Guest James H. Fetzer Posted April 11, 2010 Share Posted April 11, 2010 (edited) JIM REPLIES TO JOHN SIMKIN ABOUT JUDYTH AND HIS (SIMKIN'S) INVOLVEMENT IN THIS THREAD John, What I have previously observed (see below) is that your report about the specific date that Judyth joined the forum was (at least, implicitly) inconsistent with your remark that she was already "a member of the forum", which occurred at the end of your first post about the new "JFK assassination" (post #77 on page 6). Let me say that I have long admired you for creating this forum and greatly appreciated your invitation that I should join, which you extended many years ago. The only respect in which I fault your performance here is that, because of your standing as the founder of the forum, when you express opinions such as you have done here--"Eventually, I came to the conclusion that she was a fantasist"-- has the effect of warping the discussion. That that should be your personal opinion is fine, but that you, as the founder, should express it in relation to a thread dedicated to determining whether or not that is true is completely inappropriate. I strongly suspect that, since you and Judyth had obviously been in contact BEFORE this branch of the forum was created, and no doubt she had ENCOURAGED YOU TO CREATE SUCH A BRANCH, she probably inferred (apparently mistakenly) that you had created this new branch BECAUSE SHE HAD ENCOURAGE YOU. This is an example of the fallacy involved in inferring that because something X took place BEFORE something else Y, that X CAUSED Y (post hoc ergo propter hoc). There are two general principles that govern attempts to understand discourse under standard conditions, which are (1) the principle of charity and (2) the principle of humanity. According to the first, we should as much as possible, attempt to impose interpretations upon the communications of others that make them true or, at least, plausible given their point of view; and according to the second, as much as possible, we should presume that their motives are the same as our own. In the case of the exchanges on this forum, of course, we are not dealing with "standard conditions" of communication, since there is an extremist group (whose names are obvious to anyone who actually reads through this thread), which is dedicated to discrediting what Judyth has to say, regardless of any evidence or arguments that she or I might advance on her behalf. What I had not expected, however, was that you would intervene several times during the course of this debate to endorse one side. I had not expected that coming from you and regard it, alas, as an abuse of your position. Nevertheless, it creates an occasion to repost information that appeared on that earlier response from me to you, where Wim Dankbaar and Howard Platzman explain some of the reasons that they have come to believe in Judyth. They are not alone, of course, since Edward Haslam and Jim Marrs, who wrote the introduction to Ed's book, are also on board, not to mention Nigel Turner, "The Love Affair", and "60 Minutes", which wanted to run her story but was overruled, no doubt, on political grounds. My interactions with Judyth, which have become quite substantial, have only reinforced my belief in her. Jim P.S. I have discussed this matter many times before, including posts #143, #145, and #154. And I replied to you previously in post #160 on page 11 as well as post #77 on page. If you were actually reading these posts, then I don't think you would be so concerned about having made a mistake that I have corrected. But if you are not reading these posts carefully enough to appreciate why Judyth's observation was appropriate, then you do not know enough to continue to make posts here. The kinds of evidence adduced by Ed Haslam, DR. MARY'S MONKEY, for example, and during my interview on "The Real Deal", I submit, are indispensable to those who want to sort out the truth about Judyth's story, which does not seem to include you: From my post #16O on page 11: John, Thanks for this post, which is valuable for several different reasons. Since you refer to Judyth as "already a member of this forum" on 13 March 2004, which is the date on which you established the JFK assassination segment of The Education Forum, may I infer that you were already in contact with Judyth and considered her to be "a member of the forum", even though she would not formally join the forum until 27 March 2004? And may I also infer that, in the course of your contacts with her prior to 13 March 2004, she, like others, may have suggested that having such a segment of the forum would be a good idea? In the post following your dedication of the JFK assassination section at http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=511, for example, Raymond Blair states, "I proposed this activity on another thread in this forum", where he, like Judyth, is inclined to take some credit for its establishment. If I am correct in my inferences about this, then I think we have a resolution to the controversy about the origins of the JFK assassination forum, which you founded on 13 March 2004 after having received several suggestions for doing so from Raymond Blair, Judyth Baker, and others. Which makes perfectly good sense, since you were in sufficient contact with her to consider her to already be "a member of the forum", even though she would not formally join the forum until 27 March 2004. Your link to a previous thread at http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1435 yields a bonanza of information, including extremely interesting posts from Wim Dankbaar, Pamela McElwain-Brown, Martin Shackelford, Bob Vernon, John Ritchson, Judyth and you. Your post of 28 August 2004, for example, explains that you have had extensive contact with Judyth and that you are inclined to believe her story, not least of all because it fits your own analysis of historical events. During the course of the thread, you provide yet another link at http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1758 which also appears to be loaded with interesting material. So I want to thank you for making this post. I believe my reconstruction of those events has the potential to resolve some conflicts about their interpretation, which promises to reconcile your remark about Judyth being "a member of the forum" already even though she did not formally join until the 27th. Jim QUOTE (James H. Fetzer @ Apr 11 2010, 01:59 AM) 1) John Simkin showing prejudice against me at once by implying I lied--corrected by Dr. Fetzer; I assume this refers to your claim that I started the JFK Forum because JVB suggested it. I have already said this is untrue. Surely, I am the best person to know why I created this Forum. I did take part in a long email exchange with JVB where she answered my questions. Eventually, I came to the conclusion that she was a fantasist. Actually, John, you observed that she was already a member of the forum in a post of your own dated Mar 13 2004 as follows. Given the interest in her (real or imagined) experiences, I am also posting some of the earliest exchanges about her and her replies. They can serve as a kind of "base line" for measuring the consistency of her reports across time, where none of us would be expected to be completely consistent in every respect. There is a lot of very interesting information here and Judyth has been extremely forthcoming.John Simkin Rating: 5 View Member Profile Add as Friend Send Message Find Member's Topics Find Member's Posts post Mar 13 2004, 09:59 AM Post #1 Super Member **** Group: Admin Posts: 14119 Joined: 16-December 03 From: Worthing, Sussex Member No.: 7 In November, 2003 Judyth Baker appeared in the television programme made by Nigel Turner, The Men Who Killed Kennedy: The Love Affair. In the film Judyth tells of her (at first, unwitting) involvement in an anti-Castro conspiracy. A young woman who had received specialized training in cancer research, she was invited to New Orleans by Alton Ochsner to aid Dr. Mary Sherman in a research project that was being developed to kill Fidel Castro. In 1963, Judyth met Lee Harvey Oswald and became involved on the clandestine side of the research project. Both had unhappy marriages and were attracted to each other. She and Oswald began working together: they were both hired May 10, 1963, at Reily's Coffee Company, which provided cover jobs for them. Several labs were involved, including a tumor and tissue culture processing mini-lab, at an apartment owned by anti-Castroite Dave Ferrie. Lee Oswald was selected to courier the biological materials to Mexico City, but the project was called off due to Hurricane Flora. Oswald was ordered to Dallas. Oswald kept in touch with Judyth: they planned to escape to Mexico after his major assignment - his voluntary infiltration of an assassination ring against John F. Kennedy. Oswald believed a highly conservative Texas-sponsored cartel was working with the Mafia and rogue elements of the CIA and the FBI in the plot against Kennedy. He suspected that David Atlee Phillips was his handler. After Kennedy was assassinated, Dave Ferrie called Judyth and told her she was being watched: if she talked, she would die. Researchers are divided on Baker's story: a number of researchers have seen most or all her original evidence files and defend her (such as Jim Marrs, Martin Shackelford, Wim Dankbaar, Howard Platzman) while other researchers attack her story (Jack White, David Lifton, John MacAdams, Dave Reitzes). Baker points out that almost all the researchers who have attacked her story have never met her or viewed her original evidence files. You can read the John MacAdams account below: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/judyth.htm I believe his account is full of inaccuracies. As Judyth Baker is a member of the forum I hope she will point this out for us. +Quote Post John Simkin Rating: 5 View Member Profile Add as Friend Send Message Find Member's Topics Find Member's Posts post Mar 29 2004, 04:29 PM Post #3 Super Member **** Group: Admin Posts: 14119 Joined: 16-December 03 From: Worthing, Sussex Member No.: 7 I still have a few problems with the story. As do most people who have studied the assassination of John F. Kennedy. It is not only John Macadams who have found the story difficult to believe. This is not to say the story is not true. However, researchers will need to see documentary evidence that Judyth Baker was involved with Lee Harvey Oswald in a conspiracy in New Orleans to develop a new biological weapon. (1) This story involves several characters who had the potential to reveal the truth of why Oswald was in New Orleans in the summer of 1963. Therefore it was understandably why people who knew about the conspiracy (Lee Harvey Oswald, Dr. Mary Sherman, David Ferrie and Guy Banister etc.) were murdered or died in mysterious circumstances soon afterwards. I would have thought that if this was the case than Judyth Baker would have been killed during this period. (2) I would have found the story more believable if characters were named who were still alive to answer questions about the case. Characters like David Ferrie, Guy Banister, Clay Shaw, Mary Sherman, David Atlee Phillips, Carlos Marcello, etc. have been mentioned several times before. One of the advantages of naming these characters is that they are dead and cannot contradict the theory. I would definitely be interested in hearing from the “two living witnesses” who could back-up this story. You say “these recorded interviews could not be used in the documentary because these witnesses have been threatened thereafter”. Who is still alive to keep these witnesses from talking. For example, Billie Sol Estes has recently provided information on the case because all those involved in the original conspiracy are now dead. (3) Researchers have found it difficult to believe that a 19 year old girl, however talented, would have been recruited for such a project. Why was David Ferrie, someone with no medical qualifications, recruited by the CIA for this plot. Mary Sherman was a doctor but she was not a cancer specialist (she was a orthopaedic surgeon). (4) If this cocktail of a virus designed to knock out Castro’s immune system and cancer cells that would infect him and cause his death, was developed by Dr. Mary Sherman and her team, has it been used since? (Jack Ruby?). Why has this means to kill people remained a secret since 1963? (5) Why did the CIA have to develop a new method to kill Castro? Surely they had plenty of undetectable poisons that would have been able to kill him? (6) Some critics have suggested that Judyth read Ed Haslam’s book “Mary, Ferrie and the Monkey Virus” and inserted herself into the story. The book describes the cancer research story and the discovery of simian virus contamination of the Salk vaccine, which is believed to be responsible for a particular cancer variant occurring in some patients today. Despite these doubts I believe Judyth deserves a hearing. I would like to think that by rational debate we can eventually get near the truth of why Kennedy was killed. I have been dismayed by the attitude of some Kennedy researchers who have attempted to stop her from communicating her story to a large audience. It is hoped that this forum will provide a place where people with a wide variety of different views can debate these important issues. -------------------- John Simkin Biography: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1365 General Website: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk JFK Website: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKindex.htm Watergate: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/watergate.htm Operation Mockingbird: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKmockingbird.htm Spartacus Travel Guide: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/travelguide.htm Go to the top of the pageReport Post +Quote Post Guest_Wim Dankbaar_* post Mar 29 2004, 06:08 PM Post #4 Guests When I wrote the above I was relying on the information I obtained from the television programme and on internet websites. Over the last couple of days I have been in email communication with Judyth Baker and I have to confess I have been impressed by her willingness to answer my detailed questions. I still have a few problems with the story. As do most people who have studied the assassination of John F. Kennedy. It is not only John Macadams who have found the story difficult to believe. This is not to say the story is not true. However, researchers will need to see documentary evidence that Judyth Baker was involved with Lee Harvey Oswald in a conspiracy in New Orleans to develop a new biological weapon. (1) This story involves several characters who had the potential to reveal the truth of why Oswald was in New Orleans in the summer of 1963. Therefore it was understandably why people who knew about the conspiracy (Lee Harvey Oswald, Dr. Mary Sherman, David Ferrie and Guy Banister etc.) were murdered or died in mysterious circumstances soon afterwards. I would have thought that if this was the case than Judyth Baker would have been killed during this period. (2) I would have found the story more believable if characters were named who were still alive to answer questions about the case. Characters like David Ferrie, Guy Banister, Clay Shaw, Mary Sherman, David Atlee Phillips, Carlos Marcello, etc. have been mentioned several times before. One of the advantages of naming these characters is that they are dead and cannot contradict the theory. Judyth was never called to testify in any case or hearing (like Ferrie, Giancana, Nicoletti, Roselli etc), nor did she volunteer any information (like Cheramie, Kilgallen, Craig, Pitzer, Ruby, etc) "How could I contradict the official story? All my witnesses kept dying on me." - Jim Garrison I would definitely be interested in hearing from the “two living witnesses” who could back-up this story. You say “these recorded interviews could not be used in the documentary because these witnesses have been threatened thereafter”. You have to ask Judyth about them. I'm not sure if I'm allowed to release their names. Who is still alive to keep these witnesses from talking. Heirs and friends of LBJ, George H. W. Bush, Gerald Ford, Arlen Specter and on and on. For example, Billie Sol Estes has recently provided information on the case because all those involved in the original conspiracy are now dead. Billy Sol is blowing smoke or just does not have the full picture. Chauncey Holt applied the same reasoning. He was just wrong. This was a compartimentalized operation. (3) Researchers have found it difficult to believe that a 19 year old girl, however talented, would have been recruited for such a project. Why was David Ferrie, someone with no medical qualifications, recruited by the CIA for this plot. Mary Sherman was a doctor but she was not a cancer specialist (she was a orthopaedic surgeon). Yeah, well, ther was a time researchers found it difficult to believe the earth is round. (4) If this cocktail of a virus designed to knock out Castro’s immune system and cancer cells that would infect him and cause his death, was developed by Dr. Mary Sherman and her team, has it been used since? (Jack Ruby?). Bingo! Why has this means to kill people remained a secret since 1963? Because this secret is even more damning than the truth about the Kennedy assassination. How would you feel if you know your polio vaccine had been contamined with a cancer causing virus? (5) Why did the CIA have to develop a new method to kill Castro? Surely they had plenty of undetectable poisons that would have been able to kill him? Because this one would furnish plausible denial. Ochsner was just promoting that cigarette smoke causes cancer. Castro smoked cigars like a chimney. (6) Some critics have suggested that Judyth read Ed Haslam’s book “Mary, Ferrie and the Monkey Virus” and inserted herself into the story. The book describes the cancer research story and the discovery of simian virus contamination of the Salk vaccine, which is believed to be responsible for a particular cancer variant occurring in some patients today. I know Ed and he knows Judyth. They didn't know each other before Judyth came out with her story. They got to know each other when they were both invited for CBS 60 minutes, which was canceled last minute (of course). Ed believes Judyth. Simple as that. He had been familiar with the name Judyth Vary Baker for 30 years. Despite these doubts I believe Judyth deserves a hearing. I would like to think that by rational debate we can eventually get near the truth of why Kennedy was killed. I have been dismayed by the attitude of some Kennedy researchers who have attempted to stop her from communicating her story to a large audience. It is hoped that this forum will provide a place where people with a wide variety of different views can debate these important issues. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. This post has been edited by dankbaar: Mar 29 2004, 06:10 PM Go to the top of the pageReport Post +Quote Post Guest_Wim Dankbaar_* post Mar 30 2004, 09:12 AM Post #5 Guests Oh, and one more thing: Don't believe everything you read on the Internet, especially not on McAdams' website. Mary Sherman was not only a surgeon, but also a BONE CANCER SPECIALIST, BONE CANCER SPECIALIST, BONE CANCER SPECIALIST. She was especially brought down from Chicago by Ochsner to head his bone clinic. She was also on the BOARD of his CANCER clinic. Now why is that not in his biography???? And why has the picture of board members including Mary Sherman been removed from the second printing onwards? Wim Go to the top of the pageReport Post +Quote Post Guest_Wim Dankbaar_* post Apr 7 2004, 04:50 PM Post #6 Guests http://www.spitfirelist.com/f316.html FTR#316—Update on the Politics of SV40—(Two 30-minute segments) (Sources are noted in parentheses.) (Recorded on 7/29/2001.) Note: FTR#’s 260-315, 317, FTR#325 and succeeding programs are streaming on Real Audio at www.wfmu.org/daveemory. FTR#’s 01-270, 316-324 are available for download only, also on Real Audio, at http://archive.wfmu.org:5555/archive/DX/.) Note: Users of this website are emphatically encouraged to create a word document out of the program descriptions and do a “search” on individual subjects in order to more completely reference those items. Note: Users of this website (as well as the two WFMU web addresses noted above) are emphatically encouraged to use the internet to disseminate as much of the audio and printed material as possible. It is all FREE! Providing valuable supplemental information to previous programs about the cancer-causing monkey virus SV40, this broadcast highlights articles from the mainstream press that reinforce the remarkable research done by Ed Haslam, the author of the vitally important recent book Mary, Ferrie and the Monkey Virus: The Story of an Underground Medical Laboratory. (For more about Ed and his historic research, see, among other programs, FTR#’s 16, 19, 62, 63, 76, 198, 199, 269, 308. In particular, the listener is referred to FTR#19, a detailed, three-hour interview with Ed Haslam that covers the subject material of his book at length and in detail.) A contaminant in the original polio vaccine, the SV40 appears to be the cause of a soft-tissue cancer epidemic. 1. The program begins with discussion of a front-page story in the San Francisco Chronicle that is strongly supportive of information presented in previous programs about SV40. “A growing number of medical researchers fear that a monkey virus that contaminated the polio vaccine given to tens of millions of Americans in the 1950’s and ‘60’s may be causing rare human cancers. For four decades, government officials have insisted that there is no evidence the simian virus called SV40 is harmful to humans. But in recent years, dozens of scientific studies have found the virus in a steadily increasing number of rare brain, bone and lung-related tumors—the same malignant cancer SV40 causes in lab animals.” (“Rogue Virus in the Vaccine” by William Carlsen; San Francisco Chronicle; p. A1.) 2. As reported in previous programs on SV40, there is evidence that the virus (and, consequently, the cancers it causes) are contagious. “Even more troubling, the virus has been detected in tumors removed from people never inoculated with the contaminated vaccine, leading some to worry that those infected by the vaccine might be spreading SV40.” (Idem.) 3. The number of researchers who feel that SV40 is a threat is growing. “The discovery of SV40 in human tumors has generated intense debate within the scientific community, pitting a handful of government health officials, who believe that the virus is harmless, against researchers from Boston to China who now suspect SV40 may be a human carcinogen. At stake are millions of research dollars and potential medical treatments for those afflicted with the cancers SV40 may be causing.” (Ibid.; pp. A1-A16.) 4. Four years after the development of the Salk vaccine, Bernice Eddy of the National Institutes of Health discovered the contamination of the vaccine with SV40. “Four years later, Bernice Eddy, a researcher at the National Institutes of Health, noticed something strange while looking through her microscope. Monkey kidney cells—the same kind used to make the vaccine—were dying without apparent cause. So she tried an experiment. She prepared kidney extracts from eight to 10 rhesus monkeys and injected tiny amounts under the skin of 23 new born hamsters. Within nine months, ‘large, malignant, subcutaneous tumors’ appeared on 20 of the animals.” (Ibid.; p. A16.) 5. Eddy’s results were dismissed by NIH researchers. “On July 6, 1960, concerned that a monkey virus might be contaminating the polio vaccine, Eddy took her findings to Dr. Joseph Smadel, chief of the NIH’s biologics division. Smadel dismissed the tumors as harmless ‘lumps.’ The same year, however, at a Merck laboratory in Pennsylvania, Dr. Maurice Hilleman and Dr. Ben Sweet isolated the virus. They called it simian virus 40, or SV40, because it was the 40th virus found in rhesus kidney tissue.” (Idem.) 6. Other experts, however, shared Eddy’s concern. “But U.S. Public Health Service officials were worried. Tests had found SV40 in both the Sabin and Salk vaccines—it was later estimated that as much as a third of the Salk vaccine was tainted—and that SV40 was causing cancer in lab animals. In early 1961, they quietly met with the agency’s top vaccine advisers. The agency found no evidence that the virus had been harmful to humans, but in March, the officials ordered manufacturers to eliminate SV40 from all future vaccine. New procedures were adopted to neutralize the tainted polio virus seed stock and SV40-free African green monkeys were used to produce the bulk vaccine instead of rhesus monkeys.” (Idem.) 7. Although the vaccine-making procedures had been altered, the public was kept in the dark. “But officials did not recall contaminated Salk vaccine—more than a year’s supply—still in the hands of the nation’s doctors. And they did not notify the public of the contamination and SV40’s carcinogenic effect on newborn hamsters. [Maurice] Hilleman would later explain that government officials were worried that any potentially negative information could ignite a panic and jeopardize the vaccination campaign. The first public disclosure that the Salk vaccine was contaminated came in the New York Times on July 26, 1961. A story on Page 33 reported that Merck and other manufacturers had halted production until they could get a ‘monkey virus’ out of the vaccine. When asked to comment, the U.S. Public Health Service stressed there was no evidence the virus was dangerous.” (Idem.) 8. As discussed in FTR#’s 198, 199, Michele Carbone was able to confirm the contamination of the vaccine. In addition, Carbone discovered that the vaccine contained a second form of SV40 that may have continued to contaminate vaccines! “For years, researchers had believed that all SV40-contaminated Salk vaccine made between 1955 and 1963 had been used or discarded. Then in 1999, Carbone was contacted by a former public health director in Oak Park, Ill., who said he had seven sealed vials of vaccine dated October 1955 in a refrigerator in his basement. Carbone, who had left the NIH and joined the faculty at Loyola University Medical Center, ran tests on the vaccine and made a startling discovery: Not only was the vaccine contaminated, it contained a second form of the virus—an ‘archetypal’ SV40 strain.” (Ibid.; p. A17.) 9. The continued contamination of the vaccine-making process is highlighted in the passage that follows. “Although manufacturers switched from rhesus monkeys to SV40-free green African monkeys to grow the bulk vaccine in 1961, they have continued to use potentially contaminated polio seed strains originally grown on the rhesus monkey tissue to start the bulk vaccine process. [italics are Mr. Emory’s] Manufacturers check the purity of their vaccine with a series of 14-day tests to detect whether any SV40 slipped through. But when Carbone replicated the tests, he found that the second, slower-growing ‘archetypal’ strain took 19 days to emerge. It was possible, Carbone noted in a published report, that this second strain of SV40 had been evading manufacturers’ screening procedures for years—and infecting vaccine recipients after 1962.” (Idem.) 10. The National Cancer Institute continues to drag its feet with regard to SV40 and its relationship to human cancer. Historically, that institution is deeply tainted. More about that later in this program description. “But the NCI recently acknowledged that there is evidence to suggest that SV40 ‘may be associated with human cancer.’ The NCI statement, released last month, also said that SV40’s interaction with ‘tumor suppressor proteins’ indicates ‘possible mechanisms that could contribute to the development of cancer.’ Top NCI officials declined to be interviewed on the record for this report. Fraumeni also declined several requests for an in interview. Dr. James Goedert, the chief of the NCI’s Viral Epidemiology Branch who supervised Strickler’s work, said that if SV40 is in human tumors, it must be at extremely low levels. To critics who claim the government has down played SV40’s potential health risks, Goedert responded: ‘Absolutely not.’ He acknowledged that research is needed to resolve the question of whether SV40 is prevalent in the human population and, if so, how it might be spreading. But Goedert said he has no plans for such studies. ‘It’s not our highest priority,’ he said.” (Idem.) 11. A subsequent article by William Carlsen supplements the above information concerning the SV40 contamination of more recent vaccines. “A monkey virus linked to human cancers may have contaminated the oral polio vaccine for years after the U.S. government ordered manufacturers to remove it, according to drug company documents obtained by The Chronicle. The Chronicle reported last week that the simian virus SV40 had contaminated early polio vaccine given to millions of Americans. When health officials discovered in 1961 that SV40 caused malignant tumors in lab animals, they ordered the virus eliminated from all future vaccine.” (“New Documents Show the Monkey Virus is Present in More Recent Polio Vaccine” by William Carlsen; San Francisco Chronicle; 7/22/2001; p. A6.) 12. More details about the subsequent contamination indicate the possibility of liability. (As this description is being written, the Homeland Security Act has been passed containing a clause eliminating the civic liability of vaccine makers for the product that they manufacture.) “But internal memos from Lederle Laboratories, the chief producer of polio vaccine in the United States, indicate SV40 may not have been completely removed. According to one memo, SV40 was found in three of 15 lots of the oral vaccine seven months after the federal directive was issued in March 1961. Lederle released the contaminated vaccine to the public anyway, the memo shows. The documents also suggest that the company failed to test the monkey-kidney seed strains used to make the bulk polio vaccine for contamination, despite a written warning from Dr. Albert Sabin, who developed the oral vaccine.” (Idem.) 13. Next, the broadcast sets forth the work of one of Bernice Eddy’s heroic (and relatively unrecognized) co-workers, Sarah Stewart. After relating the disastrous discovery of the SV40 contamination of the vaccine, the text highlights Ms. Stewart’s work. “In the aftermath of the debacle, Bernice Eddy was taken off of polio research and transferred to the influenza section by the thankless NIH management. She shared her frustrations with a small group of women scientists who ate brown-bag lunches on the steps of one of the laboratories. There, Eddy met a tenacious woman scientist named Sarah Stewart, who was waging her own battle against the official paradigms of bureaucratic medicine. Bernice Eddy and Sarah Stewart became close friends.” (Mary, Ferrie and the Monkey Virus: The Story of an Underground Medical Laboratory; Copyright 1995 [sC]; Wordsworth Press; p. 97. Again, listeners are encouraged to download the six-part, three interview with Ed Haslam in order to obtain a more complete overview of the discussion. http://archive.wfmu.org:5555/archive/DX/.) 14. Although her contributions remain unrecognized, Sarah Stewart’s work led to the application of recombinant DNA, in addition to confirming the role of viruses in the development of cancer. “Sarah Stewart’s name remains virtually unknown today despite her huge contribution to modern medicine. Not only did she prove that some cancers were caused by viruses, but subsequent research on the virus she discovered led o the discovery of DNA recombination, which is the most powerful tool in medical research today.” (Idem.) 15. Ms. Stewart’s work on cancer-causing viruses supplemented the work of Bernice Eddy and influenced and anticipated the efforts of their collaborator, Dr. Mary Sherman. “From the beginning, Sarah Stewart promoted the idea that cancer was caused by viruses. Due to this, she was not well accepted by the NIH or NCI staffs who described her as ‘an eccentric lady’ determined to prove her theory was right. ‘No one believed her . . .’ Finally, she was given access to an NCI laboratory in Bethesda where she could try to prove her theories. In 1953, she almost succeeded, but her work was not accepted by the ruling crowd at NIH. They found her methods sloppy and objected to the fact that she did not culture her viruses. So in 1956, her lunch partner Bernice Eddy showed Sarah Stewart how to grow her viruses in a culture of mouse cells. She now had all the ingredients she needed and began a series of experiments which are called ‘classic’ by modern day NIH researchers.” (Ibid.; p. 98.) 16. Stewart’s work was rejected by many of her colleagues. Notable among those colleagues was her supervisor Alan Rabson—a name to remember in the context of discussion to follow. “As her work progressed, she realized she stood on the edge of an extremely important discovery and became very protective of her techniques. In staff presentations, she would bewilder NIH pathologists by showing them slides of things they had never seen before. Then, when they asked how she produced her results, she would giggle and say ‘It’s a secret.’ To quote her supervisor Alan Rabson: ‘She drove everybody crazy.’” (Idem.) 17. Stewart and Eddy discovered a carcinogenic virus called “polyoma,” which shed a great deal of light on the discovery of SV40. “In 1957, Stewart and Eddy discovered the polyoma virus which produced several types of cancer in a variety of small mammals. Polyoma proved that some cancers were indeed caused by viruses. Her discovery officially threw open the doors of cancer virology. As Rabson phrased it, ‘Suddenly, the whole place just exploded after Sarah found polyoma.’ It was the beginning of a new era of hope. But it raised some dark questions about earlier deeds. Before long Yale’s laboratory discovered that the polyoma virus that had produced the cancer in Stewart’s mice and hamsters turned out to be virtually identical to Simian Virus #40 (SV-40), a monkey virus that caused cancer.’” (Idem.) 18. Highlighting the discussion that is presented in the first part of the program, Mr. Haslam relates Bernice Eddy’s discovery of the contamination of the polio vaccine. He then goes on to describe the reaction of the NIH to her disclosures. “In October 1960, Eddy gave a talk to the Cancer Society in New York and, without warning NIH in advance, announced that she had examined cells from the monkeys kidneys in which the polio virus was grown and had found they were infected with cancer causing viruses! Her inference was clear: There were cancer-causing monkey viruses in the polio vaccine! This was tantamount to forecasting an epidemic of cancer in America! When the word got back to her NIH bosses, they exploded in anger. When the cussing stopped, they crushed Bernice Eddy professionally. Any mention of cancer-causing monkey viruses in the polio vaccine was not welcomed by NIH. They took away her lab, destroyed her animals, put her under a gag order, prevented her from attending professional meetings, and delayed publication of her scientific paper. In the words of Edward Shorter, author of The Health Century, ‘Her treatment became a scandal within the scientific community.’ Later, it became the subject of a congressional inquiry. In the words of Dr. Lawrence Kilham, a fellow NIH researcher who wrote a latter of protest to the Surgeon General’s office, ‘the presence of a cancer virus in the polio virus vaccine is the matter demanding full investigation . . .’” (Ibid.; pp. 98-99.) 19. In that context, one should note the following, referenced from the Congressional Record, U.S. Senate, Consumer Safety Act of 1972. In turn, the quote is from Ruth Kirchstein of the NIH. Along with the aforementioned Alan Rabson, hers is a name to be remembered. “The insiders already knew there was a cancer-causing virus in the polio vaccine, but they had not announced it. . .” (Ibid.; p. 99.) 20. The media cover-up of the SV40 contamination followed the institutional cover-up. “On the heels of the polio fiasco, the medical hierarchy feared the judgment of the masses. Their ability to destroy a painstakingly constructed scientific career overnight had been clearly proven. Another spate of bad news might shatter the public’s confidence in vaccines altogether. Where would the world be then? Where would the public health establishment be then? As SV40 discoverer Maurice Hilleman put it, the government kept the contamination of the polio vaccine secret to ‘avoid public hysteria.’” (Ibid.; pp. 99-100.) 21. In that context, it is worth noting that Sarah Stewart and Bernice Eddy had developed a prototypical vaccine to protect animals against polyoma as early as 1959! “Developing a vaccine against a spectrum of cancer-causing monkey viruses already inoculated into millions of people in the polio vaccine was at best a long shot. But there was some evidence that anti-cancer vaccines were possible. Quoting Time magazine [“The New War on Cancer via Virus Research & Chemotherapy;” 7/27/1959; p. 54.]: ‘Stewart and Eddy have gone a vital step farther . . . and made a vaccine that protects a big majority of normally susceptible animals against the polyoma virus’s effects.’” (Ibid.; p. 104.) 22. After discussing the relationship between Dr. Mary Sherman, David Ferrie, Dr. Alton Ochsner (like David Ferrie, a key figure in the investigation into the JFK assassination) and the (almost certain) work that was underway in New Orleans on a cancer vaccine, Mr. Haslam goes on to describe the relationship between Dr. Mary Sherman, the aforementioned Ruth Kirchstein and Alan Rabson. “Mary Sherman also knew Ruth Kirchstein at NIH. Kirchstein, who was thirteen years younger than Sherman, was an instructor at Tulane Medical School in 1954 and 1955. During these years, Mary was an Associate Professor in Tulane’s Department of Orthopedic Surgery and was that department’s specialist in pathology. Both Sherman and Kirchstein had common interests in pathology and cancer and taught in the same medical school. It is reasonable to assume they knew each other well. In 1957, immediately following the polio shake-up, Kirchstein went to the National Institute of Health where she stayed for the rest of her career. At NIH, Kirschstein began working as a pathologist in the Biologics division where Bernice Eddy worked. Her specialties were listed in the medical directories as virology, polio, and oncology. But since Kirschstein was barely out of medical school when Sherman, Stewart and Eddy were already nationally recognized authorities, I do not consider their direct contact to be very strong, but there are two things about Kirschstein that should be kept in mind. First, once at NIH, Kirschstein dated and later married, Alan Rabson, who was Sarah Stewart’s supervisor. Therefore, she was in a position to know things about both Stewart and Eddy’s research that she might not have known otherwise. And secondly, Kirchstein credits much of her professional success to the personal support and professional guidance of Tulane Medical School’s Chief of Surgery, Dr. Alton Ochsner, who is known to have enjoyed using his considerable contacts to help Tulane medical graduates find good professional positions. Did Kirschstein keep Ochsner informed about the research activities at NIH and NCI? It would be hard to criticize her for keeping her mentor informed about the progress of cancer research at the national labs, especially since he was the former president of the American Cancer Society and held many important positions in the world of medicine. Additionally, as an expert in polio who lived in New Orleans in 1955, Kirschstein would also have been keenly aware of the problems that Dr. Ochsner faced after injecting his grandchildren with Salk’s polio vaccine. When Eddy and Hilleman broke the news about the cancer-causing monkey virus in the polio vaccine, it would not have been unreasonable for Kirschstein to notify Ochsner about the danger his granddaughter faced. Noting the coincidence of the time frame, we ask the question: ‘Did the ‘Sensitive Position’ that Dr. Ochsner was cleared for in October 1959 have anything to do with a secret attempt to develop a cancer vaccine to protect the American public from an epidemic of cancer?’” (Ibid.; pp. 105-106.) 23. Mr. Haslam goes on to develop more connections between biological warfare research, the NIH, New Orleans and the milieu of the Kennedy assassination. (Full detail must obtained from FTR#19 and other programs about the JFK assassination. The latter include, among other programs: The Guns of November, Parts I-IV, RFA#’s 11-13, 15, 37—all available from Spitfire—and FTR#’s 47, 54, 108, 120, 188, 190, 191, 244, 246, 288. For more about the Col. Jose A. Rivera connection, see FTR#’s 62, 63, 76.) “There were other connections between NIH and New Orleans. Of particular interest was Jose Rivera, M.D. Ph.D., who sat on the NIH Board of Directors in the 1960’s. We will note that the Dr. Rivera was really Col. Jose A. Rivera, one of the U.S. Army’s top experts in biological warfare, and that in the summer of 1963 he was in New Orleans handing out research grants from NIH (Institute for Neurological Diseases and Blindness) to Tulane Medical School, LSU Medical School, and the Ochsner Clinic. It is not my objective to pin Ferrie’s possession of the treatise on any one person, but I am trying to show that there were numerous connections between NCI and New Orleans, any one of which might explain how Mary Sherman and/or David Ferrie wound up with an internal document from NIH or NCI.” (Ibid.; p. 106.) 24. In the second edition of his book, Mr. Haslam highlights another intriguing detail about the connection between the JFK assassination and the investigation into the SV40/cancer connection. “ ‘The Warren Commission Volumes. The FBI went to the U.S. Public Health Service Hospital on 11/25/63 looking for evidence of either Lee Harvey Oswald or A.J. Hidell. They went back a second time on 11/26.’ The FBI was looking for Oswald at the U.S. Public Health Service Hospital! I could hardly believe my ears. ‘Why?’ ‘According to the Dallas Police, Oswald had a vaccination card issued to him by the U.S. Public Health Service on 6/8/63, when he lived at 4907 Magazine Street in New Orleans. It was issued to Lee Harvey Oswald, signed by Dr. A.J. Hidell. The FBI reports are in Volume 19. I’ll send you the citations.’ Had Lee Harvey Oswald been on the grounds of the U.S. Public Health Service Hospital at the time the linear particle accelerator was there? Take a look at this map. [For obvious reasons, Mr. Emory cannot reproduce the map here. Dr. Ochsner’s house, Oswald’s apartment, Children’s Hospital, the Infectious Disease Laboratory Building and the U.S. Public Health Service Hospital are within a 1-mile radius of one another.]” (Ibid.; p.127.) 25. Subsequently, Dr. Ruth Kirchstein went on to become Acting Director of the National Institutes of Health. “Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: I am Ruth Kirchstein, the Acting Director of the National Institutes of Health.” (“Department of Health and Human Services: Statement by Dr. Ruth L. Kirschstein Acting Director, National Institutes of Health on Fiscal Year 2001 President’s Budget Request for the National Institute of Health;” 2/15/2000; accessed at www.nih.gov/about/director/02152000.htm .) 26. Alan (“Al”) Rabson went on to become the Deputy Director of the National Cancer Institute. “NIH WORKING GROUP ON PRIORITY SETTING: [Names include] Al Rabson—Deputy Director, National Cancer Institute.” (“Setting Research Priorities at the National Institutes of Health;” September/1997; p. 10; accessed at: www.nih.gov/news/ResPriority/priority.htm .) 27. Although it was not in the original broadcast of FTR#316, an article published on the front page of the San Francisco Chronicle on 3/9/2002 supplemented the material on the SV40/cancer connection in an important way. Referencing two articles from the prestigious British medical journal The Lancet, the article implicates SV40 in the development of non-Hodgkins lymphoma—one of the soft tissue cancers that Mr. Haslam documents as having assumed epidemic proportions. (“Simian Virus in Polio Shots Tied to Cancer: Two Studies Support Widely Disputed Theory” by William Carlsen; San Francisco Chronicle; 3/9/2002; p.A1; accessed at: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file...Lwww.sfgate.com .) It is included below as a separate “rtf” file for the convenience of the listener. “Scientists have found traces of a monkey virus that contaminated the polio vaccine in the 1950s in a common form of highly malignant human cancer that has mysteriously doubled in incidence over the past 30 years. Two studies, published yesterday in the British journal Lancet, found a link between the virus, called SV40, and non-Hodgkin's lymphomas, a disorder ranked fourth or fifth among cancer deaths in the United States among women and men, respectively. Results suggest that the virus may play a much wider role in cancer than previously suspected.” (“Simian Virus in Polio Shots Tied to Cancer: Two Studies Support Widely Disputed Theory” by William Carlsen; San Francisco Chronicle; 3/9/2002; p.A1; accessed at: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file.../www.sfgate.com .) “‘No obvious risk factors have emerged for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in the general population, but a viral cause has been postulated,’ said a group of eight researchers at Baylor College of Medicine in Texas led by Dr. Janet Butel. ‘This finding sheds new light on the possible genesis of (this) important group of malignant disorders.’ The scientists added that their findings may also offer hope for new therapies for the malignancies.” “In laboratory tests, hamsters injected with SV40 developed a variety of malignant tumors, but early government studies indicated that the virus appeared to have no negative effect in humans who had been exposed. That view began to change in the 1990s when DNA detection techniques became much more refined and evidence of the virus started showing up in human tumors.” “The Salk polio vaccine, administered by injection in the United States and worldwide from 1955 through 1963, was grown on minced kidney tissue from rhesus monkeys. At the time, the manufacturing process was considered safe. But in 1960, it was discovered that large batches of the vaccine were contaminated with the simian virus later named SV40. An estimated 90 million Americans received Salk vaccine injections and as many as 30 million were exposed to the virus.” “In laboratory tests, hamsters injected with SV40 developed a variety of malignant tumors, but early government studies indicated that the virus appeared to have no negative effect in humans who had been exposed. That view began to change in the 1990s when DNA detection techniques became much more refined and evidence of the virus started showing up in human tumors.” “The group included rare brain, bone and lung-related cancers called mesotheliomas. Other research has also turned up SV40 in tumors of children and adults born after the contaminated vaccine was taken off the market in 1963, leading to the still-unsolved mystery of how the virus is being transmitted.” “Yesterday's reports indicate that SV40 may be involved in a much broader group of human cancers, playing a possible role in nearly half of the 55,000 new cases of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma diagnosed annually. The cancer, which can be highly aggressive, has been associated with HIV- positive patients, and it was thought that the suppression of the immune system in these patients may have had a connection with the dramatic increase in lymphomas since 1970.” “The new studies examined lymphomas from HIV-positive and -negative patients. Results suggested that both groups had either about the same level of SV40 DNA fragments, or that the HIV-negative samples had a greater incidence.” “The second group of researchers were at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle and the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas. Remarkably, both groups of researchers using slightly different detection techniques came up with almost identical results: SV40 fragments were found in 42 percent of 154 lymphomas sampled in one study, while the other found 43 percent in 68 cases.” “No virus was detected by either study in nonmalignant lymphoid samples and other cancers used as controls. A Chronicle investigation reported last year that there is a heated controversy surrounding detection of SV40 and that most U.S. government's studies over the past decade have debunked the theory that SV40 is causing human cancer or is even present in tumors.” “But The Chronicle found that more than 60 studies from 30 laboratories around the world have reported detections of the virus in human malignancies. ‘I've been in meetings where people say there is nothing to it,’ said Dr. Jay A. Levy, a renowned virologist at the University of California at San Francisco. ‘That attitude is wrong.’” “Levy said he had carefully reviewed the papers published yesterday and was impressed with the research. ‘You just can't walk away from it,’ he said, noting that the association found was very strong. ‘But there is still quite a difference between association and causation,’ he added, ‘and proving causation is very difficult.’” “Dr. Adi Gazdar of the University of Texas, who led the second study, said yesterday that the ‘data is very, very solid.’ He said it had to be more than coincidence that the four types of tumors found in hamsters after injection with SV40 -- brain, bone, mesothelioma and lymphomas -- are now exactly the same tumor types in humans found with detectable levels of SV40.” “‘The chances are 10 million to 1 it is a coincidence,’ he said. Evidence of how the virus works in tumors is growing as research shows that proteins from SV40 have a powerful effect in turning off tumor suppressor genes in humans.” “Gazdar and the other researchers said that the recent SV40 discoveries also could help lead to effective cancer treatment, by using SV40 as a target for therapies. ‘A vaccine targeting SV40 in mesothelioma is now being developed,’ he said. ‘But it's still only a potential therapy, and we don't know if it will work yet.’” “He said that U.S. officials have all but ignored the SV40 detections and that government funding and support for research has been nonexistent. One reason given by Gazdar and other scientists is that the government is worried about its role in promoting polio vaccination campaigns in the 1950s. ‘And maybe it's because the first SV40-related cancers that were discovered were such rare ones,’ Gazdar said. ‘But you can't ignore lymphoma; it's too widespread and too important a cancer. Jackie Kennedy and a lot of other well- known people have died from it [italics are Mr. Emory’s].’” Go to the top of the pageReport Post +Quote Post howpl Rating: 0 View Member Profile Add as Friend Send Message Find Member's Topics Find Member's Posts post Apr 8 2004, 03:56 AM Post #7 New Member * Group: Members Posts: 2 Joined: 8-April 04 Member No.: 625 I have known Judyth Baker for 5 years. (I also "know" dankbar from a usenet newsgroup, though we have never met.) I am writing this note in the hopes that this is a group of educators (as opposed to Prof. McAdams, the immoderate "moderator of that newsgroup) whose "article" on Ms. Baker, is a pile of trash. Pardon the immoderate language, but this nominal academic has been particularly destructive. Anyone who has spent the number of hours it takes to see Judyth's evidence and hear her story knows that she is the genuine article. McAdams never even met her, though her door was wide open and her telephone number widely circulated. I co-wrote a book with Judyth, and also spent 14 months going back and forth with 60M on their intention, stated quite emphatically on the last go-round, to do a segment favorable to her. As Don Hewitt later said on C-SPAN, "the door was slammed in our face." Now what do you think he meant by that. The forces arrayed against Don Hewitt - the godfather of investigative journalism (on TV at least) were that powerful. Both he and Wallace believe her story, but as the diligent Nigel Turner segment proved, you really do have to hear the WHOLE story and see the evidence in context. It was nice, and I am thankful for the courage he showed, but viewers should not have had to rely on the talking head alone. Unfortunately, so-called "researchers" in the JFK community, who spent little time interrogating her and viewing her evidence, have -- to protect their own books -- fought hard and fought dirty to sabotage both the book and the 60M show. They tried hard to stop Turner, too. This may surprise you, but the only thing that surprised me was the intensity of it. Who knew there were conspiracy theorists willing to go this far. Case in point: At the annual Lancer conference, held in Dallas, panelists have been informed that they may not discuss Ms. Baker's story. For this and other atrocities, the head of Lancer has disgraced the research community. I am sure that dankbar has joined this forum in the hopes of finding a true academic sanctuary where open discussion is treasured, not banned. As for me, I am not sure that I can respond in a detailed manner to questions that come up here. It has been a wild, tiring, and discouraging five-year ride. But I do want it on record somewhere that I believe Judyth Baker knew the real Lee Harvey Oswald. I believe it without a single doubt. As she told me at the outset, the truth is complicated, but it is logical. But nobody has time for complicated in today's world. It takes too much work. How does one reach responsible academics (unlike the History-for-Sale Channel's "Warren Commission" of LBJ experts, whose very existence should be an embarrassment and whose conclusions come preformed)? Is this the place? Howard Go to the top of the pageReport Post +Quote Post Judyth Baker Rating: 0 View Member Profile Add as Friend Send Message Find Member's Topics Find Member's Posts post Apr 24 2004, 04:06 PM Post #8 Experienced Member *** Group: Members Posts: 85 Joined: 27-March 04 Member No.: 606 I still have a few problems with the story. As do most people who have studied the assassination of John F. Kennedy. It is not only John Macadams who have found the story difficult to believe. This is not to say the story is not true. However, researchers will need to see documentary evidence that Judyth Baker was involved with Lee Harvey Oswald in a conspiracy in New Orleans to develop a new biological weapon. (1) This story involves several characters who had the potential to reveal the truth of why Oswald was in New Orleans in the summer of 1963. Therefore it was understandable why people who knew about the conspiracy (Lee Harvey Oswald, Dr. Mary Sherman, David Ferrie and Guy Banister etc.) were murdered or died in mysterious circumstances soon afterwards. I would have thought that if this was the case than Judyth Baker would have been killed during this period. (John Simkin, Mar 29 2004, 02:29 PM) REPLY 1)I was known in the project as "Judy Vary." But I became "Mrs. Robert A. Baker,III" only days later. At Reily, I was "Mrs. Baker." At Dave's and Mary's, I was "Judy (Vary)." My father's name was D.W. Vary, I was working with D.W. Ferrie. I always believed this also helped people lose track. "Vary" is an uncommon name. "Ferrie"was being talked about. Marina Oswald was asked about a "Mr. Farry" also. 2) I was removed from the scene of action. I moved to Florida before the final stage of the project was resolved. I was no longer in New Orleans after September 2, 1963. Dave Ferrie, an intelligent man, managed to survive until the Garrison investigation. Shortly before he was to be indicted, he died of a brain hemorrhage. Dr. Sherman was viciously murdered the day the Warren Commission came to New Orleans to get testimonies, July 21, 1964. By then, Banister had been dead one month. I did not attend my own sister's wedding in 1964. I did not attend my own grandfather's funeral in 1965. I did not attend my grandparents' funerals, within a year of each other, in 1969. Why? All these names were VARY. When I returned to study at University of Louisiana, I was so concerned that someone might remember the name 'Vary' even after all those years that I called myself 'Judyth Avary Baker' to hide the middle name, 'Vary.' When I published short stories or poems, they were under fake names, such as James Rising, Marilyn Ryan, etc. Most important, I was afraid to go into the medical field. I obtain a degree at last - TWENTY FIVE YEARS LATER. The 'whiz kid' did not even get a degree. I contented myself with small-town politics, plunged inmto the Mormon community, which is self-contained, and raised five children, plus some foster children from time to time. (3) Think: if I wanted to get attention and money from this, and I do have evidence of my relationship with Lee - WHY wouldn't I say he was guilty? Then everybody would have lapped it up. I would have been featured on TV, who knows what else. But I have in fact declined interviews. I have, in fact, insisted Lee was innocent, bringing down all sorts of censures on my head. I even lost my teaching job by speaking out. Note that it is VERY difficult to reach me, even now. Only a few people are even aware of where I live. I recently moved again to make it even more difficult to find me. ONLY because I'm writing to you would you have any contact. ONLY because I'm responding, do you have any input. Otherwise, I remain inaccessible. It has always been so. (2) I would have found the story more believable if characters were named who were still alive to answer questions about the case. Characters like David Ferrie, Guy Banister, Clay Shaw, Mary Sherman, David Atlee Phillips, Carlos Marcello, etc. have been mentioned several times before. One of the advantages of naming these characters is that they are dead and cannot contradict the theory. (John Simkin, Mar 29 2004, 02:29 PM) REPLY: There are persons alive who were aware of my story from the beginning. My sister, Lynda, for example, knew about my love affair with Lee in 1964. My children knew from 1981 that Lee and I 'were friends.' We have statements from members of Marcello's family that they remembered me and Lee. Anna Lewis and her husband David (an investigator who had worked for Guy Banister), and Lee and I double dated. This has been twisted about by those who like to rewrite what I have actually reported. Anna spontaneously spoke of me as Lee's mistress, and went into detail before six witnesses. This poor woman has been threatened and harrassed since. I have a Mafia soldier on tape, three times. We knew each other by sight, not as friends, in New Orleans. His name is "Mac" McCullough. I've proven I knew Lee to Gerry Hemming, because I told Gerry some things Lee knew about him that nobody knew. There are others who know. They just don't want to talk. They remain silent. As for the clandestine part, think how long it has taken to even get the government to admit that the CIA and Mafia were working together. Ask yourself WHY does the government REFUSE to release many records on Lee and his activities - what national security problem would be discovered if they were released? IF he were the Lone Gunman, and there was no conspiracy, why aren't these records available? There are slips here and there - Sam Giancana's Chicago-based Mafia knew about our project. It's mentioned on page 416. I have a book coming out. It will provide enough evidence to make manifest that I'm telling the truth. I would definitely be interested in hearing from the “two living witnesses” who could back-up this story. You say “these recorded interviews could not be used in the documentary because these witnesses have been threatened thereafter”. Who is still alive to keep these witnesses from talking. (John Simkin, Mar 29 2004, 02:29 PM) You only need to see how The History Channel was beleaguered by LBJ's friends to see how much power these people can exert to make people lose their jobs, have problems with their credit cards, have money disappear from their bank accounts, to receive harrassing and threatening phone calls in the mioddle of the night - all of which happened to me after I started talking. The Ochsner family is alive and well, and do not want it to seem that their revered Alton Ochsner might have been involved in a plot to kill the President. Most important, I KNOW information that has NOT been released. Gerry Hemming, in fact, wrote to his entire INTERPEN group concerning that, although he said I had learned of these things without understanding how important they were. Oh, I indeed DO understand how important the secret records are. The American public will finally get 'records' -thanks to modern technology - that will replace the originals. The original records are probably destroyed. There are still people left alive, such as Gerald Ford, Arlen Specter, Dich Cheny, and others, whose careers/reputations would be heavily damaged by what I KNOW. For example, Billie Sol Estes has recently provided information on the case because all those involved in the original conspiracy are now dead. (John Simkin, Mar 29 2004, 02:29 PM) No, not because they are dead. Because he, himself, might have been blamed for the deaths of these people, in some cases. Besides, he knew he would not be believed because he was a felon, so it was safe to speak out. As for me, I'm not a felon. I founded a humane society, have five outstanding children, do not smoke, drink and have never been arrested. I NEVER got in any trouble anywhere. So they have to assassinate my character, such as bringing up that I bred dogs, trying to make a breed, and somehow, that makes me a bad person because I actually sold the dogs and founded a dog club. The fact that we donated dogs to handicapped children isn't mentioned. My reputation has to be destroyed, because I'm not a felon, or a prostitute, etc. I have read the most incredible batch of lies about my life, that these characters made up about me! (3) Researchers have found it difficult to believe that a 19 year old girl, however talented, would have been recruited for such a project. Why was David Ferrie, someone with no medical qualifications, recruited by the CIA for this plot. Mary Sherman was a doctor but she was not a cancer specialist (she was a orthopaedic surgeon). (John Simkin, Mar 29 2004, 02:29 PM) Whoa!! Dave Ferrie spoke and read Greek, ancient Greek, Latin, French, German, Spanish, Italian and English. He was a first-rate pilot. He had medical books and had been doing private research on cancer with mice and rabbits for years. It's a lie that Mary Sherman was just an orthopedic surgeon, as usual, promoted by McAdams and his crew. Here is a quote from the Times-Picayune, for July 22, 1964: "Dr. Sherman Directed Lab "Bone cancer treatment and flowers and books were described by friends and co-workers as the main interests of Mary Stults Sherman, who was stabbed to death early Tuesday in her St. Charles Ave.(sic) apartment. Sherman, who was Director of Ochsner Medical Foundation's bone pathology laboratory, had a large following of physicians who respected her work in the field of bone pathology, primarily the study of tumors, benign and lalignant,of bones and joint." The article THEN goes on to say Dr. Sherman was ALSO an orthopedic surgeon. How convenient to pretend that Dr. Shermna was not a cancer research specialist, when her papers on the subject can still be found in journals up to a year after her death! But this is very typical of the many distortions and outright lies that have been written about me, and, obviously, others I have mentioned. That's why I have decided to speak out, to some extent, to set the record straight. It is impossible to go into sufficient detail as to how many lies and distortions have been made by these people. That's why the report of people such as Wim Dankbaar, who has personally seen these films, tapes and other pieces of evidence, is important. Nigel Turner also saw them, and for the FIRST TIME EVER devoted an ENTIRE segment JUST to my story, alone. He protected my witnesses, who were being threatened. Even my sister, who was shown in his film, did not state that she knew about my love affair with Lee since 1964. He cut that out of her filmed testimony, to protect her. My sister, after all, lives in Texas. (4) If this cocktail of a virus designed to knock out Castro’s immune system and cancer cells that would infect him and cause his death, was developed by Dr. Mary Sherman and her team, has it been used since? (Jack Ruby?). Why has this means to kill people remained a secret since 1963? (John Simkin, Mar 29 2004, 02:29 PM) REPLY (1) the bioweapon is not well-described by my detractors. It MUST be accompanied by radiation and/or chemotherapy to be useful - and those adjunct forces could be manipulated. For example, I have a newspaper article stating Jack Ruby was placed in front of x-rays for forty-five minutes. Do you know what that kind of potential exposure would do to YOUR immune system? It was destruction of the immune system that wpuld allow strengthened cancer cells to survive and reproduce in the victim's body. (2) I was assined in Gainesville, Florida, to make certain compounds that help biological materials withstand liquid nitrogen freezing. Yes, I believe the materials we developed are in deep freeze. Jack Ruby was shown that extra x-rays were needed... or radiation... he also knew a LARGE GUAGE needle was needed to inject cancer cells. It would be a painful, intravenous shot, not intramuscular, which would merely cause necrosis. He was a 'health nut' and experienced painful shots given him, as recounted by Al Maddox (I have additional written statements from Maddox), who was present when Jack Ruby died. Maddox was told by Ruby that he'd been injected with cancer cells. Ruby would have been able to figure that out, as explained above. Maddox said a doctor from Chiacgo (Dr. Sherman was from Chicago) gave the shots, then left Texas after Ruby died. Sam Giancana's book says a scioentist 'from Illinois' was involved with the injection/radiation/cancer project to get Castro that Moody described to his brother. While Giancana's book is full of rumors and legends as well as facts, rumor indeed is what he reports coming out of the get-castro project - and he was right on the money. (5) Why did the CIA have to develop a new method to kill Castro? Surely they had plenty of undetectable poisons that would have been able to kill him? (John Simkin, Mar 29 2004, 02:29 PM) Think about this: none of them worked! So they needed to try something else. Castro's doctors and compadres were close and dedicated. But LAB TECHS were not nearly so. It ios the LAB TECH who runs the X-ray machine. It is the LAB TECH who brings the vial of 'penicillin' to be injected. It is the LAB TECH who can add living cancer cells to a blood sample drawn from Fidel Castro and show that his blood is full of cancer cells running around in it. There were several lab techs upon which the project was going to rely. These techs, however, were dispersed with other medically trained people to help Cubans by the tens of thousands who were made homeless and otherwise distressed by the ravages of Hurricane Flora. Hospital labs were closed down, electrcity not available - the bioweapon would not have survived such conditoons, and the project was abandoned at the last moment due to the hurricane. As for "undetectable poisons' - you still have the problem of how to get the poison into Castro and not be suspected. But when Castro went to get his shots, such as penicillin shots to keep him safe from cholera, his DPT shots to keep him safe from diphtheria, as he was often out in the field, his tetanus shots - at such a time, or during a regular check-up when blood is drawn, the cycle could begin. Nobody checks tissue cultures being kept in a lab - they have numbers. etc. and are always being grown for one purpose or another in a good pathology lab or university lab. Remember that the CIA did reveal some pretty ridiculous plans -exploding seashells, beryllium in Castro's shoes, a wetsuit laced with deadly bacteria - even toxic cigars. Each idea meant somebody would be suspected. But if Castro was 'discovered' to have cancer cells running around in his system, and then got a big dose of x-rays woith a machine secretly adjusted just for him--he'd get quite ill. It would be blamed on the çancer' - he'd receive injections. Some would contain huige doses of virulent cancer cells. Today, AIDS sufferers, whose systems are totally unable to fight cancer, get Kaposi's sarcoma and other rare cancers. The lymphoma/lung cancer we devised was so powerful that in a compromised immune system it could kill its victim within a month, usually through side effects. Jack Ruby died within a month of his x-ray treatments, which, by the way, continued and continued. He died of complications - a blood clot. Had he had on elastic stockings, he might not have died of a blood clot in his leg. Cruelly, Jack Ruby also suffered form a huge build-up of ascites fluids from his lung cancer. They let it build up in him until he must have been in agony, and almost drowning, because newspaper articles mention more than two quarts of fluids drawn off. That's disgusting and evidence of the neglect that Jack Ruby was suffering - in Parkland Hospital, where Lee and President Kennedy also died. Parkland and its sister hospiytal, by the way, were replete with staff that had been trained in New Orleans' Charity Hospital-Tulpane-Ochsner system, along with Touro Infirmary. I was shocked at how many of these doctors/residents/interns were trained in New Orleans. (6) Some critics have suggested that Judyth read Ed Haslam’s book “Mary, Ferrie and the Monkey Virus” and inserted herself into the story. The book describes the cancer research story and the discovery of simian virus contamination of the Salk vaccine, which is believed to be responsible for a particular cancer variant occurring in some patients today. (John Simkin, Mar 29 2004, 02:29 PM) As Martin Shackelford and Howard Platzman will tell you, the book was difficult to even find in 2000. I own almost no books on the assassination - only what people have given me - as I am extremely limited financially. I finally did get a copy of Haslam's book. It took over three months to get it. Then I and critiqued it. Haslam's speculations and what I know are not parallel by any means. I wrote fifty pages on what really happened, which are owned by Platzman and Shackelford - I do have copies. There are important differences. Long before I had access to Haslam's book, I'd already said the same things. I was very pleased at the high quality of Haslam's research. By the way, Haslam himself is on record on film - that two different film producers took - where he describes running into people in New Orleans who knew all about me and my research in New Orleans. This is NOT in his book. But he IS on film concerning this. It wasn't in the book because, previously, he had no idea who "Judyth Vary Baker" was, so he could not confirm what he had learned. Despite these doubts I believe Judyth deserves a hearing. I would like to think that by rational debate we can eventually get near the truth of why Kennedy was killed. I have been dismayed by the attitude of some Kennedy researchers who have attempted to stop her from communicating her story to a large audience. It is hoped that this forum will provide a place where people with a wide variety of different views can debate these important issues. (John Simkin, Mar 29 2004, 02:29 PM) I very much appreciate your effort to get at the truth, and your honesty. Interestingly, honest researchers who have taken the time to come visit me and see the evidence believe me and usually defend me (some have been afraid to do so). McAdams has never even talked to me on the phone, has never met me, has never seen a bit of evidence first-hand. Some of the materials he posted are mere gossip. He claims, for example, that Dr. Platzman and ex-FBI man Luis Girdler met and discussed that my living witness, Anna Lewis, was bribed. David Lifton wrote that Platzman looked down with embarrassment, scuffled his feet, was ashamed, when Girdler asked if he had bribed Lewis. IN FACT SUCH A MEETING NEVER OCCURRED, BUT GIRDLER ALLOWED LIFTON TO OPRETEND THAT IT DID. After Anna Lewis made her witness film - and in fact, it would never have been made except one person brough, unannounced, a camcorder with her - AFTER the film was made, Howard Platzman, learning that Anna Lewis was very poor, said if the book Judyth was writing ever made any money, we would try to get her some air conditioning. We learned she had a twenty-year-old son with half his brain gone, sitting in a high chair. He has a little goatee and screams a lot. Then we learned she lives in a wooden hut and has no air conditioning - in Louisiana, where that is almost torture, it's so hot and humid. We felt sorry for her and only hoped to help her. Later, Anna was told complaints would be made about poor conditions for her son and then the state would take away her son, if her film ever appeared in public. She begged us not to use her film publicly. By the way, she was also told she would lose her job as an armed guard. David Lifton and Debra Conway were working together on Lifton's book, CHARADE, a biography about Lee Oswald. Publishers learned about my book and realized Lifton's book said nothing about the love affair, etc. and lacked a great deal that they had seen in a version of my manuscript that was submitted. Lifton and Conway were very angry - after all, Lifton had been working on this book for about twelve years. It was supposed to come out for the 40th anniversary. Instead, Conway, at her Lancer conference in Dallas, spent quite awhile attacking THE LOVE AFFAIR, virtually ignoring the other two Nigel Turner segments. It was reported to me that people thought she had a lot of vitriol to vent against me, and they couldn't understand why. Conway told me she never got a college degree, and it meant a lot to her to be running Lancer - which is a FOR PROFIT organization. I had become friends with Mary Ferrell, a researcher who was getting very old, and I advised Ferrell to change her will and not give Lancer so much money. Ferrell was going to give Lancer a million dollars. I suggested that she give the Poor Clares most of that bequest. It's a long story about why I suggested this, which I'll be happy to explain in greater detail privately, but Conway heard of it and has hated me ever since. She then began spreading stories about my having coerced Ferrell, etc. Forutnately, I have Ferrell on tape, proving otherwise. One must wonder, if my story is so ludicrous and unworthy of attention, WHY McAdams has written 36 pages - many of them using only a single little word here and there to render an entire concept or activity as absurd or improbable - why has he bothered? Why have over 12,000 attacks been made against me on the internet in his newsgroup by him and his friends - mostly saying I'm a joke, I'm demented, or I'm a silly xxxx - no evidence, you understand - simply nasty remarks to belittle me - one must wonder WHY he has gone to all this trouble if my story is so easily disproven. As a matter of fact, McAdams' diatribes only underscore the same kind of desperation that caused The Hisotry Channel to be compelled to cancel, withdraw and destroy the controversial Turner series, with apologies to the Johnson family. I appreciate this opportunity, once more, to offer some balance to what has been written about me elsewhere. I ask patience, until my book comes out. If the book is not quashed and also hushed, that is! Yours very truly, Judyth Vary Baker p.s. please forgive my typos. I was in two 'accidents'in Dallas and sustained a brain concussion. I also have severe headaches and vision problems, which is why I blink my eyes so much in the documentary. I am almost 61 and really regret not speaking out before now, but I was afraid. Now, I live in Europe after a death threat. I've been here over a year now. I miss my family, friends, grandchildren VERY MUCH! JVB -------------------- Biography: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1675 Go to the top of the pageReport Post +Quote Post John Simkin Rating: 5 View Member Profile Add as Friend Send Message Find Member's Topics Find Member's Posts post Apr 26 2004, 08:53 AM Post #9 Super Member **** Group: Admin Posts: 14119 Joined: 16-December 03 From: Worthing, Sussex Member No.: 7 Thank you for your detailed response to my questions. You make some good points about the JFK research community. It is true that once researchers have developed a theory they are reluctant to change their mind when new evidence becomes available. This is especially a problem when that evidence undermines a theory that has been published in a book or website. I believe it is important that historians remain open-minded about subjects they feel strongly about. Historians, like politicians, should not be afraid to admit they have changed their mind about a particular issue. You are to be commended for the tone of your replies. Far too many people involved in this case are quick to make abusive comments about the people they disagree with. I don’t see why we cannot disagree politely with each other. The main objective is to reach the truth. I believe the best way we can achieve this is by having an open, rational debate. It will also set a good example to the students who are reading these pages. This debate also raises issues about the way history is being written in the age of the internet. In the period following the assassination the mass media was able to largely shape the way people interpreted the death of JFK. Later, the situation changed when large media organizations realised they could make a large amount of money by publishing books about possible conspiracy theories. This has now changed and in recent years conspiracy theorists have had great difficulty getting their books published. However, more and more people now obtain their information via the internet. When someone goes online for the first-time they often type in their name in a search-engine. Sometimes this gives them a link to a page on my website. (For example, if you type in “Judyth Baker” in Google you get 1,490 pages. John McAdams comes first and I come second.) People often email me to complain about what I have written about them or a close relative). Negotiations usually take place which often involves the submission of documentary evidence. In some cases the web page is changed as a result of these negotiations. In some cases I refuse to change the narrative but I do add their comments to the sources section. You are an example of someone who has persuaded me to change the content of my page on you. As a result, the pages on you contained on McAdams and my pages are very different. They are definitely two very different interpretations of the same story. It is up to the reader to make up their own mind about what really happened. This to be seems very different to the way that history has been written in the past. I have a few questions I would like to ask. (1) When did you meet Lee Harvey Oswald for the first time? What were the circumstances of this meeting? (2) Did Oswald introduce you to Ferrie or was it the other way round? (3) Did Oswald ever mention David Atlee Phillips by name? Did he give you the names of any of his other CIA contacts? (4) Did Oswald ever give you any idea of who was behind the plans to assassinate JFK? If so, did he say anything about the reasons for the assassination? (5) Was the work you did with Dr. Sherman part of an “official” CIA operation or was it being run by “rogue” elements in the agency? -------------------- John Simkin Biography: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1365 General Website: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk JFK Website: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKindex.htm Watergate: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/watergate.htm Operation Mockingbird: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKmockingbird.htm Spartacus Travel Guide: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/travelguide.htm Go to the top of the pageReport Post +Quote Post Guest_Wim Dankbaar_* post Apr 29 2004, 04:31 PM Post #10 Guests I saw that Martin Shackelford joined this forum. He and Howard Platzman are perfectly qualified to answer your 5 questions. Wim Go to the top of the pageReport Post +Quote Post Judyth Baker Rating: 0 View Member Profile Add as Friend Send Message Find Member's Topics Find Member's Posts post May 3 2004, 06:04 PM Post #11 Experienced Member *** Group: Members Posts: 85 Joined: 27-March 04 Member No.: 606 (1) When did you meet Lee Harvey Oswald for the first time? What were the circumstances of this meeting? Thank you for the opportunity to answer this question. We met April 26, 1963, at about 1:00 PM at the General Delivery counter at the Main Post Office in New Orleans. I have letters dated and marked proving I came to that post office in April several times, and even the bus ticket showing I arrived April 19, 1963. Lee was standing in line with me at the General Delivery counter, where transients pick up mail, when I dropped the names Robert A. Baker and 'Rourke' and Eglin Air Force Base (Florida), in order to claim a letter from my fiance: he had asked me to write to him using 'Rourke'' on the envelope so his parents wouldn't know I was writing to him. Lee believed these names referred to people he had recently met in Florida: secret agent Robert A. Baker (Miami, Florida) instead of my husband-to-be, and Alex Rorke at Eglin Air Force Base, instead of Raleigh Rourke, Robert's friend. When I dropped a newspaper that had a coded message circled in it (my fiance also asked me to put the coded message in the paper so he knew I had arrived safely in New Orleans - we planned a secret elopement - and on top of this, I spoke a thank-you in Russian when Lee handed me the paper when I dropped it, he began talking to me to find out what was going on. I said I had come to New Orleans to work with Dr. Mary Sherman in a ground-breaking cancer research project. Lee had just dined with David Ferrie the night before, the day he'd arrived in New Orleans, and Dave mentioned he was engaged in a cancer research project with Dr. Sherman. Lee believed he was doing me a favor introducing me to Dave Ferrie ASAP because I was short on money and Dr. Ochsner was at that time in South America. I had come two weeks early (my university had altered its schedule to a Trimester system) and was shocked to find out my YWCA rent was not covered for those two weeks early. With Ochsner unavailable to confirm my needs, and Sherman also presently out of town, I was on my own and got a waitressing job to pay my way. I happened to have got a job at the Royal Castle on Airline close to Carlos Marcello's Town & Country. That Royal Castle was the drop site for FBI and CIA surveillance of the Mafia Don. I had to show the paycheck I had from the Royal Castle as ID, and Lee saw it and believed, all things considered, that I was on the clandestine side of the cancer research project. This was not originally the way it was going to be. But that's how Lee and Dave got 'fooled.' A mix-up of names, my Russian, the Royal Castle, the coded newspaper message, and my cancer research seemed to prove to them I was the help they had been promised. Thus I was let in on the clandestine side of the project, and when Ochsner returned, he decided to keep me on that side of it since I already had accidentally been filled in on the get-Castro plot. Yes, this was sponsored by the CIA - with assistanjce from Marcello, Ochsner, etc. who distanced himself as much as possible. But I can show his ties, nevertheless. I was anti-Castro anyway: my former boyfriend was Tony Lopez-Fresquet, son of Castro's first Finance Minister, Rufo Lopez Fresquet. Unlike some, I was fiercely anti-Castro. This was only six months after the Cuban Missile Crisis when nuclear weapons were aimed at me and my family in Florida as well as elsewhere. I believed such irresponsibility toward the potential death of 40 million people by Castro, and all I had learned about his torturing some of my anti-Castro friends, was incentive enough for me to agree to do what I could to push the project, which had begun a year earlier, to completion. I apologize that I do not have the time to answer all the other questions right now. I'm having vision problems, etc. Yes, I can prove I dated Tony Lopez Fresquet. I can prove I studied Russian. I can prove I worked at that Royal Castle. I can prove I had the weird announcement in the paper, that 'Rourke'/Rorke was a name involved, etc. I can even prove I was in the same post office Lee used. We moved into apartments within days of each other, of course, and we began work at Reily's the same day, etc. Documents will be prnted in the book. JVB -------------------- Biography: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1675 Go to the top of the pageReport Post +Quote Post Judyth Baker Rating: 0 View Member Profile Add as Friend Send Message Find Member's Topics Find Member's Posts post May 3 2004, 06:22 PM Post #12 Experienced Member *** Group: Members Posts: 85 Joined: 27-March 04 Member No.: 606 I only wish to add that when I say the project was 'sponsored by the CIA' I do NOT mean directly. Ochsner and Sherman were already involved in other projects that interested the CIA. This was an offshoot of a polio research project. There were a number of sponsors of this project who did not know anything but very general details: another plot to try to get Castro, using medical means. The CIA was doing projects such as an exploding seashell, a scuba diving suit laced with botulinum toxin bacteria, and AMLASH got a poison pen filled with Blackleaf 40 - nicotinic acid from cigarettes that, injected in the veins, causes quick and painful death. The beauty of Ochsner's project was the attempt to make it seem a natural death. The ediving suit had to be delivered to Castro by somebody - who would do that? An exploding seashell could be picked up by almost anybody with Castro. Who would have the guts to stick Castro with a pen's hypodermic needle full of deadly Blackleaf 40? But if Castro seemed to get cancer... who could be blamed for that? 'Everybody knew' that you can't get cancer via injections. Right? But Dr. Grace, at Roswell Park Institute, where I was trained in 1961, had, in 1959, minced up human cancer tumors and injected them into young mice. ALL the mice got cancer. Dr. Grace's son had died of leukemia, and he was determined to hunt down the virus. He gave the mice the human cancers with a clear liquid - no cancer cells in it at all - and ALL the mice got cancer from the virus that remained in the filtrate. How hard would it have been to give HUMANS cancer from HUMAN tumors? What if Castro got a shot of clear liquid that would give him cancer? Who would ever guess? Dr. Ochsner and Dr. Moore of Roswell Park traveled together to testify in 1960 and later against cigarette smoking, as a cause of lung cancer. My first sponsor, Dr. Diehl, Vice President of the American Cancer Society, was the third of this triumvirate to testify. He also, as did Ochsner, wrote books against smoking. If Castro could be given lung cancer, it could be blamed on the cigars he smoked. In 1964, the Surgeon General declared that smoking could cause cancer. So that was the basis of this project. Billions of dollars and forty years later, do YOU know if cancer can be given by injection? Jack Ruby knew all these things: he brought money from Texas for the project. When he said he was injected with cancer, nobody believed him. Forty years after Dr. Grace's work, do you really believe nobody ever moved forward on his findings in the government, the same government anxious to develop anthrax, and other biological weapons? Who has access to the government's biological weapons? Who knows what's in the deep freeze? I, myself, was asked to custom-create chemicals that would aid in the deep-freeze of such biological materials only a couple of months after the product was ready. I worked on that project at Peninsular ChemResearch and have records proving my many hours of after-hours work, etc. at this highly advanced laboratory. JVB p.s. please forgive typos, my eyes are not good,. Thanks. During the interview Judyth Vary Baker states the following:By the way, the reason The Education Forum's JFK forum exists is because I wrote to John Simkin and asked him to form it. He did, and for some time I posted there, until Jack White and others began attacking me. That is not quite true. The JFK section began on 13th March 2004. See first posting: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=511 Judyth then contacted me about my page on her: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKbakerJ.htm I then invited her to answer my question on the Forum. She agreed and joined on 27th March 2004. However, she did withdraw because some members raised doubts about the truth of her testimony. Edited April 12, 2010 by James H. Fetzer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted April 11, 2010 Share Posted April 11, 2010 (edited) JIM RESPONDS TO DAVID LIFTON ABOUT JUDYTH, 9/11, AND INTEGRITY This heated exchange with David Lifton, whom I have long admired for his brilliant research on the death of JFK, was preceded by an earlier email in which I asked him to send me a copy of the cassette of his recording of his (one and only) conversation with Judyth. Here is what I said to him in that email: If you want to have a continuing relationship with me after making that absurd post on the Judyth thread, then you have to send me a copy of the cassette within the coming week. Send it to my home at 800 Violet Lane, Oregon, WI 53575. Use FEDEX. If you don't do that, then just forget it. Very, very pissed! Jim The problem, of course, is that Lifton has made many claims in his ongoing efforts to trash Judyth that I could confirm or disconfirm by listening to the cassette, most obviously, the "Cancun/Kankun" matter, where it is inconceivable to me how Lifton, not knowing of the previous history of the region, could have been in the position to discriminate between her having said "KanKun" and his having heard "Cancun", when they are phonetically indistinguishable! It appears to me that he wants to block any possibility his claims about this could be subjected to any rational response by denying access to the evidence. So my first objection to Lifton's conduct here is that he appears to be suppressing evidence in an effort to make himself invulnerable to refutation. My second objection is that Lifton published only part of my email to him, which obfuscated the context within which it was taking place. I am correcting his gross omission by presenting here the paragraph from my prior email to him (above) which was the trigger for his impassioned denial of granting me access to the tape recording. In both cases, Lifton violates a basic requirement of research by presenting only some of the available relevant evidence, but not all. That fallacy is know as "special pleading". Then in this irresponsible response to our exchange, he now lashes out at me relative to the question of the events of 9/11! That is simply stunning, but also very revealing his complete lack of scruples in dealing with me about all of this. I have done an enormous amount of research on 9/11, while Lifton--and Doug Horne, for that matter--appear to have done none. Not only did I found Scholars for 9/11 Truth (http://911scholars.org) but I published the first book from Scholars, organized is first conference, "The Science and Politics of 9/11", and produced its first DVD. I have interviewed dozens and dozens of experts on different aspects of 9/11 in the course of my radio programs, including a year-and-a-half co-hosting "The Dynamic Duo" with Kevin Barrett on the Genesis Radio Network and now "The Real Deal" on revereradio.net. I have made hundreds of presentations, lectures, and interviews on this subject, including being flown to Athens, Greece, in late 2006 to appear on a 3 1/2 hour television program, which was broadcast worldwide by satellite, and to Buenos Aires, Argentina (twice) for lectures on 9/11 in 2008 and then a symposium at The National Library in 2009. Lifton, like Horne, appears to be completely oblivious of the massive evidence that undermines what we have been told by our government about 9/11. One might have thought that, after having done so much to expose chicanery by the government about JFK, they might both be the least bit skeptic about this "the pivotal event of the 21st Century" which has been used to restrict civil rights and subvert the Constitution by launching these wars of aggression against Iraq and Afghanistan in violation of international law, the UN Charter, and even the US Constitution, justified to the public based upon an alleged "terrorist attack". Anyone who wants an introduction to research on 9/11 should read any of the books by David Ray Griffin, my THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY, or watch the DVD, "The Science and Politics of 9/11: What's Controversial, What's Not", which are featured on the home page of Scholars at http://911scholars.org. While you are there, visit "Why doubt 9/11?" in the upper-left-hand corner for a distillation of about 20 refutations of the "official account" and then visit patriotsquestion911.com, which is linked to Scholars at the upper- right-hand corner of the home page, where they will be able to access photographs, bio sketches, and statements about 9/11 from an impresssive array of scholars and professionals across the spectrum. That Lifton would attack me over 9/11 when he knows next-to-nothing about it parallels his involvement on this thread when he has not been reading the posts! He withholds relevant evidence that could very well falsify his efforts to trash Judyth and intrudes when he doesn't know what he is talking about, once again! It has occurred to me that David Lifton believes that the only person smarter than David Lifton is David Lifton--when he has his next brilliant idea! Which no doubt contributes to his intransigence when confronted by someone like me who has the gall to question him about the evidence for his allegations. So Lifton won't share the cassette of his recording. He isn't following the thread. He is posting without staying abreast of the state of play on the forum. In attacking me over 9/11, he is perpetrating yet one more fallacy, the appeal to popular sentiments, which argues that, because most people don't believe 9/11 was "an inside job", it follows that 9/11 was not "an inside job"! Anyone who wants massive evidence to the contrary can also visit my blog at http://jamefetzer.blogspot.com. And while they are there, they can also study several I have posted about Judyth, which will make them better informed about her than DSL. Jim P.S. And just to make one more point. Not only have I asked him to share a copy of his cassette for me to review but I have invited him (several times now) to explain his position about HARVEY & LEE. That his is not doing that troubles me profoundly. The issue makes a difference here. So not only is Lifton suppressing evidence (by not sharing his recording) and practicing assorted fallacies in reasoning, such as special pleading and the appeal to popular sentiments, where he doesn't know enough about 9/11 to take a stand, but, in relation to HARVEY & LEE, he is not willing to share in a case where he knows what he is talking about. This is not the conduct of a courageous scholar of great integrity, but the opposite. Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2010 20:33:20 -0500 [04/09/2010 08:33:20 PM CDT] From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu To: "David S. Lifton" <dlifton@earthlink.net> Cc: jfetzer@d.umn.edu Subject: Re: The Taped Record of My March, 2000 conversation with Judyth Heretofore I have been "four square" in your corner. I have probably had a thousand times (a very conservative estimate) more contact with Judyth than have you. Ed Haslam has interrogated her for around 1,000 hours. I find it incredible offensive that you continue to refer to her using such demeaning and degrading language. There is no way in the world that you could have discerned the sound of "KanKun" from that of Cancun", which is one telling indication that your entire rejection of Judyth is overblown. Are you implying that I would put your conversation with her on the net? That's a pretty crappy thing to suggest. I no longer believe you about your conversation with her, especially when you are unwilling to share it. I would not be investing so much time and effort on this woman had I not become convinced that she is "the real deal". So if you don't want to spend more time on her, THEN DON'T! But keep your nose out of where it does not belong, if you don't mind. I have to deal with enough little twits on the thread to have someone I largely admire come on to add more logs to the fire. If you haven't been reading the thread, which I take to be obvious, THEN STAY THE xxxx OFF IT! It is so typical of Judyth's critics to drop some nasty and then ignore whatever she has to say about it in response. Do something else, like the goddamned book you claim to be writing, while I sort out matters with Judyth. How's that for a plan? Quoting "David S. Lifton" <dlifton@earthlink.net>: >Jim, > >One topic at a time, so this will only be about Judyth (and I don't want to >spend another minute of my valuable time on this subject). > >Some time ago, I consulted with my own attorney and others connected with >the publication of my own work. > >Under no circumstances am I providing any copy of the tape of my >conversation with Judyth to anyone. Even if I were willing to do so (which I >am not) it would be a small project to find which box in which storage area >that cassette is located, then get it copied, then arrange for a lawyer to >draft a valid legal release etc etc. (Further: can you imagine the >complications at that juncture: placing reliance on a legal release signed >by someone I believe to be deluded?) But all of this is quite beside the >point, because I am unwilling to go down that path, so I'm going to be very >forthright about it: the answer is no, I'm not providing any such tape, and >here are some additional considerations: > >First of all, I resent the notion of your continually repeating the idea >that I criminally recorded a conversation, etc etc. Writers and journalists >often record their interviews, and I considered myself to have been in just >such a "first interview" situation. The construction you place on that is >highly negative. That statement--repeated more than once by you--and by >your associate Judyth, who (for all practical purposes) you now "represent" >on the Internet--is a giveaway to your true attitude and the dynamic at play >here, and I want no part of it. > >Second: That same attitude is also at play when you indiscriminately post >Judyth's complete lies about me --and this concerns such rubbish as my work >not being published on account of her book; or false and malicious >statements about my filmed interview with Oswald's daughter. These are not >matters I am going to debate, but they offer an accurate barometer of what >Judyth is all about: malice, and manipulation, with no true regard for truth >in history. > >Third--and perhaps most relevant: The Internet has changed everything since >I had this conversation in March, 2004. Any email, any piece of audio, any >film, any image--can be heard and/or seen around the world. > >For all the work you have done as an author and JFK researcher, you have now >become--in effect--Judyth's "manager," or "handler on the Internet." That is >a truly unfortunate state of affairs. > >As you know, I believe Judyth to be a pathological xxxx. Further, I do not >believe her to be a valid witness to anything. She needs psychological help, >but instead has found a new voice (you) to facilitate the dissemination of >her fictions, and she even has a soon to be published book on Amazon. > >I want to be no part of any of this. > >I do not want my voice questioning her on the internet--or as the focus of >any debate, as to whether she pronounced a particular word this way or that, >and that is exactly what would happen if this tape were to be provided to >any third party. Of course she said Cancun--I did not make that up--but I am >unwilling to have the spurious side debate as to whether her pronunciation >can be construed one way or another (which I understand to be the latest >"excuse" she has constructed to avoid being impaled on this particular >issue). > >On a more personal level: I have had to adjust to the fact that you--who I >think should know better, much better--believe in this woman. Indeed, you >have fallen for her legitimacy hook, line and sinker. But that doesn't mean >I should be dragged further into any of this. I shall not, and will not. > >Finally, I see nothing wrong with my having complimented someone on the fact >that they actually went to the Kennedy library, and spent the time necessary >to retrieve a completely obscure letter written back in 1961. Tony Marsh did >that, and he is to be commended. I found that admirable. For here is the >actual fan letter Judyth wrote to President Kennedy, and that document is >valid evidence and, to say the least, illuminating. > >While I don't want to spend further time debating these issues, I am not >going to be muzzled as to expressing my opinions, when appropriate. > >DSL > >PS: I have not read Halsam's book, but I have read the threads about it on >the Simkin Forum. At some point, I'll read it, but you should be aware that >its entirely possible for Judyth to read such an account, and then "insert >herself" into the story. That's exactly the way she functions. She reads, >absorbs, her imagination then goes to work, and then she functions as an >echo chamber in any existing legal or historical record. Jim Fetzer is continuing his campaign of reaching into the gutter to stir the pot and attempting to sully my name, using Judyth Baker as his chosen vehicle for disseminating false information about me. He obviously does not like the fact that, based on my interactions with Judyth, I believe her to be a pathological xxxx, a fraud, and a fantasist. But there are other dimensions to all this. Some months back, I made clear to Fetzer that I do not subscribe to his ideas as a 9/11 Truther--specifically, I do not believe that the US Government was complicit in the destruction of the World Trade Center; nor do I believe that a missile, and not a plane, hit the Pentagon. I know that Doug Horne feels the same way--we see completely eye to eye on this subject--and Doug has spelled this out very clearly in an Epilogue to his five volume work "Inside the ARRB." But Fetzer is like a bull in a china shop. He seems not to care whom he offends, or how he goes about it. He seems to think he is in charge, and is free to sling mud at anyone, anytime. Well, I have had enough of him and his antics. In the last 24 hours, and in response to my posting a brief statement complimenting Barb Junkkarinen (and Tony Marsh) on finding a letter (at the JFK Library) that Judyth wrote to President Kennedy--and in general, supporting their interpretation that this was nothing more than a fan letter, and that Ralph Dungan's response was completely routine (and should not be invested with the overwrought interpretation(s) that Judyth has placed on it), Fetzer sent me a very threatening email which reads, in part, as follows: QUOTE: I would not be investing so much time and effort on this woman had I not become convinced that she is "the real deal". So if you don't want to spend more time on her, THEN DON'T! But keep your nose out of where it does not belong, if you don't mind. I have to deal with enough little twits on the thread to have someone I largely admire come on to add more logs to the fire. If you haven't been reading the thread, which I take to be obvious, THEN STAY THE xxxx OFF IT! UNQUOTE In the immediate aftermath of this threat, Judyth then repeated her lies about me (and again, this is all via postings made by Fetzer) to the effect that Rachel Oswald was not paid any money when a snippet of a 1991 filmed interview I did with Rachel was used by the show HARDCOPY, a year later, when in fact Rachel was paid a total of $ 4,000, and there are canceled checks to prove these transactions. As I also stated previously, Rachel was furious--and rightfully so (as was I, by the way)--with the poor taste shown by a particular HARDCOPY producer in his tasteless editing of the show. Fetzer is now seeking to recycle that whole sorry episode. He is apparently using Judyth to carry on a smear campaign against me, attempting to recycle what happened 18 years ago, in the year 2010. As Joe McCarthy was asked,during the hearings: Have you no decency, sir? To which I would add: Are there no limits to you stinking behavior? With each passing day, I want less and less to do with Fetzer, his screwball beliefs, and his highly unethical and out of control tactics. Do I believe there was a major conspiracy in the JFK case? Yes, of course I do. Does Fetzer subscribe to that, too? Yes, he apparently does. But so what. At some point, I simply do not care what someone believes about the Warren Report, but have to focus on their behavior as a human being, and I not only have had enough of Judyth and her behavior, but Fetzer as well. DSL 4/11/10; 3:50 AM PDT Los Angeles, CA Edited April 11, 2010 by James H. Fetzer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hogan Posted April 11, 2010 Share Posted April 11, 2010 .....The kinds of evidence adduced by Ed Haslam, DR. MARY'S MONKEY, for example, and during my interview on "The Real Deal", I submit, are indispensable to those who want to sort out the truth about Judyth's story, which does not seem to include you (John Simkin): Jim, in the course of this thread you often refer people to Ed Haslam and his book, Dr Mary's Monkey. 1) When did you first become aware of Dr Mary's Monkey as it pertains to JVB? 2) You have stated that perhaps no one has spent more time interviewing Judyth Baker than Ed Haslam. Pertaining specifically to JVB's love relationship with LHO, what original evidence or insight does Haslam provide? I know that you are very busy on this thread and elsewhere, but I would like you to revisit my post to you the other day. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=189383 I will repeat my major questions in that post: Ed Haslam tells Jim Marrs that upon receiving documents from Sixty Minutes, he recognized the name Judyth Vary Baker and because the name was accompanied by her phone number, he picked up the phone and called her, fully expecting her to be the woman he met in 1972. He was "very surprised" to find out she was not. Haslam recounts this at about the 52:40 mark of Marrs' interview His account of meeting a Judyth Vary Baker in 1972 begins at the 42:00 mark http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-678503303319704937# Haslam gives a different account in Dr Mary's Monkey, saying that he first called Baker after the 60 Minute team had "pulled the plug on the JVB story." Question: How do you perceive Haslam's varying (no pun intended) accounts of when he first spoke to the "real" Judyth Vary Baker, and are the differences important? In the interview with Marrs and in his book Haslam relates how (in 1972) he declined opportunities to discuss the Garrison investigation with a "good buddy" of Lee Harvey Oswald. He did so first by abruptly leaving a party where she was the hostess, then two weeks later he declined an invitation to go to her house with his girl friend. Ostensibly, Haslam's reason was his girlfriend's disapproval of his behavior in a school cafeteria, where he got into a heated discussion in front of some of her fellow graduate students. These conditions would not have existed during a private meeting at Judyth Vary Baker's house. (Haslam had already met Baker at her party, talked with her about her employment, and spent considerable time with her husband) Question: Do you find Haslam's explanation of his reasons for declining to meet with someone who was a "good buddy" of Oswald complete enough to be plausible or convincing? Question(s): Has Haslam ever discussed attempting to find these people, (including his girl friend, any of her fellow students, and Baker's husband) since they could have verified his story? Do you find anything interesting about his failure to describe doing so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamela Brown Posted April 11, 2010 Share Posted April 11, 2010 Jack White said: Jim has chosen to endanger all of his previous fine research and friendships in order to embrace this one strange woman. Like some others before him, he has dug himself a very deep hole that it will be hard to climb out of, when the truth emerges...if ever. Allowing Judyth to have an open forum and blocking for her to that end should not change Jim's, or anyone's, relationships with others in the CT community. We have been known over the years for having open minds, being willing to debate each other, and cordially agreeing-to-disagree on different areas. It is ironically the mindset of the WC apologist to rabidly froth at the mouth about anything that opens a door to conspiracy -- Judyth seems to be a magnet for that. So I hope that everyone can continue to respect the others regardless of their personal thoughts about Judyth's statements or any area of CT research. We need to stand shoulder-to-shoulder in order to successfully withstand the inevitable attacks from the apologists as we move toward 2013. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted April 11, 2010 Share Posted April 11, 2010 (edited) This is very regrettable.That frauds like Files, Holt and Baker can splinter JFK researchers is likely part of a deliberate misinformation campaign...carefully managed by the propaganda masters. It is conceived to linger on and on, endlessly. Ten years now and her "book is still not published." I suggest that a route to finding the truth about JVB is to interview the man who was married to her, who tells an entirely different story about what happened in 1963. Jim has chosen to endanger all of his previous fine research and friendships in order to embrace this one strange woman. Like some others before him, he has dug himself a very deep hole that it will be hard to climb out of, when the truth emerges...if ever. Sadly, Jack That's just a wee bit paranoid isn't it? The world is full of liars, Jack. And most of them are not on the governemnt payroll. You would be surprised at all the agents provocateur who have tried to "infiltrate" me...at least a half dozen. Most claim to be "FORMER" CIA personnel. Roy Payne was the first, and Art Swanson the last...with others in between. Not paranoid at all when documentation can be found with pertinent connections. Art Swanson's connection was protecting the identity of Donald O. Norton from discovery. Paranoia has no connection with actual agents. Roy Payne's connection was trying to lead me down a false trail to Gerry Patrick Hemming and "a sniper rifle used in the assassination." Jack Edited April 11, 2010 by Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamela Brown Posted April 11, 2010 Share Posted April 11, 2010 I've come to realize by now that you're not much better than Judyth; the same paranoia and the same utter lack of judgment. You are simply unable to understand that so many people, independently of each other, have come to the same, unavoidable conclusion: JVB is a scam artist. Nothing less, nothing more. And yet "Glenn Vicklund" seems to consider it his mission to pop in and re-re-revoice his lame opinion. How could readers not get the impression that there is indeed a campaign against Judyth probably run by WC apologists who become rabid at anything pointing to conspiracy, and that it is failing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Jeffries Posted April 11, 2010 Share Posted April 11, 2010 Lee, Thanks for one of the best posts in a very, very long thread. The critical community seems never to learn; once again, we can see why so little progress has been made over the years. Too many egos, too many combative and sensitive personalities- it's an old story. We end up incessantly battling each other over theories and side issues. As Pamela notes, it's essential that CTers stand together for what will certainly be the biggest onslaught of lone nutterism to date when the 50th anniversary rolls around in a few years. As I noted in an earlier post, only Judyth knows the truth about her and Lee Harvey Oswald. At this point, failing any new irrefutable piece of evidence, I think we're beating a dead horse here. I would hope that this contentious issue doesn't irreperably damage the relationships between fine researchers like Jack White, Jim Fetzer and David Lifton. We've had too many of these feuds in the past, and they've been tremendous roadblocks in exposing the truth about the JFK assassination. Let's not let this issue further divide us. Reasonable people can disagree about Judyth Baker, or John Armstrong, or James Files, etc. Let's all stay aware of the big picture and remember that our foremost objective ought to be exposing the impossibility of the official story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted April 11, 2010 Share Posted April 11, 2010 NOTE: Just for the record, Jack White has long been and will remain one of my favoritepersonalities in JFK research. Until our divergence over Judyth, he and I have been on the same side of virtually every battle fought about what happened to JFK. I am sorry it has come to this, but my commitment to truth overrides loyalty to my friends when I am convinced that they have lost their way. I respect Jack's right to his opinion about Judyth and all other issues JFK. What I do not respect is his closed-mindedness and his obvious unwillingness to consider the evidence. He has not read the books, listened to the interviews, or even read the posts that Judyth and I have been making. And I find it quite bizarre that he would think my ongoing pursuit of truth involving Judyth should undermine (what he takes to be) my accomplishments in the past. Life is too complex for such simplistic thinking to be reflective of the realities of the situation. Each of us is free to agree with some of another student's research and reject other parts of it, as I shall illustrate in relation to the work of another old friend, whose relationship has now ruptured, David Lifton. For now, however, let me conclude by offering Judyth's replies. Jim I cant believe I just read that I feel so horrible right now Jack and David didnt do this to your friendships, JUDYTH did this! Please Jim step back and look at the big picture, is it really worth it to loose two great friends and research partners over a false story that never happened? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted April 11, 2010 Share Posted April 11, 2010 Thank you, Lee...for showing signs that you have DONE RESEARCH and know what you are talking about. Jack This thread has so much information, garbage, hearsay, facts, lies and insults included in it that I've kinda lost track of what the hell is going on.Do we all have to make a decision here to believe Judyth and take the "side" of Jim Fetzer or alternatively disbelieve her and take the "side" of David Lifton? Then what? Start a giant pie fight that would put Laurel and Hardy to shame? And would the icing on the proverbial cake (or pie) be the shouting of the F-Word at those who are not on our "side" anymore? Absolutely pathetic. The key message in all of this for me is this: has John Armstrong's thesis any legs in light of what JVB has to say? If Jim struggles with the concept of two Lee Harvey Oswald's can he (or JVB) tell us a. who the hell J. Edgar Hoover was chasing around in 1960 using LHO's birth certificate? b. who did Palmer McBride work with in Pfisterer in New Orleans? c. who was impersonating LHO in Mexico City? d. who was at the rifle ranges in the lead up to the assassination? e. who was at Sylvia Odio's house? f. who was at Red Bird Air Field attempting to charter a plane from Wayne January while LHO was at work in the TSBD? g. who was buying beer and brittle from Fred Moore in the Jiffy store on Industrial Blvd? h. who was arrested in the balcony of the Texas Theater and taken out the rear after LHO was arrested and taken out the front? i. who owned all the wallets that were found over the course of 22nd-23rd November? e. who was in the red Ford Falcon seen, and identified as LHO, by T.F. White? f. who owned the driving license in the files of the TDPS in Austin? I'm sorry but the evidence of two Oswald's is overwhelming. John Armstrong's hypothesis might not be perfect but it's as good as it can be with the info he had. I believe JA to be the "real deal" in this matter... ...oh and by the way, this is how the whole "alterationist" versus "anti-alterationsist" pissing contest started - the lowering of conscious thought into a tribalistic meme of "thinking" that consists of "you don't think the same thing as me? Well, F*** you!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted April 11, 2010 Share Posted April 11, 2010 Good post, Don...except JVB is NOT the only one who knows the truth. Her former husband said she was with him in the fall of '63 in Florida, NOT IN NEW ORLEANS. He said that when LHO's photo was published as the assassin, that his wife exclaimed to him, "I think I knew that guy in New Orleans!" Maybe someone should track down Robert Baker. Jack Lee,Thanks for one of the best posts in a very, very long thread. The critical community seems never to learn; once again, we can see why so little progress has been made over the years. Too many egos, too many combative and sensitive personalities- it's an old story. We end up incessantly battling each other over theories and side issues. As Pamela notes, it's essential that CTers stand together for what will certainly be the biggest onslaught of lone nutterism to date when the 50th anniversary rolls around in a few years. As I noted in an earlier post, only Judyth knows the truth about her and Lee Harvey Oswald. At this point, failing any new irrefutable piece of evidence, I think we're beating a dead horse here. I would hope that this contentious issue doesn't irreperably damage the relationships between fine researchers like Jack White, Jim Fetzer and David Lifton. We've had too many of these feuds in the past, and they've been tremendous roadblocks in exposing the truth about the JFK assassination. Let's not let this issue further divide us. Reasonable people can disagree about Judyth Baker, or John Armstrong, or James Files, etc. Let's all stay aware of the big picture and remember that our foremost objective ought to be exposing the impossibility of the official story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted April 11, 2010 Share Posted April 11, 2010 (edited) JUDYTH REPLIES TO JACK ABOUT HER LETTERS This response serves as a reply to post #1111 from Jack as well as this one. I have been snowed under by the blizzard and want to post Judyth's reply promptly. I find it fascinating how many who are attacking Judyth --including Glenn Viklund, Barb Junkkarinen, and (now) even Jack White--appear entirely willing to depend upon John McAdams. We are way past the point of (what is known as) diminishing returns in relation to this thread. JUDYTH RESPONDS: How sad. Jack White has been accessing John McAdams' pages, for only there is my love letter to Lee described as Jack has described it. Jack has been fooled by McAdams & Co. into saying that I "presented a lot of "love letters" written to Robert as being to LHO (salutations torn off)." He parrots these lies as if they are facts: 'presented a lot of love letters' is what the McAdams folks say. This is a sad day, to see him state such a thing, when I could have answered his questions fully. i) I presented ONLY ONE love letter to "60 Minutes" --the only one I ever wrote to Lee. ii) There is only ONE letter to Robert Baker in the record. I saved it to prove the situation in New Orleans. The other letter was to Lee. I never had possession of any other of Robert Baker's love letters. Of course he has them (unless his wife threw them away). I am sorry to see Jack taking time to read material offered by the WC defender, John McAdams, and his cohorts. Here is what Jack wrote: "Has anyone corresponded with Robert Baker lately? From what I have seen on the internet, he does not believe his ex's tales. Also noted that JVB presented a lot of "love letters" written to Robert as being to LHO (salutations torn off)." My reply: Jack, you went to the Internet and are now parrotting what you found there. You could have asked questions instead of stating 'factoids' from McAdams & Co. Now you'll get the facts. 1) Typically, Robert Baker does not respond. However, his wife may respond for him, pretending to be Robert Baker. Dr. Howard Platzman exposed her as POSING as Robert Baker in emails. She married Baker in ther late 1980's and knew nothing of what transpired in 1963. However, she said Robert Baker remembered returning to Florida on July 20, 1963. He (or, rather, she) said I was lying about saying any later. But paycheck stubs, utility payment checks, bank statements, and more show that we remained in New Orleans until early SEPTEMBER. Baker was 'off' on the date by six weeks. He was out of town so much he has few memories of New Orleans. 2) Mr. Baker is a genius with an IQ of 186, measured and known. However, his memory of details many other people recall is dismal. A math genius, he was unable to remember his own mother's maiden name when asked for it on our marriage license. I attach our marriage license, showing a blank there. He could not remember the names of his elementary school teachers. He forgot what grade his oldest son was in. He spent more real time with his parents that summer than he spent in New Orleans, and the rest of his time was out in the Gulf of Mexico. We have his dated letters showing exactly where he was all summer, and what he was doing. We can account for every single day where he was--something he is unable to do. He did admit that I mnight have had an affair that summer, though he is certain (and is correct) that was the only time I would have conducted an affair. However, his wife may come up with some stories for you, posing as him. Take your chances. 3) The love letter that is supposed to have its salutation torn off' -- the ONLY leter I ever submitted, the ONLY letter I ever showed anybody, written to Lee, has its salutation intact. What was torn was part of a quotation on the right side, top. NOBODY writes a salutation on the upper right-hand corner. it's always on the left-hand side. McAdams & Co. wrote: "notice there is no name for recipient; section torn off." But let's examine this letter and see if it could have been written to my much-absent husband who neglected me the entire summer, who left me alone in New Orleans one day after we were married, without tellng me how to reach him. On the other hand, that summer Lee and I became involved in dangerous matters. This letter was written to Lee after he told me he believed he was going to be killed, and that he was sorry he had gotten me involved in his life. Read the letter and see how serious it is about life and death. ANYONE who reads my book will know that Robert's impact on me was very different. He was gone so much that I decided to divorce him, and only because I was forced back to Florida by Ochsner did I stay with him. Always fond of him, Robert had no troubles or trials for me to worry about. Before going any further, look at the torn-off section: the words 'thou" and "bestowed" can be read. I wrote someting there such as, "Thou, upon whom I bestowed my love." There is nothing there to suggest a name torn off. ...'thou' begins on the same line across as "My dearest love." Indeed, the letter was given to "60 Minutes" intact. It was damaged later, when vandals ripped up many of my papers. They saw the letter intact. Dr. Howard Plazman saw the letter intact. I did not dare address Lee by name. Lee returned the letter because he did not dare carry it to Mexico City, but he did not want it destroyed. We hoped to keep the letter as part of our history as lovers in New Orleans. Certainly I own no letters that I wrote to Robert, except the one I took with me when we divorced, to prove I came alone to New Orleans. I originally planned to take my knowledge to the grave, but wanted evidence passed on to my oldest son. Thus, I kept the New Orleans letter to Robert. And of course, I kept the precious letter, to Lee.. Note that I underlined the word 'dearest' because I had two lovers in my life at that time: (McAdams & Co, wrote the info in the black area, that Mr. White read) I wrote: "you are forever immortal because of what we have between us." Who brings up death in a love letter? Who would write (if we fled and had to stay in hiding): "A lifetime of sorrow could lie ahead for us, but what difference? Together, today, we live forever!" And why write "I won't forget" to Robert Baker, who had left me to fend for myself in New Orleans? I would never forget that Lee rescued me after I was thrown out in the middle of the night onto the streets of New Orleans, and he found me an apartment and paid 1/3 of the rent for it. Robert would be gone up to 21 days at a time, as his letters prove. McAdams & Co. posted what the 'fake" Robert Baker told them, that 'he' was out a week and home for 4 days at a time, that summer. But his letters and paycheck stubs, which I kept to prove his whereabouts, show that was not the case. And what about "And I love you forever, dearest beloved, no matter what! Kisses and love, your Judy." No matter what? We didn't know what was going to happen to us! WHO touched me, 'so gently, so lovingly, so surely, like the gentlest raindrops on parched soil'? Was it the man who sent me a POST CARD when he came through New Orleans with his friends, dropped into a postbox to his new, young, lonely wife who was LIVING in New Orleans, saying he would be coming by to see me in a few days, and complaining about how hot it was? Oh, and asking me to be sure to eat well? Who signed off on a letter to me as 'Rat" -- knowing he'd neglected me terribly? Instead of relying on inaccurate and biased "information" from McAdams & Co., please ask the witness next time, and get the truth. For the truth, instead of McAdams' misleading factoids, check: http://www.judythbaker.blogspot.com http://www.judythvarybaker.com People, the thread has gotten too long. It's time for those who care about the truth to go to my blogs. You can ask questions there without hunting for answers in a long thread. If Mr. White prefers to use McAdams' flawed material, stating factoids from that kind of person, when the witness is standing here ready to answer his questions, it's time to urge everyone who really cares about these matters to visit our blogs for the correct information. I also am now 'on the road' and cannot respond to questions here anymore. I will be all but incommunicado for at least 8 weeks, until I get safe Internet connections again. I believe many questions have been answered and that honest researchers can see that many rumors floating out there were wrong. My family's name was not "Avary," I never had lots of love letters to show people, I really did do advanced cancer research, KanKun was not the same as Cancun, Lee DID arrive in New Orleans on April 25 as I stated, neither Lee nor I knew that David Atlee Phillips was his handler's real name until almost the last minute (despite Lifton's twisted version), I was NOT kicked off the DellaRosa forum for abusive posts, I DID receive protection (including inhibition) in the EU political asylum system, etc., etc. Thank you, everyone who has been polite, and decent. Be sure to tune in to hear Edward Haslam's next broadcast with Dr. Jim Fetzer. Be sure and get the eye-opening book Dr. Mary's Monkey. And think about pre-purchasing Me & Lee from my website. Those who do will receive a personal hand-written thank-you leter of appreciation for doing so. God bless you all, Judyth Vary Baker Good post, Don...except JVB is NOT the only one who knows the truth. Her former husband said she was with him in the fall of '63 in Florida, NOT IN NEW ORLEANS. He said that when LHO's photo was published as the assassin, that his wife exclaimed to him, "I think I knew that guy in New Orleans!" Maybe someone should track down Robert Baker. Jack Lee,Thanks for one of the best posts in a very, very long thread. The critical community seems never to learn; once again, we can see why so little progress has been made over the years. Too many egos, too many combative and sensitive personalities- it's an old story. We end up incessantly battling each other over theories and side issues. As Pamela notes, it's essential that CTers stand together for what will certainly be the biggest onslaught of lone nutterism to date when the 50th anniversary rolls around in a few years. As I noted in an earlier post, only Judyth knows the truth about her and Lee Harvey Oswald. At this point, failing any new irrefutable piece of evidence, I think we're beating a dead horse here. I would hope that this contentious issue doesn't irreperably damage the relationships between fine researchers like Jack White, Jim Fetzer and David Lifton. We've had too many of these feuds in the past, and they've been tremendous roadblocks in exposing the truth about the JFK assassination. Let's not let this issue further divide us. Reasonable people can disagree about Judyth Baker, or John Armstrong, or James Files, etc. Let's all stay aware of the big picture and remember that our foremost objective ought to be exposing the impossibility of the official story. Edited April 11, 2010 by James H. Fetzer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hartwell Posted April 11, 2010 Share Posted April 11, 2010 Hello to all who have participated in this discussion over Judyth Vary Baker and thanks to John Simkin for allowing me to join: Most of you may not have heard of me. Briefly, I recently published a book that presented a case against the government for causing infamous events, including the murder of President Kennedy. It is called Dead Men Talking: Consequences of Government Lies. I conclude that Lee Oswald was innocent. I will disclose my bias in this discussion: I have publicly voiced my support for Judyth. Though this debate has gone well over 1,000 posts with many assertions made by many people whom I have respect for in the JFK community, the debate will not reach any consensus. Jim Fetzer and others have produced much relevant evidence in support of Judyth and everyone is free to interpret it as they believe. I have no qualms with those who disagree with my point of view, but am concerned about how we come to our conclusion as to her and to other issues. I will draw an analogy: Suppose someone tells the boss of a company that they witnessed an employee stealing company equipment. No videotape or anything, just one’s word against another. What does the boss do? It will probably depend on which employee they perceive as the more loyal or the more valuable. They want to be fair, but in reality they are setting the burden of proof for one too high to reach. If the boss sides with the accused, the accuser becomes an Inconvenient Witness. It serves no purpose for anyone to make Judyth an Inconvenient Witness. Whoever can articulate their position on any issue based on the facts and the weighing of facts for their relevance will have my respect. Thank you all for your time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted April 11, 2010 Share Posted April 11, 2010 (edited) JUDYTH REPLIES TO JACK WHITE ABOUT "THE TWO JUDYTH BAKERS" NOTE: It does seem to be late in the day for Jack to be raising some of these questions, especially since he never directs them to Judyth. This is one more manifestation of his his extreme bias against her, which, of course, is shared by most of those who attack her here. The others, by and large, are not very surprising and, I suppose, Jack's closed-mindedness should not surprise me, either. He hasn't read the books, listened to the interviews, or even read the posts that Judyth and I have put up. Perhaps he won't even read her replies. JUDYTH RESPONDS: Jack White wrote: I have been searching for information on TWO JUDYTH VARY BAKERS. Nothing. But I found several interesting tidbits. ...JVB's eyesight is so poor that she has a seeing eye guide dog. ...JVB's former husband Robert gave a version of the story of the assassination contrary to JBV's. He said that at summer's end, he and Judy were both enrolled at the fall semester at the University of Florida in Gainesville, and on November 22 the assassination happened, ==This is NOT "contrary to JVB's" story! Why not ask ME, Jack? You are once again accessing tainted sources and relying on Robert Baker's exceptionally poor memory. 1) I worked M-F 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM at Peninsular ChemResearch, Inc. I worked OVER- TIME there twice a week at night, usually until 10:00 PM doing independent work. I have provided PenChem records of my work there, including my presence there Nov. 22, 1963. 2) I was also enrolled for 7 hours of night classes, at University of Florida, which I attended on T-TH nights, for which I have also provided records. 3) After the assassination, I was so upset I could not take my final exams, held not long after. Just one more coincidence? How many do you want? In August, 1964, I petitioned to get the H's removed, as I was literally ill due to the effects of seeing Lee shot before my eyes and was in a state of shock... See attached: 7 hrs grades/no final exam, Winter Trimester, UF, 1963 (where withdrawal on the basis of "H" means "withdrawal for reasons related to the health of the student). and that Judy brought home a newspaper showing the accused assassin, and Judy said, "I think I may have seen this guy in New Orleans". ==Answer (and please think, what would YOU have said?): Robert CAUGHT ME reading about Lee on the 23rd, in the newspaper. Yes, I pored over every word. Do you think I would have told Robert I was in love with Lee Oswald? I had to say something because we NEVER bought a newspaper, we read them at the library for free. So I said, and this is the correct quote, "I think I worked with him at Reily's in New Orleans."== This is in contrast to the JVB story. ==No, it is not. You accessed tainted information. You did not ask the witness, who came to this forum to answer questions. Instead, you accessed a hostile website and quoted from it, stating it as "fac"' -- a website that prints hearsay and innuendo about me, written by people who defend the Warren Commission. And now I have to travel, as I mentioned a couple of weeks ago. My time here is ending. You could have asked so many questions, Jack. I answered in full the only question you did ask. All the other things you posted about me were falsehoods offered as facts, obained from others. You only had to ask....== Has anyone checked the U of F enrollment records to see whether Robert and Judy were enrolled there in September? ==I have provided the records. I was enrolled at UF at night. I was also working fulltime at the same time, at PenChem, working 44-50 hours a week. I have the W-2 form to go with the attached checks, and the income tax records, too, for 1963. I filled my income tax return separately from Robert Baker, because I wanted a clear record of my income to prove it. I also illustrated for UF's The New Orange Peel magazine at that same time. In other words, I saw as little of my neglectful husband as possible. I was in love with Lee H. Oswald.== Judyth I have been searching for information on TWO JUDYTH VARY BAKERS. Nothing.But I found several interesting tidbits. ...JVB's eyesight is so poor that she has a seeing eye guide dog. ...JVB's former husband Robert gave a version of the story of the assassination contrary to JBV's. He said that at summer's end, he and Judy were both enrolled at the fall semester at the University of Florida in Gainesville, and on November 22 the assassination happened, and that Judy brought home a newspaper showing the accused assassin, and Judy said, "I think I may have seen this guy in New Orleans". This is in contrast to the JVB story. Has anyone checked the U of F enrollment records to see whether Robert and Judy were enrolled there in September? Jack Edited April 13, 2010 by James H. Fetzer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hogan Posted April 11, 2010 Share Posted April 11, 2010 Let's all stay aware of the big picture and remember that our foremost objective ought to be exposing the impossibility of the official story. With due respect Don, that's long been a fait accompli. That objective was achieved more than forty years ago. Since then, many private citizens have done their best to expose the dark layers of an obscene conspiracy. Maybe the foremost objective should have been to bring President Kennedy's murderers to justice, legally or historically. Never pursued by our own government, that objective has yet to be achieved by two generations of dedicated researchers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Greenlee Posted April 12, 2010 Share Posted April 12, 2010 mr. fetzer- i very much enjoyed the post where you suggested i was in some sort of a conspiracy against judyth, apparently plotting alongside several people i have never met or communicated with in any way. it gave me a good laugh and i thank you for that. what isn't so funny is that you and Judyth have set up a situation where in order to believe her we must believe the worst of people like David Lifton and Jack white. i don't think you will find many people here who would choose her over either of those two men and i am frankly mystified that you have apparently done so yourself (especially when one considers your long personal association with those gentlemen). the day will come, sir, when you realize what your allegiance to this woman and her fairy tales has truly cost you and my awareness of that makes me feel genuinely sorry for you. i am also puzzled by your comments about John Simkin. you seem to be saying that since he founded this forum and graciously hosts us all he should therefore have less rights of expression than the rest of us, that he should not state his opinion on the topics under discussion. why on earth should he not be permitted to speak as freely as anyone else? is it simply because he- like most sensible people- disagrees with your assessment of Judyth? JIM REPLIES TO JOHN SIMKIN ABOUT JUDYTH AND HIS (SIMKIN'S) INVOLVEMENT IN THIS THREADJohn, What I have previously observed (see below) is that your report about the specific date that Judyth joined the forum was (at least, implicitly) inconsistent with your remark that she was already "a member of the forum", which occurred at the end of your first post about the new "JFK assassination" (post #77 on page 6). Let me say that I have long admired you for creating this forum and greatly appreciated your invitation that I should join, which you extended many years ago. The only respect in which I fault your performance here is that, because of your standing as the founder of the forum, when you express opinions such as you have done here--"Eventually, I came to the conclusion that she was a fantasist"-- has the effect of warping the discussion. That that should be your personal opinion is fine, but that you, as the founder, should express it in relation to a thread dedicated to determining whether or not that is true is completely inappropriate. the principle of charity and (2) the principle of humanity. According to the first, we should as much as possible, attempt to impose interpretations upon the communications of others that make them true or, at least, plausible given their point of view; and according to the second, we should, as much as possible, we should presume that their motives are like our own. In the case of the exchanges on this forum, of course, we are not dealing with "standard conditions" of communication, since there is an extremely group (whose names are obvious to anyone who actually reads through this thread) which is dedicated to discrediting what Judyth has to say, regardless of any evidence or arguments that she or I might advance on her behalf. What I had not expected, however, was that you would intervene several times during the course of this debate to endorse one side. I had not expected that coming from you and regard it, alas, as an abuse of your position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now