Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Jack,

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. How did you and John determine that the documents you were including had accurate content and were not part of an elaborate documentary trail to create a false "parallel history" for one man, Lee Harvery Oswald, whom Judyth would meet in New Orleans and Jack Ruby, who was his friend, would shoot before the eyes of the nation? What did you do to cope with the all-too-real possibility that you were actually dealing with a counterfeit history to allow this one man, who was working for the CIA, to return to society with an appropriate cover story based upon the false history that you and John, alas!, appear to have mistaken for real?

I have asked you this question several times now, my friend, but you have never answered it. Just tell me which documents you excluded because you thought that, although they were real documents, their content was false? In the meanwhile, please 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, but I think you have it exactly backwards.

Jim

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

Edited April 5, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Jack White]

Jim...it is you who has it backwards. I just quoted pages 91 and 92 about the INTERVIEWS WITH WITNESSES

ABOUT THE MISSING TOOTH. These are NOT VACUUMED DOCUMENTS. They are personal interviews which

John conducted (and in some cases videotaped or recorded). These people were WITNESSES TO ACTUAL

EVENTS!

READ CAREFULLY...PERSONAL INTERVIEWS, NOT VACUUMED DOCUMENTS. You are not paying attention.

Read just two pages, 91 and 92. Please. NO FANTASTIC THEORIES...just interviews...actual witnesses.

Jack

Jack,

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. How did you and John determine that the documents you were including had accurate content and were not part of an elaborate documentary trail to create a false "parallel history" for one man, Lee Harvery Oswald, whom Judyth would meet in New Orleans and Jack Ruby, who was his friend, would shot before the eyes of the nation? What did you do to cope with the possibility that you were actually dealing with a counterfeit history to allow this one man, who was working for the CIA, to return to society with an appropriate cover story based upon the false history that you and John, alas!, appear to have mistaken for real?

I have asked you this question several times now, my friend, but you have never answered it. Just tell me which documents you excluded because you thought that, although they were real documents, their content was false? In the meanwhile, please 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, but I think you have it exactly backwards.

Jim

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

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Your position is such drivel you are not even willing to tell us. What precisely do you think is going on? And, in this context, if we needed another example of the childishness of your posts, you have just provided it.

Thanks Jim, you proved my point exactly, that you are not reading my posts with any degree of comprehension.

I asked if anyone could tell me what Divel meant, NOT Drivel.

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?

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Dean,

After all the badgering and battering she was taking on those fora, anyone

in their right mind would have to do some research if only to figure out why

they were being so brutalized. What has astonished me is that Judyht seems

to be better at doing research on Lee H. Oswald than the "brain trust" that I

have naively assumed was covering this territory. Lifton doesn't have when

he arrived in New Orleans right; Jack won't admit that the man Judyth knew

in New Orleans could drive; Armstrong doesn't know the difference between

the 26 volumes of supporting evidence and THE WARREN REPORT itself! I

am completely dumbfounded. Dozens of complaints have been made about

her and I have yet to see one of them sustained. When I have taken a closer

look at them, time after time Judyth's explanations have been better-founded

and more reasonable than those of her critics. I have had extensive dealing

with her and I am convinced she is "the real deal" and certainly nothing that

has been said recently carries weight. The "fantasists" are on the other side.

Jim

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

Edited April 5, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Dixie Dea]

Linda.......I have taken offense to your erroneous accusations. You just do not know what you are talking about, but I am only able to speak for myself. I have already stated at least some of this, at the beginning of this very thread. First of all, both Jim Fetzer as well as Judyth are aware that I am both a sincere as well as serious JFK Researcher. I have been around these forums for many years and am not exactly a newcomer. In addition, you need to see my JFK Library, in which I have read everyone of my books. Judyth even said once, she knew I was a serious reseracher, on this very forum. I have been aware of Judyth and her claims since either late 1999 or 2000...I don't recall for sure. I first read about her on the Salon.com website. Perhaps not really fair, but I did not believe it as soon as I read the article. I am thinking that later on, she did say there were mistakes in that article and I really wouldn't doubt that. Sometime later, she started joining various forums, in which I was also a member and had been for a long time. I have had an interest in this whole saga for many years now....a decade, in fact. You might ask why???..if I don't believe her and that would actually be a good question. But the best answer I could give is that it became more like a hobby or actually like a soap opera that I couldn't miss....or perhaps like an addiction. We have had a few exchanges on various forums...some good and some not so good. I have always told her that I wish her no harm and have nothing personal against her and do hope she believes that, even though I am still unable to believe most of her claims. There are some truths that I don't think anyone can argue with and have accepted though.And you are wrong about me not even reading her book. I most certainly did. I had it when it first came out and read every page of it as well as the other Footnote book. Most of what I read was pure milarky...but that is my opinion. I do not criticize you for beliving her and don't appreciate you criticizing me either. Also, I have her upcoming book on order, even though the date of shipping keeps changing. For your information, I have always stated that if I should decide that she is telling the truth, then I will be happy to let it be known. But that hasn't happend yet anyway! From all this, hopefully you will see that I have been around all this, Judyth issue longer then you have....and have been privy to a whole lot more that has gone down One more thing.....I have not made one comment at the DP Forum in that long Judyth thread. I decided that since she has always wanted a free reign to state her claims, then I would stay out of it and give her that chance. So, with that in mind, you came over to this forum to attack me. If you choose to believe her....that is you perogative and also vice versa.I do have to wonder why we are expected to not say anything and just pretend we believe her or any other matter as far as that goes.

This post is not for Jim or Judyth to comment on, it is for Linda! And I do think highly of LInda, irregardless of the above.

Dixie

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

JUDYTH OFFERS AN ADDENDUM FOR BARB ABOUT THE LIBRARY

NOTE: I don't quite understand why Barb seem to think that I did not see

that an old post of hers was included in the earlier reply from Judyth about

the library. This appears to me to be an excellent example of a rather trivial

issue, where Judyth's explanations of when Lee arrived in New Orleans was

better than Lifton's and her discussion of Lee's discharge was far superior to

Jack's and where I have yet to learn his answer to the following questions,

which are just the least bit more consequential than the library's height:

What did you do to cope with the possibility that you were actually dealing

with a counterfeit history to allow this one man, who was working for the CIA,

to return to society with an appropriate cover story based upon the false history

that you and John, alas!, appear to have mistaken for real? I have asked you

this question several times now, my friend, but you have never answered it.

Just tell me which documents you excluded because you came to realize that,

although they were real documents, their content was false? Please tell me.

JUDYTH REPLIES

I described the library as five stories high, which was my impression due to

the landings tha I, handicapped, tried to navigate. The few times I was there

either the elevator was not working, or, a librarian was stationed to go retrieve

books that had been boxed up, by means of a call number.

The library description -- that I thought it was five stories high -- should also go

far to prove that I was hardly ever there. Which was the case.

My own building (where I taught) was the English building, which had its own big

library (English literature, of course). So I had little need to go to the 'big' library..

I never said I was there often.

I brought up the library because it was nearby and I had been asked if I had

accessed information there. Did Barb assume I was tthere all the time? If so,

why would I have misreported how many floors the library had? It was under

construction. By the way, I am allergic to dust and almost gagged the first time

I went in there.

I avoided the library, but when forced to go there for some other reason, of

course I did try, in 1999, to access some information. I was not successful.,

My daughter knows I did no research in 1998 to the very end of that year,

as she lived with me. My entire family knows that as a busy single parent

with four children, working full-time, I had no 'research' time for anything

like that. We lived in Bradenton, Florida, where i was not about to ge into

such things. My children did not attend Manatee High, where i aended, to

avoid the past.

But their grandmother lived here, and i wanted 'family' nearby.

My children remember my walking out when in 1991- early 1992 my son

brought "JFK" to our house to watch. They remember because I never did

that. We always had lots of kids over for a Saturday night pizza pary and

movie, and I was the chaperone, but thist ime--the only time--I walked out.

So they remembered that vividly.

I could not bear to watch it or think of it, or to see somebody acting as Lee....

Only when my daughter went on her honeymoon right after Chrismas, 1998,

did I decide to see "JFK", and because of that film, decided to speak out.

Originally I was going to take it all to my grave.

Oliver Stone said silence is cowardice.I felt ashamed, and decided to speak out.

A professor finally told me the public library had a set of the 26 volumes, some-

time in the fall of 1999, and at that time I finally had access. I did no research

and had only read OSWALD"S TALE and MARINA AND LEE at the public library.

JVB

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 6, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

JUDYTH RESPONDS TO JACK ABOUT THE "INDEX" TO THE 26 VOLUMES

NOTE: This is troubling, Jack. Judyth corrected you when you criticized her about

Lee's "discharge", but you have yet to admit she was right and you were wrong.

Here is another case in which she is correcting you. I hate to say it, Jack, but it

sees to me, based upon this thread, that Judyth is better at this than Jack White.

JUDYTH REPLIES:

"The Index of Names" in Vol. XV of the Warren Commission Hearings is not a true

index.

It only qualifies as a list of names within the volumes.

There are no city names, such as New Orleans, San Francisco, Chicago, or Dallas.

There is no Moscow. No Minsk.

There are no agency names, such as FBI, CIA, or ONI.

It cannot be said that an 'influence' was exerted to omit the CIA when there are also

no place names, city names, street names, etc. There is no Reily's or JCS menioned.

This is not a true index--it is only a list of names --and the list of

names happens to be incomplee.

For example, Wlliam I. Monaghan, of Reily's, reads reports aloud on

several pages for the FBI, but he's not listed.

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 grievous 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 6, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

JUDYTH RESPONDS TO JACK WHITE ABOUT TRAVELING TO NOLA

NOTE: Judyth already corrected Jack about Lee's "discharge" and his claim that

the 26 supporting volumes had an "index". Here she corrects him about how we

know that Lee traveled to New Orleans from Dallas. Judyth has already explained

it, which suggests that either Jack is not reading her posts or misunderstands them.

JUDYTH REPLIES:

Jack White wrote:

In another thread, I commented that I WAS ALWAYS PUZZLED that years ago when

I first read the WR and other books, I was struck by the lack of investigation of how

and when LHO got to NOLA from Dallas. He suddenly decided to leave his pregnant

wife and go to look for work in New Orleans; why not look for work in Dallas? But

the FBI and WC did not document when, why or how this happened. So JVB FILLS

IN THIS BLANK by saying he took a bus. How does she know? She claims he told

her he took a bus...and nobody can dispute her because there is no record.

Jack

There is a record. It was already posted here a few days ago, by Judyth, regarding

the fact that Marina Oswald and Ruth Paine both tesified that Lee took a bus to New

Orleans the day after he placed his belongings in a bus station locker in Dallas. Lee's

aunt testified that he called from the bus station to have his things picked up there.

Jack White is not reading the thread or has misinterpred it.

The reasons why Lee Oswald moved to Dallas have been given to Dr. Fetzer and I

believe they have been posted. If not, they will be. It has to do with his Fair Play

for Cuba assignment and the Walker incident.

JVB

JIM RESPONDS TO JACK WHITE WITH A FEW QUESTIONS OF HIS OWN

That does appear to be a lapse. But I'm not sure what to make of it, since in the

same post discussing Robert she explains that Lee received an "undesirable" and

not a "dishonorable" discharge, as you are observing here. I'll ask her about this.

I have two questions for you. In post #756, you remark, relative to the question

of Lee's driving ability, you state (categorically), "I do NOT GRANT that JVB knows

more about Lee's driving than John Armstrong". Aren't you simply assuming this?

In particular, IF JUDYTH'S STORY IS CORRECT AND SHE ACTUALLY DROVE PLACES

WITH THE MAN SHE KNEW AS "LEE", WOULD YOU THEN GRANT THAT SHE KNOWS

MORE ABOUT LEE'S DRIVING THAN JOHN ARMSTRONG? Would you admit as much?

Howard Platzman and I had an interesting conversation today. He told me that he

and Martin Shackelford subjected Judyth to multiple forms of questioning and that,

when "60 Minutes" took an interest, CBS also conducted an investigation of its own.

Martin obtained a copy of Mary Ferrell's chronology of the activities of the man she

knew as "Lee" in New Orleans, but he did not share it with her. He spent a lot of

time asking her about what Lee was doing on specific dates and she answered him.

She was very successful in matching the Ferrell chronology. Martin thought that he

had nailed her on mistakes on two occasions. But it turned out that those were days

when the Ferrell chronology was blank. So Judyth apparently was filling in the blanks.

Is there any quantity or quality of evidence such that, were it to be produced, would

be sufficient to convince you that there is the POSSIBILITY that Judyth might be "the

real deal", even if you could care less and can't imagine why it should matter at all?

[[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.

Read the book. It was HARVEY that JVB knew. Harvey could not drive. LEE (the REAL Lee) COULD DRIVE.

Armstrong documents this.

JVB might be more believable if she DIDN'T fill in all the blanks. Where there are blanks, she inserts

herself.

In another thread, I commented that I WAS ALWAYS PUZZLED that years ago when I first read

the WR and other books, I was struck by the lack of investigation of how and when LHO got to

NOLA from Dallas. He suddenly decided to leave his pregnant wife and go to look for work in

New Orleans; why not look for work in Dallas? But the FBI and WC did not document when, why

or how this happened. So JVB FILLS IN THIS BLANK by saying he took a bus. How does she know?

She claims he told her he took a bus...and nobody can dispute her because there is no record.

Jack

Edited April 6, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Jack White]

Jim assumes that HARVEY & LEE is based entirely on documents. He repeatedly

asks how I know which documents are real and which are faked. As a professor

of philosophy, he knows this is an irrelevant question akin to "when did you

stop beating your wife?"

John Armstrong DID INVESTIGATION. He did NOT vacuum documents and

publish them. He used the PUBLIC RECORD...such as the WR, books, newspapers,

magazines, court records, land titles, school records, statements of witnesses,

affidavits, telephone directories, city directories, etc...but mostly personal

investigation, site visitation and INTERVIEWS WITH WITNESSES, often videotaped.

This is NOT vacuuming documents. It is investigation. He went to New Orleans

and found dozens of people who knew LHO. Some knew Lee, some knew Harvey.

He showed teacher Myra DaRouse a photo of LHO published in LIFE. She said that

picture is made on the third floor of Beauregard; my room was in the basement.

Harvey was very small, that fellow is very big and athletic; that is not Harvey.

Jim...please read the interviews so you will not err so often.

Also, you give me far too much credit for John's work; I contributed less than

10%. His paid assistant (John can afford that) was Malcolm Blunt, respected

British researcher, who did much of the digging at the National Archives for

documents that contained the word OSWALD. Robert Groden assisted John

with interviews of witnesses by producing videos. I went along with him on

a few Fort Worth interviews in Benbrook and Arlington Heights.

John also traveled the world doing interviews...places like Switzerland and

Argentina...and in the US spent weeks in Ohio, New Orleans, New York,

North Dakota and Florida.

READ THE BOOK! Others have done so and found it persuasive. Jim has

NOT read it and finds it full of errors. This does not compute.

Jack

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

JUDYTH RESPONDS TO JACK ABOUT WHETHER "HARVEY" COULD DRIVE

NOTE: This appears to be four for four for Judyth as opposed to Jack on

Lee's discharged, the index, how we know he took a bus to New Orleans

and now whether or not he could drive. Judyth appears to be right about

all four and Jack wrong, even though he would never acknowledge that.

JUDYTH REPLIES:

Jack White writes:

Read the book. It was HARVEY that JVB knew. Harvey could not drive.

LEE (the REAL Lee) COULD DRIVE. Armstrong documents this.

REPLY: Lee Harvey Oswald could drive. Unless you now include the entire

Murret family as knowing "Lee" as well as "Harvey", how does Mr. Armstrong

explain these records:

April/May 1963 - Oswald drives his uncle Murret's car. (WC Vol 2, pp. 503-504)

Oswald's cousin, John Murret, let him drive his car sometime between May and

July. (WC Vol 8, p. 151)

Judyth Baker has also stated to researchers that Oswald could drive, and did so,

with her, on three occasions. One such occasion has entered the record:

The opening remarks at he Clay Shaw trial mention that occasion, saying it was

not Marina Oswald with Oswald at that time, and that the prosecution wished they

knew who the woman was, that she would stand forth.

At that time, Judyth Baker was in bed trying to save a pregnancy, and they had

no TV or newspaper access. She did not know about this appeal.

Baker was the woman in the Kaiser-Frazer seen by Garrison witness Mary Morgan,

daughter of Reeves Morgan, a state representative and an employee at the East

Louisiana State Hospital where Oswald and Baker were headed August 31, 1963,

when they stopped at the barbershop in Jackson (Lea McGeHee also testified that

HE saw a woman in the Kaiser-Frazer automobile at that time, not sitting at the wheel).

After finishing duties at the hospital, Oswald and Baker, prior to their return to New

Orleans, stopped at the Morgan residence, just after sunset, where Mary, going outside

to stand on the poirch, saw a woman (Baker) sitting in the car Oswald had been driving

as her father spoke inside the house with Oswald inside. Mary would soon leave for college

classes.

This is on the witness record.

Baker has always stated Oswald could drive, but preferred not to because his driver's

license had been left behind in Texas. He did not tell Marina he could drive because she

would have insisted on their purchasing a car. He put off all such requests because he

was posing as a "dissatisfied worker" who could be sent to Cuba safely on such pretexts.

Car ownership and prosperity were not good ways to get disenchanted with the capitalist

system. His pro-Castro activities in New Orleans enhanced this image.

JVB

JIM RESPONDS TO JACK WHITE WITH A FEW QUESTIONS OF HIS OWN

That does appear to be a lapse. But I'm not sure what to make of it, since in the

same post discussing Robert she explains that Lee received an "undesirable" and

not a "dishonorable" discharge, as you are observing here. I'll ask her about this.

I have two questions for you. In post #756, you remark, relative to the question

of Lee's driving ability, you state (categorically), "I do NOT GRANT that JVB knows

more about Lee's driving than John Armstrong". Aren't you simply assuming this?

In particular, IF JUDYTH'S STORY IS CORRECT AND SHE ACTUALLY DROVE PLACES

WITH THE MAN SHE KNEW AS "LEE", WOULD YOU THEN GRANT THAT SHE KNOWS

MORE ABOUT LEE'S DRIVING THAN JOHN ARMSTRONG? Would you admit as much?

Howard Platzman and I had an interesting conversation today. He told me that he

and Martin Shackelford subjected Judyth to multiple forms of questioning and that,

when "60 Minutes" took an interest, CBS also conducted an investigation of its own.

Martin obtained a copy of Mary Ferrell's chronology of the activities of the man she

knew as "Lee" in New Orleans, but he did not share it with her. He spent a lot of

time asking her about what Lee was doing on specific dates and she answered him.

She was very successful in matching the Ferrell chronology. Martin thought that he

had nailed her on mistakes on two occasions. But it turned out that those were days

when the Ferrell chronology was blank. So Judyth apparently was filling in the blanks.

Is there any quantity or quality of evidence such that, were it to be produced, would

be sufficient to convince you that there is the POSSIBILITY that Judyth might be "the

real deal", even if you could care less and can't imagine why it should matter at all?

[[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.

Read the book. It was HARVEY that JVB knew. Harvey could not drive. LEE (the REAL Lee) COULD DRIVE.

Armstrong documents this.

JVB might be more believable if she DIDN'T fill in all the blanks. Where there are blanks, she inserts

herself.

In another thread, I commented that I WAS ALWAYS PUZZLED that years ago when I first read

the WR and other books, I was struck by the lack of investigation of how and when LHO got to

NOLA from Dallas. He suddenly decided to leave his pregnant wife and go to look for work in

New Orleans; why not look for work in Dallas? But the FBI and WC did not document when, why

or how this happened. So JVB FILLS IN THIS BLANK by saying he took a bus. How does she know?

She claims he told her he took a bus...and nobody can dispute her because there is no record.

Jack

Edited April 6, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Jack White]

Copied from another forum:

"Ken Rahn says :" Readers of these many articles may wish to consider the special challenges to absolute rigor that are faced by persons who hold strong religious faith, as Michael Griffith does. "

"On the face of it, Rahn comes off as a small-minded bigot with such a statement. "Absolute rigor?" Let me challenge Rahn with this proposition: the only thing preventing "absolute rigor" in this case is predetermined or rash conclusions about what must have happened, and any researcher regardless of religious perusasion, or of no religious persuasion, can fall victim to this trap. In fact the trap is independent of religious conviction and is more likely to catch persons overconfident of their own abilities. This case primarly demands humility and patience to sort out conflicts in the record, and especially an ability to "think outside the box," so they say."

This applies equally to other situations where persons pursue a predetermined

partisan study with "absolute rigor" in their conviction with a passionate fervor.

The best research is dispassionate OBJECTIVE study. This is sorely lacking

when it comes to Mrs. Baker. Opinions have been set in concrete and etched

in granite for ten years now. "Absolute rigor mortis" has set in. The subject

is DEAD and should be buried so that important research can resume. Constant

rehash of ten-year-old writings is counter productive. Everyone except Jim has

seen it all before. He is becoming the new Martin Shackleford or Wim Dankbaar.

Even they have tired of JVB and moved on to new pursuits.

Jack

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Jack,

You cite KEN RAHN about "absolute rigor" when no one is displaying that attitude

on this thread more than you? Have you read my post #785 dated 1 April 2010 in

which I discuss the general principles of reasoning that apply here? Do you know

that no empirical knowledge is ever certain and that developing and evaluating the

principles for evaluating uncertain knowledge has been my professional pastime?

I would be more impressed with your attitude if it were not the case that virtually

every time you fault Judyth, it is you who is wrong and she who is right. In four or

more recent instances--about Lee's "discharge", about the "index" to the Warren

Commission's supporting volumes, about how he travelled to New Orleans, and

about whether or not he could drive, for example--she is right and you are not.

Now that is only four examples and, while I have not posted them yet, I have

more that increases that number, some of which I shall post soon. Suppose it

turns out that for some number of differences between you, she continues to

be right and you wrong. How many would that have to before you could bring

yourself to admit that maybe, just maybe, she knows what she's talking about?

How many? 10? 20? 40? 100? How many times does Judyth have to show you

that she knows more than you do about Lee Harvey Oswald before you would

be willing to admit that maybe, just maybe, she is "the real deal"? I am afraid

I know the answer, which is that there is no number of times that she betters

you in our exchanges, because you are ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN you are right!

So spare me the blather about "absolute rigor" from Ken Rahn! Plus I have

told you that Shackelford subjected Judyth to extensive testing by using the

Ferrell chronology to see if she knew what Lee was doing on various days.

And she passed! I have no reason to think that Martin Shackelford or Wim

Dankbaar or Ed Haslam or Nigel Turner or Jim Marrs or Howard Platzman who

believe in Judyth have "tired of Judyth and moved on"! You are wrong again!

Jim

P.S. And while we are at it, why don't you reread and think about my post

#813 dated 2 April 2010, where I elaborate about the real "second Oswald",

JIM RESPONDS TO JACK REGARDING HIS "SUSPICIONS" ABOUT ROBERT,

because your take on Robert is the most fantastic explanation of any that I

have encountered in this thread to this date in time. And I would certainly

like to know what research you and John did to eliminate him as a suspect.

Copied from another forum:

"Ken Rahn says :" Readers of these many articles may wish to consider the special challenges to absolute rigor that are faced by persons who hold strong religious faith, as Michael Griffith does. "

"On the face of it, Rahn comes off as a small-minded bigot with such a statement. "Absolute rigor?" Let me challenge Rahn with this proposition: the only thing preventing "absolute rigor" in this case is predetermined or rash conclusions about what must have happened, and any researcher regardless of religious perusasion, or of no religious persuasion, can fall victim to this trap. In fact the trap is independent of religious conviction and is more likely to catch persons overconfident of their own abilities. This case primarly demands humility and patience to sort out conflicts in the record, and especially an ability to "think outside the box," so they say."

This applies equally to other situations where persons pursue a predetermined

partisan study with "absolute rigor" in their conviction with a passionate fervor.

The best research is dispassionate OBJECTIVE study. This is sorely lacking

when it comes to Mrs. Baker. Opinions have been set in concrete and etched

in granite for ten years now. "Absolute rigor mortis" has set in. The subject

is DEAD and should be buried so that important research can resume. Constant

rehash of ten-year-old writings is counter productive. Everyone except Jim has

seen it all before. He is becoming the new Martin Shackleford or Wim Dankbaar.

Even they have tired of JVB and moved on to new pursuits.

Jack

Edited April 5, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[David Lifton]

Thanks for the info. Will utilize that in the future. DSL

[Jack White]

Baloney!

JUDYTH RESPONDS TO JACK ABOUT WHETHER "HARVEY" COULD DRIVE

NOTE: This appears to be four for four for Judyth as opposed to Jack on

Lee's discharged, the index, how we know he took a bus to New Orleans

and now whether or not he could drive. Judyth appears to be right about

all four and Jack wrong, even though he would never acknowledge that.

JUDYTH REPLIES:

Jack White writes:

Read the book. It was HARVEY that JVB knew. Harvey could not drive.

LEE (the REAL Lee) COULD DRIVE. Armstrong documents this.

REPLY: Lee Harvey Oswald could drive. Unless you now include the entire

Murret family as knowing "Lee" as well as "Harvey", how does Mr. Armstrong

explain these records:

April/May 1963 - Oswald drives his uncle Murret's car. (WC Vol 2, pp. 503-504)

Oswald's cousin, John Murret, let him drive his car sometime between May and

July. (WC Vol 8, p. 151)

Judyth Baker has also stated to researchers that Oswald could drive, and did so,

with her, on three occasions. One such occasion has entered the record:

The opening remarks at he Clay Shaw trial mention that occasion, saying it was

not Marina Oswald with Oswald a hat time, and that the prosecution wished they

knew who the woman was, that she would stand forth.

At that time, Judyth Baker was in bed trying to save a pregnancy, and they had

no TV or newspaper access. She did not know about this appeal.

Baker was the woman in the Kaiser-Frazer seen by Garrison witness Mary Morgan,

daughter of Reeves Morgan, a state representative and an employee at the East

Louisiana State Hospital where Oswald and Baker were headed August 31, 1963,

when they stopped at the barbershop in Jackson (Lea McGeHee also testified that

HE saw a woman in the Kaiser-Frazer automobile at that time, not sitting at the wheel).

After finishing duties at the hospital, Oswald and Baker, prior to their return to New

Orleans, stopped at the Morgan residence, just after sunset, where Mary, going outside

to stand on the poirch, saw a woman (Baker) sitting in the car Oswald had been driving

as her father spoke inside the house with Oswald inside. Mary would soon leave for college

classes.

This is on the witness record.

Baker has always stated Oswald could drive, but preferred not to because his driver's

license had been left behind in Texas. He did not tell Marina he could drive because she

would have insisted on their purchasing a car. He put off all such requests because he

was posing as a "dissatisfied worker" who could be sent to Cuba safely on such pretexts.

Car ownership and prosperity were not good ways to get disenchanted with the capitalist

system. His pro-Castro activities in New Orleans enhanced this image.

JVB

JIM RESPONDS TO JACK WHITE WITH A FEW QUESTIONS OF HIS OWN

That does appear to be a lapse. But I'm not sure what to make of it, since in the

same post discussing Robert she explains that Lee received an "undesirable" and

not a "dishonorable" discharge, as you are observing here. I'll ask her about this.

I have two questions for you. In post #756, you remark, relative to the question

of Lee's driving ability, you state (categorically), "I do NOT GRANT that JVB knows

more about Lee's driving than John Armstrong". Aren't you simply assuming this?

In particular, IF JUDYTH'S STORY IS CORRECT AND SHE ACTUALLY DROVE PLACES

WITH THE MAN SHE KNEW AS "LEE", WOULD YOU THEN GRANT THAT SHE KNOWS

MORE ABOUT LEE'S DRIVING THAN JOHN ARMSTRONG? Would you admit as much?

Howard Platzman and I had an interesting conversation today. He told me that he

and Martin Shackelford subjected Judyth to multiple forms of questioning and that,

when "60 Minutes" took an interest, CBS also conducted an investigation of its own.

Martin obtained a copy of Mary Ferrell's chronology of the activities of the man she

knew as "Lee" in New Orleans, but he did not share it with her. He spent a lot of

time asking her about what Lee was doing on specific dates and she answered him.

She was very successful in matching the Ferrell chronology. Martin thought that he

had nailed her on mistakes on two occasions. But it turned out that those were days

when the Ferrell chronology was blank. So Judyth apparently was filling in the blanks.

Is there any quantity or quality of evidence such that, were it to be produced, would

be sufficient to convince you that there is the POSSIBILITY that Judyth might be "the

real deal", even if you could care less and can't imagine why it should matter at all?

[[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.

Read the book. It was HARVEY that JVB knew. Harvey could not drive. LEE (the REAL Lee) COULD DRIVE.

Armstrong documents this.

JVB might be more believable if she DIDN'T fill in all the blanks. Where there are blanks, she inserts

herself.

In another thread, I commented that I WAS ALWAYS PUZZLED that years ago when I first read

the WR and other books, I was struck by the lack of investigation of how and when LHO got to

NOLA from Dallas. He suddenly decided to leave his pregnant wife and go to look for work in

New Orleans; why not look for work in Dallas? But the FBI and WC did not document when, why

or how this happened. So JVB FILLS IN THIS BLANK by saying he took a bus. How does she know?

She claims he told her he took a bus...and nobody can dispute her because there is no record.

Jack

[Jack White]

Jim...I have read all your posts. I disagree with them. You are unaware of much information.

I did not cite Ken Rahn...the author of the posting I was quoting cited him and then took him

to task. I was agreeing with the author...CERTAINLY NOT THE LN KEN RAHN. Please read

more carefully.

Jack,

You cite KEN RAHN about "absolute rigor" when no one is displaying that attitude

on this thread more than you? Have you read my post #785 dated 1 April 2010 in

which I discuss the general principles of reasoning that apply here? Do you know

that no empirical knowledge is ever certain and that developing and evaluating the

principles for evaluating uncertain knowledge has been my professional pastime?

I would be more impressed with your attitude if it were not the case that virtually

every time you fault Judyth, it is you who is wrong and she who is right. In four or

more recent instances--about Lee's "discharge", about the "index" to the Warren

Commission's supporting volumes, about how he travelled to New Orleans, and

about whether or not he could drive, for example--she is right and you are not.

Now that is only four examples and, while I have not posted them yet, I have

more that increases that number, some of which I shall post soon. Suppose it

turns out that for some number of differences between you, she continues to

be right and you wrong. How many would that have to before you could bring

yourself to admit that maybe, just maybe, she knows what she's talking about?

How many? 10? 20? 40? 100? How many times does Judyth have to show you

that she knows more than you do about Lee Harvey Oswald before you would

be willing to admit that maybe, just maybe, she is "the real deal"? I am afraid

I know the answer, which is that there is no number of times that she betters

you in our exchanges, because you are ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN you are right!

So spare me the blather about "absolute rigor" from Ken Rahn! Plus I have

told you that Shackelford subjected Judyth to extensive testing by using the

Ferrell chronology to see if she knew what Lee was doing on various days.

And she passed! I have no reason to think that Martin Shackelford or Wim

Dankbaar or Ed Haslam or Nigel Turner or Jim Marrs or Howard Platzman who

believe in Judyth have "tired of Judyth and moved on"! You are wrong again!

Jim

P.S. And while we are at it, why don't you reread and think about my post

#813 dated 2 April 2010, where I elaborate about the real "second Oswald",

JIM RESPONDS TO JACK REGARDING HIS "SUSPICIONS" ABOUT ROBERT,

because your take on Robert is the most fantastic explanation of any that I

have encountered in this thread to this date in time. And I would certainly

like to know what research you and John did to eliminate him as a suspect.

Copied from another forum:

"Ken Rahn says :" Readers of these many articles may wish to consider the special challenges to absolute rigor that are faced by persons who hold strong religious faith, as Michael Griffith does. "

"On the face of it, Rahn comes off as a small-minded bigot with such a statement. "Absolute rigor?" Let me challenge Rahn with this proposition: the only thing preventing "absolute rigor" in this case is predetermined or rash conclusions about what must have happened, and any researcher regardless of religious perusasion, or of no religious persuasion, can fall victim to this trap. In fact the trap is independent of religious conviction and is more likely to catch persons overconfident of their own abilities. This case primarly demands humility and patience to sort out conflicts in the record, and especially an ability to "think outside the box," so they say."

This applies equally to other situations where persons pursue a predetermined

partisan study with "absolute rigor" in their conviction with a passionate fervor.

The best research is dispassionate OBJECTIVE study. This is sorely lacking

when it comes to Mrs. Baker. Opinions have been set in concrete and etched

in granite for ten years now. "Absolute rigor mortis" has set in. The subject

is DEAD and should be buried so that important research can resume. Constant

rehash of ten-year-old writings is counter productive. Everyone except Jim has

seen it all before. He is becoming the new Martin Shackleford or Wim Dankbaar.

Even they have tired of JVB and moved on to new pursuits.

Jack