Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Barb,

For heavens sake, Mr Fetzer wants to move on. Do not bother him with real research and actual facts.

Good point, Glenn ... and one not lost on most. :-)

Happy Easter!

Hop, hop, hop,

Barb :-)

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

JUDYTH DISCUSSES "THE HEIGHT OF THE LIBRARY" QUESTION

NOTE: Why am I not surprised that Barb would post something completely

irrelevant to distract attention from the blockbuster post I have just made

about the "missing tooth"? Even Dean Hagerman piles on with the usual

suspects, who salivate over the very prospect that Judyth might have a

lapse regarding some detail or other. That Judyth is offering substantial,

detailed information about Lee's "missing tooth"--which she obviously did

not read in any books, as Jack likes to maintain--is given short shrift with

this crowd, whose bias oozes from their every pore. What astonishes me

is not that she may occasionally have some detail wrong, but how much

she has to tell us about crucial issues that comes from no other source.

This is extraordinarily strong evidence that she is indeed "the real deal".

This post, by the way, was sent to me on March 15 independent of this.

From the extract from a thread started by Martin Shackelford back on

15 May 2008, Judyth mistakenly described the library as having five

floors when it only had three. That is the sum and substance of what

Dean Hagerman has asked, "What is she going to say to get out of this

one?" The answer appears to be that the library was under construction

at the time and she did not explore the whole structure and therefore

she made a mistake in attributing to the building the wrong number of

floors! So the answer to Dean's breathless question is, Judyth made a

trivial mistake! What I think is more relevant is why Barb Junkkarinen

held this back until we had a blockbuster about Lee's "missing tooth"?

Why should this rather minor detail about the height of a building under

construction be such a major event when the fact that John Armstrong

doesn't know the difference between the 26 supporting volumes and

THE WARREN REPORT and falsely claims that Dulles was so skillful in

managing the commission that he was able to exclude any mention of

the CIA from its index! Since the 26 volumes HAD NO INDEX but the

888-page REPORT has an index, which actually includes around TWO

DOZEN ENTRIES about the CIA, he committed an egregious blunder. It

simply astounds me that this gross blunder by Armstrong is accepted

without comment, yet the least trivial mistake is used to trash Judyth.

JUDYTH RESPONDS IN AN EMAIL DATED 15 MARCH 2010:

DEAR JIM AND LOLA: MY SHORT TERM MEMORY PROBLEMS ARE TAKEN

ADVANTAGE OF BY BARB TO 'PROVE' I AM A xxxx. BUT IF YOU CAREFULLY

INSPECT WHAT I HAVE TO SAY, I THINK YOU'LL SEE IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE

TO ACCESS BOOKS AS EASILY AS SHE WANTS IT TO LOOK.

IRONICALLY, THE BOOKS WERE ACTUALLY ON THE FIRST FLOOR---

SOMETHING BARB DID NOT BOTHER TO DO RESEARCH ON, OR SURELY SHE

WOULD HAVE NAILED ME TO A CROSS.

HOWEVER, I DID NOT KNOW IT! IT IS A VERY LARGE LIBRARY AND I WAS

PHYSICALLY LIMITED IN MY ABILITY TO GET AROUND. I HAD TO OVERCOME

A BACK OPERATON FOR A RECONSTRUCTION OF MY BACK IN THE 80S. A

FALL WOULD ALMOST CRIPPLE ME. WALKING VERY FAR WAS OUT OF THE

QUESTION. CLIMBING STAIRS WAS AGONY.

ANYWAY, I LIVE WITH IT AND AM MUCH STRONGER NOW, DUE TO MANY

EXERCISES, AND CAN WALK FOR MILES, BUT IT TOOK YEARS OF HARD WORK.

"THE 26 VOLUMES" -- THAT IS WHAT THEY WERE CALLED WHEN MENTIONED BY

SHACKELFORD AND PLATZMAN -- I FINALLY FOUND THE WARREN COMMISSION

REPORT,BUT IT WAS IN A BOX SOMEWHERE! -- THAT'S WHAT THEY SAID!

THE 26 VOLUMES ARE CALLED "THE WARREN COMMISSION HEARINGS AND

EXHIBITS" [NOTE: WHICH, OF COURSE, IS THEIR OFFICIAL NAME]. BELIEVE

IT OR NOT, THEY WERE NOT LISTED IN THE LIBRARY UNDER "26 VOLUMES"

OR [AS ASSOCIATED WITH] "THE WARREN COMMISSION REPORT".

MAYBE THEY ARE NOW, OF COURSE, BUT, AT THE TIME, THE CARD SYSTEM

WAS BEING TURNED INTO A COMPUTER SYSTEM. THEY WERE RIGHT THERE

ON THE GROUND FLOOR, AND I NEVER KNEW IT. IT TURNS OUT THAT THE

LIBRARY HAD A "U.S. ARCHIVES" SECTION I HAD ENTIRELY OVERLOOKED.

BARB MAY IMMEDIATELY DECLAR THAT I "LIED"...SIGH.. BUT IT IS TRUE

THAT I DIDN'T ACCESS THE DARNED THINGS UNTIL I WAS TOLD THEY WERE

ALSO AVAILABLE AT THE PUBLIC LIBRARY.

FROM A PAST THREAD BY MARTIN SHACKELFORD ABOUT THE LIBRARY

JUDYTH: The U of Louisiana, Lafayette Library

Martin Shackelford started a new thread titled "Judyth Baker on the Queen of

Spades" on alt.assassination.jfk, posting this snippet from a statement by

Judyth on May 15, 2008:

From: "Martin Shackelford" <mshack4@sbcglobal.net>

Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk

Subject: Judyth Baker on the Queen of Spades

Date: 15 May 2008 10:36:35 -0400

the gray book:

At U LA, if you didn't know the name of a book, you couldn't get it

brought down...not knowing what was up there, i could not ask for

it...the library under reconstruction and elevators not working, i was

confined to the first floor for a year....

[Louis] Girdler asked the librarian specifically for a book with "The

Queen of Spades" in it and she described it....but he's such a silly

goose, as he didn't require her to find a book written in russian...my

bad back made it impossible to climb the many stairs to the fourth or

fifth floor...impossible... but what's important is that the ONLY

Russian Pushkin they had up there with the requisite short story the

Queen of Spades--had a RED cover. I described, as you know, a gray

cover. Furthermore, the red cover was a hardback, not floppy.

Judyth has long made claims, as has Martin, that Judyth had done no

research before she came forth with her story ... Judyth noting that

she had no access as the library at the university was undergoing

remodeling/construction for a year (completed in 2000), there was no

elevator service and she couldn't get to an upper floor where any such

materials were kept because her back probs prevented her from climbing

the stairs.

The quote above is a nice short, concise one that contains her 2

claims about the library:

1. There was no elevator service for a year during the

remodel/construction, and ...

2. The library was 5 stories high.

I spoke to Sandy in the reference section of the library on June 8,

2009. She was working there at the time of the remodeling/construction

10 years ago ... before it, through it, and to this day. She told me:

1 .The library is now and was 3 stories. The remodeling doubled the

size of the library by adding an addition ... but the number of floors

stayed the same.

2. There was always at least one elevator available throughoutt the

construction/remodel which lasted well over a year. "Oh, gosh, yes"

was her reply to my question as to whether or not elevator service

remained intact during that long time. There is what she called "a

set" of elevators ... the set being two elevators side by side. At

least one was always available.

Here are links to information about the library on the university

website ... as well as the floor plan.

About the library

http://library.louisiana.edu/General/about.shtml

Floor plans

http://library.louisiana.edu/General/floor.shtml

Some details about the construction project here:

http://www.llaonline.org/fp/files/pubs/new.../notes_0201.pdf

Page 3:

"The library was officially

dedicated in a festive ceremony on

Friday, October 27, 2000. The

construction and renovation project

was begun in September of 1997. In the

next three year period 88,000 square feet of

new space were added to the library and 90

percent of the existing 125,000 square feet of

old space was refurbished and renovated. The

library was open to the patrons during the

entire construction period; library services were

available to the students and faculty even

during days of noise and dust.

The dedication ceremony was ..."

Barb :-)

With all due respect, you seem to be blindly enabling the blocking of a valid research process. Anyone who attempts to manipulate research by using personal attacks accomplishes nothing. Lifton's LHO timeline information unfortunately is tainted by his bias against Judyth. Lifton may be slinking away because he grabbed a clue about this. Barb's information is carefully cherrypicked to attempt to discredit Judyth. There are other names for this, but 'research' isn't one of them.

And what do those who attack anyone who attempts to evaluate claims made by a witness do, Pamela? Is that a valid "research process" - especially when documented information provided is seemingly not even looked at, certainly not addressed in return, and instead just circus barker like attacks all about anyone, anything and everything, over, under and around the information that was brought out?

You've accused me of "cherrypicking" in my fact checking constantly....but when asked, you never give an example or an explanation. I recently posted regarding Judyth's claim that she had done no research before coming out with her story, and could not have done any research, because the library at the U Louisiana was under remodeling construction and for a year she had no access to where the books she would need to do such research were on the 4th or 5th floor .... as there was no elevator in service for that entire year and because of her back problems she could not do the stairs.

I posted:

Direct quotes from a named person at the library who worked there at the time of the construction, and still works there.

I posted the link to the library site that includes the story of the construction, the floor plan of the library.

And the librarian I spoke to and the info on the library site make it clear that the library is, was and always has been THREE floors ... and that at least one of their two elevators was always working during that year of construction.

Not a peep in response from Judyth or Fetzer .... or you. What exactly was "cherrypicked"?

You talk a lot, but never on the actual issues or evidence, just airily, and with no specifics, making allegations about other posters and their "process." Your process seems clear.

Edited April 4, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

JUDYTH RESPONDS TO JACK ABOUT LEE'S "DISCHARGE" STATUS

NOTE: Once again, what Judyth has to say is even more accurate and

complete than what Jack White has to say. This reinforces my complete

disillusionment with the "brain trust" of Jack White, John Armstrong, and

David S. Lifton, whom I have naively assumed knew all there is to know

about Lee H. Oswald. What I am discovering is that Judyth knows more

about Lee H. Oswald than the three of them together! That's astounding!

JUDYTH REPLIES:

Jack White said,

[[JVB: Robert should know that Lee was not discharged, but placed in the Marine

Reserves, a bit early...]]

Lee Harvey Oswald received an UNDESIRABLE DISCHARGE from the Marines.

Let's clarify this:

I meant that Lee Oswald was not discharged from the Marines. He

was placed in the Marine Reserves with an honorable discharge.

Robert Oswald mentions it himself in the Interview posted. LATER,

after Lee's fake defection, his honorable discharge was changed

to an undesirable discharge.

I here post what Pamela McElwain Brown has written elsewhere:

"....while looking through ce 780, which are the

documents surrounding lee harvey oswald's request

for review of his military status, which was changed

from an honorable discharge (from active duty) to an

undesirable discharge (from the reserves) the logic

used by the dept of the navy began to make some

sense. first, perhaps it is common knowledge, but

was not to me, that lho was still in the marine

reserves when he went to the soviet union. then,

although the dept of the navy claimed he renounced

his citizenship, which he did not formally do, they

also stated that "petitioner brought discredit to

the marine corps through adverse newspaper

publicity". for all of you from military families,

this has to raise a red flag. you just don't go

around embarrassing the marines in a foreign country

and expect to get away with it. when his case was

reviewed, there was no change in the status of his

discharge. he had, by his own actions, closed the

door on his reputation as a marine and his

relationship with them.

pamela

Martin Shackelford added:

Martin Shackelford

More options Jan 2 2000, 10:00 am

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk

From: Martin Shackelford <msh...@concentric.net>

Date: 2000/01/02

Subject: Re: ce 780 and a clarification of lho's marine status

Also, the appeal letters were sent to addresses where he no longer

resided.

I did a chronological reorganization of Oswald's entire military record

a few years back, which makes many of these issues a lot clearer than

the original form of the record, though it includes all of the same

information. I gave it to JFK Lancer to make available to researchers at

a modest cost.

Martin

+Quote Post

Jack White

post Today, 04:41 AM

Post #883

Super Member

****

Group: Members

Posts: 7196

Joined: 26-April 04

Member No.: 667

[JVB: Robert should know that Lee was not discharged, but placed in the Marine

Reserves, a bit early...]]

Lee Harvey Oswald received an UNDESIRABLE DISCHARGE from the Marines.

Go to the top of the page

[[JVB: Robert should know that Lee was not discharged, but placed in the Marine

Reserves, a bit early...]]

Lee Harvey Oswald received an UNDESIRABLE DISCHARGE from the Marines.

Edited April 4, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Linda Minor]

Count me on Judyth's side. I found more valuable information on her book than in any "research" from Barb, Jack, Dixie and Bill combined. I'm not saying they haven't contributed anything, only that I'm not aware of what it might be. Yet they have the gall to attack her. Rather than simply dispute this, please inform me what any of the named researchers has contributed to solving the answer of who killed John Kennedy and why. I would be grateful to know that answer. I don't understand why they feel so compelled to attack Judyth, especially since most have not even seen the previous botched version of her book, which I found so valuable.

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Yes, Fetzer, it must all be a plot against you ....ROTFL. See post #305, that is when I first posted on this topic in this thread.

The post Judyth attributes to Martin below is MY post, in a thread I started on the moderated group on 6-12-09 .... reposted in this thread, post #305. I quoted his post within it for the Judyth quote it contains.

I am happy to stand by my documented post which addressed and accounted for the oft made claims by Judyth (and by her supporters who were in the role Fetzer is now) that the books were on an upper floor, that she had no access because the elevator was not available for a whole year and she couldn't manage the stairs, so she couldn't have done any research even if she had wanted to do so.

The reason this is an issue is because Judyth has sworn up and down that she had never read Haslam's book, nor any others (it wasn't a 26 volumes issue, per se), nor had done any research when she had first come forward... and she used the library construction and claim of no elevator service for a whole year as her "proof" of that. Silly anyway, given the internet.

This was just one of the often made claims I decided to fact check. Her claim failed as the information in my post below shows.

There was elevator service during the one year construction phase. She was not unable to access anything on an upper floor. That she got the number of floors wrong, while true, is not the main salient point here. She claimed she could not have done research even if she wanted to because there was no elevator service for an entire year. That is not true ... and documented so. People can read and decide for themselves about whether or not Judyth lied about this or not, or why, or if it impacts her veracity, etc. I merely fact checked the claim and reported what I found. And I did not "cherrypick" anything.

I have left my post, which Judyth was kind enough to include in her post, below. I titled the thread,

JUDYTH: The U of Louisiana, Lafayette Library - that post is what Judyth included below.

Barb :-)

JUDYTH DISCUSSES "THE HEIGHT OF THE LIBRARY" QUESTION

NOTE: Why am I not surprised that Barb would post something completely

irrelevant to distract attention from the blockbuster post I have just made

about the "missing tooth"? Even Dean Hagerman piles on with the usual

suspects, who salivate over the very prospect that Judyth might have a

lapse regarding some detail or other. That Judyth is offering substantial,

detailed information about Lee's "missing tooth"--which she obviously did

not read in any books, as Jack likes to maintain--is given short shrift with

this crowd, whose bias oozes from their every pore. What astonishes me

is not that she may occasionally have some detail wrong, but how much

she has to tell us about crucial issues that comes from no other source.

This is extraordinarily strong evidence that she is indeed "the real deal".

This post, by the way, was sent to me on March 15 independent of this.

From the extract from a thread started by Martin Shackelford back on

15 May 2008, Judyth mistakenly described the library as having five

floors when it only had three. That is the sum and substance of what

Dean Hagerman has asked, "What is she going to say to get out of this

one?" The answer appears to be that the library was under construction

at the time and she did not explore the whole structure and therefore

she made a mistake in attributing to the building the wrong number of

floors! So the answer to Dean's breathless question is, Judyth made a

trivial mistake! What I think is more relevant is why Barb Junkkarinen

held this back until we had a blockbuster about Lee's "missing tooth"?

Why should this rather minor detail about the height of a building under

construction be such a major event when the fact that John Armstrong

doesn't know the difference between the 26 supporting volumes and

THE WARREN REPORT and falsely claims that Dulles was so skillful in

managing the commission that he was able to exclude any mention of

the CIA from its index! Since the 26 volumes HAD NO INDEX but the

888-page REPORT has an index, which actually includes around TWO

DOZEN ENTRIES about the CIA, he committed an egregious blunder. It

simply astounds me that this gross blunder by Armstrong is accepted

without comment, yet the least trivial mistake is used to trash Judyth.

JUDYTH RESPONDS IN AN EMAIL DATED 15 MARCH 2010:

DEAR JIM AND LOLA: MY SHORT TERM MEMORY PROBLEMS ARE TAKEN

ADVANTAGE OF BY BARB TO 'PROVE' I AM A xxxx. BUT IF YOU CAREFULLY

INSPECT WHAT I HAVE TO SAY, I THINK YOU'LL SEE IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE

TO ACCESS BOOKS AS EASILY AS SHE WANTS IT TO LOOK.

IRONICALLY, THE BOOKS WERE ACTUALLY ON THE FIRST FLOOR---

SOMETHING BARB DID NOT BOTHER TO DO RESEARCH ON, OR SURELY SHE

WOULD HAVE NAILED ME TO A CROSS.

HOWEVER, I DID NOT KNOW IT! IT IS A VERY LARGE LIBRARY AND I WAS

PHYSICALLY LIMITED IN MY ABILITY TO GET AROUND. I HAD TO OVERCOME

A BACK OPERATON FOR A RECONSTRUCTION OF MY BACK IN THE 80S. A

FALL WOULD ALMOST CRIPPLE ME. WALKING VERY FAR WAS OUT OF THE

QUESTION. CLIMBING STAIRS WAS AGONY.

ANYWAY, I LIVE WITH IT AND AM MUCH STRONGER NOW, DUE TO MANY

EXERCISES, AND CAN WALK FOR MILES, BUT IT TOOK YEARS OF HARD WORK.

"THE 26 VOLUMES" -- THAT IS WHAT THEY WERE CALLED WHEN MENTIONED BY

SHACKELFORD AND PLATZMAN -- I FINALLY FOUND THE WARREN COMMISSION

REPORT,BUT IT WAS IN A BOX SOMEWHERE! -- THAT'S WHAT THEY SAID!

THE 26 VOLUMES ARE CALLED "THE WARREN COMMISSION HEARINGS AND

EXHIBITS" [NOTE: WHICH, OF COURSE, IS THEIR OFFICIAL NAME]. BELIEVE

IT OR NOT, THEY WERE NOT LISTED IN THE LIBRARY UNDER "26 VOLUMES"

OR [AS ASSOCIATED WITH] "THE WARREN COMMISSION REPORT".

MAYBE THEY ARE NOW, OF COURSE, BUT, AT THE TIME, THE CARD SYSTEM

WAS BEING TURNED INTO A COMPUTER SYSTEM. THEY WERE RIGHT THERE

ON THE GROUND FLOOR, AND I NEVER KNEW IT. IT TURNS OUT THAT THE

LIBRARY HAD A "U.S. ARCHIVES" SECTION I HAD ENTIRELY OVERLOOKED.

BARB MAY IMMEDIATELY DECLAR THAT I "LIED"...SIGH.. BUT IT IS TRUE

THAT I DIDN'T ACCESS THE DARNED THINGS UNTIL I WAS TOLD THEY WERE

ALSO AVAILABLE AT THE PUBLIC LIBRARY.

FROM A PAST THREAD BY MARTIN SHACKELFORD ABOUT THE LIBRARY

JUDYTH: The U of Louisiana, Lafayette Library

Martin Shackelford started a new thread titled "Judyth Baker on the Queen of

Spades" on alt.assassination.jfk, posting this snippet from a statement by

Judyth on May 15, 2008:

From: "Martin Shackelford" <mshack4@sbcglobal.net>

Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk

Subject: Judyth Baker on the Queen of Spades

Date: 15 May 2008 10:36:35 -0400

the gray book:

At U LA, if you didn't know the name of a book, you couldn't get it

brought down...not knowing what was up there, i could not ask for

it...the library under reconstruction and elevators not working, i was

confined to the first floor for a year....

[Louis] Girdler asked the librarian specifically for a book with "The

Queen of Spades" in it and she described it....but he's such a silly

goose, as he didn't require her to find a book written in russian...my

bad back made it impossible to climb the many stairs to the fourth or

fifth floor...impossible... but what's important is that the ONLY

Russian Pushkin they had up there with the requisite short story the

Queen of Spades--had a RED cover. I described, as you know, a gray

cover. Furthermore, the red cover was a hardback, not floppy.

Judyth has long made claims, as has Martin, that Judyth had done no

research before she came forth with her story ... Judyth noting that

she had no access as the library at the university was undergoing

remodeling/construction for a year (completed in 2000), there was no

elevator service and she couldn't get to an upper floor where any such

materials were kept because her back probs prevented her from climbing

the stairs.

The quote above is a nice short, concise one that contains her 2

claims about the library:

1. There was no elevator service for a year during the

remodel/construction, and ...

2. The library was 5 stories high.

I spoke to Sandy in the reference section of the library on June 8,

2009. She was working there at the time of the remodeling/construction

10 years ago ... before it, through it, and to this day. She told me:

1 .The library is now and was 3 stories. The remodeling doubled the

size of the library by adding an addition ... but the number of floors

stayed the same.

2. There was always at least one elevator available throughoutt the

construction/remodel which lasted well over a year. "Oh, gosh, yes"

was her reply to my question as to whether or not elevator service

remained intact during that long time. There is what she called "a

set" of elevators ... the set being two elevators side by side. At

least one was always available.

Here are links to information about the library on the university

website ... as well as the floor plan.

About the library

http://library.louisiana.edu/General/about.shtml

Floor plans

http://library.louisiana.edu/General/floor.shtml

Some details about the construction project here:

http://www.llaonline.org/fp/files/pubs/new.../notes_0201.pdf

Page 3:

"The library was officially

dedicated in a festive ceremony on

Friday, October 27, 2000. The

construction and renovation project

was begun in September of 1997. In the

next three year period 88,000 square feet of

new space were added to the library and 90

percent of the existing 125,000 square feet of

old space was refurbished and renovated. The

library was open to the patrons during the

entire construction period; library services were

available to the students and faculty even

during days of noise and dust.

The dedication ceremony was ..."

Barb :-)

Edited April 4, 2010 by Barb Junkkarinen

[Jack White]

Jim...turn ON your comprehension. READ THE BOOK. See the Armstrong documentation for yourself

instead of incorrectly IMAGINING what the documentation is. You are COMPLETELY WRONG! If you read

the book you will see why...if you try.

And you are WRONG about the INDEX to the 26 volumes. It is in Volume XV. And EACH volume has

a Table of Contents in the front of each book. I must admit the volumes are poorly arranged and

the indexes and contents are not logically done. AND in the INDEX, citations for LEE HARVEY OSWALD

are omitted (I guess there were TOO MANY to index.).

Please read H&L. It contains answers to most of your questions. By speculating about what it says,

you are providing FALSE INFORMATION to those who have not read the book.

Jack

JIM REPLIES TO JACK ABOUT WHETHER LEE COULD DRIVE

READ THE BOOK! READ THE BOOK! So I start reading the book and discover right away the assertion that Allan Dulles was so clever in manipulating the Warren Commission with regard to the CIA that "in its 26 volumes, the name of the CIA does not even appear in its index"! Maybe you missed the post in which I observed (1) that the 26 supporting volumes does not even have an index and that (2) that the 888-page summary report, known as THE WARREN REPORT, does have an index, where the CIA is listed at least two dozen times! That is not the kind of discovery that inspires confidence in HARVEY & LEE.

Moreover, Armstrong's methodology appears to have been to vacuum up every document he could find in the public domain. You have told me that meant the existence of these documents could not be challenged because they are all in the public domain. But when I asked what principle of selection had been used to determine which were not only (3) authentic documents but also had (4) accurate content, you remained silent. It is as though you and John were oblivious of "The Mighty Wurlitzer' being played by Frank Wisner to flood the media with stories concocted by and managed by the CIA!

Now I discover that, in relation to the question of whether or not the man Judyth knew in New Orleans could or could not drive, you offer (what you imply to be) the definitive testimony of Ruth Paine and of Marina Oswald, yet at the bottom of the post, you include a table with the names of THIRTY-TWO other witnesses who have reported that they had either seen him drive or knew he had the ability to drive. I am sure you are going to resolve this contradiction by appealing to "Harvey" and "Lee". But, frankly, Jack, this looks like a ruse to draw attention from the real "two Oswalds", Robert and Lee!

So far as I am able to discern, HARVEY & LEE begins with a blunder and was created in fashion that was methodologically unsound--at least to the extent to which no effort appears to have been expended to sort out the true documents from the false, the accurate records from the inaccurate, and the genuine photos from the fake. IF YOU WANT ME TO TAKE ANY OF THIS SERIOUSLY, YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO ADDRESS THESE QUESTIONS. How can anyone claim to be an expert on the assassination when they do not even know the difference between the 26 supporting volumes and the summary report?

Why you display such an arrogant and insulting attitude toward Judyth when this book to which you constantly refer commits such a grevious blunder from scratch is beyond me. And to continue to insist that there actually were "two Oswalds" when Judyth has already shown that some of the photos that you have taken for granted are suspect and when the documentary trail on which you rely may have been deliberately created as a false history so the man she knew could eventually return to a normal life in society simply astounds me. Judyth has her flaws, no doubt, but your position is hopelessly indefensible.

Marina Oswald and Ruth and Michael Paine all told the Warren Commission in no uncertain terms that Lee Harvey Oswald did not drive an automobile and did not have a driver's license. But John Armstrong has found many witnesses who said Oswald did drive, including a former employee of the Texas Department of Public Safety License Records Department who issued a signed statement to a Garrison investigator stating that she had processed Oswald's returned driver's license after he was killed. This article explores these seeming contradictions.

Marina Oswald repeatedly told the Warren Commission that her husband did not drive. For example:

Mrs. OSWALD. Never. No; this is all not true. In the first place, my husband couldn't drive, and I was never alone with him in a car. Anytime we went in a car it was with Ruth Paine, and there was never--we never went to any gun store and never had any telescopic lens mounted.

Mr. RANKIN. Did the four of you, that is, your husband, you, and your two children, ever go alone any place in Irving?

Mrs. OSWALD. In Irving the baby was only 1 month old. I never took her out anywhere.

Representative FORD. Did you ever go anytime----

Mrs. OSWALD. Just to doctor, you know.

Representative FORD. Did you ever go anytime with your husband in a car with the rifle?

Mrs. OSWALD. I was never at anytime in a car with my husband and with a rifle. Not only with the rifle, not even with a pistol. Even without anything I was never with my husband in a car under circumstances where he was driving a car. (WC V, 401)

Michael Paine also indicated several times that Lee Harvey Oswald did not drive. For example:

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you ever see Oswald drive a car?

Mr. PAINE. No; I did not. (WC II, 413)

In her Warren Commission testimony, Ruth Paine stated that as late as the weekend before the assassination of JFK, Oswald had failed to obtain a learner's permit so that he could eventually acquire a valid Texas driver's license.

Mr. JENNER. You did talk with him on the telephone?

Mrs. PAINE. That is my recollection. I am certain that I talked with him, that he was surprised that he didn't need a car. I had to tell him that he didn't need a car to take with him to take his test.

Mr. JENNER. Take his initial test?

Mrs. PAINE. Take his test, and suggested that he go from Dallas himself to take this test. Then he called us Saturday afternoon of the 16th to say he had been and tried to get his driver's permit but that he had arrived before closing time but still to late to get in because there was a long line ahead of him, the place having been closed both the previous Saturday for election day and the following Monday, the 11th, Veterans Day. There were a lot of people who wanted to get permits and he was advised that it wouldn't pay him to wait in line. He didn't have time to be tested.

Mr. JENNER. Could you help us fix, can you recall as closely as possible the day of the week, this is the weekend of the assassination, was it not?

Mrs. PAINE. The weekend before.

Mr. JENNER. The weekend before, and this conversation you are now relating that you had with him in which he said that he had gone to the driver's license station, when did that conversation with you take place?

Mrs. PAINE. That conversation was with Marina, and she told me about it.

Mr. JENNER. When did she tell you about it?

Mrs. PAINE. He called her, it must have been Saturday afternoon, soon after he had been, he went Saturday morning and they closed at noon.

Mr. JENNER. I see. This was the weekend he did not come out to Irving?

Mrs. PAINE. This was the weekend he did not come out. (WC II, 516)

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

So why did you bring it up again now, right after this blockbuster about Lee's missing tooth? You trade in trivia, while Judyth is making major contributions. Linda has it right: You post nothing significant because you have nothing significant to post. Your conduct here is utterly transparent.

Yes, Fetzer, it must all be a plot against you ....ROTFL. See post #305, that is when I first posted on this topic in this thread.

The post Judyth attributes to Martin below is MY post, in a thread I started on the moderated group on 6-12-09 .... reposted in this thread, post #305. I quoted his post within it for the Judyth quote it contains.

I am happy stand by my documented post which addressed and accounted for the oft made claims by Judyth (and by her supporters who were in the role Fetzer is now) that the books were on an upper floor, that she had no access because the elevator was not available for a whole year and she couldn't manage the stairs, so she couldn't have done any research even if she had wanted to do so.

The reason this is an issue is because Judyth has sworn up and down that she had never read Haslam's book, nor any others (it wasn't a 26 volumes issue, per se), nor had done any research when she had first come forward... and she used the library construction and claim of no elevator service for a whole year as her "proof" of that. Silly anyway, given the internet.

This was just one of the often made claims I decided to fact check. Her claim failed as the information in my post below shows.

There was elevator service during the one year construction phase. She was not unable to access anything on an upper floor. That she got the number of floors wrong, while true, is not the salient point here. She claimed she could not have done research even if she wanted to because there was no elevator service for an entire year. That is not true ... and documented so. People can read and decide for themselves about whether or not Judyth lied about this or not, or why, etc. I merely fact checked the claim and reported what I found.

I have left my post, which Judyth was kind enough to include in her post, though she attributes it to Martin Shackelford, below. I titled the thread,

JUDYTH: The U of Louisiana, Lafayette Library - that post is what Judyth included below.

Barb :-)

JUDYTH DISCUSSES "THE HEIGHT OF THE LIBRARY" QUESTION

NOTE: Why am I not surprised that Barb would post something completely

irrelevant to distract attention from the blockbuster post I have just made

about the "missing tooth"? Even Dean Hagerman piles on with the usual

suspects, who salivate over the very prospect that Judyth might have a

lapse regarding some detail or other. That Judyth is offering substantial,

detailed information about Lee's "missing tooth"--which she obviously did

not read in any books, as Jack likes to maintain--is given short shrift with

this crowd, whose bias oozes from their every pore. What astonishes me

is not that she may occasionally have some detail wrong, but how much

she has to tell us about crucial issues that comes from no other source.

This is extraordinarily strong evidence that she is indeed "the real deal".

This post, by the way, was sent to me on March 15 independent of this.

From the extract from a thread started by Martin Shackelford back on

15 May 2008, Judyth mistakenly described the library as having five

floors when it only had three. That is the sum and substance of what

Dean Hagerman has asked, "What is she going to say to get out of this

one?" The answer appears to be that the library was under construction

at the time and she did not explore the whole structure and therefore

she made a mistake in attributing to the building the wrong number of

floors! So the answer to Dean's breathless question is, Judyth made a

trivial mistake! What I think is more relevant is why Barb Junkkarinen

held this back until we had a blockbuster about Lee's "missing tooth"?

Why should this rather minor detail about the height of a building under

construction be such a major event when the fact that John Armstrong

doesn't know the difference between the 26 supporting volumes and

THE WARREN REPORT and falsely claims that Dulles was so skillful in

managing the commission that he was able to exclude any mention of

the CIA from its index! Since the 26 volumes HAD NO INDEX but the

888-page REPORT has an index, which actually includes around TWO

DOZEN ENTRIES about the CIA, he committed an egregious blunder. It

simply astounds me that this gross blunder by Armstrong is accepted

without comment, yet the least trivial mistake is used to trash Judyth.

JUDYTH RESPONDS IN AN EMAIL DATED 15 MARCH 2010:

DEAR JIM AND LOLA: MY SHORT TERM MEMORY PROBLEMS ARE TAKEN

ADVANTAGE OF BY BARB TO 'PROVE' I AM A xxxx. BUT IF YOU CAREFULLY

INSPECT WHAT I HAVE TO SAY, I THINK YOU'LL SEE IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE

TO ACCESS BOOKS AS EASILY AS SHE WANTS IT TO LOOK.

IRONICALLY, THE BOOKS WERE ACTUALLY ON THE FIRST FLOOR---

SOMETHING BARB DID NOT BOTHER TO DO RESEARCH ON, OR SURELY SHE

WOULD HAVE NAILED ME TO A CROSS.

HOWEVER, I DID NOT KNOW IT! IT IS A VERY LARGE LIBRARY AND I WAS

PHYSICALLY LIMITED IN MY ABILITY TO GET AROUND. I HAD TO OVERCOME

A BACK OPERATON FOR A RECONSTRUCTION OF MY BACK IN THE 80S. A

FALL WOULD ALMOST CRIPPLE ME. WALKING VERY FAR WAS OUT OF THE

QUESTION. CLIMBING STAIRS WAS AGONY.

ANYWAY, I LIVE WITH IT AND AM MUCH STRONGER NOW, DUE TO MANY

EXERCISES, AND CAN WALK FOR MILES, BUT IT TOOK YEARS OF HARD WORK.

"THE 26 VOLUMES" -- THAT IS WHAT THEY WERE CALLED WHEN MENTIONED BY

SHACKELFORD AND PLATZMAN -- I FINALLY FOUND THE WARREN COMMISSION

REPORT,BUT IT WAS IN A BOX SOMEWHERE! -- THAT'S WHAT THEY SAID!

THE 26 VOLUMES ARE CALLED "THE WARREN COMMISSION HEARINGS AND

EXHIBITS" [NOTE: WHICH, OF COURSE, IS THEIR OFFICIAL NAME]. BELIEVE

IT OR NOT, THEY WERE NOT LISTED IN THE LIBRARY UNDER "26 VOLUMES"

OR [AS ASSOCIATED WITH] "THE WARREN COMMISSION REPORT".

MAYBE THEY ARE NOW, OF COURSE, BUT, AT THE TIME, THE CARD SYSTEM

WAS BEING TURNED INTO A COMPUTER SYSTEM. THEY WERE RIGHT THERE

ON THE GROUND FLOOR, AND I NEVER KNEW IT. IT TURNS OUT THAT THE

LIBRARY HAD A "U.S. ARCHIVES" SECTION I HAD ENTIRELY OVERLOOKED.

BARB MAY IMMEDIATELY DECLAR THAT I "LIED"...SIGH.. BUT IT IS TRUE

THAT I DIDN'T ACCESS THE DARNED THINGS UNTIL I WAS TOLD THEY WERE

ALSO AVAILABLE AT THE PUBLIC LIBRARY.

FROM A PAST THREAD BY MARTIN SHACKELFORD ABOUT THE LIBRARY

JUDYTH: The U of Louisiana, Lafayette Library

Martin Shackelford started a new thread titled "Judyth Baker on the Queen of

Spades" on alt.assassination.jfk, posting this snippet from a statement by

Judyth on May 15, 2008:

From: "Martin Shackelford" <mshack4@sbcglobal.net>

Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk

Subject: Judyth Baker on the Queen of Spades

Date: 15 May 2008 10:36:35 -0400

the gray book:

At U LA, if you didn't know the name of a book, you couldn't get it

brought down...not knowing what was up there, i could not ask for

it...the library under reconstruction and elevators not working, i was

confined to the first floor for a year....

[Louis] Girdler asked the librarian specifically for a book with "The

Queen of Spades" in it and she described it....but he's such a silly

goose, as he didn't require her to find a book written in russian...my

bad back made it impossible to climb the many stairs to the fourth or

fifth floor...impossible... but what's important is that the ONLY

Russian Pushkin they had up there with the requisite short story the

Queen of Spades--had a RED cover. I described, as you know, a gray

cover. Furthermore, the red cover was a hardback, not floppy.

Judyth has long made claims, as has Martin, that Judyth had done no

research before she came forth with her story ... Judyth noting that

she had no access as the library at the university was undergoing

remodeling/construction for a year (completed in 2000), there was no

elevator service and she couldn't get to an upper floor where any such

materials were kept because her back probs prevented her from climbing

the stairs.

The quote above is a nice short, concise one that contains her 2

claims about the library:

1. There was no elevator service for a year during the

remodel/construction, and ...

2. The library was 5 stories high.

I spoke to Sandy in the reference section of the library on June 8,

2009. She was working there at the time of the remodeling/construction

10 years ago ... before it, through it, and to this day. She told me:

1 .The library is now and was 3 stories. The remodeling doubled the

size of the library by adding an addition ... but the number of floors

stayed the same.

2. There was always at least one elevator available throughoutt the

construction/remodel which lasted well over a year. "Oh, gosh, yes"

was her reply to my question as to whether or not elevator service

remained intact during that long time. There is what she called "a

set" of elevators ... the set being two elevators side by side. At

least one was always available.

Here are links to information about the library on the university

website ... as well as the floor plan.

About the library

http://library.louisiana.edu/General/about.shtml

Floor plans

http://library.louisiana.edu/General/floor.shtml

Some details about the construction project here:

http://www.llaonline.org/fp/files/pubs/new.../notes_0201.pdf

Page 3:

"The library was officially

dedicated in a festive ceremony on

Friday, October 27, 2000. The

construction and renovation project

was begun in September of 1997. In the

next three year period 88,000 square feet of

new space were added to the library and 90

percent of the existing 125,000 square feet of

old space was refurbished and renovated. The

library was open to the patrons during the

entire construction period; library services were

available to the students and faculty even

during days of noise and dust.

The dedication ceremony was ..."

Barb :-)

Edited April 4, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

JIM REPLIES TO JACK ON HIS DEFENSE OF "HARVEY & LEE"

The fantastic theory of HARVEY & LEE is disintegrating before your eyes, but you are so convinced you aren't even reading the posts or else are not comprehending them. Judyth has most recently (in case you missed it) explained that the alleged distinction between "Harvey" and "Lee" based upon the "missing tooth" has no foundation. She has already shown that you do not even have the photographic record straight. And you may recall the sensation when Sylvia Meagher published her INDEX to the 26 supporting volumes, which was welcomed by one and all. And that Allen Dulles could not have been very successful in excluding reference to the CIA from the commission's publications when, in the 888-page volume known as THE WARREN REPORT, which has its own index, there are some two dozen reference to the CIA! So what was John Armstrong talking about?

You ask me to read his book, and when I do, I immediately stumble over a colossal blunder in the first four or five pages. I have asked you repeatedly what principles were used to select between the documents that were published in the public domain that had TRUE content and that had FALSE content. I have heard nothing from you but silence. CEASE TOUTING "THE TWO OSWALDS". I am already convinced that you and Armstrong vacuumed up a mass of documents where, for the most part, you have no idea which have TRUE CONTENT and which have FALSE. Judyth appears to know more than you, John, and David S. Lifton combined with it comes to Lee Harvey Oswald and "the second Oswald", his brother Robert, of whom none of you seem to have the least knowledge. I cannot believe what I am discovering here. HARVEY & LEE is a fanstasy--and you have the nerve to accuse Judyth of being a "fantasist"! I'm sorry, Jack. Sad to say, you have it exactly backwards.

Jim...turn ON your comprehension. READ THE BOOK. See the Armstrong documentation for yourself

instead of incorrectly IMAGINING what the documentation is. You are COMPLETELY WRONG! If you read

the book you will see why...if you try.

And you are WRONG about the INDEX to the 26 volumes. It is in Volume XV. And EACH volume has

a Table of Contents in the front of each book. I must admit the volumes are poorly arranged and

the indexes and contents are not logically done. AND in the INDEX, citations for LEE HARVEY OSWALD

are omitted (I guess there were TOO MANY to index.).

Please read H&L. It contains answers to most of your questions. By speculating about what it says,

you are providing FALSE INFORMATION to those who have not read the book.

Jack

JIM REPLIES TO JACK ABOUT WHETHER LEE COULD DRIVE

READ THE BOOK! READ THE BOOK! So I start reading the book and discover right away the assertion that Allan Dulles was so clever in manipulating the Warren Commission with regard to the CIA that "in its 26 volumes, the name of the CIA does not even appear in its index"! Maybe you missed the post in which I observed (1) that the 26 supporting volumes does not even have an index and that (2) that the 888-page summary report, known as THE WARREN REPORT, does have an index, where the CIA is listed at least two dozen times! That is not the kind of discovery that inspires confidence in HARVEY & LEE.

Moreover, Armstrong's methodology appears to have been to vacuum up every document he could find in the public domain. You have told me that meant the existence of these documents could not be challenged because they are all in the public domain. But when I asked what principle of selection had been used to determine which were not only (3) authentic documents but also had (4) accurate content, you remained silent. It is as though you and John were oblivious of "The Mighty Wurlitzer' being played by Frank Wisner to flood the media with stories concocted by and managed by the CIA!

Now I discover that, in relation to the question of whether or not the man Judyth knew in New Orleans could or could not drive, you offer (what you imply to be) the definitive testimony of Ruth Paine and of Marina Oswald, yet at the bottom of the post, you include a table with the names of THIRTY-TWO other witnesses who have reported that they had either seen him drive or knew he had the ability to drive. I am sure you are going to resolve this contradiction by appealing to "Harvey" and "Lee". But, frankly, Jack, this looks like a ruse to draw attention from the real "two Oswalds", Robert and Lee!

So far as I am able to discern, HARVEY & LEE begins with a blunder and was created in fashion that was methodologically unsound--at least to the extent to which no effort appears to have been expended to sort out the true documents from the false, the accurate records from the inaccurate, and the genuine photos from the fake. IF YOU WANT ME TO TAKE ANY OF THIS SERIOUSLY, YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO ADDRESS THESE QUESTIONS. How can anyone claim to be an expert on the assassination when they do not even know the difference between the 26 supporting volumes and the summary report?

Why you display such an arrogant and insulting attitude toward Judyth when this book to which you constantly refer commits such a grevious blunder from scratch is beyond me. And to continue to insist that there actually were "two Oswalds" when Judyth has already shown that some of the photos that you have taken for granted are suspect and when the documentary trail on which you rely may have been deliberately created as a false history so the man she knew could eventually return to a normal life in society simply astounds me. Judyth has her flaws, no doubt, but your position is hopelessly indefensible.

Marina Oswald and Ruth and Michael Paine all told the Warren Commission in no uncertain terms that Lee Harvey Oswald did not drive an automobile and did not have a driver's license. But John Armstrong has found many witnesses who said Oswald did drive, including a former employee of the Texas Department of Public Safety License Records Department who issued a signed statement to a Garrison investigator stating that she had processed Oswald's returned driver's license after he was killed. This article explores these seeming contradictions.

Marina Oswald repeatedly told the Warren Commission that her husband did not drive. For example:

Mrs. OSWALD. Never. No; this is all not true. In the first place, my husband couldn't drive, and I was never alone with him in a car. Anytime we went in a car it was with Ruth Paine, and there was never--we never went to any gun store and never had any telescopic lens mounted.

Mr. RANKIN. Did the four of you, that is, your husband, you, and your two children, ever go alone any place in Irving?

Mrs. OSWALD. In Irving the baby was only 1 month old. I never took her out anywhere.

Representative FORD. Did you ever go anytime----

Mrs. OSWALD. Just to doctor, you know.

Representative FORD. Did you ever go anytime with your husband in a car with the rifle?

Mrs. OSWALD. I was never at anytime in a car with my husband and with a rifle. Not only with the rifle, not even with a pistol. Even without anything I was never with my husband in a car under circumstances where he was driving a car. (WC V, 401)

Michael Paine also indicated several times that Lee Harvey Oswald did not drive. For example:

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you ever see Oswald drive a car?

Mr. PAINE. No; I did not. (WC II, 413)

In her Warren Commission testimony, Ruth Paine stated that as late as the weekend before the assassination of JFK, Oswald had failed to obtain a learner's permit so that he could eventually acquire a valid Texas driver's license.

Mr. JENNER. You did talk with him on the telephone?

Mrs. PAINE. That is my recollection. I am certain that I talked with him, that he was surprised that he didn't need a car. I had to tell him that he didn't need a car to take with him to take his test.

Mr. JENNER. Take his initial test?

Mrs. PAINE. Take his test, and suggested that he go from Dallas himself to take this test. Then he called us Saturday afternoon of the 16th to say he had been and tried to get his driver's permit but that he had arrived before closing time but still to late to get in because there was a long line ahead of him, the place having been closed both the previous Saturday for election day and the following Monday, the 11th, Veterans Day. There were a lot of people who wanted to get permits and he was advised that it wouldn't pay him to wait in line. He didn't have time to be tested.

Mr. JENNER. Could you help us fix, can you recall as closely as possible the day of the week, this is the weekend of the assassination, was it not?

Mrs. PAINE. The weekend before.

Mr. JENNER. The weekend before, and this conversation you are now relating that you had with him in which he said that he had gone to the driver's license station, when did that conversation with you take place?

Mrs. PAINE. That conversation was with Marina, and she told me about it.

Mr. JENNER. When did she tell you about it?

Mrs. PAINE. He called her, it must have been Saturday afternoon, soon after he had been, he went Saturday morning and they closed at noon.

Mr. JENNER. I see. This was the weekend he did not come out to Irving?

Mrs. PAINE. This was the weekend he did not come out. (WC II, 516)

Edited April 4, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

driv·el   [driv-uhl] Show IPA noun, verb,-eled, -el·ing or (especially British) -elled, -el·ling.

–noun

1. saliva flowing from the mouth, or mucus from the nose; slaver.

2. childish, silly, or meaningless talk or thinking; nonsense; twaddle.

–verb (used without object)

3. to let saliva flow from the mouth or mucus from the nose; slaver.

4. to talk childishly or idiotically.

5. Archaic. to issue like spittle.

–verb (used with object)

6. to utter childishly or idiotically.

7. to waste foolishly.

Origin: bef. 1000; ME dryvelen, var. of drevelen, OE dreflian; akin to draff

—Related forms

driv·el·er; especially British, driv·el·ler, noun

driv·el·ing·ly; especially British, driv·el·ling·ly, adverb

The bad news for Duncan MacRae is that, when Judyth has an explanation and he has no alternative, her explanation is obviously preferable. Apparently, whatever Duncan has imagined, it is apparently so implausible he is not even willing to put it into words. The good news for Duncan, however, is that his two latest posts,

post #887 at 11:00 AM Today

post #892 at 4:35 PM Today

are at least as contentless as his previous nine, which means that his divel quotient for meaningless posts divided by total number of posts now equals 11/11 = 1, so his 100% divel quotient rating remains intact.

The bad news for Jim Fetzer, is that he must learn to read and understand questions properly before responding with no answers the questions.

Jim types in bold when he is angry. It is well known that angry people, and people who shout in anger, are not in control of their own emotions.

Jim imagines that he has answered the questions, and is the only one who imagines this.

Barb didn't image that Jim fails to answer the questions.

No one fails to notice that Jim does not answer the questions.

The real bad news for me is that, I don't know what Divel means? Can anyone help me out here?

[Jack White]

Jim writes (which I could not locate):

...to distract attention from the blockbuster post I have just made

about the "missing tooth"

Just what is this blockbuster post about a missing tooth? It is

covered in great detail in Harvey & Lee...pages 91-92. Jim and

Judyth may be surprised to learn that it was LEE who had the

missing tooth...NOT HARVEY. (It was Harvey that JVB knew.)

So what is the JVB blockbuster? Armstrong DOCUMENTS IT

BY INTERVIEWING A CLASSMATE, Ed Voebel, who was present

during the fight between LEE and Robin Riley, who punched

Lee in the mouth. If the JVB version of the blockbuster differs

from this, it is FALSE.

Voebel told John that Riley knocked out an LHO tooth. It was on

the schoolyard of Beauregard Junior High School. That's it.

Jack

[Dean Hagerman]

JUDYTH DISCUSSES "THE HEIGHT OF THE LIBRARY" QUESTION

NOTE: Why am I not surprised that Barb would post something completely

irrelevant to distract attention from the blockbuster post I have just made

about the "missing tooth"? Even Dean Hagerman piles on with the usual

suspects, who salivate over the very prospect that Judyth might have a

lapse regarding some detail or other. That Judyth is offering substantial,

detailed information about Lee's "missing tooth"--which she obviously did

not read in any books, as Jack likes to maintain--is given short shrift with

this crowd, whose bias oozes from their every pore. What astonishes me

is not that she may occasionally have some detail wrong, but how much

she has to tell us about crucial issues that comes from no other source.

This is extraordinarily strong evidence that she is indeed "the real deal".

This post, by the way, was sent to me on March 15 independent of this.

From the extract from a thread started by Martin Shackelford back on

15 May 2008, Judyth mistakenly described the library as having five

floors when it only had three. That is the sum and substance of what

Dean Hagerman has asked, "What is she going to say to get out of this

one?" The answer appears to be that the library was under construction

at the time and she did not explore the whole structure and therefore

she made a mistake in attributing to the building the wrong number of

floors! So the answer to Dean's breathless question is, Judyth made a

trivial mistake! What I think is more relevant is why Barb Junkkarinen

held this back until we had a blockbuster about Lee's "missing tooth"?

Jim

To me this was not a "mistake" it was Judyth trying to make up a story as to make it look like she has never done any research or read any books on the assassination/LHO

When she was called on her story by Barb I wanted to see what Judyth would come up with

My post has no evil intentions and I am not jumping on any bandwagon

I have never believed Judyth

And unless I see some amazing proof from Judyth I will continue to not believe her story

I will be the first to say I was wrong if Judyth or you can prove to me that Judyth and LHO were lovers

So far I have not been impressed because I know what books Judyth could have read back before her apperance on TMWKK that would have gave her the information she needed to fake her story

This is my opinion Jim, I am not saying that I am right and Judyth is wrong

Trust me Jim, you know I will always be on you're side no matter what you believe about Judyth

The most important thing to me is Z-film (and other film/photo) alteration and has been since 1997

Prove my opinion wrong and I will admit that I was wrong right away

Dean

[Jack White]

I am very disappointed in my friend Jim, who purchased the book Harvey & Lee...but

WITHOUT READING IT, thinks he knows what is in it.

He keeps imagining that it is based on "faked documents" which John "vacuumed up"

when that is untrue. John relied largely on PERSONAL INTERVIEWS OF PEOPLE WHO

KNEW LHO.

Read pages 91-92 about the fight between LHO and Riley which knocked out a tooth.

Why Jim resists reading the book, I cannot fathom. I guess he is afraid of learning that

some of his fervent adoration of JVB might be baseless.

Jack

(The graphic below was posted on the internet in 2002 by J. Pruitt)

Edited April 4, 2010 by Jack White

[Jack White]

At one point HARVEY Oswald was enrolled at Beauregard Junior High School

in the BASEMENT home room of ninth grade teacher Myra DaRouse, whom

John interviewed. Myra told John Harvey was very short. Myra told John of

an incident in which the small Harvey had a piano fall on him, trapping him

on the floor.

At the same time, LEE Oswald attended Beauregard on the THIRD FLOOR,

according to Ed Voebel, whom John interviewed. Voebel saw the fight in

which Lee's tooth was knocked out. A photo was taken of the bigger, husky

Lee with his tooth knocked out. This famed photo appeared full page in

LIFE Magazine's LHO issue.

This is not according to vacuumed fake documents. This is personal interviews

with people who knew LHO.

Jack

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Count me on Judyth's side. I found more valuable information on her book than in any "research" from Barb, Jack, Dixie and Bill combined. I'm not saying they haven't contributed anything, only that I'm not aware of what it might be. Yet they have the gall to attack her. Rather than simply dispute this, please inform me what any of the named researchers has contributed to solving the answer of who killed John Kennedy and why. I would be grateful to know that answer. I don't understand why they feel so compelled to attack Judyth, especially since most have not even seen the previous botched version of her book, which I found so valuable.

Hi Linda,

We are a research community of people with varied interests, some only get involved with their specific area of interest, some get involved on a more general across the board basis, or find themselves interested in a certain topic when something new appears to have come forward. And newly found documents, as well as newly claimed witnesses, have come forth from time to time over the years.

Some of those documents, like one posted here not long ago, had been found to be fraudulent. Any information must be evaluated carefully to verify it's validity, or how can it have any value to a search for the truth about the assassination of JFK?

The same is true of witnesses .... no matter who it is .... Brennan, Jean Hill, James Files, Judyth, Beverly Oliver, etc. ... whomever, it does not matter. If they are credible, they may have very important information that can open new avenues of research and lead to discovery. If they are not credible, they only serve to muddy the waters of an already confusing arena and set well meaning researchers off on false trails.

One way, imo, to assess the veracity of a witness, is to fact check all of those claims that can be fact checked ... not all can be. But if those that can be fact checked fail the verification process, then just how much credibility ... and reliability ... can anyone place on their claims that cannot be fact checked?

Fact checking is not a personal "attack" on a witness ... it is the necessary process by which we can evaluate new information and evidence, or assess the value some new information may or may not have, as well as if a source, like in the case of a new witness, has credibility. In my opinion, any source whose claims in general fail simple fact checking verification, are not sources that can be trusted for valid research based on their word alone and their claim to be a witness.

When one claims to be a witness, but also is known to have done a great deal of research, their opinions, discoveries, work as a researcher, are certainly as valid as anyone else's as long as it can be documented, if being claimed as fact just like all of us must do. Claims of fact that rely on "I am a witness so what I tell you is true" necessarily must lead back to the evaluation of the veracity of any of that witnesses claims ... they either check out, or they don't.

Will I attack documentable falsehoods? You bet. No matter who puts them out. We get no closer to the truth, in fact the waters

get more muddied, any other way.

We all perceive evidence in different ways, we all have different opinions ... thank you for sharing yours.

Happy Easter to you,

Barb :-)

[Jack White]

I often disagree with some of Barb's writings and ALLIANCES, but I MUST SAY I AM IN 100 PERCENT AGREEMENT

WITH WHAT SHE WRITES BELOW. I could not have written it better.

I must say that I have studied for credibility all new witnesses who have come forward in later years. I find

most are credible. The ones NOT CREDIBLE, in my studied opinion, are James Files, Chauncey Holt, and

Judyth Baker. I admit that all three had some very MINOR association with some players in the plot, but

their tales border on the absurd and their motives are transparent. Baker is by far the strangest** of these

historical hitch-hikers.

Jack

**One of JVB's oddest claims is that she hated her family name of AVARY...so she changed it to VARY.

I consider this as weird as if I were to change my name from WHITE to HITE.

Count me on Judyth's side. I found more valuable information on her book than in any "research" from Barb, Jack, Dixie and Bill combined. I'm not saying they haven't contributed anything, only that I'm not aware of what it might be. Yet they have the gall to attack her. Rather than simply dispute this, please inform me what any of the named researchers has contributed to solving the answer of who killed John Kennedy and why. I would be grateful to know that answer. I don't understand why they feel so compelled to attack Judyth, especially since most have not even seen the previous botched version of her book, which I found so valuable.

Hi Linda,

We are a research community of people with varied interests, some only get involved with their specific area of interest, some get involved on a more general across the board basis, or find themselves interested in a certain topic when something new appears to have come forward. And newly found documents, as well as newly claimed witnesses, have come forth from time to time over the years.

Some of those documents, like one posted here not long ago, had been found to be fraudulent. Any information must be evaluated carefully to verify it's validity, or how can it have any value to a search for the truth about the assassination of JFK?

The same is true of witnesses .... no matter who it is .... Brennan, Jean Hill, James Files, Judyth, Beverly Oliver, etc. ... whomever, it does not matter. If they are credible, they may have very important information that can open new avenues of research and lead to discovery. If they are not credible, they only serve to muddy the waters of an already confusing arena and set well meaning researchers off on false trails.

One way, imo, to assess the veracity of a witness, is to fact check all of those claims that can be fact checked ... not all can be. But if those that can be fact checked fail the verification process, then just how much credibility ... and reliability ... can anyone place on their claims that cannot be fact checked?

Fact checking is not a personal "attack" on a witness ... it is the necessary process by which we can evaluate new information and evidence, or assess the value some new information may or may not have, as well as if a source, like in the case of a new witness, has credibility. In my opinion, any source whose claims in general fail simple fact checking verification, are not sources that can be trusted for valid research based on their word alone and their claim to be a witness.

When one claims to be a witness, but also is known to have done a great deal of research, their opinions, discoveries, work as a researcher, are certainly as valid as anyone else's as long as it can be documented, if being claimed as fact just like all of us must do. Claims of fact that rely on "I am a witness so what I tell you is true" necessarily must lead back to the evaluation of the veracity of any of that witnesses claims ... they either check out, or they don't.

Will I attack documentable falsehoods? You bet. No matter who puts them out. We get no closer to the truth, in fact the waters

get more muddied, any other way.

We all perceive evidence in different ways, we all have different opinions ... thank you for sharing yours.

Happy Easter to you,

Barb :-)

Edited April 4, 2010 by Jack White