Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[Pamela Brown]

Foreigners usually refer to it as "rotten fish".

Oh, there are those who love it, too.

Sil? Here it is called pickled herring and it is delicious. So is lutefisk.

No, no, no.

Sill is a national treasury of ours, eaten with delight by most everyone.

Trust me, fermented herring is in an entirely different division. You'll smell it from miles away. Loved by few, from up north...

Edit: I forgot, you're from Minnesota, so you should be able to find it.....hehe...

Yes, vitamin D supplements can be good during the long winter when the summers catch has been preserved. Also, with a tot of vodka during and after a sauna, with some dill on rye it can be really invigorating. So, I suppose the conditioning is to respond with a liking when smelled but if you don't need it, oh dear...

I did discover vitamin D this winter and it definitely made a difference. However, we didn't have much of a winter. And now spring is 2 months early too.

[Doug Weldon]

Doug,

You had a question about my comment:

With my legal background, I focus on how much evidence is needed to prove a certain point. Proving HARVEY and LEE requires a great deal of evidence because it is so specific.

Perhaps you missed my earlier post where I use CAPS to refer to HARVEY and LEE as a "2-Oswald theory." To prove this particular theory requires a great deal of evidence.

Dean

Dean:

Whatever one thinks about Harvey and Lee, it is a very unique book in that many of its premises could be proved with witnesses who are still living and evidence that continues to be very impressive. I did not agree with Armstrong on the impact of every piece of the evidence but some of the evidence is jaw-dropping. Watch the interviews and read the book. John Armstrong conducted one of the most impressive investigations of the JFK case ever done. John is unique in that he lets the evidence speak for itself. I believe you or I (or any attorney) could go into court and easily prove that the government was engaged in a covert activity and was manipulating the identities of Oswald. Jack White is not making outrageous comments about the evidence. Whether you agree with him or not on other issues the evidence here is very solid. I am not commenting on Judyth and whether this makes a difference for her argument. I am simply agreeing with Jack that John Armstrong has compiled a mountain of evidence and the fact that individual pieces of the evidence might be questioned in no way detracts from the volumess of evidence John acquired.

John engaged in his research in a thorough and painstakiing manner. John is actually a very modest man. One of the differences between him and myself are in examples like John Pic. John located him but was very reserve in his contacts whereas I would have been knocking at Pic's door. What is amazing is how much more evidence Armstrong acquired but did not publish. John was fortunate to have the resources to do what few of us could have. I deeply respect John's work. It does not detract from other work I highly respect such as Lifton's. I predict the work of both will withstand the test of time. I have always realized that my credibility could be destroyed by being led down false roads. It is the tragedy of Garrison. I have been extremely cautious. However, I stand unequivocally behind these two men.

Best,

Doug Weldn

[Michael Hogan]

Whatever one thinks about Harvey and Lee, it is a very unique book in that many of its premises could be proved with witnesses who are still living and evidence that continues to be very impressive. I did not agree with Armstrong on the impact of every piece of the evidence but some of the evidence is jaw-dropping. Watch the interviews and read the book. John Armstrong conducted one of the most impressive investigations of the JFK case ever done. John is unique in that he lets the evidence speak for itself. I believe you or I (or any attorney) could go into court and easily prove that the government was engaged in a covert activity and was manipulating the identities of Oswald. Jack White is not making outrageous comments about the evidence. Whether you agree with him or not on other issues the evidence here is very solid. I am not commenting on Judyth and whether this makes a difference for her argument. I am simply agreeing with Jack that John Armstrong has compiled a mountain of evidence and the fact that individual pieces of the evidence might be questioned in no way detracts from the volumes of evidence John acquired. (Bold added, m.h.)

John engaged in his research in a thorough and painstakiing manner. John is actually a very modest man. One of the differences between him and myself are in examples like John Pic. John located him but was very reserve in his contacts whereas I would have been knocking at Pic's door. What is amazing is how much more evidence Armstrong acquired but did not publish. John was fortunate to have the resources to do what few of us could have. I deeply respect John's work. It does not detract from other work I highly respect such as Lifton's. I predict the work of both will withstand the test of time. I have always realized that my credibility could be destroyed by being led down false roads. It is the tragedy of Garrison. I have been extremely cautious. However, I stand unequivocally behind these two men.

An excellent summation, in my opinion.

[Jack White]

Doug,

You had a question about my comment:

With my legal background, I focus on how much evidence is needed to prove a certain point. Proving HARVEY and LEE requires a great deal of evidence because it is so specific.

Perhaps you missed my earlier post where I use CAPS to refer to HARVEY and LEE as a "2-Oswald theory." To prove this particular theory requires a great deal of evidence.

Dean

Dean:

Whatever one thinks about Harvey and Lee, it is a very unique book in that many of its premises could be proved with witnesses who are still living and evidence that continues to be very impressive. I did not agree with Armstrong on the impact of every piece of the evidence but some of the evidence is jaw-dropping. Watch the interviews and read the book. John Armstrong conducted one of the most impressive investigations of the JFK case ever done. John is unique in that he lets the evidence speak for itself. I believe you or I (or any attorney) could go into court and easily prove that the government was engaged in a covert activity and was manipulating the identities of Oswald. Jack White is not making outrageous comments about the evidence. Whether you agree with him or not on other issues the evidence here is very solid. I am not commenting on Judyth and whether this makes a difference for her argument. I am simply agreeing with Jack that John Armstrong has compiled a mountain of evidence and the fact that individual pieces of the evidence might be questioned in no way detracts from the volumess of evidence John acquired.

John engaged in his research in a thorough and painstakiing manner. John is actually a very modest man. One of the differences between him and myself are in examples like John Pic. John located him but was very reserve in his contacts whereas I would have been knocking at Pic's door. What is amazing is how much more evidence Armstrong acquired but did not publish. John was fortunate to have the resources to do what few of us could have. I deeply respect John's work. It does not detract from other work I highly respect such as Lifton's. I predict the work of both will withstand the test of time. I have always realized that my credibility could be destroyed by being led down false roads. It is the tragedy of Garrison. I have been extremely cautious. However, I stand unequivocally behind these two men.

Best,

Doug Weldn

Thanks, Doug...an excellent analysis. Among your most important points John's MODESTY and RESTRAINT.

He has the LEAST EGO OF ANY RESEARCHER I KNOW. He entered JFK research at a very late date (1990s)

with his mind a blank notebook with NO PREVIOUS INFORMATION. Therefore he was untainted with much

that had happened for the previous 30 years. Once intrigued by the video THE MANY FACES OF LEE HARVEY

OSWALD, he was hooked and decided to find out for himself by trying to find out who Oswald was AS IF

IT WERE A BUSINESS PROJECT such as had thrice made him quite wealthy. He made independent fortunes

first in HOMEBUILDING in Alaska, developing a business model which concentrated on luxury dwellings for

those moving there to develop oil and natural resources. After several years of success, he decided to move

to the Midland Texas area to pursue the OIL BUSINESS. He developed a business model which used

computer technology and a study of oil markets to trade in oil futures. He is sorta a genius at seeing

business plans in the marketplace. Trading in oil futures does not depend on drilling oil wells, but on

accurate guessing about those who do. He developed computer graphing programs which traced trading in

oil futures over a period of years and noted periodic predictable spikes in highs and lows, which allowed

him to guess with remarkable accuracy how oil was traded. He made a second fortune in the oil business,

and retired in Tulsa where he still dabbled in oil. But John is a restless guy, always looking for a NEW

CHALLENGE. He noted that fortunes were being made in a little publicized area of finance...TRADING IN

COMMODITIES FUTURES. (commodities are such mundane things as "pork bellies"). He studied the

market and developed another business model, using his computer graphs to predict futures trading

like he had done in oil...and made his third fortune. He was seeking a new challenge in the 1990s when

he read some JFK books and watched some documentaries. He saw THE MANY FACES OF LHO and began

to wonder JUST WHO IS THIS GUY OSWALD? LHO he soon found was the most UNDERSTUDIED part

of 11-22-63. He decided to approach it like he would with a business venture...with logic and a

"business model" and his laptop computer. This time he was not out to make a fourth fortune...he

was only looking for the SATISFACTION OF KNOWING WHO OSWALD WAS. He began gathering

all the evidence he could, and noting it in his computer. Like his business models, he quickly saw a

pattern emerging. By entering searchable dates and places in his computer, he found MULTIPLE

INSTANCES WHERE THE OFFICIAL RECORD SHOWED LHO IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE WORLD

AT THE SAME TIME. He started separating these into TWO TIMELINES of TWO DIFFERENT individuals.

That was the genesis of H&L. It took him 12 years, but he finally self-published all that he had

found. He spent a year in China getting the book published as economically as possible. He was

satisfied. He knew who LHO really was. He wanted to share it with the research community, which

he had never been a part of. It was time to move on the the next challenge...back to his first love,

building luxury homes (in Hawaii). He lives in a luxurious estate he built overlooking the Pacific, in

a tropical paradise. He no longer devotes any time to JFK research. Why should he? He found

what he had wanted to know.

To show how thorough his research was, he used NO INFORMATION in the book unless he had

two different sources on a subject. He flew around the world gathering information and interviews,

to places like Argentina, Switzerland, New York, Washington, New Orleans, Ohio, Florida and

many other places seeking single bits of information. He employed Britisher Malcolm Blunt

as his research assistant. He asked me to help with certain tasks, mostly involving photos.

He collected every known photo of LHO or his family. He purchased copies of every document

which mentioned any member of the Oswald family. He organized them into 50+ 4-inch ring

binders by timelines, and entered the gist of each record into his computer. He visited every

site mentioned in a document, where practical. He and I, for instance, spent a day driving

around Fort Worth to see and photograph EVERY school or residence mentioned in a document.

We drove to nearby Benbrook to get a feel for where the Oswalds lived as a child. I was

present when he interviewed Georgia Bell, who lived there across from the Oswalds. We

visited the nearby house where Robert lived. We went to the nearby elementary school,

where John went inside and inquired about LHO school records. We went to the county

courthouse, where he searched records for all the properties owned by Marguerite. I was

present when he interviewed Franchetta Schubert, who had been a fellow student at

Stripling with LHO, and knew where he and Marguerite lived.

John published NOTHING UNLESS he could prove it, showing great restraint. No rumors or

theories...just facts.

When finished, he went back to his specialty of making money, disdaining being a JFK

research celebrity. He prefers the anonymity of sitting in his Pacific paradise, talking

on his cellphone to his broker in New York, and buying and selling commodity futures.

He is a very private guy who wants no limelight. he likes it that way.

Jack

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

JIM RESPONDS TO DOUG WELDON (WHO APPEARS TO HAVE HOMEWORK BEFORE HIM)

Then I can't wait for you to respond to the twenty or so posts that demonstrate John Armstrong

appears to be mistaken, inaccurate or wrong in various aspects of his research. And if enough

of those individual pieces fall into this category, then the theory "Harvey" and "Lee" will fall with

them. No doubt, there is ample evidence there to prove "that the government was engaged in

a covert activity and was manipulating the identities of Oswald." That, of course, also follows if

the agency was using multiple impostors, including his own brother, Robert, to impersonate him

on various occasions. If you check it, you will see that Judyth and I have noticed various errors

in his work. If you haven't studied them, then you seem to be poorly positioned to endorse them.

Doug,

You had a question about my comment:

With my legal background, I focus on how much evidence is needed to prove a certain point. Proving HARVEY and LEE requires a great deal of evidence because it is so specific.

Perhaps you missed my earlier post where I use CAPS to refer to HARVEY and LEE as a "2-Oswald theory." To prove this particular theory requires a great deal of evidence.

Dean

Dean:

Whatever one thinks about Harvey and Lee, it is a very unique book in that many of its premises could be proved with witnesses who are still living and evidence that continues to be very impressive. I did not agree with Armstrong on the impact of every piece of the evidence but some of the evidence is jaw-dropping. Watch the interviews and read the book. John Armstrong conducted one of the most impressive investigations of the JFK case ever done. John is unique in that he lets the evidence speak for itself. I believe you or I (or any attorney) could go into court and easily prove that the government was engaged in a covert activity and was manipulating the identities of Oswald. Jack White is not making outrageous comments about the evidence. Whether you agree with him or not on other issues the evidence here is very solid. I am not commenting on Judyth and whether this makes a difference for her argument. I am simply agreeing with Jack that John Armstrong has compiled a mountain of evidence and the fact that individual pieces of the evidence might be questioned in no way detracts from the volumess of evidence John acquired.

John engaged in his research in a thorough and painstakiing manner. John is actually a very modest man. One of the differences between him and myself are in examples like John Pic. John located him but was very reserve in his contacts whereas I would have been knocking at Pic's door. What is amazing is how much more evidence Armstrong acquired but did not publish. John was fortunate to have the resources to do what few of us could have. I deeply respect John's work. It does not detract from other work I highly respect such as Lifton's. I predict the work of both will withstand the test of time. I have always realized that my credibility could be destroyed by being led down false roads. It is the tragedy of Garrison. I have been extremely cautious. However, I stand unequivocally behind these two men.

Best,

Doug Weldn

[Jack White]

This is too filled with errors to attempt a reply...but...

...both Lee and Harvey were in the Marines in Japan. READ THE BOOK.

This is where the most contradictory of official records are found.

...It was Dorothea Murret, not Marilyn Murret, who was in the CIA. I cannot

cite the document reference, but I heard of Dorothea years before I heard

of Marilyn. It is an unusual name, easily remembered.

..."Harvey and Lee people" had nothing to do with the LHO exhumation.

However, it was John Armstrong who persuaded Marina to make the photos

public, and I was the first to copy them and put them on the internet.

The exhumation occurred years before Armstrong became interested,

but he does cover it. The exhumation was instigated by Michael Eddowes,

and fought in court by Robert Oswald. After Marguerite died and was

buried next to Lee, Robert relented and allowed the exhumation.

...these are just for starters. This diatribe is filled with other errors.

JVB's vow to discredit Harvey and Lee is VERY DISTURBING and not

the statement of someone interested in truth.

Jack

JUDYTH REPLIES TO JACK (FOR ONE OF THE VERY--OR SHOULD I SAY, VARY--LAST TIMES)

Jack wrote:

Apparently JVB is now try to confuse everyone. Now she says LHO lost a tooth at

Beauregard school, and has previously said that David Ferrie knocked one of his

teeth out at a CAP event.

==Jack AGAIN misquotes me! I said it got loosened, not that it got knocked out, by Ferrie.

Was he this way doing research with you, Jim? This careless of witness statements?==

And she finds it impossible that the Murret family did

not know of both Lee and Harvey, EVEN THOUGH Dorothea Murret

==I believe this is Marilyn?==

was in the CIA and Marguerite knew of the plan, and likely asked for their cooperation. When

you can't convince 'em, confuse 'em.

===We now have an immense number of people who 'knew' of "Harvey" and "Lee" -- to the point

of Marina sleeping with both of them -- Robert Oswald, most or all the Murrets (?), two Marguerites,

a "Harvey" who never ever mentions "Lee," and a "Lee" who never, ever mentions "Harvey", but

vanishes forever after "Harvey" dies. So does the 'other' Marguerite. Gone. Poof. Marina looked to

see if it was Lee, when he was dead, because the mortician did a terrible job -- but she knew it was

him, because he had those remarkable eyes that I described.

However, the "Harvey and Lee" people put her through a horrible trial -- exhumation -- and there

were the rings on the body. The skull, as I have said, clung together due to calcium and rubber-like

deposits which occur during partial mummification. The rotated tooth shows the tooth may have

been knocked out but was reseated. Jim, we must examine every page of Armstrong's book with

the scientific thought that apparently has been missing. We have work to do.

Jack White asserts (though none of these people ever asserted):

Robert knew. Marina knew. Marguerite knew. John Pic knew.

Why not the Murret family? It is even possible that Dorothea recruited LHO

for the false defector program. It is interesting that she met with LHO in

Japan. Which LHO? I do not remember, but it likely was Lee, her cousin,

and not Harvey, whom she did not know.

Now we have Marilyn Murret added, too, just because of proximity? That she was in Japan when

Lee H. Oswald was? Jack White is saying on "Lee" was there, not "Harvey." Based on what? The

person I knew -- that they say is "Harvey" -- told me he fell in love with a Japanese girl in Japan.

She was beautiful. We have support for Lee H. Oswald having been in Japan, not "Lee" -- George

DeMohrenschildt wrote that LHO and a Japanese girl at this party excitedly talked about her homeland

-- and George later wrote in his (much kinder to LHO) book that he was glad Marina was miffed that

Lee was getting attention from the prettiest woman at the party -- a musician -- because Marina had

treated him badly.

"She was a Japanese girl, very good looking...and became sort of a girl friend of a Russian musician who

lives in Dallas by the name of Lev Aronson. And I do not recall whether he was at the party or not. But

Yaeko was, and they developed an immediate interest in each other--Oswald and Yaeko. They just went

on sight and started talking and talking and talking. I thought that was understandable because Oswald

had been in Japan, you see. But the interest was so overwhelming that Marina objected, and became

very jealous. She told us, either that night or later, that Oswald got her telephone number, she noticed

that Oswald got this girl's telephone number. And once or twice later on she told us that she has the

impression that Oswald is carrying on something with this girl."

Why would "Harvey" carry on about Japan if only "Lee" had been there?

The whole theory that "Harvey" was not in japan but "Leer" was is more and more sounding like utter

nonsense. Or will we next be told that it was "Lee" who was with Marina at that party in Dallas?

============================bye bye!================================

Apparently JVB is now try to confuse everyone. Now she says LHO lost a tooth at

Beauregard school, and has previously said that David Ferrie knocked one of his

teeth out at a CAP event. And she finds it impossible that the Murret family did

not know of both Lee and Harvey, EVEN THOUGH Dorothea Murret was in the CIA

and Marguerite knew of the plan, and likely asked for their cooperation. When

you can't convince 'em, confuse 'em.

Robert knew. Marina knew. Marguerite knew. John Pic knew.

Why not the Murret family? It is even possible that Dorothea recruited LHO

for the false defector program. It is interesting that she met with LHO in

Japan. Which LHO? I do not remember, but it likely was Lee, her cousin,

and not Harvey, whom she did not know.

Jack

A POSTSCRIPT FROM JUDYTH ABOUT HARVEY & LEE

NOTE: Jack needs to reread the studies of "Lee" losing a tooth at Beauregard Junior High,

where Lillian Murret, "Harvey's" aunt, remembered paying for his visit to the dentist. Are we

now to believe that Lillian and Dutz Murret knew both "Harvey" and "Lee"? That's a bit much.

There must be at least 20 posts exposing problems, mistakes, or blunders in HARVEY & LEE.

Multiple impostors with compartmentalized knowledge across time seems far more plausible.

JUDYTH COMMENTS:

THANKS SO MUCH, JIM...AND LOLA....AND DEAN! AND ED!

HAVE TO SIGN OFF, BUT MY HOPE IS THAT THE TRUTH WILL NOT HURT JACK OR ANYONE,

AND THAT THEY WILL LAY ASIDE A THEORY THAT IS SEVERELY RESTRICTING REAL RESEARCH INTO WHAT REALLY HAPPENED.

HERE'S HOW IT'S RESTRICTING IT:

1 ) THOSE WHO PUT SO MANY IMPOSTORS OUT THERE ARE NOT TRACKED DOWN, AS 'LEE' IS USED ALL OVER THE PLACE TO

ACCOUNT FOR :

A ) FAKED RECORDS,

B ) FAKE LHO APPEARANCES,

C ) RED HERRING TESTIMONIES THAT HIDE THE TRUTH ABOUT LEE

RE ALTERED AND FAKE (ON PURPOSE OR JUST WANTING 'FAME')TESTIMONIES. AFTER MUCH STUDY, THINKING--I REALIZED

THAT ARMSTRONG ACCEPTS THEM ALL ON SOME LEVEL, IF THEY FIT HIS THEORY.

I DO NOT HAVE THE BOOK YET [NOTE: I have sent her a copy], BUT ASK-- HOW MANY REPORTS ARE IN HIS BOOK THAT HE

ANALYZES AND REJECTS--WHAT REASONS DOES HE USE TO REJECT A REPORT?

WHAT ARE HIS REASONS FOR ACCEPTING SUCH A POOR WITNESS AS MYRA DAROUSE? JUST BECAUSE SHE FITS HIS THEORY?

I FIND SLOPPY RESEARCH AND ALTERED PHOTOS THAT ARE TROUBLING. AND WE HAVE JUST BEGUN.

IT IS NOT A SIN TO PUT RESEARCH BACK ON RACK.

I CANNOT THINK OF ANYTHING THAT HAS SO HOBBLED THE TRUTH AS HIS THEORY THAT HAS HAS DIVIDED RESEARCHERS TO

THE EXTENT OF RUPTURING FRIENDSHIPS. THINK OF IT.

THAT 'KATHY' CAN CONTINUE TO SAY 'HARVEY' THIS AND 'LEE' THAT AS IF IT WERE A FACT THAT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED...

ALMOST LIKE A RELIGIOUS BELIEF NOT ALLOWING ANY HERESY OR HERETIC--THEY WILL BE BURNED AT THE STAKE....

SO I ASKED MYSELF--HOW DOES ARMSTRONG THINK?

I HAVE REALIZED WHERE HIS WEAK SPOT IS:

2 ) ARMSTRONG TAKES WHAT'S IN THE WARREN COMMISSION RECORDS LITERALLY,

A ) HE ASSUMES THAT THE WARREN COMMISSION KNEW ABOUT 'LEE' AND 'HARVEY' BUT HID 'LEE' FROM SIGHT--OR ELSE

THE COMMISSION'S HANDLERS DID.

B ) THIS ASSUMPTION THEN GIVES HIM A BASIS FOR HUNTING ANY NEW EVIDENCE --BUT HE ONLY LOOKS FOR EVIDENCE

THAT SUPPORTS HIS THEORY.

BY THE WAY, THIS IS NOT SCIENTIFIC.

THIS IS WHAT MARKETERS DO FOR A PRODUCT.

IT IS HIS WORST FAULT, THIS MIND-SET.

HIS NEXT FLAW IS THAT HE CHOOSES TO BELIEVE THAT ALL REPORTS ARE ESSENTIALLY ACCURATE IF THEY FIT HIS HYPOTHESIS.

IF THEY DO NOT--FOR EXAMPLE, REJECTING ME AS A WITNESS BECAUSE I WAS NOT PREGNANT AT THE TIME, THEREFORE COULD

NOT 'POSE; AS MARINA--HE LIMITS HIS COLLECTION TO WHAT FITS HIS VISION.

IN FACT, THIS IS WHAT THE WARREN COMMISSION DID!

THE HABIT OF ANSWERING EVERY QUESTION WITH: "HARVEY AND LEE" IS THE SAME KIND OF THINKING THE WARREN COMMISSION

USED TO SAY "OSWALD SHOT KENNEDY."

IT REMINDS ME OF THE PHLOGISTON THEORY, SAME WAY OF THINKING:

Stahl outlined his medical theories in The True Theory of Medicine (1708) and the book had great influences throughout Europe.

The Becher/Stahl theory explained burning, oxidation, calcination (metal residue after combustion), and breathing in the following way:

* Flames extinguish because air becomes saturated with phlogiston.

* Charcoal leaves little residue upon burning because it is nearly pure phlogiston.

* Mice die in airtight space because air saturates with phlogiston.

* When heated, metals are restored because phlogiston transferred from charcoal to calx.

Becher/Stahl derived these conclusions outside the laboratory while in the laboratory others were finding that metals such as magnesium

gained weight during combustion. If phlogiston is given off when a metal forms a calx, why does the calx weigh more than the metal?

Stahl attributed the weight increase to air entering the metal to fill the vacuum left after phlogiston escaped.

THIS IDEA IS STUNNING AND SOUNDS LOGICAL --BUT IS ABOUT AS SCIENTIFIC AS THE PHLOGISTON THEORY BY EXPLAINING 'EVERYTHING'

AND OBSTRUCTING OUR VIEW OF WHAT REALLY HAPPENED. DON;T GET ME WRONG--THEY HAD IMPOSTORS OUT THERE--MULTIPLE ONES,

WHO, AS DEAN POINTED OUT, HAD LIMITED UNDERSTANDING OF THEIR ROLES AND THUS NOT WERE DANGEROUS.

THEY TRY TO SAY DONALD NORTON IS 'LEE' AND JACK SHOWED A HANDWRITING EXAMPLE THAT ONLY PROVED NORTON WAS 'NOT' 'LEE.'

ARMSTRONG GIVES MENTAL RELIEF TO THE COMPLEX PROBLEMS OF HAVING TO TRY TO IDENTIFY SUCH A BIG BASE OF CONSPIRATORS,

BUT DEAN IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT THAT EACH LITTLE PLAYER KNEW VERY LITTLE, AND THE PLETHORA OF THE DEAD SHOWS THAT THOSE

WHO KNEW MORE PAID WITH THEIR LIVES.

DAVE FERRIE HAD STUCK A NEEDLE IN MY ARM AND PHOTOGRAPHED IT TO PROVE I HAD BEEN HYPNOTIZED AND REMEMBERED NOTHING--

SEE THE BOOK--I KNOW HE WAS FOND OF ME AND TRIED TO SAVE MY LIFE--HE STAYED ALIVE LONGER THAN MARY BY SEVERAL YEARS,

BUT ONCE HIS NAME GOT OUT THERE, HE DIED.

FOLLOW THE MONEY.

FOLLOW WHO DIED.

SEE WHO LIED.

NOTHING WAS SOLVED WITH 'HARVEY' AND 'LEE'-- BUT IT HAS CUT THE STRENGTH OF THE CT RESEARCH COMMUNITY IN HALF.

JVB

L Farley:

I say that because "[my] rebuttals", if you wish to call them that, demonstrate the probability of several impostors.

May I join here? What about the photographed LHO in Mexico-City, outside the (cuban, soviet?) embassy? What about the LHO at the Ford-salesman NOLA 20.1.1961?

What about the Oswald at the Lincoln-Mercury-Shop at Dealy Plaza? The other Ossi in the Texas Theater? The Oswald in the cuban consulate in NOLA Sep. 63? The Ossi at the Shooting ranch in Dallas? JVB knew the one and only real Oswald, who was surrounded by imposters, which didn't even look like him! (I am talking about the pic of the Mexico-city Ossi...)...call it ID-Charade... Armstrong is wrong, by claiming there where only two of them...

KK

Armstrong's book focuses ONLY on TWO LHOs...there may have been more. However, in cutting his original

2000 page book back to a 1000 page book, John had to forego some discussions, and simply focused on

the main two, Lee and Harvey. However, he and I both discussed other possibilities:

1. Multiple LHOs in Russia IF the Russians by chance replaced the original defector. Numerous photos

show this is a possibility.

2. Some impostors for LHO in some instances, such as Mexico City, etc. For instance, there are several

sightings of an LHO around Texas various places which are unlikely to be either Lee or Harvey.

These likely were being managed by the CIA to create false trails.

I emphasize, however, that other possibilities such as above do NOT detract from the main story of

Harvey and Lee. Even if the Russians substituted someone for Harvey, the original substitution

story is still valid. However, I believe the original Harvey returned, but the Russians somehow

muddied the waters through various covert means, including photos and witness tampering.

Jack

Edited April 16, 2010 by Jack White

[Jack White]

Here is a photo of HARVEY (from Life Magazine) in the Philippines. If I remember the timelines

correctly, on the date this photo was made, LEE was in the brig in Japan. He could not be in the

brig and in the Philippines simultaneously.

Jack

[Jack White]

Jim's theory that Robert Oswald impersonated his brother is ENTIRELY WITHOUT FOUNDATION.

There is NOTHING in the extant record to indicate that Robert was any part of the CIA assassination

plot, and in fact was shocked when "his brother" was accused of the crime. Robert was a husband

with children who worked as a brick salesman for Acme Brick. Jim often castigates those who

theorize, yet his "Robert theory" is as far out as any of the other outrageous theories that

confuse researchers.

Jack

JIM RESPONDS TO DOUG WELDON (WHO APPEARS TO HAVE HOMEWORK BEFORE HIM)

Then I can't wait for you to respond to the twenty or so posts that demonstrate John Armstrong

appears to be mistaken, inaccurate or wrong in various aspects of his research. And if enough

of those individual pieces fall into this category, then the theory "Harvey" and "Lee" will fall with

them. No doubt, there is ample evidence there to prove "that the government was engaged in

a covert activity and was manipulating the identities of Oswald." That, of course, also follows if

the agency was using multiple impostors, including his own brother, Robert, to impersonate him

on various occasions. If you check it, you will see that Judyth and I have noticed various errors

in his work. If you haven't studied them, then you seem to be poorly positioned to endorse them.

Doug,

You had a question about my comment:

With my legal background, I focus on how much evidence is needed to prove a certain point. Proving HARVEY and LEE requires a great deal of evidence because it is so specific.

Perhaps you missed my earlier post where I use CAPS to refer to HARVEY and LEE as a "2-Oswald theory." To prove this particular theory requires a great deal of evidence.

Dean

Dean:

Whatever one thinks about Harvey and Lee, it is a very unique book in that many of its premises could be proved with witnesses who are still living and evidence that continues to be very impressive. I did not agree with Armstrong on the impact of every piece of the evidence but some of the evidence is jaw-dropping. Watch the interviews and read the book. John Armstrong conducted one of the most impressive investigations of the JFK case ever done. John is unique in that he lets the evidence speak for itself. I believe you or I (or any attorney) could go into court and easily prove that the government was engaged in a covert activity and was manipulating the identities of Oswald. Jack White is not making outrageous comments about the evidence. Whether you agree with him or not on other issues the evidence here is very solid. I am not commenting on Judyth and whether this makes a difference for her argument. I am simply agreeing with Jack that John Armstrong has compiled a mountain of evidence and the fact that individual pieces of the evidence might be questioned in no way detracts from the volumess of evidence John acquired.

John engaged in his research in a thorough and painstakiing manner. John is actually a very modest man. One of the differences between him and myself are in examples like John Pic. John located him but was very reserve in his contacts whereas I would have been knocking at Pic's door. What is amazing is how much more evidence Armstrong acquired but did not publish. John was fortunate to have the resources to do what few of us could have. I deeply respect John's work. It does not detract from other work I highly respect such as Lifton's. I predict the work of both will withstand the test of time. I have always realized that my credibility could be destroyed by being led down false roads. It is the tragedy of Garrison. I have been extremely cautious. However, I stand unequivocally behind these two men.

Best,

Doug Weldn

[Jack White]

Jim's posting above notes THAT HE AND JUDYTH have found errors in Harvey & Lee.

What he means is that IN THEIR OPINION some things are erroneous. Neither of them

has offered a single piece of PROOF to back up their opinions. OPINIONS ARE NOT

PROOF. I have noted that they DISPUTE some parts of the book, but disputing something

does not constitute proof.

Please post PROOFS of errors and I will send them to John for his opinions.

Jack

[Don Jeffries]

Great post, Doug. You summed things up nicely.

I don't agree with every aspect of the "Harvey and Lee" theory (for instance, I can't support the bus-cab witnesses Armstrong relies on in his scenario where Lee shoots Tippit), but there is no denying that he produced a tremendous amount of important research that we can all benefit from. I don't think he has been discredited in the least, even if I accepted some of the arguments Jim/Judyth have set forth on this thread. Even if one doesn't accept a particular theory, one should be able to respect and value the data produced by individual researchers. We are all theorizing in some way, after all, since the crime was never investigated by those who had the power to do so.

Again agreeing with Doug, I think Armstrong can be likened to David Lifton. David's body alteration theory was considered very extreme, and many of us don't totally accept it. However, no one can dispute that "Best Evidence" was a crucial work that unearthed a great deal of evidence future investigators may benefit from.

This thread has been interesting, at the very least. I do hope that it hasn't caused a permanent rift in the relationships between some very fine researchers.

[Jack White]

Great post, Doug. You summed things up nicely.

I don't agree with every aspect of the "Harvey and Lee" theory (for instance, I can't support the bus-cab witnesses Armstrong relies on in his scenario where Lee shoots Tippit), but there is no denying that he produced a tremendous amount of important research that we can all benefit from. I don't think he has been discredited in the least, even if I accepted some of the arguments Jim/Judyth have set forth on this thread. Even if one doesn't accept a particular theory, one should be able to respect and value the data produced by individual researchers. We are all theorizing in some way, after all, since the crime was never investigated by those who had the power to do so.

Again agreeing with Doug, I think Armstrong can be likened to David Lifton. David's body alteration theory was considered very extreme, and many of us don't totally accept it. However, no one can dispute that "Best Evidence" was a crucial work that unearthed a great deal of evidence future investigators may benefit from.

This thread has been interesting, at the very least. I do hope that it hasn't caused a permanent rift in the relationships between some very fine researchers.

The senseless rift appears irreparable. Mission accomplished.

Jack

[Glenn Viklund]

Has anyone considered the possibility of Armstrong having come to the wrong conclusion AND JVB being a fraud?

Many researchers before Armstrong have had good intentions, done meticulous research and yet ended up wrong. No matter what, to sort of give Judyth the benefit of being mentioned on the same level with Armstrong, is no less than an insult to him.

[Karl Kinaski]

edit

Edited June 11, 2015 by Karl Kinaski

[Bill Byas]

Clay Shaw..............................I DOUBT THAT HE KNEW LHO

Seriously?

[Jack White]

Has anyone considered the possibility of Armstrong having come to the wrong conclusion AND JVB being a fraud?

Many researchers before Armstrong have had good intentions, done meticulous research and yet ended up wrong. No matter what, to sort of give Judyth the benefit of being mentioned on the same level with Armstrong, is no less than an insult to him.

Have you read the book?