Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[Greg Burnham]

NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF FRIENDSHIP WITH JACK WHITE, WHO HAS FINALLY DISGUSTED ME

I cannot believe that someone I have admired in the past would stoop to such a sophomoric level by

lodging such a blatant ad hominem. Those who resort to arguments of this caliber have discredited

themselves massively. I denounce each and every one of them, including the author of the post Jack

has repeated her and the hack who posted it. I am completely disgusted and want nothing more to

do with them. Michael Hogan and Howard Platzman are honorable men. Those who resort to such

disgraceful tactics are not. Cease and desist, Jack White. You have forefeitted being taken seriously.

Please know that I want nothing more to do with you in any context at all. We are no longer friends.

Jim,

As you once said to me, "Don't you think that's enough?"

You've made your point. Isn't it also ad hominem to say that Jack is not an honorable man? Almost everyone is slinging mud here on BOTH sides. Why are otherwise reasonble friends claiming to each other: "my mud's less dirty than your mud" as they fling another load?

Perhaps both sides need to cease and desist from allowing their emotions to cloud their better judgment.

[Greg Burnham]

Jack,

In all due respect, my friend, IMO this is chicken xxxx. It was a cowardly act by the author of the message who was too uncertain of him or her self to claim responsibility for their position (if it can even be called that). It is a very low blow, not to Judyth mind you, but to yourself! Whoever the author is, you might consider the very real possibility that Judyth was not the target of the attack--you were. And, judging from Jim's reaction, it appears that they may have hit the bull's eye.

There is a "signature" to these things, my friend. You know me--and you know my meaning.

GO_SECURE

monk

It seems that most researchers (wisely) do not want to become involved in the thread re JVB. For some reason many of them seem to focus on emailing me to vent their feelings at a safe venue. So far about a dozen have emailed me varying messages about JVB. Here is a typical EXCERPT from one received just today (anonymous for obvious reasons):

"I have believed for years that sexual frustration lies at the root of JVB’s motives – that she is more to be pitied than deplored. The sad but indisputable fact is that she is now overweight and unattractive and was once rather attractive (amply endowed, as she has pointed out on occasion), showing much promise in her academic abilities which never came to fruition. She has lived a life peppered with disappointment, unable to get along with people for more than a few weeks. Every relationship – mostly with men -- eventually goes down the toilet."

There are many other unsolicited emails. They are wise to not enter the public area of controversy. This

has been going on for ten years now, with new supporters taking up the torch when others become

disenchanted. How much longer will it go on?

Edited April 18, 2010 by Greg Burnham

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Dean,

If I were not convinced she is genuine, I would not be here defending her.

More than one of your posts has bothered me. I ask the following questions:

(1) Have you ever actually met or spoken with Judyth Vary Baker?

(2) Have you ever watched Nigel Turner's "The Love Affair"?

(3) Have you read MARY, FERRIE, AND THE MONEY VIRUS?

(4) Have you read Ed Haslam's DR. MARY'S MONKEY?

(5) Have you read my blog about Judyth Vary Baker?

(6) Have you listened to my 1-hour Haslem interview?

(7) Have you read my blog about DR. MARY'S MONKEY?

(8) Have you listened to Ed's 4-hour C2C interview?

(9) Are your opinions actually based upon research?

(10) What is the value of opinions not based on research?

Jim

NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF FRIENDSHIP WITH JACK WHITE, WHO HAS FINALLY DISGUSTED ME

We are no longer friends

I hope your happy Judyth, look what your fake tales have done

You are making a huge mistake Jim, I cant believe you are saying this to Jack over a woman who has you under her spell

Everything she has told you is a lie Jim

Jack I am behind you, Jim is wrong for doing this and Judyth has now become my most hated person involved (I dont even want to call her involved) in the JFK assassination

Dean

Edited April 25, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Dean Hagerman]

My answers in Bold

Dean,

If I were not convinced she is genuine, I would not be here defending her.

More than one of your posts has bothered me. I ask the following questions:

(1) Have you ever actually met or spoken with Judyth Vary Baker?

No, I have through Email from you asked her a question and got a reply, I would talk to Judyth, but as I told you Jim I do not want to talk to a woman I do not know about personal issues that are sensitive, I will leave it at that you know what im talking about. If Judyth is willing to talk to me I am willing to read and reply to her

(2) Have you ever watched Nigel Turner's "The Love Affair"?

I have watched it 10+ times, I love TMWKK and "The Love Affair" is my least favorite segment, followed very closly by French assassins

(3) Have you read MARY, FERRIE, AND THE MONEY VIRUS?

No

(4) Have you read Ed Haslam's DR. MARY'S MONKEY?

No

(5) Have you read my blog about Judyth Vary Baker?

Yes

(6) Have you listened to my 1-hour Haslem interview?

No

(7) Have you read my blog about DR. MARY'S MONKEY?

No

(8) Have you listened to Ed's 4-hour C2C interview?

No

(9) Are your opinions actually based upon research?

I have not researched any of Judyth's claims myself, however I have looked at alot of Barbs research on Judyth and what Barb has shown me is enough, I believe her research alone shuts down Judyth IMO

(10) What is the value of opinions not based on research?

I would say pretty high because most of us researchers have been around long enough to spot fakes, I dont need hard research to say that the stories Judyth Baker and James Files tell are false.

In every post before the last one I have expressed my feelings towards Judyth, but I have also said how I stand behind you Jim, what bothers you?

I hope its not my feelings for Judyth because they have nothing to do with my feelings about you Jim

I almost fell out of my chair when I read you were no longer friends with Jack

Look what she has done to you Jim

Do not let her do this, I look up to you Jim, I think of you as my voice for my alteration theories, I believe 100% in alteration Jim and stand behind you

But I can no longer do that because Judyth is wrong and she is loving the fact that she is breaking up your friendships

I have some questions for you now Jim, please answer them as I answered yours

1. Is believing in and backing up Judyth's story worth destroying two friendships?

2. Are you willing to have all of your credibility destroyed like all the other researchers who stood by Judyth before?

3. What are you going to do and say when you find out that Judyth has been telling you a fake story?

4. How many times will it take to prove to you that Judyth is not telling the truth?

5. Why are you backing her up?

6. When did you start believing Judyth

7. Did she contact you or did you contact her?

8. Are you going to help her with her book?

9. Has Judyth's "research" been more important to you then Jack White's research?

10. Has Judyth's "research" been more important to you then David Lifton's research?

10. Do you believe Judyth over David Lifton?

Edited April 18, 2010 by Dean Hagerman

[Dean Hagerman]

Jack,

In all due respect, my friend, IMO this is chicken xxxx. It was a cowardly act by the author of the message who was too uncertain of him or her self to claim responsibility for their position (if it can even be called that). It is a very low blow, not to Judyth mind you, but to yourself! Whoever the author is, you might consider the very real possibility that Judyth was not the target of the attack--you were. And, judging from Jim's reaction, it appears that they may have hit the bull's eye.

There is a "signature" to these things, my friend. You know me--and you know my meaning.

GO_SECURE

monk

It seems that most researchers (wisely) do not want to become involved in the thread re JVB. For some reason many of them seem to focus on emailing me to vent their feelings at a safe venue. So far about a dozen have emailed me varying messages about JVB. Here is a typical EXCERPT from one received just today (anonymous for obvious reasons):

"I have believed for years that sexual frustration lies at the root of JVB’s motives – that she is more to be pitied than deplored. The sad but indisputable fact is that she is now overweight and unattractive and was once rather attractive (amply endowed, as she has pointed out on occasion), showing much promise in her academic abilities which never came to fruition. She has lived a life peppered with disappointment, unable to get along with people for more than a few weeks. Every relationship – mostly with men -- eventually goes down the toilet."

There are many other unsolicited emails. They are wise to not enter the public area of controversy. This

has been going on for ten years now, with new supporters taking up the torch when others become

disenchanted. How much longer will it go on?

Greg

So its ok for Jim to post some silly Psy-Op garbage attacking Jack from an unkown person

Why is it ok for Jim to do that but not ok for Jack?

I dont understand

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Dean,

I have become convinced, based upon extensive contact, confirmed by Nigel Turner's segment, Ed Haslam's

research, and evaluating more that 1,200 posts on this thread, that the attacks on Judyth are shoddy and, in

almost every case, based upon flimsy proof and faulty arguments. Lifton, for example, rejects her because

she talked about Cancun at a time it did not exist. But Judyth was talking about Kankun, which did, where

I think it would have been impossible for Lifton to have discerned any phonetic difference between them. (I

have asked for a cassette copy of the conversation, which he has refused to provide. I can imagine quite a

number of reasons why he doesn't want me to hear it, but that is no basis for rejecting her as a phony.) In

a similar vein, John Armstrong rejected her when she told him that, on some occasions, she had passed as

Marina, because Marina was pregnant but Judyth was not. He did not allow her to explain what she meant.

Jack White has enumerated about a dozen complaints against her, none of which turned out to be justifiable.

Junkkiarinen is endlessly recyclying old material from the McAdams' site, where she and Viklund have been

exposed as collaborating to attack her. The fact that she has been so massively abused in other forums is

no excuse not to grant her a level playing field here. My role has not only been to post on her behalf but

also to serve as a buffer between her and some of her less scrupulous critics. I have had a huge volume

of contact with her, including hundreds and hundreds of emails and other forms of contact, including, of

course, YouTube interviews and blogs about her. I find Ed Haslam's work thorough, meticulous, and very

compelling in placing her within the context of cancer research involving David Ferrie, Dr. Mary Sherman,

and Alton Ochsner, who was the key figure behind it all. When you consider what Ed has explained in his

two books, most recently, DR. MARY'S MONKEY, I find it difficult to imagine how anyone could take such

strong negative stances toward her. Anyone who wants to understand her story should read Ed's book.

As for the comparison between my psy ops expert and this rubbish from Jack's anonymous source, if you

don't understand the difference between a venomous ad hominem attack such as Jack posted and serious

analytical reflections on what has been going on during the course of this thread, then I am at a loss as to

what to tell you. In response to your other post, I am convinced she is "the real deal" and that almost all

of the complaints about her are fabricated or exaggerated. For some reason, everyone here is allowed to

have their opinions about Judyth except for me! If Judyth really is not the person she claims to be, then I

cannot imagine why she is drawing so much attention. Surely this is not all for my benefit! I have done

enough research on Judyth to draw my own conclusions. I am probably more versed in scholarship than

anyone else on this forum. I believe in her and I cannot allow personal friendships to defeat my commit-

ment to the search for truth. I defend others when I think they are right and oppose them when I think

they are wrong. I have stood up for Jack and David on many occasions, but in this case, they are wrong.

Jim

Jack,

In all due respect, my friend, IMO this is chicken xxxx. It was a cowardly act by the author of the message who was too uncertain of him or her self to claim responsibility for their position (if it can even be called that). It is a very low blow, not to Judyth mind you, but to yourself! Whoever the author is, you might consider the very real possibility that Judyth was not the target of the attack--you were. And, judging from Jim's reaction, it appears that they may have hit the bull's eye.

There is a "signature" to these things, my friend. You know me--and you know my meaning.

GO_SECURE

monk

It seems that most researchers (wisely) do not want to become involved in the thread re JVB. For some reason many of them seem to focus on emailing me to vent their feelings at a safe venue. So far about a dozen have emailed me varying messages about JVB. Here is a typical EXCERPT from one received just today (anonymous for obvious reasons):

"I have believed for years that sexual frustration lies at the root of JVB’s motives – that she is more to be pitied than deplored. The sad but indisputable fact is that she is now overweight and unattractive and was once rather attractive (amply endowed, as she has pointed out on occasion), showing much promise in her academic abilities which never came to fruition. She has lived a life peppered with disappointment, unable to get along with people for more than a few weeks. Every relationship – mostly with men -- eventually goes down the toilet."

There are many other unsolicited emails. They are wise to not enter the public area of controversy. This

has been going on for ten years now, with new supporters taking up the torch when others become

disenchanted. How much longer will it go on?

Greg

So its ok for Jim to post some silly Psy-Op garbage attacking Jack from an unkown person

Why is it ok for Jim to do that but not ok for Jack?

I dont understand

Edited April 25, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Dean,

Combine this with what I have already said in response to your other post. If I become convinced that

Judyth is not "the real deal", I will be the first to admit it. There have been hundreds and hundreds of

exchanges about her in the course of this thread, and I have consistently found that her arguments are

better than those of her critics. I have yet to find a single argument against her that has borne up upon

inspection. Let me suggest that my critical faculties are not inferior to yours and that, in fact, after 35

years teaching logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning, I am not going to be very easily taken in.

Be so kind as to grant the possibility that just maybe I have understood some of this better than you.

Something that has troubled me about your involvement is that, when Judyth or I have pointed out a

number of problems with HARVEY & LEE, I have not heard a peep about it from you. Jack has clearly

been incapable of coming to grips with the points I have made about the "index" blunder, the point Pat

Speer made about the date of founding of the Warren Commission, others Michael Hogan has pointed

out, not to mention Judyth's study of the eye-color argument, the feeble witness who claimed "Harvey"

had attended Beauregrard Jr. High the year before "Lee" began, and the whole "missing tooth" fiasco.

She has also made important points about crucial photos and arguments for "the two Oswalds" theory.

Why haven't you been evaluating these objections to Armstrong's work? Do I detect the least bias on

your part? You continue to take one side, quite blatantly, and apparently on the basis of Junkkarinen's

reiteration of old material. I find this extremely disappointing. But you are entitled to your opinions,

just as Jack and I are entitled to ours. What I have found is that the reasons for believing Judyth out-

weigh the reasons for rejecting her--and by a considerable margin. Before you lecture me about my

friendships, which I value greatly but not more than the search for truth, I think you really ought to

find time to read DR. MARY'S MONKEY, which provides the context within which all of this took place.

Jim

My answers in Bold

Dean,

If I were not convinced she is genuine, I would not be here defending her.

More than one of your posts has bothered me. I ask the following questions:

(1) Have you ever actually met or spoken with Judyth Vary Baker?

No, I have through Email from you asked her a question and got a reply, I would talk to Judyth, but as I told you Jim I do not want to talk to a woman I do not know about personal issues that are sensitive, I will leave it at that you know what im talking about. If Judyth is willing to talk to me I am willing to read and reply to her

(2) Have you ever watched Nigel Turner's "The Love Affair"?

I have watched it 10+ times, I love TMWKK and "The Love Affair" is my least favorite segment, followed very closly by French assassins

(3) Have you read MARY, FERRIE, AND THE MONEY VIRUS?

No

(4) Have you read Ed Haslam's DR. MARY'S MONKEY?

No

(5) Have you read my blog about Judyth Vary Baker?

Yes

(6) Have you listened to my 1-hour Haslem interview?

No

(7) Have you read my blog about DR. MARY'S MONKEY?

No

(8) Have you listened to Ed's 4-hour C2C interview?

No

(9) Are your opinions actually based upon research?

I have not researched any of Judyth's claims myself, however I have looked at alot of Barbs research on Judyth and what Barb has shown me is enough, I believe her research alone shuts down Judyth IMO

(10) What is the value of opinions not based on research?

I would say pretty high because most of us researchers have been around long enough to spot fakes, I dont need hard research to say that the stories Judyth Baker and James Files tell are false.

In every post before the last one I have expressed my feelings towards Judyth, but I have also said how I stand behind you Jim, what bothers you?

I hope its not my feelings for Judyth because they have nothing to do with my feelings about you Jim

I almost fell out of my chair when I read you were no longer friends with Jack

Look what she has done to you Jim

Do not let her do this, I look up to you Jim, I think of you as my voice for my alteration theories, I believe 100% in alteration Jim and stand behind you

But I can no longer do that because Judyth is wrong and she is loving the fact that she is breaking up your friendships

I have some questions for you now Jim, please answer them as I answered yours

1. Is believing in and backing up Judyth's story worth destroying two friendships?

2. Are you willing to have all of your credibility destroyed like all the other researchers who stood by Judyth before?

3. What are you going to do and say when you find out that Judyth has been telling you a fake story?

4. How many times will it take to prove to you that Judyth is not telling the truth?

5. Why are you backing her up?

6. When did you start believing Judyth

7. Did she contact you or did you contact her?

8. Are you going to help her with her book?

9. Has Judyth's "research" been more important to you then Jack White's research?

10. Has Judyth's "research" been more important to you then David Lifton's research?

10. Do you believe Judyth over David Lifton?

Edited April 19, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Jack White]

Jim values friendships far less than I do.

Jack

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

My answers in Bold

Dean,

If I were not convinced she is genuine, I would not be here defending her.

More than one of your posts has bothered me. I ask the following questions:

(1) Have you ever actually met or spoken with Judyth Vary Baker?

No, I have through Email from you asked her a question and got a reply, I would talk to Judyth, but as I told you Jim I do not want to talk to a woman I do not know about personal issues that are sensitive, I will leave it at that you know what im talking about. If Judyth is willing to talk to me I am willing to read and reply to her

(2) Have you ever watched Nigel Turner's "The Love Affair"?

I have watched it 10+ times, I love TMWKK and "The Love Affair" is my least favorite segment, followed very closly by French assassins

(3) Have you read MARY, FERRIE, AND THE MONEY VIRUS?

No

(4) Have you read Ed Haslam's DR. MARY'S MONKEY?

No

(5) Have you read my blog about Judyth Vary Baker?

Yes

(6) Have you listened to my 1-hour Haslem interview?

No

(7) Have you read my blog about DR. MARY'S MONKEY?

No

(8) Have you listened to Ed's 4-hour C2C interview?

No

(9) Are your opinions actually based upon research?

I have not researched any of Judyth's claims myself, however I have looked at alot of Barbs research on Judyth and what Barb has shown me is enough, I believe her research alone shuts down Judyth IMO

(10) What is the value of opinions not based on research?

I would say pretty high because most of us researchers have been around long enough to spot fakes, I dont need hard research to say that the stories Judyth Baker and James Files tell are false.

In every post before the last one I have expressed my feelings towards Judyth, but I have also said how I stand behind you Jim, what bothers you?

I hope its not my feelings for Judyth because they have nothing to do with my feelings about you Jim

I almost fell out of my chair when I read you were no longer friends with Jack

Look what she has done to you Jim

Do not let her do this, I look up to you Jim, I think of you as my voice for my alteration theories, I believe 100% in alteration Jim and stand behind you

But I can no longer do that because Judyth is wrong and she is loving the fact that she is breaking up your friendships

I have some questions for you now Jim, please answer them as I answered yours

1. Is believing in and backing up Judyth's story worth destroying two friendships?

IF FRIENDSHIP OUT WEIGHTS THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH, THERE IS NO SEARCH FOR TRUTH, ONLY FRIENDSHIPS.

2. Are you willing to have all of your credibility destroyed like all the other researchers who stood by Judyth before?

I SEE IT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. THE ARGUMENTS FOR JUDYTH ARE STRONGER THAN THOSE AGAINST HER.

3. What are you going to do and say when you find out that Judyth has been telling you a fake story?

THIS IS CALLED "BEGGING THE QUESTION". WHAT WILL YOU DO WHEN YOU BELATEDLY REALIZE I AM RIGHT?

4. How many times will it take to prove to you that Judyth is not telling the truth?

EGAD! I HAVE YET TO FIND ONE SERIOUS, PERSUASIVE ARGUMENT AGAINST HER PRESENTED ON THIS FORUM.

5. Why are you backing her up?

BECAUSE I BELIEVE IN HER, JUST AS I HAVE BACKED UP LIFTON AND JACK WHEN I THOUGHT THAT THEY WERE RIGHT.

6. When did you start believing Judyth

I ONLY BEGAN STUDYING HER SERIOUSLY SINCE 2007. THE MORE I HAVE LEARNED, THE MORE I HAVE BELIEVED IN HER.

7. Did she contact you or did you contact her?

I THINK SHE SENT OUT AN EMAIL TO A HALF-DOZEN JFK STUDENTS, BUT I WAS THE ONLY ONE WILLING TO HEAR HER OUT.

8. Are you going to help her with her book?

NO, HER BOOK IS BASICALLY DONE (ALL WITHOUT ME). IT SHOULD APPEAR IN THE NEXT FEW MONTHS, I WOULD PRESUME.

9. Has Judyth's "research" been more important to you then Jack White's research?

MORE IMPORTANT ABOUT LEE HARVEY OSWALD BY A CONSIDERABLE MARGIN, BUT NOT, SAY, ABOUT THE ZAPRUDER FILM.

10. Has Judyth's "research" been more important to you then David Lifton's research?

NOT IN RELATION TO THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE OR THE Z-FILM, BUT I HAVE LEARNED NOTHING ABOUT OSWALD FROM LIFTON.

10. Do you believe Judyth over David Lifton?

ABOUT OSWALD AND NEW ORLEANS, I HAVE LEARNED A GREAT DEAL FROM ED AND FROM JUDYTH BUT NOTHING FROM LIFTON.

[Jack White]

Jack,

Did I read you right? Judyth concocted her story out of sexual frustration?!!!!

This is what you've come up with after having Judyth, Jim, et al. box you into a corner post after post for weeks now? Hey, if everyone who is sexually frustrated did as you claim Judyth has done, then every reputed villain in living history would have a veritable harum of groupies. I would call this claim dime-store psychology, but it's hardly worth a plug nickel.

It is, indeed, a spurious and downright shameful evasion of substantive issues and evidence, bordering, if not crossing the border, into character assassination. And then you deliver the coup d'grace: all those cards and letters coming in opining, of course, that Judyth's story is balderdash. Waving your e-mails in the air (sans the names of senders and recountings of their arguments) is too uncomfortably close to McCarthyism not to point out the resemblance. How about letting Judyth and those who have vetted her deeply and extensively know the names of those who would accuse us of being shoddy researchers or, worse, con artists.

After watching this flogging go on for 10 years, on the basis of analyses about as trenchant as what has appeared in this forum, I thought I had seen every conceivable intellectual contortion. (I guess sexual frustration falls into the inconceivable category.) I pretty much know what school of criticism all these scholars adhere to -- the school that teaches how to weave predetermined conclusions out of endlessly told lies, misinterpretations, half-truths, micro-nitpicking, willful ignorance, glib put-downs, hearsay, and just plain nastiness.

I have seen bits and pieces of the recent postings on Judyth on this forum, trying to decide whether I want to reenter the fray -- and ensure that the next 10 years age me 20 years, as the past 10 years have. I wore myself out as one researcher after the another, with some notable exceptions (Jim Fetzer is the latest), battered Judyth (and Martin Shackleford and me) with evasions and even silence (a notable example is John Simkin) when I wrote personally to each of them, mosttimes more than once, pleading for a give-and-take. My phone number has always been listed. Judyth's door has always been open (before she went into exile). Yet no critic EVER wrote or called. The list of names of those willing hide behind their computers and draw conclusions based on gut feeling or, worse, the conclusions of others who haven't themselves done the requisite research is long and depressing. To which I now have to add Jack White. You are not being fair to Judyth.

I apologize for the anger in my tone. But I assure you, it is earned and justified.

Howard

It seems that most researchers (wisely) do not want to become involved in the thread re JVB. For

some reason many of them seem to focus on emailing me to vent their feelings at a safe venue. So

far about a dozen have emailed me varying messages about JVB. Here is a typical EXCERPT from one

received just today (anonymous for obvious reasons):

"I have believed for years that sexual frustration lies at the root of JVB’s motives – that she is more to be pitied than deplored. The sad but indisputable fact is that she is now overweight and unattractive and was once rather attractive (amply endowed, as she has pointed out on occasion), showing much promise in her academic abilities which never came to fruition. She has lived a life peppered with disappointment, unable to get along with people for more than a few weeks. Every relationship – mostly with men -- eventually goes down the toilet."

There are many other unsolicited emails. They are wise to not enter the public area of controversy. This

has been going on for ten years now, with new supporters taking up the torch when others become

disenchanted. How much longer will it go on?

Jack

Some seem to think that JVB is the Virgin Mary reincarnate.

Each person ought to have the right to evaluate her claims.

The verdict is by no means unanimous.

Think as you please. So will I.

Jack

[Greg Burnham]

Some seem to think that JVB is the Virgin Mary reincarnate.

Each person ought to have the right to evaluate her claims.

The verdict is by no means unanimous.

Think as you please. So will I.

Jack

Sorry Jack, but that post totally lost me. The "Virgin Mary" reincarnate? --please. That's a "Virgin Strawman" if I ever saw one!

[Greg Burnham]

Greg

So its ok for Jim to post some silly Psy-Op garbage attacking Jack from an unkown person

Why is it ok for Jim to do that but not ok for Jack?

I dont understand

Dean,

So far, I haven't read any "silly Psy-op garbage attacking Jack" in this thread! Not by a long shot. [if I missed it, please direct me to the exact place, thanks]. In fact, (if a person didn't know and trust Jim already) the fact that his "Psy-Op friend" hasn't attacked Jack is perhaps the best evidence that Jim isn't writing those Psy-Op posts himself! I find it tedious that Jim has to "post for" both Judyth and his anonymous Psy-Op friend, to be sure, but the extent of the effort might be more to Jim's credit than anything else, IMO.

I consider the mind, heart, and intentions of both Jack and Jim to be beyond suspicion.

Hopefully, this venomous exchange will lead to a better understanding of the truth? Hard to imagine...

Edited April 19, 2010 by Greg Burnham

[Pamela Brown]

Jack White said:

This is the first posting in a long while I can agree with. I am suspicious of

ANY VACCINE promoted by the government...particularly the annual FLU

VACCINE DE JOUR.

Have you taken time to consider the curious fact that when Jack Ruby was diagnosed with cancer he said that he thought he had been injected with cancer cells?

I believe Ruby was correct.

Jack

And what do you consider the source of that idea of Ruby's?

I hope you are not going to say that Judyth told him.

Jack

I am asking for your opinion. Who was discussing cancer cell injections in the mid-60's?

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Who was discussing cancer cell injections in the mid-60's?

How about the Surgeon General of the United States when he gave a public reprimand to certain doctors at NYC's Sloan-Kettering Cancer Research Institue for injecting live cancer cells into patients with known advanced cancer ... and into healthy individuals as a control group as well, some 400 subjects all together.

The control group ... prison inmates mostly.

Or those who wrote about it in the mid 60s.

[Dean Hagerman]

Jim

Thank you for your replies

The reason I have not replied about any of the posts about Armstrong is because I have not read his book. I am very upset with myself for not buying it when it came out, and my wife will not let me spend the $75.00-100.00 to buy the book. So I can not reply to anything that has to do with "Harvey and Lee" That would be very stupid on my part with out having read the book first

I will purchase Dr Mary's Monkey per your suggestion and read it (as it is much less then H&L

I will report back with my thoughts on it

The bottom line is that I hate seeing you loose two friends over Judyth, aside from all the other stuff, that is what im really trying to say Jim

Dean

My answers in Bold

Dean,

If I were not convinced she is genuine, I would not be here defending her.

More than one of your posts has bothered me. I ask the following questions:

(1) Have you ever actually met or spoken with Judyth Vary Baker?

No, I have through Email from you asked her a question and got a reply, I would talk to Judyth, but as I told you Jim I do not want to talk to a woman I do not know about personal issues that are sensitive, I will leave it at that you know what im talking about. If Judyth is willing to talk to me I am willing to read and reply to her

(2) Have you ever watched Nigel Turner's "The Love Affair"?

I have watched it 10+ times, I love TMWKK and "The Love Affair" is my least favorite segment, followed very closly by French assassins

(3) Have you read MARY, FERRIE, AND THE MONEY VIRUS?

No

(4) Have you read Ed Haslam's DR. MARY'S MONKEY?

No

(5) Have you read my blog about Judyth Vary Baker?

Yes

(6) Have you listened to my 1-hour Haslem interview?

No

(7) Have you read my blog about DR. MARY'S MONKEY?

No

(8) Have you listened to Ed's 4-hour C2C interview?

No

(9) Are your opinions actually based upon research?

I have not researched any of Judyth's claims myself, however I have looked at alot of Barbs research on Judyth and what Barb has shown me is enough, I believe her research alone shuts down Judyth IMO

(10) What is the value of opinions not based on research?

I would say pretty high because most of us researchers have been around long enough to spot fakes, I dont need hard research to say that the stories Judyth Baker and James Files tell are false.

In every post before the last one I have expressed my feelings towards Judyth, but I have also said how I stand behind you Jim, what bothers you?

I hope its not my feelings for Judyth because they have nothing to do with my feelings about you Jim

I almost fell out of my chair when I read you were no longer friends with Jack

Look what she has done to you Jim

Do not let her do this, I look up to you Jim, I think of you as my voice for my alteration theories, I believe 100% in alteration Jim and stand behind you

But I can no longer do that because Judyth is wrong and she is loving the fact that she is breaking up your friendships

I have some questions for you now Jim, please answer them as I answered yours

1. Is believing in and backing up Judyth's story worth destroying two friendships?

IF FRIENDSHIP OUT WEIGHTS THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH, THERE IS NO SEARCH FOR TRUTH, ONLY FRIENDSHIPS.

2. Are you willing to have all of your credibility destroyed like all the other researchers who stood by Judyth before?

I SEE IT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. THE ARGUMENTS FOR JUDYTH ARE STRONGER THAN THOSE AGAINST HER.

3. What are you going to do and say when you find out that Judyth has been telling you a fake story?

THIS IS CALLED "BEGGING THE QUESTION". WHAT WILL YOU DO WHEN YOU BELATEDLY REALIZE I AM RIGHT?

4. How many times will it take to prove to you that Judyth is not telling the truth?

EGAD! I HAVE YET TO FIND ONE SERIOUS, PERSUASIVE ARGUMENT AGAINST HER PRESENTED ON THIS FORUM.

5. Why are you backing her up?

BECAUSE I BELIEVE IN HER, JUST AS I HAVE BACKED UP LIFTON AND JACK WHEN I THOUGHT THAT THEY WERE RIGHT.

6. When did you start believing Judyth

I ONLY BEGAN STUDYING HER SERIOUSLY SINCE 2007. THE MORE I HAVE LEARNED, THE MORE I HAVE BELIEVED IN HER.

7. Did she contact you or did you contact her?

I THINK SHE SENT OUT AN EMAIL TO A HALF-DOZEN JFK STUDENTS, BUT I WAS THE ONLY ONE WILLING TO HEAR HER OUT.

8. Are you going to help her with her book?

NO, HER BOOK IS BASICALLY DONE (ALL WITHOUT ME). IT SHOULD APPEAR IN THE NEXT FEW MONTHS, I WOULD PRESUME.

9. Has Judyth's "research" been more important to you then Jack White's research?

MORE IMPORTANT ABOUT LEE HARVEY OSWALD BY A CONSIDERABLE MARGIN, BUT NOT, SAY, ABOUT THE ZAPRUDER FILM.

10. Has Judyth's "research" been more important to you then David Lifton's research?

NOT IN RELATION TO THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE OR THE Z-FILM, BUT I HAVE LEARNED NOTHING ABOUT OSWALD FROM LIFTON.

10. Do you believe Judyth over David Lifton?

ABOUT OSWALD AND NEW ORLEANS, I HAVE LEARNED A GREAT DEAL FROM ED AND FROM JUDYTH BUT NOTHING FROM LIFTON.