Guest James H. Fetzer Posted April 2, 2010 Share Posted April 2, 2010 (edited) JIM REPLIES TO DAVID LIFTON ABOUT JUDYTH ON LEE'S ARRIVAL As a former professor of critical thinking, I am not used to your committing so many fallacies at once: (1) You beg the question by taking for granted that Judyth is a fraud, which is the issue we confront; (2) You commit the genetic fallacy by assuming that my arguments are affected by who offered them; (3) You commit the appeal to pity by suggesting I should abandon Judyth lest my reputation should suffer. But you and I have been there before, David. You have been assailed for suggesting that there was surgery to the head and that all of the shots were fired from the front (correct me if I am wrong) and we have both been assailed for our advocacy of the position that the Zapruder film has been fabricated. Neither of us would be worth a damn if we abandoned positions in which we believe because of social pressure. I haven't done it in the past and I am not going to do it now, in spite of your entreaties. We both tend to compose long posts, so let me make this more pointed. We agree that he left Dallas on the 24th. We both agree he had an interview on the 26th. We both agree that the trip by bus would have taken 14 or 15 hours. Yet you write IN THIS VERY POST, "If the bus left on the evening of Wednesday, April 24 (as Ruth Paine testified was the case) then –if it was a 14 hour trip—it would have arrived late on the evening of Thursday, April 25, or perhaps in the early AM of Friday, April 26." Perhaps on the 26th? Give me a break, David. You have to have the courage to admit when you are wrong. If he left on the 24th and it was a 14 or 15 hour trip, then he arrived on the 25th! I cannot believe that you are trading on a presumed vagary or ambiguity--another fallacy, by the way--when there is none. If he left on the 24th and took a 14 or 15 hour bus trip, then he arrived on the 25th, with no "if"s, "and"s, or "but"s, absent some heretofore unknown traffic accident that interfered with his arrival, of which there is no evidence. Hence, you have a missing day to account for. Now, in dealing with events in the relatively distant past-- where this occurred in April of 1963 and this is April of 2010, which makes it 47 years ago--we really should not expect to be able to nail down every aspect of every day, even though, in this case, quite a lot of effort has been expended in that endeavor. Now unless you are prepared to suggest that he slept in the street, as Judyth has appropriately observed, he slept somewhere, and it was not with the Murrets. Your dependence on the FBI and THE WARREN REPORT would be ridiculous if you did not find them useful to you in this instance. The FBI was "tidying things up" on behalf of the official account, just in case you haven't noticed. They even secretly took the physical evidence to Washington, cleaned it up, brought it back and then staged an elaborate and public "official transference" to Washington! They had agents at all the photo processing plants in Dallas for two weeks taking photos and films of relevance, and all that. Surely we was staying somewhere. You say, "We don't know." But Judyth has an explanation that seems to fit the situation, which she has elaborated in painstaking detail. You seem to regard these "details" as proof of fabrication, but in my judgment--from a logical point of view--quite the opposite is the case. As Karl Popper observed, the more precise an hypothesis, the more easily it can be subjected to potential refutation, which is part and parcel of the importance of quantitative formulations over non-quantitative. If Lee had the luggage she described (and we have no reason to dispute it), then it would have made a great deal of sense for him to have stored most of it at the bus depot (which is what I myself would have done had I thought it through) before heading for the "Y" to check in and become oriented before making contact with my relatives (which, of course, he would do subsequently). What we don't have (according to you) is records from the "Y", which may be absent for various reasons, including the FBI took them. Judyth has been accused of so many distortions and fabrications where she has been able to fend them off, again and again, that I am simply astonished by how much she appears to know about these things. She has, again and again, provided more detailed and more specific explanations in rebuttal, which, in my view, by and large, are more reasonable than the arguments of those who challenge her authenticity, where of course, I specifically include you. And she has more and more to tell us about Lee H. Oswald! Not only does her story "hang together" in the right way, but she has demonstrated, again and again, the extent of her knowledge of the man she knew in New Orleans. Let me offer her eye-color story as a nice illustration. John Armstrong and Jack White maintain, in defense of their thesis of "the two Oswalds", that one of the subjects had blue eyes and the other one had hazel eyes. In post #736, Judyth takes this claim to task in a brilliant study that demonstrates--conclusively, in my view--that their claim is unsustainable. Now, according to her own account, Judyth was motivated because of her profound affection for the man she knew in New Orleans. She knew the color of his eyes based upon personal experience, if we are to believe her. And the fact of the matter is that, to the best of my knowledge, even though you are also a skeptic of the "Harvey & Lee" scenario, you have not only not advanced any supporting evidence for your position, but have not even been willing to simply state your attitude toward it, much less defend it here. Let me offer an example of why I believe in Judyth. Ed Haslam conducted extensive discussions (some would say "interrogations") with Judyth before he concluded that she was "the real deal". Unlike your solitary conversation, he examined her for as much as 1,000 hours! Something that struck him early on was Judyth's observation that the photograph he was planning for the cover was NOT Dr. Mary Sherman. He actually visited the family and discovered it was actually a photo of her sister, who looked a lot alike. Now unless Judyth had actually known her, it is not simply highly improbable but virtually impossible that Judyth could have distinguished between a photo of her sister and a photo of Mary Sherman. But she did. And the fact that she can provide so much new information about Lee H. Oswald in New Orleans--much of which has seemed implausible on its face but upon further investigation appears to be true--tremendously enhances her credibility. And Ed Haslam and I are far from alone in believing that she is "the real deal". Fallacious reasons are not going to affect my attitude. I am going to defend the truth as I understand it, which I presume you can appreciate, having "been there" yourself! When I am convinced that she is not the person I believe her to be, you will be among the first to know. In the meanwhile, I would appreciate just a bit more candor about your take on "Harvey & Lee" and current information about your book on the subject that fascinates us even more than Judyth Vary Baker, which, of course, is Lee H. Oswald himself. Jim:Contrary to your glib assertions (“Judyth refutes the purported details of his [Lifton’s] account”) Judyth has refuted nothing. My facts are impeccable, and my logic sound. Contrary to your statement that “Lifton appears to have committed a ser[ies] of blunders in making assumptions that turn out to be false,” it is you have become entangled in the false details of Judyth’s tale, to the point where you have been bamboozled by a woman promulgating a thoroughly false and fictitious account of a non-existent relationship with Lee Oswald. Candidly, I could care less if the only casualty was whether or not—either through carelessness or excessive credulity--you were taken in by this lady. What concerns me is the role you have played in attempting to expose major fraud in the physical evidence, and what I am talking about, of course, is the Zapruder film. Because surely, as this situation unwinds—and it will-the question will be asked: if a person cannot distinguish between the false and the real, when it comes to the matter of Judyth Baker, can we trust that person’s judgment when it comes to the far more important situation of “fraud in the evidence,” and especially in a matter as technical as the Zapruder film? Do you remember a month or two back, when a photo was circulating supposedly showing JFK's body--laid out on the autopsy table? And you were rather enthusiastic about that item? Within a ay or so, when it became obvious that that was nothing but a mock-up, one created in connection with the making of the movie JFK, you changed your opinion. Well, that photo sure looked real--and, at first glance, Judyth's story can look real, and even be appealing. Unfortunately, it is all bogus, and the prodocut of someone who is the victim of what, medically, is called "pseudologia fantastica" or "mythomania." Unfortunately, you have been taken in my all this; and it is sure to result in great harm. Anyway, those are my concerns—but I am sure you will not be deterred in doing what you personally believe is right—even if it is provably incorrect. So let me now drop that subject, and turn to Judyth’s latest post, as conveyed by you, to all the readers on this board. MY RESPONSE TO JUDYTH”S LATEST POST (i.e., to the one titled “Judyth Replies to Lifton on Lee’s Arrival in New Orleans”) Judyth’s very long post is loaded with weak arguments, circular logic, and just plain false statements. If this were a university test booklet, the reader would give her a failing grade, writing again and again, either “irrelevant,” or “so what?” or “false inference.” Let’s review the immutable facts: Fact: Lee’s journey from Dallas to New Orleans began on Wednesday, April 24. We know that from the testimony of Ruth Paine, who says she brought Lee to the bus station, with some bags. Then—after dropping those bags off at the bus station, and after offering Marina the option of not accompanying Lee to New Orleans, but instead staying with her-- they returned to his apartment and emptied what was left from his apartment. Then, they all returned (and by “they all” I’m referring to Ruth Paine, Lee, and Marina) to Paine’s home. Ruth Paine testified that Lee left that evening, Wednesday, April 24, for New Orleans, but she does not say who took Lee from Irving back to the Greyhound bus station in Dallas. All she does is mention that Lee would have had to take a city bus to get back to Dallas from Irving, and then board the Greyhound bus for New Orleans. Did he do that? The fact is—we don’t know. The assumption is that he did, but he could just as well have used Greyhound to carry his baggage, and gone to New Orleans by some other means (and in fact I’m very open, if not partial, to that possibility). Judyth notes an interesting fact that I have not dwelt on here--that twice in FBI interviews, Marina says that Lee went to the bus station the day before April 24--i.e., on April 23--to check some bags. Marina told the FBI that (the believed) Ruth drove Lee there, the day before, but Ruth's account says nothing about that. If Marina is correct, and Lee checked some bags on 4/23/63, then obviously, someone else was involved with Lee, in making preparations for this trip to New Orleans, and that also raises the possibility that he simply shipped his bags by Greyhound, but did not actually use the bus, to get to New Orleans. BUT, for the purpose of this discussion, let’s return to what the Warren Report states. That keeps the discussion very simple, and permits us to see how Judyth is attempting to “burrow into” a small hole in the actual historical record, one at the New Orleans end of the line. Fact: Lee traveled to New Orleans –as far as the Warren Commission investigation is concerned—alone. Further, according to the Warren Report, he traveled by bus—i.e., on the Greyhound bus carrying his bags. Marina stayed with Ruth Paine. If the bus left on the evening of Wednesday, April 24 (as Ruth Paine testified was the case) then –if it was a 14 hour trip—it would have arrived late on the evening of Thursday, April 25, or perhaps in the early AM of Friday, April 26. Fact: The contemporaneous record created by John Rachal, at the Louisiana Department of Labor, records the data that Lee was attired in a suit and tie on Friday, April 26, at the time of his interview. His handwritten notes read “Neat. Suit. Tie. Polite” (See Rachel deposition Exhibit, Volume 21, p. 283, of the WC hearings) and his June 1964 Warren Commission affidavit reads: “I recall that Oswald was neatly dressed with a suit, dress shirt, and tie on the occasion of our initial interview.” (Volume 11, p. 475). Fact: Lillean Murret testified that she first heard from Lee on a Monday—when he called from the bus station, saying that he had “just arrived” in New Orleans.” That statement is provably untrue because he had already had an interview on Friday, April 26, at which point he was dressed in “a suit, dress shirt, and tie.” Fact: Monday—the day Lillian Murret first heard from Lee, who said he was calling from the bus station, and had “just arrived” etc.—would have been Monday, April 29, 1963. This is a critical time-marker: nothing Judyth says can change that immutable fact. “Monday” was April 29. FACT: No one was ever located, nor did any one ever come forward to say that they were on that bus—or any bus—with Lee Oswald, from Dallas to New Orleans, leaving on or about Wednesday evening, April 24, 1963. Unlike the situation regarding Oswald’s trip to Mexico, where the FBI was able to locate people who were halfway around the world on that bus, we have no eyewitness placing Oswald on a bus from Dallas to New Orleans on or about April 24, 1963. The Dallas-to-New Orleans bus journey—with Lee Oswald (and not just his luggage) on board, is all conjecture—perhaps reasonable conjecture, based on his having brought his boxes to the bus station—but there is no evidence that he actually rode on the bus to New Orleans. All we know is that he was in New Orleans on Friday, April 26, 1963, when he appeared at the Louisiana Department of Labor, and had the interview with John Rachal. FACT: As any discerning reader can see, this leaves a small “time hole” in the record—one extending from Lee’s putative “time of arrival” in New Orleans, until his April 26, 1963 placement interview with Rachal; and then another between that same placement interview and Monday, April 29, 1963, when he called his Aunt Lillian for the first time, said he was at the bus station, and desired help in getting all his boxes over to her place. FACT: No one –except Judyth—says that Lee Oswald stayed at the YMCA between April 25 and April 29. She can say anything she wants, but that does not make it so. The YMCA keeps records. No one has ever produced such a record. FACT: Anyone who has studied the records of the warren Commission knows how careful and meticulous the FBI could be (when it wanted to be); and how hotels and motels were scoured for records of Lee’s whereabouts. When he stayed at the Dallas YMCA, for example, between October 15 an October 19, 1962, the actual records were produced, which listed his room number, and even accounted for the $1 deposit for a room key. (See the deposition exhibit of John Hulen, in volume 10 of the Warren Commission, and the Hulen Deposition Exhibits, in Volume 21). Question: where did Lee stay between the time he arrived in New Orleans—however he got there, and whenever he got there—and Friday, April 26, 1963? And where did he stay between Friday, April 26, and Monday, April 29, when he first called his aunt? Honest answer: we don’t know. According to Aunt Lillian’s testimony, Lee did not call her (saying he had “just arrived” etc.) until a Monday—which would be April 29, 1963—when he called from the bus station, and when his uncle Dutz (Lillian’s husband) then went to pick him up, and his luggage. But Lee’s statement about when he “first arrived” was clearly false, i.e., a deliberate lie—and that’s obviously so based on the data proferred by John Rachal, and published in the Warren Report. Lee was there some days earlier, and was certainly there on Friday, April 26. Well, then, where did he stay? Truthful answer: We don’t know. Fact: No Murrett family member—not Aunt Lillian, not Uncle Dutz, not cousin Marilyn—ever stated, in any statement to the FBI, nor in any Warren Commission testimony, that Lee had said he had stayed in the YMCA. That is purely an unsupported assertion of Judyth. Fact: Because no Murrett family member ever stated, or even speculated, that Lee had stayed at the YMCA, the FBI never checked the New Orleans YMCA for any record of his having stayed there. (If I am wrong on this point, and there was in fact an FBI investigation on this point, I would sure appreciate being informed where it can be found). Nor, for that matter, did the FBI ever check hotels or rooming houses seeking to find where Lee stayed between April 24, 1963 and April 29, 1963. In other words, this “gap” wasn’t spotted by the official investigation. And so there is no paper trail that Lee ever stayed at the YMCA—or anywhere else, for that matter—upon arriving in New Orleans in the Spring of 1963, and one reason there is no paper trail is that there was never any FBI investigation; and the reason there was no FBI investigation is that there is not a scintilla of testimony that Lee ever said he stayed anywhere prior to the time he called Aunt Lillian. So now we turn to Judyth’s justification and rationale for invoking the YMCA. JUDYTH AND HER STATEMENTS ABOUT LEE OSWALD HAVING STAYED AT THE YMCA Fact: Lee stayed at the Dallas YMCA in the fall of 1962, for some four days, when he moved from Fort Worth to Dallas (10/15-10/19/62). Lee also stayed at the Dallas YMCA on the night of Thursday, October 3, 1963, upon his return from Mexico City, and before he hitched a ride out to the Paine house on Friday, October 4, 1963. In each case there is a clear YMCA paper trail. The room number is listed; the amount paid; even the $1 deposit for a room key (See the testimony of John Leroy Hulen, who’s deposition was taken by WC attorney Jenner, and the document admitted into evidence at that time—called the Hulen Deposition Exhibit, in Volume 20 of the Warren Report). We now come to an important false inference by Judyth Baker, one which exposes her entire methodology. False Inference By Judyth: in effect, Judyth claims—but has no right to—that because LHO stayed once before at the Y in Dallas (and would later stay at the YMCA after his Mexico City trip) she can now infer that he stayed at the YMCA in New Orleans late April, 1963. That is what she does—repeatedly. (She wonders aloud: Where ELSE could he have stayed? Did he sleep on the street? And Jim Fetzer chimes in: Yeah, what do you say to that? Did he sleep on the street?” What do I say to that? Here’s what I say. Everyone has heard the phrase “junk science.” This is “junk history.” What Judyth has done, in an attempt to insert herself into the valid history of this event—a history that (admittedly) has some gaps in the record—is to use the concept of “pattern evidence” to find a home for Lee Oswald in the brief period between the time she infers the bus from Dallas must have arrived, and the time Lee called Aunt Lillian on Monday, April 29. So the YMCA serves that purpose—it is, for Judyth, her “Motel 6.” But it is as contrived as the Single Bullet Theory, with all its twists and turns. In that case, we have a trajectory designed to account for a multiplicity of wounds. Here we have an itinerary, custom-designed by Judyth Baker, to account for some missing nights. This is her invention concerning the YMCA. This is her device for inserting herself into the Oswald narrative. And the gullible buy into that and say, “Well, where could he have stayed? Did he sleep on the street?” Sorry, but posing such a question is no substitute for evidence as to where he stayed. THE LACK OF A YMCA PAPER TRAIL Unfortunately, for Judyth, there is no New Orleans YMCA paper trail, nor is there a smidgeon of evidence that Lee ever told anyone that he stayed at the YMCA—not his aunt, not his uncle, not his cousin, not his own wife. (And, to repeat, had he said any such thing, the FBI would have been all over it—interviewing the YMCA people and checking the records.) But no such investigation ever occurred, and it’s a safe inference that it did not because no one ever reported Lee as having said any such thing. And that’s a crucial missing link: no statements about the YMCA, no FBI investigation of the New Orleans YMCA; no YMCA paper trail. Just unsupported assertions by Judyth. No doubt Lee stayed somewhere—but Judyth has struck out here (and once again, I might add) by positing it was the New Orleans YMCA, and then attempting to crawl into this interstitial space, by manufacturing dialogue and events. JUDYTH’s “Ooops” moment BUT (as in “ooops,” as I have said), Judyth did not realize—until this past month, when Jack White posted the exhibit I prepared--that there is a documentary record of how Lee was dressed on Friday, April 26, the day she claims to have met him at the post office; and that record, created by John Rachal, of the Louisiana Deaprtment of Labor, and published in the Warren Report, established that Lee was attired in a suit and tie. I have just quoted that record, earlier in this post: handwritten notes by Rachal made on 4/26/63, plus his Warren Commission affidavit: “Neat. Suit. Tie. Polite” (the notes) and “Oswald was neatly dressed with a suit, dress shirt, and tie on the occasion of our initial interview” (Rachel Affidavit, 11 WCH 475). The second aspect of this “oops” moment concerns me, and the first (and only) time I ever spoke with Judyth—on March 4, 2000. Yes, it is a tape recorded conversation, but not because I was lying in wait, or anything of the sort. It was tape recorded because –initially—I gave Judyth the benefit of the doubt, thought I’d be speaking to someone the official investigation had missed, and wanted there to be an accurate record of what she said. So what happened? Judyth was unaware, until a few days ago, that not only did she now have to contend with the Rachal Exhibit, and what it says, but another “inconvenient truth” as well: what Judyth told me on March 4, 2000. That’s when I personally questioned Judyth, on this very point, as to how he was dressed, on April 26, 1963, the day she supposedly met Lee Oswald at the Post Office. And she told me he was in workman’s clothes. At that time (3/4/2000), Judyth was decidedly uncomfortable with my repeated questions on the subject, and wanted to know why, but I declined to say. In other words, I did not say, “Judyth, I am asking you a very important question, and you keep answering it the wrong way, so let’s repeat the question, just to make sure there is no misunderstanding.” No, I did not say that. But I asked my question more than once, because I knew very well the implication of the false response I was getting, and she kept answering it all wrong—and further (I might add) she also has it wrong in her manuscript. WHERE WE ARE NOW—10 YEARS LATER (i.e., in March-April, 2010) Well, ten years have passed, and now she knows. Judyth now knows that ten years ago, on March 4, 2000, in my first and only telephone conversation with her, and at a time when I (but not she) was fully aware of the Rachal evidence, I carefully questioned her as to how Lee was attire on the day she met him at the Post Office, and she answered in workman’s clothes. And so now—i.e., in March, 2010—having just found this out—Judyth has to deal with this double whammie: the record of April, 1963, and, in addition, the record she herself created in March 2000, in her conversation with me, a conversation which was tape recorded. And so, having just had this embarrassing “ooops” moment—she goes back to her story, and –like a screenplay writer after a meeting with the producer, and after being informed that there is a glitch in her account—Judyth now adds new dialogue to her narrative. “Lee told me he was going to borrow a shirt,” she now lamely writes. Well, then, what about the suit? (And what about the tie?) Well, she speculates, perhaps he borrowed that (the suit) from the Murrets. (Lee “told me” he was going to borrow a tie, she says; but, unfortnatley (for Judyth), that won’t work, because—say what she might-- Lee didn’t meet the Murrets until Monday, April 29, when she called Aunt Lillian, and when Aunt Lillian’s husband, Uncle Dutz, came to the bus station to pick up Lee and his luggage. And so now Judyth has become all tangled up in the problem of her fabricated chronology. Because regardless of whether or not Aunt Lillean wanted to buy Lee some clothes—i.e., later—that cannot (and does not) account for his attire on Friday, April 26. But Judyth is unfazed. She proclaims: “I am a witness. . I know. . I was there.” She wants us to believe; indeed, she practically demands that we do so. And so now she embroiders some more. Well, what can be done about the chronology? Here’s what Judyth does. Judyth, ignoring the record while attempting to amend her story, says that Lee actually arrived on April 25, and stayed with the Murrets, and they cooked him a nice dinner, loaned him clothing, etc etc. ad nauseum. I write ad nauseum because it is all false, and contrary to the known record. And throughout, she makes all kinds of personal accusations against me, and furthermore, adopts the tone that she is some kind of exalted witness: Just get a whiff of her tone: QUOTE: Lee spent a Saturday night with his aunt and uncle, I think, because he reported eating a nice supper with them. Lee was very busy working with Guy Banister during his first week in New Orleans -- and also helping me find a room. UNQUOTE My comment:: “Lee spent a Saturday night with his aunt and uncle, I think, . . . “ Notice the “I think”—how modest of you Judyth, followed by “because he reported eating a nice support with them. . “ Reported? Reported to whom? To the FBI? Not at all. “Reported” as in “reported” to Judyth, of course. In this manner, she becomes a corroborating witness to her own false story. ANOTHER INSTANCE: Judyth writes: “everyone please see the above list of facts offered by the witness” Notice how she now narrates her own story in the 3rd person. What gall. She’s both narrator—as if she was speaking from the bench—and a witness. Just read that again: “everyone please see the above list of facts offered by the witness.” Translated: Everyone should believe what I say and believe it to be a fact, even thought I’m a fabricator, because I claim the status of being a witness. Judyth: who are you kidding? Do you really believe everyone is that gullible? That we should heed your command when you say: “I’m a witess. . I know what happened. . everyone please see the above list of facts offered by the witness.” Finally: I must make the following personal statement, directed at Judyth. A PERSONAL STATEMENT TO JUDYTH Lee Oswald is not akin to some wall in a pubic toilet, where you can inscribe your destructive graffiti. Besmirching the personal reputation of a man with a wife and child, and expecting another (daughter Rachel, born on 10/20/63) on the way. Lee Oswald was a real person, with a real wife and a young child, both of whom he loved very much—and who had just learned she was pregnant with their 2nd child. The notion that he was carrying on an affair with you in New Orleans is not just false—it is ludicrous. I knew Marina, very well—having spoken to her dozens of times, over a thirteen year period, after Best Evidence was published in 1981. And, as Lloyd Bentsen said to Senator Dan Quayle, “Senator, Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine, and you’re no Jack Kennedy.” Judyth: Marina Oswald was a friend of mine—and I (along with another writer) even threw her daughter a party here in Hollywood, when the Warner Brothers movie was being made. So let me assure you, Judyth Baker: I knew Marina quite well, and Judyth, you’re no Marina. Not even close. If you wish to write fiction, go take a course in creative writing, and try your hand at a screenplay—but lay off the Oswald family and spin your false yarns elsewhere. Again: Lee Oswald’s life is not akin to a public washroom, where you can go and inscribe graffiti, while you run around attempting to manufacture a counterfeit version of history. DSL 4/2/2010; 4:40 AM Edited April 2, 2010 by James H. Fetzer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barb Junkkarinen Posted April 2, 2010 Share Posted April 2, 2010 Again, just a quick quote from the Forum Rules:"(iv) Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers. Most importantly, the motivations of the poster should not be questioned." I presume this applies to inactive members who post through other people, too. It would seem Judyth has an account here and as such is a member. The rule should apply. I haven't read the thread, but is there a reason that Judyth does not post herself? Apparently she has a Hungarian keyboard and bad eyesight which prevents her from posting on the Forum. What I don't inderstand is, If she can post information via the internet to Jim Fetzer, why can't she just post her information directly here herself? That way, her information will be recorded as accurate and from the horse's mouth, whereas anything posted by Jim Fetzer can not be guarenteed to be so. It all seems a bit dubious to me. Agreed, Duncan. For one thing, Judyth has a history of denying things others have written or said on her behalf. As you note, she has no problems writing cyber reams of material and sending it off to Jim Fetzer, who has admitted doing some editing (typos and the like). Judyth is a member and since she is capable of writing quite lengthy posts, and many a day, for Fetzer to post on her behalf, she could post them to the forum herself. I doubt typos, because of any eye problem, would be an issue to others, more important to hear and see exactly what Judyth herself puts forth. And, of course, whether posted by Judyth herself or on her behalf by Jim Fetzer or anyone else, the content surely should be subject to the forum rules ... just like the content of anyone elses posts. And the hardship of a Hungarian keyboard? http://frontype.com/keyboarding/540px-Hung...-layout.svg.png Bests, Barb :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted April 2, 2010 Share Posted April 2, 2010 (edited) Isn't this the same woman who was corresponding with Vilkund and McAdams to trash Judyth? After all, if posts which were riddled with typos and missing "t"s and lots of bold and underlining were appearing here, it could consume days just bickering over how it should be interpreted. At that rate, Judyth would never be able to present her story. But, oh, I forgot! That's the reason. Those who don't want to know what Judyth has to say, where I am doing my best to make it all the more accessible, should find other ways to spend their time. And anyone who suspects that I am altering her story should appreciate that I am in no position to do that, because I DON'T KNOW JUDYTH'S STORY. That's what makes it JUDYTH'S STORY, in case no one has noticed. Again, just a quick quote from the Forum Rules:"(iv) Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers. Most importantly, the motivations of the poster should not be questioned." I presume this applies to inactive members who post through other people, too. It would seem Judyth has an account here and as such is a member. The rule should apply. I haven't read the thread, but is there a reason that Judyth does not post herself? Apparently she has a Hungarian keyboard and bad eyesight which prevents her from posting on the Forum. What I don't inderstand is, If she can post information via the internet to Jim Fetzer, why can't she just post her information directly here herself? That way, her information will be recorded as accurate and from the horse's mouth, whereas anything posted by Jim Fetzer can not be guarenteed to be so. It all seems a bit dubious to me. Agreed, Duncan. For one thing, Judyth has a history of denying things others have written or said on her behalf. As you note, she has no problems writing cyber reams of material and sending it off to Jim Fetzer, who has admitted doing some editing (typos and the like). Judyth is a member and since she is capable of writing quite lengthy posts, and many a day, for Fetzer to post on her behalf, she could post them to the forum herself. I doubt typos, because of any eye problem, would be an issue to others, more important to hear and see exactly what Judyth herself puts forth. And, of course, whether posted by Judyth herself or on her behalf by Jim Fetzer or anyone else, the content surely should be subject to the forum rules ... just like the content of anyone elses posts. And the hardship of a Hungarian keyboard? http://frontype.com/keyboarding/540px-Hung...-layout.svg.png Bests, Barb :-) Edited April 2, 2010 by James H. Fetzer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted April 2, 2010 Share Posted April 2, 2010 (edited) JUDYTH REPLIES TO LIFTON'S "PERSONAL STATEMENT TO JUDYTH" David, I believe you have crossed the line several times in impugning Judyth's integrity. I know you think you know it all, but there are reasons to doubt that is the case. She has send me reports about your conduct in relation to Marina and one of her daughters, which I cannot verify for myself, but where I invite you to explain if they are accurate. I suggest you track down a copy of The Dallas Observer article and publish it here: JUDYTH'S RESPONSE: Mr Lifton relies on "knowing Marina" --not "knowing Lee Oswald" and gives advice, as follows: Judyth: Marina Oswald was a friend of mine—and I (along with another writer) even threw her daughter a party here in Hollywood, when the Warner Brothers movie was being made. So let me assure you, Judyth Baker: I knew Marina quite well, and Judyth, you’re no Marina. Not even close.." Reply: Never said I was "Marina." And you are correct that Marina Oswald "was" a friend of yours. The family no longer has anything to do with you, after how you treated one of her daughters. I corresponded myself with Laura Miller when she was Mayor of Houston (where I used to work as a reporter) and she affirmed the elements of the usenet post below: <debhart94103@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:55nervc9uvcpjq7i4rk8mj61m3g87egk70@4ax.com... > On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 19:39:52 GMT, "David P. Nesbitt" > <cnesbitt@pacbell.net> wrote: > > >Ok, I'll bite. What did [David Lifton] do to Marina's daughter? > > Get a copy of the Dallas Observer article, written by Laura Miller > (current mayor of Dallas, TX), which lays it out in all its sordid > detail. In summary...[Lifton] lied to Miss Oswald-Porter, > claiming he wanted to "interview [her] for historical purposes only". > He paid her a few dollars (literally) "for her time" and got a > "release". (she was a nursing student, working her way through school > at the time). Then, he turned around and SOLD THE TAPE to HARD COPY > FOR TENS OF THOUSANDS.. She was literally waiting tables in a > restaurant in Austin, TX when she looked up at a screen to see herself > on HARD COPY. > > And THAT'S NOT ALL. > > He used computer technology to take a "still" picture from the video > tape, and sold it to tabloids ALL OVER EUROPE for THOUSANDS MORE. > ....Even the *cameramen* at HARD COPY (not to mention the executive > producers) considered him scum. Thanks for the info, Deb! I had no idea that this had occurred. It is sad that there are so many who shamefully capitalize on this national tragedy. --- I also received a personal email from Rachel in 203, where she has told me what she thought of Mr. Lifton. I mention this only because Mr. Lifton keeps accusing me of misrepresentations. I take no pleasure in doing so. I will always appreciate his work in "Best Evidence." I still hope he will produce a fine Oswald biography. But his biography will NOT be accurate if his posts here are any indication of how he interprets data as a researcher, including ignoring data I wished to share with him. As a witness, I wanted his book to be a fine one. JVB A PERSONAL STATEMENT TO JUDYTH Lee Oswald is not akin to some wall in a pubic toilet, where you can inscribe your destructive graffiti. Besmirching the personal reputation of a man with a wife and child, and expecting another (daughter Rachel, born on 10/20/63) on the way. Lee Oswald was a real person, with a real wife and a young child, both of whom he loved very much—and who had just learned she was pregnant with their 2nd child. The notion that he was carrying on an affair with you in New Orleans is not just false—it is ludicrous. I knew Marina, very well—having spoken to her dozens of times, over a thirteen year period, after Best Evidence was published in 1981. And, as Lloyd Bentsen said to Senator Dan Quayle, “Senator, Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine, and you’re no Jack Kennedy.” Judyth: Marina Oswald was a friend of mine—and I (along with another writer) even threw her daughter a party here in Hollywood, when the Warner Brothers movie was being made. So let me assure you, Judyth Baker: I knew Marina quite well, and Judyth, you’re no Marina. Not even close. If you wish to write fiction, go take a course in creative writing, and try your hand at a screenplay—but lay off the Oswald family and spin your false yarns elsewhere. Again: Lee Oswald’s life is not akin to a public washroom, where you can go and inscribe graffiti, while you run around attempting to manufacture a counterfeit version of history. DSL 4/2/2010; 4:40 AM Edited April 2, 2010 by James H. Fetzer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamela Brown Posted April 2, 2010 Share Posted April 2, 2010 (edited) A PERSONAL STATEMENT TO JUDYTHLee Oswald is not akin to some wall in a pubic toilet, where you can inscribe your destructive graffiti. Besmirching the personal reputation of a man with a wife and child, and expecting another (daughter Rachel, born on 10/20/63) on the way. Lee Oswald was a real person, with a real wife and a young child, both of whom he loved very much—and who had just learned she was pregnant with their 2nd child. The notion that he was carrying on an affair with you in New Orleans is not just false—it is ludicrous. [...] Judyth: Marina Oswald was a friend of mine—and I (along with another writer) even threw her daughter a party here in Hollywood, when the Warner Brothers movie was being made. So let me assure you, Judyth Baker: I knew Marina quite well, and Judyth, you’re no Marina. Not even close. If you wish to write fiction, go take a course in creative writing, and try your hand at a screenplay—but lay off the Oswald family and spin your false yarns elsewhere. Again: Lee Oswald’s life is not akin to a public washroom, where you can go and inscribe graffiti, while you run around attempting to manufacture a counterfeit version of history. DSL 4/2/2010; 4:40 AM Lifton appears to be blissfully ignorant of the fact that that even the numbskulls in the WC knew that Marina was not being forthcoming with them. Garrison realized belatedly that she should have been treated as a hostile witness. Yet apparently during all the time Lifton says he was friends with Marina, he did not ask her a single question to clarify some of the misconceptions of statements made in her testimony? In addition, there were many times during the stay in NOLA when Marina had no idea where Lee was. He didn't even tell her he had been fired from Reily for two weeks. Judyth is able to account for Lee's whereabouts, but Lifton doesn't like that. So, Lifton, with his skills as an interviewer, not to mention his love of hypothesis, was apparently sitting on the biggest story of the assassination and doing absolutely nothing to bring definition to it? Edited April 2, 2010 by Pamela McElwain-Brown Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josiah Thompson Posted April 2, 2010 Share Posted April 2, 2010 JIM REPLIES TO DAVID LIFTON ABOUT JUDYTH ON LEE'S ARRIVALAs a former professor of critical thinking, I am not used to your committing so many fallacies at once: (1) You beg the question by taking for granted that Judyth is a fraud, which is the issue we confront; (2) You commit the genetic fallacy by assuming that my arguments are affected by who offered them; (3) You commit the appeal to pity by suggesting I should abandon Judyth lest my reputation should suffer.... Same old.. same old, Fetzer. What a hilariously silly way to begin a reply to David Lifton's detailed and pungent demolition of the latest Judyth fantasy channeled by Fetzer. David, me boy, he never laid a glove on ye!! Josiah Thompson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamela Brown Posted April 2, 2010 Share Posted April 2, 2010 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." Not only are you misrepresenting Kancun/Cancun in Judyth's statements, you are entirely wrong in your attempt to claim my viewing of the Zapruder in 1964 is 'my Cancun'. Whatever research skills you may have, they seem to be inadequate in dealing with things you just don't want to know more about. What are the implications to you about there being early viewings of the Zapruder that are so difficult for you to accept? It is difficult for me to accept that someone who came into the public eye with certainly the most convoluted and farfetched idea of what happened to the body of JFK ever devised would have no intellectual curiousity about what was actually going on in NYC regarding the Z-film as early as 1964. But that is your choice. Your position regarding my experience is wrong, and so is your need to push "Cancun". I am not making false accusations, simply definining the process or lack of it that you seem to be attempting to use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted April 2, 2010 Share Posted April 2, 2010 (edited) This, of course, is Jack's work and Jack's caption and, in case anyone has missed it, I suspect Robert of playing a key role--both as an impersonator and as a conspirator--implicating his brother for a crime he did not commit. Jim..."suspicions" are not good research nor good history. There is NO reason to suspect that Robert ever impersonated his brother. There is NO reason to suspect that Robert ever functioned as a "conspirator" Those may be interesting HYPOTHESES to consider in looking at evidence, but NO EVIDENCE OF YOUR SUSPICIONS HAVE EVER SURFACED. On the other hand, it is clear that Robert WAS AWARE that his mother had volunteered his brother Lee to lend his identity to the government to use in a false defector program. Lee was AWARE that an impostor was using Lee's name and identity...and in fact, as part of this imposture, Robert actually met the impostor and Marina at the THANKSGIVING REUNION on November 22, 1962. Therefore, it was a shock and great dilemma to Robert when the impostor was named and the assassin. Robert testified that he went for a long nighttime drive to think things over and sort things out. During this drive, he decided that it would be imprudent to expose the impostor since this would EXPOSE THE SECRET DEFECTION PROGRAM, so he decided to keep quite. And anyway, he KNEW THAT THE IMPOSTOR WAS NOT HIS BROTHER, so he decided to go along with whatever the SECRET SERVICE TOLD HIM TO DO. If Jim were to investigate Robert Edward Lee Oswald and prove his "suspicions" correct, that would indeed be a startling new development in the case. But I think Jim will find that Robert was just an ordinary hard working family man who was a brick salesman...who got caught up in an avalanche which was beyond his control. But he KNOWS. He could still confirm what really happened. But he will never tell. Jack Edited April 2, 2010 by Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barb Junkkarinen Posted April 2, 2010 Share Posted April 2, 2010 [Your position regarding my experience is wrong, and so is your need to push "Cancun". I am not making false accusations, simply definining the process or lack of it that you seem to be attempting to use. Which part of a process employing documented evidence do you find lacking? The problem is, you post that you are merely "defining the process" about a lot of things, but you never actually give ... or are seen to employ ... a definition. You have claimed repeatedly over the last several years that Judyth is a "documented witness to LHO" ... yet when asked, repeatedly, by many different people to supply that documentation, you dodge, dive and/or divert, but do not answer the question, nor have you ever supplied such documentation. We all know Judyth worked at Reily at the same time as LHO. So did a hundred other people. Neither working there, nor having been hired on the same day, makes Judyth a "documented witness" to anything regarding LHO. Barb :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamela Brown Posted April 2, 2010 Share Posted April 2, 2010 (edited) 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.Does this sound like " an author who respects genuine data"? I should think the data would stand for itself regardless of personal animosity. Unfortunately, Lifton seems to need to put a personal spin on everything. That, and of course any "research-by-bullying" is so last century. Lifton is choosing to believe a FMC urban legend, probably the result of Vaughn Ferguson's playing golf in Dearborn and discussing his experiences. I have heard the same story from others whose details were more plausible than Whittaker's. Edited April 3, 2010 by Pamela McElwain-Brown Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted April 2, 2010 Share Posted April 2, 2010 (edited) JIM RESPONDS TO JACK REGARDING HIS "SUSPICIONS" ABOUT ROBERT Jack, There are four stages of scientific inquiries: (i) puzzlement (because something does not fit into your background knowledge); (ii) speculation (in considering all of the possible alternative explanations); (iii) adaptation of evidence to theories (using the principle of inference to the best explanation); and (iv) explanation (where the hypothesis with the highest likelihood is accepted when the evidence "settles down"), in the both tentative and fallible fashion characteristic of science. Since I have focused on the medical, ballistic, and photographic evidence, which includes especially the Zapruder film, apart from a chapter in MURDER in which I explained why he could not have been convicted in a court of law and several "smoking guns", such as the inability of the Mannlicher-Carcano to have fired the bullets that killed the president, becoming this involved in research on Lee and Judyth was far from my expectations. But I am now immersed in doing just that. Naturally, I would have expected that those who have made him the centerpiece of their own investigations, including you and John Armstrong and David S. Lifton, would be the "real experts" who could help to sort out the true and the false with respect to Judyth's story. Instead, you have advanced at least a dozen complaints about Judyth, none of which has withstood critical scrutiny; HARVEY & LEE commits a major blunder within its first few pages; and David has now come on with his litany of purported objections to Judyth's story, which have met the same fate as yours. Frankly, I had expected more from all of you. The photos that you have advanced, including the "passport photo" and the "hunting photo", appear to be either altered or complete fakes. The characterizations you have given of "Lee" as a hot-headed, non-intellectual and non-Russian speaker, compared with "Harvey", the Hungarian born, relatively relaxed intellectual who spoke fluent Russian and could not drive, where one had blue and the other hazel eyes, has already been rebuffed by Judyth. Given what I am learning about the shoddy methodology that produced HARVEY & LEE by vacuuming up every document in the public domain--which you assured me meant that they were all "authentic documents" that could not be challenged--hinged on a trifling equivocation between being genuine "as documents" and being genuine "with respect to their contents". Apparently, little or no effort was expended by John in sorting them out, which means we have a massive compilation of "documents and records" the significance of which appears to be completely and hopelessly obscure. It is as though neither of you (Jack and John) had ever heard of Frank Wisner, the propaganda genius who boasted of his capacity to manage the mass media, which he described as "The Mighty Wurlitzer" (encompassing The New York Times, The Washington Post, CBS, NBC, ABC, and all the rest) for his ability to make them all play the same tune with the same tone that he might dictate as the magisterial of all directors of disinformation. And when I have asked on what basis you and John determined which documents had true content and which not, I was met with silence. So you are certainly correct that my current inclination to believe that Robert is the key to the cover-up and framing of his brother is only my "best guess" at this point in time. But given the meager results of the research that has gone before, the fact that he looked like his brother, had an affair with his brother's wife after her death, and has done everything he can to support the "official account" of the death of JFK, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, including a book about his brother that even appears to present faked photographs--tells me that he is far more likely to hold the key to understanding these events than your "Harvey & Lee". Indeed, as I have observed before and will no doubt observe again, Judthy appears to know more about the man she knew in New Orleans that all the members of this forum collectively, whereby I specifically include you (and by extension Armstrong) and David Lifton. This pains me. Lifton is playing coy about his attitude toward your work with John but, when it eventually emerges, I have scant doubt he will be on the same side with Judyth and me as profoundly skeptical that you and John have proven your case, where she appears to be providing more and better information about him. So although it is true that I am presently articulating my "suspicions" and "suspicions are not history", when he was the spitting image of his brother, when there were many allegations of impersonations, when he had an affair with his deceased brother's wife, when he offered many interviews and even published a book declaring the accuracy of the "official account", I cannot think of a better candidate for playing the role that you ascribed to "Harvey" and "Lee" than that of two nearly-identical brothers, Robert and Lee, where my research on this subject has only just begun and would actually be unnecessary had you and John and David done the work you claim to have done. Jim FROM ROBERT'S "FRONTLINE" INTERVIEW ABOUT HIS BROTHER, "THE ASSASSIN": In your mind, are there questions about whether Lee shot President Kennedy? There is no question in my mind that Lee was responsible for the three shots fired, two of the shots hitting the president and killing him. There is no question in my mind that he also shot Officer Tippit. How can you explain one without the other? I think they're inseparable. I'm talking about the police officer being shot and the president. You look at the factual data, you look at the rifle, you look at the pistol ownership, you look at his note about the Walker shooting. You look at the general opportunity -- he was present. He wasn't present when they took a head count [at the Texas School Book Depository]. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...ews/oswald.html This, of course, is Jack's work and Jack's caption and, in case anyone has missed it, I suspect Robert of playing a key role--both as an impersonator and as a conspirator--implicating his brother for a crime he did not commit. Jim..."suspicions" are not good research nor good history. There is NO reason to suspect that Robert ever impersonated his brother. There is NO reason to suspect that Robert ever functioned as a "conspirator" Those may be interesting HYPOTHESES to consider in looking at evidence, but NO EVIDENCE OF YOUR SUSPICIONS HAVE EVER SURFACED. On the other hand, it is clear that Robert WAS AWARE that his mother had volunteered his brother Lee to lend his identity to the government to use in a false defector program. Lee was AWARE that an impostor was using Lee's name and identity...and in fact, as part of this imposture, Robert actually met the impostor and Marina at the THANKSGIVING REUNION on November 22, 1962. Therefore, it was a shock and great dilemma to Robert when the impostor was named and the assassin. Robert testified that he went for a long nighttime drive to think things over and sort things out. During this drive, he decided that it would be imprudent to expose the impostor since this would EXPOSE THE SECRET DEFECTION PROGRAM, so he decided to keep quite. And anyway, he KNEW THAT THE IMPOSTOR WAS NOT HIS BROTHER, so he decided to go along with whatever the SECRET SERVICE TOLD HIM TO DO. If Jim were to investigate Robert Edward Lee Oswald and prove his "suspicions" correct, that would indeed be a startling new development in the case. But I think Jim will find that Robert was just an ordinary hard working family man who was a brick salesman...who got caught up in an avalanche which was beyond his control. But he KNOWS. He could still confirm what really happened. But he will never tell. Jack Edited April 2, 2010 by James H. Fetzer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barb Junkkarinen Posted April 2, 2010 Share Posted April 2, 2010 Judyth never expected permanent political asylum. Then why did she apply for it? And when it was denied, why did she then appeal that decision? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barb Junkkarinen Posted April 2, 2010 Share Posted April 2, 2010 Mr Fetzer, I challenge you to explain what my "drivel" consists of! I've provided facts about a whole range of issues where she lied about her "asylum" - if you don't agree, show me where I'm wrong! Where I speculated, I used the word "suggestion". You should be careful with what you are saying and with what you are discrediting others with.Nobody have rebutted anything. Not Judyth, not "her associates". She lied about her status and a lot of other things, period. You have obviously not read what I wrote. Nor have you read what the decisions from the courts involved said. Now, be that as it it may. Those records are there to be seen, I've also translated her entire story about her asylum. Exactly, Glenn. The "drivel" you so graciously supplied was to first obtain the actual Swedish Migration Court documents ... then translate them ... and John Dolva, a long time member here who is also Swedish, read them and agreed with your translation. Posted here in this thread have been: The link to the actual documents A copy of the letter you received from the person at the Migration board verifying info you had been given by phone. The name of that person and her contact information. A link to the Swedish Migration website with ample information about the asylum seeker process. But Fetzer calls that "drivel" and apparently isn't interested in it because Judyth has reported to him that she has witnesses who attest to what she has been saying. How many people has he chastised and derided over the last couple of weeks about real research? ROTFL Thank you again for your time in getting this info and documentation from the official source in Sweden, bringing it forward, and then translating it ... and having another Swedish speaker, whom you did not know, verify your translation. Exactly the kind of scholarship and methodology people should look for, expect ... and respect ... in research. Bests, Barb :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted April 2, 2010 Share Posted April 2, 2010 (edited) JUDYTH COMMENTS ON SOME OF JACK'S PHOTOS IN SUPPORT OF "TWO OSWALDS" NOTE: By a nice coincidence, I have just received several posts from Judyth about photos alleged to support the existence of "two Oswalds", Harvey and Lee. I also believe in "two Oswalds", Robert and Lee, where my belief in "two Oswalds" seems to have stronger support. Judyth has sent an email with a file, where there appears to be considerable overlap between them. Instead of attempting to merge them, I am providing both for consideration. They offer an illustration of why I regard Judyth as knowing more than the other contributors together. We have what seems to be a plethora of bloated photos. When the "fat' photo of Lee was corrected by measuring the width of other photos taken in Dallas, we obtained a specific length from ear tip to ear tip compared to the length of the head. When corrected, it turned out that the 'bloated' photo was 9.5% distorted in width. The distortion was corrected to match other Dallas arrest photo with respect to head lengths and widths, plus double-checked with pupil-to-pupil measurements (obtained from the color arrest photo of Oswald), where the apparent differences tend to disappear. We next learned that the "Lee" photo, when corrected for bloating as well, turned out to be Lee H. Oswald as shown in Dallas, due to ear distortion removed, and other feaures. Next, we took a photo "from Russia" of a fat-faced Oswald that Mr. White submited. Surprisingly, this photo, when corrected the same head length and distance beween the pupils, matched ear-tip widths and other criteria precisely. The bloated "Russia" photo was distorted 8.6%. See attached. We have now have experienced a parade of bloated photos that when corrected resemble Osewald more than they did when distorted. This was also the case with "Marguerite" photos. This may have been the result of a faulty scanner or printing. Whatever the cause, efforts should have been made to check every photo for distance from pupil-to-pupil, distance from ear tip to ear tip, distance from edge of eye to edge of eye, etc. compared to length of head. It is our responsibility to be accurate and to follow some basic scientific principles. The first step was to make sure all head lengths were the same,as well as head widths, etc., and could be set side-by-side with the same head-shot photos of Oswald in custody in Dallas which appeared immediately in newspapers. Comments such as the width of the bridge of the nose in a bloated photo are null and void. A bloated photo would widen the bridge of the nose. There's more to come... THE SHADOWS UNDER THE EYES ARE SIMPLY THE RESULT OF A STRONG OVERHEAD LIGHT SOURCE. ON THE LEFT: THE ‘BLOATED’ OSWALD WAS CORRECTED TO 4.2 CM WIDE, WHICH THEN CORRESPONDS TO THE WIDTH EAR-TO-EAR OF OTHER ‘ARREST PHOTOS’ IN DALLAS. TO THE LEFT IS THE PHOTO PROVIDED BY JACK WHITE. FOR SOME REASON, IT, TOO IS ‘BLOATED.’ THE ‘BLOATED’ USSR PHOTO WAS THEN CORRECTED TO CONFORM TO THE SAME WIDTH EAR-TO-EAR AS THE CORRECTED OSWALD ARREST PHOTO (CENTER). THE PHOTO OBAINED RESEMBLES OSWALD ENOUGH TO QUALIFY AS A POSSIBLE PHOTO OF OSWALD BECAUSE OSWALD’S FACIAL STRUCTURE WAS STILL MATURING WHEN THE “RUSSIAN” PHOTO WAS TAKEN. 1) OSWALD’S MUG PHOTO WAS CORRECTED TO PROPER DIMENSIONS (WHICH HAD SOMEHOW BEEN BLOATED TO 9.5% WIDER THAN IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN). 2) SURPRISINGLY, THE PHOTO TO THE RIGHT AS SUPPLIED TO THE EDUCATION FORUM, WHEN CORRECTED TO THE SAME EAR WIDTH AND HEAD LENGTH, WAS DISTORTED 8.6%. 3) THE CORRECTED OSWALD PHOTO, CENTER, NOW RESEMBLES OSWALD MORE THAN THE BLOATED VERSION. I HAVE NO EXPLANATION FOR WHY THESE PHOTOS ARE BLOATED, EXCEPT TO PROPOSE THAT A COPYING PROBLEM SOMEWHERE WAS INVOLVED. HOWEVER, ALL PHOTOS WHEN COMPARED TO ONE ANOTHER SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISPLAYED AT THE SAME HEAD LENGTH. WHEN THIS IS DONE, WE THEN CORRECT TO THE KNOWN WIDTH FROM EAR TIP TO EAR TIP TO SEE IF THERE HAS BEEN ANY DISTORTION. WHEN WE DO SO, WE ARE DISCOVERING, ON A REGULAR BASIS,THAT PHOTOS PROVIDED OF OSWALD BY MR. WHITE ARE DISTORTED. WHEN CORRECTED, WE HAVE PHOTOS THAT RESEMBLE OSWALD TO A GREATER EXTENT. OSWALD’S FACE WAS IN THE PROCESS OF MATURING IN RUSSIA. IT IS EXPECTED THAT IT WOULD BE MORE ROUNDED THAN IN LATER PHOTOS. OSWALD ALSO LOST WEIGHT BETWEEN NEW ORLEANS PHOTOS AND PHOTOS IN DALLAS, MAKING HIS FACE LOOK LEANER IN THE PHOTO TO THE LEFT. I CANNOT ACCOUNT FOR SO MUCH DOSTORTION IN THE PHOTOS PROVIDED. DID THE RUSSIANS DISTORT THESE PHOTOS DELIBERATELY, OR DID THE DISTORTION HAPPEN DURING COPYING? WE NEED TO SEE THE EARLIES EXAMPLES AND THEIR PROVENANCE. WE NEED TO SEE ‘ORIGINALS’ AND SEE IF THE DISTORTION WAS IN THE ORIGINALS. LEE SOMETIMES SMILED BY PULLING HIS UPPER LIP HIGHER. THE "RUSSIAN" PHOTO -– SMILING -- IS ENTIRELY CONSISTENT WITH A COUPLE OF PHOTOS SHOWING LEE WITH MARINA WHERE HE SMILES IN THE SAME WAY. AS FOR SHADOWS, SHADOWS FROM A STRONG OVERHEAD LIGHT SOURCE CREATED SRTONG SHADOWS UNDER THE SKULL ORBITS AND UNDER THE NOSE, AS WELL AS ILLUMINATED MORE OF OSWALD’S CHIN THAN A SOFTER LIGHT SOURCE WOULD HAVE, THE SUBSEQUENT LIGHT-SPREAD CREATING THE IMPRESSION OF A FULLER JAWLINE. JVB Edited April 2, 2010 by James H. Fetzer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Lifton Posted April 2, 2010 Share Posted April 2, 2010 Post by David Lifton Responding to post by Judyth Baker (as conveyed by Jim Fetzer) Topic: How did Oswald get from Dallas to New Orleans on April 24, 1963; and where did he stay once he arrived, and through Monday, April 29, 1963, when he first called his Aunt Lillian? * * * Date: 4/2/10; about 4:20 AM PDT (Edited, 4/2/10, 1:50 PM, PDT) Jim: Contrary to your glib assertions (“Judyth refutes the purported details of his [Lifton’s] account”) Judyth has refuted nothing. My facts are impeccable, and my logic sound. Contrary to your statement that “Lifton appears to have committed a ser[ies] of blunders in making assumptions that turn out to be false,” it is you have become entangled in the false details of Judyth’s tale, to the point where you have been bamboozled by a woman promulgating a thoroughly false and fictitious account of a non-existent relationship with Lee Oswald. Candidly, I could care less if the only casualty was whether or not—either through carelessness or excessive credulity--you were taken in by this lady. What concerns me is the role you have played in attempting to expose major fraud in the physical evidence, and what I am talking about, of course, is the Zapruder film. Because surely, as this situation unwinds—and it will-the question will be asked: if a person cannot distinguish between the false and the real, when it comes to the matter of Judyth Baker, can we trust that person’s judgment when it comes to the far more important situation of “fraud in the evidence,” and especially in a matter as technical as the Zapruder film? Do you remember a month or two back, when a photo was circulating supposedly showing JFK's body--laid out on the autopsy table? And you were rather enthusiastic about that item? Within a day or so, when it became obvious that that was nothing but a mock-up, one created in connection with the making of the movie JFK, you changed your opinion. Well, that photo sure looked real--and, at first glance, Judyth's story can look real, and even be appealing. Unfortunately, it is all bogus, and the prodoct of someone who is the victim of what, medically, is called "pseudologia fantastica" or "mythomania." Unfortunately, you have been taken in my all this; and it is sure to result in great harm. Anyway, those are my concerns—but I am sure you will not be deterred in doing what you personally believe is right—even if it is provably incorrect. So let me now drop that subject, and turn to Judyth’s latest post, as conveyed by you, to all the readers on this board. MY RESPONSE TO JUDYTH”S LATEST POST (i.e., to the one titled “Judyth Replies to Lifton on Lee’s Arrival in New Orleans”) Judyth’s very long post is loaded with weak arguments, circular logic, and just plain false statements. If this were a university test booklet, the reader would give her a failing grade, writing again and again, either “irrelevant,” or “so what?” or “false inference.” Let’s review the immutable facts: Fact: Lee’s journey from Dallas to New Orleans began on Wednesday, April 24. We know that from the testimony of Ruth Paine, who says she brought Lee to the bus station, with some bags. Then—after dropping those bags off at the bus station, and after offering Marina the option of not accompanying Lee to New Orleans, but instead staying with her-- they returned to his apartment and emptied what was left from his apartment. Then, they all returned (and by “they all” I’m referring to Ruth Paine, Lee, and Marina) to Paine’s home. Ruth Paine testified that Lee left that evening, Wednesday, April 24, for New Orleans, but she does not say who took Lee from Irving back to the Greyhound bus station in Dallas. All she does is mention that Lee would have had to take a city bus to get back to Dallas from Irving, and then board the Greyhound bus for New Orleans. Did he do that? The fact is—we don’t know. The assumption is that he did, but he could just as well have used Greyhound to carry his baggage, and gone to New Orleans by some other means (and in fact I’m very open, if not partial, to that possibility). Judyth notes an interesting fact (one noted in the Mary Ferrell chronologies) that I have not dwelt on here--that twice in FBI interviews, Marina says that Lee went to the bus station the day before April 24--i.e., on April 23--to check some bags. Marina told the FBI that (she believed) Ruth drove Lee there, the day before, but Ruth's account says nothing about that. If Marina is correct, and Lee checked some bags on 4/23/63, then obviously, someone else was involved with Lee, in making preparations for this trip to New Orleans, and that also raises the possibility that he simply shipped his bags by Greyhound, but did not actually use the bus, to get to New Orleans. BUT, for the purpose of this discussion, let’s return to what the Warren Report states. That keeps the discussion very simple, and permits us to see how Judyth is attempting to “burrow into” a small hole in the actual historical record, one at the New Orleans end of the line. Fact: Lee traveled to New Orleans –as far as the Warren Commission investigation is concerned—alone. Further, according to the Warren Report, he traveled by bus—i.e., on the Greyhound bus carrying his bags. Marina stayed with Ruth Paine. If the bus left on the evening of Wednesday, April 24 (as Ruth Paine testified was the case) then –if it was a 14 hour trip—it would have arrived midday on Thursday, April 25. That means Lee stayed somewhere on the night of Thursday, April 25. Furthermore, by the next day—Friday, April 26, he was dressed quite nicely for his job placement interview. Fact: The contemporaneous record created by John Rachal, at the Louisiana Department of Labor, records the data that Lee was attired in a suit and tie on Friday, April 26, at the time of his interview. His handwritten notes read “Neat. Suit. Tie. Polite” (See Rachel deposition Exhibit, Volume 21, p. 283, of the WC hearings) and his June 1964 Warren Commission affidavit reads: “I recall that Oswald was neatly dressed with a suit, dress shirt, and tie on the occasion of our initial interview.” (Volume 11, p. 475). Fact: Lillean Murret testified that she first heard from Lee on a Monday—when he called from the bus station, saying that he had “just arrived” in New Orleans.” That statement is provably untrue because he had already had an interview on Friday, April 26, at which point he was dressed in “a suit, dress shirt, and tie.” Fact: Monday—the day Lillian Murret first heard from Lee, who said he was calling from the bus station, and said he had “just arrived” etc.—would have been Monday, April 29, 1963. This is a critical time-marker: nothing Judyth says can change that immutable fact. “Monday” was April 29. FACT: No one was ever located, nor did any one ever come forward to say that they were on that bus—or any bus—with Lee Oswald, from Dallas to New Orleans, leaving on or about Wednesday evening, April 24, 1963 and arriving midday on Thursday, April 25. Unlike the situation regarding Oswald’s trip to Mexico, where the FBI was able to locate people who were halfway around the world on that particular bus, we have no eyewitness placing Oswald on a bus from Dallas to New Orleans on or about April 24, 1963. The Dallas-to-New Orleans bus journey—with Lee Oswald (and not just his luggage) on board—is all conjecture (perhaps reasonable conjecture, based on his having brought his boxes to the Dallas bus station) but there is no evidence that Lee, himself, actually rode on the bus to New Orleans. All we know for certain is that he was in New Orleans on Friday, April 26, 1963, when he appeared at the Louisiana Department of Labor, and had the interview with John Rachal. FACT: As any discerning reader can see, this leaves a small “time hole” in the record—one extending from Lee’s putative “time of arrival” in New Orleans (midday on April 25) until his April 26, 1963 placement interview with Rachal; and then another between that same placement interview and Monday, April 29, 1963, when he called his Aunt Lillian for the first time, said he was at the bus station, and desired help in getting all his boxes over to her place. FACT: No one –except Judyth—says that Lee Oswald stayed at the YMCA between April 25 and April 29. She can say anything she wants, but that does not make it so. The YMCA keeps records. No one has ever produced such a record. FACT: Anyone who has studied the records of the warren Commission knows how careful and meticulous the FBI could be (when it wanted to be); and how hotels and motels were scoured for records of Lee’s whereabouts. When he stayed at the Dallas YMCA, for example, between October 15 an October 19, 1962, the actual records were produced, which listed his room number, and even accounted for the $1 deposit for a room key. (See the deposition exhibit of John Hulen, in volume 10 of the Warren Commission, and the Hulen Deposition Exhibits, in Volume 21). Question: where did Lee stay between the time he arrived in New Orleans—however he got there, and exactly whenever he got there—and Friday, April 26, 1963? And where did he stay between Friday, April 26, and Monday, April 29, when he first called his aunt? Honest answer: we don’t know. According to Aunt Lillian’s testimony, Lee did not call her (saying he had “just arrived” etc.) until a Monday—which would be April 29, 1963—when he called from the bus station, and when his uncle Dutz (Lillian’s husband) then went to pick him up, along with his luggage. But Lee’s statement about when he “first arrived” was clearly false, i.e., a deliberate lie—and that’s obviously so based on the data proffered by John Rachal, and published in the Warren Report. Lee was there some days earlier, and was certainly there on Friday, April 26. Well, then, where did he stay? Truthful answer: We don’t know. Fact: No Murrett family member—not Aunt Lillian, not Uncle Dutz, not cousin Marilyn—ever stated, in any statement to the FBI, nor in any Warren Commission testimony, that Lee had said he had stayed at the New Orleans YMCA. That is purely an unsupported assertion of Judyth. Fact: Because no Murrett family member ever stated, or even speculated, that Lee had stayed at the YMCA, the FBI never checked the New Orleans YMCA for any record of his having stayed there. (If I am wrong on this point, and there was in fact an FBI investigation on this point, I would sure appreciate being informed where it can be found). Nor, for that matter, did the FBI ever check hotels or rooming houses seeking to find where Lee stayed between April 24, 1963 and April 29, 1963. In other words, this “gap” wasn’t spotted by the official investigation. And so there is no paper trail that Lee ever stayed at the YMCA—or anywhere else, for that matter—upon arriving in New Orleans in the Spring of 1963, and one reason there is no paper trail is that there was never any FBI investigation; and the reason there was no FBI investigation is that there is not a scintilla of testimony that Lee ever said he stayed anywhere prior to the time he called Aunt Lillian. So now we turn to Judyth’s justification and rationale for invoking the YMCA. JUDYTH AND HER STATEMENTS ABOUT LEE OSWALD HAVING STAYED AT THE NEW ORLEANS YMCA Fact: Lee stayed at the Dallas YMCA in the fall of 1962, for some four days, when he moved from Fort Worth to Dallas (10/15-10/19/62). Lee also stayed at the Dallas YMCA on the night of Thursday, October 3, 1963, upon his return from Mexico City, and before he hitched a ride out to the Paine house on Friday, October 4, 1963. In each case there is a clear YMCA paper trail. The room number is listed; the amount paid; even the $1 deposit for a room key (See the testimony of John Leroy Hulen, who’s deposition was taken by WC attorney Jenner, and the document admitted into evidence at that time—called the Hulen Deposition Exhibit, in Volume 20 of the Warren Report). We now come to an important false inference by Judyth Baker, one which exposes her entire methodology. False Inference By Judyth: in effect, Judyth claims—but has no right to—that because LHO stayed once before at the YMCA in Dallas (and would later stay at the YMCA after his Mexico City trip) she can now infer that he stayed at the YMCA in New Orleans late April, 1963. That is what she does—repeatedly. (She wonders aloud: Where ELSE could he have stayed? Did he sleep on the street? And Jim Fetzer chimes in: “Yeah, what do you say to that? Did he sleep on the street?” What do I say to that? Here’s what I say. Everyone has heard the phrase “junk science.” This is “junk history.” What Judyth has done, in an attempt to insert herself into the valid history of this event—a history that (admittedly) has some gaps in the record—is to use the concept of “pattern evidence” to find a home for Lee Oswald in the brief period between the time she infers the bus from Dallas must have arrived (midday on Thurday, April 25), and the time Lee called Aunt Lillian on Monday, April 29. So the YMCA serves that purpose—it is, for Judyth, her “Motel 6.” But it is as contrived as the Single Bullet Theory, with all its twists and turns. In that case, we have a trajectory designed to account for a multiplicity of wounds. Here we have an itinerary, custom-designed by Judyth Baker, to account for some missing nights. This is her invention concerning the YMCA. This is her device for inserting herself into the Oswald narrative. And the gullible buy into that and say, “Well, where could he have stayed? Did he sleep on the street?” Sorry, but posing such a question is no substitute for evidence as to where he stayed. THE LACK OF A NEW ORLEANS YMCA PAPER TRAIL Unfortunately, for Judyth, there is no New Orleans YMCA paper trail, nor is there a smidgeon of evidence that Lee ever told anyone that he stayed at the YMCA—not his aunt, not his uncle, not his cousin, not his own wife. (And, to repeat, had he said any such thing, the FBI would have been all over it—interviewing the YMCA people and checking the records.) But no such investigation ever occurred, and it’s a safe inference that it did not because no one ever reported Lee as having said any such thing. And that’s a crucial missing link: no statements about the YMCA, no FBI investigation of the New Orleans YMCA; no YMCA paper trail. Just unsupported assertions by Judyth. No doubt Lee stayed somewhere—but Judyth has struck out here (and once again, I might add) by positing it was the New Orleans YMCA, and then attempting to crawl into this interstitial space, by manufacturing dialogue and events. MARCH, 2010: JUDYTH’s “Ooops” moment BUT (as in “ooops,” as I have said), Judyth did not realize—until this past month, when Jack White posted the exhibit I prepared--that there is a documentary record of how Lee was dressed on Friday, April 26, the day she claims to have met him at the post office; and that record, created by John Rachal, of the Louisiana Deaprtment of Labor, and published in the Warren Report, established that Lee was attired in a suit and tie. I have just quoted that record, earlier in this post: handwritten notes by Rachal made on 4/26/63, plus his Warren Commission affidavit: “Neat. Suit. Tie. Polite” (the notes) and “Oswald was neatly dressed with a suit, dress shirt, and tie on the occasion of our initial interview” (Rachel Affidavit, 11 WCH 475). The second aspect of this “oops” moment concerns me, and the first (and only) time I ever spoke with Judyth—on March 4, 2000. Yes, it is a tape recorded conversation, but not because I was lying in wait, or anything of the sort. It was tape recorded because –initially—I gave Judyth the benefit of the doubt, thought I’d be speaking to someone the official investigation had missed, and wanted there to be an accurate record of what she said. So what happened? Judyth was unaware, until a few days ago, that not only did she now have to contend with the Rachal Exhibit, and what it says, but another “inconvenient truth” as well: what Judyth told me on March 4, 2000. That’s when I personally questioned Judyth, on this very point, as to how he was dressed, on April 26, 1963, the day she supposedly met Lee Oswald at the Post Office. And she told me he was in workman’s clothes. At that time (3/4/2000), Judyth was decidedly uncomfortable with my repeated questions on the subject, and wanted to know why, but I declined to say. In other words, I did not say, “Judyth, I am asking you a very important question, and you keep answering it the wrong way, so let’s repeat the question, just to make sure there is no misunderstanding.” No, I did not say that. But I asked my question more than once, because I knew very well the implication of the false response I was getting, and she kept answering it all wrong—and further (I might add) she also has it wrong in her manuscript. WHERE WE ARE NOW—10 YEARS LATER (i.e., in March-April, 2010) Well, ten years have passed, and now she knows. Judyth now knows that ten years ago, on March 4, 2000, in my first and only telephone conversation with her, and at a time when I (but not she) was fully aware of the Rachal evidence, I carefully questioned her as to how Lee was attired on the day she met him at the Post Office, and she answered in workman’s clothes. And so now—i.e., in March, 2010—having just found this out—Judyth has to deal with this double whammie: the record of April, 1963, and, in addition, the record she herself created in March 2000, in her conversation with me, a conversation which was tape recorded. And so, having just had this embarrassing “ooops” moment—she goes back to her story, and –like a screenplay writer after a meeting with the producer, and after being informed that there is a glitch in her account—Judyth now adds, 47 years after the event, new dialogue to her narrative. “Lee told me he was going to borrow a white shirt,” she now lamely writes. Well, then, what about the suit? Would Dutz Murret, some 30 years older than Lee, wear a suit that even came close to fitting him? (And what about the tie?) Well, she speculates, perhaps he borrowed that (the suit), too, from the Murrets. But (unfortunately for Judyth), that won’t work, because—say what she might-- Lee didn’t meet the Murrets until Monday, April 29, when she called Aunt Lillian, and when Aunt Lillian’s husband, Uncle Dutz, came to the bus station to pick up Lee and his luggage. And so now Judyth has become all tangled up in the problem of her fabricated chronology. Because regardless of whether or not Aunt Lillean wished to buy her nephew some clothes—i.e., later—that cannot (and does not) account for his attire on Friday, April 26. But Judyth is unfazed. She proclaims: “: "I am a witness, and I know what happened. Lee told me he was going to borrow a white shirt.” She wants us to believe; indeed, she practically demands that we do so. But what can be done about the stubborn facts of the known chronology? Here’s what Judyth does. Judyth, ignoring the record while attempting to amend her story, says that Lee –who arrived in New Orleans midday on April 25, then visited with the Murrets, and they cooked him a nice dinner, loaned him clothing, etc etc. ad nauseum. I write ad nauseum because it is all false, and contrary to the known record. And throughout, she makes all kinds of personal accusations against me, and furthermore, adopts the tone that she is some kind of exalted witness: Just get a whiff of her tone: QUOTE: Lee spent a Saturday night with his aunt and uncle, I think, because he reported eating a nice supper with them. Lee was very busy working with Guy Banister during his first week in New Orleans -- and also helping me find a room. UNQUOTE My comment:: “Lee spent a Saturday night with his aunt and uncle, I think. . .” ? Notice the “I think” (how modest of you Judyth) and that statement is then followed by “because he reported eating a nice supper with them. . “ Reported? Reported to whom? To the FBI? Not at all. “Reported” as in “reported” to Judyth, of course. In this manner, she becomes a corroborating witness to her own false story. ANOTHER INSTANCE OF JUDYTH’S TERMINOLOGY Judyth writes: “Everyone please see the above list of facts offered by the witness” Notice how she now narrates her own story in the 3rd person. What gall. She’s both narrator—as if she was speaking from the bench—and a witness. Just read that again: “everyone please see the above list of facts offered by the witness.” “. . .the witness. . .”?? Translated: Everyone should believe what I say and believe it to be a fact, even though I’m a fabricator, because I claim the status of being a “witness.” Judyth: who are you kidding? Do you really believe everyone is that gullible? That we should heed your command when you say: “I’m a witness. . I know what happened. . everyone please see the above list of facts offered by the witness.” Finally: I must make the following personal statement, directed at Judyth. A PERSONAL STATEMENT TO JUDYTH Lee Oswald is not akin to some wall in a pubic toilet, where you can inscribe your destructive graffiti. Besmirching the personal reputation of a man with a wife and child, and, at that time, expecting another on the way. Lee Oswald was a real person, with a real wife and a young child, both of whom he loved very much—and who had just learned she was pregnant with their 2nd child (daughter Rachel, born on 10/20/63). The notion that he was carrying on an affair with you in New Orleans is not just false—it is ludicrous. I knew Marina, very well—having spoken to her dozens of times, over a thirteen year period, after Best Evidence was published in 1981. And, as Lloyd Bentsen said to Senator Dan Quayle, “Senator, Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine, and you’re no Jack Kennedy.” Judyth: Marina Oswald was a friend of mine—and I (along with another writer) even threw her daughter a party here in Hollywood, when the Warner Brothers movie (about Marina) was being made. So let me assure you, Judyth Baker: I knew Marina quite well, and Judyth, you’re no Marina. Not even close. If you wish to write fiction, go take a course in creative writing, and try your hand at a screenplay—but lay off the Oswald family and spin your false yarns elsewhere. Again: Lee Oswald’s life is not akin to a public washroom, where you can go and inscribe graffiti, while you run around attempting to manufacture a counterfeit version of history. DSL 4/2/2010; 4:40 AM; edited/corrected 1:40 PM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now