Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[Kathleen Collins]

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

It seems everywhere Harvey goes, people look happy. There's a similar photo of him in Russia with his co-workers from the radio plant.

Kathy C

[Kathleen Collins]

There is one thing more, Jack. I believe Harvey and Lee. But ask John Armstrong who Donald O. Norton is? I nearly had a heart attack when, following a hunch, I found pictures on the Internet of "Donald O. Norton" and "Ralph Geb." Isn't Norton supposed to be Lee Oswald? (Not Harvey who was killed by Ruby.)

Kathy C

[Robert Harris]

Robert,

Judyth has been subjected to a lot of abuse and has not always handled situations most effectively. She has often not been sure whether or not to provide additional information to those challenging her, especially in a case where it might put her friend on the spot without asking in advance. But she has been very responsive here. Her friend's name is Anna Lewis and a video of her talking about their double-dating may be found archived on my blog, including "The Love Affair", especially, at http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/03/14...udyth-vary.html The LaFontaine's OSWALD TALKED is such rubbish I can't believe anyone would take it seriously, which, I am sorry to say, raises questions in my mind about your competence. I think you need to get up-to-speed on Ed Haslam, DR. MARY'S MONKEY, http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/04/ed...rys-monkey.html . He (Ed Haslam) was on "Coast to Coast" for four hours last night. I suggest you check it out before drawing such damning conclusions. I have had a huge amount of contact with Judyth in the meanwhile and I am quite sure that she is "the real deal".

Jim

Dr. Fetzer, I am disappointed to learn that you are exactly what I expected after watching one or two of your presentations, on the Zapruder film, which I hope we can discuss in detail in another thread.

Judy didn't just handle a "situation" poorly. She lied to me and then significantly changed her story after she learned that her early versions didn't hold up. And she was either suffering from severe paranoia when she made up some very silly stories, or she thought I was.

After all these years, neither you nor anyone else has been able to confirm her story about an affair with Oswald, for the very obvious reason that it never happened.

As for your smear against the La Fontaines, I noticed that you support that argument every bit as well as you do this fairy tale about Judyth. The La Fontaines made some enormously important contributions, including their debunking of the "three tramps" myth, and their absolute proof that Oswald had been an informant for the FBI.

Their analysis was solidly supported by a great deal of facts and documented evidence. If you could show us 1/10th that much evidence in support of Judyth, there would be nothing left to argue about.

Robert Harris

[Glenn Viklund]

I wonder if Judyth isn't a victim of the Anastasia Syndrome. But basically she's been through hell.

Kathy C

In the sense that she herself believe in the scam, yes, you are probably right. The obsession is certainly the same; monomania.

But there is at least one huge difference, one that has been so clearly displayed in this thread:

Anastasia never tried to destroy her non believers. Judyth does that all the time. I caught her making up stories about something as peripheral as her asylum process. Just look at what she said about me. Look at what she's been saying about Jack, David Lifton, Marina, Ruth Paine and many, many others as well. Anyone that comes in her way, no prisoners taken. It's always full attack mode. This thread alone is telling the story loud and clear. The viciousness, the intensity and the sheer, simple, outright nastyness of JVBs behaviour distinguishes her from most other such scam artists.

To me, it's incomprehensible that this can be overlooked or excused by anyone. I've said it before in this thread - her behaviour is by far the strongest evidence of what JVB is all about. There is absolutely zero probability of anyone who's honest behaving this way.

Through DNA, it was established beyond any doubt that this Polish woman really was NOT Anastasia, as she claimed her entire life. Unfortunately, this option does not apply here. Unfortunately.

Edited April 17, 2010 by Glenn Viklund

[Pamela Brown]

Glenn Viklund said:

Anastasia never tried to destroy her non believers. Judyth does that all the time. I caught her making up stories about something as peripheral as her asylum process. Just look at what she said about me. Look at what she's been saying about Jack, David Lifton, Marina, Ruth Paine and many, many others as well. Anyone that comes in her way, no prisoners taken. It's always full attack mode. This thread alone is telling the story loud and clear. The viciousness, the intensity and the sheer, simple, outright nastyness of JVBs behaviour distinguishes her from most other such scam artists.

Glenn is entitled to his opinion. I don't agree with it; it is a strawman; namely that 'Judyth is out to get her detractors" as opposed to "Judyth is analytical and critical of everyone". Whom has Judyth labeled a 'scam artist'? Is Glenn seem trying to do the same thing to Judyth that Glenn claims she does to her detractors?

Edited April 17, 2010 by Pamela McElwain-Brown

[Pamela Brown]

Jim Fetzer said:

Douglas Weldon does a soft shoe to spare himself embarrassment. Well, nice try but

no cigar. If Weldon had known, he could not possibly have made such an unqualified

endorsement of BOTH Lifton AND Armstrong, especially given how "cautious" he is

as a student of JFK.

Considering the fact that Weldon pushes the most far-out theory about the limo, having it beamed 850 miles from DC for somebody in the Rouge to see, it is truly ironic to see him now calling his research 'cautious'. LOL

Edited April 17, 2010 by Pamela McElwain-Brown

[Jack White]

Exactly. She is the greatest "self promoter" in the history of the JFK case.

Jack

I wonder if Judyth isn't a victim of the Anastasia Syndrome. But basically she's been through hell.

Kathy C

In the sense that she herself believe in the scam, yes, you are probably right. The obsession is certainly the same; monomania.

But there is at least one huge difference, one that has been so clearly displayed in this thread:

Anastasia never tried to destroy her non believers. Judyth does that all the time. I caught her making up stories about something as peripheral as her asylum process. Just look at what she said about me. Look at what she's been saying about Jack, David Lifton, Marina, Ruth Paine and many, many others as well. Anyone that comes in her way, no prisoners taken. It's always full attack mode. This thread alone is telling the story loud and clear. The viciousness, the intensity and the sheer, simple, outright nastyness of JVBs behaviour distinguishes her from most other such scam artists.

To me, it's incomprehensible that this can be overlooked or excused by anyone. I've said it before in this thread - her behaviour is by far the strongest evidence of what JVB is all about. There is absolutely zero probability of anyone who's honest behaving this way.

Through DNA, it was established beyond any doubt that this Polish woman really was NOT Anastasia, as she claimed her entire life. Unfortunately, this option does not apply here. Unfortunately.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

JIM RESPONDS TO DOUG WELDON ABOUT LIFTON, ARMSTRONG, AND MORE

Doug,

You have stated unequivocally your dedication to the work of both David Lifton and John

Armstrong. No doubt, you had in mind Lifton's BEST EVIDENCE and Armstrong's HARVEY

& LEE. My point was that this cannot be an enduring form of support, since Lifton's new

book on Oswald, as I understand it, will refute the thesis of HARVEY & LEE. Now you say

you don't know better. Well, I supposed that was the case, even though I have pointed

this out at least a half-dozen times in posts that you claim to have read. If you actually

have read them, then I can't imagine how you could have missed this crucial observation.

Under the circumstances, it would have been appropriate for you to have simply said, "Of

course, if Jim is right about Lifton regarding HARVEY & LEE, then I will have to revise my

position on exactly where I stand, especially since I am strongly committed to Armstrong".

As for editing a post endorsing you, I would never do that. I have only made very small

edits and I have never done anything like what you suggest. Tell me what you are talking

about and I will most certainly correct it. I did nothing of the kind. Moreover, I still hold

you in high esteem. I have defended you and Jack and Lifton on many occasions because

I believed that you were right. I cannot defend you when I believe that you are wrong. I

cannot put friendship ahead of logic and evidence, because that warps reason and defeats

the search for truth. Jack has repeatedly told me that he has received emails from others

saying how unreasonable I have become and that they are at a loss. I assumed that you

were among them. If that was a mistake on my part, I apologize and withdraw the claim.

Judyth has been subjected to more abuse on more forums than Carter has pills. New

attacks seem to come out of the woodwork on a daily basis. Not only do we have to

cope with the ongoing assaults from the familiar crowd including Junkkarinen, Viklund,

and others you can name, but this Richard Harris shows up after more than 1,200 posts

to declare that Judyth is a phony, while extolling the virtues of the La Fontaines, whose

book was an obvious vehicle for the dissemination of a phony account of the tramps--and

he even wants to defend the authenticity of the Zapruder film! Well, those like him are

a dime a dozen. I never heard of the guy before and, after this, I don't expect to hear

from him again. I would like to believe that you and Jack and David, whom I regard as

quality players, and I can continue to be friends in spite of our differences over Judyth.

Jim

RESPONSE TO JACK AND COMMENT ON DOUG WELDON: IT WAS NOT WELL-DONE!

REPLY TO JACK

I have already done that. In each case, I have given specific pages, except, of course,

in case you haven't noticed, his "Introduction" does not have page numbers! Now, so

far, I and Pat Speer and Michael Hogan have all pointed out mistakes (or "blunders")

in HARVEY & LEE. Several occur on the first five pages of the book, so it should not

tax you overly much to track them down. I have also identified pages 92-93 as the

place where the Beauregard Junior High School "lost tooth" episode occurs, where

Lillian Murret remembered having paid for the dental bill, except that the one who is

supposed to have lost the tooth was "Lee" while Lillian was "Harvey"'s aunt. Start

with the "index" error, the founding of the commission error, and Lillian's payment.

You seem to have me in a quandary, my friend. You excoriate me into reading the

Armstrong book but, when I do and turn up mistakes, you don't want to hear them,

even when they bear on crucial aspects of the fundamental thesis of HARVEY & LEE.

COMMENT ON WELDON

Douglas Weldon does a soft shoe to spare himself embarrassment. Well, nice try but

no cigar. If Weldon had known, he could not possibly have made such an unqualified

endorsement of BOTH Lifton AND Armstrong, especially given how "cautious" he is

as a student of JFK. So now three scholars whom I have esteemed and defended in

the past are playing fast and loose with the situation: Lifton, who claims that he dis-

credited Judyty during a phone call, but won't share the cassette; and who has such

moral integrity that he won't even state on this forum that he does not buy the "two

Oswalds" HARVEY & LEE scenario; Jack White, who won't even read Judyth's posts

and is now asking me to do something I have already done, while committing the

kinds of fallacies of reasoning I taught freshmen to avoid; and Doug Weldon, who is

trying to cover his ass from a manifest absurdity and who has thereby lost more of

my respect than from simply coming clean and admitting that he made a mistake!

NOTE TO ALL

Let me make this point very clear. I am not denying that Armstrong may have some-

thing serious to contribute. I am asserting that, when I begin to read his book, I am

finding mistakes--some rather elementary, some impinging upon his basis thesis--but

when I point them out, Jack White is non-responsive and, in other respects, Lifton and

Weldon are playing games. Weldon solemnly declares his unswerving support for both

Lifton and Armstrong yet, when I point out that yields a contradiction, he acts as if he

always knew that anyway--and Jack backs him up! This is turning into a carnival act.

It is not the kind of response to genuine criticism that I expect from serious scholars.

And after all the insults I have endured from Jack White (no doubt, at least in part, on

the basis of emails from Lifton and Weldon), I am just not going to take it any longer!

When they have something serious to offer, I'll be glad to hear from them--not before.

Jim...your response is mind-numbingly irresponsive. I asked that you or others

submit errors ONE AT A TIME in a specific manner, and I will ask John about them.

Instead I get yet another lecture about what a terrible researcher I, Doug Weldon,

David Lifton and others are. Doug, David, I and others are entitled to our opinions,

just as you and JVB are.

I have read your posting, but it is not suitable for me to submit to John. Please

use the following format to submit what YOU THINK ARE ERRORS:

.......

ERROR:

H&L page 234, states SUCH AND SUCH

DOCUMENTATION OF ERROR:

(SOURCE) states the contrary is true, SUCH AND SUCH, ETC. in less than

100 words.

........

This is very simple.

1. Point out the error and page number

2. Provide documentation to the contrary (100 words or less)

3. Only one error at a time, please...not a bushel basket!

No LONG essays. No emotional harangues. Keep it simple and objective. No personal

insults. Remember, opinions by JVB are not proofs of errors. No part of John's

book was based on her opinions. She was UNKNOWN at the time he did his

research, and unknown by all the agencies controlling LHO. Please produce

just one document naming her, if you can.

And remember, an author has to be selective. Failure to say something that

you think should have been said is not an error.

Surely you are capable of following these simple instructions. A genuine

listing of genuine errors will move research forward.

Thanks for your cooperation.

Jack

JIM REPLIES TO JACK WHITE ABOUT JUDYTH AND HARVEY & LEE

Jack, your response is mind-numbingly irresponsive. I have spelled out very specific

blunders in Armstrong's book. The first was his claim that Dulles had been so effective

in managing the Warren Commission that the index to its 26 volumes did not even have

a reference to the CIA. But, as I observed, the 26 supporting volumes did not have an

index and THE WARREN REPORT, which did, had dozens of references to the CIA. If you

cannot acknowledge that as a "blunder", then we have different standards of rationality.

Again, as Pat Speer observed when I posted a section in which John was explaining how

the FBI had played a fast one on the public by secretly taking the physical evidence (the

Oswald possessions) to Washington and then laundering them, returning the evidence to

Dallas and later making a big to-do about it with a public loading into a vehicle, where John

adds that this was weeks before the Warren Commission was formed. Since I explained

all of this in my posts, I suppose you are no more reading my posts than you are Judyth's.

The quality of an argument, Jack, is independent of its source. If McAdams had posted the

same critiques as Judyth about some of the photographs or explained why the alleged eye-

color difference carries no weight, they would still stand as arguments that have to be dealt

with on their own. You love to commit the genetic fallacy, which is to discount arguments on

the basis of their origin. I spent 35 years teaching students to avoid fallacies of that kind,

Jack, and I am not going to accept them from you. Your conduct has been irresponsible.

The existence of "two Oswalds" largely rests upon accounts like that from Beauregard Jr.

High School. But when I notice that, while "Lee" is supposed to be the one with the tooth

missing but Lillian, who was "Harvey"'s aunt, pays the dental bill, you dismiss it with the

back of your hand, conjuring up some nonsense about how they, too, must have know of

the existence of "Harvey" and of "Lee". Your defense is indefensible. You spend all your

time begging the question by taking for granted that there were both "Harvey" and "Lee".

The Doug Weldon, whom I have also admired in the past, comes on with this fawning pap

about how wonderful Armstrong is and how cautious Weldon is and yet he stands behind

the work of both LIFTON and ARMSTRONG, clearly oblivious of the fact that LIFTON does

not buy HARVEY & LEE, even though I had been pointing this out repeatedly. When you

combine this worshipful attitude toward Armstrong with the unwillingness to even consider

arguments to the contrary that Judyth and I have presented, the result is simply stunning.

It is now becoming apparent that we (Judyth and I) are dealing with a cult, which can be

defined by its core beliefs (such as the existence of "two Oswalds", who had mothers by

the same name and led parallel lives), even if there is mounting evidence that disconfirms

some of the crucial evidence--photographic and historical--that has been used to support

those core beliefs, where Judyth has added further arguments based upon her personal

knowledge of Lee H. Oswald. The members of this cult will not read our posts or reply to

our arguments other than by reaffirming the faith, an irrational and irresponsible attitude.

In your efforts to blunt serious criticism, you resort to ad hoc hypotheses, such as that

Lillian Murret and Dutz must have also known about both "Harvey" and "Lee" along with

Robert, his brother; Marina, his wife; and even Marguerite, his mother! Yet none of them

has ever breathed a word about it! Do you not realize the absurdity of your position by

inventing all of this knowledge of "two Oswalds" which you have no evidence to support?

I am sorry, Jack. I thought you were committed to research. It is obvious that I'm wrong.

Jim...I do not understand how you can continue to claim that ANYTHING JVB SAYS IS "PROOF". Anything she

says is merely her OPINION.

You say I am struggling over how to "cope with" the questions JVB raises, when in fact I dismiss her opinions

as being not worthy of wasting time over.

Your essay below is so far afield I must repeat the phrase you hate...please READ THE BOOK.

What does it matter that the WC "Index" is only a "name index"? It does NOT matter. But to belabor the point

that it is not a "complete index" is nonsense, as it would have required another complete volume. The Warren

Report and volumes were not done for the convenience of future researchers, but as a record of an investigation.

It has what it calls an INDEX in Volume XV. That it does not suit JVB is too bad, but it IS an index, and to say

there is NO INDEX is extreme nit-picking.

As I stated once before, do not present a long rambling list. If you find an error in H&L, please state what

that ONE error is and your proof of why it is erroneous. Please give the page number of the "error". I will send

each one to John for comment. Do not give JVB opinions as proof. Give documentation superior to John's.

I do not claim that John's book is error-free. One man, working entirely alone, is likely to make a few mistakes.

But nobody has ever pointed out any serious error of fact in the book.

And I do not need to mention how absurd it is to compare John's book to Bugliosi's. That may be the most

ill-considered comparison you have ever made.

Jack

JIM REPLIES TO DAWN AND OTHER DEVOTEES OF HARVEY & LEE

I don't get it. The reverence--even sanctification--of John Armstrong is beyond me. The guy produced a big book, but so did Vince Bugliosi! If we can evaluate RECLAIMING HISTORY with a fine-toothed comb, why not HARVEY & LEE? I began assuming that most of Armstrong's work and most of Judyth's reports could be reconciled, since she only knew the man whom John calls "Harvey". But there was always the chance that at least some of the characteristics of the man Judyth's knew personally might differ from some of those of "Harvey".

When Jack and I first began discussing this seriously, I asked him for a list of the personality characteristics that differentiated them. He did not reply but told me to "Read the book!" I eventually pieced together (possibly with Dawn's help) that "Lee" was more aggressive, non-intellectual, could not speak Russian but could drive, while "Harvey" was non-aggressive, highly intellectual with a special interest in political philosophy, was born in Hungary and could not drive. Plus they were alleged to have different eye color, among their distinguishing features.

So I began to read the book and found an assertion on the fourth page of the unnumbered Introduction in relation to the role of Allen Dulles as a member of the commission, who "was so successful that there is no reference to the CIA or Central Intelligence Agency in the index to the Warren Commission's 26 volumes". Persumably, what John means is the 26 volumes of supporting evidence rather than the 888-page WARREN REPORT (1964). But while THE WARREN REPORT has an index, the 26 volumes of supporting evidence does not. And having just checked a copy that was published by the United States Government Printing Office, I find an entry for "Central Intelligence Agency, 22, 245, 258, 259, 266, 269, 272, 274-275, 279-280, 284, 305, 309-310, 327, 359, 365, 371, 433-434, 438, 456, 459, 461,463-464, 659-660, 748, 762, 777". So what in the world is going on here?

Indeed, one might have supposed that someone who was tackling a project of this magnitude would have known that in 1965, Sylvia Meagher published her SUBJECT INDEX TO THE WARREN REPORT AND HEARINGS AND EXHIBITS, as the introduction to ACCESSORIES AFTER THE FACT (first published in 1976) explains. Even that arch enemy of truth about the assassination, Max Holland, has acknowledged the absence of an index for the supplemental volumes: "In 2005, I wrote an article that criticized the Commission for its neglect of the Government Printing Office, and failure to observe the venerable practice of publishing supplementary volumes with underlying documents, depositions, and testimony (not to mention an index)" <http://hnn.us/articles/124755.html>. Which led me to ask if Holland is a more reliable source than John Armstrong!

Meanwhile, Judyth was reporting that the man she knew had no Hungarian accent but rather a trace of a Cajun accent that could be mistaken for an Hungarian accent, that he could drive (which she knew because she had actually driven with him), and that the alleged eye-color difference could be accounted for on the basis of the differing appearance of blue-gray eyes under different conditions of observation. This impressed me, because her explanations and analyses appeared to be better-founded and more reasonable than Jack's replies, which were, more often than not, "Read the book!" So I took additional looks and, on pages 91-92, discovered another story about a physical trait that allegedly distinguished between them.

Armstrong reported that both had attended Beauregard Junior High School, but that "Harvey" had left at the end of 5th grade, while "Lee" showed up at the start of the school year for 6th grade. Given his aggressive tendencies--not so much of starting fights but of ending them--the story is related of his having taken a punch from a classmate and losing a tooth! That all sounds fine, where "Lee"'s missing tooth henceforth distingishes him from "Harvey". But the story went on to explain that Lillian Murret remembered the incident and had paid the the dental visit. That was very peculiar, because Lillian was the aunt of "Harvey", not of "Lee", so what was she doing paying for "Lee"'s dental work?

Jack has taken a while to decide how to cope with this, but now suggests that Lillian and Dutz Murret may have known both "Harvey" and "Lee" and nevertheless never said a word about it. Similarly, he insists that Robert, his brother; Marina, his wife; Marguerite, his mother; and no doubt others unnamed have all known that there were "two Oswalds", "Harvey" and "Lee", even though none of them has ever breathed a word about it! I find this rather incredible, especially in the case of his mother, who has insisted from scratch that her son was a government agent and would be most unlikely to remain silent in the possession of such a crucial piece of information.

On a separate thread, during an exchange with Pat Speer, he observed (in relation to an extract I had posted from HARVEY & LEE (about the FBI having secretly taken "Harvey"'s personal effects to Washington to launder them, then secretly returning them and, with great public fanfare, loading them into a vehicle to take them to Washington for the first time) that Armstrong asserts that "FBI officials prepared a 5-volume report, completed within 48 hours of the assassination, that named Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone assassin. The report was released several days before the FBI took over the investigation, before they 'officially' received the 'evidence' from the Dallas Police Department, before they interviewed the vast majority of witnesses, two weeks before the Warren Commission was formed, and many months before their investigation was complete".

Since the Warren Commission was formed on 29 November 1963, a week after the assassination, it cannot have also been formed two weeks after a 5-volume report had been released by the FBI around 48-hours after the assassination. So not only has Armstrong blundered about an index but he also blundered about the date of the founding of the Warren Commission itself! Jack replied that there is an "index" to the supporting volumes but, as Judyth observed,

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

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

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

There is no Moscow. No Minsk.

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

It cannot be said that an 'influence' was exerted to omit the CIA when there are also no place names, city names, street names, etc. There is no Reily's or JCS mentioned.

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

names happens to be incomplete.

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

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

So once again, Judyth appears to know the case better than Jack. She has also observed that many of the photographs that have been used to support the alleged existence of "two Oswalds" appear to display aspect-ratio distortion, which can make faces appear to be rounder or fatter than they did in the originals, which she has illustrated in numerous posts. So I ask, when confronted with substantial evidence that seems to undermine the theory of the "two Oswalds", what is a rational response? He invited me to contribute posts to a new "Judyth/Jim" thread, but when I reposted about 20 of them to illustrate the "errors in Armstrong" he wanted to discuss there, he complained that I had "rudely hijacked" his thread, which was nonsense. I was complying with his wishes--or so I thought--by reposting a sampler of the problems that Judyth and I are finding with Armstrong's research.

Jack seems to be willing to expand the list of those who "knew" about both "Harvey" and "Lee" to whatever extend is required to save the hypothesis. I could expand upon the logic of ad hoc defenses of theories during the history of science, but let me simply make the following point. Douglas Weldon has stated that he stands behind the work of David Lifton and John Armstrong:

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.

He says that John conducted his research "in a thorough and painstaking manner". But if that were the case, how could he have committed such gross blunders as the "index" and Warren Commission founding-date errors? Those are not subtle issues but, in the case of the latter, common knowledge among competent students of the death of JFK. Telling me to "Read the book!" when it includes the story of Lillian Murret paying for the dental work on "Lee" when she was "Harvey"'s aunt, does not inspire confidence. And when Judyth's studies of the photographs, the eye-color claim, and much more is simply denied but not actually refuted, I am very (not to say "vary") troubled that we are being sold a fanciful tale. I would therefore welcome any of those who care enough to get to the bottom of this to visit "Judyth/Jim" and explain away the problems we have found. I am not willing to place friendship ahead of truth in relation to JFK.

Jack, I am reposting from EF your bio of John Armstrong. Thank you for that. He was very circumspect when I met him in Dallas. You are right, not at all egotistical. Not pushing his book. Just fascinating to speak with and I could tell he had made some money in the building trades. (One does not get to live in Hawaii unless one has accumulated some decent income).

I just DO NOT UNDERSTAND why anyone seeks to destroy this work. To what end? I question the motives of such a person or people.

Dawn

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

So that I am clear I have known Armstrong very well since 1998 and spent many hours on the phone with him in conversation as he was gathering his evidence and writing his book. I spoke with a couple of his witnesses. I knew there was a conflict between him and Lifton about Oswald though I have no idea what, if any, conflict still exists. (Yes, I know it is unusual for JFK researches to disagree with one another) I do know David had an extensive interview with Robert Oswald where Armstrong did not. I have also spent hours talking with Marina myself, even as recent as last year. I do not know what Lifton's conclusions about Oswald are as I have not seen any portion of Lifton's book though I have exchanged a few e-mails with him. I highly respect the work he has done and the observations made by Doug Horne. As I noted before I do not agree with everything Armstrong has presented and there were some things he thought very important that I found to be very innocuous. However, there is other evidence he presents which has virtually floored me. John ran many things by me. He would mail me things for comment. This is not a soft shoe. I have trenendous respect for Armstrong and Lifton and if there is something I disagree with from either of them I am not hesitant to express it. I stand by my comments.

I am concerned that you seem to perceive that I have shared my private concerns about Judyth, which I have raised in private e-mails to you, with Jack and David, thus stirring up Jack. Nothing is further from the truth. I have not raised those concerns in this forum at all or to Jack or David and yet I am now included in the personal attacks on my integrity. You even edited the post and removed the endorsement of my work by your psych-ops. I can only infer that it is because of my lack of endorsement for Judyth. I have read every single post on this thread and have followed her in the past. I even have a couple of personal e-mails from her. My opinion about her has not changed but I have not attempted to influence anyone else's opinion. The whole tenor of this thread has become as surreal as Judyth.

Doug Weldon

Edited April 17, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Pamela Brown]

Robert Harris said:

Judy didn't just handle a "situation" poorly. She lied to me and then significantly changed her story after she learned that her early versions didn't hold up. And she was either suffering from severe paranoia when she made up some very silly stories, or she thought I was.

This is quite a damning accusation, presented as a glittering generality, with no supporting documentation at all. Perhaps Robert would substantiate his statement with something of substance so that we can weigh and evaluate what he has to say?

[Doug Weldon]

Jim Fetzer said:

Douglas Weldon does a soft shoe to spare himself embarrassment. Well, nice try but

no cigar. If Weldon had known, he could not possibly have made such an unqualified

endorsement of BOTH Lifton AND Armstrong, especially given how "cautious" he is

as a student of JFK.

Considering the fact that Weldon pushes the most far-out theory about the limo, having it beamed 850 miles from DC for somebody in the Rouge to see, it is truly ironic to see him now calling his research 'cautious'. LOL

The distance from D.C. to Dearborn is 520 miles but hey, if someone wants to make up facts, what difference does a figure make? Let's just pull one out of the air and later state it as a fact because it makes it easier to say later that it was on the internet that the distance was 850 miles.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

JIM, HOWARD, AND JUDYTH COMMENT ON ROBERT HARRIS

If ever there were a contributor to this thread who does not deserve to be taken seriously, it is Robert Harris. Notice he has only joined the forum in the last two days. How could this guy be standing on the sidelines with his "dynamite" refutation of Judyth over more than 1,200 posts and not become involved before this? And I am quite certain that he has not even bothered to read them. This guy is as phony as they come. The gratuitous swipe at me over the Zapruder film is especially revealing, since the presentations he must be talking about are simply ones in which I show and discuss four different versions of the film which differ with respect to how much of the scene is presented in them, which is even supported by a mathematical analysis of their relative informational content. Anyone who would buy into the La Fontaine's feeble attempt to mislead the public about the identity of "the tramps" has discredited himself.

PLATZMAN COMMENTS ON ARMSTRONG AND HARRIS:

--- On Sat, 4/17/10, Howpl@aol.com <Howpl@aol.com> wrote:

Armstrong's little mistakes:

(1) Last week I wrote an e-mail saying that Mary Sherman died in 1967. I was soon corrected (she died in 1964) -- and then remembered that I'd made the same mistake before. Guess whose book I relied upon. Why, none other than Craig Roberts' and John Armstrong's JFK: The Dead Witnesses. Maybe that was Armstrong's mistake.

(2) John and Judyth crossed paths several years ago when she, through Martin Shackelford, corrected him on Oswald's New Orleans address. (She even took Martin and me to the spot and pointed out how the little sign with the address was obscured from view -- even today -- so that someone might easily get the address wrong.) Martin told me that Armstrong was not interested in Judyth. I'm not sure he even thanked her. That is one very focused researcher!

Harris again:

It's hard to believe that, after all these years, Robert Harris is still mired in the same muck. A muck of his own making yet. Anita/Anna is a mix-up in his mind only. Moreover, it represents no more that a millionth of a percent of all that Judyth has tirelessly given (or tried to give) researchers over the past decade. It is foolish in the extreme for anyone to be paying any attention to this "issue" in April of 2010. Plain ridiculous.

Here is the dirty little secret of the so-called research community. Many if not most of the "experts" believe they have all but closed this case when all they've done is closed their minds. An apt axiom: The fervor of true believers (and their imperviousness to reason or disconfirming data) correlates directly with the number of years they have consumed writing and then waiting for their (first or next) book to get (self-)published.

At the center of their so-called research is, sadly, a hard core of religious thinking. It was Mark Twain who said: "Man is the only animal that has the true religion -- several of them." This group is the Armstrong-is-God crowd. READ THE BOOK, but not too closely. Tea-party scholarship at its finest.

Howard

JUDYTH COMMENTS ON ROBERT HARRIS

Dear Dr. Fetzer:

JUST IN CASE ROBERT HARRIS SHOWS UP -- Martin Shackelford and Dr. Howard Plaztman BOTH tried to tell Mr. Harris that he got it wrong -- I TRIED to tell him he got it wrong -- he INSISTED he got it 'right'. ANITA IS WHAT I CALLED ANNETTE -- A WORKER AT REILY. I even have her photo.

She invited me to her wedding but I did not recall her last name or the name of her fiance, so I could not reply to Mr. Harris' question about her.

He misstated many things I said and persists to this day. Why do these people do that? When corrected, they retain their initial statements anyway. For years!

I never ever said I double-dated with a former classmate -- I expressed to Dr. Platzman my frustration with Harris for persisting and claiming I said this, and he would not admit he misunderstood.

Anita -- Annette -- I had called Annette 'Anita' as a pet name when we worked together at Reily's. We never were high school classmates. I was dismayed when he kept saying that.

Harris, reading from Lifton -- that I was a 'bored Louisiana houisewife" -- may have assumed I lived in Louisiana.

I said LEE AND I double-dated with ANNA--ANNA LEWIS--never Annette.

Which he mixed up with ANNETTE and would not let go of.

I told him of an incident on a plane, too, and produced flight records to back up our emergency landing at Hot Springs [from Washington, DC, where "60 Minutes" had sent me]. He assumed I made it all up. Since then, an important researcher also had a similar threat, and in fact, it helped him to endorse me, as he has done for some time.

Mr. Harris posts on McAdams' newsgroup. I expect him and David Lifton to come around and attack.

Martin and Howard will tell you that this person has absolutely refused to change his mind about what he says I said, even though I corrected him as soon as I learned he mixed up all the Annette's/Anita's/Anna's and Lewises! So if he shows up, I will let them know. Hope they are both well.

Note the many late clock-outs for Lee Oswald. Also note that Marina did not know for 2 weeks -- in one letter -- or as long as 6 weeks -- testifying -- that she knew Lee no longer worked at Reily. She had no idea what he was doing for weeks, in other words. He left in the morning and returned in the evening--and it wasn't at 4:00, as she told Garrison. He was usually home around 7:00 PM and sometimes later, as he often brought home groceries, too.

He had a fight with her once and walked out and was gone all night.

She said he went for walks. He sometimes visited me at my nearby apartment for several hours at that time, in July.

In case this comes up. I can provide you with some old comments that were previously written in rebuttal (see below). I will also provide information about Lee's background report, if that might come up.

FROM PLATZMAN TO HARRIS IN 2003:

From: Howard Platzman (howpl@aol.com)

Subject: Re: Shackelford JUST CAN'T STOP Lying about Robert Harris

View: Complete Thread (23 articles)

Original Format

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk

Date: 2003-10-09 14:35:30 PST

reharris1@yahoo.com (Robert Harris) wrote in message news:<3f85656f.69498671@News.CIS.DFN.DE>...

> On 07 Oct 2003 07:21:36 GMT, Martin Shackelford

> <mshack@concentric.net> wrote:

>

> >The "newest account" is the same as the account she gave to Dr. Riehl in

> >1999--also the "earliest account."

> >Then, of course there is the "exclusive Robert Harris account." Sad, really.

>

> Martin,

>

> Judyth's claim is that Anna and Ron Lewis double dated with her and Oswald.

> Is that right?

>

> Robert Harris

>

I can't believe where this thread has gone?

First - Ron Lewis?!!! That name has not come up in conversation with Judyth for years. And when it came up, I brought it up and played devil's advocate to see if he could fit anywhere into the events.

Judyth rejected his story from the first as inconsistent with Lee's movements in August. I found something disarming about the poor schmo's "what's-going-on-here? story," and she said that MAYBE Lee knew him, but he sure never mentioned him to her, so at most he was a minor character. Ron Lewis had no relation to David Lewis, Anna's husband.

For what it's worth, a couple of years ago, I tried to contact Ron Lewis thru his co-author, who was listed in the white pages. This was a small town that apparently had two guys named "Lessie Coloma" in it, only I got the wrong one. This one said he had nothing to do with Ron Lewis and knew of no Lessie Coloma who might. I think maybe he was just ashamed of himself.

Second - I hate to say Martin's got the truth a bit twisted, but I have to. Anita was a co-worker at Reily's. She was going to marry her high-school sweetheart. She was not an old high school friend of Judyth's. Anna, on the other hand, was the double dater, and her husband was David Lewis.

Anna has nothing to do with Judyth's high school or with Florida. The basic point is that Judyth did find this witness, whether before you split or after. You have been claiming for three years that she has no witnesses. What gives you the right to claim that she still has no witnesses?

Robert, you have been corrected about this stuff over and over again.

Once again, if you have notes of a conversation in which Judyth says she double-dated with Anna Lewis, scan it for all to see. Liars wouldn't call your bluff. I'm calling it. (Yeah, I know you could fake it, but I'm hoping you are not that foolish.)

Howard

Richard Harris wrote:

Dr. Fetzer, Judyth contacted me in 1999, long before she was on television and even before most researchers had heard of her. After a number of email exchanges, in which she related her story (or that version of it), we spoke on the phone for about three hours.

At that time, she talked about double dating with Oswald, with an old high school friend and her fiance, who married her in August of that year. My response was, that this would be a great way to corroborate her affair with Oswald. What were their names? At that point, she was silent for a moment and then said she didn't remember his surname, nor did she have any interest in tracking down the girl's parents, nor did she want to look at the wedding announcements in the newspaper for August, the month in which she said they got married. This is from an email exchange, she and I had in 2002

1. You said you and LHO double dated with a friend from school and her

fiance, and that you saw her wedding announcement in the paper in August

of 1963. It should be fairly easy to find that woman, through a yearbook

or the newspaper. Have you done so and do you have her name yet?

2. You said people at Alba's garage saw you with Oswald there. Have you

figured out yet, which of them saw you? Did Mr. Alba himself, see the two

of you? If not, then who did?

3. You said that you and LHO were inseparable during your affair and that

you felt sorry for Marina because she was left alone at night, on numerous

occasions. But, Marina was asked, by the La Fontaines (in a totally

different context), if Lee was frequently gone at night, or even late

coming home. She replied that he was always there on time, and never

missing. (in New Orleans, only)

==Nonsense. He had 6:00 and 6:30 clock-outs from Reily's and even a 7:32 clock-out from Reily's. She was telling the WC he was home by 4:00! He did not get home until 6-8:00 at night on numerous occasions backed up merely from Reily records.==

Was Marina wrong about that? If not, then when did you and LHO have the

opportunity to see each other?

And why did you tell me that you monopolized his (non-working) hours?

As I said before, I still hope/wish your story is true.

But if it is not, then you are doing a grave disservice to this country

and to history. It is already almost impossible for serious researchers to

get anything published on the JFK case, which because of all the red

herrings and bogus theories, many editors equate with UFO tales and Big

Foot sightings.

She replied:

I did respond. I sent an answer through another person because I do not

have an email address for you. PLEASE simply send me an email with a

current address. If this email arrives, I made one error; where it says

"Anita" it should say "Annette" and is not to be confused with "Anna," as

these people are two different witnesses. I am still recovering from an

auto crash and do not look at the ne3wsgroup every day by any means.

Of course, she never could come up with the name of her "best friend" in high school, who was replaced by Anna Lewis as the woman, who with her husband, David Lewis, was supposed to have double dated with them. David Lewis, is the same guy who had a lot of stories to tell about Oswald, but never once, mentioned any double dates, or any kind of social activities with Oswald.

==because there was no 'friend from high school--it is all in his head!==

In her private emails to me, she totally changed her story about feeling sorry for poor lonely Marina, which she mentioned several times in our phone conversation. In version II, their flaming romance was carried on during daylight hours only, apparently sneaking out from work.

And of course, she never could come up with anyone who saw her at Alba's garage.

==Martin Shackelford got a report from a New Orleans investigator about that.==

And one more thing.

Judyth had always spent a lot of time, following the JFK usenet groups. In 2005, I wrote a piece on Oswald and his obsession with "I led three lives", and Herbert Philbrick's influence on him.

When did she first start talking about Philbrick and IL3L's?

==1999==

Judyth also told me during that phone conversation that some sinister character stole the hard drive from her computer. And she told me a story about being on a plane in which they had to make an emergency landing because a passenger had a heart attack. Sitting next to her, was a men-in-black type who said, "If we can do that to him, we can do that to you.".

FWIW, I have no respect at all, for most of the people who have been actively attacking her, in alt.assassination.jfk. And I have no doubt at all, that David Ferrie was involved in setting up the assassination. But Judyth is totally phony. Maybe she doesn't even realize what she is doing. My sense was, when I spoke with her, that this woman has some very serious mental and emotional issues. But her story is just not true. I wish it was, because a legitimate Oswald girlfriend might have given us a lot of important answers.

Robert Harris

Robert,

Judyth has been subjected to a lot of abuse and has not always handled situations most effectively. She has often not been sure whether or not to provide additional information to those challenging her, especially in a case where it might put her friend on the spot without asking in advance. But she has been very responsive here. Her friend's name is Anna Lewis and a video of her talking about their double-dating may be found archived on my blog, including "The Love Affair", especially, at http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/03/14...udyth-vary.html The LaFontaine's OSWALD TALKED is such rubbish I can't believe anyone would take it seriously, which, I am sorry to say, raises questions in my mind about your competence. I think you need to get up-to-speed on Ed Haslam, DR. MARY'S MONKEY, http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/04/ed...rys-monkey.html . He (Ed Haslam) was on "Coast to Coast" for four hours last night. I suggest you check it out before drawing such damning conclusions. I have had a huge amount of contact with Judyth in the meanwhile and I am quite sure that she is "the real deal".

Jim

Dr. Fetzer, I am disappointed to learn that you are exactly what I expected after watching one or two of your presentations, on the Zapruder film, which I hope we can discuss in detail in another thread.

Judy didn't just handle a "situation" poorly. She lied to me and then significantly changed her story after she learned that her early versions didn't hold up. And she was either suffering from severe paranoia when she made up some very silly stories, or she thought I was.

After all these years, neither you nor anyone else has been able to confirm her story about an affair with Oswald, for the very obvious reason that it never happened.

As for your smear against the La Fontaines, I noticed that you support that argument every bit as well as you do this fairy tale about Judyth. The La Fontaines made some enormously important contributions, including their debunking of the "three tramps" myth, and their absolute proof that Oswald had been an informant for the FBI.

Their analysis was solidly supported by a great deal of facts and documented evidence. If you could show us 1/10th that much evidence in support of Judyth, there would be nothing left to argue about.

Robert Harris

Edited April 17, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Jack White]

I agree about JVB, but disagree about the LaFontaines. From my dealings with them, I consider them

scam artists also. In introducing themselves to me to gain a private showing of my 4-hour slide presentation,

they said that they were involved in producing the movie THE THIN BLUE LINE, and that they were doing

a documentary about the Dallas Police role in the JFK assassination investigation. They videotaped me

and my slides for four hours. The documentary was never produced. Then, about five years later they

came out with their silly book OSWALD TALKED, starring Elrod and the Three Stooges. Using the LaFs to

bolster a case against JVB does not help.

Jack

Robert,

Judyth has been subjected to a lot of abuse and has not always handled situations most effectively. She has often not been sure whether or not to provide additional information to those challenging her, especially in a case where it might put her friend on the spot without asking in advance. But she has been very responsive here. Her friend's name is Anna Lewis and a video of her talking about their double-dating may be found archived on my blog, including "The Love Affair", especially, at http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/03/14...udyth-vary.html The LaFontaine's OSWALD TALKED is such rubbish I can't believe anyone would take it seriously, which, I am sorry to say, raises questions in my mind about your competence. I think you need to get up-to-speed on Ed Haslam, DR. MARY'S MONKEY, http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/04/ed...rys-monkey.html . He (Ed Haslam) was on "Coast to Coast" for four hours last night. I suggest you check it out before drawing such damning conclusions. I have had a huge amount of contact with Judyth in the meanwhile and I am quite sure that she is "the real deal".

Jim

Dr. Fetzer, I am disappointed to learn that you are exactly what I expected after watching one or two of your presentations, on the Zapruder film, which I hope we can discuss in detail in another thread.

Judy didn't just handle a "situation" poorly. She lied to me and then significantly changed her story after she learned that her early versions didn't hold up. And she was either suffering from severe paranoia when she made up some very silly stories, or she thought I was.

After all these years, neither you nor anyone else has been able to confirm her story about an affair with Oswald, for the very obvious reason that it never happened.

As for your smear against the La Fontaines, I noticed that you support that argument every bit as well as you do this fairy tale about Judyth. The La Fontaines made some enormously important contributions, including their debunking of the "three tramps" myth, and their absolute proof that Oswald had been an informant for the FBI.

Their analysis was solidly supported by a great deal of facts and documented evidence. If you could show us 1/10th that much evidence in support of Judyth, there would be nothing left to argue about.

Robert Harris

[Doug Weldon]

JIM RESPONDS TO DOUG WELDON ABOUT LIFTON, ARMSTRONG, AND MORE

Doug,

You have stated unequivocally your dedication to the work of both David Lifton and John

Armstrong. No doubt, you had in mind Lifton's BEST EVIDENCE and Armstrong's HARVEY

& LEE. My point was that this cannot be an enduring form of support, since Lifton's new

book on Oswald, as I understand it, will refute the thesis of HARVEY & LEE. Now you say

you don't know better. Well, I supposed that was the case, even though I have pointed

this out at least a half-dozen times in posts that you claim to have read. If you actually

have read them, then I can't imagine how you could have missed this crucial observation.

Under the circumstances, it would have been appropriate for you to have simply said, "Of

course, if Jim is right about Lifton regarding HARVEY & LEE, then I will have to revise my

position on exactly where I stand, especially since I am strongly committed to Armstrong".

As for editing a post endorsing you, I would never do that. I have only made very small

edits and I have never done anything like what you suggest. Tell me what you are talking

about and I will most certainly correct it. I did nothing of the kind. Moreover, I still hold

you in high esteem. I have defended you and Jack and Lifton on many occasions because

I believed that you were right. I cannot defend you when I believe that you are wrong. I

cannot put friendship ahead of logic and evidence, because that warps reason and defeats

the search for truth. Jack has repeatedly told me that he has received emails from others

saying how unreasonable I have become and that they are at a loss. I assumed that you

were among them. If that was a mistake on my part, I apologize and withdraw the claim.

Judyth has been subjected to more abuse on more forums than Carter has pills. New

attacks seem to come out of the woodwork on a daily basis. Not only do we have to

cope with the ongoing assaults from the familiar crowd including Junkkarinen, Viklund,

and others you can name, but this Richard Harris shows up after more than 1,200 posts

to declare that Judyth is a phony, while extolling the virtues of the La Fontaines, whose

book was an obvious vehicle for the dissemination of a phony account of the tramps and

he even wants to defend the authenticity of the Zapruder film! Well, those like him are

a dime a dozen. I never heard of the guy before and, after this, I don't expect to hear

from him again. I would like to believe that you and Jack and David, whom I regard as

quality players, and I can continue to be friends in spite of our differences over Judyth.

Jim

Jim:

This is what I was e-mailed that was edited out by you:

"Jim, you are on target. Don't let the little nobodies and doofus piggies interrupt your great research and reporting. I think the JFK plot is finally becoming very clear thanks to all your many years of great scientific research. And now with Doug Weldon's great work, it is even clearer. Best regards as always and God Bless You for everything you do for all of us and this great nation the USA."

I am not "committed" to Armstrong and if something refutes all of his evidence I will have to review it. I highly respect Lifton but I have no idea what his position is with Armstrong now or what his book might say. I know David did not think highly of Garrison and I, in fact, do, but it does not make me think less of his work. He has worked on his book for longer than I have mine. You are correct that I was referring to "Best Evidence" and "Harvey and Lee." Again, there are aspects of Armstrong's book that are not as impressive to me as others but I believe it is a critically important book.

I have never contacted Jack by e-mail or in any manner about you or Judyth and I accept your apology. I wish I could believe Judyth but there are too many red flags for me. I do hope that the truth can be determined and that this would not be such a personal devisive issue.

My best,

Doug Weldon

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Doug,

You are right about that passage. It had nothing to do with you. I restored it #1195.

Since Jack can't even figure out what I am finding wrong about Armstrong, perhaps

you can give it a go. If one of you would simply admit that he has made blunders,

it would go a long way toward restoring mutual trust in matters of HARVEY & LEE.

Jim

JIM RESPONDS TO DOUG WELDON ABOUT LIFTON, ARMSTRONG, AND MORE

Doug,

You have stated unequivocally your dedication to the work of both David Lifton and John

Armstrong. No doubt, you had in mind Lifton's BEST EVIDENCE and Armstrong's HARVEY

& LEE. My point was that this cannot be an enduring form of support, since Lifton's new

book on Oswald, as I understand it, will refute the thesis of HARVEY & LEE. Now you say

you don't know better. Well, I supposed that was the case, even though I have pointed

this out at least a half-dozen times in posts that you claim to have read. If you actually

have read them, then I can't imagine how you could have missed this crucial observation.

Under the circumstances, it would have been appropriate for you to have simply said, "Of

course, if Jim is right about Lifton regarding HARVEY & LEE, then I will have to revise my

position on exactly where I stand, especially since I am strongly committed to Armstrong".

As for editing a post endorsing you, I would never do that. I have only made very small

edits and I have never done anything like what you suggest. Tell me what you are talking

about and I will most certainly correct it. I did nothing of the kind. Moreover, I still hold

you in high esteem. I have defended you and Jack and Lifton on many occasions because

I believed that you were right. I cannot defend you when I believe that you are wrong. I

cannot put friendship ahead of logic and evidence, because that warps reason and defeats

the search for truth. Jack has repeatedly told me that he has received emails from others

saying how unreasonable I have become and that they are at a loss. I assumed that you

were among them. If that was a mistake on my part, I apologize and withdraw the claim.

Judyth has been subjected to more abuse on more forums than Carter has pills. New

attacks seem to come out of the woodwork on a daily basis. Not only do we have to

cope with the ongoing assaults from the familiar crowd including Junkkarinen, Viklund,

and others you can name, but this Richard Harris shows up after more than 1,200 posts

to declare that Judyth is a phony, while extolling the virtues of the La Fontaines, whose

book was an obvious vehicle for the dissemination of a phony account of the tramps and

he even wants to defend the authenticity of the Zapruder film! Well, those like him are

a dime a dozen. I never heard of the guy before and, after this, I don't expect to hear

from him again. I would like to believe that you and Jack and David, whom I regard as

quality players, and I can continue to be friends in spite of our differences over Judyth.

Jim

Jim:

This is what I was e-mailed that was edited out by you:

"Jim, you are on target. Don't let the little nobodies and doofus piggies interrupt your great research and reporting. I think the JFK plot is finally becoming very clear thanks to all your many years of great scientific research. And now with Doug Weldon's great work, it is even clearer. Best regards as always and God Bless You for everything you do for all of us and this great nation the USA."

I am not "committed" to Armstrong and if something refutes all of his evidence I will have to review it. I highly respect Lifton but I have no idea what his position is with Armstrong now or what his book might say. I know David did not think highly of Garrison and I, in fact, do, but it does not make me think less of his work. He has worked on his book for longer than I have mine. You are correct that I was referring to "Best Evidence" and "Harvey and Lee." Again, there are aspects of Armstrong's book that are not as impressive to me as others but I believe it is a critically important book.

I have never contacted Jack by e-mail or in any manner about you or Judyth and I accept your apology. I wish I could believe Judyth but there are too many red flags for me. I do hope that the truth can be determined and that this would not be such a personal devisive issue.

My best,

Doug Weldon

Edited April 17, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Doug Weldon]

Doug,

You are right about that passage. It had nothing to do with you. I will restore it.

Since Jack can't even figure out what I am finding wrong about Armstrong, perhaps

you can give it a go. If one of you would simply admit that he has made blunders,

it would go a long way toward restoring mutual trust in matters of HARVEY & LEE.

Jim

JIM RESPONDS TO DOUG WELDON ABOUT LIFTON, ARMSTRONG, AND MORE

Doug,

You have stated unequivocally your dedication to the work of both David Lifton and John

Armstrong. No doubt, you had in mind Lifton's BEST EVIDENCE and Armstrong's HARVEY

& LEE. My point was that this cannot be an enduring form of support, since Lifton's new

book on Oswald, as I understand it, will refute the thesis of HARVEY & LEE. Now you say

you don't know better. Well, I supposed that was the case, even though I have pointed

this out at least a half-dozen times in posts that you claim to have read. If you actually

have read them, then I can't imagine how you could have missed this crucial observation.

Under the circumstances, it would have been appropriate for you to have simply said, "Of

course, if Jim is right about Lifton regarding HARVEY & LEE, then I will have to revise my

position on exactly where I stand, especially since I am strongly committed to Armstrong".

As for editing a post endorsing you, I would never do that. I have only made very small

edits and I have never done anything like what you suggest. Tell me what you are talking

about and I will most certainly correct it. I did nothing of the kind. Moreover, I still hold

you in high esteem. I have defended you and Jack and Lifton on many occasions because

I believed that you were right. I cannot defend you when I believe that you are wrong. I

cannot put friendship ahead of logic and evidence, because that warps reason and defeats

the search for truth. Jack has repeatedly told me that he has received emails from others

saying how unreasonable I have become and that they are at a loss. I assumed that you

were among them. If that was a mistake on my part, I apologize and withdraw the claim.

Judyth has been subjected to more abuse on more forums than Carter has pills. New

attacks seem to come out of the woodwork on a daily basis. Not only do we have to

cope with the ongoing assaults from the familiar crowd including Junkkarinen, Viklund,

and others you can name, but this Richard Harris shows up after more than 1,200 posts

to declare that Judyth is a phony, while extolling the virtues of the La Fontaines, whose

book was an obvious vehicle for the dissemination of a phony account of the tramps and

he even wants to defend the authenticity of the Zapruder film! Well, those like him are

a dime a dozen. I never heard of the guy before and, after this, I don't expect to hear

from him again. I would like to believe that you and Jack and David, whom I regard as

quality players, and I can continue to be friends in spite of our differences over Judyth.

Jim

Jim:

This is what I was e-mailed that was edited out by you:

"Jim, you are on target. Don't let the little nobodies and doofus piggies interrupt your great research and reporting. I think the JFK plot is finally becoming very clear thanks to all your many years of great scientific research. And now with Doug Weldon's great work, it is even clearer. Best regards as always and God Bless You for everything you do for all of us and this great nation the USA."

I am not "committed" to Armstrong and if something refutes all of his evidence I will have to review it. I highly respect Lifton but I have no idea what his position is with Armstrong now or what his book might say. I know David did not think highly of Garrison and I, in fact, do, but it does not make me think less of his work. He has worked on his book for longer than I have mine. You are correct that I was referring to "Best Evidence" and "Harvey and Lee." Again, there are aspects of Armstrong's book that are not as impressive to me as others but I believe it is a critically important book.

I have never contacted Jack by e-mail or in any manner about you or Judyth and I accept your apology. I wish I could believe Judyth but there are too many red flags for me. I do hope that the truth can be determined and that this would not be such a personal devisive issue.

My best,

Doug Weldon

Jim:

I agree that John made some errors (blunders) and I believe he would be the first to acknowledge such. He also had problems with the editing of his book because of being self-published though I am not utilizing this as an excuse for errors. I believe it was always John's intent to lay out all the evidence he gathered and could corroborate andvput it out there and let the reader reach their own conclusions. Again, I have found a number of things he wrote that I have thought innocuous, irrelevent, or explainable. John is quite modest and I have never seen him argue his position so much as rather simply present the evidence and contradictions he has discovered. He doesn't even like to take questions at his presentations or be confrontive about anything. He is truly a decent man. I have made errors but nothing which has changed the substance of what I have presented. None of us is perfect. If I am ever wrong about anything I hope I will be the first to acknowledge it.

Best,

Doug