces of information and

relates herself to them.

One well known researcher suggested to me that she is a CIA asset

thrust upon the research community to create division and confusion.

I think that idea is worth consideration.

I have nothing but pity for this poor woman, who seems to have

brought all this suffering on herself (over a four-month affair with

a stranger). She does need help...psychiatric.

Jack

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

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Jack stated as a condition of the guess I had "one chance in six" to get

it right. That was false. They were all modified. He was being dishonest.

If I were doing this scientifically, I would have superimposed one over the

other. Instead, I simply guessed. I could not imagine Jack would lie about it.

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?

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Jack,

I don't want to upset your apple cart, but it appears to me that Judyth actually knew the

guy you call "Harvey" in New Orleans and learned overwhelming more about him at the

time than you and John could possibly have acquired through your research. That the

man she knew could drive one of those things. So it is appearing increasingly likely to

me that one powerful motive you have for discounting her is that her story threatens

the integrity of your story about "Harvey & Lee". So when she suggested that that is

among your motives for your massive hostility toward her, I find that rather convincing.

Jim

Jim wrote below: (my reply in bold)

"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"."

Read Harvey and Lee to find out the complete investigation of the driving and driver's license

issue. There are several pages devoted to John's RESEARCH of the matter.

In a nutshell, it was LEE who could drive and HARVEY who could not. It was Harvey that

JVB knew. I do NOT GRANT that JVB know more about LHO's driving than John Armstrong.

Jack

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]

Jack,

The production of indefensible posts appears to be becoming a pastime for you. I have

explained that Judyth's story is important for multiple reasons, which my psy ops expert

has confirmed: (1) she humanizes the alleged "lone demented assassin" by showing that

he was neither "lone" nor "demented", but actually had an active social life, including, of

course, having a wife and children but also a girl friend in New Orleans, who shared much

of his life as a government agent with him; and, (2) her research on cancer and, perhaps

even more important, bioweapons, reveals techniques and methods of the agency that it

no doubt would prefer not become public knowledge, as my expert has emphasized. So,

if you don't understand why her story is of immense potential importance, that cannot be

because I have not explained it on this forum, where I do now for the fourth or fifth time.

Jim

Monk...

Many JVB claims appear "plausible" and some cannot be "refuted", simply because all are

her OPINIONS, things she SAYS she witnessed, without proof offered. I do not care whether

her tales are true or not.

Some of her tales are irrelevant. What is the relevance to JFK studies if she claims an illicit

affair with a man she just met? What does it matter that she thinks she resembles Marina?

What does it matter that she thinks she and LHO pledged to meet somewhere in Mexico and

explore ancient ruins? What does it matter that she claims to have personally met Shaw,

Banister, Ferrie, Ochsner, Sherman, etc. etc.? Her knowing these well documented figures

adds NOTHING to the information already known. Her information changes frequently as

it suits her purpose. I will even grant that if everything she says is true it does not amount

to a bigratsass in the overall study of the investigation. Cancun or Kan Kun...who cares?

Thanks, Monk.

Jack

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.

I think you are correct, Jim. My mistake. That they "turn out to be true" --if that is indeed the case--is problematic for those who would dismiss her claims only because they appear to be implausible prima facia.

Have any of her detractors admitted that some of her most implausible claims did, in fact, turn out to be true? Are they still denying, avoiding, or ducking the issue? Or are they awaiting more proof beyond that which you have provided? Is such expectation (of evidence) warranted or not?

Jack, Barb, David:

What about Kan Kun for starters? Or Kankun -- or Cancun-- WHATEVER! What about her explanation of this apparent miscommuniction? David? Is it that hard to accept or even imagine such an innocuous explanation could actually be adequate to the evidence? Is it POSSIBLE that her explanation is true--even if hard to swallow?

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Jack,

It should come as no surprise that you should know more about Oswald

photographs than Judyth or I, since that has been your preoccupation for

around 45 years. What I find fascinating is that I have not heard the kind

of observations that Judyth has made in comparing the photographs that

you have advanced as basic to the "Harvey & Lee" scenario as so fraught

with the possibility of fakery. I have never heard such an admission from

you. And your points about fakery being easier now than it was then just

doesn't cut it for me. Unless you believe that the CIA was not interested

in photo fakery, forging IDs, and fabricating documents, there has to be a

lot more to the story than the simple uncritical acceptance of the existence

of two guys bearing considerable physical resemblance who were out there

living parallel lives with mothers who bore the same name! Frankly, I find

it far more plausible that there were many persons who played the role of

impersonating the man Judyth knew in New Orleans and in creating false

documentary records for them, perhaps especially for him to enable him

to reenter society and resume a normal life, as Judyth has explained. And

I am quite certain that I am not the only one who has reservations about

the entire "Harvey & Lee" scenario, which I shall elaborate upon shortly.

Jim

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]

Monk...

Many JVB claims appear "plausible" and some cannot be "refuted", simply because all are

her OPINIONS, things she SAYS she witnessed, without proof offered. I do not care whether

her tales are true or not.

Yes, Jack--but, Jim's argument is the opposite, in a sense... He is saying that many of her claims are extremely IMPLAUSIBLE (an opinion with which I think we all agree). He is further observing, correctly IMHO, that every time one of her "improbable claims" turns out to be TRUE--that serves to bolster perception of her overall credibility. I will not defend the logic of that perception, but I will acknowledge his accuracy as to human tendencies--logical or not.

Some of her tales are irrelevant. What is the relevance to JFK studies if she claims an illicit

affair with a man she just met? What does it matter that she thinks she resembles Marina?

What does it matter that she thinks she and LHO pledged to meet somewhere in Mexico and

explore ancient ruins? What does it matter that she claims to have personally met Shaw,

Banister, Ferrie, Ochsner, Sherman, etc. etc.? Her knowing these well documented figures

adds NOTHING to the information already known.

It does strain the mind...indeed.

Her information changes frequently as it suits her purpose. I will even grant that if everything she says

is true it does not amount to a bigratsass in the overall study of the investigation. Cancun or Kan Kun...

who cares?

Thanks, Monk.

Jack

Well, Jack, my friend--I have known you a very long time (or so it seems) and have never "read you" using profanity. And you still escaped it tonight...albeit by inventing a new word! New word: "bigratsass" -- and it conveyed your meaning (and mine) very well, indeed!

GO_SECURE

monk

Edited March 31, 2010 by Greg Burnham

[David Lifton]

Jim,

On the matter of when Lee arrived in New Orleans, and what he was wearing on April 26, 1963, your statements are incorrect.

Fact 1: We do not know exactly when Lee Oswald arrived in New Orleans. We only know, for sure, that he went for an interview on Friday, April 26, 1963, at which point he was dressed in a white shirt, suit, and tie.

Fact 2: Lillian Murrett, Lee's aunt, testified that Lee first called on Monday, April 29, and said he was at the bus station. (And this was corroborated by her daughter Marilyn, who was living with her mother at the time).

Putting fact 1 and fact 2 together, it seems clear that Lee was in New Orleans by Friday, April 26, at which time he went for the interview, dressed in a white shirt, suit, and tie. (And then called his family on Monday, claiming to have just arrived).

When I spoke with Judyth, who claimed to have met Lee for the first time at the Post Office--and that date being April 26, 1963--and when I asked Judyth how Lee Oswald was dressed, she said he was in workman's clothes. She made a big point of this.

Unfortunately for Judyth, who apparently attempts to insert herself into the record, whereever she spots an opening, she was unaware--I repeate UNAWARE--at the time I spoke with her (on March 4, 2000) of the Rachal Deposition Exhibit, and the Rachal affidavit, both of which are in the 26 Volumes of the Warren Commission Report.. These two documents offer credible evience as to what Oswald was wearing on Friday, April 26, 1963, at the time of his job placement interview at the Louisiana Department of Labor. The Rachal Deposition Exhibit includes John Rachal's handwritten notes, recording Lee Oswlad's appearance when he appeared before him for a job placement interview: "Neat. Suit. Tie. Polite." (Rachal Deposition Exhibit--see WC Volume 21, page 283). In his 6/22/64 Warren Commission affidavit, he swears: "I recall that Oswald was neatly dressed with a suit, dress shirt, and tie on the occasion of our initial interview." (WC Vol 11, p. 475).

At my request, Jack White kindly posted an exhibit I prepared depicting the relevant excerpts from these two documents.

That "initial interview" was on Friday, April 26, 1963, and--at the time I spoke with her (March 4, 2000)--Judyth apparently was unaware that the published records of the Warren Commission--in the form of these two Rachal items--offered documentary evidence as to what Oswald was wearing on that particular day.

Consequently, when I questioned her--on March 4, 2000--she glibly asserted that Lee was dressed in workman's clothes, and, as I recall, appeared somewhat grubby. Furthermore, when I asked her a second time (and perhaps even a third time) to nail down this point, she became somewhat hostile and defensive, as if to ask "Why do you want to know?"

Now, 10 years later, and because of the information I released (via Jack White, just in the last week), Judyth has had a serious "Ooops" moment. Now, she realizes that she had Oswald dressed in the wrong clothes, (and on the day of their very first meeting, no less!) And I stress this point because, after all, it is common knowledge that we usually remember what someone who means so much to us was wearing the first time we met them.

So what does Judyth do? Why, she does what she always does: she comes up with an "explanation." In this case, Judyth simply manufactures some new dialogue to her narrative, as if this is not an accurately documented history, but rather a "work in progress," a screenplay which she can change anytime she wishes. And so now she writes: "Lee told me he was going to borrow a white shirt."

Let's focus on just what is going on here: I produce evidence --from the 1963/64 record--that, on April 26, 1963, Lee was dressed in a "dress shirt, and tie" and Judyth now adds, in March, 2010, almost 47 years later, "Lee told me he was going to borrow a white shirt."

Is this plausible? Is Judyth credible? Are we supposed to take this ad hoc revision serioiusly?

But that's not the end of it, because Lee was not just wearing a dress shirt--he was wearing a suit, (and a tie). So now what can we do about those two "inconvenient truths"?

Well, I'll tell you what Judyth does: she engages in speculation as to where Lee obtained the suit. She writes:

NOW QUOTING FROM JUDYTH'S POST:

" Lee told me he was going to borrow a white shirt -- he did not mention a suit-- perhaps his relatives generously added the suit?" UNQUOTE

And then she adds these statements:

QUOTE

(1) " Lee leaves me in the morning and has time to see his aunt and change clothes."

(2) " Here is a logical time line: . . .April 25 [Thursday] -- Lee arrives around 11:00 AM from Dallas, checks into the YMCA, calls his

relatives, and they invite him over. . . Most of he day, he spends with his aunt and uncle and cousin, talking. It's been ten years, after all."

UNQUOTE

But here's the problem with Judyth's "logical time line," and her 2010 attempt at a reconstruction: Lee's Aunt, Lillian Murrett, testified that when she first heard from Lee (who said he was calling from the bus station) it was on "a Monday." That's right: Monday, April 29, 1963.

This testimony is also supported by the testimony of cousin Marilyn, who was living with her mother at the time.

But Lee's interview in which he was so nicely dresse was on Friday, April 26.

So regardless of what day Lee may actually have arrived in New Orleans--THEY first heard from him on a Monday, and specifically, Monday, April 29, 1963, which means there is a three day "missing period" between Friday, April 26, when he showed up at the Louisiana Labor Dept office, for an interview (and was dressed in a suit, white shirt, tie, etc.) and the time he first called his relatives, said he was calling from the bus station, and claimed he had just arrived in New Orleans (which was obviously not true)..

So: Lee Oswald was obviously not telling the truth as to when he arrived, and where he had been, for clearly, he was at the Louisiana Labor Department on Friday, April 26, dressed in the white shirt, suit, and tie.

But now, back to Judyth, and her "work in progress": Whatever the explanation is for where Lee was for three days (and Judyth will no doubt be adept at coming up with something), the fact is that Oswald could not have borrowed such clothing from his relatives (to wear on Friday, April 26) if he didn't see them until Monday, April 29. Furthermore, his aunt Lillian's reaction on first seeing her nephew was that he needed better clothing and she offered to help him get better clothes. Again, no mention of having loaned him anything--no loan of a suit, tie, dress shirt, etc.

All this bears heavily on assessingt the credibility of Judyth, who we catch in the act of scampering around trying to come up with an explanation for how it was possible for Lee to be wearing a suit, dress shirt and tie, on Friday, April 26, when he had the interview with John Rachal, at the Louisiana Department of Labor. Again: If we meet someone who turns out to be important in our lives, we remember what they were wearing when we first met them. But, in her converstion with me, Judyth got it all wrong, and now she's trying to plug this "hole" in her story.

Judyth supposedly met Lee Oswald some 47 years ago, and has written about him extensively, but--apparently--it wasn't until a week ago that she became aware of this glitch in her account.

Unfortunately for Judyth, 10 years have passed since I questioned her on this point--and although I questioned her very carefully on this particular point, I did not reveal the significance of my questions, or my reaction to her answers. And so now, here we are, in March 2010, I reveal this line of questioning, and now, a decade later, Judyth comes up with new (and supposedly legitimate) information, and her entire tone has the defensive, and almost truculent quality, she exhibited when I spoke with her ten years ago: "I am a witness, and I know what happened. Lee told me he was going to borrow a white shirt. . ."

And we're supposed to take this person seriously?

I must ask you Jim: Is there no limit to your credulity?

At what point do you draw the line, and say, "Enough is enough!"

Judyth is a serial fabricator. She is a deluded woman, a fantast.

And rather than deal plainly and forthrightly with the situation, you are throwing your credibility out the window, and tossing great insults at a long time friend, like Jack White, because he has the common sense to see what is obvious (and so did Mary Ferrell, I might add).

DSL

3/31/10; 2:40 AM

Los Angeles, CA

[Jack White]

Monk...

Many JVB claims appear "plausible" and some cannot be "refuted", simply because all are

her OPINIONS, things she SAYS she witnessed, without proof offered. I do not care whether

her tales are true or not.

Yes, Jack--but, Jim's argument is the opposite, in a sense... He is saying that many of her claims are extremely IMPLAUSIBLE (an opinion with which I think we all agree). He is further observing, correctly IMHO, that every time one of her "improbable claims" turns out to be TRUE--that serves to bolster perception of her overall credibility. I will not defend the logic of that perception, but I will acknowledge his accuracy as to human tendencies--logical or not.

Some of her tales are irrelevant. What is the relevance to JFK studies if she claims an illicit

affair with a man she just met? What does it matter that she thinks she resembles Marina?

What does it matter that she thinks she and LHO pledged to meet somewhere in Mexico and

explore ancient ruins? What does it matter that she claims to have personally met Shaw,

Banister, Ferrie, Ochsner, Sherman, etc. etc.? Her knowing these well documented figures

adds NOTHING to the information already known.

It does strain the mind...indeed.

Her information changes frequently as it suits her purpose. I will even grant that if everything she says

is true it does not amount to a bigratsass in the overall study of the investigation. Cancun or Kan Kun...

who cares?

Thanks, Monk.

Jack

Well, Jack, my friend--I have known you a very long time (or so it seems) and have never "read you" using profanity. And you still escaped it tonight...albeit by inventing a new word! New word: "bigratsass" -- and it conveyed your meaning (and mine) very well, indeed!

GO_SECURE

monk

Greg...thanks. I think profanity reflects poorly on the user when alternate descriptives or expletives are available,

especially in writing. In person, if I hit my thumb with a hammer, you would hear me say "Oh, S---!", a common

expression of frustration. But in writing, sometimes a colorful expression gives precise meaning WITHOUT USING

PROFANITY. In my opinion, "bigratsass" expresses my feeling exactly in this instance. There also is an alternate

synonym I have used..."fatratsass".

Thanks for your response.

Jack