Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[Josiah Thompson]

Nothing bothers me more in this thread than this posting. On the windshield thread I noted more than once that one did not have to agree with me to be my friend. Barb, Tink, and Jerry disagree with me about the hole in the windshield but I have no personal animosity towards any of them. I simply believed that the arguments were becoming circuitous and that there was not enough understanding of the witnesses to engage further in a constructive dialog.....

Each of us is entitled to an opinion and to weigh the evidence and because one has a higher educational background it does not make their opinion or analysis superior to anothers. I have five years of undergraduate credits, a law degee, a masters degree, and I am 6 course hours short of completing the course work for a P.H.D. in education. I think Joe Biden would rightfully respond to that, "Big F---ing Deal!" My analysis is not superior to anyone's.

Warm regards,

Doug

Bravo Doug. I especially liked the part where you remarked on the lunacy of Fetzer’s claim that only people with multiple initials after their name should be believed. Or, as you put it, “Each of us is entitled to an opinion and to weigh the evidence and because one has a higher educational background it does not make their opinion or analysis superior to anothers.” Fetzer has been vomiting his somewhat pedestrian academic CV on people for decades claiming that somehow it proves his opinions are worth more than others. What condescending nonsense!

My own bet is that all this irrelevant drama stimulated by the Professor will end in something like a high school lunch where all the warring students get together in the cafeteria, have a Cherry Coke and fries together and tell each other how wonderful they all are. However, before that happens I want to ask you again a question.

I appreciated the fact that you honored the contribution Barb, Jerry and I made to knowledge about the windshield. I should say that most of our discussion with you I found rewarding. What was not rewarding was your reluctance to offer an opinion on Fetzer’s claim concerning the socalled “spiral nebula.” I take it you would agree that this is an important evidentiary issue and I, for one, would really like to know your opinion on it. If there is no damage to the windshield evident in Altgens 6, that has important logical consequences. For most of a week Fetzer claimed he had proof from some guy in Texas shooting windshields that a shot fired through a windshield looked just like the “sprial nebula.” However, when finally a photo was produced, it showed nothing of the sort.

As a kind of relief from the soap opera of Judythfetzer, how about telling us what you think of the old “spiral nebula?” You know it might be it be a relief to actually deal with evidence instead of Fetzer.

Josiah Thompson

[Josiah Thompson]

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.

"I cannot believe that someone I have admired in the past.." Look, Jack, don't be hurt or lose any sleep over this. Fetzer said the same thing about me before acusing me of being a disinformation agent... xxxx... thief... child molester... torturer of young animals, etc. And look how it all ended up with us being such good pals. I'm sure you and Fetzer will soon get together and make up. When he starts a diatribe with that clause "I cannot believe that someone I have admired in the past..", reconciliation cannot be long postponed!

Josiah Thompson

[Jack White]

A masterful summation, Doug!

Jack

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.

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

Nothing bothers me more in this thread than this posting. On the windshield thread I noted more than once that one did not have to agree with me to be my friend. Barb, Tink, and Jerry disagree with me about the hole in the windshield but I have no personal animosity towards any of them. I simply believed that the arguments were becoming circuitous and that there was not enough understanding of the witnesses to engage further in a constructive dialog. I was not going to write my book on the thread but I did find portions of the thread to be constructive and at the end I actually held a higher opinion and respect for these people than I did at the beginning. If one has to agree with everything one posits then all of us are going to have a very short list of friends.

Each of us is entitled to an opinion and to weigh the evidence and because one has a higher educational background it does not make their opinion or analysis superior to anothers. I have five years of undergraduate credits, a law degee, a masters degree, and I am 6 course hours short of completing the course work for a P.H.D. in education. I think Joe Biden would rightfully respond to that, "Big F---ing Deal!" My analysis is not superior to anyone's.

I am going to make some personal references. I believe friendships and relationships are what is most important in life. If anyone on this forum believes that we are going to develop a total concensus on the death of JFK and bring people to justice then they are living in a fantasyland. To seek to find truth is not only noble it is imperative to defining the society in which we live and for those who will live after us. I use the rhetorical question of why do old men plant trees that they will never see grow? History will always be the myth that people choose to believe and I, as much as anyone, would like to remove much of the myth that exists about November 22, 1963. It is important but it is not so important that we destroy the friendships and relationships that are truly the essence of our lives. Again, I make a personal reference. It is easy to become obsessed in pursuing the truth in the JFK labrynith. I recall my ex-wife telling me that I seemed to pay more attention to a dead president than I did to her. Sadly, in retrospect, she was often correct. For any endeavor, there is a cost to be paid. The ultimate question is whether the cost was worth it. Sometimes it is. Many times it is not. To do it again, I would have made some different decisions.

The most rewarding aspect of being involved with this for 32 years has been the wonderful people and witnesses I have gotten to know. For the witnesses who trusted me I want to keep my promise to tell their accounts for history but I am under no pretense that everyone is going to agree with me or them and I understand that even to get my book published is likely to be a difficult endeavor. I do, however, value that I got to know these witnesses as people, and in writing my book I often smile as I listen to the conversations I had with these people, many now deceased. I enjoy the researchers I have met, agree or disagree, and I respect everyone of them whom I believe has truth as their objective. It is the personal part of these people that endures for me. It is my privilege to get to know these people, even if it is only a voice on the phone or a posting on the internet. I have met Jack and Jim a number of times. I value that. They are passionate people. Some people walk into a room softly. Others come in driving a truck with horns blaring. We can respect people for who they are and the world needs all of these types.

I cannot accept Judyth's account for a number of reasons. Jim, I have watched her on TMWKK. To be honest, when I copy the segments from 2003 and give them to people I often leave out her segment because I fear it detracts from the value of episode 7, on which both you and I appeared, and segment 9. The fact that Nigel Turner believes her really means nothing. I do not believe that there was an altruistic motive for Nigel in his productions but he was motivated by it being a commercial enterprise. I am not fooling myself. Nigel spent days at my house on several occasions. If my opinion was that Oswald did it alone I doubt that my charm would have captivated his time and attention. As Jim Garrison said about the Warren Commission and being told that they were important or distinquished people had no impact on his examination of the evidence.

I have read Haslam's book with great interest. Again, I submit a personal reference. In 2001 I had non-hodgkin's lymphoma and on the Men Who Killed Kennedy I was bloated and my eyes were distorted from Chemo. What is interesting about this cancer is that it is one of the cancers that are increasing and they are finding that a large portion of the people with the cancer have evidence of the "Monkey Virus." It is that, not Judyth, which stirred my interest in the book. Ironically, Jackie Kennedy died of this cancer!

There are many things which cause me concern about Judyth. I will only note a few. One of the arguments in favor of her credibility has been that a researcher went over the known timeline of Oswald's whereabouts and activities and she got everything right. A major reason I doubt her is that she got everything right. Can you tell me everything your wife did the first week of October 2009 yet 40 plus years ago? How about what you did?

Judyth remembers EVERYTHING Oswald told her. He must have been talking from morning to night and she would have to be a stenographer to keep track of everything. How could she ever remember the japanese girl or David Phillips and other names and instances that would have no meaning to her. If somewhat shot names or stories at you forty years ago that had no meaning to you would you remember them? Why would you save your pay stubbs and records? Do you have yours from 45 years ago? Again, a personal reference. While I was teaching in the criminal justice department at Western Michigan Universityyears ago, I shared an office with a former police officer, who the following semester murdered his wife, who was a leading local newscaster. It was the first case ever on Court Television and the prosecuter was an individual I shared rides with my first year in law school. There have been three books written about the murder. How easy would it be for me to start talking about the great friendship we had, how we would go out to the bar together, and the things he would talk about. He had been having affairs with his students which added to the interest. It would be so easy to insert and mesh my life with his. The truth is I really did not know him at all.

Judyth's so-called Russian statements to Oswald when they allegedly first met are preposterous. Furthermore, Judyth's recall of statements between her and Oswald is not only amazing but also preposterous. It makes Romeo and Juliet look like a slap-stick comedy. Listen to Oswald's radio interviews and his statements in Dallas such as "a policeman hit me." Yes, Oswald was intelligent but he was not educated. Judyth's Oswald makes James Bond look like a character from Hee Haw. Listen to him. Can you picture this Oswald making the tearful heartrenching statements about Judyth having babies? Would the worst soap opera on television even think about putting such dialog in their show? When you were in the marines could you picture yourself saying such things to your wife or girlfriend? Did Oswald not have enough on his schedule with having a wife, a child, and a new born baby, and his travel and activities, that he could or would fit in this elaborate affair with Judyth? Did Oswald not have feelings towards his newly born child? If their love was so deep and the future so fragile why did Judyth not become pregnant? Who would know whose child it was?

How difficult is it to create accounts for times where Oswalds whereabouts or activities were unknown? It seems like that every time something cannot be accounted for then, lo and behold, Judyth happens to be there. Every single unknown woman Oswald happened to be seen with turns out to be, Surprise, Judyth.

Again, I am not questioning that Oswald was bright, but do you believe he was an intellectual? JFK was not an intellectual. Oswald had an IQ of 118, Kennedy 119. Obama has an IQ of 126. Ironically, the president with the highest IQ was Nixon with 164. Judyth said Oswald's favorite poet was Pushkin. I have learned a lot about Pushkin and I don't think so. He certainly did not check out any books by Pushkin at the Dallas library. Where are the books? It would be like me telling everyone that I read some Shakespearian plays everyday for light reading until I have the opportunity to read something more entertaining like "The epistomology of Statistical Analysis when comparing river sediment in Brazil."

I can go on and on. Judyth is obviously very bright which makes her ability to create an account more plausible. After reading everything she has done I am beginning to believe that this poor woman was cheated out of all the Nobel prizes. Whatever the truth is, Judyth is a damaged witness. She has read too much. When she tells of something she has done it is virtually followed by a Wilkepedia article oin the subject. She is tainted. She knows where the holes can be found in the Oswald story and thus knows where she can safely insert herself. She is too good. She can account for virtually every moment. When she can't it was because she got rammed head on by a rhinocerous and momentarily lost her memory which then comes back. If something turns out to be wrong it is because it is an unauthorized account which happened to have gotten stolen. Who writes unauthorized accounts? Humans are fallible. One of the things I argued about the validity of Nick Prencipe was his fallibility.He could have researched Greer and knew exactly where to put himself having a conversation with his friend William Greer. His uncertainty and mistakes are what gave him credibility. The human mind distorts details after 40 years but certain things are remembered. I can tell you what a great party I was at 2 years ago and some people fell into a pool but I can't tell you everyone who was there and if I did I might remember someone being there who was not there.

These are concerns. I am not passing a final judgment on Judyth. You, with your contacts with her, are indeed in a better position than I to evaluate her. You may ultimately be right. However, because of her research, she is virtually worthless as a witness. In big cases, we were always concerned about overpreparing a witness to where their account seems contrived. I once had a case with a young girl who was a CSC victim. I wanted her to be prepared for whatever questions that might come her way. I would talk with her. At first her head would be down and she could only whisper. I would give her a tootsie roll pop each time. One day she came in my office smiling and said "Mr. Weldon, he put his penis in my vagina. Could I have a sucker?" I was crushed. Judyth has overprepared herself to the extent that she has lost, if it was there, the ring of truth. She is the witness that an opposing attorney would drool to cross-examine.

All of us are only here for a moment. I respect everyone who has devoted themselves in an honest way to finding truth. It is thankless and often the best result is simply to be ridiculed. Do you doubt that Jack or Lifton have a motive other than truth? Did Armstrong give up 12 years of his life and the money and time for all of the "fame" this has now brought him. I think Barb, Jerry, and even Pamela care. Otherwise it's not worth it. People have become skiddish on this thread. Toi silence someone is not to convince them. How many people on this forum do you believe you have convinced that Judyth is the real deal? You know I am religious. Whether Judyth is truthful or not, may God bless her. I do hope truth will prevail, that right will triumph wrong, and as Garrison noted, that virtue shallbe its own reward.

Warm regards,

Doug

[Dean Hagerman]

I cannot accept Judyth's account for a number of reasons. Jim, I have watched her on TMWKK. To be honest, when I copy the segments from 2003 and give them to people I often leave out her segment because I fear it detracts from the value of episode 7, on which both you and I appeared, and segment 9. The fact that Nigel Turner believes her really means nothing. I do not believe that there was an altruistic motive for Nigel in his productions but he was motivated by it being a commercial enterprise. I am not fooling myself. Nigel spent days at my house on several occasions. If my opinion was that Oswald did it alone I doubt that my charm would have captivated his time and attention. As Jim Garrison said about the Warren Commission and being told that they were important or distinquished people had no impact on his examination of the evidence.

There are many things which cause me concern about Judyth. I will only note a few. One of the arguments in favor of her credibility has been that a researcher went over the known timeline of Oswald's whereabouts and activities and she got everything right. A major reason I doubt her is that she got everything right. Can you tell me everything your wife did the first week of October 2009 yet 40 plus years ago? How about what you did?

Judyth remembers EVERYTHING Oswald told her. He must have been talking from morning to night and she would have to be a stenographer to keep trackof everything. How could she ever remember the japanese girl or David Phillips and other names and instances that would have no meaning to her. If somewhat shot names or stories at you forty years ago that had no meaning to you would you remember them? Why would you save your pay stubbs and records? Do you have yours from 45 years ago? Again, a personal reference. While I was teaching in the criminal justice department at Western Michigan Universityyears ago, I shared an office with a former police officer, who the following semester murdered his wife, who was a leading local newscaster. It was the first case ever on Court Television and the prosecuter was an individual I shared rides with my first year in law school. There have been three books written about the murder. How easy would it be for me to start talking about the great friendship we had, how we would go out to the bar together, and the things he would talk about. He had been having affairs with his students which added to the interest. It would be so easy to insert and mesh my life with his. The truth is I really did not know him at all.

Judyth's so-called Russian statements to Oswald when they allegedly first met are preposterous. Furthermore, Judyth's recall of statements between her and Oswald is not only amazing but also preposterous. It makes Romeo and Juliet look like a slap-stick comedy. Listen to Oswald's radio interviews and his statements in Dallas such as "a policeman hit me." Yes, Oswald was intelligent but he was not educated. Judyth's Oswald makes James Bond look like a character from Hee Haw. Listen to him. Can you picture this Oswald making the tearful heartrenching statements about Judyth having babies? Would the worst soap opera on television even think about putting such dialog in their show? When you were in the marines could you picture yourself saying such things to your wife or girlfriend? Did Oswald not have enough on his schedule with having a wife, a child, and a new born baby, and his travel and activities, that he could or would fit in this elaborate affair with Judyth? Did Oswald not have feelings towards his newly born child? If their love was so deep and the future so fragile why did Judyth not become pregnant? Who would know whose child it was?

How difficult is it to create accounts for times where Oswalds whereabouts or activities were unknown? It seems like that every time something cannot be accounted for then, lo and behold, Judyth happens to be there. Every single unknown woman Oswald happened to be seen with turns out to be, Surprise, Judyth.

Again, I am not questioning that Oswald was bright, but do you believe he was an intellectual? JFK was not an intellectual. Oswald had an IQ of 118, Kennedy 119. Obama has an IQ of 126. Ironically, the president with the highest IQ was Nixon with 164. Judyth said Oswald's favorite poet was Pushkin. I have learned a lot about Pushkin and I don't think so. He certainly did not check out any books by Pushkin at the Dallas library. Where are the books? It would be like me telling everyone that I read some Shakespearian plays everyday for light reading until I have the opportunity to read something more entertaining like "The epistomology of Statistical Analysis when comparing river sediment in Brazil."

I can go on and on. Judyth is obviously very bright which makes her ability to create an account more plausible. After reading everything she has done I am beginning to believe that this poor woman was cheated out of all the Nobel prizes. Whatever the truth is, Judyth is a damaged witness. She has read too much. When she tells of something she has done it is virtually followed by a Wilkepedia article oin the subject. She is tainted. She knows where the holes can be found in the Oswald story and thus knows where she can safely insert herself. She is too good. She can account for virtually every moment. When she can't it was because she got rammed head on by a rhinocerous and momentarily lost her memory which then comes back. If something turns out to be wrong it is because it is an unauthorized account which happened to have gotten stolen. Who writes unauthorized accounts? Humans are fallible. One of the things I argued about the validity of Nick Prencipe was his fallibility.He could have researched Greer and knew exactly where to put himself having a conversation with his friend William Greer. His uncertainty and mistakes are what gave him credibility. The human mind distorts details after 40 years but certain things are remembered. I can tell you what a great party I was at 2 years ago and some people fell into a pool but I can't tell you everyone who was there and if I did I might remember someone being there who was not there.

These are concerns. I am not passing a final judgment on Judyth. You, with your contacts with her, are indeed in a better position than I to evaluate her. You may ultimately be right. However, because of her research, she is virtually worthless as a witness. In big cases, we were always concerned about overpreparing a witness to where their account seems contrived. I once had a case with a young girl who was a CSC victim. I wanted her to be prepared for whatever questions that might come her way. I would talk with her. At first her head would be down and she could only whisper. I would give her a tootsie roll pop each time. One day she came in my office smiling and said "Mr. Weldon, he put his penis in my vagina. Could I have a sucker?" I was crushed. Judyth has overprepared herself to the extent that she has lost, if it was there, the ring of truth. She is the witness that an opposing attorney would drool to cross-examine.

Very well said Doug

Jim these are some of the same concerns that I have about Judyth's story

He claims are just outlandish

[Jack White]

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.

"I cannot believe that someone I have admired in the past.." Look, Jack, don't be hurt or lose any sleep over this. Fetzer said the same thing about me before acusing me of being a disinformation agent... xxxx... thief... child molester... torturer of young animals, etc. And look how it all ended up with us being such good pals. I'm sure you and Fetzer will soon get together and make up. When he starts a diatribe with that clause "I cannot believe that someone I have admired in the past..", reconciliation cannot be long postponed!

Josiah Thompson

Things like this do not bother me much. I have great admiration for ALL JFK researchers who have

contributed so much to the search for truth. For years the revered Josiah Thompson was my favorite JFK

hero, along with Sylvia Meagher. But even Thompson took a fork in the road I could not travel, opposing

the OBVIOUS fakery of the Z film. But that does not diminish my admiration for the early Thompson.

In recent years, NO RESEARCHER has contributed more to JFK research than Jim Fetzer, with his three

anthologies of ALL NEW research. Now he has forsaken all his good work to take a fork in the road

where others had been disappointed for years...but he has chosen to forge ahead, leaving all his

friends back on the main road. That does not make me have less respect for his previous great work.

It saddens me that in the end he will be disappointed with the pig in a poke*** he has bought. Even if he

is a hundred percent correct about his "real deal"...will it be worth the price he has paid in friendships

and credibility?

Here is my main concern: For several years now, Jim has been THE LEADING VOICE in publicizing the

farcical official story of 911. It is my suspicion that the JVB affair has been dangled before him to

distract him from the far more important work he has been doing on 911. Some will say that I am just

proposing a paranoid conspiracy theory. But I say it is a distinct possibility.

It bothers me little when I am attacked like this. I spent nearly 50 years as an advertising man, so I

learned early not to be bothered by such attacks by people who are wrong. I know right from wrong,

and in this instance, I am pretty sure I am not wrong.

Jack

***lest this be interpreted as an ad hominem attack against JVB, I must emphasize that this is a

common saying directed toward someone who buys something and gets less than he paid for.

Edited April 20, 2010 by Jack White

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

JIM REPLIES TO DOUG WELDON ABOUT HIS ABSURD TAKE ON JUDYTH VARY BAKER

This appears to be the voice of a guilty conscience from someone who has not been paying attention. It

has only recently dawned upon me that Doug Weldon has a certain streak of arrogance about him. He is

among those whose work I have admired in the past--where I have defended him many times, just as I

have Jack and Lifton--but who somehow wants to do it his own way, which of course is also fine with me.

When I read what Jack had posted, it upset me tremendously, and I called David Lifton to ask if he had

been the author of that post. David assured me that he had not. In light of this (to my mind, ridiculous)

post by Doug Weldon, I now surmise that it was he who wrote to Jack, as I imagine he had done several

times. He thinks I was wrong to condemn Jack for posting his cruel post, and he wants to make amends.

He can correct me if I am wrong, but that appears to be his motivation. I am profoundly disappointed that

this man would marshall so much effort to publish such rubbish. If anything has become clear during the

course of this thread, it is that Judyth was where she claimed to have been associating with exactly those

she identified and doing precisely what she always claimed to have been doing. That much is utterly clear.

She was a brilliant, young, talented and idealistic woman who thought she might make a difference in the

battle against cancer. She was recruited by Alton Ochsner to come to New Orleans with the promise of a

fellowship and early admission to medical school. She worked with Mary Sherman and David Ferrie on one

of the most covert medical research projects in American history. And she was protected by Lee H. Oswald!

Doug Weldon has such vast belief in his powers of observation and reasoning that he does not understand

that this woman's entire life was lived out in about six-month's time. She was obsessive-compulsive about

every detail of her existence in New Orleans and absorbed what was happening around her like a sponge.

She kept records and documents and receipts and knows the details of that entire interval of her existence.

And that is because IT WAS HER ENTIRE LIFE. I am obsessive-compulsive myself. Ask my wife. I kept every

cancelled check I had ever written until I was around 60 years of age. Judyth, I have observed to myself and

perhaps occasionally on this thread, is smarter than anyone else here--including me! Doug has never had an

encounter with someone like her. He didn't believe her story. And now he is here feebly trying to explain why.

Feeling guilty because I broke off with Jack for posting a rubbish attack that should have been beneath them

both, Weldon has come here to display (what he takes to be) his vast sophistication and powers of reasoning

by making claims that might be true in most cases but do not apply to Judyth. He even disregards Ed Haslam's

astonishing research, which provides the framework within which Judyth's stunning story has to be understood.

There is more fakery and fraud in this single post from Doug Weldon than in the hundreds of posts that I have

exchanged with Judyth. Why anyone would think that I would allow myself to be taken in if she were a fraud

is beyond me. Am I not supposed to grasp that my reputation and credibility is on the line? Am I not able to

see what is so clear to Jack and to Doug and to others here who are not convinced by what she has to say?

The extent of the ops against Judyt boggle the mind if she actually were a fraud. The fact is that Doug Weldon

has posted this even after Howard Platzman has made some of the most discerning observations of them all:

(1) How well the totality of her testimony and documents explains mysteries that haunt the case better than any other extant story. For one of many instances, her explanation of the Clinton-Jackson witnesses is far more believable than any that has been offered elsewhere, even by Joan Mellen who brags that this is her expertise yet delivers a story that is ultimately incoherent.

(2) How well it predicts future finds and generates productive leads. In fact, her story of Clinton-Jackson "predicted" 60 Minutes' finding of an FBI report that Garrison was about to indict Alton Ochsner. Though king of INCA, his name has not come up in connection with any conspiracy to kill anyone. In fact, he was conspiring to kill Castro, with Judyth's help. but Garrison never quite figured this out -- it is fascinating to read his Playboy interview that includes musings about Ferrie and a bioweapon aimed at Castro.

The research community needs to go back to school. Standards for what count as evidence -- and for how much evidence is enough evidence -- are generally lacking in those who consider themselves professional researchers, whereas so many of them are just plain not (pace Jim, Jack White's maunderings have always struct me as below par). As for whose anti-Judyth work deserves serious attention, I am inclined to think that Barb J holds first place. She has actually made phone calls and spoken to witnesses (not to Judyth, alas).

The problem with Barb is that she doesn't realize that what she found fundamentally supports Judyth's claims! Barb tried to refute Judyth's claim that she did any serious work at Roswell when, in fact, she proved the opposite. Judyth was heartbroken over the loss of the paper she wrote based on her Roswell studies. In the end, Barb found the abstract to the paper. I thanked her for her diligence and contribution to the cause. She didn't seem to understand -- or didn't want to.

Doug may have been reading posts, but he hasn't been paying attention. I would take one Judyth over a dozen

Weldons, Whites, and others unnamed. At this point in time, there is no excuse for anyone to doubt the identity

of Judyth Vary Baker. Read what Howard has said. He has it exactly right. Most of those here, with the notable

exception of Michael Hogan, seem to think this is some kind of magical mystery tour. But it is too serious for that.

Judyth has reponded more openly and in greater detail than anyone I have ever seen. Her experiences during

that concentrated period of time were virtually imprinted upon her memory--which, like her mind in general, is

far superior to that of most of those here. What Doug has said might fit most people, but Judyth never was one

of them. She is simply a superior human being who has sacrificed her life doing what she believed to be right!

Ed Haslam, who subjected Judyth to the most intensive scruity, who grew up in New Orleans and who knows the

place like the back of his hand, has made the point that, within the range of human fallibility, he believes that

Judyth has told the truth to the best of her ability--and he has known those who have disagreed about what

happened when they were in the same room at the time of its occurrence, which many of us know to be true.

He points out one of the striking aspects of Judyth's story. When she went to meet Alton Ochsner, who had been

the President of the American Cancer Society, LEE WENT IN FIRST. As he emphasizes on pages 321-322, this

is a rather profound point. Ochsner would later claim that Oswald was a communist and the lone assassin, yet

he knew Lee well enough that Lee MET WITH HIM ALONE before he brought Judyth Vary in to meet with him.

Reread what Howard has to said. Study Ed Haslam's book. She was lured to New Orleans. She met Ochsner.

She worked with Mary Sharman and David Farrie. She did all the things she said she has done and they were

welcome and appreciated in New Orleans just as she has explained it. Nothing else makes any sense at all. I

am stunned at the incapacity to think things through by some I have admired in the past. They really should get

over it. Judyth is "the real deal" and what she has to tell us transforms our understanding of the death of JFK.

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.

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

Nothing bothers me more in this thread than this posting. On the windshield thread I noted more than once that one did not have to agree with me to be my friend. Barb, Tink, and Jerry disagree with me about the hole in the windshield but I have no personal animosity towards any of them. I simply believed that the arguments were becoming circuitous and that there was not enough understanding of the witnesses to engage further in a constructive dialog. I was not going to write my book on the thread but I did find portions of the thread to be constructive and at the end I actually held a higher opinion and respect for these people than I did at the beginning. If one has to agree with everything one posits then all of us are going to have a very short list of friends.

Each of us is entitled to an opinion and to weigh the evidence and because one has a higher educational background it does not make their opinion or analysis superior to anothers. I have five years of undergraduate credits, a law degee, a masters degree, and I am 6 course hours short of completing the course work for a P.H.D. in education. I think Joe Biden would rightfully respond to that, "Big F---ing Deal!" My analysis is not superior to anyone's.

I am going to make some personal references. I believe friendships and relationships are what is most important in life. If anyone on this forum believes that we are going to develop a total concensus on the death of JFK and bring people to justice then they are living in a fantasyland. To seek to find truth is not only noble it is imperative to defining the society in which we live and for those who will live after us. I use the rhetorical question of why do old men plant trees that they will never see grow? History will always be the myth that people choose to believe and I, as much as anyone, would like to remove much of the myth that exists about November 22, 1963. It is important but it is not so important that we destroy the friendships and relationships that are truly the essence of our lives. Again, I make a personal reference. It is easy to become obsessed in pursuing the truth in the JFK labrynith. I recall my ex-wife telling me that I seemed to pay more attention to a dead president than I did to her. Sadly, in retrospect, she was often correct. For any endeavor, there is a cost to be paid. The ultimate question is whether the cost was worth it. Sometimes it is. Many times it is not. To do it again, I would have made some different decisions.

The most rewarding aspect of being involved with this for 32 years has been the wonderful people and witnesses I have gotten to know. For the witnesses who trusted me I want to keep my promise to tell their accounts for history but I am under no pretense that everyone is going to agree with me or them and I understand that even to get my book published is likely to be a difficult endeavor. I do, however, value that I got to know these witnesses as people, and in writing my book I often smile as I listen to the conversations I had with these people, many now deceased. I enjoy the researchers I have met, agree or disagree, and I respect everyone of them whom I believe has truth as their objective. It is the personal part of these people that endures for me. It is my privilege to get to know these people, even if it is only a voice on the phone or a posting on the internet. I have met Jack and Jim a number of times. I value that. They are passionate people. Some people walk into a room softly. Others come in driving a truck with horns blaring. We can respect people for who they are and the world needs all of these types.

I cannot accept Judyth's account for a number of reasons. Jim, I have watched her on TMWKK. To be honest, when I copy the segments from 2003 and give them to people I often leave out her segment because I fear it detracts from the value of episode 7, on which both you and I appeared, and segment 9. The fact that Nigel Turner believes her really means nothing. I do not believe that there was an altruistic motive for Nigel in his productions but he was motivated by it being a commercial enterprise. I am not fooling myself. Nigel spent days at my house on several occasions. If my opinion was that Oswald did it alone I doubt that my charm would have captivated his time and attention. As Jim Garrison said about the Warren Commission and being told that they were important or distinquished people had no impact on his examination of the evidence.

I have read Haslam's book with great interest. Again, I submit a personal reference. In 2001 I had non-hodgkin's lymphoma and on the Men Who Killed Kennedy I was bloated and my eyes were distorted from Chemo. What is interesting about this cancer is that it is one of the cancers that are increasing and they are finding that a large portion of the people with the cancer have evidence of the "Monkey Virus." It is that, not Judyth, which stirred my interest in the book. Ironically, Jackie Kennedy died of this cancer!

There are many things which cause me concern about Judyth. I will only note a few. One of the arguments in favor of her credibility has been that a researcher went over the known timeline of Oswald's whereabouts and activities and she got everything right. A major reason I doubt her is that she got everything right. Can you tell me everything your wife did the first week of October 2009 yet 40 plus years ago? How about what you did?

Judyth remembers EVERYTHING Oswald told her. He must have been talking from morning to night and she would have to be a stenographer to keep track of everything. How could she ever remember the japanese girl or David Phillips and other names and instances that would have no meaning to her. If somewhat shot names or stories at you forty years ago that had no meaning to you would you remember them? Why would you save your pay stubbs and records? Do you have yours from 45 years ago? Again, a personal reference. While I was teaching in the criminal justice department at Western Michigan Universityyears ago, I shared an office with a former police officer, who the following semester murdered his wife, who was a leading local newscaster. It was the first case ever on Court Television and the prosecuter was an individual I shared rides with my first year in law school. There have been three books written about the murder. How easy would it be for me to start talking about the great friendship we had, how we would go out to the bar together, and the things he would talk about. He had been having affairs with his students which added to the interest. It would be so easy to insert and mesh my life with his. The truth is I really did not know him at all.

Judyth's so-called Russian statements to Oswald when they allegedly first met are preposterous. Furthermore, Judyth's recall of statements between her and Oswald is not only amazing but also preposterous. It makes Romeo and Juliet look like a slap-stick comedy. Listen to Oswald's radio interviews and his statements in Dallas such as "a policeman hit me." Yes, Oswald was intelligent but he was not educated. Judyth's Oswald makes James Bond look like a character from Hee Haw. Listen to him. Can you picture this Oswald making the tearful heartrenching statements about Judyth having babies? Would the worst soap opera on television even think about putting such dialog in their show? When you were in the marines could you picture yourself saying such things to your wife or girlfriend? Did Oswald not have enough on his schedule with having a wife, a child, and a new born baby, and his travel and activities, that he could or would fit in this elaborate affair with Judyth? Did Oswald not have feelings towards his newly born child? If their love was so deep and the future so fragile why did Judyth not become pregnant? Who would know whose child it was?

How difficult is it to create accounts for times where Oswalds whereabouts or activities were unknown? It seems like that every time something cannot be accounted for then, lo and behold, Judyth happens to be there. Every single unknown woman Oswald happened to be seen with turns out to be, Surprise, Judyth.

Again, I am not questioning that Oswald was bright, but do you believe he was an intellectual? JFK was not an intellectual. Oswald had an IQ of 118, Kennedy 119. Obama has an IQ of 126. Ironically, the president with the highest IQ was Nixon with 164. Judyth said Oswald's favorite poet was Pushkin. I have learned a lot about Pushkin and I don't think so. He certainly did not check out any books by Pushkin at the Dallas library. Where are the books? It would be like me telling everyone that I read some Shakespearian plays everyday for light reading until I have the opportunity to read something more entertaining like "The epistomology of Statistical Analysis when comparing river sediment in Brazil."

I can go on and on. Judyth is obviously very bright which makes her ability to create an account more plausible. After reading everything she has done I am beginning to believe that this poor woman was cheated out of all the Nobel prizes. Whatever the truth is, Judyth is a damaged witness. She has read too much. When she tells of something she has done it is virtually followed by a Wilkepedia article oin the subject. She is tainted. She knows where the holes can be found in the Oswald story and thus knows where she can safely insert herself. She is too good. She can account for virtually every moment. When she can't it was because she got rammed head on by a rhinocerous and momentarily lost her memory which then comes back. If something turns out to be wrong it is because it is an unauthorized account which happened to have gotten stolen. Who writes unauthorized accounts? Humans are fallible. One of the things I argued about the validity of Nick Prencipe was his fallibility.He could have researched Greer and knew exactly where to put himself having a conversation with his friend William Greer. His uncertainty and mistakes are what gave him credibility. The human mind distorts details after 40 years but certain things are remembered. I can tell you what a great party I was at 2 years ago and some people fell into a pool but I can't tell you everyone who was there and if I did I might remember someone being there who was not there.

These are concerns. I am not passing a final judgment on Judyth. You, with your contacts with her, are indeed in a better position than I to evaluate her. You may ultimately be right. However, because of her research, she is virtually worthless as a witness. In big cases, we were always concerned about overpreparing a witness to where their account seems contrived. I once had a case with a young girl who was a CSC victim. I wanted her to be prepared for whatever questions that might come her way. I would talk with her. At first her head would be down and she could only whisper. I would give her a tootsie roll pop each time. One day she came in my office smiling and said "Mr. Weldon, he put his penis in my vagina. Could I have a sucker?" I was crushed. Judyth has overprepared herself to the extent that she has lost, if it was there, the ring of truth. She is the witness that an opposing attorney would drool to cross-examine.

All of us are only here for a moment. I respect everyone who has devoted themselves in an honest way to finding truth. It is thankless and often the best result is simply to be ridiculed. Do you doubt that Jack or Lifton have a motive other than truth? Did Armstrong give up 12 years of his life and the money and time for all of the "fame" this has now brought him. I think Barb, Jerry, and even Pamela care. Otherwise it's not worth it. People have become skiddish on this thread. Toi silence someone is not to convince them. How many people on this forum do you believe you have convinced that Judyth is the real deal? You know I am religious. Whether Judyth is truthful or not, may God bless her. I do hope truth will prevail, that right will triumph wrong, and as Garrison noted, that virtue shallbe its own reward.

Warm regards,

Doug

Edited April 25, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Doug Weldon]

JIM REPLIES TO DOUG WELDON ABOUT HIS ABSURD TAKE ON JUDYTH VARY BAKER

This appears to be the voice of a guilty conscience from someone who has not been paying attention. It

has only recently dawned upon me that Doug Weldon has a certain streak of arrogance about him. He is

among those whose work I have admired in the past--where I have defended him many times, just as I

have Jack and Lifton--but who somehow wants to do it his own way, which of course is also fine with me.

When I read what Jack had posted, it upset me tremendously, and I called David Lifton to ask if he had

been the author of that post. David assured me that he had not. In light of this (to my mind, ridiculous)

post by Doug Weldon, I now surmise that it was he who wrote to Jack, as I imagine he had done several

times. He thinks I was wrong to condemn Jack for posting his cruel post, and he wants to make amends.

He can correct me if I am wrong, but that appears to be his motivation. I am profoundly disappointed that

this man would marshall so much effort to publish such rubbish. If anything has become clear during the

course of this thread, it is that Judyth was where she claimed to have been associating with exactly those

she identified and doing precisely what she always claimed to have been doing. That much is utterly clear.

She was a brilliant, young, talented and idealistic woman who thought she might make a difference in the

battle against cancer. She was recruited by Alton Ochsner to come to New Orleans with the promise of a

fellowship and early admission to medical school. She worked with Mary Sherman and David Ferrie on one

of the most covert medical research projects in American history. And she was protected by Lee H. Oswald!

Doug Weldon has such vast belief in his powers of observation and reasoning that he does not understand

that this woman's entire life was lived out in about six-month's time. She was obsessive-compulsive about

every detail of her existence in New Orleans and absorbed what was happening around her like a sponge.

She kept records and documents and receipts and knows the details of that entire interval of her existence.

And that is because IT WAS HER ENTIRE LIFE. I am obsessive-compulsive myself. Ask my wife. I kept every

cancelled check I had ever written until I was around 60 years of age. Judyth, I have observed to myself and

perhaps occasionally on this thread, is smarter than anyone else here--including me! Doug has never had an

encounter with someone like her. He didn't believe her story. And now he is here feebly trying to explain why.

Feeling guilty because I broke off with Jack for posting a rubbish attack that should have been beneath them

both, Weldon has come here to display (what he takes to be) his vast sophistication and powers of reasoning

by making claims that might be true in most cases but do not apply to Judyth. He even disregards Ed Haslam's

astonishing research, which provides the framework within which Judyth's stunning story has to be understood.

There is more fakery and fraud in this single post from Doug Weldon than in the hundreds of posts that I have

exchanged with Judyth. Why anyone would think that I would allow myself to be taken in if she were a fraud

is beyond me. Am I not supposed to grasp that my reputation and credibility is on the line? Am I not able to

see what is so clear to Jack and to Dough and to others here who are not convinced by what she has to say?

The extent of the ops against Judyt boggle the mind if she actually were a fraud. The fact is that Doug Weldon

has posted this even after Howard Platzman has made some of the most discerning observations of them all:

(1) How well the totality of her testimony and documents explains mysteries that haunt the case better than any other extant story. For one of many instances, her explanation of the Clinton-Jackson witnesses is far more believable than any that has been offered elsewhere, even by Joan Mellen who brags that this is her expertise yet delivers a story that is ultimately incoherent.

(2) How well it predicts future finds and generates productive leads. In fact, her story of Clinton-Jackson "predicted" 60 Minutes' finding of an FBI report that Garrison was about to indict Alton Ochsner. Though king of INCA, his name has not come up in connection with any conspiracy to kill anyone. In fact, he was conspiring to kill Castro, with Judyth's help. but Garrison never quite figured this out -- it is fascinating to read his Playboy interview that includes musings about Ferrie and a bioweapon aimed at Castro.

The research community needs to go back to school. Standards for what count as evidence -- and for how much evidence is enough evidence -- are generally lacking in those who consider themselves professional researchers, whereas so many of them are just plain not (pace Jim, Jack White's maunderings have always struct me as below par). As for whose anti-Judyth work deserves serious attention, I am inclined to think that Barb J holds first place. She has actually made phone calls and spoken to witnesses (not to Judyth, alas).

The problem with Barb is that she doesn't realize that what she found fundamentally supports Judyth's claims! Barb tried to refute Judyth's claim that she did any serious work at Roswell when, in fact, she proved the opposite. Judyth was heartbroken over the loss of the paper she wrote based on her Roswell studies. In the end, Barb found the abstract to the paper. I thanked her for her diligence and contribution to the cause. She didn't seem to understand -- or didn't want to.

Doug may have been reading posts, but he hasn't been paying attention. I would take one Judyth over a dozen

Weldons, Whites, and others unnamed. At this point in time, there is no excuse for anyone to doubt the identity

of Judyth Vary Baker. Read what Howard has said. He has it exactly right. Most of those here, with the notable

exception of Michael Hogan, seem to think this is some kind of magical mystery tour. But it is too serious for that.

Judyth has reponded more openly and in greater detail than anyone I have ever seen. Her experiences during

that concentrated period of time were virtually imprinted upon her memory--which, like her mind in general, is

far superior to that of most of those here. What Doug has said might fit most people, but Judyth never was one

of them. She is simply a superior human being who has sacrificed her life doing what she believed to be right!

Reread what Howard has to said. Study Ed Haslam's book. She was lured to New Orleans. She met Ochsner.

She worked with Mary Sharman and David Farrie. She did all the things she said she has done and they were

welcome and appreciated in New Orleans just as she has explained it. Nothing else makes any sense at all. I

am stunned at the incapacity to think things through by some I have admired in the past. They really should get

over it. Judyth is "the real deal" and what she has to tell us transforms our understanding of the death of JFK.

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.

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

Nothing bothers me more in this thread than this posting. On the windshield thread I noted more than once that one did not have to agree with me to be my friend. Barb, Tink, and Jerry disagree with me about the hole in the windshield but I have no personal animosity towards any of them. I simply believed that the arguments were becoming circuitous and that there was not enough understanding of the witnesses to engage further in a constructive dialog. I was not going to write my book on the thread but I did find portions of the thread to be constructive and at the end I actually held a higher opinion and respect for these people than I did at the beginning. If one has to agree with everything one posits then all of us are going to have a very short list of friends.

Each of us is entitled to an opinion and to weigh the evidence and because one has a higher educational background it does not make their opinion or analysis superior to anothers. I have five years of undergraduate credits, a law degee, a masters degree, and I am 6 course hours short of completing the course work for a P.H.D. in education. I think Joe Biden would rightfully respond to that, "Big F---ing Deal!" My analysis is not superior to anyone's.

I am going to make some personal references. I believe friendships and relationships are what is most important in life. If anyone on this forum believes that we are going to develop a total concensus on the death of JFK and bring people to justice then they are living in a fantasyland. To seek to find truth is not only noble it is imperative to defining the society in which we live and for those who will live after us. I use the rhetorical question of why do old men plant trees that they will never see grow? History will always be the myth that people choose to believe and I, as much as anyone, would like to remove much of the myth that exists about November 22, 1963. It is important but it is not so important that we destroy the friendships and relationships that are truly the essence of our lives. Again, I make a personal reference. It is easy to become obsessed in pursuing the truth in the JFK labrynith. I recall my ex-wife telling me that I seemed to pay more attention to a dead president than I did to her. Sadly, in retrospect, she was often correct. For any endeavor, there is a cost to be paid. The ultimate question is whether the cost was worth it. Sometimes it is. Many times it is not. To do it again, I would have made some different decisions.

The most rewarding aspect of being involved with this for 32 years has been the wonderful people and witnesses I have gotten to know. For the witnesses who trusted me I want to keep my promise to tell their accounts for history but I am under no pretense that everyone is going to agree with me or them and I understand that even to get my book published is likely to be a difficult endeavor. I do, however, value that I got to know these witnesses as people, and in writing my book I often smile as I listen to the conversations I had with these people, many now deceased. I enjoy the researchers I have met, agree or disagree, and I respect everyone of them whom I believe has truth as their objective. It is the personal part of these people that endures for me. It is my privilege to get to know these people, even if it is only a voice on the phone or a posting on the internet. I have met Jack and Jim a number of times. I value that. They are passionate people. Some people walk into a room softly. Others come in driving a truck with horns blaring. We can respect people for who they are and the world needs all of these types.

I cannot accept Judyth's account for a number of reasons. Jim, I have watched her on TMWKK. To be honest, when I copy the segments from 2003 and give them to people I often leave out her segment because I fear it detracts from the value of episode 7, on which both you and I appeared, and segment 9. The fact that Nigel Turner believes her really means nothing. I do not believe that there was an altruistic motive for Nigel in his productions but he was motivated by it being a commercial enterprise. I am not fooling myself. Nigel spent days at my house on several occasions. If my opinion was that Oswald did it alone I doubt that my charm would have captivated his time and attention. As Jim Garrison said about the Warren Commission and being told that they were important or distinquished people had no impact on his examination of the evidence.

I have read Haslam's book with great interest. Again, I submit a personal reference. In 2001 I had non-hodgkin's lymphoma and on the Men Who Killed Kennedy I was bloated and my eyes were distorted from Chemo. What is interesting about this cancer is that it is one of the cancers that are increasing and they are finding that a large portion of the people with the cancer have evidence of the "Monkey Virus." It is that, not Judyth, which stirred my interest in the book. Ironically, Jackie Kennedy died of this cancer!

There are many things which cause me concern about Judyth. I will only note a few. One of the arguments in favor of her credibility has been that a researcher went over the known timeline of Oswald's whereabouts and activities and she got everything right. A major reason I doubt her is that she got everything right. Can you tell me everything your wife did the first week of October 2009 yet 40 plus years ago? How about what you did?

Judyth remembers EVERYTHING Oswald told her. He must have been talking from morning to night and she would have to be a stenographer to keep track of everything. How could she ever remember the japanese girl or David Phillips and other names and instances that would have no meaning to her. If somewhat shot names or stories at you forty years ago that had no meaning to you would you remember them? Why would you save your pay stubbs and records? Do you have yours from 45 years ago? Again, a personal reference. While I was teaching in the criminal justice department at Western Michigan Universityyears ago, I shared an office with a former police officer, who the following semester murdered his wife, who was a leading local newscaster. It was the first case ever on Court Television and the prosecuter was an individual I shared rides with my first year in law school. There have been three books written about the murder. How easy would it be for me to start talking about the great friendship we had, how we would go out to the bar together, and the things he would talk about. He had been having affairs with his students which added to the interest. It would be so easy to insert and mesh my life with his. The truth is I really did not know him at all.

Judyth's so-called Russian statements to Oswald when they allegedly first met are preposterous. Furthermore, Judyth's recall of statements between her and Oswald is not only amazing but also preposterous. It makes Romeo and Juliet look like a slap-stick comedy. Listen to Oswald's radio interviews and his statements in Dallas such as "a policeman hit me." Yes, Oswald was intelligent but he was not educated. Judyth's Oswald makes James Bond look like a character from Hee Haw. Listen to him. Can you picture this Oswald making the tearful heartrenching statements about Judyth having babies? Would the worst soap opera on television even think about putting such dialog in their show? When you were in the marines could you picture yourself saying such things to your wife or girlfriend? Did Oswald not have enough on his schedule with having a wife, a child, and a new born baby, and his travel and activities, that he could or would fit in this elaborate affair with Judyth? Did Oswald not have feelings towards his newly born child? If their love was so deep and the future so fragile why did Judyth not become pregnant? Who would know whose child it was?

How difficult is it to create accounts for times where Oswalds whereabouts or activities were unknown? It seems like that every time something cannot be accounted for then, lo and behold, Judyth happens to be there. Every single unknown woman Oswald happened to be seen with turns out to be, Surprise, Judyth.

Again, I am not questioning that Oswald was bright, but do you believe he was an intellectual? JFK was not an intellectual. Oswald had an IQ of 118, Kennedy 119. Obama has an IQ of 126. Ironically, the president with the highest IQ was Nixon with 164. Judyth said Oswald's favorite poet was Pushkin. I have learned a lot about Pushkin and I don't think so. He certainly did not check out any books by Pushkin at the Dallas library. Where are the books? It would be like me telling everyone that I read some Shakespearian plays everyday for light reading until I have the opportunity to read something more entertaining like "The epistomology of Statistical Analysis when comparing river sediment in Brazil."

I can go on and on. Judyth is obviously very bright which makes her ability to create an account more plausible. After reading everything she has done I am beginning to believe that this poor woman was cheated out of all the Nobel prizes. Whatever the truth is, Judyth is a damaged witness. She has read too much. When she tells of something she has done it is virtually followed by a Wilkepedia article oin the subject. She is tainted. She knows where the holes can be found in the Oswald story and thus knows where she can safely insert herself. She is too good. She can account for virtually every moment. When she can't it was because she got rammed head on by a rhinocerous and momentarily lost her memory which then comes back. If something turns out to be wrong it is because it is an unauthorized account which happened to have gotten stolen. Who writes unauthorized accounts? Humans are fallible. One of the things I argued about the validity of Nick Prencipe was his fallibility.He could have researched Greer and knew exactly where to put himself having a conversation with his friend William Greer. His uncertainty and mistakes are what gave him credibility. The human mind distorts details after 40 years but certain things are remembered. I can tell you what a great party I was at 2 years ago and some people fell into a pool but I can't tell you everyone who was there and if I did I might remember someone being there who was not there.

These are concerns. I am not passing a final judgment on Judyth. You, with your contacts with her, are indeed in a better position than I to evaluate her. You may ultimately be right. However, because of her research, she is virtually worthless as a witness. In big cases, we were always concerned about overpreparing a witness to where their account seems contrived. I once had a case with a young girl who was a CSC victim. I wanted her to be prepared for whatever questions that might come her way. I would talk with her. At first her head would be down and she could only whisper. I would give her a tootsie roll pop each time. One day she came in my office smiling and said "Mr. Weldon, he put his penis in my vagina. Could I have a sucker?" I was crushed. Judyth has overprepared herself to the extent that she has lost, if it was there, the ring of truth. She is the witness that an opposing attorney would drool to cross-examine.

All of us are only here for a moment. I respect everyone who has devoted themselves in an honest way to finding truth. It is thankless and often the best result is simply to be ridiculed. Do you doubt that Jack or Lifton have a motive other than truth? Did Armstrong give up 12 years of his life and the money and time for all of the "fame" this has now brought him. I think Barb, Jerry, and even Pamela care. Otherwise it's not worth it. People have become skiddish on this thread. Toi silence someone is not to convince them. How many people on this forum do you believe you have convinced that Judyth is the real deal? You know I am religious. Whether Judyth is truthful or not, may God bless her. I do hope truth will prevail, that right will triumph wrong, and as Garrison noted, that virtue shallbe its own reward.

Warm regards,

Doug

Jim:

I can accept whatever observations and criticisms made about me. In fact, I would rather they be directed at me than Jack or Lifton, both of who have more prominence in the JFK community and connections to you than I. Again, I do want to emphasize that I have had no contact with Jack about you or Judyth I have no problem with you being right about Judyth but I stand by what I wrote. I will not be buying her book.

To Josiah, Yes, I believe the sprial nebulae is important, but I am not going to pretend to be a photographic expert. I await the work of Martin and others.

Doug

[Pat Speer]

Yes, that was a fine post by Doug. It made sense. Too much sense.

Which is why we can't trust it... LOL.

[Doug Weldon]

JIM REPLIES TO DOUG WELDON ABOUT HIS ABSURD TAKE ON JUDYTH VARY BAKER

This appears to be the voice of a guilty conscience from someone who has not been paying attention. It

has only recently dawned upon me that Doug Weldon has a certain streak of arrogance about him. He is

among those whose work I have admired in the past--where I have defended him many times, just as I

have Jack and Lifton--but who somehow wants to do it his own way, which of course is also fine with me.

When I read what Jack had posted, it upset me tremendously, and I called David Lifton to ask if he had

been the author of that post. David assured me that he had not. In light of this (to my mind, ridiculous)

post by Doug Weldon, I now surmise that it was he who wrote to Jack, as I imagine he had done several

times. He thinks I was wrong to condemn Jack for posting his cruel post, and he wants to make amends.

He can correct me if I am wrong, but that appears to be his motivation. I am profoundly disappointed that

this man would marshall so much effort to publish such rubbish. If anything has become clear during the

course of this thread, it is that Judyth was where she claimed to have been associating with exactly those

she identified and doing precisely what she always claimed to have been doing. That much is utterly clear.

She was a brilliant, young, talented and idealistic woman who thought she might make a difference in the

battle against cancer. She was recruited by Alton Ochsner to come to New Orleans with the promise of a

fellowship and early admission to medical school. She worked with Mary Sherman and David Ferrie on one

of the most covert medical research projects in American history. And she was protected by Lee H. Oswald!

Doug Weldon has such vast belief in his powers of observation and reasoning that he does not understand

that this woman's entire life was lived out in about six-month's time. She was obsessive-compulsive about

every detail of her existence in New Orleans and absorbed what was happening around her like a sponge.

She kept records and documents and receipts and knows the details of that entire interval of her existence.

And that is because IT WAS HER ENTIRE LIFE. I am obsessive-compulsive myself. Ask my wife. I kept every

cancelled check I had ever written until I was around 60 years of age. Judyth, I have observed to myself and

perhaps occasionally on this thread, is smarter than anyone else here--including me! Doug has never had an

encounter with someone like her. He didn't believe her story. And now he is here feebly trying to explain why.

Feeling guilty because I broke off with Jack for posting a rubbish attack that should have been beneath them

both, Weldon has come here to display (what he takes to be) his vast sophistication and powers of reasoning

by making claims that might be true in most cases but do not apply to Judyth. He even disregards Ed Haslam's

astonishing research, which provides the framework within which Judyth's stunning story has to be understood.

There is more fakery and fraud in this single post from Doug Weldon than in the hundreds of posts that I have

exchanged with Judyth. Why anyone would think that I would allow myself to be taken in if she were a fraud

is beyond me. Am I not supposed to grasp that my reputation and credibility is on the line? Am I not able to

see what is so clear to Jack and to Dough and to others here who are not convinced by what she has to say?

The extent of the ops against Judyt boggle the mind if she actually were a fraud. The fact is that Doug Weldon

has posted this even after Howard Platzman has made some of the most discerning observations of them all:

(1) How well the totality of her testimony and documents explains mysteries that haunt the case better than any other extant story. For one of many instances, her explanation of the Clinton-Jackson witnesses is far more believable than any that has been offered elsewhere, even by Joan Mellen who brags that this is her expertise yet delivers a story that is ultimately incoherent.

(2) How well it predicts future finds and generates productive leads. In fact, her story of Clinton-Jackson "predicted" 60 Minutes' finding of an FBI report that Garrison was about to indict Alton Ochsner. Though king of INCA, his name has not come up in connection with any conspiracy to kill anyone. In fact, he was conspiring to kill Castro, with Judyth's help. but Garrison never quite figured this out -- it is fascinating to read his Playboy interview that includes musings about Ferrie and a bioweapon aimed at Castro.

The research community needs to go back to school. Standards for what count as evidence -- and for how much evidence is enough evidence -- are generally lacking in those who consider themselves professional researchers, whereas so many of them are just plain not (pace Jim, Jack White's maunderings have always struct me as below par). As for whose anti-Judyth work deserves serious attention, I am inclined to think that Barb J holds first place. She has actually made phone calls and spoken to witnesses (not to Judyth, alas).

The problem with Barb is that she doesn't realize that what she found fundamentally supports Judyth's claims! Barb tried to refute Judyth's claim that she did any serious work at Roswell when, in fact, she proved the opposite. Judyth was heartbroken over the loss of the paper she wrote based on her Roswell studies. In the end, Barb found the abstract to the paper. I thanked her for her diligence and contribution to the cause. She didn't seem to understand -- or didn't want to.

Doug may have been reading posts, but he hasn't been paying attention. I would take one Judyth over a dozen

Weldons, Whites, and others unnamed. At this point in time, there is no excuse for anyone to doubt the identity

of Judyth Vary Baker. Read what Howard has said. He has it exactly right. Most of those here, with the notable

exception of Michael Hogan, seem to think this is some kind of magical mystery tour. But it is too serious for that.

Judyth has reponded more openly and in greater detail than anyone I have ever seen. Her experiences during

that concentrated period of time were virtually imprinted upon her memory--which, like her mind in general, is

far superior to that of most of those here. What Doug has said might fit most people, but Judyth never was one

of them. She is simply a superior human being who has sacrificed her life doing what she believed to be right!

Reread what Howard has to said. Study Ed Haslam's book. She was lured to New Orleans. She met Ochsner.

She worked with Mary Sharman and David Farrie. She did all the things she said she has done and they were

welcome and appreciated in New Orleans just as she has explained it. Nothing else makes any sense at all. I

am stunned at the incapacity to think things through by some I have admired in the past. They really should get

over it. Judyth is "the real deal" and what she has to tell us transforms our understanding of the death of JFK.

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.

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

Nothing bothers me more in this thread than this posting. On the windshield thread I noted more than once that one did not have to agree with me to be my friend. Barb, Tink, and Jerry disagree with me about the hole in the windshield but I have no personal animosity towards any of them. I simply believed that the arguments were becoming circuitous and that there was not enough understanding of the witnesses to engage further in a constructive dialog. I was not going to write my book on the thread but I did find portions of the thread to be constructive and at the end I actually held a higher opinion and respect for these people than I did at the beginning. If one has to agree with everything one posits then all of us are going to have a very short list of friends.

Each of us is entitled to an opinion and to weigh the evidence and because one has a higher educational background it does not make their opinion or analysis superior to anothers. I have five years of undergraduate credits, a law degee, a masters degree, and I am 6 course hours short of completing the course work for a P.H.D. in education. I think Joe Biden would rightfully respond to that, "Big F---ing Deal!" My analysis is not superior to anyone's.

I am going to make some personal references. I believe friendships and relationships are what is most important in life. If anyone on this forum believes that we are going to develop a total concensus on the death of JFK and bring people to justice then they are living in a fantasyland. To seek to find truth is not only noble it is imperative to defining the society in which we live and for those who will live after us. I use the rhetorical question of why do old men plant trees that they will never see grow? History will always be the myth that people choose to believe and I, as much as anyone, would like to remove much of the myth that exists about November 22, 1963. It is important but it is not so important that we destroy the friendships and relationships that are truly the essence of our lives. Again, I make a personal reference. It is easy to become obsessed in pursuing the truth in the JFK labrynith. I recall my ex-wife telling me that I seemed to pay more attention to a dead president than I did to her. Sadly, in retrospect, she was often correct. For any endeavor, there is a cost to be paid. The ultimate question is whether the cost was worth it. Sometimes it is. Many times it is not. To do it again, I would have made some different decisions.

The most rewarding aspect of being involved with this for 32 years has been the wonderful people and witnesses I have gotten to know. For the witnesses who trusted me I want to keep my promise to tell their accounts for history but I am under no pretense that everyone is going to agree with me or them and I understand that even to get my book published is likely to be a difficult endeavor. I do, however, value that I got to know these witnesses as people, and in writing my book I often smile as I listen to the conversations I had with these people, many now deceased. I enjoy the researchers I have met, agree or disagree, and I respect everyone of them whom I believe has truth as their objective. It is the personal part of these people that endures for me. It is my privilege to get to know these people, even if it is only a voice on the phone or a posting on the internet. I have met Jack and Jim a number of times. I value that. They are passionate people. Some people walk into a room softly. Others come in driving a truck with horns blaring. We can respect people for who they are and the world needs all of these types.

I cannot accept Judyth's account for a number of reasons. Jim, I have watched her on TMWKK. To be honest, when I copy the segments from 2003 and give them to people I often leave out her segment because I fear it detracts from the value of episode 7, on which both you and I appeared, and segment 9. The fact that Nigel Turner believes her really means nothing. I do not believe that there was an altruistic motive for Nigel in his productions but he was motivated by it being a commercial enterprise. I am not fooling myself. Nigel spent days at my house on several occasions. If my opinion was that Oswald did it alone I doubt that my charm would have captivated his time and attention. As Jim Garrison said about the Warren Commission and being told that they were important or distinquished people had no impact on his examination of the evidence.

I have read Haslam's book with great interest. Again, I submit a personal reference. In 2001 I had non-hodgkin's lymphoma and on the Men Who Killed Kennedy I was bloated and my eyes were distorted from Chemo. What is interesting about this cancer is that it is one of the cancers that are increasing and they are finding that a large portion of the people with the cancer have evidence of the "Monkey Virus." It is that, not Judyth, which stirred my interest in the book. Ironically, Jackie Kennedy died of this cancer!

There are many things which cause me concern about Judyth. I will only note a few. One of the arguments in favor of her credibility has been that a researcher went over the known timeline of Oswald's whereabouts and activities and she got everything right. A major reason I doubt her is that she got everything right. Can you tell me everything your wife did the first week of October 2009 yet 40 plus years ago? How about what you did?

Judyth remembers EVERYTHING Oswald told her. He must have been talking from morning to night and she would have to be a stenographer to keep track of everything. How could she ever remember the japanese girl or David Phillips and other names and instances that would have no meaning to her. If somewhat shot names or stories at you forty years ago that had no meaning to you would you remember them? Why would you save your pay stubbs and records? Do you have yours from 45 years ago? Again, a personal reference. While I was teaching in the criminal justice department at Western Michigan Universityyears ago, I shared an office with a former police officer, who the following semester murdered his wife, who was a leading local newscaster. It was the first case ever on Court Television and the prosecuter was an individual I shared rides with my first year in law school. There have been three books written about the murder. How easy would it be for me to start talking about the great friendship we had, how we would go out to the bar together, and the things he would talk about. He had been having affairs with his students which added to the interest. It would be so easy to insert and mesh my life with his. The truth is I really did not know him at all.

Judyth's so-called Russian statements to Oswald when they allegedly first met are preposterous. Furthermore, Judyth's recall of statements between her and Oswald is not only amazing but also preposterous. It makes Romeo and Juliet look like a slap-stick comedy. Listen to Oswald's radio interviews and his statements in Dallas such as "a policeman hit me." Yes, Oswald was intelligent but he was not educated. Judyth's Oswald makes James Bond look like a character from Hee Haw. Listen to him. Can you picture this Oswald making the tearful heartrenching statements about Judyth having babies? Would the worst soap opera on television even think about putting such dialog in their show? When you were in the marines could you picture yourself saying such things to your wife or girlfriend? Did Oswald not have enough on his schedule with having a wife, a child, and a new born baby, and his travel and activities, that he could or would fit in this elaborate affair with Judyth? Did Oswald not have feelings towards his newly born child? If their love was so deep and the future so fragile why did Judyth not become pregnant? Who would know whose child it was?

How difficult is it to create accounts for times where Oswalds whereabouts or activities were unknown? It seems like that every time something cannot be accounted for then, lo and behold, Judyth happens to be there. Every single unknown woman Oswald happened to be seen with turns out to be, Surprise, Judyth.

Again, I am not questioning that Oswald was bright, but do you believe he was an intellectual? JFK was not an intellectual. Oswald had an IQ of 118, Kennedy 119. Obama has an IQ of 126. Ironically, the president with the highest IQ was Nixon with 164. Judyth said Oswald's favorite poet was Pushkin. I have learned a lot about Pushkin and I don't think so. He certainly did not check out any books by Pushkin at the Dallas library. Where are the books? It would be like me telling everyone that I read some Shakespearian plays everyday for light reading until I have the opportunity to read something more entertaining like "The epistomology of Statistical Analysis when comparing river sediment in Brazil."

I can go on and on. Judyth is obviously very bright which makes her ability to create an account more plausible. After reading everything she has done I am beginning to believe that this poor woman was cheated out of all the Nobel prizes. Whatever the truth is, Judyth is a damaged witness. She has read too much. When she tells of something she has done it is virtually followed by a Wilkepedia article oin the subject. She is tainted. She knows where the holes can be found in the Oswald story and thus knows where she can safely insert herself. She is too good. She can account for virtually every moment. When she can't it was because she got rammed head on by a rhinocerous and momentarily lost her memory which then comes back. If something turns out to be wrong it is because it is an unauthorized account which happened to have gotten stolen. Who writes unauthorized accounts? Humans are fallible. One of the things I argued about the validity of Nick Prencipe was his fallibility.He could have researched Greer and knew exactly where to put himself having a conversation with his friend William Greer. His uncertainty and mistakes are what gave him credibility. The human mind distorts details after 40 years but certain things are remembered. I can tell you what a great party I was at 2 years ago and some people fell into a pool but I can't tell you everyone who was there and if I did I might remember someone being there who was not there.

These are concerns. I am not passing a final judgment on Judyth. You, with your contacts with her, are indeed in a better position than I to evaluate her. You may ultimately be right. However, because of her research, she is virtually worthless as a witness. In big cases, we were always concerned about overpreparing a witness to where their account seems contrived. I once had a case with a young girl who was a CSC victim. I wanted her to be prepared for whatever questions that might come her way. I would talk with her. At first her head would be down and she could only whisper. I would give her a tootsie roll pop each time. One day she came in my office smiling and said "Mr. Weldon, he put his penis in my vagina. Could I have a sucker?" I was crushed. Judyth has overprepared herself to the extent that she has lost, if it was there, the ring of truth. She is the witness that an opposing attorney would drool to cross-examine.

All of us are only here for a moment. I respect everyone who has devoted themselves in an honest way to finding truth. It is thankless and often the best result is simply to be ridiculed. Do you doubt that Jack or Lifton have a motive other than truth? Did Armstrong give up 12 years of his life and the money and time for all of the "fame" this has now brought him. I think Barb, Jerry, and even Pamela care. Otherwise it's not worth it. People have become skiddish on this thread. Toi silence someone is not to convince them. How many people on this forum do you believe you have convinced that Judyth is the real deal? You know I am religious. Whether Judyth is truthful or not, may God bless her. I do hope truth will prevail, that right will triumph wrong, and as Garrison noted, that virtue shallbe its own reward.

Warm regards,

Doug

Jim:

I can accept whatever observations and criticisms made about me. In fact, I would rather they be directed at me than Jack or Lifton, both of who have more prominence in the JFK community and connections to you than I. Again, I do want to emphasize that I have had no contact with Jack about you or Judyth I have no problem with you being right about Judyth but I stand by what I wrote. I will not be buying her book.

To Josiah, Yes, I believe the sprial nebulae is important, but I am not going to pretend to be a photographic expert. I await the work of Martin and others.

Doug

Jack White:

I am giving you my permission to post all my e-mails to you or outline any communications to you about Jim or Judyth. This is becoming so absurd.

Doug Weldon

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Look, people, it comes down to the evidence, a concept much more complex than most JFK researchers seem to think. It is a matter not of how many things Judyth gets wrong (Anna Lewis and Judyth disagreed about details, but Anna made and reiterated her support in the face of serious intimidation). It is a matter of:

(1) How well the totality of her testimony and documents explains mysteries that haunt the case better than any other extant story. For one of many instances, her explanation of the Clinton-Jackson witnesses is far more believable than any that has been offered elsewhere, even by Joan Mellen who brags that this is her expertise yet delivers a story that is ultimately incoherent.

(2) How well it predicts future finds and generates productive leads. In fact, her story of Clinton-Jackson "predicted" 60 Minutes' finding of an FBI report that Garrison was about to indict Alton Ochsner. Though king of INCA, his name has not come up in connection with any conspiracy to kill anyone. In fact, he was conspiring to kill Castro, with Judyth's help. but Garrison never quite figured this out -- it is fascinating to read his Playboy interview that includes musings about Ferrie and a bioweapon aimed at Castro.

The research community needs to go back to school. Standards for what count as evidence -- and for how much evidence is enough evidence -- are generally lacking in those who consider themselves professional researchers, whereas so many of them are just plain not (pace Jim, Jack White's maunderings have always struct me as below par). As for whose anti-Judyth work deserves serious attention, I am inclined to think that Barb J holds first place. She has actually made phone calls and spoken to witnesses (not to Judyth, alas).

The problem with Barb is that she doesn't realize that what she found fundamentally supports Judyth's claims! Barb tried to refute Judyth's claim that she did any serious work at Roswell when, in fact, she proved the opposite. Judyth was heartbroken over the loss of the paper she wrote based on her Roswell studies. In the end, Barb found the abstract to the paper. I thanked her for her diligence and contribution to the cause. She didn't seem to understand -- or didn't want to.

Barb did confirm that Judyth got into trouble for trying to move from her isolated quarters at Roswell to where the other young scholars were living that summer -- a story, BTW, she related to me in 1999. Barb believes that Judyth was tossed out of the program for this violation. Judyth insists she was merely reprimanded. But this is a red herring. What is important is that Barb turned up the paper's abstract. I find it almost funny that she should commend herself for not burying her finding -- for being a principled researcher! (Shouldn't that go without boasting? Perhaps not in the JFK research community.) She might as well have buried it since her tack after producing it was to run as fast as she could in the opposite direction (kind of like what Mellen did). So Barb ends up dancing around the only issue of real importance: the existence and content of the abstract and how it might be related to what Judyth was to do in 1963.

Ever the steadfast researcher, she interviewed a goodly horde of people. She sought the opinions of other students, the fellow Mirand who was most peeved at her for seeking less isolated digs, ex-high-school acquaintances, et al. Judyth may not have been universally liked (much as she may have wanted to be) because she was not a typical girl. She was a wunderkind, with all kinds of self-confidence. Maybe they saw her as odd. I'm sure they never understood why she was physically separated from the other students (I'm not sure even whether Judyth herself understood at the time). Too, she was the only one who worked directly with the Center's director, George Moore (whose own history is startlingly relevant to what Judyth was to do in 1963). But why should we care about ANY of this? Barb found the abstract, and it shows that Judyth did the work she claimed she did, whatever else she did or didn't do. Frankly, it matters not a whit if she never got an official certificate for completing the program (point of argument, not point conceded). Papers speak louder

than certificates. I'm sure I still have a science fair certificate in my basement somewhere.

PLEASE ASK BARB TO SUMMARIZE HER UNDERSTANDING OF THE PAPER THAT JUDYTH WROTE. You will find, as I did, that she is not up to it (although she has had a couple of years to examine it since she found it) -- which renders hollow her initial insistence that the Roswell sojourn was probably no more significant than a prolonged student science fair. Judyth may not have presented the paper to the field's leading lights; still, she presented the paper to professionals -- while, unfortunately, misremembering the precise name of the group that sponsored her lecture, another red herring Barb was only too happy to use to obscure the true impact of her findings.

Although we don't have the paper itself, the existing abstract gives one a sense of the content and sophistication of the work she did. So, somebody should ask Barb, as I did to no avail, what was the paper about? Does Barb care to engage Judyth in public dialogue on the subject? Judyth should have been Barb's first interviewee. Were she, she may have been the last. Barb never considered actually talking to the witness she made it her mission to trash! Is that how "real researchers" conduct their business?

Howard

Howard, Fetzer posted most of this on your behalf nearly a couple weeks ago ... I replied to it thoroughly at that time. It is post #964, it appears on page 65, posted on April 6th.

Much of what you posted about what I believe and what I was told re Roswell Park is in error. Please do read what I wrote in that post this time. Please refer to the entire post, but, in short, here are my replies to some of your specific comments and erroneous assertions:

HOWARD'S COMMENTS are italicized below, followed by my responses:

I dropped away from Barb's research adventure after it became clear that she could not see the clear implication of what she discovered. She tries to refute J's claim that she did any serious work at Roswell when, in fact, she proved the opposite.

All the students in the RP summer program are engaged in doing serious work with their mentors. That's what the program is for. It is quite the opportunity for outstanding science students.

Judyth lost the paper she wrote up based on her Roswell work and was heartbroken about it. In the end, Barb found the abstract for it. I thanked her for her diligence and her success -- and I meant it. She didn't seem to understand -- or didn't want to.

And you know there was a paper written up and presented at Roswell at the end of the program, because??? I know, Judyth told you so. :-) Did she also tell you that the abstract for the presentation while at St. Francis College in Indiana was the same abstract for this Roswell paper? Even Martin understood the difference. And how about those vouching nuns?

Barb did confirm that Judyth got into trouble for trying to move off site -- something I was made aware of in 1999. She believes that Judyth was tossed out of the program for this violation.

TILT! No one lived on site. And I did not confirm any such thing about any housing violation, that was Judyth's story after I posted that according to RP, she had been dismissed from the program. I was told, via e-mail, from the dean of students, a vice-president of RP and a professor ... all rolled into one person ... that Judyth, "never finished the Program as she was dismissed." Thanks to multiple Team Judyth members immediately swarming all over RP which I had advised against, RP shut down on info. I believe you once said that you alone had called them 6 times. Way to go, Howard! The information I was given was confirmed through an independent source a year or so ago though.

By the way, Howard, are you aware that Judyth now claims that she only attended the summer program on the side ... that she was actually "embedded" in Dr. Moore's lab?

Your comment on this new claim and change in story?

Judyth insists she was merely reprimanded. But this is a red herring. What is important is that Barb turned up the abstract the paper Judyth wrote -- and (see her quote) actually takes credit, believe it or not, for not burying her finding. Wow! A principled researcher! She might as well have buried it since her tack after producing it was to run quickly away from the true impact of it. She danced around the only issue of real importance: the existence and content of the abstract and how Judyth's experience related to what Judyth was to do in 1963.

I found no paper ... I found the abstract from the presentation she made along with a nun professor for the Indiana Academy of Science in the Fall of 1961.

Notably, there is no mention of any sort, not even acknowledgment, of Roswell Park, of Dr. Moore or the summer program. She does relate in her book how she got busy with her cancer work as soon as she got to school. A few weeks later, she and the nun did this presentation.

Two weeks later Judyth withdrew from the college ... she tells two different stories about when that was in relation to Halloween.

I only mentioned that if I had not brought the abstract forward, no one would ever have been the wiser in response to commentary from some ...Pam mostly, as I recall ... that I only selectively use whatever I discover, that I "cherrypick" the info, selectively quote and only use info detrimental to Judyth. Which, of course, is utter BS and demonstrably so. Not my fault that of all the claims I have sought verification on, this abstract/presentation is the only thing I was able to confirm. ;-) And, at that, the name of the organization, the details about the presentation, where it was held and why it was not printed in full in their proceedings is all quite contrary to the information I learned and posted. Judyth did, by the way, make a distinction between her alleged Roswell paper and this abstract .... for one thing, by claiming that she was accompanied by 3 PhD nuns to present her paper ... they were along to "vouch" for her ability and that it was her own work, that one nun had seen her do it, etc. That was when she was running with the wrong name of the organization and claiming her paper wasn't printed because she was only 18 and a freshman in college and they were "embarrassed" .... which is not the case at all accordng to the Indiana Academy of Science ... they look for students with interesting projects to present, and lay people as well ... and have a Junior Academy group for kids through high school as well.

Ever the steadfast researcher, she interviewed a goodly horde of people. She asked other students for their opinions of Judyth and the fellow Mirand who was most peeved at her for seeking off-campus digs, ex-high-school acquaintances, et al. Judyth may not have been universally liked (much as she may have wanted to be) because she was not a typical girl. She was a wunderkind with all kinds of self-confidence. Maybe they saw her as odd. For some reason I'm sure they never understood (I'm not sure even whether she herself understood at the time, she was physically separated from the other students. She was the only one who worked directly with the Center's director, George Moore (whose own history is highly suggestive), and the only one not allowed to live at the university dorm with the other girls. Mirand said "other" girls were housed at the "Y' with her, but Judyth met none of them.

You've got the wrong girl, Howard, when it comes to any of Judyths ex-high school acquaintances. I have never communicated with any of them. I did seek and locate other students from the Roswell summer program ... I did that before I posted the info I received from Roswell Park (at least one of them anyway) as a way to double check the info I had received from Roswell Park.

And I will add here that I did it by getting information about the program from the students **before** ever mentioning Judyth's name .... and when I did, I mentioned a few other students names as well and asked them if they remembered any of them. I in no way infected them about the program or Judyth until I had all the info they could give me.

But why should we care about ANY of this? Barb found the abstract, and it shows that Judyth did the work she claimed she did, whatever else she did or didn't do. Frankly, it matters not a whit if she never got an official certificate for completing the program (point of argument, not point conceded). Papers speak louder than certificates. I still have a science fair certificate in the basement somewhere.

How do you know there was a paper presented at Roswell Park? Or certificates? :-)

PLEASE ASK BARBARA TO SUMMARIZE HER UNDERSTANDING OF THE PAPER THAT JUDYTH WROTE. You will find, as I did, that she is not up to it -- which renders hollow her initial insistence that the Roswell sojourn was probably no more significant than a prolonged student science fair. Judyth may not have presented the paper to the field's leading lights; still, she presented the paper to professionals -- while, unfortunately, remembering only the name of the informal group that encouraged her to present her lecture, but not remembering the organization that acually heard it -- another red herring Barb is only too happy to use to obscure the true impact of her finding.

The Roswell Park summer program is no science fair .... nor is it a dog and pony show. The students work with their mentors on whatever their mentors and their team of associates are working on. Quite an experience for talented young students .... some are asked to return and attend other years, some do for several more years through college. Somewhere early on it was raised by someone that it sounded like a "summer camp" ... that really does not characterize it correctly, though students can, depending on their mentor or on their own free time, explore many departments and ongoing projects around the facilities.

According to Judyth's own accounting, she presented her paper to the group of 68 students ... and she probably includes their mentors and others in that scenario as well. I don't run on Judyth's sayso for anything without verification. :-)

Judyth's abstract speaks for itself. The title is, "Studies on the Increase in vitro of Mitotic Activity and Melangenesis in the RMPI HA #5 (7113) Strain Melano. The abstract is just 2 paragraphs long. Her experiment involved a hamster with melanoma (from a human source) and seeing if certain media and assorted concentrations of various amino acids would have an impact on the speed at which the melanoma would grow/flourish. Preliminary results seemed to show that could the case ... which then opens the door for study that if giving a growing melanoma A, B, or C makes it grow faster ... will depriving it of A, B, C inhibit its growth ... thus perhaps leading to a way to stop melanoma in its tracks. Anyone with any sort of handle on basic biology and medical terminology can understand the premise ... the specifics that the person doing this sort of thing must know about the media, amino acids, keeping cancer happy and flourishing, etc are other factors. Those other factors not in my realm of knowledge for sure.

The abstract is notable for this comment:

Although results are inconclusive at this date ...

This was an initial, early study .... one that looked like it had promise, but far from being complete or telling about much of anything. While this abstract could have been expanded into some sort of paper with explanations of the procedures used and definitions of the assorted media and amino acids, etc, just what do you think would have been fodder for a completed paper here. And you are amazed, I expect, that she did all this in just 6 or so weeks from the time school started until October 19th, the date of the presentation. All rhetorical only.

Again, what is notable that is not included in the abstract, in my opinion, is any acknowledgment of Roswell Park ... or Dr. George Moore ... despite naming the RPMI media, which Moore developed/discovered, anywhere ... especially given that she had just completed the summer program there, by her account, with accolades heaped upon her. Judyth will, no doubt, claim that Moore forbade her to mention anything about him or her being at Roswell Park lest the secret bioweapon research he and Ochsner were supposedly directing her in be exposed. If that's the case, then what nonsense for her to be presenting on this subject at all ... especially utilizing RPMI. Way to run a secret cover operation!

Although we have been unable to recover the paper itself, the existing abstract gives one a sense of the content and sophistication of the work she did. So, Barb, what was the paper about? Care to engage Judyth in a dialogue on the subject? She should have been your first interviewee. Were she, she may have been your last.

Agree...the abstract gives a sense of the work she was able to do at that point having just spent some period of time in the RP program and learning about Moore's work and media. I already said what the paper was about above. Am surprised you have to ask, Howard. Why on earth would I want to "engage Judyth in dialogue on the subject" of her "paper"?

Judyth engaged me pretty early on via e-mail ... dodging a couple of specific laboratory questions and then trying to appeal to me "woman to woman" on having affairs. Gag. One does not need to engage Judyth to evaluate her claims. Unless, of course, like you, one is just going to lap up anything she says and run with it as fact. Sorry, not the way I roll.

Been nice, Howard ... I chose to thoroughly respond to you here. It's not a subject that I am interested in discussing any further at the moment, perhaps after her new book comes out.

I noted here early on that when Judyth's new book was announced, I took a little vacation from all things Judyth ... there are some more things completed, others in process, and others yet to be started -- I do not intend to delve into anything further than has already been posted from when I began doing some fact checking in early 2008 through when her new book was announced. That shouldn't be a mystery to you, and given some of what she has posted in this thread ... it was a good choice on my part. :-)

I appreciate your comments about my research, Howard. Actually, you were pretty much my favorite member of Team Judyth. You just weren't around much by the time I got involved.

Again ... my original reply to all this is post #964, page 65. Please see that.

Barb :-)

[Dean Hagerman]

Judyth, I have observed to myself and perhaps occasionally on this thread, is smarter than anyone else here--including me!

I would take one Judyth over a dozen Weldons, Whites, and others unnamed.

Jim these two statements are the most outlandish thing I have ever read in my entire life

[Jack White]

Jim seems to be determined to lash out out the researcher who said that JVB had an emotional problem.

Therefore, I am compelled to state:

IT WAS NOT A BEWILDERED DAVID LIFTON, WHOM JIM CALLED AND CUSSED OUT.

IT WAS NOT DOUG WELDON, WHO IS MORE POLITE AND SOFT SPOKEN THAN ANY RESEARCHER I KNOW.

Jim ought not to keep making such accusatory guesses. More than a dozen researchers have emailed

me expressing concern that Jim has gone off the deep end and is ruining all the credibility and good will

he has built up. If he eventually guesses the researcher, what will it gain him...another tongue-lashing

opportunity?

I wish Jim could see himself as OTHERS are seeing him.

Jack

JIM REPLIES TO DOUG WELDON ABOUT HIS ABSURD TAKE ON JUDYTH VARY BAKER

This appears to be the voice of a guilty conscience from someone who has not been paying attention. It

has only recently dawned upon me that Doug Weldon has a certain streak of arrogance about him. He is

among those whose work I have admired in the past--where I have defended him many times, just as I

have Jack and Lifton--but who somehow wants to do it his own way, which of course is also fine with me.

When I read what Jack had posted, it upset me tremendously, and I called David Lifton to ask if he had

been the author of that post. David assured me that he had not. In light of this (to my mind, ridiculous)

post by Doug Weldon, I now surmise that it was he who wrote to Jack, as I imagine he had done several

times. He thinks I was wrong to condemn Jack for posting his cruel post, and he wants to make amends.

He can correct me if I am wrong, but that appears to be his motivation. I am profoundly disappointed that

this man would marshall so much effort to publish such rubbish. If anything has become clear during the

course of this thread, it is that Judyth was where she claimed to have been associating with exactly those

she identified and doing precisely what she always claimed to have been doing. That much is utterly clear.

She was a brilliant, young, talented and idealistic woman who thought she might make a difference in the

battle against cancer. She was recruited by Alton Ochsner to come to New Orleans with the promise of a

fellowship and early admission to medical school. She worked with Mary Sherman and David Ferrie on one

of the most covert medical research projects in American history. And she was protected by Lee H. Oswald!

Doug Weldon has such vast belief in his powers of observation and reasoning that he does not understand

that this woman's entire life was lived out in about six-month's time. She was obsessive-compulsive about

every detail of her existence in New Orleans and absorbed what was happening around her like a sponge.

She kept records and documents and receipts and knows the details of that entire interval of her existence.

And that is because IT WAS HER ENTIRE LIFE. I am obsessive-compulsive myself. Ask my wife. I kept every

cancelled check I had ever written until I was around 60 years of age. Judyth, I have observed to myself and

perhaps occasionally on this thread, is smarter than anyone else here--including me! Doug has never had an

encounter with someone like her. He didn't believe her story. And now he is here feebly trying to explain why.

Feeling guilty because I broke off with Jack for posting a rubbish attack that should have been beneath them

both, Weldon has come here to display (what he takes to be) his vast sophistication and powers of reasoning

by making claims that might be true in most cases but do not apply to Judyth. He even disregards Ed Haslam's

astonishing research, which provides the framework within which Judyth's stunning story has to be understood.

There is more fakery and fraud in this single post from Doug Weldon than in the hundreds of posts that I have

exchanged with Judyth. Why anyone would think that I would allow myself to be taken in if she were a fraud

is beyond me. Am I not supposed to grasp that my reputation and credibility is on the line? Am I not able to

see what is so clear to Jack and to Dough and to others here who are not convinced by what she has to say?

The extent of the ops against Judyt boggle the mind if she actually were a fraud. The fact is that Doug Weldon

has posted this even after Howard Platzman has made some of the most discerning observations of them all:

(1) How well the totality of her testimony and documents explains mysteries that haunt the case better than any other extant story. For one of many instances, her explanation of the Clinton-Jackson witnesses is far more believable than any that has been offered elsewhere, even by Joan Mellen who brags that this is her expertise yet delivers a story that is ultimately incoherent.

(2) How well it predicts future finds and generates productive leads. In fact, her story of Clinton-Jackson "predicted" 60 Minutes' finding of an FBI report that Garrison was about to indict Alton Ochsner. Though king of INCA, his name has not come up in connection with any conspiracy to kill anyone. In fact, he was conspiring to kill Castro, with Judyth's help. but Garrison never quite figured this out -- it is fascinating to read his Playboy interview that includes musings about Ferrie and a bioweapon aimed at Castro.

The research community needs to go back to school. Standards for what count as evidence -- and for how much evidence is enough evidence -- are generally lacking in those who consider themselves professional researchers, whereas so many of them are just plain not (pace Jim, Jack White's maunderings have always struct me as below par). As for whose anti-Judyth work deserves serious attention, I am inclined to think that Barb J holds first place. She has actually made phone calls and spoken to witnesses (not to Judyth, alas).

The problem with Barb is that she doesn't realize that what she found fundamentally supports Judyth's claims! Barb tried to refute Judyth's claim that she did any serious work at Roswell when, in fact, she proved the opposite. Judyth was heartbroken over the loss of the paper she wrote based on her Roswell studies. In the end, Barb found the abstract to the paper. I thanked her for her diligence and contribution to the cause. She didn't seem to understand -- or didn't want to.

Doug may have been reading posts, but he hasn't been paying attention. I would take one Judyth over a dozen

Weldons, Whites, and others unnamed. At this point in time, there is no excuse for anyone to doubt the identity

of Judyth Vary Baker. Read what Howard has said. He has it exactly right. Most of those here, with the notable

exception of Michael Hogan, seem to think this is some kind of magical mystery tour. But it is too serious for that.

Judyth has reponded more openly and in greater detail than anyone I have ever seen. Her experiences during

that concentrated period of time were virtually imprinted upon her memory--which, like her mind in general, is

far superior to that of most of those here. What Doug has said might fit most people, but Judyth never was one

of them. She is simply a superior human being who has sacrificed her life doing what she believed to be right!

Reread what Howard has to said. Study Ed Haslam's book. She was lured to New Orleans. She met Ochsner.

She worked with Mary Sharman and David Farrie. She did all the things she said she has done and they were

welcome and appreciated in New Orleans just as she has explained it. Nothing else makes any sense at all. I

am stunned at the incapacity to think things through by some I have admired in the past. They really should get

over it. Judyth is "the real deal" and what she has to tell us transforms our understanding of the death of JFK.

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.

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

Nothing bothers me more in this thread than this posting. On the windshield thread I noted more than once that one did not have to agree with me to be my friend. Barb, Tink, and Jerry disagree with me about the hole in the windshield but I have no personal animosity towards any of them. I simply believed that the arguments were becoming circuitous and that there was not enough understanding of the witnesses to engage further in a constructive dialog. I was not going to write my book on the thread but I did find portions of the thread to be constructive and at the end I actually held a higher opinion and respect for these people than I did at the beginning. If one has to agree with everything one posits then all of us are going to have a very short list of friends.

Each of us is entitled to an opinion and to weigh the evidence and because one has a higher educational background it does not make their opinion or analysis superior to anothers. I have five years of undergraduate credits, a law degee, a masters degree, and I am 6 course hours short of completing the course work for a P.H.D. in education. I think Joe Biden would rightfully respond to that, "Big F---ing Deal!" My analysis is not superior to anyone's.

I am going to make some personal references. I believe friendships and relationships are what is most important in life. If anyone on this forum believes that we are going to develop a total concensus on the death of JFK and bring people to justice then they are living in a fantasyland. To seek to find truth is not only noble it is imperative to defining the society in which we live and for those who will live after us. I use the rhetorical question of why do old men plant trees that they will never see grow? History will always be the myth that people choose to believe and I, as much as anyone, would like to remove much of the myth that exists about November 22, 1963. It is important but it is not so important that we destroy the friendships and relationships that are truly the essence of our lives. Again, I make a personal reference. It is easy to become obsessed in pursuing the truth in the JFK labrynith. I recall my ex-wife telling me that I seemed to pay more attention to a dead president than I did to her. Sadly, in retrospect, she was often correct. For any endeavor, there is a cost to be paid. The ultimate question is whether the cost was worth it. Sometimes it is. Many times it is not. To do it again, I would have made some different decisions.

The most rewarding aspect of being involved with this for 32 years has been the wonderful people and witnesses I have gotten to know. For the witnesses who trusted me I want to keep my promise to tell their accounts for history but I am under no pretense that everyone is going to agree with me or them and I understand that even to get my book published is likely to be a difficult endeavor. I do, however, value that I got to know these witnesses as people, and in writing my book I often smile as I listen to the conversations I had with these people, many now deceased. I enjoy the researchers I have met, agree or disagree, and I respect everyone of them whom I believe has truth as their objective. It is the personal part of these people that endures for me. It is my privilege to get to know these people, even if it is only a voice on the phone or a posting on the internet. I have met Jack and Jim a number of times. I value that. They are passionate people. Some people walk into a room softly. Others come in driving a truck with horns blaring. We can respect people for who they are and the world needs all of these types.

I cannot accept Judyth's account for a number of reasons. Jim, I have watched her on TMWKK. To be honest, when I copy the segments from 2003 and give them to people I often leave out her segment because I fear it detracts from the value of episode 7, on which both you and I appeared, and segment 9. The fact that Nigel Turner believes her really means nothing. I do not believe that there was an altruistic motive for Nigel in his productions but he was motivated by it being a commercial enterprise. I am not fooling myself. Nigel spent days at my house on several occasions. If my opinion was that Oswald did it alone I doubt that my charm would have captivated his time and attention. As Jim Garrison said about the Warren Commission and being told that they were important or distinquished people had no impact on his examination of the evidence.

I have read Haslam's book with great interest. Again, I submit a personal reference. In 2001 I had non-hodgkin's lymphoma and on the Men Who Killed Kennedy I was bloated and my eyes were distorted from Chemo. What is interesting about this cancer is that it is one of the cancers that are increasing and they are finding that a large portion of the people with the cancer have evidence of the "Monkey Virus." It is that, not Judyth, which stirred my interest in the book. Ironically, Jackie Kennedy died of this cancer!

There are many things which cause me concern about Judyth. I will only note a few. One of the arguments in favor of her credibility has been that a researcher went over the known timeline of Oswald's whereabouts and activities and she got everything right. A major reason I doubt her is that she got everything right. Can you tell me everything your wife did the first week of October 2009 yet 40 plus years ago? How about what you did?

Judyth remembers EVERYTHING Oswald told her. He must have been talking from morning to night and she would have to be a stenographer to keep track of everything. How could she ever remember the japanese girl or David Phillips and other names and instances that would have no meaning to her. If somewhat shot names or stories at you forty years ago that had no meaning to you would you remember them? Why would you save your pay stubbs and records? Do you have yours from 45 years ago? Again, a personal reference. While I was teaching in the criminal justice department at Western Michigan Universityyears ago, I shared an office with a former police officer, who the following semester murdered his wife, who was a leading local newscaster. It was the first case ever on Court Television and the prosecuter was an individual I shared rides with my first year in law school. There have been three books written about the murder. How easy would it be for me to start talking about the great friendship we had, how we would go out to the bar together, and the things he would talk about. He had been having affairs with his students which added to the interest. It would be so easy to insert and mesh my life with his. The truth is I really did not know him at all.

Judyth's so-called Russian statements to Oswald when they allegedly first met are preposterous. Furthermore, Judyth's recall of statements between her and Oswald is not only amazing but also preposterous. It makes Romeo and Juliet look like a slap-stick comedy. Listen to Oswald's radio interviews and his statements in Dallas such as "a policeman hit me." Yes, Oswald was intelligent but he was not educated. Judyth's Oswald makes James Bond look like a character from Hee Haw. Listen to him. Can you picture this Oswald making the tearful heartrenching statements about Judyth having babies? Would the worst soap opera on television even think about putting such dialog in their show? When you were in the marines could you picture yourself saying such things to your wife or girlfriend? Did Oswald not have enough on his schedule with having a wife, a child, and a new born baby, and his travel and activities, that he could or would fit in this elaborate affair with Judyth? Did Oswald not have feelings towards his newly born child? If their love was so deep and the future so fragile why did Judyth not become pregnant? Who would know whose child it was?

How difficult is it to create accounts for times where Oswalds whereabouts or activities were unknown? It seems like that every time something cannot be accounted for then, lo and behold, Judyth happens to be there. Every single unknown woman Oswald happened to be seen with turns out to be, Surprise, Judyth.

Again, I am not questioning that Oswald was bright, but do you believe he was an intellectual? JFK was not an intellectual. Oswald had an IQ of 118, Kennedy 119. Obama has an IQ of 126. Ironically, the president with the highest IQ was Nixon with 164. Judyth said Oswald's favorite poet was Pushkin. I have learned a lot about Pushkin and I don't think so. He certainly did not check out any books by Pushkin at the Dallas library. Where are the books? It would be like me telling everyone that I read some Shakespearian plays everyday for light reading until I have the opportunity to read something more entertaining like "The epistomology of Statistical Analysis when comparing river sediment in Brazil."

I can go on and on. Judyth is obviously very bright which makes her ability to create an account more plausible. After reading everything she has done I am beginning to believe that this poor woman was cheated out of all the Nobel prizes. Whatever the truth is, Judyth is a damaged witness. She has read too much. When she tells of something she has done it is virtually followed by a Wilkepedia article oin the subject. She is tainted. She knows where the holes can be found in the Oswald story and thus knows where she can safely insert herself. She is too good. She can account for virtually every moment. When she can't it was because she got rammed head on by a rhinocerous and momentarily lost her memory which then comes back. If something turns out to be wrong it is because it is an unauthorized account which happened to have gotten stolen. Who writes unauthorized accounts? Humans are fallible. One of the things I argued about the validity of Nick Prencipe was his fallibility.He could have researched Greer and knew exactly where to put himself having a conversation with his friend William Greer. His uncertainty and mistakes are what gave him credibility. The human mind distorts details after 40 years but certain things are remembered. I can tell you what a great party I was at 2 years ago and some people fell into a pool but I can't tell you everyone who was there and if I did I might remember someone being there who was not there.

These are concerns. I am not passing a final judgment on Judyth. You, with your contacts with her, are indeed in a better position than I to evaluate her. You may ultimately be right. However, because of her research, she is virtually worthless as a witness. In big cases, we were always concerned about overpreparing a witness to where their account seems contrived. I once had a case with a young girl who was a CSC victim. I wanted her to be prepared for whatever questions that might come her way. I would talk with her. At first her head would be down and she could only whisper. I would give her a tootsie roll pop each time. One day she came in my office smiling and said "Mr. Weldon, he put his penis in my vagina. Could I have a sucker?" I was crushed. Judyth has overprepared herself to the extent that she has lost, if it was there, the ring of truth. She is the witness that an opposing attorney would drool to cross-examine.

All of us are only here for a moment. I respect everyone who has devoted themselves in an honest way to finding truth. It is thankless and often the best result is simply to be ridiculed. Do you doubt that Jack or Lifton have a motive other than truth? Did Armstrong give up 12 years of his life and the money and time for all of the "fame" this has now brought him. I think Barb, Jerry, and even Pamela care. Otherwise it's not worth it. People have become skiddish on this thread. Toi silence someone is not to convince them. How many people on this forum do you believe you have convinced that Judyth is the real deal? You know I am religious. Whether Judyth is truthful or not, may God bless her. I do hope truth will prevail, that right will triumph wrong, and as Garrison noted, that virtue shallbe its own reward.

Warm regards,

Doug

Jim:

I can accept whatever observations and criticisms made about me. In fact, I would rather they be directed at me than Jack or Lifton, both of who have more prominence in the JFK community and connections to you than I. Again, I do want to emphasize that I have had no contact with Jack about you or Judyth I have no problem with you being right about Judyth but I stand by what I wrote. I will not be buying her book.

To Josiah, Yes, I believe the sprial nebulae is important, but I am not going to pretend to be a photographic expert. I await the work of Martin and others.

Doug

[Jack White]

Jack White:

I am giving you my permission to post all my e-mails to you or outline any communications to you about Jim or Judyth. This is becoming so absurd.

Doug Weldon

Doug...I have examined all of my emails for 2010, and I had only TWO emails from you,

both asking questions about unrelated photo matters.

I DO NOT HAVE A SINGLE EMAIL FROM DOUG WELDON RELATED TO JIM FETZER OR JVB.

This is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Jack

Edited April 20, 2010 by Jack White

[Kathleen Collins]

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.

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

Nothing bothers me more in this thread than this posting. On the windshield thread I noted more than once that one did not have to agree with me to be my friend. Barb, Tink, and Jerry disagree with me about the hole in the windshield but I have no personal animosity towards any of them. I simply believed that the arguments were becoming circuitous and that there was not enough understanding of the witnesses to engage further in a constructive dialog. I was not going to write my book on the thread but I did find portions of the thread to be constructive and at the end I actually held a higher opinion and respect for these people than I did at the beginning. If one has to agree with everything one posits then all of us are going to have a very short list of friends.

Each of us is entitled to an opinion and to weigh the evidence and because one has a higher educational background it does not make their opinion or analysis superior to anothers. I have five years of undergraduate credits, a law degee, a masters degree, and I am 6 course hours short of completing the course work for a P.H.D. in education. I think Joe Biden would rightfully respond to that, "Big F---ing Deal!" My analysis is not superior to anyone's.

I am going to make some personal references. I believe friendships and relationships are what is most important in life. If anyone on this forum believes that we are going to develop a total concensus on the death of JFK and bring people to justice then they are living in a fantasyland. To seek to find truth is not only noble it is imperative to defining the society in which we live and for those who will live after us. I use the rhetorical question of why do old men plant trees that they will never see grow? History will always be the myth that people choose to believe and I, as much as anyone, would like to remove much of the myth that exists about November 22, 1963. It is important but it is not so important that we destroy the friendships and relationships that are truly the essence of our lives. Again, I make a personal reference. It is easy to become obsessed in pursuing the truth in the JFK labrynith. I recall my ex-wife telling me that I seemed to pay more attention to a dead president than I did to her. Sadly, in retrospect, she was often correct. For any endeavor, there is a cost to be paid. The ultimate question is whether the cost was worth it. Sometimes it is. Many times it is not. To do it again, I would have made some different decisions.

The most rewarding aspect of being involved with this for 32 years has been the wonderful people and witnesses I have gotten to know. For the witnesses who trusted me I want to keep my promise to tell their accounts for history but I am under no pretense that everyone is going to agree with me or them and I understand that even to get my book published is likely to be a difficult endeavor. I do, however, value that I got to know these witnesses as people, and in writing my book I often smile as I listen to the conversations I had with these people, many now deceased. I enjoy the researchers I have met, agree or disagree, and I respect everyone of them whom I believe has truth as their objective. It is the personal part of these people that endures for me. It is my privilege to get to know these people, even if it is only a voice on the phone or a posting on the internet. I have met Jack and Jim a number of times. I value that. They are passionate people. Some people walk into a room softly. Others come in driving a truck with horns blaring. We can respect people for who they are and the world needs all of these types.

I cannot accept Judyth's account for a number of reasons. Jim, I have watched her on TMWKK. To be honest, when I copy the segments from 2003 and give them to people I often leave out her segment because I fear it detracts from the value of episode 7, on which both you and I appeared, and segment 9. The fact that Nigel Turner believes her really means nothing. I do not believe that there was an altruistic motive for Nigel in his productions but he was motivated by it being a commercial enterprise. I am not fooling myself. Nigel spent days at my house on several occasions. If my opinion was that Oswald did it alone I doubt that my charm would have captivated his time and attention. As Jim Garrison said about the Warren Commission and being told that they were important or distinquished people had no impact on his examination of the evidence.

I have read Haslam's book with great interest. Again, I submit a personal reference. In 2001 I had non-hodgkin's lymphoma and on the Men Who Killed Kennedy I was bloated and my eyes were distorted from Chemo. What is interesting about this cancer is that it is one of the cancers that are increasing and they are finding that a large portion of the people with the cancer have evidence of the "Monkey Virus." It is that, not Judyth, which stirred my interest in the book. Ironically, Jackie Kennedy died of this cancer!

There are many things which cause me concern about Judyth. I will only note a few. One of the arguments in favor of her credibility has been that a researcher went over the known timeline of Oswald's whereabouts and activities and she got everything right. A major reason I doubt her is that she got everything right. Can you tell me everything your wife did the first week of October 2009 yet 40 plus years ago? How about what you did?

Judyth remembers EVERYTHING Oswald told her. He must have been talking from morning to night and she would have to be a stenographer to keep track of everything. How could she ever remember the japanese girl or David Phillips and other names and instances that would have no meaning to her. If somewhat shot names or stories at you forty years ago that had no meaning to you would you remember them? Why would you save your pay stubbs and records? Do you have yours from 45 years ago? Again, a personal reference. While I was teaching in the criminal justice department at Western Michigan Universityyears ago, I shared an office with a former police officer, who the following semester murdered his wife, who was a leading local newscaster. It was the first case ever on Court Television and the prosecuter was an individual I shared rides with my first year in law school. There have been three books written about the murder. How easy would it be for me to start talking about the great friendship we had, how we would go out to the bar together, and the things he would talk about. He had been having affairs with his students which added to the interest. It would be so easy to insert and mesh my life with his. The truth is I really did not know him at all.

Judyth's so-called Russian statements to Oswald when they allegedly first met are preposterous. Furthermore, Judyth's recall of statements between her and Oswald is not only amazing but also preposterous. It makes Romeo and Juliet look like a slap-stick comedy. Listen to Oswald's radio interviews and his statements in Dallas such as "a policeman hit me." Yes, Oswald was intelligent but he was not educated. Judyth's Oswald makes James Bond look like a character from Hee Haw. Listen to him. Can you picture this Oswald making the tearful heartrenching statements about Judyth having babies? Would the worst soap opera on television even think about putting such dialog in their show? When you were in the marines could you picture yourself saying such things to your wife or girlfriend? Did Oswald not have enough on his schedule with having a wife, a child, and a new born baby, and his travel and activities, that he could or would fit in this elaborate affair with Judyth? Did Oswald not have feelings towards his newly born child? If their love was so deep and the future so fragile why did Judyth not become pregnant? Who would know whose child it was?

How difficult is it to create accounts for times where Oswalds whereabouts or activities were unknown? It seems like that every time something cannot be accounted for then, lo and behold, Judyth happens to be there. Every single unknown woman Oswald happened to be seen with turns out to be, Surprise, Judyth.

Again, I am not questioning that Oswald was bright, but do you believe he was an intellectual? JFK was not an intellectual. Oswald had an IQ of 118, Kennedy 119. Obama has an IQ of 126. Ironically, the president with the highest IQ was Nixon with 164. Judyth said Oswald's favorite poet was Pushkin. I have learned a lot about Pushkin and I don't think so. He certainly did not check out any books by Pushkin at the Dallas library. Where are the books? It would be like me telling everyone that I read some Shakespearian plays everyday for light reading until I have the opportunity to read something more entertaining like "The epistomology of Statistical Analysis when comparing river sediment in Brazil."

I can go on and on. Judyth is obviously very bright which makes her ability to create an account more plausible. After reading everything she has done I am beginning to believe that this poor woman was cheated out of all the Nobel prizes. Whatever the truth is, Judyth is a damaged witness. She has read too much. When she tells of something she has done it is virtually followed by a Wilkepedia article oin the subject. She is tainted. She knows where the holes can be found in the Oswald story and thus knows where she can safely insert herself. She is too good. She can account for virtually every moment. When she can't it was because she got rammed head on by a rhinocerous and momentarily lost her memory which then comes back. If something turns out to be wrong it is because it is an unauthorized account which happened to have gotten stolen. Who writes unauthorized accounts? Humans are fallible. One of the things I argued about the validity of Nick Prencipe was his fallibility.He could have researched Greer and knew exactly where to put himself having a conversation with his friend William Greer. His uncertainty and mistakes are what gave him credibility. The human mind distorts details after 40 years but certain things are remembered. I can tell you what a great party I was at 2 years ago and some people fell into a pool but I can't tell you everyone who was there and if I did I might remember someone being there who was not there.

These are concerns. I am not passing a final judgment on Judyth. You, with your contacts with her, are indeed in a better position than I to evaluate her. You may ultimately be right. However, because of her research, she is virtually worthless as a witness. In big cases, we were always concerned about overpreparing a witness to where their account seems contrived. I once had a case with a young girl who was a CSC victim. I wanted her to be prepared for whatever questions that might come her way. I would talk with her. At first her head would be down and she could only whisper. I would give her a tootsie roll pop each time. One day she came in my office smiling and said "Mr. Weldon, he put his penis in my vagina. Could I have a sucker?" I was crushed. Judyth has overprepared herself to the extent that she has lost, if it was there, the ring of truth. She is the witness that an opposing attorney would drool to cross-examine.

All of us are only here for a moment. I respect everyone who has devoted themselves in an honest way to finding truth. It is thankless and often the best result is simply to be ridiculed. Do you doubt that Jack or Lifton have a motive other than truth? Did Armstrong give up 12 years of his life and the money and time for all of the "fame" this has now brought him. I think Barb, Jerry, and even Pamela care. Otherwise it's not worth it. People have become skiddish on this thread. Toi silence someone is not to convince them. How many people on this forum do you believe you have convinced that Judyth is the real deal? You know I am religious. Whether Judyth is truthful or not, may God bless her. I do hope truth will prevail, that right will triumph wrong, and as Garrison noted, that virtue shallbe its own reward.

Warm regards,

Doug

Aside from Bill Kelly's right-on remark, this is the clearest and most heartfelt post on this thread. I'm afraid what Doug has said is true. That Judyth is an expert researcher. I'm sure she had a glorious past regarding her scientific experiments, which past should have continued for her. Why it didn't, I don't know. I laughed the first time I heard a woman was claiming that she had a love affair with Lee Harvey Oswald. Of all the people in history, I thought. I have decided that Judyth did not have a romance with LHO. But I certainly don't mean her harm. I can't see Oswald doing cancer experiments on mice. How did he come to be doing that? He comes over from Russia to work with mice urine and tumors in a coffee company?

Oswald, then, couldn't have been a very smart guy. Didn't he know Kennedy was going to be driven down Elm St.? Kennedy's limo turned the corner right in front of the building where he worked. When did it sink in that he's going to be the patsy?

I still believe in John Armstrong's theory of the 2 Oswalds, which started at their birth probably. Nazi scientists had been doing experiments with twins. Our CIA probably did too.

Kathy C

Edited April 20, 2010 by Kathleen Collins

[Jack White]

Jim wrote:

Ed Haslam, who subjected Judyth to the most intensive scruity, who grew up in New Orleans and who knows the

place like the back of his hand, has made the point that, within the range of human fallibility, he believes that

Judyth has told the truth to the best of her ability--and he has known those who have disagreed about what

happened when they were in the same room at the time of its occurrence, which many of us know to be true.

He points out one of the striking aspects of Judyth's story. When she went to meet Alton Ochsner, who had been

the President of the American Cancer Society, LEE WENT IN FIRST. As he emphasizes on pages 321-322, this

is a rather profound point. Ochsner would later claim that Oswald was a communist and the lone assassin, yet

he knew Lee well enough that Lee MET WITH HIM ALONE before he brought Judyth Vary in to meet with him.

Jim has not been reading what he has been posting from JVB:

About a week ago, Judyth denied this story, saying LHO did NOT take her to see Ochsner as was written; that

it was a misinterpretation of what she said by Howard Platzman, because Ochsner was in South America at that

time. So now, we have Jim contradicting Judyth. So Haslam, Platzman and Fetzer now tell a story that JVB contradicts.

Ho hum.

Jack