Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[Pamela Brown]

Surprising as it may seem, people who were friends in 1963 have remained friends over the years, with no encouragement from me.

I have chosen to stay out of this thread at this time. Miss Baker, the last thing you want is to draw me into this discussion.

That sounds like a threat. Why not just put your information out there without attaching heightened and personal rhetoric to it?

[Stephen Roy]

Surprising as it may seem, people who were friends in 1963 have remained friends over the years, with no encouragement from me.

I have chosen to stay out of this thread at this time. Miss Baker, the last thing you want is to draw me into this discussion.

That sounds like a threat. Why not just put your information out there without attaching heightened and personal rhetoric to it?

I am indicating that I don't want to be drawn into the discussion at this time.

[Karl Kinaski]

Surprising as it may seem, people who were friends in 1963 have remained friends over the years, with no encouragement from me.

I have chosen to stay out of this thread at this time. Miss Baker, the last thing you want is to draw me into this discussion.

That sounds like a threat. Why not just put your information out there without attaching heightened and personal rhetoric to it?

I am indicating that I don't want to be drawn into the discussion at this time.

Sounds like an "I surrender." ...

The longer this thread continuous the more my respect for JVB grows. She is like Kasparow playing chess against Barb, J. Simkin, Jack W., Lifton, Roy, G. Viklund etc. simultaneously...and she wins.

KK

Edited April 5, 2010 by Karl Kinaski

[Dean Hagerman]

The longer this thread continuous the more my respect for JVB grows. She is like Kasparow playing chess against Barb, J. Simkin, Jack W., Lifton, Roy, G. Viklund etc. simultaneously...and she wins.

Am I reading a different thread then everybody else?

I keep reading that Judyth is right four times in a row over Jack, and that Judyth keeps proving everyone wrong about every matter and she knows more about LHO then all of us combined 500 times over

This is gone to far

All I see is Judyth backtracking with silly excuses everytime she is called on one of her crazy stories

From where im sitting she has not been right about anything

I cant believe the things I am seeing in this thread!

Judyth has proved nobody wrong in this thread, all of these posts by Judyth are her make-believe stories posted against the research of those who are not lying about what they have found

So how can Judyth be proving anyone wrong with false stories?

Edited April 5, 2010 by Dean Hagerman

[Mike Williams]

The longer this thread continuous the more my respect for JVB grows. She is like Kasparow playing chess against Barb, J. Simkin, Jack W., Lifton, Roy, G. Viklund etc. simultaneously...and she wins.

Am I reading a different thread then everybody else?

I keep reading that Judyth is right four times in a row over Jack, and that Judyth keeps proving everyone wrong about every matter and she knows more about LHO then all of us combined 500 times over

This is gone to far

All I see is Judyth backtracking with silly excuses everytime she is called on one of her crazy stories

From where im sitting she has not been right about anything

I cant believe the things I am seeing in this thread!

Judyth has proved nobody wrong in this thread, all of these posts by Judyth are her make-believe stories posted against the research of those who are not lying about what they have found

So how can Judyth be proving anyone wrong with false stories?

Mr. Hagerman,

Sir I surely thank you for that! I thought I was losing my marbles. I agree with you completely.

What amazes me is the gullibility of such allegedly "educated" people.

Again thank you Sir for bringing a sane comment to a ridiculous situation.

Best to you Sir,

Mike

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

JUDYTH COMMENTS ON JIM'S RESPONSE TO JACK AND BARB ABOUT "THE MISSING TOOTH"

NOTE: Jack writes in post #912 about the "blockbuster" post,

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

In post #914, he posts this graphic attributed to J. Pruitt in 2002:

JUDYTH COMMENTS:

Believe it or not, the 'blockbuster' matter is here, because one of the persons -- 'Harvey' or "Lee' -- was supposed to

have no front tooth. Yet we have no later photos showing a missing front tooth in either 'collection' so far as I am aware.

IT'S A BIG DEAL THAT LEE SAVED HIS TOOTH BECAUSE THIS SHOWS NO 'TOOTH' DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 'HARVEY'

AND 'LEE' AFTER ALL...

The argument is that "Harvey" was returned to New Orleans. The photo at he school cannot be "Lee" as Armstrong

says a puny "Harvey" is going to school here. Yet the boy in the photo with the tooth out is obviously a big boy.

Here is the argument as I see it so far:

1) Armstrong says the teacher Myra D describes a small, puny boy who wants to be called "Harvey" -- but she is shaky

on other memories, such as homeroom record showing "Harvey" in a different classroom for home room, describing

"Exhchange Alley" and a "ballroom" instead of pool hall...She also mentions Voebel as "Harvey's" friend -- who always

called Lee "Lee."

So this is shaky to use as 'evidence' that "Harvey" is at Beauregard.

2) We have the photo of Lee Oswald and Dave Ferrie at camp, showing a "Harvey" who has grown a heck of a lot in a

short period of time...In fact, he is at the New York height....

3) We have the earlier photo of who is supposed to be "Harvey" showing off his lost tooth at Beauregard...But now, he is

called LEE -- because he is obviously not a shrimp?

Please tell me what is going on here. I do not have the book. Is Armstrong saying that "Harvey" returned from New York

with Marguerite, and is described as a "shrimp" by the elderly teacher, and as wanting to be called "Harvey" but somehow

in the same school we have "Lee" showing off a missing tooth?

Or is this supposed to be "Harvey" showing off a missing tooth?

I am curious to know, because the person in the photo is Lee H. Oswald, and he is not a shrimp. Can Jack explain what

we are looking at here, better, so I can understand? Because he said LEE was left behind in New York, and LEE and HARVEY

are registered at different schools...etc.

Can Jack make us a timeline?

For I have information about the school records that is quite different. It is based on information Lee gave about why they

left New york, when they left, and when thy arrived in New Orleans.

Meanwhile, this issue is important because....

LEE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN EXHUMED, MARINA WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PUT THROUGH ALL OF THIS, EXCEPT FOR EVERYONE

INSISTING 'HARVEY' WAS NOT LEE, THAT (HARVEY/LEE) HAD A MISSING TOOTH AND -- WORSE -- THAT THE MUMMIFICATION

PROCESS THAT HELD TOGETHER THE SKULL WOULD BE INTERPRETED TO MAKE A MORTICIAN (WHO IS NOT A DOCTOR OR A

FORENSIC ANTHROPOLOGIST) THINK THE CRANITOMY NEVER HAPPENED AND THAT THIS MUST BE SOMEBODY ELSE'S SKULL,

BECAUSE IT DID NOT FALL APART.

THEY DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS THAT I EXPLAINED IN AN EARLIER POST ABOUT PARTIAL MUMMIFICATION AND

CALCIFICATION THAT SEALS UP SUTURES.

I BELIEVE THESE ARE IMPORTANT ISSUES AND THAT THE INFORMATION IS IMPORTANT.

PLEASE REREAD WHAT IMPLICATIONS ARE AT STAKE HERE.

THE HARVEY AND LEE MATTER -- WE NEED TO FIND OUT MUCH MORE ABOUT INTERVIEWS, ETC.

I AM CONCERNED THAT MYRA D WAS GUIDED TO SOME OF HER STATEMENTS, SUCH AS SAYING LEE WANTED TO BE CALLED

"HARVEY", SINCE LEE'S FRIEND, ED VOEBEL, CALLED HIM "LEE".

IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE....

SOMEONE WISER THAN I AM CAN PERHAPS EXPLAIN WHY LEE WOULD HAVE ASKED HER TO CALL HIM 'HARVEY,' AS I KNOW LEE

DISLIKED HIS MIDDLE NAME.

I HAVE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE RECORDS AT STRIPLING AND BEAUREGARD WHICH WE HAVEN'T DISCUSSED YET.

I guess my analysis of the mummification process, and how calcification of the cranial suture where the bone was sawed, and

jellyfying of the scalp tissues in the partial mummification would hide the suture and also hold the top of the cranium secure with

the rest of the cranium...was not absorbed the readers...The exhumation should not have taken place if people had understood

how blood drained from the face changes the contours of the face drasically...the TERRIBLE job done by the mortician I shall not

comment further upon...But in the end, they exhumed poor Lee...

JVB

JIM REPLIES TO JACK AND BARB ABOUT "THE MISSING TOOTH" AND MUCH, MUCH MORE

I have now read pages 91-92 of HARVEY & LEE, which seem to imply that "Lee" suffered a permanent

loss of tooth. What struck me is that the alleged difference between "Lee" and "Harvey" is explainable

by the scenrio Judyth has sketched of the tooth having been restored. Are there records of either of

the alleged "Oswalds" having a false tooth? Are there adult photos of "Lee" as opposed to "Harvey",

because I have considerable reservations about the photo studies that have been discussed, where it

seems to me, apart from a few that do not belong in these sets, they may all be of the same person.

Since I am responding to your concerns and concede that my description may have been overblown,

how about reciprocating in relation to the question that Howard has raised about your having found

the abstract of a paper that Judyth had said she had presented, but which--like every other claim she

has made--has been vigorously disputed by someone on this forum or elsewhere? Would you be so

kind as to summarize the content of the paper whose abstract you discovered? That you have found

substantiation for some of her claims leads me to believe you may not be as biased as I have thought.

Reading more of HARVEY & LEE, I am getting a better sense for why Jack finds it impossible to even

talk about these things without making explicit his reference to "Lee" or to "Harvey", because John is

relentless in his usage of those names. It seems to me that Judyth's knowledge of the man she knew

in New Orleans--whom Jack and John call "Harvey"--does not depend on the refutation of the possible

existence of the other, but clearly does call into question some of the traits attributed to him, including

his place of birth, whether he could drive, and such, but not necessarily refuting their entire scenario.

It would certainly be a good idea, however, if one or the other of you were more responsive to some

of the points upon which Judyth appears to possess superior knowledge, such as Jack's false claim

that he was "undesirably discharged" (post #904), his false claim about the "index" in his attempt to

shield John from my criticism (posts #777 and #925), his false claim that we do not know how Lee

traveled to New Orleans (post #926), and his false claim about "Harvey" being unable to drive (post

#928), for example, which undermines any prospect for rational discussion of all of this (post #785).

I also believe that Judyth has raised legitimate questions about the photographic record that should not

be swept under the rug, as post #704, #830, #876, and #878, are serious contributions. I know her to

extremely gifted and knowledgeable about the man she knew in New Orleans and her arguments, such

as her eye color study in post #736, are brilliant and deserve to be acknowledged. I am deeply troubled

Robert's role in all of this has not been examined with more diligence. Posts as early as #469, #676, #679,

#689, #800, and especially #813 offer indications of the reasons for my suspicions. Perhaps David Lifton

will take pains to track Robert's role relative to his brother, which appears to me to be the key to the case.

There are obvious disadvantages to my becoming involved in this, since I have not been exposed to the

interrogations of Judyth in the past. For that very reason, however, I believe I have a contribution that

others cannot make. Sometimes a fresh look with a new pair of eyes can make a difference. I believe

that she has not been given a fair shake in the past, which I am attempting to provide here. And that I

am not immersed in the conception of "Harvey & Lee" also grants the intellectual freedom to consider a

different pair of "Oswalds", Robert and Lee, which I would like to believe may provide the stimulus for a

new look at the other brother who, in my estimation, is the ideal candidate to have impersonated Lee.

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.

Oh please. There are many issues being discussed in this thread. I was responding to something Pamela said ... and used that as an example for her to tell us all how I "cherrypick" ... as I had posted it many many pages and posts ago, so it was already here.

But, I do stand in awe ... for you actually seem unaware that the debate over the "two Oswald's" .... Harvey vs Lee, the 2 schools, etc... and yes, the tooth ... is very old news! Your "blockbuster" has been discussed and discussed over the years. How can you really not already know this stuff ... and that it has been hotly debated over the years? Funny ... I even found an exchange Doug Weldon and I had on the issue in 1999 ... when someone else mentioned putting a tooth in milk so it could be put back into the socket. Ah, but it's Judyth's "blockbuster" that is the news and importance here, you'll say!

But this is not the first time Judyth has written/spoken about this ... she has on Rich's forum, on BlackOp and on the moderated group. Back as far as at least 2002.

It really astounds me that you seem to think this is some new groundbreaking news on Judyth's part ... and that you are so unaware of her story over the years. Yet you chastise others as if you are teaching them!

Her story was a little different then ... changed in midstream when a problem with her chronology was pointed out. First she had LHO telling her all about how Ferrie had slugged him and at least loosened the tooth after a CAP gathering at Ferrie's house (in her post here now she says LHO rode with Ferrie on a Harley to Ferrie's house after a CAP gathering) and then a week later it was knocked out by someone at school. She notes there was a famous photo showing it. The problem is that the photo was taken, and the school incident occurred, months before LHO attended CAP meetings and met Ferrie.

At one point she has Ferrie telling LHO about milk, at another time she has an unnamed person at school advising him to put the tooth in milk.

I did a post in 2004 that includes a chronology of it all ... something Dave Reitzes had put together of quotes and posted in 2002. Looks like most of this story was related by Judyth on the jfkResearch forum ... and Dave had those posts.

It is long, so here is the link for anyone who is interested. I could post it all here, but if this works for everyone, there is no need.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassi...r%3Ajunkkarinen

Kind of a wonder that Judyth wanted to delve back into this one, especially with the new change, though she did now say she may have mixed up some small details. :-)

Edited April 6, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Pamela Brown]

The longer this thread continuous the more my respect for JVB grows. She is like Kasparow playing chess against Barb, J. Simkin, Jack W., Lifton, Roy, G. Viklund etc. simultaneously...and she wins.

Am I reading a different thread then everybody else?

I keep reading that Judyth is right four times in a row over Jack, and that Judyth keeps proving everyone wrong about every matter and she knows more about LHO then all of us combined 500 times over

This is gone to far

All I see is Judyth backtracking with silly excuses everytime she is called on one of her crazy stories

From where im sitting she has not been right about anything

I cant believe the things I am seeing in this thread!

Judyth has proved nobody wrong in this thread, all of these posts by Judyth are her make-believe stories posted against the research of those who are not lying about what they have found

So how can Judyth be proving anyone wrong with false stories?

Mr. Hagerman,

Sir I surely thank you for that! I thought I was losing my marbles. I agree with you completely.

What amazes me is the gullibility of such allegedly "educated" people.

Again thank you Sir for bringing a sane comment to a ridiculous situation.

Best to you Sir,

Mike

At least those of us who are on a tight budget can save $16.47 by swerving the book when it finally comes out. I feel like I've already read it...

After 953 posts what more is there to say?

This is a case of you either believe her, or you don't, is it not? If there were another 953 posts over the next 5-6 weeks the "sides" involved in this strange altercation will still be firmly cemented to their positions.

Why are you acting as though you are being forced to post to this thread? If you do not find what Judyth has to say valuable, why not simply step aside?

[Barb Junkkarinen]

JUDYTH COMMENTS ON JIM'S RESPONSE TO JACK AND BARB ABOUT "THE MISSING TOOTH"

This is in no way a reply to me .... I don't do Harvey and/or Lee.

NOTE: Jack writes in post #912 about the "blockbuster" post,

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

etcetera ....

[Barb Junkkarinen]

The longer this thread continuous the more my respect for JVB grows. She is like Kasparow playing chess against Barb, J. Simkin, Jack W., Lifton, Roy, G. Viklund etc. simultaneously...and she wins.

Am I reading a different thread then everybody else?

I keep reading that Judyth is right four times in a row over Jack, and that Judyth keeps proving everyone wrong about every matter and she knows more about LHO then all of us combined 500 times over

This is gone to far

All I see is Judyth backtracking with silly excuses everytime she is called on one of her crazy stories

From where im sitting she has not been right about anything

I cant believe the things I am seeing in this thread!

Judyth has proved nobody wrong in this thread, all of these posts by Judyth are her make-believe stories posted against the research of those who are not lying about what they have found

So how can Judyth be proving anyone wrong with false stories?

Mr. Hagerman,

Sir I surely thank you for that! I thought I was losing my marbles. I agree with you completely.

What amazes me is the gullibility of such allegedly "educated" people.

Again thank you Sir for bringing a sane comment to a ridiculous situation.

Best to you Sir,

Mike

At least those of us who are on a tight budget can save $16.47 by swerving the book when it finally comes out. I feel like I've already read it...

After 953 posts what more is there to say?

This is a case of you either believe her, or you don't, is it not? If there were another 953 posts over the next 5-6 weeks the "sides" involved in this strange altercation will still be firmly cemented to their positions.

Why are you acting as though you are being forced to post to this thread? If you do not find what Judyth has to say valuable, why not simply step aside?

The same reason you felt it necessary to reply to my posting Pamela. Just can't help ourselves sometimes can we?

Bada-BING!

Pamela's oft expressed concern is for Judyth to have a voice, to be able to speak freely; the right/opportunity for others to do the same, escapes her "level playing field" definitions. Go figure, eh?

Bests,

Barb :-)

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

JUDYTH COMMENTS ON A PROBLEM WITH "HARVEY & LEE" AND THEIR MISSING TEETH

NOTE: Hopefully, in the course of my posting, I have kept everything straight and Jack White

will come back to explain all this away on behalf of his and John's theory of "Harvey & Lee".

Otherwise, it would appear to be a problem with the history of Harvey and Lee's missing teeth.

JUDYTH COMMENTS:

There is something peculiar going on here.....

According to Jack White's statements:

1. LEE Oswald (taller) is supposed to have stayed in New York when Marguerite brought "Harvey" (shrimp) back with her.

2. "Harvey" is enrolled at Beauregard, not Lee, where, to support this, Jack has told us that:

a ) Myra D, girls' gym teacher, stated the boy was a shrimp and asked to be called "Harvey" even though his friend,

b ) We have a record that Lee Oswald was a student there and had a homeroom on the 9th floor, but Myra D says no, her

homeroom had Lee in it, in the basement...her word against the record

c ) Armstrong asks if Oswald shrank some 6-8 inches

3. But then we are shown a photo of "LEE" (It HAS to be Lee because this is no "shrimp"-- and he has had a tooth knocked

out...It's described by Ed Voebel, by the way, who therefore HAD TO KNOW BOTH HARVEY AND LEE IF MYRA D'S FILMED

INTERVIEW IS TO BE BELIEVED.

4. But what? We have BOTH HARVEY AND LEE ENROLLED AT BEAUREGARD? What about the records brought up earlier

about other schools, showing Oswald could not be in both at once? Now we have BOTH Oswalds in the SAME school at once?

5. Then we are shown a photo of Lee -- er -- Harvey -- 'also' with a tooth out and told it is in a different location. However,

this photo on the left appears to have come from the Ferrie-Oswald camp-out photo....And when you blow that up, please

correct me if I'm wrong, but where's the missing tooth?

This is very strange, people.

Are we to believe that BOTH of these youngsters EACH lost a permanent tooth?

What about the exhumation photo that shows a rotated tooth, but no lost tooth?

We need to see satements from the book, ID's about the provenance of this photo supposedly showing HARVEY with a

DIFFERENT tooth out, and we have to ask ourselves why has nobody noticed that LEE and HARVEY are thereby attending

the same school-Beauregard.

And anyone who states that this thread is of no imporance when we are uncovering so many problems with HARVEY and

LEE simply isn't reading the thread. Those, too, who say I have not answered the questions thrown my way, have simply

not read the threads. This is not some game where people decide whether to 'believe' me or not. This is deadly serious,

and the truth will be buried unless somebody stands up and says, "Wait a minute. The truth is more important than my

feelings. The truth is more important than whether you like me or not. The truth is even more important than friendships."

The truth can mean we can get the case solved instead of saing it can never be solved.

Unless you bury the witnesses who speak the truth.

Look closely at this post, people. HOW MANY OSWALDS ATTENDED BEAUREGARD? IS IT POSSIBLE THEY BOTH LOST

A PERMANENT TOOTH? IS IT POSSIBLE THAT BOTH BOYS ARE REALLY THE SAME PERSON AND THAT SOMEBODY HAS

CREATED AN ENORMOUS BOOK BASED UPON A LOT OF INTERVIEWS AND PHOTOS, BUT WITHOUT MAKING PROPER

DISTINCTIONS, SUCH AS THAT BOTH BOYS COULD NOT BE A BEAUREGARD AT THE SAME TIME, BOTH COULD NOT

HAVE LOST PERMANENT TEETH AT THE SAME TIME. AND IT SEEMS THAT SOMEBODY IS RETOUCHING PHOTOS HERE,

BLOATING PHOTOS THERE. AND IN GENERAL, SOMEBODY HAS BEEN DUPED BY SOMEBODY, SOMEWHERE.

NAYSAYERS, YOU DON'T HAVE TO READ THIS THREAD. CALL ME NAMES LATER. BUT JUST FOR NOW, PLEASE LET US

WORK TOGETHER TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THIS.

JVB

JUDYTH COMMENTS ON JIM'S RESPONSE TO JACK AND BARB ABOUT "THE MISSING TOOTH"

NOTE: Jack writes in post #912 about the "blockbuster" post,

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

In post #914, he posts this graphic attributed to J. Pruitt in 2002:

JUDYTH COMMENTS:

Believe it or not, the 'blockbuster' matter is here, because one of the persons -- 'Harvey' or "Lee' -- was supposed to

have no front tooth. Yet we have no later photos showing a missing front tooth in either 'collection' so far as I am aware.

IT'S A BIG DEAL THAT LEE SAVED HIS TOOTH BECAUSE THIS SHOWS NO 'TOOTH' DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 'HARVEY'

AND 'LEE' AFTER ALL...

The argument is that "Harvey" was returned to New Orleans. The photo at he school cannot be "Lee" as Armstrong

says a puny "Harvey" is going to school here. Yet the boy in the photo with the tooth out is obviously a big boy.

Here is the argument as I see it so far:

1) Armstrong says the teacher Myra D describes a small, puny boy who wants to be called "Harvey" -- but she is shaky

on other memories, such as homeroom record showing "Harvey" in a different classroom for home room, describing

"Exhchange Alley" and a "ballroom" instead of pool hall...She also mentions Voebel as "Harvey's" friend -- who always

called Lee "Lee."

So this is shaky to use as 'evidence' that "Harvey" is at Beauregard.

2) We have the photo of Lee Oswald and Dave Ferrie at camp, showing a "Harvey" who has grown a heck of a lot in a

short period of time...In fact, he is at the New York height....

3) We have the earlier photo of who is supposed to be "Harvey" showing off his lost tooth at Beauregard...But now, he is

called LEE -- because he is obviously not a shrimp?

Please tell me what is going on here. I do not have the book. Is Armstrong saying that "Harvey" returned from New York

with Marguerite, and is described as a "shrimp" by the elderly teacher, and as wanting to be called "Harvey" but somehow

in the same school we have "Lee" showing off a missing tooth?

Or is this supposed to be "Harvey" showing off a missing tooth?

I am curious to know, because the person in the photo is Lee H. Oswald, and he is not a shrimp. Can Jack explain what

we are looking at here, better, so I can understand? Because he said LEE was left behind in New York, and LEE and HARVEY

are registered at different schools...etc.

Can Jack make us a timeline?

For I have information about the school records that is quite different. It is based on information Lee gave about why they

left New york, when they left, and when thy arrived in New Orleans.

Meanwhile, this issue is important because....

LEE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN EXHUMED, MARINA WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PUT THROUGH ALL OF THIS, EXCEPT FOR EVERYONE

INSISTING 'HARVEY' WAS NOT LEE, THAT (HARVEY/LEE) HAD A MISSING TOOTH AND -- WORSE -- THAT THE MUMMIFICATION

PROCESS THAT HELD TOGETHER THE SKULL WOULD BE INTERPRETED TO MAKE A MORTICIAN (WHO IS NOT A DOCTOR OR A

FORENSIC ANTHROPOLOGIST) THINK THE CRANITOMY NEVER HAPPENED AND THAT THIS MUST BE SOMEBODY ELSE'S SKULL,

BECAUSE IT DID NOT FALL APART.

THEY DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS THAT I EXPLAINED IN AN EARLIER POST ABOUT PARTIAL MUMMIFICATION AND

CALCIFICATION THAT SEALS UP SUTURES.

I BELIEVE THESE ARE IMPORTANT ISSUES AND THAT THE INFORMATION IS IMPORTANT.

PLEASE REREAD WHAT IMPLICATIONS ARE AT STAKE HERE.

THE HARVEY AND LEE MATTER -- WE NEED TO FIND OUT MUCH MORE ABOUT INTERVIEWS, ETC.

I AM CONCERNED THAT MYRA D WAS GUIDED TO SOME OF HER STATEMENTS, SUCH AS SAYING LEE WANTED TO BE CALLED

"HARVEY", SINCE LEE'S FRIEND, ED VOEBEL, CALLED HIM "LEE".

IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE....

SOMEONE WISER THAN I AM CAN PERHAPS EXPLAIN WHY LEE WOULD HAVE ASKED HER TO CALL HIM 'HARVEY,' AS I KNOW LEE

DISLIKED HIS MIDDLE NAME.

I HAVE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE RECORDS AT STRIPLING AND BEAUREGARD WHICH WE HAVEN'T DISCUSSED YET.

I guess my analysis of the mummification process, and how calcification of the cranial suture where the bone was sawed, and

jellyfying of the scalp tissues in the partial mummification would hide the suture and also hold the top of the cranium secure with

the rest of the cranium...was not absorbed the readers...The exhumation should not have taken place if people had understood

how blood drained from the face changes the contours of the face drasically...the TERRIBLE job done by the mortician I shall not

comment further upon...But in the end, they exhumed poor Lee...

JVB

JIM REPLIES TO JACK AND BARB ABOUT "THE MISSING TOOTH" AND MUCH, MUCH MORE

I have now read pages 91-92 of HARVEY & LEE, which seem to imply that "Lee" suffered a permanent

loss of tooth. What struck me is that the alleged difference between "Lee" and "Harvey" is explainable

by the scenrio Judyth has sketched of the tooth having been restored. Are there records of either of

the alleged "Oswalds" having a false tooth? Are there adult photos of "Lee" as opposed to "Harvey",

because I have considerable reservations about the photo studies that have been discussed, where it

seems to me, apart from a few that do not belong in these sets, they may all be of the same person.

Since I am responding to your concerns and concede that my description may have been overblown,

how about reciprocating in relation to the question that Howard has raised about your having found

the abstract of a paper that Judyth had said she had presented, but which--like every other claim she

has made--has been vigorously disputed by someone on this forum or elsewhere? Would you be so

kind as to summarize the content of the paper whose abstract you discovered? That you have found

substantiation for some of her claims leads me to believe you may not be as biased as I have thought.

Reading more of HARVEY & LEE, I am getting a better sense for why Jack finds it impossible to even

talk about these things without making explicit his reference to "Lee" or to "Harvey", because John is

relentless in his usage of those names. It seems to me that Judyth's knowledge of the man she knew

in New Orleans--whom Jack and John call "Harvey"--does not depend on the refutation of the possible

existence of the other, but clearly does call into question some of the traits attributed to him, including

his place of birth, whether he could drive, and such, but not necessarily refuting their entire scenario.

It would certainly be a good idea, however, if one or the other of you were more responsive to some

of the points upon which Judyth appears to possess superior knowledge, such as Jack's false claim

that he was "undesirably discharged" (post #904), his false claim about the "index" in his attempt to

shield John from my criticism (posts #777 and #925), his false claim that we do not know how Lee

traveled to New Orleans (post #926), and his false claim about "Harvey" being unable to drive (post

#928), for example, which undermines any prospect for rational discussion of all of this (post #785).

I also believe that Judyth has raised legitimate questions about the photographic record that should not

be swept under the rug, as post #704, #830, #876, and #878, are serious contributions. I know her to

extremely gifted and knowledgeable about the man she knew in New Orleans and her arguments, such

as her eye color study in post #736, are brilliant and deserve to be acknowledged. I am deeply troubled

Robert's role in all of this has not been examined with more diligence. Posts as early as #469, #676, #679,

#689, #800, and especially #813 offer indications of the reasons for my suspicions. Perhaps David Lifton

will take pains to track Robert's role relative to his brother, which appears to me to be the key to the case.

There are obvious disadvantages to my becoming involved in this, since I have not been exposed to the

interrogations of Judyth in the past. For that very reason, however, I believe I have a contribution that

others cannot make. Sometimes a fresh look with a new pair of eyes can make a difference. I believe

that she has not been given a fair shake in the past, which I am attempting to provide here. And that I

am not immersed in the conception of "Harvey & Lee" also grants the intellectual freedom to consider a

different pair of "Oswalds", Robert and Lee, which I would like to believe may provide the stimulus for a

new look at the other brother who, in my estimation, is the ideal candidate to have impersonated Lee.

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.

Oh please. There are many issues being discussed in this thread. I was responding to something Pamela said ... and used that as an example for her to tell us all how I "cherrypick" ... as I had posted it many many pages and posts ago, so it was already here.

But, I do stand in awe ... for you actually seem unaware that the debate over the "two Oswald's" .... Harvey vs Lee, the 2 schools, etc... and yes, the tooth ... is very old news! Your "blockbuster" has been discussed and discussed over the years. How can you really not already know this stuff ... and that it has been hotly debated over the years? Funny ... I even found an exchange Doug Weldon and I had on the issue in 1999 ... when someone else mentioned putting a tooth in milk so it could be put back into the socket. Ah, but it's Judyth's "blockbuster" that is the news and importance here, you'll say!

But this is not the first time Judyth has written/spoken about this ... she has on Rich's forum, on BlackOp and on the moderated group. Back as far as at least 2002.

It really astounds me that you seem to think this is some new groundbreaking news on Judyth's part ... and that you are so unaware of her story over the years. Yet you chastise others as if you are teaching them!

Her story was a little different then ... changed in midstream when a problem with her chronology was pointed out. First she had LHO telling her all about how Ferrie had slugged him and at least loosened the tooth after a CAP gathering at Ferrie's house (in her post here now she says LHO rode with Ferrie on a Harley to Ferrie's house after a CAP gathering) and then a week later it was knocked out by someone at school. She notes there was a famous photo showing it. The problem is that the photo was taken, and the school incident occurred, months before LHO attended CAP meetings and met Ferrie.

At one point she has Ferrie telling LHO about milk, at another time she has an unnamed person at school advising him to put the tooth in milk.

I did a post in 2004 that includes a chronology of it all ... something Dave Reitzes had put together of quotes and posted in 2002. Looks like most of this story was related by Judyth on the jfkResearch forum ... and Dave had those posts.

It is long, so here is the link for anyone who is interested. I could post it all here, but if this works for everyone, there is no need.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassi...r%3Ajunkkarinen

Kind of a wonder that Judyth wanted to delve back into this one, especially with the new change, though she did now say she may have mixed up some small details. :-)

Edited April 6, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Pamela Brown]

The longer this thread continuous the more my respect for JVB grows. She is like Kasparow playing chess against Barb, J. Simkin, Jack W., Lifton, Roy, G. Viklund etc. simultaneously...and she wins.

Am I reading a different thread then everybody else?

I keep reading that Judyth is right four times in a row over Jack, and that Judyth keeps proving everyone wrong about every matter and she knows more about LHO then all of us combined 500 times over

This is gone to far

All I see is Judyth backtracking with silly excuses everytime she is called on one of her crazy stories

From where im sitting she has not been right about anything

I cant believe the things I am seeing in this thread!

Judyth has proved nobody wrong in this thread, all of these posts by Judyth are her make-believe stories posted against the research of those who are not lying about what they have found

So how can Judyth be proving anyone wrong with false stories?

Mr. Hagerman,

Sir I surely thank you for that! I thought I was losing my marbles. I agree with you completely.

What amazes me is the gullibility of such allegedly "educated" people.

Again thank you Sir for bringing a sane comment to a ridiculous situation.

Best to you Sir,

Mike

At least those of us who are on a tight budget can save $16.47 by swerving the book when it finally comes out. I feel like I've already read it...

After 953 posts what more is there to say?

This is a case of you either believe her, or you don't, is it not? If there were another 953 posts over the next 5-6 weeks the "sides" involved in this strange altercation will still be firmly cemented to their positions.

Why are you acting as though you are being forced to post to this thread? If you do not find what Judyth has to say valuable, why not simply step aside?

The same reason you felt it necessary to reply to my posting Pamela. Just can't help ourselves sometimes can we?

But I'm not the one complaining that I have better things to do, am I?

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

JIM COMMENTS ON JUDYTH'S SUSPICION SOMETHING IS NOT RIGHT

Rereading pages 91-92 of HARVEY & LEE, it says Voeble knew both,

namely, that Voebel not only knew HARVEY, who had the piano fall on

his legs, but ALSO knew LEE. Armstrong claims HARVEY moved away in

1954 to Ft. Worth after knowing Voebel the second half of the 8th grade

and the book describes him as "the small, scrawny 8th grade student in

Myra's homeroom in the spring of 1954". And that Voebel meet LEE in

the fall of 1954. Voebel talks about how LEE loved to fight--not to

start them, but to finish them--and that he thought LEE had lost a

tooth in one of the first fights he knew him to have. He was hit in

the mouth by a boy named Robin Riley. The book says that his aunt,

LILLIAN MURRET, "remembered this event well". She even took him to

the dentist. BUT LILLIAN WAS HARVEY'S AUNT, NOT LEE'S, if I under-

stand this correctly. Indeed, HE STAYED WITH HER IN NEW ORLEANS.

I THINK SOMETHING VERY FISHY IS GOING ON HERE, as you suspect.

Is part of the story now going to be that when HARVEY showed up in

New Orleans, Lillian had trouble recognizing him? [On page 532, it

says "Harvey Oswald arrived in New Orleans by bus late on Wednesday

evening, 24 April"..."Two days later, on Friday, April 26, Oswald

appeared at the unemployment claims office and spoke with John R.

Rachal." It says he was not staying at the Murret's and that his

whereabouts and activities from April 24-29 are unknown. It also

says "a few days after arriving", he telephoned Lillian Murret.]

Myra D is quoted as saying she "knew for sure" that HARVEY did NOT

have a missing tooth and that when the body was exhumed, it had NO

missing tooth. So, Armstrong claims, they knew it couldn't be LEE.

[i am going to try to have these pages scanned today and posted.]

JUDYTH COMMENTS ON A PROBLEM WITH "HARVEY & LEE" AND THEIR MISSING TEETH

NOTE: Hopefully, in the course of my posting, I have kept everything straight and Jack White

will come back to explain all this away on behalf of his and John's theory of "Harvey & Lee".

Otherwise, it would appear to be a problem with the history of Harvey and Lee's missing teeth.

JUDYTH COMMENTS:

There is something peculiar going on here.....

According to Jack White's statements:

1. LEE Oswald (taller) is supposed to have stayed in New York when Marguerite brought "Harvey" (shrimp) back with her.

2. "Harvey" is enrolled at Beauregard, not Lee, where, to support this, Jack has told us that:

a ) Myra D, girls' gym teacher, stated the boy was a shrimp and asked to be called "Harvey" even though his friend,

b ) We have a record that Lee Oswald was a student there and had a homeroom on the 9th floor, but Myra D says no, her

homeroom had Lee in it, in the basement...her word against the record

c ) Armstrong asks if Oswald shrank some 6-8 inches

3. But then we are shown a photo of "LEE" (It HAS to be Lee because this is no "shrimp"-- and he has had a tooth knocked

out...It's described by Ed Voebel, by the way, who therefore HAD TO KNOW BOTH HARVEY AND LEE IF MYRA D'S FILMED

INTERVIEW IS TO BE BELIEVED.

4. But what? We have BOTH HARVEY AND LEE ENROLLED AT BEAUREGARD? What about the records brought up earlier

about other schools, showing Oswald could not be in both at once? Now we have BOTH Oswalds in the SAME school at once?

5. Then we are shown a photo of Lee -- er -- Harvey -- 'also' with a tooth out and told it is in a different location. However,

this photo on the left appears to have come from the Ferrie-Oswald camp-out photo....And when you blow that up, please

correct me if I'm wrong, but where's the missing tooth?

This is very strange, people.

Are we to believe that BOTH of these youngsters EACH lost a permanent tooth?

What about the exhumation photo that shows a rotated tooth, but no lost tooth?

We need to see satements from the book, ID's about the provenance of this photo supposedly showing HARVEY with a

DIFFERENT tooth out, and we have to ask ourselves why has nobody noticed that LEE and HARVEY are thereby attending

the same school-Beauregard.

And anyone who states that this thread is of no imporance when we are uncovering so many problems with HARVEY and

LEE simply isn't reading the thread. Those, too, who say I have not answered the questions thrown my way, have simply

not read the threads. This is not some game where people decide whether to 'believe' me or not. This is deadly serious,

and the truth will be buried unless somebody stands up and says, "Wait a minute. The truth is more important than my

feelings. The truth is more important than whether you like me or not. The truth is even more important than friendships."

The truth can mean we can get the case solved instead of saing it can never be solved.

Unless you bury the witnesses who speak the truth.

Look closely at this post, people. HOW MANY OSWALDS ATTENDED BEAUREGARD? IS IT POSSIBLE THEY BOTH LOST

A PERMANENT TOOTH? IS IT POSSIBLE THAT BOTH BOYS ARE REALLY THE SAME PERSON AND THAT SOMEBODY HAS

CREATED AN ENORMOUS BOOK BASED UPON A LOT OF INTERVIEWS AND PHOTOS, BUT WITHOUT MAKING PROPER

DISTINCTIONS, SUCH AS THAT BOTH BOYS COULD NOT BE A BEAUREGARD AT THE SAME TIME, BOTH COULD NOT

HAVE LOST PERMANENT TEETH AT THE SAME TIME. AND IT SEEMS THAT SOMEBODY IS RETOUCHING PHOTOS HERE,

BLOATING PHOTOS THERE. AND IN GENERAL, SOMEBODY HAS BEEN DUPED BY SOMEBODY, SOMEWHERE.

NAYSAYERS, YOU DON'T HAVE TO READ THIS THREAD. CALL ME NAMES LATER. BUT JUST FOR NOW, PLEASE LET US

WORK TOGETHER TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THIS.

JVB

quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='188900' date='Apr 5 2010, 05:24 PM']

JUDYTH COMMENTS ON JIM'S RESPONSE TO JACK AND BARB ABOUT "THE MISSING TOOTH"

NOTE: Jack writes in post #912 about the "blockbuster" post,

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

In post #914, he posts this graphic attributed to J. Pruitt in 2002:

JUDYTH COMMENTS:

Believe it or not, the 'blockbuster' matter is here, because one of the persons -- 'Harvey' or "Lee' -- was supposed to

have no front tooth. Yet we have no later photos showing a missing front tooth in either 'collection' so far as I am aware.

IT'S A BIG DEAL THAT LEE SAVED HIS TOOTH BECAUSE THIS SHOWS NO 'TOOTH' DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 'HARVEY'

AND 'LEE' AFTER ALL...

The argument is that "Harvey" was returned to New Orleans. The photo at he school cannot be "Lee" as Armstrong

says a puny "Harvey" is going to school here. Yet the boy in the photo with the tooth out is obviously a big boy.

Here is the argument as I see it so far:

1) Armstrong says the teacher Myra D describes a small, puny boy who wants to be called "Harvey" -- but she is shaky

on other memories, such as homeroom record showing "Harvey" in a different classroom for home room, describing

"Exhchange Alley" and a "ballroom" instead of pool hall...She also mentions Voebel as "Harvey's" friend -- who always

called Lee "Lee."

So this is shaky to use as 'evidence' that "Harvey" is at Beauregard.

2) We have the photo of Lee Oswald and Dave Ferrie at camp, showing a "Harvey" who has grown a heck of a lot in a

short period of time...In fact, he is at the New York height....

3) We have the earlier photo of who is supposed to be "Harvey" showing off his lost tooth at Beauregard...But now, he is

called LEE -- because he is obviously not a shrimp?

Please tell me what is going on here. I do not have the book. Is Armstrong saying that "Harvey" returned from New York

with Marguerite, and is described as a "shrimp" by the elderly teacher, and as wanting to be called "Harvey" but somehow

in the same school we have "Lee" showing off a missing tooth?

Or is this supposed to be "Harvey" showing off a missing tooth?

I am curious to know, because the person in the photo is Lee H. Oswald, and he is not a shrimp. Can Jack explain what

we are looking at here, better, so I can understand? Because he said LEE was left behind in New York, and LEE and HARVEY

are registered at different schools...etc.

Can Jack make us a timeline?

For I have information about the school records that is quite different. It is based on information Lee gave about why they

left New york, when they left, and when thy arrived in New Orleans.

Meanwhile, this issue is important because....

LEE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN EXHUMED, MARINA WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PUT THROUGH ALL OF THIS, EXCEPT FOR EVERYONE

INSISTING 'HARVEY' WAS NOT LEE, THAT (HARVEY/LEE) HAD A MISSING TOOTH AND -- WORSE -- THAT THE MUMMIFICATION

PROCESS THAT HELD TOGETHER THE SKULL WOULD BE INTERPRETED TO MAKE A MORTICIAN (WHO IS NOT A DOCTOR OR A

FORENSIC ANTHROPOLOGIST) THINK THE CRANITOMY NEVER HAPPENED AND THAT THIS MUST BE SOMEBODY ELSE'S SKULL,

BECAUSE IT DID NOT FALL APART.

THEY DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS THAT I EXPLAINED IN AN EARLIER POST ABOUT PARTIAL MUMMIFICATION AND

CALCIFICATION THAT SEALS UP SUTURES.

I BELIEVE THESE ARE IMPORTANT ISSUES AND THAT THE INFORMATION IS IMPORTANT.

PLEASE REREAD WHAT IMPLICATIONS ARE AT STAKE HERE.

THE HARVEY AND LEE MATTER -- WE NEED TO FIND OUT MUCH MORE ABOUT INTERVIEWS, ETC.

I AM CONCERNED THAT MYRA D WAS GUIDED TO SOME OF HER STATEMENTS, SUCH AS SAYING LEE WANTED TO BE CALLED

"HARVEY", SINCE LEE'S FRIEND, ED VOEBEL, CALLED HIM "LEE".

IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE....

SOMEONE WISER THAN I AM CAN PERHAPS EXPLAIN WHY LEE WOULD HAVE ASKED HER TO CALL HIM 'HARVEY,' AS I KNOW LEE

DISLIKED HIS MIDDLE NAME.

I HAVE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE RECORDS AT STRIPLING AND BEAUREGARD WHICH WE HAVEN'T DISCUSSED YET.

I guess my analysis of the mummification process, and how calcification of the cranial suture where the bone was sawed, and

jellyfying of the scalp tissues in the partial mummification would hide the suture and also hold the top of the cranium secure with

the rest of the cranium...was not absorbed the readers...The exhumation should not have taken place if people had understood

how blood drained from the face changes the contours of the face drasically...the TERRIBLE job done by the mortician I shall not

comment further upon...But in the end, they exhumed poor Lee...

JVB

JIM REPLIES TO JACK AND BARB ABOUT "THE MISSING TOOTH" AND MUCH, MUCH MORE

I have now read pages 91-92 of HARVEY & LEE, which seem to imply that "Lee" suffered a permanent

loss of tooth. What struck me is that the alleged difference between "Lee" and "Harvey" is explainable

by the scenrio Judyth has sketched of the tooth having been restored. Are there records of either of

the alleged "Oswalds" having a false tooth? Are there adult photos of "Lee" as opposed to "Harvey",

because I have considerable reservations about the photo studies that have been discussed, where it

seems to me, apart from a few that do not belong in these sets, they may all be of the same person.

Since I am responding to your concerns and concede that my description may have been overblown,

how about reciprocating in relation to the question that Howard has raised about your having found

the abstract of a paper that Judyth had said she had presented, but which--like every other claim she

has made--has been vigorously disputed by someone on this forum or elsewhere? Would you be so

kind as to summarize the content of the paper whose abstract you discovered? That you have found

substantiation for some of her claims leads me to believe you may not be as biased as I have thought.

Reading more of HARVEY & LEE, I am getting a better sense for why Jack finds it impossible to even

talk about these things without making explicit his reference to "Lee" or to "Harvey", because John is

relentless in his usage of those names. It seems to me that Judyth's knowledge of the man she knew

in New Orleans--whom Jack and John call "Harvey"--does not depend on the refutation of the possible

existence of the other, but clearly does call into question some of the traits attributed to him, including

his place of birth, whether he could drive, and such, but not necessarily refuting their entire scenario.

It would certainly be a good idea, however, if one or the other of you were more responsive to some

of the points upon which Judyth appears to possess superior knowledge, such as Jack's false claim

that he was "undesirably discharged" (post #904), his false claim about the "index" in his attempt to

shield John from my criticism (posts #777 and #925), his false claim that we do not know how Lee

traveled to New Orleans (post #926), and his false claim about "Harvey" being unable to drive (post

#928), for example, which undermines any prospect for rational discussion of all of this (post #785).

I also believe that Judyth has raised legitimate questions about the photographic record that should not

be swept under the rug, as post #704, #830, #876, and #878, are serious contributions. I know her to

extremely gifted and knowledgeable about the man she knew in New Orleans and her arguments, such

as her eye color study in post #736, are brilliant and deserve to be acknowledged. I am deeply troubled

Robert's role in all of this has not been examined with more diligence. Posts as early as #469, #676, #679,

#689, #800, and especially #813 offer indications of the reasons for my suspicions. Perhaps David Lifton

will take pains to track Robert's role relative to his brother, which appears to me to be the key to the case.

There are obvious disadvantages to my becoming involved in this, since I have not been exposed to the

interrogations of Judyth in the past. For that very reason, however, I believe I have a contribution that

others cannot make. Sometimes a fresh look with a new pair of eyes can make a difference. I believe

that she has not been given a fair shake in the past, which I am attempting to provide here. And that I

am not immersed in the conception of "Harvey & Lee" also grants the intellectual freedom to consider a

different pair of "Oswalds", Robert and Lee, which I would like to believe may provide the stimulus for a

new look at the other brother who, in my estimation, is the ideal candidate to have impersonated Lee.

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.

Oh please. There are many issues being discussed in this thread. I was responding to something Pamela said ... and used that as an example for her to tell us all how I "cherrypick" ... as I had posted it many many pages and posts ago, so it was already here.

But, I do stand in awe ... for you actually seem unaware that the debate over the "two Oswald's" .... Harvey vs Lee, the 2 schools, etc... and yes, the tooth ... is very old news! Your "blockbuster" has been discussed and discussed over the years. How can you really not already know this stuff ... and that it has been hotly debated over the years? Funny ... I even found an exchange Doug Weldon and I had on the issue in 1999 ... when someone else mentioned putting a tooth in milk so it could be put back into the socket. Ah, but it's Judyth's "blockbuster" that is the news and importance here, you'll say!

But this is not the first time Judyth has written/spoken about this ... she has on Rich's forum, on BlackOp and on the moderated group. Back as far as at least 2002.

It really astounds me that you seem to think this is some new groundbreaking news on Judyth's part ... and that you are so unaware of her story over the years. Yet you chastise others as if you are teaching them!

Her story was a little different then ... changed in midstream when a problem with her chronology was pointed out. First she had LHO telling her all about how Ferrie had slugged him and at least loosened the tooth after a CAP gathering at Ferrie's house (in her post here now she says LHO rode with Ferrie on a Harley to Ferrie's house after a CAP gathering) and then a week later it was knocked out by someone at school. She notes there was a famous photo showing it. The problem is that the photo was taken, and the school incident occurred, months before LHO attended CAP meetings and met Ferrie.

At one point she has Ferrie telling LHO about milk, at another time she has an unnamed person at school advising him to put the tooth in milk.

I did a post in 2004 that includes a chronology of it all ... something Dave Reitzes had put together of quotes and posted in 2002. Looks like most of this story was related by Judyth on the jfkResearch forum ... and Dave had those posts.

It is long, so here is the link for anyone who is interested. I could post it all here, but if this works for everyone, there is no need.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassi...r%3Ajunkkarinen

Kind of a wonder that Judyth wanted to delve back into this one, especially with the new change, though she did now say she may have mixed up some small details. :-)

Edited April 6, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Barb Junkkarinen]

HOWARD PLATZMAN COMMENTS ON BARB'S RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Wow, Jim .... just how many people do you have crammed into that Volkswagen? First Judyth, then your unnamed psyops "expert" ... now you are speaking/posting for Howard Platzman too! Please see my final, and bolded just for you, comment below.

NOTE: I am still getting my feet wet in many respects about Judyth's life story and history on various fora. Howard Platzman sent me this, which seems important enough to post her. I certainly expect Barb to respond to the question he raises about the abstract of Judyth's research that she discovered long ago.

Important for what? LOL Howard popped into the threads on the mod group for about half a dozen posts .... expressed his thanks for me finding the abstract, told me of his frustration on trying to get National Science Fund info and offered to send me the names of the people he had been in touch with so maybe I could pursue it ... I told him, sure, send me the info, but he never did... and I already had the info anyway. And he was relating some of what I see below about the meaning of the big picture about the paper .... of course, like you and Martin and others in her past, he runs on Judyth's sayso. As for getting your feet wet, you've been drowning for weeks now ... you just haven't had any idea in *what*.

HOWARD COMMENTS:

I dropped away from Barb's research adventure after it became clear that she could not see the clear implication of what she discovered. She tries to refute J's claim that she did any serious work at Roswell when, in fact, she proved the opposite.

All the students in the RP summer program are engaged in doing serious work with their mentors. That's what the program is for. It is quite the opportunity for outstanding science students.

Judyth lost the paper she wrote up based on her Roswell work and was heartbroken about it. In the end, Barb found the abstract for it. I thanked her for her diligence and her success -- and I meant it. She didn't seem to understand -- or didn't want to.

And you know there was a paper written up and presented at Roswell at the end of the program, because??? I know, Judyth told you so. :-) Did she also tell you that the abstract for the presentation while at St. Francis College in Indiana was the same abstract for this Roswell paper? Even Martin understood the difference. And how about those vouching nuns?

Barb did confirm that Judyth got into trouble for trying to move off site -- something I was made aware of in 1999. She believes that Judyth was tossed out of the program for this violation.

TILT! No one lived on site. And I did not confirm any such thing about any housing violation, that was Judyth's story after I posted that according to RP, she had been dismissed from the program. I was told, via e-mail, from the dean of students, a vice-president of RP and a professor ... all rolled into one person ... that Judyth, "never finished the Program as she was dismissed." Thanks to multiple Team Judyth members immediately swarming all over RP which I had advised against, RP shut down on info. I believe you once said that you alone had called them 6 times. Way to go, Howard! The information I was given was confirmed through an independent source a year or so ago though.

By the way, Howard, are you aware that Judyth now claims that she only attended the summer program on the side ... that she was actually "embedded" in Dr. Moore's lab?

Judyth insists she was merely reprimanded. But this is a red herring. What is important is that Barb turned up the abstract the paper Judyth wrote -- and (see her quote) actually takes credit, believe it or not, for not burying her finding. Wow! A principled researcher! She might as well have buried it since her tack after producing it was to run quickly away from the true impact of it. She danced around the only issue of real importance: the existence and content of the abstract and how Judyth's experience related to what Judyth was to do in 1963.

I found no paper ... I found the abstract from the presentation she made along with a nun professor for the Indiana Academy of Science in the Fall of 1961.

Notably, there is no mention of any sort, not even acknowledgment, of Roswell Park, of Dr. Moore or the summer program. She does relate in her book how she got busy with her cancer work as soon as she got to school. A few weeks later, she and the nun did this presentation.

Two weeks later Judyth withdrew from the college ... she tells two different stories about when that was in relation to Halloween.

I only mentioned that if I had not brought the abstract forward, no one would ever have been the wiser in response to commentary from some ...Pam mostly, as I recall ... that I only selectively use whatever I discover, that I "cherrypick" the info, selectively quote and only use info detrimental to Judyth. Which, of course, is utter BS and demonstrably so. Not my fault that of all the claims I have sought verification on, this abstract/presentation is the only thing I was able to confirm. ;-) And, at that, the name of the organization, the details about the presentation, where it was held and why it was not printed in full in their proceedings is all quite contrary to the information I learned and posted. Judyth did, by the way, make a distinction between her alleged Roswell paper and this abstract .... for one thing, by claiming that she was accompanied by 3 PhD nuns to present her paper ... they were along to "vouch" for her ability and that it was her own work, that one nun had seen her do it, etc. That was when she was running with the wrong name of the organization and claiming her paper wasn't printed because she was only 18 and a freshman in college and they were "embarrassed" .... which is not the case at all accordng to the Indiana Academy of Science ... they look for students with interesting projects to present, and lay people as well ... and have a Junior Academy group for kids through high school as well.

Ever the steadfast researcher, she interviewed a goodly horde of people. She asked other students for their opinions of Judyth and the fellow Mirand who was most peeved at her for seeking off-campus digs, ex-high-school acquaintances, et al. Judyth may not have been universally liked (much as she may have wanted to be) because she was not a typical girl. She was a wunderkind with all kinds of self-confidence. Maybe they saw her as odd. For some reason I'm sure they never understood (I'm not sure even whether she herself understood at the time, she was physically separated from the other students. She was the only one who worked directly with the Center's director, George Moore (whose own history is highly suggestive), and the only one not allowed to live at the university dorm with the other girls. Mirand said "other" girls were housed at the "Y' with her, but Judyth met none of them.

You've got the wrong girl, Howard, when it comes to any of Judyths ex-high school acquaintances. I have never communicated with any of them. I did seek and locate other students from the Roswell summer program ... I did that before I posted the info I received from Roswell Park (at least one of them anyway) as a way to doublecheck the info I had received from Roswell Park.

But why should we care about ANY of this? Barb found the abstract, and it shows that Judyth did the work she claimed she did, whatever else she did or didn't do. Frankly, it matters not a whit if she never got an official certificate for completing the program (point of argument, not point conceded). Papers speak louder than certificates. I still have a science fair certificate in the basement somewhere.

How do you know there was a paper presented at Roswell Park? Or certificates? :-)

PLEASE ASK BARBARA TO SUMMARIZE HER UNDERSTANDING OF THE PAPER THAT JUDYTH WROTE. You will find, as I did, that she is not up to it -- which renders hollow her initial insistence that the Roswell sojourn was probably no more significant than a prolonged student science fair. Judyth may not have presented the paper to the field's leading lights; still, she presented the paper to professionals -- while, unfortunately, remembering only the name of the informal group that encouraged her to present her lecture, but not remembering the organization that acually heard it -- another red herring Barb is only too happy to use to obscure the true impact of her finding.

The Roswell Park summer program is no science fair .... nor is it a dog and pony show. The students work with their mentors on whatever their mentors and their team of associates are working on. Quite an experience for talented young students .... some are asked to return and attend other years, some do for several more years through college. Somewhere early on it was raised by someone that it sounded like a "summer camp" ... that really does not characterize it correctly, though students can, depending on their mentor or on their own free time, explore many departments and ongoing projects around the facilities.

According to Judyth's own accounting, she presented her paper to the group of 68 students ... and she probably includes their mentors and others in that scenario as well. I don't run on Judyth's sayso for anything without verification. :-)

Judyth's abstract speaks for itself. The title is, "Studies on the Increase in vitro of Mitotic Activity and Melangenesis in the RMPI HA #5 (7113) Strain Melano. The abstract is just 2 paragraphs long. Her experiment involved a hamster with melanoma (from a human source) and seeing if certain media and assorted concentrations of various amino acids would have an impact on the speed at which the melanoma would grow/flourish. Preliminary results seemed to show that could the case ... which then opens the door for study that if giving a growing melanoma A, B, or C makes it grow faster ... will depriving it of A, B, C inhibit its growth ... thus perhaps leading to a way to stop melanoma in its tracks. Anyone with any sort of handle on basic biology and medical terminology can understand the premise ... the specifics that the person doing this sort of thing must know about the media, amino acids, keeping cancer happy and flourishing, etc are other factors. Those other factors not in my realm of knowledge for sure.

The abstract is notable for this comment:

Although results are inconclusive at this date ...

This was an initial, early study .... one that looked like it had promise, but far from being complete or telling about much of anything. While this abstract could have been expanded into some sort of paper with explanations of the procedures used and definitions of the assorted media and amino acids, etc, just what do you think would have been fodder for a completed paper here. And you are amazed, I expect, that she did all this in just 6 or so weeks from the time school started until October 19th, the date of the presentation. All rhetorical only.

Again, what is notable that is not included in the abstract, in my opinion, is any acknowledgment of Roswell Park ... or Dr. George Moore ... despite naming the RPMI media, which Moore developed/discovered, anywhere ... especially given that she had just completed the summer program there, by her account, with accolades heaped upon her. Judyth will, no doubt, claim that Moore forbade her to mention anything about him or her being at Roswell Park lest the secret bioweapon research he and Ochsner were supposedly directing her in be exposed. If that's the case, then what nonsense for her to be presenting on this subject at all ... especially utilizing RPMI. Way to run a secret cover operation!

Although we have been unable to recover the paper itself, the existing abstract gives one a sense of the content and sophistication of the work she did. So, Barb, what was the paper about? Care to engage Judyth in a dialogue on the subject? She should have been your first interviewee. Were she, she may have been your last.

Agree...the abstract gives a sense of the work she was able to do at that point having just spent some period of time in the RP program and learning about Moore's work and media. I already said what the paper was about above. Am surprised you have to ask, Howard. Why on earth would I want to "engage Judyth in dialogue on the subject" of her "paper"?

Judyth engaged me pretty early on via e-mail ... dodging a couple of specific laboratory questions and then trying to appeal to me "woman to woman" on having affairs. Gag. One does not need to engage Judyth to evaluate her claims. Unless, of course, like you, one is just going to lap up anything she says and run with it as fact. Sorry, not the way I roll.

Been nice, Howard ... I chose to thoroughly respond to you here. It's not a subject that I am interested in discussing any further at the moment, perhaps after her new book comes out. If you should choose to come on the Ed Forum in person then, I may or may not have responses to anything you might post. But I am decidedly not interested in another Fetzer channeled discussion. Be well.

Fetzer, please take note of the above comment. Thank you.

Barb :-)

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Thanks for responding. I appreciate it. Would you believe he felt similarly inclined toward you? It must be difficult to imaginel

HOWARD PLATZMAN COMMENTS ON BARB'S RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Been nice, Howard ... I chose to thoroughly respond to you here. It's not a subject that I am interested in discussing any further at the moment, perhaps after her new book comes out. If you should choose to come on the Ed Forum in person then, I may or may not have responses to anything you might post. But I am decidedly not interested in another Fetzer channeled discussion. Be well.

Edited April 6, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Pamela Brown]

The longer this thread continuous the more my respect for JVB grows. She is like Kasparow playing chess against Barb, J. Simkin, Jack W., Lifton, Roy, G. Viklund etc. simultaneously...and she wins.

Am I reading a different thread then everybody else?

I keep reading that Judyth is right four times in a row over Jack, and that Judyth keeps proving everyone wrong about every matter and she knows more about LHO then all of us combined 500 times over

This is gone to far

All I see is Judyth backtracking with silly excuses everytime she is called on one of her crazy stories

From where im sitting she has not been right about anything

I cant believe the things I am seeing in this thread!

Judyth has proved nobody wrong in this thread, all of these posts by Judyth are her make-believe stories posted against the research of those who are not lying about what they have found

So how can Judyth be proving anyone wrong with false stories?

The 'false stories' are typically the strawmen created by those trying to discredit her.