Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[Barb Junkkarinen]

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?

Excellent post, David ... point by point. Judyth's response to your initial post to her on this was a shambles of a ramble, even for Judyth. She not only kept assigning an erroneous claimed date to you, she failed to address the salient point of the whole thing ....

....that Oswald was obviously in New Orleans on April 26th as his interview at the employment office (in a suit and tie) are well documented ... and he could not have told Judyth nor anyone else that he was going to be given/borrow a white shirt by his family as he had not yet contacted them, and, in fact, did not do so for another 3 days.

In her book, Judyth gives a quite detailed account of her initial meeting with Oswald at the post office on April 26th ... as well as what they did afterwards as he walked her home. Nowhere in that account does she say anything about him planning to go to the employment office later that day .... nor that he will be getting a white shirt from anyone to do so. Judyth is not known for sparing any details in her writing, as you certainly know.

She does describe him as having been very clean cut and neatly attired in dark pants and a khaki shirt when she met him.

Bests,

Barb :-)

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

JUDYTH ON “LEE” AND “HARVEY” WITH A SECOND LOOK AT ‘STOCK PHOTOS’

WHEN JACK WHITE SUBMITTED A FUZZY PHOTO OF "LEE" PLACED WITH A PHOTO OF "HARVEY"

THAT LOOKED TOO FAT TO BE HIS FACE (I KNEW LEE OSWALD), I DECIDED TO DO SOME

MEASURING. I FOUND A COPY OF A MORE PRISTINE PHOTO OF THE SAME “LEE” ON THE

INTERNET. IN FACT, IT IS FROM JACK’S COLLECTION – A PASTICHE INCLUDING A SERIES

OF PHOTOS, SOME OF WHICH I DO NOT ACCEPT AND WANT TO KNOW THEIR PROVENANCE.

THE MORE PRISTINE PHOTO SHOWED DETAILS THAT ARE ALSO FOUND ON “HARVEY’S” FACE,

BUT WHICH WERE WASHED OUT ON THE ‘FUZZY’ PHOTO (SEE BELOW). THE PHOTO SHOWN

ON THE RIGHT IS THE ONE JACK WHITE POSTED A THE EDUCATION FORUM. NOTICE THAT IT

IS ‘WASHED OUT’ AND DETAILS SEEN IN THE MORE PRISTINE PHOTO TO THE LEFT ARE MISSING.

OF CONCERN IS THE FACT THAT THE PHOTO ON THE RIGHT IS BLOATED. POSSIBLE CAUSES :

COPYING A COPY OF A COPY, ETC. WHICH CAUSES A POSSIBLE ‘PINCUSHION EFFECT’ – OR

SOMEBODY USED PHOTOSHOP (OR FAULTY COPYING PROGRAM) AND MADE THE FACE 'FATTER’

ACCIDENTALLY OR ON PURPOSE.

IT WAS A GROSS ERROR THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN CAUGHT BY PHOTOGRAPHIC EXPERTS.

The photo on the right is 9.2% wider than the photo on the left. It is a significant

difference, making the identification of the photo on the right as “Lee H. Oswald” more

visually difficult. Both photos are in Jack White’s collection: the photo on the left is more

“pristine” and has more details. I is closer to the original than the photo on the right, which

was used by Jack as an example of “Lee” in relation to “Harvey” as per Armstrong’s thesis.

“HARVEY” AND “LEE” UNCORRECTED FOR DISTORTIONS, SIDE BY SIDE

THIS SET OF PHBOTOS WAS USED TO SHOW THE THAT “LEE” AND “HARVEY” WERE TWO

DIFFERENT PEOPLE BY JACK WHITE, AND PRESUMABLY, BY JOHN ARMSTRONG. BUT THEN

I DISCOVERED ANOTHER PROBLEM. THE PHOTO OF “HARVEY” HAD ALSO BEEN DISTORTED.

THE WIDTH FROM EAR TIP TO EAR TIP IS 4.5 CM FOR “HARVEY". But when it was corrected

to 4.2 cm wide, (making it the same width as the famous color arrest photo, for the

same head length), the distortion of “Harvey” was obvious:

THE PHOTO ON THE RIGHT IS 9.6% TOO WIDE. A SIGNIFICANT AND TROUBLING DIFFERENCE.

WHAT HAPPENED? WE HAVE THE SAME “OVER-WIDE” PHENOMENON AGAIN. THE DISTANCE

BETWEEN PUPILS NOT THE SAME. EARS ON FIGURE TO RT. SEEM MORE FLARED. IT’S AN

ILLUSION CAUSED BY THE BLOATING. OUR EYES MEASURE THESE ITEMS AUTOMATICALLY.

NOW LET’S PLACE “HARVEY” (CORRECTED) AND “LEE” (CORRECTED) SIDE BY SIDE:

DESPITE SWOLLEN RIGHT EYE (LEFT TO VIEWER), THE EYES ARE SAME. EARS ARE IDENTICAL.

NOSE ON FIGURE TO RIGHT IS SOFTER, DUE TO YOUNGER AGE, BUT EYEBROWS ARE IDENTICAL.

THE DISTANCE BETWEEN PUPILS IS NOW IDENTICAL. SKULL SHAPES IDENTICAL. CONCLUSION:

THE MAN IN BOTH PHOTOS IS LEE H. OSWALD. THE PHOTO ON LEFT DOES NOT PASS

MUSTER AS EVIDENCE FOR A SEPARATE ‘LEE.’

JVB

Edited April 2, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Apparently, she has to get her eyes right up next to the screen to view images on the computer.

If she were less brilliant, I doubt she could do any of this. It lies far beyond my own competence.

So I think you are right. Since aromas are not transmitted electronically, and you are smelling it

but we are not, the best supported inference would appear to be that you are smelling yourself!

She is nearly blind, needs glasses,

In that case, if she is nearly blind and needs glasses, how then can she analyze the photographs which you are presenting on her behalf.

Something stinks here.

[Glenn Viklund]

Barb,

I agree, the facts are there, verified by John Dolva. And even though I sense a somewhat different attitude from Mr. Fetzer, he still dodges the bullet. I see no answers from him to the real issue at hand, is she to be believed? Do the facts related to her antics about the "asylum" make any difference?

Instead of confronting this core question, Mr Fetzer still refers to others; her "Swedish associates". When pointing to a number of posts that likewise says nothing about this central issue, he is yet to come clean of his own opinion.

Where, Mr Fetzer, do you draw the line?

Edited April 2, 2010 by Glenn Viklund

[Jack White]

David...thanks for this excellent chronology. Very informative!

Jack

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.

[Jack White]

ANYONE, I repeat anyone, can CHANGE THE ASPECT RATIO of any photo TO SUIT THEIR PURPOSES.

I have changed NO aspect ratios on any photo I use, as is suggested.

Jack

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

[Glenn Viklund]

Mr McRae,

"So, her eyesight is fine for analyzing fine details in photographs when she gets her eyes right up to the screen.

Why then can't she get her eyes right up to her keyboard, type properly, and post direct to this Forum?

Something does not compute."

Your observation is beyond comments.

Thanks!

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

JIM REPLIES TO DAVID LIFTON AGAIN (AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND. . . )

PREFATORY NOTE:

Let's begin with five general points that serve to place all this into perspective, namely:

(1) You are revising your position for the third or fourth time. I rebut your posts and

you take "time out" to improve them. That is what you accuse Judyth of doing, which,

I suppose, if we follow "Lifton logic", makes you a--what is the word?--"fantasist", too?

(2) You know you are a very intelligent fellow, but no matter how smart you think you

are, I am not intellectually less able than you. And, on the basis of my experience with

this forum, I would guess Judyth may very well be more intelligent than either you or I.

(3) My experience in dealing with Judyth is overwhelmingly greater than yours, possibly

by an order of magnitude approaching 1,000. You conversed with her by phone for an

hour or so. Ed Haslam interrogated her for 1,000. We have had hundreds of exchanges.

(4) Judyth and I are trying to sort out the evidence, especially with regard to this "Harvey

& Lee" thing, where, so far as I know, in relation to this specific thread, you have not even

been willing to state your position. You and Jack are out to trash Judyth, not search for truth.

(5) You are displaying an obsession with Judyth that exceeds the bounds of rationality. To

apply "Lifton logic" once again, it concerns me that you are tarnishing your reputation and

all the good work you have done in the past, including, of course, your BEST EVIDENCE.

I presume you recognize at this point in time how ridiculous it is to suggest that work you

published in 1980 should be affected by exchanges on this thread in 2010. And yet that is

exactly what you have implied about my three books, published in 1998, 2000, and 2003!

SPECIFIC COMMENTS:

You begin with lots of evaluative, subjective, and denigrating language--such as "glib"--and

self-serving assertions--"My facts are impeccable and my logic sound"--that beg the question,

which means that, once again, you begin your posts by taking for granted what needs to be

established on independent grounds. Off hand, I doubt you could even define what it means

for an argument to be "sound", but no doubt you would consult sources before you respond.

This post appears to be a rehash of points you have made before, including your concern

about my research on the Zapruder film. If that is still bothering you, since it has no basis

in logic but represents another instance of the genetic fallacy (since arguments have to be

evaluated on their merits, not judged by their sources), please reread my point (5) above.

In fact, you appear to be committing these fallacies in even more eggregious forms, thus:

"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",

which, of course, is a question that could well be asked about you! The indications that

Judyth is being truthful and that you are mistaken have accumulated on this forum. What

she has had to say about meeting Lee, about his appearance, about the date on which he

arrived in New Orleans, about KanKun--and everything else you have alleged that she has

wrong--appears to weigh in her favor, not in yours, in spite of your utter inability to see it.

Frankly, David, in scanning this response, it appears to be nothing more than a restatement

of your earlier post, which I discussed in my response #771 and in Judyth's post #782. My

suggestion to Judyth was that her response was rather repetitive, since you were reiterating

the points you had already made. After replying to you again in post #803 and Judyth has

replied to your "PERSONAL STATEMENT" in post #808, I can see she was right about you.

Your methodology appears to be the tenacious reiteration of the position you have already

advanced, regardless of its merits. She told me when we discussed it that your technique

was to repeat and repeat and repeat, and that her reply was to rebut and rebut and rebut

to expose your chicanery. Having now dealt with several of your posts, where, so far as I

can see, you have offered nothing new, I reiterate what I said in my preface to post #782,

This is a nice example of presumptuous reasoning passing for research.The matter is settled

decisively by Marina and Ruth's testimony about his date of departure and the travel time by

bus. Unless you think it is more reasonable for Lee to sleep in the street, he checked into the "Y".

To cope with your obvious blunder, you now concede here that he arrived on the 25th and

slept somewhere. However, nothing else about your position appears to have changed.

If you have anything more that affects that blunder on your part, then distill it and post it.

Because it appears to me that your recent posts contribute no more than the otherwise point-

less posts by the likes of Viklund, Junkkarinen, MacRae, and Thompson, whose solitary role

is to distract from real research or cheerlead. When David S. Lifton and Jack White are more

concerned to trash Judyth than to discover truth, alas!, then JFK research is in a terrible state.

Let me close by asking you to step up and be counted in two specific respects. First, tell us if

you support the thesis of HARVEY & LEE of the existence of "the two Oswalds" who were living

parallel lives (with mothers by the same name and all of that) and, if not, why not. Second, I

would appreciate it if you would share the transcript of your conversation with Judyth with me

by sending it to me. I strongly suspect that a close reading will support my interpretation of you

having heard "Kankun" but thought that she was saying "Cancun" and illuminate other issues.

NOTE: David, as I have just heard from an interested reader, far better that you should send me

me a copy of your cassette recording so I can listen to the conversation for myself without being

concerned that something may have been lost in transcription. The inflection of her voice and the

tone of yours will speak volumes about what is taking place here. I take for granted that you can

appreciate my desire for a copy of the cassette. You yourself, of course, would settle for no less.

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.

Edited April 3, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Josiah Thompson]

JIM REPLIES TO DAVID LIFTON AGAIN (AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND. . . )

Professor Fetzer apparently has some need to argue with people... anyone... all the time. This post as well as this thread is a complete waste of time. Individuals try to insinuate some sanity into it without success.

All of this prompts a rather simple question: What would happen if we all just ignored Fetzer and never replied to anything he says? Would he continue to talk to all of us although he never got a reply? Or would he switch to some other board where folks had unlimited time to deal with inconsequential matters of Fetzer's choosing?

I don't know the answer but it might be a useful test.

Josiah Thompson

[William Kelly]

JIM REPLIES TO DAVID LIFTON AGAIN (AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND. . . )

Professor Fetzer apparently has some need to argue with people... anyone... all the time. This post as well as this thread is a complete waste of time. Individuals try to insinuate some sanity into it without success.

All of this prompts a rather simple question: What would happen if we all just ignored Fetzer and never replied to anything he says? Would he continue to talk to all of us although he never got a reply? Or would he switch to some other board where folks had unlimited time to deal with inconsequential matters of Fetzer's choosing?

I don't know the answer but it might be a useful test.

Josiah Thompson

I think it a match made in heaven. Prof. Fetzer and JVB belong together.

At least it is keeping them busy and out of the way of those doing real research.

BK

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

JUDYTH OFFERS MORE OBSERVATIONS ABOUT "HARVEY & LEE"

NOTE: All of this twaddle about Judyth's eyesight and odious smells is quite ridiculous.

Either you have it (in knowing what you are doing) or you don't. Judyth, of all of the

students and witnesses of JFK I have ever known--which includes Madelene Duncan

Brown and Chauncey Marvin Holt--has it. Madeleine knew well the man of whom she

spoke, Chauncey knew his business with the mafia and the CIA, and Judyth not only

knew her man but is a woman of many research talents. I am stunned to read Jack

say that many people could alter the aspect ratio on photographs, yet it turns out to

be Judyth, not Jack, who makes the observation that the apparent differences in the

crucial photos being used to justify the distinction between "Harvey" and "Lee" seem

to have arisen because of manipulation. The question thus becomes, How many more?

JUDYTH REPLIES:

WE HAVE SOME “OVER-PROCESSED” SEPIA-TINTED PHOTOS PURPORTING TO BE

“HARVEY” AND “LEE”. THESE ARE “FUZZY” HOWEVER, COMPARED TO THE BLACK

AND WHITE EXAMPLES BELOW. OF SPECIAL CONCERN IS THAT THE ADULT PHOTOS

ARE NOT SHOWN AT THE SAME HEAD SIZE.

THE BLACK-AND-WHITE PHOTOS AVAILABLE ARE NOT NEARLY AS “FUZZY” AND

HAVE MUCH MORE DETAIL. WE WILL USE THESE CLEARER PHOTOS, OR ONES

IDENTICAL TO THEM, FOR OUR COMPARISON WORK.

FIRST OF ALL, WE WILL ELIMINATE THOSE PHOTOS WHICH ARE OBVIOUSLY NOT

LEE H. OSWALD. SOMEBODY MAY HAVE SAID THAT THEY WERE OF OSWALD:

THE PROVENANCE OF THESE DISPUTED EXAMPLES MUST BE MADE KNOWN TO US.

THERE ARE ONLY TWO PHOTOGRAPHS IN THE COLLECTION ABOVE THAT ARE NOT

LEE H. OSWALD: ONE IS IN THE 2ND ROW, CENTER. THE OTHER IS IN THE FIFTH

ROW, SECOND FROM THE RIGHT.

BOTH PHOTOS ARE QUITE DIFFERENT FROM THE OTHERS. THE “HARVEY” PHOTO

SHOWN IN THIS COLLECTION (ROW FOUR, SECOND FRONM RIGHT), HOWEVER, IS

THE ‘BLOATED’ ONE OF REAL CONCERN. IT SHOULD BE REPLACED WITH THE TRUE,

UNBLOATED VERSION.

WE HAVE MANY MORE “BLOATED PHOTOS” IN THE ABOVE COLLECTION. HOW DID

THIS HAPPEN? IT IS A MATTER OF CONCERN. THE FOLLOWING PHOTOS ARE ‘BLOATED”:

ROW ONE: SECOND FROM LEFT, THIRD FROM LEFT, FOURTH FROM LEFT. (3)

ROW TWO: ALL OKAY, EXCEPT REMOVE THE BOGUS PHOTO, THIRD FROM THE LEFT.

ROW THREE: ALL OF THESE PHOTOS HAVE SUFFERED SOME ‘BLOATING’ DISTORTIONS (5)

ROW FOUR: THIRD FROM THE LEFT AND SECOND FROM THE RIGHT ARE BOTH ‘BLOATED’ (2)

ROW FIVE: ALL OKAY. EXCEPT REMOVE THE BOGUS PHOTO, SECOND FROM THE RIGHT.

TEN OF THE 25 PHOTOS HAVE BEEN DISTORTED IN THIS COLLECTION. TWO OTHERS ARE

BOGUS.

WE WILL USE THE “PRISTINE” PHOTO OF LEE H. OSWALD AS A GUIDE TO CORRECT HEAD

WIDTHS, AS THE WIDTH OF THE HUMAN SKULL CHANGES VERY LITTLE.

Some other forensic factors to consider:

“Since most bones in the body stop growing after puberty, experts assumed the human skull stopped growing then too. But using CT scans of 100 men and women, the researchers discovered that the bones in the human skull continue to grow as people age. The forehead moves forward while the cheek bones move backward. As the bones move, the overlying muscle and skin also move, subtly changing the shape of the face.” stemcells.alphamedpress.org In addition, there is some “baby fat’ on young faces. Under stress, ‘baby fat’ can temporarily disappear if the subject is dehydrated or has temporarily lost weight. Other factors are ear infections that can swell up one or both sides of the face (an occasional problem for Lee H. Oswald until he had an adenoidectomy in the USSR). Lee Oswald was only 24 when he died, so most underlying muscle structures had just reached the development status of a mature face. The ‘baby fat’ or more rounded face of Lee Oswald at ages 18-21 display softer features than at age 17, when Oswald was under boot camp stressors, or after he lost weight between September and November, 1963 (as he reported to Judyth Baker).

Edited April 6, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Mike Williams]

JIM REPLIES TO DAVID LIFTON AGAIN (AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND. . . )

Professor Fetzer apparently has some need to argue with people... anyone... all the time. This post as well as this thread is a complete waste of time. Individuals try to insinuate some sanity into it without success.

All of this prompts a rather simple question: What would happen if we all just ignored Fetzer and never replied to anything he says? Would he continue to talk to all of us although he never got a reply? Or would he switch to some other board where folks had unlimited time to deal with inconsequential matters of Fetzer's choosing?

I don't know the answer but it might be a useful test.

Josiah Thompson

I think it a match made in heaven. Prof. Fetzer and JVB belong together.

At least it is keeping them busy and out of the way of those doing real research.

BK

Bravo gents Bravo! 53 pages, and these appear to be the only two posts with any sanity.

How in the world people ever believe some of the crap that comes from the ridiculous is beyond me.

[Glenn Viklund]

Mr Thompson,

You are spot on.

"Because it appears to me that your recent posts contribute no more than the otherwise point-

less posts by the likes of Viklund, Junkkarinen, MacRae, and Thompson, whose solitary role

is to distract from real research or cheerlead. When David S. Lifton and Jack White are more

concerned to trash Judyth than to discover truth, alas!, then JFK research is in a terrible state."

Mr Liftons outstanding account is ignored. What Barb has said is ignored. What Jack White has brought forward is ignored - though not as clearly as all the rest, the egg shells are still in place. And all others accounts in this thread are also ignored.

No answers, no responsibility, no acknowledgement of anything but for Judyths true description of events.

We are all a bunch of pointless distractors.

The shining beacons of light in this discussion are Mr Fetzer and Ms Vary Baker.

I agree, let them continue their misson of global enlightenment all by themselves.

I have a feeling - just as you do - that the energy of this enlightenment procedure would fade rather quickly.

Edited April 3, 2010 by Glenn Viklund

[Mike Williams]

Mr Thompson,

You are spot on.

"Because it appears to me that your recent posts contribute no more than the otherwise point-

less posts by the likes of Viklund, Junkkarinen, MacRae, and Thompson, whose solitary role

is to distract from real research or cheerlead. When David S. Lifton and Jack White are more

concerned to trash Judyth than to discover truth, alas!, then JFK research is in a terrible state."

Mr Liftons outstanding account is ignored. What Barb has said is ignored. What Jack White has brought forward is ignored - though not as clearly as all the rest, the egg shells are still in place. And all others accounts in this thread are also ignored.

No answers, no responsibility, no acknowledgement of anything but for Judyths true description of events.

We are all a bunch of pointless distractors.

The shining beacons of light in this discussion are Mr Fetzer and Ms Vary Baker.

I agree, let them continue their misson of global enlightenment all by themselves.

I have a feeling - just as you do - that the energy of this enlightenment procedure would fade rather quickly.

Mr Glen Sir,

Is it not amazing how those that profess to be such astute researchers are often the ones that get side tracked by the most idiotic theories and ideas? It amazes me how that can happen to such highly educated people. Yet Alas there is salvation by way of those with education AND Common Sense. This is why I find Tink and so many others to be an invaluable resource to the community! Barb, yourself, tink, duncan, and so so many others are indispensable. I may not always agree with all of you on all counts, but you certainly are excellent in the research that you do, and are a wonderful resource for ACCURATE information.

Best to you all,

Mike

Edited April 3, 2010 by Mike Williams

[Glenn Viklund]

Mike (and I'm Glenn..)

Thanks for those words. You leave me without much to add, frankly.

GV