Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[Don Jeffries]

This extremely long thread exemplifies all the problems that have existed for decades, and continue to exist, within the JFK assassination research community. Good people arguing passionately over aspects of this case that don't, in all reality, alter the larger, crucial issue of exposing the fallacies of the offical version of events.

Just following the posts on this thread convinced me that, eventually, either Jack or Jim would tell the other they were no longer friends. It took quite a while, but eventually that did happen. Very sad, and unnecessary.

Jim- you should know that I almost always agree with your views on a variety of subjects (JFK assassination, 911, etc.). However, I have to tell you in the most friendly way possible that it is very hard for anyone-even someone who is in agreement with you virtually all the time-to support the style in which you post your thoughts. Just becaue someone disagrees with you on a particular point doesn't mean that they have no credibility, or are morally suspect. I think I told you a while back, in a p.m., that you were losing debates you should be winning, on the basis of your objectionable tone, even though the substance of your posts, and the evidence you cited, was solid. In plain English, the manner in which you disagree with people is bound to alienate not only them, but neutral observers who would otherwise be sympathetic to your arguments.

On the other hand, I have disagreed often with Barb J. on some aspects of this case. However, in this instance, she has provided solid research which contradicted many of Judyth's claims. That doesn't mean I now agree with her about the hole in the windshield, location of the back wound or anything else. I am objective enough to admit that she's done impressive work on this thread. That doesn't make me your enemy, and I hope you will understand that.

I hope that Judyth appreciates the fervor of your support. You are certainly a strong ally for anyone to have, and I hope if I ever need defending that you'll be on my side. I tend to agree with Jack's assertion, early in this thread, that Judyth's story, even if completely true, is just not critically important to assassination research. Most of us already believe that Oswald was some kind of undercover agent, and many agree with Jim Garrison's theory that he was on an undercover assignment to infiltrate a JFK assassination plot on November 22, 1963. And, even if all of us believed in her as strongly as you do, the same forces that have obstructed justice in this case for nearly 50 years- mainstream media, government agencies- would certainly not take her seriously, even if they couldn't poke holes in her story as Barb and others here have.

Doug Weldon posted some excellent thoughts here, but you seem not to have heard them. Is total loyalty to everything Judyth has ever said worth the rupture of long time friendships and associations with Jack White and David Lifton? Do you really think that this woman is more important to exposing the truth about the JFK assassination than the author of Best Evidence ? Do you think her personal anecdotes trump the decades of research by Jack White? Do you value her input more than that of Doug Weldon- whose fine work you yourself published?

This thread has resulted in a break between you and Jack, as well as you and David Lifton. There have also been numerous criticisms of John Armstrong and his book Harvey And Lee. I haven't read his book, but have read many excerpts from Jim Hargrove, who had (may still have) a fine web site devoted to promoting Armstrong's work. I don't think that this case will rise or fall on his particular theory, but there is no denying that he produced a lot of solid research, whether he made some mistakes or not. I have a sense you feel that if you can impugn Armstrong's credibility, then that will somehow prove Judyth is the "real deal." You seem to believe that Judyth's recollections are "evidence," even though they are disputed by many (certainly a majority of) researchers.

I bear you no ill well, Jim. This is a very difficult post for me to make. It's hard to tell someone you admire and agree with that his style and tone are getting in the way of the substantive arguments he is presenting. If you could just temper your responses, maybe wait a while before posting a reply, it might make a huge difference in the way you are perceived by many in the critical community. A little humility and self-deprecation make anyone a lot more likeable. And the more likeable you are, the more apt others are to listen to the substance of what you say.

Just my long and rambling unsolicited (and probably unwelcome) input. I hope you don't respond as harshly to me as you have to others, and perhaps actually think about what I've said.

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Fetzer,

You say below:

"Not to suggest that Barb does not understand the nature of the ad hominem

fallacy, but that requires an attack on the person (by suggesting that s/he is

an alcoholic, for example, whose testimony is therefore false or alleging some

one is a fantasist, who should not be believed) rather than evaluating their

arguments on the basis of logic and evidence."

Let's be perfectly clear about one thing, Mr. Fetzer ... I have never ... got that, *never* ....called Judyth an alcoholic

nor a fantasist. I realize you will say you were giving nothing but an explanatory example here, but we both know that is utter BS.

You are stating that is the type of thing I have engaged in re Judyth. it is not.

I have given my opinion on some elements of Judyth's story and I have posted documentation for elements of her story on which I did fact finding.

You are correct in that I understand the ad hominem fallacy quite well ... it's about all you do. And when one resorts to that over and over again, thrashing about, striking out at everyone and everything ... it is, imo, the complete and utter admission of defeat. Those who can present arguments with reason and engage in reasoned debate and exchange ...*do* so.

"Those who repeatly [sic] resort to ad hominem arguments, sarcasm, and ridicule, who offer flimy,[sic] phony,

misleading reasons for their positions, deserve to be viewed as in a different category than

those who do their best to offer objective, balanced evidence supporting

non-fallacious arguments." ~ James Fetzer, post on yahoo jfk group, 12-21-05.

JIM OFFERS SOME OBSERVATIONS ABOUT THE EXCHANGES ON THIS THREAD

Not to suggest that Barb does not understand the nature of the ad hominem

fallacy, but that requires an attack on the person (by suggesting that s/he is

an alcoholic, for example, whose testimony is therefore false or alleging some

one is a fantasist, who should not be believed) rather than evaluating their

arguments on the basis of logic and evidence.

[Glenn Viklund]

Seems to me Jim you are in this up to your ears.

If you have this much faith in Judyth, then why not hop a plane buy her some groceries and arrange a polygraph?

At least the conversation could change to excuses for why she failed it.

Mike,

That's an interesting suggestion.

However, I think you're a bit off at the end; they'd be discussing who the conspirators were that rigged the machine.

As this thread has displayed, there is Jim Fetzer, there is Judyth Vary Baker.

And then there are the conspirators, the collaborators and the traitors.

Cheers,

Glenn

Edited April 21, 2010 by Glenn Viklund

[Mike Williams]

Seems to me Jim you are in this up to your ears.

If you have this much faith in Judyth, then why not hop a plane buy her some groceries and arrange a polygraph?

At least the conversation could change to excuses for why she failed it.

Mike,

That's an interesting suggestion.

However, I think you're a bit off at the end; they'd be discussing who the conspirators were that rigged the machine.

As this thread has displayed, there is Jim Fetzer, there is Judyth Vary Baker.

And then there are the conspirators, the collaborators and the traitors.

Cheers,

Glenn

Glenn,

Man why did I not think of that? Thanks for the laugh of the night.

[Mike Williams]

Don,

If there is nothing more that we ever agree on, you hit the nail on the head here.

We all enjoy the research. I enjoy the material, and the people I have met along the way. I appreciate the friends I have made, and not one single theory, no matter how epic, or how case breaking it might be, would be worth the risk of damaging a single friendship.

I really appreciate this post Don, and I mean that with sincerity.

[Karl Kinaski]

'Mike Williams:Seems to me Jim you are in this up to your ears.

If you have this much faith in Judyth, then why not hop a plane buy her some groceries and arrange a polygraph?

I would rather use a polygraph(and maybe sodium-pentathol and LSD)) to sound out McAdams, Barb and Viklund...

KK Edited June 14, 2015 by Karl Kinaski

[Mike Williams]

'Mike Williams:Seems to me Jim you are in this up to your ears.

If you have this much faith in Judyth, then why not hop a plane buy her some groceries and arrange a polygraph?

I would rather use a polygraph(and maybe sodium-pentathol and LSD)) to sound out McAdams, Barb and Viklund...

KK

I am sure the feeling is mutual.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Don,

Thanks for an extremely appropriate and thoughtful post, which is surely one of the best to have appeared in the history of this thread. My concern has to do with the closed-mindedness of some of Judyth's critics, not whether they ultimately come down on her side or not. Judyth, of course, is the most controversial figure in the history of the assassination, even more so than Madeleine Duncan Brown, with whom I had more than 100 conversations. I became convinced that Madeleine was "the real deal" just as I have become convinced that Judyth is, too. What bothers me is the complete and unwavering commitment to contending that nothing she has to say has any merit, when that is absolutely not the case.

The "double-standard" simply astounds me. Everything Judyth has to say is discarded, while everything Armstrong has to say is accepted. Even when he has committed blunders about the "index" to the supporting volumes and the date of the founding of the Warren Commission, no one--with the except of Michael Hogan--seems to care in the least. These are gross mistakes that occur in the first five or six pages of his book! How am I supposed to respect anyone who is so blindly committed to Armstrong that they cannot acknowledge gross blunders at the very start of his book? I cannot.

And when it comes to more serious questions about the alleged differences between "Harvey" and "Lee", such as their alleged difference in eye color, the claim that "Harvey" was born in Hungary, that "Lee" had a missing tooth, and such, the situation becomes even more bizarre. Judyth has presented a brilliant study of the eye-color issue, which, in my opinion, lays the issue to rest. The alleged difference almost certainly did not exist. And she has observed that the man she knew had no trace of a Hungarian accent, but only a slight Cajun accent, which suggests that that claim is unsupportable, too.

And, of course, the whole Beauregard Junior High School story verges on the absurd. "Harvey" is supposed to have been a student the semester before "Lee" enrolls, which is already a bit of a stretch, but then "Lee" loses a tooth in an altercation, where Lillian Murret remembers the incident and that she paid for his dental visit--except that Lillian was not "Lee"'s aunt but "Harvey"'s. So what is "Harvey"'s aunt doing paying for "Lee"'s dental visit? And the response from Jack is that the Murret's, like Robert, Marina, and Marguerite, must have also known about both "Harvey" and "Lee"!

Now I am willing to grant that Armstrong has amassed an impressive archive of documents and records. But the claim that these key players knew there were "two Oswalds" and never peeped a word about it simply escapes me. Invoking ad hoc hypotheses like this is an indication of desperation in the attempt to retain a theory whose truth has been thereby threatened. And when I suggest that a more reasonable hypothesis would be that Robert--whom Jack has shown to be a "dead ringer" for his brother--may have impersonated him on various occasions, my hypothesis is simply disregarded.

Indeed, Judyth has even shown that some of the photographs alleged to support the existence of "two Oswalds" no more serve as "proof" than the alleged difference in eye-color. Simple considerations of aspect ratio differences undermines that claim, where it is easy to make a face somewhat rounder or fatter by simple adjustments, where Jack illustrates the point by a series of six photographs of me, where I am supposed to "guess" which one is the real me. I guess and then learn they are all altered! Yet he does not accept Judyth's point, which undermines some of his own photographic studies.

When it comes to David Lifton and Doug Weldon, I am similarly disappointed in their closed-minded attitude. David has long denounced Judyth on the basis of a phone conversation with her, during which she talked about their plans to visit a hotel in Cancun, on the grounds that Cancun did not exist at that time. But it turns out that the village of Kankun DID exist at that time, where it is most unlikely that a phonetically indistinguishable difference would have been apparent to him, especially when, so far as I can discern, he was not even aware of the existence of Kankun apart from Cancun.

When I ask him to share the basis for his denunciation of Judyth with me by sending me a copy of the cassette recording, so I can evaluate the evidence for myself, he refuses to do so. That, in my opinion, is not the conduct of a scholar who is in search of the truth. I know there is much at stake for him personally, since he has invested many years of research on a new book about Oswald. And even though I infer (from past conversations) that he is not inclined to accept the story of HARVEY & LEE, he is not even willing to say so on this forum. That is not appropriate conduct here.

If you trace the history of posts on this thread, I think you will find that my attitude was very cordial in the beginning. I was very gentle with Jack, even though he was posting grossly abusive, question-begging and ad hominem attacks upon Judyth from scratch. It has taken around 1,200 posts for me to become convinced that the vast majority of those who are attacking her HAVE NO INTEREST IN THE EVIDENCE. That they are not reading Ed Haslam, DR. MARY'S MONKEY, or acknowledging rather obvious truths about her story simply astounds me. They do not seem to care about the truth.

From your observations, perhaps I should have been taking Junkkarinen more seriously, but my impression has been that she is simply endlessly recycling old material from other forums, especially McAdams, which seems to me to be yet another sign that her activities are determined but not sincere. And the indications of collusion between her, McAdams, and Viklund bother me tremendously. That she uncovered the abstract for a paper that Judyth had written as a high-school student, which displays her scientific sophistication at the time, CONFIRMS Judyth's story, as Howard has observed.

It seems to me that anyone with a serious interest in these matters would acknowledge that Haslam, in particular, has done brilliant work in establishing the existence of a convert project to develop a bio-weapon that was initiated by Dr. Alton Ochsner, where Dr. Mary Sherman was the project manager, who was assisted by David Ferrie, Lee Oswald, and Judyth Vary Baker. The project involved the use of monkeys and mice as subjects and the use of a linear particle accelerator to bring about mutations of the viruses they were studying. That much has been established beyond doubt.

It appears to me that Judyth was recruited because she not only knew more about cancer research than the NIH or the American Cancer Society at the time, but also because she was unknown to the public and could be used in a covert operation like this without risking the reputations of others of greater prominence, including Ochsner himself, who, in my view, appears to have been a ruthless individual who brooked no opposition. That he was willing to inoculate his own grandchildren with an unproven vaccine, killing one and inducing polio in the other, reveals the risks he was willing to run.

The point is that she was doing specific kinds of research where she was ahead of the leading cancer researchers in the nation. Newspaper articles were being written about her and Haslam has discussed this, where Judyth can be more specific than I am being here. From Ochsner's perspective, she was perfect: she was brilliant and engaged in the kind of research the project entailed, yet she was young and naive and could be manipulated for the purposes he had in mind. Most of all, because she was otherwise invisible to the public, she was expendable! She could be used like Kleenex and discarded.

Indeed, those few who are actually studying the evidence should have been impressed by Judyth's integrity when she discovered that a prisoner had been used as the subject of an experiment--which cost his life--without informed consent and protested to Ochsner, who promptly terminated the project, abandoned her in spite of his promises for her future, and had Oswald transferred to Dallas. He would later be active in promoting the impression that Oswald was a lone, demented gun-man, who was a communist sympathizer and agent of Castro, when he obviously knew much better.

If I were seeing the least acknowledgment of some of the proof that Judyth has produced to establish that she is indeed the person she claims, then I would not have become so strident in denouncing some of her critics. But the violations of basic canons of rationality and the abuse of logic and evidence that have occurred here cannot be explained on the basis of a preference for one hypothesis over another. They reflect not only the rigid adherence to a theory that requires very careful dissection (HARVEY & LEE) but a dedicated effort to assassinate her character and now, by extension, mine, too.

You are absolutely right, of course, that I sometimes lose arguments that I should win because of my combative stance. I appreciate that you can discriminate between the message and the messenger by noting that the evidence and the reasoning I present can be "right on" and yet those who are reading these posts can be disaffected BECAUSE OF THE INTENSITY OF MY PRESENTATIONS. Of that charge, I am clearly guilty. These matters are of the utmost importance to understanding the mysteries of New Orleans. I had expected more from some of those participating here. I have made my acute disappointment in them public and apparent. But perhaps your valuable post helps me to understand why.

With regard to Doug Weldon, finally, he is basing his assessment of Judyth on his experience with other witnesses. But Judyth is a special case, with a far superior IQ, an excellent memory, and clear recollections of the specific events that occurred during this fascinating and novel period of her life. For that reason, I think he is mistaken, especially when he has had such limited experience dealing with her (non-existent personally). As for friendships, I value them greatly. But if we place friendships ahead of truth, then there is no truth, only friendships. And that is something I am not willing to do.

Jim

This extremely long thread exemplifies all the problems that have existed for decades, and continue to exist, within the JFK assassination research community. Good people arguing passionately over aspects of this case that don't, in all reality, alter the larger, crucial issue of exposing the fallacies of the offical version of events.

Just following the posts on this thread convinced me that, eventually, either Jack or Jim would tell the other they were no longer friends. It took quite a while, but eventually that did happen. Very sad, and unnecessary.

Jim- you should know that I almost always agree with your views on a variety of subjects (JFK assassination, 911, etc.). However, I have to tell you in the most friendly way possible that it is very hard for anyone-even someone who is in agreement with you virtually all the time-to support the style in which you post your thoughts. Just becaue someone disagrees with you on a particular point doesn't mean that they have no credibility, or are morally suspect. I think I told you a while back, in a p.m., that you were losing debates you should be winning, on the basis of your objectionable tone, even though the substance of your posts, and the evidence you cited, was solid. In plain English, the manner in which you disagree with people is bound to alienate not only them, but neutral observers who would otherwise be sympathetic to your arguments.

On the other hand, I have disagreed often with Barb J. on some aspects of this case. However, in this instance, she has provided solid research which contradicted many of Judyth's claims. That doesn't mean I now agree with her about the hole in the windshield, location of the back wound or anything else. I am objective enough to admit that she's done impressive work on this thread. That doesn't make me your enemy, and I hope you will understand that.

I hope that Judyth appreciates the fervor of your support. You are certainly a strong ally for anyone to have, and I hope if I ever need defending that you'll be on my side. I tend to agree with Jack's assertion, early in this thread, that Judyth's story, even if completely true, is just not critically important to assassination research. Most of us already believe that Oswald was some kind of undercover agent, and many agree with Jim Garrison's theory that he was on an undercover assignment to infiltrate a JFK assassination plot on November 22, 1963. And, even if all of us believed in her as strongly as you do, the same forces that have obstructed justice in this case for nearly 50 years- mainstream media, government agencies- would certainly not take her seriously, even if they couldn't poke holes in her story as Barb and others here have.

Doug Weldon posted some excellent thoughts here, but you seem not to have heard them. Is total loyalty to everything Judyth has ever said worth the rupture of long time friendships and associations with Jack White and David Lifton? Do you really think that this woman is more important to exposing the truth about the JFK assassination than the author of Best Evidence ? Do you think her personal anecdotes trump the decades of research by Jack White? Do you value her input more than that of Doug Weldon- whose fine work you yourself published?

This thread has resulted in a break between you and Jack, as well as you and David Lifton. There have also been numerous criticisms of John Armstrong and his book Harvey And Lee. I haven't read his book, but have read many excerpts from Jim Hargrove, who had (may still have) a fine web site devoted to promoting Armstrong's work. I don't think that this case will rise or fall on his particular theory, but there is no denying that he produced a lot of solid research, whether he made some mistakes or not. I have a sense you feel that if you can impugn Armstrong's credibility, then that will somehow prove Judyth is the "real deal." You seem to believe that Judyth's recollections are "evidence," even though they are disputed by many (certainly a majority of) researchers.

I bear you no ill well, Jim. This is a very difficult post for me to make. It's hard to tell someone you admire and agree with that his style and tone are getting in the way of the substantive arguments he is presenting. If you could just temper your responses, maybe wait a while before posting a reply, it might make a huge difference in the way you are perceived by many in the critical community. A little humility and self-deprecation make anyone a lot more likeable. And the more likeable you are, the more apt others are to listen to the substance of what you say.

Just my long and rambling unsolicited (and probably unwelcome) input. I hope you don't respond as harshly to me as you have to others, and perhaps actually think about what I've said.

Edited April 25, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

NOT EVERYONE HAS BEEN ENAMORED BY THE QUALITY OF ARMSTRONG'S RESEARCH

NOTE FROM JUDYTH: Apparently Jack White says he has watched "The Love Affair" -- but he has a strange, dichotomous attitude. He agrees about the vaccines, yet says it was inserted into the thread to provide a humanitarian aspect -- he thinks I have no feelings. He disses everything, accepting only what he likes...I am now concerned about how evidence and witness satements were handled by him. On that note, having time to look at old threads sent to me long ago, I found the gem atached. It is by Greg Parker. PLEASE READ IT. IT TELLS YOU THAT JACK'S BASIC ATTITUDE -- AND THE POSSIBLE CONTAMINATION OF WITNESSES BY ARMSTRONG -- HAS A HISTORY.

AN EXCHANGE BETWEEN GREG PARKER AND JACK WHITE

NOTE FROM JIM: I have put (what I take to be) Jack's posts in italics. If I have not done this right, he can correct me.

In the preceding peculiar post, I found the following absurd statement, among others:

"And you still need to clarify your relationship with the former Vice Principal at Stripling. Do I need to repost a reminder of your contradictory statements about that relationship?"

Again, for the cognitively challenged, I restate:

I attended college sixty years ago with Frank Kudlaty; his wife was a friend of mine, but he was only a casual acquaintance. I have seen him only three or four times in the past sixty years. He rose in teaching ranks to become superintendent of a very large Texas school district. I never knew him to be anything but honest and upright. I have never posted ANY contradictory statements about him. He knew nothing about the significance of his information till he was interviewed by Armstrong.

Jack

Jack. here are the contradictory statements you don't recall making:

From Post #28 in the Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance thread: I was present for many of his interviews given [of Stripling witnesses].

From Post #37 in the Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance thread: I was present when he interviewed three persons about LHO at Stripling.

Which, if either of those is true, Jack? "Many" or "three"?

From Post #28 in the Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance: Frank Kudlaty, the assistant principal at Stripling has been a friend of mine since the 1940s, when he was a college classmate. He later rose to be superintendant of schools at Waco Texas before retiring. He is a man of impeccable honesty.

From Post #37 in the Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance thread: At the time John interviewed him, I had not seen him in about fifty years, although I have seen him a couple of times in recent years. I knew his wife much better than I knew him, as I was in classes with her.

Which if either of these statements is true: That Kudlaty has been a friend of mine since the 1940s or At the time John interviewed him, I had not seen him in about fifty years.

Which if either of these statements is true: he was a college classmate. or I knew his wife much better than I knew him, as I was in classes with her.

I'd also like to see you explain how you can vouch for the "impeccable honesty" of what you now call a casual acquaintance you hadn't seen in about 50 years?

THERE ARE NO CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS ABOVE. ALL ARE TRUE. I STAND BY THEM.

A false inference is being drawn that I was present when Kudlaty was interviewed by John and Robert Groden, who videotaped the interview. Kudlaty was interviewed in Waco Texas which is 90 miles south of me. I was even unaware of the taping, and had no knowledge of the interview till John showed me the tape. It is silly to infer that any of my statements are inconsistent. To quibble over "three" and "many" is dumb. I was present for several interviews and saw his videotapes of quite a few others. What is your definition of "many"? One definition is AN INDETERMINATE NUMBER MORE THAN ONE. Do you disagree?

I was present when he interviewed three Stripling LHO classmates, all of whom verified many facts about LHO and Marguerite at Stripling. I viewed many (quite a few more than one) of John's interviews WHICH YOU ARE UNAWARE OF, but you of course would deny that looking at the video interview is not the same as "being there". The most impressive besides the Kudlaty interview is Myra LaRouche (spelled without looking it up)...but of course you know all about her, don't you? I never met nor influenced Myra. I was present for the interview of Georgia Bell...but I don't have to tell you about her, do I. You know she was wrong without knowing what she said.

I am abandoning this nonsensical thread. You clearly have no knowledge of the book so cannot discuss it intelligently. I still say READ THE BOOK. You obviously have not. Jack

Thank you Doug. This is not about Kudlaty's credibility. It is about the lack of judgment shown by Armstrong and White in not declaring that Jack was a friend of Kudlaty's.

This creates a conflict of interests. Such a conflict is not dependant upon an actual act of impropriety. It is the appearance of possible impropriety that they should have had the horse sense to avoid. This has been compounded by White's ( a ) conflicting statements about his relationship with Kudlaty and ( b ) his utter refusal to admit he has made conflicting statements

GREG PARKER MAKES SOME TELLING COMMENTS:

QUOTE

…what Armstrong has to say about Oswald's employment at Tujague's is very interesting. Keep in mind that Robert Oswald told the Warren Commission that when he got out of the service he went to visit Lee and Marguerite:

Mr. Jenner: Did you visit your mother and your brother in New Orleans when you returned from the service in July of 1955?

Mr. Oswald: Yes, sir; I did. I did not--yes, sir, it was in July 1955 when I made my first trip from Fort Worth, Tex., to New Orleans, La. I had purchased a car the second day I was home from the service, a 1951 Chevrolet, and I drove it on the third day or the second night to New Orleans, La.

Mr. Jenner: Were your quarters in a hotel, or did you join your brother and mother?

Mr. Oswald: I joined my mother and brother.

Mr. Jenner: How long did you stay in New Orleans on that trip?

Mr. Oswald: Approximately 1 week.

Mr. Jenner: And you lived with your mother and brother?

Mr. Oswald: That's correct.

Mr. Jenner: That was in July of 1955?

Mr. Oswald: Yes, sir; that's correct.

Mr. Jenner: He was not in school at that time.

Mr. Oswald: No, sir; he was not.

Mr. Jenner: Now, how did you find your brother, as to the state of health and state of mind?

Mr. Oswald: He seemed to be the same to me. He had joined at that time no, sir--he had not at that time been in the Civil Air Patrol. At that time Lee was working I believe for an export firm there in New Orleans. I do not know the name of it. I do not believe I ever heard the name of it. I might have. (Bold added) Mother was also working at that time.

Armstrong writes [where I have underlined, but where some of this appears to be Jack talking about Armstrong]:

The Warren Commission ignored Robert Oswald's testimony and reported that Lee Harvey Oswald was not employed anywhere in the summer of 1955. They said that he entered the 10th grade at Warren Easton High School in September, dropped out shortly before his 16th birthday (October 18) and only then did he begin working at Tujagues's on November 10, 1955.

[NOTE FROM JUDYTH: THERE IS NO REASON WHY LEE COULD NOT HAVE HAD A SUMMER JOB AT TUJAGUE’S AND ALSO LATER.]

And guess what -- Marguerite said in testimony that then when he left school, as I told you, at age 16 -- the first job was Tujague and Company...

The WC did not ignore Robert's testimony -- they published it. Robert's memories were wrong in other areas, so it's no surprise he got this wrong, as well.

The Commission based their conclusions upon handwritten payroll records and time cards allegedly provided by Mr. Gerald F. Tujague, which could have been created by anyone,

[JUDYTH: ARMSTRONG SOMETIMES SAYS THINGS LIKE THIS, OR SAYS THE RECORDS MUST HAVE BEEN ‘ALTERED’ ON RARE OCCASIONS WHEN HE FINDS A CONFLICT WITH HIS THEORY.]

and offer no proof of Oswald's beginning or ending dates of employment. The Commission relied on these documents and made no attempt to locate verifiable records such as payroll checks, withholding tax statements, social security records, etc. Without verifiable records, as was the case with Oswald's employment at Dolly Shoe, we are left with only the memories of Tujague employees who knew Lee Oswald in order to learn the real dates of his employment.

But that work has since been, I believe, done by Doug Horne. Isn't it true that Armstrong's only rebuttal of Horne's work is that records must have been altered?

Armstrong [NOTE: Here is have to verify if this is Armstrong writing or Jack writing about him] traveled to New Orleans and met Frank DiBenedetto, long time employee and close friend of the company's founder, Gerald Tujague. Although not interviewed by the Warren Commission, DiBenedetto told the HSCA, "Oswald worked at Tujague's for a year to a year and a half." He remembered Oswald as well-built, approximately 5-foot-10, and with either dark brown or nearly black hair. When Armstrong met DiBenedetto, he had taken over the company which was still located at 442 Canal Street, in the same building and floor where Oswald had worked under DiBenedetto's supervision 40 years earlier.

I note the description of Oswald isn't in quotes. Was that part of what DiBenedetto told the HSCA, or is it what Armstrong managed to extract with leading questions?

DiBenedetto gave Armstrong the names of two living former Tujague employees, Gloria Callahan and Jimmy Hudnell who provided confirmation of DiBenedetto's recollections. Armstrong's complete study of Oswald's employment at Tujague's is extensive and beyond the scope of this post. However, this is part of Armstrong's conclusion:

New Orleans school records show that Lee Harvey Oswald attended Warren Easton as a sophomore from September 8 thru October 10, 1955. But Robert Oswald, Lillian Murret, Frank DiBenetto, and Gloria Callaghan's collective memories place Lee Oswald at Tujague's from July 1955 until the spring or summer of 1956. Oswald's original employment records from Tujague's disappeared. Therefore, the statements of these people represent the best available evidence to establish the true beginning and ending dates of Lee Oswald's employment at Tujague's.

Have you ever considered checking what Armstrong claims the record shows to verify it? I ask, because clearly you haven't - otherwise you'd know that Lillian Murret made no such statement.

Here is the only relevant portion of her testimony:

Mrs. MURRET - Yes; and then the next I heard was when he came here, and he didn't want to go to school because he thought he already knew all that they had to teach him, so she must have allowed him to go to work for Tujague's, because he had a job as a runner, going from building to building, delivering messages and things like that.

Mr. JENNER - That was in 1955, would that be about right?

Mrs. MURRET - When he was here; yes.

Thus, what she actually does is confirm Marguerite's memory - not Robert's. Oswald left school in 1955 and started work at Tujagues. Nothing about starting there in July and still being there in '56. That's Armstrong's fantasy.

To make it appear as though one Lee Harvey Oswald attended Warren Easton and worked at Tujague's in the fall of 1955 certain records had to be altered and/or destroyed. The school records and memories of students and teachers who remembered (Harvey) Oswald at Warren Easton High School were numerous and irrefutable. But the dates of Lee Oswald's employment at Tujagues's were known only to a few people, and could be easily manipulated if the original records disappeared and were replaced with fabricated documents. (Armstrong provides extensive evidence of how he believes this was done)

Note: Whoever was responsible for destroying and fabricating Oswald's payroll records knew about the two Oswalds. (Bold added)

Utter nonsense. Why must records have been altered or destroyed? Because those that exist don't comport with this theory which relies so heavily on 30 and 40 year old memories - memories moreover, which have to be taken on faith as being untainted by leading questions, or other manipulations.

Mike, do yourself a favor. Toss all your books and do your own research.

===============

This threads began with:

Talking of Lee Harvey Oswald as being A SINGLE PERSON is contrary to the massive evidence of Armstrong,

Ya. Like the NYC school records which don't actually say what Armstrong says they do. Like his misrepresenting of Lillian Murret's testimony concerning Tujagues. Like his suggestion that the person in Bolton Ford incident gave his name as "Lee Oswald" - not just "Oswald". and on and on it goes.

And you still need to clarify your relationship with the former Vice Principal at Stripling. Do I need to repost a reminder of your contradictory statements about that relationship?

which clearly shows TWO PERSONS using that name. Were they KIN to each other? I doubt it.

Good for you. Too bad it's a theory built on misuse of evidence (to put it at its kindest).

Anyone who says mention of Armstrong is "hijacking the thread" is unfamiliar with HARVEY & LEE.

Ahhh... there it is. Any thread whatsoever can be legitimately turned into a Harvey & Lee-athon and never be off-topic. So sayeth Jack.

Read it.

Send me a copy. My kids are running out of scribble paper.

Jack

THIS APPEARS AS A SNAG:

Now what he didn’t tell me was that on Sunday he must have gone to the

cemetery where his father was buried. That’s right at the end of the Lakeriew

line, where I live. He went to the cemetery. I guess he went to ask the

person in charge about the grave. Anyway, he found it, and while he was

there he saw someone who knew the Oswalds. I didn’t get whether she was

related or not, but they got to talking about the family some way. I don’t

know what all they talked about, but anyway, Lee looked in the paper and

finally he found this job-1 don’t know where it was, but it was up on Rampart

Street, and they wanted someone to letter.

Mr. JENNF.R.

To letter?

Mrs. MURRET.

To do lettering work, yes, and so he called this man and the

man said to come on out, so he went on out there to see about this job.

First, while he was waiting for the appointment time, he sat down and tried,

to letter, and well, it was a little sad, because he couldn’t letter as well as my

next door neighbor’s 6-year-old child, but I didn’t say anything, so when he

got back he said, “Well, I didn’t get the job.” He said, “They want someone

who can letter, and I don’t know how to do that.”

Edited April 25, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[William Kelly]

I'd don't think it's right to cross post these theads, as this thread is supposed to be about JVB, and not John Armstrong or Jack White or Greg Parker, and the only purpose of doing it is to stick a pin in JF's former friend Jack White.

We've all read this post in its proper setting, and Greg has thoughtfully stayed clear of this thead, and to cross post these threads is wrong.

If there's nothing more to say about Judyth Vary Baker then let this thread die, or start a new one attacking Jack White, but I don't think all of the questions about JVB have been answered, especially why no one has bothered to investiate the other JVB, the one Ed Haslem met in New Orleans.

BK

[Bernice Moore]

I'd don't think it's right to cross post these theads, as this thread is supposed to be about JVB, and not John Armstrong or Jack White or Greg Parker, and the only purpose of doing it is to stick a pin in JF's former friend Jack White.

We've all read this post in its proper setting, and Greg has thoughtfully stayed clear of this thead, and to cross post these threads is wrong.

If there's nothing more to say about Judyth Vary Baker then let this thread die, or start a new one attacking Jack White, but I don't think all of the questions about JVB have been answered, especially why no one has bothered to investiate the other JVB, the one Ed Haslem met in New Orleans.

BK

I AGREE BILL IT APPEARS TO BE POSTED TO GET AT JACK AGAIN...IMO ALSO THAT IS WRONG...

B

[Dean Hagerman]

Why post that garbage Jim?

Just trying to sling crap on Jack that has NOTHING to do with this thread

It is wrong of you to post that in this thread just to attack Jack

Very wrong

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

You cannot have been following this thread very carefully and not know that HARVEY & LEE has been a part of it, virtually from inception. Plus I don't get this bizarre insistence on having separate threads for everything. If any thread is going to draw together a multiplicity of issues, it is this one. For Bernice to be suggesting that this is directed at Jack, which she doesn't like, strikes me as just the least bit odd. Jack has been the most aggressive in promoting Armstrong's work and in attacking Judyth, even though he is not reading her posts. And now Dean enters the fray as well? I am fascinated. I guess we should just let Jack say anything he likes and let it go at that, no matter how irresponsible its content or inadequately justified by the evidence. Those who have no more concern for these issues, such as Bill Kelly, should stop reading them and spend their time on (what they find to be) more rewarding activities. As for me, I am going to continue to pursue the truth, even apart from distracting and irrelevant posts like these three. Jack presents Armstrong as if he were free from fault. That is simply false.

I'd don't think it's right to cross post these theads, as this thread is supposed to be about JVB, and not John Armstrong or Jack White or Greg Parker, and the only purpose of doing it is to stick a pin in JF's former friend Jack White.

We've all read this post in its proper setting, and Greg has thoughtfully stayed clear of this thead, and to cross post these threads is wrong.

If there's nothing more to say about Judyth Vary Baker then let this thread die, or start a new one attacking Jack White, but I don't think all of the questions about JVB have been answered, especially why no one has bothered to investiate the other JVB, the one Ed Haslem met in New Orleans.

BK

Edited April 21, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Pamela Brown]

BK says:

I'd don't think it's right to cross post these theads, as this thread is supposed to be about JVB, and not John Armstrong.

H+L statements are used to contradict what Judyth has said; certainly that is evident? In fact, H+L and Judyth provide two parallel streams of information on LHO.

However, I do agree that personal invective is best left out of the mix.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Pamela,

You make the crucial point. Frankly, Judyth sent this and I put it up because of its relevance. If there is

some "personal invective"--other than a touch of sarcasm--I did not notice it. Certainly, Jack has made

far more personal and insulting posts about Judyth and even, if I might point it out, about me. So once

again, it appears to me that the "double-standard" is at play here, which still bothers me tremendously.

Jim

BK says:

I'd don't think it's right to cross post these theads, as this thread is supposed to be about JVB, and not John Armstrong.

H+L statements are used to contradict what Judyth has said; certainly that is evident? In fact, H+L and Judyth provide two parallel streams of information on LHO.

However, I do agree that personal invective is best left out of the mix.