Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[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

Jim:

It is much like the old addage that the only two perfect people are you and me and I am not so sure about you.

Doug

[Robert Harris]

JIM, HOWARD, AND JUDYTH COMMENT ON ROBERT HARRIS

If every 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.

Dr. Fetzer, I posted about Judyth nine years ago, and my total postings on this subject over the years can probably be counted on one hand. I don't spend much time on the topic because it doesn't even make the bottom of my priority list. Judyth said exactly what I claimed. There is no confusion here on my part. "Anita" is the ONLY woman she even mentioned in regard to this issue. And she did say the woman double dated with her and Oswald. She admits that she told me about Anita, but she hasn't even come up with an alternative explanation for why she mentioned her.

If "anita" could corroborate her story in some other way, then surely you and Mr. Platzman have tracked her down by now. I mean, if she has a postcard, she at least has a maiden name which should allow you to track down her employment records. And surely, she told all of you about Anita a long time ago. What did you/they find out??

Or is it possible, that Anita only gets evoked as a co-worker whenever I show up??

And I noticed that she does not deny having told me about how sorry she felt for Marina, being left at home alone every night. Has she explained to you, why her story morphed into a daylight affair, after I corrected her? And if Mary La Fontaine had been wrong, then Judyth could have simply said so. But instead, she completely changed her story about the affair, from that day forward.

Dr. Fetzer, I have no dogs in this race. I have no money from books, movies, TV, hanging in the balance. And we all know, that if I had posted a message supporting Judyth, you would see me as God's gift to the research community, rather than as the human sewage you portray.

If you were right about Judyth and honestly believed you were right, you wouldn't need to resort to this "take no prisoners" strategy. You could discuss the issues rationally and objectively, instead of sounding like a ranting madman. I notice that you treat all skeptics, pretty much the same way. I doubt that you care, Dr. Fetzer, but when you promote things like this and your luny Zapruder film theories, you do far more damage to our credibility than the Posners and Bugliosi's of the world.

Whenever the nutters start accusing us of being lunatics, they always point to one guy as the ultimate example. Now, who do you suppose that is?

Robert Harris

Edited April 17, 2010 by Robert Harris

[Pamela Brown]

Jim Fetzer said:

If every 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.

Robert Harris has managed to join the forum without having to post a phograph. Who was in such a rush that they forgot to extend the basic rules to the forum to him?

[Robert Harris]

Jim Fetzer said:

If every 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.

Robert Harris has managed to join the forum without having to post a phograph. Who was in such a rush that they forgot to extend the basic rules to the forum to him?

Actually, I uploaded a photo on the same day that I posted here, which shows up in my profile but not in my messages. Kathy Beckett promptly emailed me about it and I replied, explaining the problem.

If there is something simple I can do to fix this, please let me know.

Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

Jim Fetzer said:

If every 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.

Robert Harris has managed to join the forum without having to post a phograph. Who was in such a rush that they forgot to extend the basic rules to the forum to him?

Actually, I uploaded a photo on the same day that I posted here, which shows up in my profile but not in my messages. Kathy Beckett promptly emailed me about it and I replied, explaining the problem.

If there is something simple I can do to fix this, please let me know.

Robert Harris

Ok, I think I get it now. I uploaded a photo to my profile but I think it's a different picture that appears in messages. I'll try to get that fixed no later than yesterday.

[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

Dear Dorothy Gale,

I see you're really trying push the debate forward with your two simultaneous postings that consist of...

...well, absolutely NOTHING.

Maybe it will best if you stick to the topic of rotten fish from now on?

With any luck, maybe the Wizard will give Lee Farley a sense of humor.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

All,

Anyone who wants to see how far-off base this guy can be should simply watch my opening presentations at the Z-film conference I organized and moderated in Duluth in 2003. They are as straightforward, objective, and scientific as any presentation could be. I am quite convinced that his research on Judyth is just as competent as his research on me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zSghy2TkIY...feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtZqautUPPw...feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yR0vayhmQNU...feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-tsoLRI4tE...feature=related

Another source, of course, is THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003), which I am sure this guy cannot abide either. And, if he were remotely up-to-date, he would be aware of Doug Horne's INSIDE THE ARRB (2009), which I discuss in "U.S. Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication", http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_5772.shtml

Jim

JIM, HOWARD, AND JUDYTH COMMENT ON ROBERT HARRIS

If every 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.

Dr. Fetzer, I posted about Judyth nine years ago, and my total postings on this subject over the years can probably be counted on one hand. I don't spend much time on the topic because it doesn't even make the bottom of my priority list. Judyth said exactly what I claimed. There is no confusion here on my part. "Anita" is the ONLY woman she even mentioned in regard to this issue. And she did say the woman double dated with her and Oswald. She admits that she told me about Anita, but she hasn't even come up with an alternative explanation for why she mentioned her.

If "anita" could corroborate her story in some other way, then surely you and Mr. Platzman have tracked her down by now. I mean, if she has a postcard, she at least has a maiden name which should allow you to track down her employment records. And surely, she told all of you about Anita a long time ago. What did you/they find out??

Or is it possible, that Anita only gets evoked as a co-worker whenever I show up??

And I noticed that she does not deny having told me about how sorry she felt for Marina, being left at home alone every night. Has she explained to you, why her story morphed into a daylight affair, after I corrected her? And if Mary La Fontaine had been wrong, then Judyth could have simply said so. But instead, she completely changed her story about the affair, from that day forward.

Dr. Fetzer, I have no dogs in this race. I have no money from books, movies, TV, hanging in the balance. And we all know, that if I had posted a message supporting Judyth, you would see me as God's gift to the research community, rather than as the human sewage you portray.

If you were right about Judyth and honestly believed you were right, you wouldn't need to resort to this "take no prisoners" strategy. You could discuss the issues rationally and objectively, instead of sounding like a ranting madman. I notice that you treat all skeptics, pretty much the same way. I doubt that you care, Dr. Fetzer, but when you promote things like this and your luny Zapruder film theories, you do far more damage to our credibility than the Posners and Bugliosi's of the world.

Whenever the nutters start accusing us of being lunatics, they always point to one guy as the ultimate example. Now, who do you suppose that is?

Robert Harris

[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

Dear Dorothy Gale,

I see you're really trying push the debate forward with your two simultaneous postings that consist of...

...well, absolutely NOTHING.

Maybe it will best if you stick to the topic of rotten fish from now on?

With any luck, maybe the Wizard will give Lee Farley a sense of humor.

Newsflash: There is no wizard Pamela...

...but glad the tablets are now working and you managed to get my name right. Ho ho ho - hee hee hee - and a couple of la dee daa's

Lee Farley must be on laughing gas; he is unaware that I corrected his name at once in the post where I <aghast> dared to misspell it. Maybe someday he will catch up...or somewhere...

[Glenn Viklund]

Mr Harris,

"Dr. Fetzer, I have no dogs in this race. I have no money from books, movies, TV, hanging in the balance. And we all know, that if I had posted a message supporting Judyth, you would see me as God's gift to the research community, rather than as the human sewage you portray.

If you were right about Judyth and honestly believed you were right, you wouldn't need to resort to this "take no prisoners" strategy. You could discuss the issues rationally and objectively, instead of sounding like a ranting madman. I notice that you treat all skeptics, pretty much the same way."

This observation of yours is absolutely spot on.

The "ranting madman" equals Pat Speers description of a "urinating contest".

I agree to both.

[Glenn Viklund]

Mr Fetzer,

Early on, I asked you a couple of questions. So far, there has been no answers. As this thread - hopefully - is fading out, I'd like to repeat those questions to you.

1. Where do you draw the line? When are you going to realize that this is not a question of "Judyth detractors"?

2. What conclusions do you draw from her consistent lying about her asylum process? None?

And, thirdly, as a matter of this thread:

3. Have you perhaps now realized that you are not the center of the Universe? Not even the center of the JFK assassination research? When you instantly dismiss Mr Harris, of whom "you've never heard", as a phony, could it possibly occur to you that things are happening without your knowledge? And have been, for years?

Edited April 17, 2010 by Glenn Viklund

[Jack White]

Mr Fetzer,

Early on, I asked you a couple of questions. So far, there has been no answers. As this thread - hopefully - is fading out, I'd like to repeat those questions to you.

1. Where do you draw the line? When are you going to realize that this is not a question of "Judyth detractors"?

2. What conclusions do you draw from her consistent lying about her asylum process? None?

And, thirdly, as a matter of this thread:

3. Have you perhaps now realized that you are not the center of the Universe? Not even the center of the JFK assassination research? When you instantly dismiss Mr Harris, of whom "you've never heard", as a phony, could it possibly occur to you that things are happening without your knowledge? And have been, for years?

Too bad the late Rich DellaRosa is no longer with us. He investigated the Judyth myths

for about nine months nearly ten years ago (long before Jim ever heard of JVB). Rich

finally had enough of her myths, evasiveness and ever-changing "facts", and told her

so. She departed his forum when she realized she had gained no converts there. She

will depart this forum eventually also, since the only supporter she has converted here

is Jim. What Jim is unaware of, as you say, is that all of this is a rehash of what happened

years before. It is new to Jim. It is deja vu all over again to most of us.

Jack

[Glenn Viklund]

Mr Fetzer,

Early on, I asked you a couple of questions. So far, there has been no answers. As this thread - hopefully - is fading out, I'd like to repeat those questions to you.

1. Where do you draw the line? When are you going to realize that this is not a question of "Judyth detractors"?

2. What conclusions do you draw from her consistent lying about her asylum process? None?

And, thirdly, as a matter of this thread:

3. Have you perhaps now realized that you are not the center of the Universe? Not even the center of the JFK assassination research? When you instantly dismiss Mr Harris, of whom "you've never heard", as a phony, could it possibly occur to you that things are happening without your knowledge? And have been, for years?

Too bad the late Rich DellaRosa is no longer with us. He investigated the Judyth myths

for about nine months nearly ten years ago (long before Jim ever heard of JVB). Rich

finally had enough of her myths, evasiveness and ever-changing "facts", and told her

so. She departed his forum when she realized she had gained no converts there. She

will depart this forum eventually also, since the only supporter she has converted here

is Jim. What Jim is unaware of, as you say, is that all of this is a rehash of what happened

years before. It is new to Jim. It is deja vu all over again to most of us.

Jack

Mr White,

It seems to me that many are those who have been blinded by JVB. Most notably those who have met her in person. Your description of "a moving target" is indeed exactly what this is about. The story keeps changing, and the attempts to discredit those who disagree, are becoming more outlandish day by day.

DellaRosa, Ferrell and others who knew her, all seem to have come to the same conclusion.

Mr Fetzer stated very early in this thread that "he didn't know her story". At best, this explains why he's now apparently surprised by the number of people now coming "out of the woodwork".

Edited April 17, 2010 by Glenn Viklund

[Pamela Brown]

Jim Fetzer said:

If every 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.

Robert Harris has managed to join the forum without having to post a phograph. Who was in such a rush that they forgot to extend the basic rules to the forum to him?

Robert Harris joined the Forum in 2005...he has just recently started posting. The date on which he joined is right under his "phograph."

I stand corrected regarding the date Robert Harris joined the forum. He was, nonetheless, posting without a visible photograph.

[Jack White]

If I were an armchair psychiatrist instead of an armchair detective, I would

diagnose this affair as a case of a person with an extreme need to feel

sexually attractive. At the center of the story is a wild immediate sexual

attraction between two strangers, wild passionate trysts arranged by crime

bosses, promises to meet in romantic places for a honeymoon (never mind

that both were married). Wild illicit sex with a historic figure is not uncommon.

How many men had such thoughts about Marilyn Monroe, for instance? Another

form of this is women who fall in love with convicted murderers. The handsome

Ted Bundy, convicted mass murderer, was besieged with romantic mail from

women.

It is more than a passing observation that most of JVB's most passionate

devotees are MEN who have met her in person or spoken at length with her

on the phone. To these she seems to have some sort of charisma that appeals

to some persons and not others...much like "falling in love" defies rational

explanation. She has "something" which makes certain types of men "fall

in love" with her. Her passionate supporters show every sign of "being in love".

If her tales DID NOT INCLUDE THE ALLEGED ROMANCE, they might be much

more believable. It is unlikely that the romance happened, so it is unlikely

that all the other imaginings happened.

It reminds me somewhat of my 27-year career with a large ad agency. In

addition to being the lead art director, I also was "personnel director" (largely

because nobody else wanted to do it). It was my task to interview all job

seekers and recommend hiring or not. I developed a knack of recognizing

phonies as well as "comers". I am proud that much of our agency success

came from the great team I helped assemble. At our peak, we had 50+

employees; today the agency has fewer than ten. Only once did I pick a

dud. She was a dazzling brunette who claimed to be an artist. She had

been recommended by the son of a client. I allowed myself to be more

impressed by her beauty than by her art samples and recommended that

we hire her. Annette did not last three months. She was a phony. Ever

since I learned that lesson, I pay more attention to credentials than to

personal appeal. And I think I know a phony better than most.

Jack

Mr Fetzer,

Early on, I asked you a couple of questions. So far, there has been no answers. As this thread - hopefully - is fading out, I'd like to repeat those questions to you.

1. Where do you draw the line? When are you going to realize that this is not a question of "Judyth detractors"?

2. What conclusions do you draw from her consistent lying about her asylum process? None?

And, thirdly, as a matter of this thread:

3. Have you perhaps now realized that you are not the center of the Universe? Not even the center of the JFK assassination research? When you instantly dismiss Mr Harris, of whom "you've never heard", as a phony, could it possibly occur to you that things are happening without your knowledge? And have been, for years?

Too bad the late Rich DellaRosa is no longer with us. He investigated the Judyth myths

for about nine months nearly ten years ago (long before Jim ever heard of JVB). Rich

finally had enough of her myths, evasiveness and ever-changing "facts", and told her

so. She departed his forum when she realized she had gained no converts there. She

will depart this forum eventually also, since the only supporter she has converted here

is Jim. What Jim is unaware of, as you say, is that all of this is a rehash of what happened

years before. It is new to Jim. It is deja vu all over again to most of us.

Jack

Mr White,

It seems to me that many are those who have been blinded by JVB. Most notably those who have met her in person. Your description of "a moving target" is indeed exactly what this is about. The story keeps changing, and the attempts to discredit those who disagree, are becoming more outlandish day by day.

DellaRosa, Ferrell and others who knew her, all seem to have come to the same conclusion.

Mr Fetzer stated very early in this thread that "he didn't know her story". At best, this explains why he's now apparently surprised by the number of people now coming "out of the woodwork".

Edited April 18, 2010 by Jack White

[Greg Burnham]

Although I have been resisting the urge to further engage in this debate, I just couldn't resist. Please EVERYONE involved in this thread...indulge me by listening to this. Believe it or not, it's very specific to the topic.

Audio clip:

Edited April 18, 2010 by Greg Burnham