Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[Pat Speer]

Question for Jim...

Since you acknowledge Judyth has a very high IQ, and is a great researcher, will you at least concede the possibility she has constructed a very elaborate story, and has used your desire to find a "break-through" to hood-wink you? Or is that, to your mind, an impossibility? Are you immune to being fooled?

In your books and on this forum, you have almost routinely relied upon those you consider more expert than yourself. And yet, now, when an experienced lawyer, Doug Weldon, explains to you why his experience leads him to suspect Judyth's story has been fabricated, you claim it is unfair of him to apply his experience in dealing with liars to Judyth.

Is this logically consistent?

I mean, you admit you only recently came to look at Judyth's story, and you admit you haven't independently studied her claims.

If you "trust" Judyth based in part on some "gut instinct," then, why is it wrong for Jack and others to distrust her based on some "gut instinct"?

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

This is pretty weird, Pat. I have been doing a lot of research, including studying the massive attacks upon her. What is your take? That I am some kind of thoughtless, automated posting-mechanism? In the face of this onslaught of attacks, you are asking me if IT IS POSSIBLE that I could be wrong? Well, of course, IT IS POSSIBLE. That is not the question. The question is IS IT LIKELY? And the answer to that is NO, IT IS NOT LIKELY. And the reasons are numerous. Unlike Jack White, for example, I actually read and think about her posts. Unlike David Lifton, I am open to what she has to say when someone thinks she is wrong. Unlike Doug Weldon, I am taking into account the specifics of Judyth with respect to her experiences in New Orleans and what she has had to say and her attitude. She has been far more patient and responsive to all of these attacks, many of which are quite outrageous, than I could have imagined. No one would put up with this if they were not "the real deal".

And, for reasons that escape me, those who have also vetted Judyth as I have vetted Judyth have come to the same conclusion. They include Niger Turner, "The Love Affair"; Howard Platzman, who helped her deal with "60 Minutes"; Ed Haslam, who authored MARY, FERRIE, AND THE MONKEY VIRUS, which has now appeared in a new version as DR. MARY'S MONKEY, and Jim Marrs, who wrote the foreword to DR. MARY'S MONKEY and the afterword to ME & LEE. None of us, so far as I can discern, is a nitwit or gullible. All of us, however, has been willing to listen to Judyth and evaluate what she has to say. That this diverse group has reached the same conclusion--that she is genuine and had the kinds of experiences she has described--should matter. But what I have discovered is that ALMOST NO ONE on this thread is willing to give her the time of day. DR. MARY'S MONKEY established the framework for understanding what she has to tell us. And everyone who cares should read it.

Question for Jim...

Since you acknowledge Judyth has a very high IQ, and is a great researcher, will you at least concede the possibility she has constructed a very elaborate story, and has used your desire to find a "break-through" to hood-wink you? Or is that, to your mind, an impossibility? Are you immune to being fooled?

In your books and on this forum, you have almost routinely relied upon those you consider more expert than yourself. And yet, now, when an experienced lawyer, Doug Weldon, explains to you why his experience leads him to suspect Judyth's story has been fabricated, you claim it is unfair of him to apply his experience in dealing with liars to Judyth.

Is this logically consistent?

I mean, you admit you only recently came to look at Judyth's story, and you admit you haven't independently studied her claims.

If you "trust" Judyth based in part on some "gut instinct," then, why is it wrong for Jack and others to distrust her based on some "gut instinct"?

Edited April 21, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

What's the deal, Lee? You want to play "amateur philosopher"? I hate to say it again, but when people I like abuse logic, ignore evidence, and make fallacious arguments, again and again and again, there is a point at which I have to question their competence or their integrity. Do you think I LIKE being at odds with some of my oldest and dearest friends? Jack White, David Lifton, and Doug Weldon have been close friends and allies in the past. For some reason, this Judyth thing has affected them in ways that, in my considered opinion, has taken them off the deep end.

For example, given my response to Pat, which of them has actually read DR. MARY'S MONKEY? Well, I am quite sure that Jack has not and that David will not. Doug is a possibility, but, to the best of my knowledge, he has not yet either. IF EVERYONE WOULD READ WHAT ED HASLAM HAS WRITTEN, based upon extremely patient and thorough research, MOST OF THIS CONTROVERSY WOULD SUBSIDE. I have posted a chapter of his from the revised version of MARY, FERRIE, AND THE MONKEY VIRUS, but so far as I can tell, no one here is actually reading it. That's the score.

Of course, I would like to have my friends and truth, too. But when Dean Hagerman, for example, tells me that I am letting Judyth disrupt my relationships with some of my old friends, I am confronted with a dilemma. I KNOW THAT JUDYTH IS THE REAL DEAL. I HAVE STUDIED HER, TALKED WITH HER, READ ABOUT HER, EVALUATED THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST HER, AND I AM CONVINCED. I HAVE NO DOUBT ABOUT IT. So what am I supposed to do? Dean says I should choose Jack (and Lifton and Weldon) and abandon Judyth. That is the conflict that I confront.

I can only do that if I abandon my commitment to truth. If I have to choose between friendships and truth, I have to side with truth. If friendships take precedence over truth, then there is no truth, only friendships. Given who I am, that is not something that I can do. I want to have both. Who does not? But if I am compelled to choose between friends who abuse logic, ignore evidence, and make fallacious arguments, again and again and again, I have no choice but to stand with truth and let friendships go. Forced to choose, my choice is truth.

And let me add one more point. I did not drag them into this. I created a thread to discuss Judyth because I find her story fascinating, not least of all because it transforms our understanding of the assassination, especially with regard to those mysterious days in New Orleans. What may have escaped notice in all of this is that Jack, David, and Doug HAVE BEEN ATTACKING ME. To the best of my knowledge, I have not initiated a single attack upon them. But I will not stand by and allow them to abuse a crucial witness whom I am convinced is telling the truth.

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.

I don't get this Jim.

Why can't you have both?

I've always found the question of what is "truth" fascinating. Fact is Jim, the truth doesn't need us all to believe in it for it still to be true. Agreed?

If I don't believe that the sun rises each morning and sets each evening it doesn't make the fact that it does any less true does it?

If I believe that sound is faster than light it doesn't make the fact that light is faster than sound any less true does it?

Would you or Jack fall out with me and not treat me with respect because I believed that there is nothing after we die and you both believed in heaven?

If your wife turned around and told you that she didn't believe a word Judyth said, would you divorce her? I think not...

I'm awaiting some sanity to return and some further discussion of the issues if possible.

Regards

Lee

Edited April 21, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Pamela Brown]

PS said about JF:

In your books and on this forum, you have almost routinely relied upon those you consider more expert than yourself. And yet, now, when an experienced lawyer, Doug Weldon, explains to you why his experience leads him to suspect Judyth's story has been fabricated, you claim it is unfair of him to apply his experience in dealing with liars to Judyth.

With all due respect, Weldon fell hook-line-and-sinker for Whitaker's story about the limo being beamed to the Rouge after the assassination. He bought it because Whitaker was such a 'nice guy' who would never 'lie to him.' On that basis alone Weldon has no expertise in determining who is telling the truth and who is, for example, just repeating a FMC urban legend.

And then, of course, your statement is really just an appeal to authority, isn't it?

[Bernice Moore]

What's the deal, Lee? You want to play "amateur philosopher"? I hate to say it again, but when people I like abuse logic, ignore evidence, and make fallacious arguments, again and again and again, there is a point at which I have to question their competence or their integrity. Do you think I LIKE being at odds with some of my oldest and dearest friends? Jack White, David Lifton, and Doug Weldon have been close friends and allies in the past. For some reason, this Judyth thing has affected them in ways that, in my considered opinion, has taken them off the deep end.

For example, given my response to Pat, which of them has actually read DR. MARY'S MONKEY? Well, I am quite sure that Jack has not and that David will not. Doug is a possibility, but, to the best of my knowledge, he has not yet either. IF EVERYONE WOULD READ WHAT ED HASLAM HAS WRITTEN, based upon extremely patient and thorough research, MOST OF THIS CONTROVERSY WOULD SUBSIDE. I have posted a chapter of his from the revised version of MARY, FERRIE, AND THE MONKEY VIRUS, but so far as I can tell, no one here is actually reading it. That's the score.

Of course, I would like to have my friends and truth, too. But when Dean Hagerman, for example, tells me that I am letting Judyth disrupt my relationships with some of my old friends, I am confronted with a dilemma. I KNOW THAT JUDYTH IS THE REAL DEAL. I HAVE STUDIED HER, TALKED WITH HER, READ ABOUT HER, EVALUATED THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST HER, AND I AM CONVINCED. I HAVE NO DOUBT ABOUT IT. So what am I supposed to do? Dean says I should choose Jack (and Lifton and Weldon) and abandon Judyth. That is the conflict that I confront.

I can only do that if I abandon my commitment to truth. If I have to choose between friendships and truth, I have to side with truth. If friendships take precedence over truth, then there is no truth, only friendships. Given who I am, that is not something that I can do. I want to have both. Who does not? But if I am compelled to choose between friends who abuse logic, ignore evidence, and make fallacious arguments, again and again and again, I have no choice but to stand with truth and let friendships go. Forced to choose, my choice is truth.

And let me add one more point. I did not drag them into this. I created a thread to discuss Judyth because I find her story fascinating, not least of all because it transforms our understanding of the assassination, especially with regard to those mysterious days in New Orleans. What may have escaped notice in all of this is that Jack, David, and Doug HAVE BEEN ATTACKING ME. To the best of my knowledge, I have not initiated a single attack upon them. But I will not stand by and allow them to abuse a crucial witness whom I am convinced is telling the truth.

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.

I don't get this Jim.

Why can't you have both?

I've always found the question of what is "truth" fascinating. Fact is Jim, the truth doesn't need us all to believe in it for it still to be true. Agreed?

If I don't believe that the sun rises each morning and sets each evening it doesn't make the fact that it does any less true does it?

If I believe that sound is faster than light it doesn't make the fact that light is faster than sound any less true does it?

Would you or Jack fall out with me and not treat me with respect because I believed that there is nothing after we die and you both believed in heaven?

If your wife turned around and told you that she didn't believe a word Judyth said, would you divorce her? I think not...

I'm awaiting some sanity to return and some further discussion of the issues if possible.

Regards

Lee

DR.JIM I WOULD LIKE TO TALK AT YOU FOR A FEW MINUTES, I THOUGHT ABOUT THIS FOR AWHILE AND THINK I SHOULD FOR OUR FRIENDSHIPS SAKE,

YOU ARE CORRECT I DO NOT LIKE SOME OF WHAT I HAVE READ WITHIN THIS VERY LONG THREAD AND I HAVE READ EVERY POST, AND NOT JUST BY YOU, BUT BY SOME OTHERS AS WELL, NO USE PICKING STRAWS AS I WILL NOT BE, MY THOUGHTS ARE MY BUSINESS..

LORDY I, HAVE WONDERED AT TIMES IF this thread would make a good subject for study for a thesis.

It is NOT somehow typical that it has been tried to turn this into a critique of John Armstrong''s work. , we have seen this done in other threads, No doubt Armstrong is open to criticism. as your books were and Lifton's still is, and doug weldon's will be, and so on, Who ISN'T? OPEN TO CRITICISM , I THOUGHT IN THIS THREAD The issue here WAS TO BE JUDYTH Baker and the evidence for her claims.i have seen what she has presented as such, but i admit i find it lacking as i did in her first set of books..

IT SEEMS TO ME AT TIMES WITHIN THE RESEARCH THAT WE START OUT OH SO SMART BUT GET OH SO MUCH STUPIDER AS THE THREADS GROW LONGER...

AND THE INTENTIONS AND THE SUBJECT GETS LOST..SOMETIMES THE SHORTER THE BETTER SUFFICES.

ALL WE NEED TO DO IMO IS TO treat PEOPLE with respect. AND treat FELLOW RESEARCHERS as your equals EVEN IF THEY ARE WITHOUT INITIALS AFTER THEIR NAMES AS SOME HAVE AND AS SOME SEEM TO LEAN ON TOO OFTEN,THOUGH ON THE OTHER HAND I AM NOT YOUR NOR MANYS PEER BECAUSE I HAVE NONE AFTER MY NAME BUT THEN YOU AND THEY CANNOT BE MINE EITHER AS YOU HAVE NOR THEY CAN EVER HAVE THE MANY CHILDREN I HAD,AND CHILDREN I RAISED, WE NEED TO STOP cALLING OTHERS names OR BELITTLING THEM,AND MAKING OTHER such IMPLICATIONS SUCH AS DERIDING THEM BECAUSE THEY SIMPLY DO NOT AGREE WITH YOU OR WITH SOMEONE YOU DO, SO WHAT IF SOMEONE DOES NOT, YOU CERTAINLY HAVE NEVER AGREED WITH ALL THAT ANYONE HAS RESEARCHED IN ALL THE YEARS I HAVE KNOWN YOU.AND PEOPLE NEED TO NOT BE CONDESCENDING AND THEY NEED TO TRY AND KEEP A CIVIL TONGUE IN THEIR HEADS...I AM NOT GOING TO ARGUE SPECIFICS OR DOTS WITH YOU,DR.JIM,EVEN IF THAT WAS WHAT YOU WANTED, WHICH I DOUBT,, I AM NOT GOING TO ALLOW YOU NOR ANYONE, PERHAPS TO ENCOURAGE SUCH,SO THAT EVENTUALLY YOU WOULD THROW AWAY ANOTHER FRIEND OR CHASE ANOTHER AWAY FROM YOU...AS FAR AS WHAT HAS OCCURRED WITHIN THS THREAD IT IS DONE, WHAT AMENDS WILL BE TAKEN IN THE FUTURE WILL BE IN THE FUTURE, '......NOW A VERY GOOD TOPIC THAT BILL KELLY MENTIONED, AND I WILL ASK, WHY IS IT AFTER ALL YOU AND JUDYTH HAVE HAD TO SAY ABOUT JACK'S ERRORS OR DOUG'S OR David lifton's opinions being wrong etc, why is it that you have not as far as i recall in this thread ever LEANED ON ED HASLAM,WHY NOT BECAUSE AFTER ALL HE HAS WRITTEN TWO BOOKS, WHICH I HAVE AND READ, HE IS THE AUTHOR RESEARCHER OF SUCH, YET IN ALL THE YEARS THAT IT TOOK HIM TO DO SO, HE NEGLECTED TO DO OR COMPLETE HIS RESEARCH, HE DID NOT FIND AS FAR AS WE KNOW NOR NAME HIS OLD GIRLFRIEND NOR GET HER INFORMATION NOR STATEMENT RECALLING HER INFORMATION PERTAINING TO SAID PARTY, HE DID NOT GO TO THE N/O ARCHIVES WITHIN THE CITY BEFORE KATRINA RUINED ALL,SO I HAVE READ, TO SEARCH FOR THE INFORMATION OF WHOM OWNED OR RENTED THAT APARTTMENT HOUSE AT THE TIME OF THE PARTY, NOR OBTAIN THE COPIES OF DOCUMENTS OF WHOM WERE LIVING THERE,HE ALSO MENTIONED YEARS BACK OF BEING REMINDED OF SUCH BY SEEING THE NAME JUDY BAKER ON AN OFFICE DOOR, BEFORE JUDYTH WAS IN CONTACT WITH HIM, I BLIEVE ALSO WHEN HE WAS ON THE ALTS YEARS BACK IT WAS JUDY BAKER THAT THEN EVENTUALLY CHANGED TO JUDYTH,SO PERHAPS NOW IT SHOULD BE ED'S WORK TO BE CRITIQUED UPON, IN A NEW THREAD AND ASKED SOME DIRECT QUESTIONS OF THE WHY NOTS,ABOUT WHAT IS OR HAS NOT BEEN DONE NOR VERIFIED WITHIN HIS BOOK AND RESEARCH, OUT OF WHICH JUDYTH BAKER AND HER INFormation FIRST WAS INTRODUCED, IF JOHN ARMSTRONG'S WORK, AND MANY OTHER'S SUCH AS YOURSELF, CAN BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR WORK THEN WHY HAS ED HASLAM HAD A FREE PASS,IMO SO FAR, THAT IS WHAT IT APPEARS TO BE...WHERE IS HIS VERIFICATION DOCUMENTATION AND PROOF OF WHAT HE HAS WRITTEN ABOUT HIM MEETING ANOTHER JUDYTH BAKER WHO HELD A PARTY WHO WAS INTERESTED IN LHO AND EVEN THOUGH ED WAS HE REFUSED TO TALK WITH HER...ED NEEDS TO NOW PROVIDE OTHERS HIS PROOF SO THAT RESEARCHERS DO NOT THINK THAT ALL THIS COULD HAVE JUST BEEN PERHAPS ANOTHER CONVENIENT STORY ..WITH BEST REGARDS....B

Edited April 21, 2010 by Bernice Moore

[Glenn Viklund]

Fred Hoyle, a UK astronomer coined the phrase 'Big Bang' in a radio broadcast in 1949. Mr Hoyle used the phrase in order to ridicule those who believed that everything started with a - Big Bang. Mr Hoyle himself believed in the 'Steady State' theory, that the Universe had always existed and always would exist.

At this time the scientific community was divided. Within a couple of decades, this changed drastically when radiation from the Big Bang was found. The scientific community accepted this, with few exceptions. The theory has since only strenghtened with additional factoids supporting the theory along the way.

Mr Hoyle however, died in 2001, still not accepting the theory of the Big Bang.

This thread and the related subject have some very distinct similarities with the Big Bang theory.

Edited April 21, 2010 by Glenn Viklund

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

JUDYTH REPLIES (IN CONSIDERABLE DETAIL) TO DOUG WELDON

Dear Doug -- I find it interesting that only TWO people in this thread ever asked ME a question: Kathy and one other poster. That was it. Though I posted trough Jim, nobody talked to ME. Imagine that. As if I did not exist, as if I were somehow out of reach.

And you have done it, too.

I know what friendships mean. I also know that some of the 'friends' who killed Kennedy never 'told' on their '"old friends." When a man places TRUTH above friendship--THAT is the MAN I admire and WANT to investigate me. As he knows, no matter what the question, I pledge to answer in full.

At present time, I am about to finally get out of the country I've been stranded in. I rather dislike volcanoes now!!!!!

It costs quite a bit to hook up my laptop, so I have not written much, and contact will be erratic.

But I wished to address some of your comments, even though, as usual, you only talked ABOUT me, not TO me...So--please scroll down to my comments, and thank you for them.

JVB

JUDYTH REPLIES TO DOUG (whose comments are in italics)

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?

==Doug, some of us have different talents and abilities. I get lost going around a corner. It's humbled me my whole life. However, at one time--and these people do exist, Doug--I could take an entire page of the Encyclopedia Britannica and quote it back to you verbatim. I had a reading speed of 3,400 words per minute--but that was because I 'took in' 25% of a page at a time. Just as most people can read a few words at a time, I could read up to 250 words at a time.

I had what is called an eidetic memory for certain things. My memory was so good that Ochsner had me read over 500 journal articles in a period of 8 weeks, which I distilled for him via summaries. I recalled every journal article by name and major author and direct quotes from each article.

The reconstructed conversations are largley correct. As Dr. Platzman knows, I refused, under heavy badgering, to state a certain date that i was not certain of to a 60Minutes investigator. That person was upset because I refused to recall a specific date--because i could recall all the others! Platzman said he was impressed because I could have 'made up' a date just to get rid of the badgering. Dr. Platzman was hired by CBS due to his expertise in the case, which is extensive (he never blows his own horn). I refused to give a date I could not recall. I state what I know, though of course, have made speculations that are not to be considered part of my testimony.

"Autistic savants are a rarity but they, in particular, show signs of spectacular memory; one notable example is Kim Peek, who can recall about 9600 books from memory."

I believe I exhibit a portion of an autistic savant syndrome, insofar as I get lost, literally, by stepping into any new territory. My ability to recognize live faces (not on computer tests, where I get 100%) is strikingly bad....a portion of my brain doesn't work as it does with other people, when I am standing up or walking. Accompanying that, however, was an ability to remember almost everything I read or heard. Yes, I remember, Doug. With terrific accuracy.

But I can't remember 'new things' well, for after sustaining two concussions in succession, I developed short term memory problems on top of still getting lost. My vision problems complicate this further -- Darni! On top of everything else, Lee was dear to me, was shot before my eyes, and I felt a responsibility to never forget what he said, in defiance of the lies told about him. I spent two years writing down his words for my son--inyending him to find it after my death. I never intended to speak out until I saw Oliver Stone's film JFK and realized if I didn't, people might never know the real Lee Oswald, and the fact that he tried to save Kennedy. more below....==

Judyth remembers EVERYTHING Oswald told her.

==Yes, I do.==

He must have been talking from morning to night and she would have to be a stenographer to keep track of everything.

==This is an exaggeration and is not very scientific of you. Note that I recount conversations over a period between April 26, 1963 and November 21, 1963. Almost seven months.

I used a mnemonic system to recall names and events. And I had a lot of help remembering some details. For example, I had to be present to clock him out. When he was so late in the morning that I could not clock him out until 6:30, when I clocked out a 4:30 or 5:00 for myself, and had to stick around, you bet I wanted to know what was going on. He had nobody to confide in. People confide in me very easily. I remember every reason for every late clock out. I kept other things to remind me of events, as well. I kept the streetcar receipt the Sunday we went to see Lee's father's grave hat;s when he told me he hit Marina, so I sulked and refused to participate in a lot that happened that day. However, I kept it because Lee also pledged that he would never hit Marina again, if I would only allow us to still be friends. I kept up out friendship for that reason at that time, and kept the streetcar receipt because it had the very time and date. I have many, many such items that carry meaning and context.==

How could she ever remember the japanese girl or David Phillips and other names and instances that would have no meaning to her.

==Of course the Japanese girl had meaning to me -- she had once been his lover, for heaven's sakes! Lee tells me he is going to die in July, and I should not be concerned about his fate or care who his handler is? Have you seen "The Love Affair"? Even in hose 45 minutes or so of film, enough should come trough to show that we came to love each other dearly.==

If somewhat shot names or stories at you forty years ago that had no meaning to you

==You presume a great deal...If somebody TOLD YOU they were gong to DIE and you were in love with them, and they continued to penetrate a deadly ring that was plotting to kill the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, wouldn't you pay attentoon? Would you really be likely to forget?

You haven't had that experience.

Believe me, all kinds of details would have meaning.

You do not know my history.

I do hope you read the book, which I have tried to write at a level that is accessible to everyone.==

would you remember them? Why would you save your pay stubbs and records?

==Indeed, why did I? Because we are talking about the assassination of Kennedy and the man accused of doing it was innocent. You bet I saved the paycheck stubs, etc. How else could I prove I'd known Lee? Fortunately, more evidence than that also exists.==

Do you have yours from 45 years ago?

==You are arguing for me, not against me. I own very few things, but these things I held onto because they were important.==

Again, a personal reference. While I was teaching in the criminal justice department at Western Michigan University years 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.

==Love can make heroes of utter cowards, my friend. According to you, I saved things for over 35 years so that I could insert myself into the case?--and instead of saying Oswald did it, so I could become famous and have media attention and make lots of money, I offered my story for free to "60 Minutes", I fired my agent who rewrote my book, and I stupidly said Lee Oswald was a good guy, he did not kill JFK, and was a HERO. I thus made sure I would be attacked the rest of my life by everybody and ignored by the media, unless you count the recent History Channel assertion that says I claim I invented AIDS. (!!!!) You'd think I'd at least have inserted myself feet first instead of upside down.==

Judyth's so-called Russian statements to Oswald when they allegedly first met are preposterous.

==Why so hostile? You weren't there. If I had made this meeting up, I should have been sure to use a very common phrase to 'insert' so nobody would question what I said. Instead, I reported what I said, however odd. I didn't particularly think about what I said. It was spontaneous. And that means it should ring true to any honest investigator..==

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.

==Not so. Oswald's reading list that summer included:

1) Conflict: the Korean War--by the historian Robert Leckie, who wrote a series of historical monographs commissioned by the US Marine Corps, ["Oswald was intelligent but he was not educated"...really?].

2)Soviet Potentials--by George Cressey--which is a geological and statistical survey of the USSR and its potential for economic growth and future stability based on crop production, mineral resources, labor available, civil unrest, trade situations, and treaties. It was a book for a college professor to quote from. ["Oswald was intelligent but he was not educated"...really?].

3) This is My Philosophy:Twenty of the World's Outstanding Thinkers Reveal the Deepest Meanings They Have Found in Life (Sartre, Jung, Freud, Emerson, Bertrand Russell, etc) 378 pages by Whit Burnett---["Oswald was intelligent but he was not educated"...really?].

4) One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovitch--classic and literary --by Nobel prize winner Alex. Solzhenitsyn ["Oswald was intelligent but he was not educated"...really?].

5) Profiles in Courage--by John F. Kennedy--for intelligent readers, too ["Oswald was intelligent but he was not educated"...really?].

6) Everyday Life in Ancient Rome--by the archaeologist F. R. Cowell--a cerebral book for archaeologists and anthropologists with classification of pottery, weapons, excavations and digs, stauary, sewer and water systems, catacomb strucures, food and supply systems, mechanical inventions, maps, and so on....["Oswald was intelligent but he was not educated"...really? How much does one have to read and learn before one is accounted 'educated'?].

7) Ape and Essence by the philosopher-novelist Aldous Huxley: a novel about the effects of radiation from World War III on human beings, and the mutations that resulted..Why would Lee Oswald be interested in the effects of radiation on people? ["Oswald was intelligent but he was not educated"...really?].

8. Portrait of a President by William Manchester: Lee admired JFK.

9. What We Must Know About Communism --written by Harry Overstreet with a recommendation written by J. Edgar Hoover-- is of particular interest, because Lee checked this book out of the library for me. Lee already knew plenty about communism, having livedin the USSR for almost three years, but I did not. "I can't have a decent conversation with you on the subject," he told me. I was touchy about checking out the book, so he got it for me. Certainly Marina didn't need to read it.

(He also read ten science fiction novels and anthology collections, approximately 2,000 pages of that, plus James Bond Novels, the huge book, The Seven Pillars of Wisdom by T. E. Lawrence, and numerous biographies that summer.)==

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?

==These are scarcely polite remarks. However, will try to respond without saying anything rude.

You will find Lee weeping on other occasions, however, such as in Marina and Lee when he and Marina thought they were parting forever, and the thought of not seeing Junie again wrenched him. (We planned to marry in Mexico!)

From my original manuscript:

Marina knew Lee was leaving for good: there is a piteous scene in McMillan’s book when she and Lee said goodbye, in tears, when Ruth finally came to take her and Junie back to Texas. Even McMillan says that Marina never expected to see Lee again. This decision wasn’t easy for Lee. He wept in my arms about it. But undoubtedly, there would be more fights, inevitably ending in divorce anyway. While the babies were young, without bad memories, it was best to part. Lee’s tears proved to me that his plans were sincere, and that his love for me was firm. He planned a permanent rupture with Marina but it grieved him. I would not have trusted him so much without seeing so much grief.==

Would the worst soap opera on television even think about putting such dialog in their show?

==You are no longer writing as a researcher...You are appealing to people with special pleadings....They are living under different circumstances, and were not there. I chose to reveal these things about Lee because he was NOT a James Bond cutout. He was a real human being.==

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?

==Can you imagine working with deadly cancer-causing monkey viruses and deadly cancers, where you have to wash up with acetone to kill the virus, even thinking about exposing an unborn baby to such carcinogens and unknown factors? I held off having babies for five years until I knew I didn't have cancer, myself. ==

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.

==I stepped forward and identified myself as that woman. Now you are saying that a witness should not presume to identify herself. I have the same right as any other witness.==

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?

==RE PUSHKIN: quote from Lee oswald's writings, "The Kollective" : "Here any person can tell you about such splendid operas as "Reiglo," "The Clown," "Queen of Spades," "Traviate," while in the U.S. most citizens are sadly lacking in this field of art due not to the fallacy that we are uncultured as the Russians think, but due to the fact that...there are those who prefer to remain tied to their T.V.'s and comedy shows. "[He is talking about "Queen of Spades" which of course comes from Pushkin.

APRIL 27, 1963, MARINA WRITES TO HER AUNT VALYA ABOUT LEE'S BOOKS:

"We at last got Ogonek and Soviet Belorussia so we know what is happening in Minsk and everything in the Union. I have Russian books. Alka buys them for me in New York. That is, they send them from there: Tolstoy, Chekhov, Pushkin. When we have more dough we will see; I will buy some more. I do not have complete collections".

==IS THIS ENOUGH? I CAN FIND MORE CITATIONS, IF NECESSARY. ==

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."

==Look at what you have done, sir. You presented an argument -- mostly ad hominem in nature -- and accusations about LHO's having all-too-human feelings and no education -- then presented that he knew nothing of Pushkin -- without bothering to do the most basic research to see if your comments were correct and appropriate. They were not. If you had been making a sincere criticism as a researcher, you would have done some research before blindly stating that Oswald knew nothing of Pushkin, for example. Will you be an honest researcher who garners my respect, or will you just find something else to form an accusation around, to continue a vendetta?==

I can go on and on.

==If you do, please try to do some research first.==

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.

==I have had to defend myself against the most specious arguments, such as that Oswald was not educated and knew noting about Pushkin, from a dedicated batch of 'researchers' who throw one accusation after another into the air. if left unanswered, they contend that they are 'right.' Should I have said nothing in response to your presentation? Calling me 'poor woman' and saying I am "tainted" and a "damaged witness" a person you have never met-- God forgive you. I must practice forgiveness so I do NOT become damaged by such careless and crude words.==

She knows where the holes can be found in the Oswald story and thus knows where she can safely insert herself.

==The 'holes' are where I was REMOVED.==

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.

==Most people are honest. They can make honest errors. For sure, you are careless in research, seeing how you have treated me, without ever meeting me or asking a single question of me, tough I have been posting through Dr. Jim here for two months. . . I am tempted to look at your work and see if you have been careless there, too.==

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.

==We are talking about the assassination of Kennedy and the man I loved who i saw shot on TV before my eyes, blamed for it, as if I would forget. Most people alive then remember exactly what they were doing when JFK was shot. Why wouldn't I remember much more, having known Lee Oswald? It was not a pool party. You are presenting two entirely different kinds of scenarios. I dare you to tell your wife that you do not remember your wedding day and what happened on your honeymoon.==

These are concerns. I am not passing a final judgment on Judyth.

==Yes, you are. Now you're inserting "I'm being fair" to hide your assemblage of bad-mannered jibes and vituperative comments, offered without doing research. And it is my sad experience that you will never, ever change. Your pride is now hurt. You may not have the moral capacity to say, "I treated her badly." Most who have done so have never apologized. They allow their lies and accusations to stay uncorrected and on the record, even when these have been exposed. Those statements then poison others.==

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.

==Ridiculous. I did no research until AFTER I had related EVERYTHING to two fine researchers, Dr. Howard Platzamn and Martin Shackelford. When they sent me emails, for example, I had my boyfriend John, or Cassie, or Debbee, etc. to ALWAYS be with me when I opened an email from them. They asked questions.I wrote immediate answers in the presence of my witness, and sent the email off at once. THE WONDERFUL THING ABOUT SHACKELFORD AND PLATZMAN WAS THAT THEY NEVER GAVE ME ANY FEEDBACK. I did not know what they knew or believed. I would sit there and say to John, "What if they don't believe me? What if they will just walk away?"

They were merciless, and I am grateful. "60 Minutes", Jim Marrs, Peter Devries, Ed Haslam, Nigel Turner -- days and days and days, no notes, no calendars, no nothing. My memories. They had the records and books and information. My children verify I stayed totally away from all of that -- it nauseated me. "60 Minutes" would bring in the finest lunches, such as sushi, that I love, and I couldn't eat a thing, I was so upset, talking to them about Lee.....I often burst into ears -- even Lifton relates such an incident. I am much better now...==

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.

==How dare you place me in the same category with a student that you lured with candy! i was NEVER a coached witness. I remember only ONE time Dr. Platzman EVER telling me ANYTHING. The man gave NO feedback.

But this one time, he was curious.

I will relate it, because for me, it was a terrible and traumaic event.

I did NOT know of Lee's exhumation and Dr. Platzman, while we waited to talk to investigators for another grueling session with "60 Minutes", came into the atrium and played a tape for me to hear. "I just want to see if you can recognize who this is," he said..

I jumped out of my skin with shock--it was Ochsner's voice!

"Ochsner!" I said at once.

"You're right," he replied. Then he put up the photo in the TV player there of Lee's teeth. i did not know whose teeth they were, I did not know about the exhumation. He asked me if Lee had a missing tooth! Ii told hm of course not--then realized in a way nobody can understand, unless they were suddenly shown the corpse of their own mother or son or husband--that I was looking at Lee's teeth.

Dr Platzman is a researcher. He forgot that I was a human being.

That same day, for a birthday present, he gave me a 'present'[---a front page newspaper announcing Kennedy's murder and Lee's capture.

As a researcher, he thought this was a fine gift for my birthday, as he knew I had NOTHING, despite what you people here thin -- about any of that.

I told him i did not want it. It was the worst period of my lifetime, it was proof we had failed, it was truly one of the worst 'guilts' anybody could have given me. Now, Dr. Platzman didn't think about the fact that I had lived through it. That wasn't in his mind.

You who have not met me cannot understand how deeply sometimes your words cut. It is at a great cost to myself and my loved ones. Sometimes the hurt is accidental--just not thinking of me as a feeling human being, but as a source of information---but when there is also malice involved--and these people never, ever apologize--it is harder to bear.

This was the only time Dr. Platzman ever gave me 'information' -- if you can call it that -- and all it did was make me sick to my stomach for the next few hours.==

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.

==You have made up your mind, sir. Carry on. A decade ago, I said the same things. Only in rumors and lies have 'changes' occurred. I have used my last euro on this hookup here and must soon head for my flight. I cannot defend myself against a million miles of invective and innuendo. I count on those researchers who knew me from the beginning to attest to the fact that I was a raw, uncoached witness. I have the right to find information and evidence backing up what i stated a decade ago. ==

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.

==As you have done to me, sir.==

Do you doubt that Jack or Lifton have a motive other than truth?

===books, books, books?===

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

=='even' Pamela? Pamela more than most!==

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.

==If you are truly religious, you would not bear false witness. You would have looked up htings such as Lee and 'Pushkin' before assaulting me as you did. but as you say, we are all fallible. please do not ascribe to me those flaws of memory tha you have, however. We are all different.==

Warm regards,

==I wish you had them for me!==

JVB

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

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

There is more at stake than the opinions of those on this forum, Lee. We are talking about crucial events in the history of this nation. If I have to lose some friends in defense of (what I am completely convinced is) the truth about Judyth and Lee, then that is the price that I have to pay. But I am not going to sacrifice my integrity and commitment to truth for those who may have lost their way and who have attacked me and Judyth for bad reasons. That they have yet to read DR. MARY'S MONKEY speaks volumns about their dedication to the search for truth. I simply don't know what else to say.

What's the deal, Lee? You want to play "amateur philosopher"? I hate to say it again, but when people I like abuse logic, ignore evidence, and make fallacious arguments, again and again and again, there is a point at which I have to question their competence or their integrity. Do you think I LIKE being at odds with some of my oldest and dearest friends? Jack White, David Lifton, and Doug Weldon have been close friends and allies in the past. For some reason, this Judyth thing has affected them in ways that, in my considered opinion, has taken them off the deep end.

For example, given my response to Pat, which of them has actually read DR. MARY'S MONKEY? Well, I am quite sure that Jack has not and that David will not. Doug is a possibility, but, to the best of my knowledge, he has not yet either. IF EVERYONE WOULD READ WHAT ED HASLAM HAS WRITTEN, based upon extremely patient and thorough research, MOST OF THIS CONTROVERSY WOULD SUBSIDE. I have posted a chapter of his from the revised version of MARY, FERRIE, AND THE MONKEY VIRUS, but so far as I can tell, no one here is actually reading it. That's the score.

Of course, I would like to have my friends and truth, too. But when Dean Hagerman, for example, tells me that I am letting Judyth disrupt my relationships with some of my old friends, I am confronted with a dilemma. I KNOW THAT JUDYTH IS THE REAL DEAL. I HAVE STUDIED HER, TALKED WITH HER, READ ABOUT HER, EVALUATED THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST HER, AND I AM CONVINCED. I HAVE NO DOUBT ABOUT IT. So what am I supposed to do? Dean says I should choose Jack (and Lifton and Weldon) and abandon Judyth. That is the conflict that I confront.

I can only do that if I abandon my commitment to truth. If I have to choose between friendships and truth, I have to side with truth. If friendships take precedence over truth, then there is no truth, only friendships. Given who I am, that is not something that I can do. I want to have both. Who does not? But if I am compelled to choose between friends who abuse logic, ignore evidence, and make fallacious arguments, again and again and again, I have no choice but to stand with truth and let friendships go. Forced to choose, my choice is truth.

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.

I don't get this Jim.

Why can't you have both?

I've always found the question of what is "truth" fascinating. Fact is Jim, the truth doesn't need us all to believe in it for it still to be true. Agreed?

If I don't believe that the sun rises each morning and sets each evening it doesn't make the fact that it does any less true does it?

If I believe that sound is faster than light it doesn't make the fact that light is faster than sound any less true does it?

Would you or Jack fall out with me and not treat me with respect because I believed that there is nothing after we die and you both believed in heaven?

If your wife turned around and told you that she didn't believe a word Judyth said, would you divorce her? I think not...

I'm awaiting some sanity to return and some further discussion of the issues if possible.

Regards

Lee

Let's flip it Jim.

If you place truth over friendships then there is only truth and no friendships, so my question is this; what the hell is the point in having the truth if this is what it costs? What a sad lonely existence it would be having all the answers. If you change the level of the discourse with each other then things might improve. But shouting "my truth is better than your truth" at each other is getting you and everyone else with an interest in this thread nowhere.

If you are all getting angry with one another because you can't agree what the bloody truth is, then there's a problem wouldn't you say?

My post, although written to you, was to everyone getting hot under the collar on this thread. Apologies if you took it as some sort of direct attack Jim. I was, in fact, directly attacking ALL individuals on this thread who have somewhat "lost the plot!!"

I'm going for a large single malt and a pint of Guinness - I recommend everyone else do the same.

Regards

Marcus Aurelius Jr.

P.S. I was going to respond to David Lifton's last posting in this thread because I felt it was insulting to every member of the board. I ultimately decided "what's the point", he only ever responds to people that he considers to be in the same "intellectual class" as himself and I would have invited the wrath of many other members. So I left it...

...I recommend, from time to time, you do the same

Edited April 21, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Pat Speer]

PS said about JF:

In your books and on this forum, you have almost routinely relied upon those you consider more expert than yourself. And yet, now, when an experienced lawyer, Doug Weldon, explains to you why his experience leads him to suspect Judyth's story has been fabricated, you claim it is unfair of him to apply his experience in dealing with liars to Judyth.

With all due respect, Weldon fell hook-line-and-sinker for Whitaker's story about the limo being beamed to the Rouge after the assassination. He bought it because Whitaker was such a 'nice guy' who would never 'lie to him.' On that basis alone Weldon has no expertise in determining who is telling the truth and who is, for example, just repeating a FMC urban legend.

And then, of course, your statement is really just an appeal to authority, isn't it?

Exactly, Pamela. I was trying to point out to Jim that he has been inconsistent in his reliance upon authority. For years now he he has been refusing to deal with my research on the medical evidence, due to his blind trust in authorities like Mantik and White. And yet, here, he is clearly following his own gut...which is fine by me...

To be clear, I respect Doug and suspect he has enough experience to discern a serial prevaricator (aka xxxx). But I think one can receive this experience without having any letters after one's name. As a buyer in the record industry, I read hype sheets and listened to sales pitches for 4-5 hours a day. I also had a manic-depressive girlfriend who was a pathological xxxx in her manic phase. This "experience" strengthened my understanding of Lies and the Lying Liars who tell them. I believe this experience, furthermore, helped me spot some of the deceptions in Beyond Conspiracy, Beyond the Magic Bullet, and Inside the Target Car.

So I am the last one to appeal to authority.

As far as Judyth, my gut instinct tells me that she knew Oswald but has fabricated much of her story, perhaps inadvertently. But I haven't closed my mind to the possibility much of her story is true.

[Pamela Brown]

'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

What a wonderful idea. But don't you have to wonder if they haven't already been given some sort of training so that they could fool the machine?

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Pat,

My esteem for you has grown on the basis of this post. I have dealt with the leading experts on the medical evidence, including Robert Livingston, M.D., and David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D, for nearly twenty years. I have learned a great deal about the medical, ballistic, and related evidence from them. But I am my own man. It was I who discovered that you can see the blow-out to the back of JFK's head in frame 374 and apparently the first to explain the interlocking pattern of deception involved in painting in the blow-out to the right front ("the blob"), the patch to the back of the head (which Mantik discovered), the LIFE Magazine caption for its Frame 313, and Zapruder's appearance on television that night, holding his hand to the right-front of his head to show where (a non-existant wound) occurred.

I have also noticed, however, the missing mass at the right-front of the lateral-cranial and the anterior-posterior X-rays. To my surprise, when I recently questioned David about it, he equivocated or denied that it was missing ("only the brain", he told me). But it is obvious to me that the bone is missing to the right front, too, just as I explained in "Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid". I do not understand why you would think I defer to experts if I think they are wrong any more than I would not acknowledge your work if I thought it was right. You have misunderstood me. I call 'em as I see 'em, and I have the background and training to do exactly that.

My judgments about Judyth are based upon my direct experience with her, supplemented by research by others, especially Ed Haslam, which explains the context within which her story must be understood. I cannot imaging how anyone who had studied this case could continue to deny that she was brought to New Orleans by Alton Ochsner to participate in a secret cancer-research project and worked witb David Ferrie and Lee Harvey Oswald under the supervision of Mary Sherman, where they were doing studies involving monkeys and mice, which was focused on the development of a bio-weapon. The evidence is simply overwhelming, when you stop to consider it all.

That you are keeping an open mind is praiseworthy. Remember, I have received hundreds of emails from her, posted hundreds of them on her behalf, interviewed her for YouTube features, created several blogs on her behalf, studied the voluminous arguments that have been advanced against her. As an expert in logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning, why would I depend on anyone else to evaluate her sincerity, her integrity, her dedication and her knowledge when I am in the best possible position? I am convinced that she is "the real deal" and that, within the bounds of her ability, she is telling us the truth. She is among the most admirable persons I have ever known.

Jim

PS said about JF:

In your books and on this forum, you have almost routinely relied upon those you consider more expert than yourself. And yet, now, when an experienced lawyer, Doug Weldon, explains to you why his experience leads him to suspect Judyth's story has been fabricated, you claim it is unfair of him to apply his experience in dealing with liars to Judyth.

With all due respect, Weldon fell hook-line-and-sinker for Whitaker's story about the limo being beamed to the Rouge after the assassination. He bought it because Whitaker was such a 'nice guy' who would never 'lie to him.' On that basis alone Weldon has no expertise in determining who is telling the truth and who is, for example, just repeating a FMC urban legend.

And then, of course, your statement is really just an appeal to authority, isn't it?

Exactly, Pamela. I was trying to point out to Jim that he has been inconsistent in his reliance upon authority. For years now he he has been refusing to deal with my research on the medical evidence, due to his blind trust in authorities like Mantik and White. And yet, here, he is clearly following his own gut...which is fine by me...

To be clear, I respect Doug and suspect he has enough experience to discern a serial prevaricator (aka xxxx). But I think one can receive this experience without having any letters after one's name. As a buyer in the record industry, I read hype sheets and listened to sales pitches for 4-5 hours a day. I also had a manic-depressive girlfriend who was a pathological xxxx in her manic phase. This "experience" strengthened my understanding of Lies and the Lying Liars who tell them. I believe this experience, furthermore, helped me spot some of the deceptions in Beyond Conspiracy, Beyond the Magic Bullet, and Inside the Target Car.

So I am the last one to appeal to authority.

As far as Judyth, my gut instinct tells me that she knew Oswald but has fabricated much of her story, perhaps inadvertently. But I haven't closed my mind to the possibility much of her story is true.

Edited April 21, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Jack White]

It is bad enough that my friend Jim has disowned me, he persists it repeating

lies about me. I do not understand what has come over him. He keeps saying

that I "have attacked him". This is plainly untrue. I have said I do not agree

with many things he posts. That is not "attacking him."

Jack

[Kevin Greenlee]

Mr. Fetzer-

you have said many times that David Lifton disbelieves Judyth solely because of her disastrous "Cancun" gaffe. i do not know mr. lifton and in fact disagree with the conclusions he presented in "best evidence." i have, however, always had the highest regard for his skills as a researcher and for his personal integrity. i thought, then, that i would take a moment to point out that you have done him an injustice. in numerous newsgroup postings in the year or so after his conversation with Judyth, he mentioned many reasons why he disbelieved her. you should be able to easily find them all with a google search. i will quote a bit from a message you can find in its entirety at

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspir...ca7348809?hl=en

"Here are two more things Judyth told me last March:

(1) Judyth told me that she co-wrote a science fiction story with Lee Oswald.

Question to Shackelford: Did she tell you this tale, too, Martin? and you

have the manuscript? Is it in her hand only‹or is some of Lee Oswald¹s

purported handwriting in that document? Is that one of the documents you

have been trying to hawk to media outlets? Is this one of the Oswald

so-called "writings"??

(2) When I asked Judyth how she would answer the question of how she could

have had so much foreknowledge and yet not reported it to the authorities

(prior to 11/22/63), part of her long rambling answer was that, in order to

get greater protection for JFK on his Dallas visit, Lee fomented the

Stevenson incident. That¹s right: Lee fomented the Adlai Stevenson incident

so that the authorities would beef up protection on Kennedy.

Question to Martin Shackelford: Did she tell you this tale, too? Any

comment? Do you find it reasonable? Just another one of the adventures in

the life of (or perhaps, more accurately, in the mind of) Judyth

Wonderwoman?

I also want to repeat, and remind anyone reading this post, of other things

she said to me last March, 2000 (some of these are repeats from a previous

post; some are new):

ITEM: Judyth told me that she (and her co-workers in Florida) "knew" the

assassination was going to happen, and so prepared to watch it on TV. (Just

consider the implications of that statement, which was said most

deliberately).

ITEM: Judyth told me that her income was $12.000 per year and that she had

declared bankruptcy in the recent past. She also claimed that she turned

down one million dollars (or some huge comparable sum of money) from a

tabloid for her story.

Question to Martin Shackelford: Did she tell you this? Do you find that

plausible? That a woman in such modest economic circumstances would turn

down a million dollars?

ITEM: Judyth told me that despite her connection with all these evens in

1963, she had no idea of‹and never heard of‹the Garrison investigation at the

time it was occurring. And in fact, Judyth said she didn¹t get re-interested

in all this until she saw the movie JFK, in 1991. (And she even had the

details wrong there: it was not released as video until some time later in

1992, yet Judyth said one of her children brought the video home; and that¹s

when she first saw the movie‹on video, in 1991).

Question to Shackelford: Did she tell you this? Forget the error about

format. Do you find that plausible‹that she didn¹t know about the Garrison

investigation at the time it was occurring?

ITEM: Judyth told me that at the "cancer lab" at Dave Ferrie¹s apartment,

they "processed" 4,000 mice per month.

Question to Shackelford: Did she tell you this, too? Do you find that

plausible? Do you understand what it would mean to be "processing" 4,000

mice per month? (Martin: do you know anyone who has a pet gerbil? Do you

know what it would mean to have 4,000 of them house in Ferrie¹s apartment?)

ITEM: Judyth told me, in connection with her alleged knowledge of Lee¹s visit

to lecture at the Jesuit college at Spring Hill, Alabama, that Robert Kennedy

made a phone call there.

Question to Shackelford: Did she tell you this? Do you find that plausible?

That Robert Kennedy was calling Lee Oswald at the Jesuit House of Studies,

and that she, Judyth Baker, knew about this?

SUMMARY COMMENT: I don¹t think one has to know the "order" in which these

facts go to find them implausible. These items are---individually or

collectively‹inherently implausible."

this has nothing to do with Lifton but reading again Judyth's claim that oswald organized the rough time Adlai Stevenson had in Dallas reminds me of Judyth's claim that oswald also had a hand in planning the route of the JFK motorcade. talk about "inherently implausible!"

you have also suggested, Mr. Fetzer, that Lifton did no research or study on any of Judyth's claims. that also is not true. Below you will find a link to a lengthy message where he analyzes a claim Judyth made again in her most recent posting- that she had to clock oswald out of work.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspir...c1cb707a4?hl=en

A brief excerpt: " this "smoking time-clock" business...illustrate(s) just how Judyth probably went about fabricating this

fictional "Lee and me" story in the first place. She reads the record

and looks for "holes"—factual interstices—where she can "insert"

herself."

Sounds right on the money to me.

There is more at stake than the opinions of those on this forum, Lee. We are talking about crucial events in the history of this nation. If I have to lose some friends in defense of (what I am completely convinced is) the truth about Judyth and Lee, then that is the price that I have to pay. But I am not going to sacrifice my integrity and commitment to truth for those who may have lost their way and who have attacked me and Judyth for bad reasons. That they have yet to read DR. MARY'S MONKEY speaks volumns about their dedication to the search for truth. I simply don't know what else to say.

What's the deal, Lee? You want to play "amateur philosopher"? I hate to say it again, but when people I like abuse logic, ignore evidence, and make fallacious arguments, again and again and again, there is a point at which I have to question their competence or their integrity. Do you think I LIKE being at odds with some of my oldest and dearest friends? Jack White, David Lifton, and Doug Weldon have been close friends and allies in the past. For some reason, this Judyth thing has affected them in ways that, in my considered opinion, has taken them off the deep end.

For example, given my response to Pat, which of them has actually read DR. MARY'S MONKEY? Well, I am quite sure that Jack has not and that David will not. Doug is a possibility, but, to the best of my knowledge, he has not yet either. IF EVERYONE WOULD READ WHAT ED HASLAM HAS WRITTEN, based upon extremely patient and thorough research, MOST OF THIS CONTROVERSY WOULD SUBSIDE. I have posted a chapter of his from the revised version of MARY, FERRIE, AND THE MONKEY VIRUS, but so far as I can tell, no one here is actually reading it. That's the score.

Of course, I would like to have my friends and truth, too. But when Dean Hagerman, for example, tells me that I am letting Judyth disrupt my relationships with some of my old friends, I am confronted with a dilemma. I KNOW THAT JUDYTH IS THE REAL DEAL. I HAVE STUDIED HER, TALKED WITH HER, READ ABOUT HER, EVALUATED THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST HER, AND I AM CONVINCED. I HAVE NO DOUBT ABOUT IT. So what am I supposed to do? Dean says I should choose Jack (and Lifton and Weldon) and abandon Judyth. That is the conflict that I confront.

I can only do that if I abandon my commitment to truth. If I have to choose between friendships and truth, I have to side with truth. If friendships take precedence over truth, then there is no truth, only friendships. Given who I am, that is not something that I can do. I want to have both. Who does not? But if I am compelled to choose between friends who abuse logic, ignore evidence, and make fallacious arguments, again and again and again, I have no choice but to stand with truth and let friendships go. Forced to choose, my choice is truth.

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.

I don't get this Jim.

Why can't you have both?

I've always found the question of what is "truth" fascinating. Fact is Jim, the truth doesn't need us all to believe in it for it still to be true. Agreed?

If I don't believe that the sun rises each morning and sets each evening it doesn't make the fact that it does any less true does it?

If I believe that sound is faster than light it doesn't make the fact that light is faster than sound any less true does it?

Would you or Jack fall out with me and not treat me with respect because I believed that there is nothing after we die and you both believed in heaven?

If your wife turned around and told you that she didn't believe a word Judyth said, would you divorce her? I think not...

I'm awaiting some sanity to return and some further discussion of the issues if possible.

Regards

Lee

Let's flip it Jim.

If you place truth over friendships then there is only truth and no friendships, so my question is this; what the hell is the point in having the truth if this is what it costs? What a sad lonely existence it would be having all the answers. If you change the level of the discourse with each other then things might improve. But shouting "my truth is better than your truth" at each other is getting you and everyone else with an interest in this thread nowhere.

If you are all getting angry with one another because you can't agree what the bloody truth is, then there's a problem wouldn't you say?

My post, although written to you, was to everyone getting hot under the collar on this thread. Apologies if you took it as some sort of direct attack Jim. I was, in fact, directly attacking ALL individuals on this thread who have somewhat "lost the plot!!"

I'm going for a large single malt and a pint of Guinness - I recommend everyone else do the same.

Regards

Marcus Aurelius Jr.

P.S. I was going to respond to David Lifton's last posting in this thread because I felt it was insulting to every member of the board. I ultimately decided "what's the point", he only ever responds to people that he considers to be in the same "intellectual class" as himself and I would have invited the wrath of many other members. So I left it...

...I recommend, from time to time, you do the same

[Kevin Greenlee]

JUDYTH REPLIES (IN CONSIDERABLE DETAIL) TO DOUG WELDON

"I believe I exhibit a portion of an autistic savant syndrome, insofar as I get lost, literally, by stepping into any new territory. My ability to recognize live faces (not on computer tests, where I get 100%) is strikingly bad....a portion of my brain doesn't work as it does with other people, when I am standing up or walking. Accompanying that, however, was an ability to remember almost everything I read or heard. Yes, I remember, Doug. With terrific accuracy."

in my opinion, this suggestion by judyth that she is an autistic savant might be her most preposterous claim yet (and as you all know there is a lot of competition for that dubious distinction).

i have a daughter with severe autism and so over the years have had to learn a great deal about that condition.

read the story of judyth's life in her own words at http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/boring.txt

if you take that account at face value you will find nothing in it that is consistent with a diagnosis of autism. i don't know, for instance, of any autistic person who has a thousand friends.

i very much resent judyth's attempt to use the condition that has made my family life such a challenge in an attempt to buttress her pathetic fantasies about Lee Harvey oswald.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

When David Lifton has the integrity to send me the cassette of his (one and only) conversation with Judyth so I can listen to it, I will be glad to reassess my opinions on that basis. Since you appear to be in contact with him, tell him he should share his "evidence" with me so I can evaluate it myself.

Mr. Fetzer-

you have said many times that David Lifton disbelieves Judyth solely because of her disastrous "Cancun" gaffe. i do not know mr. lifton and in fact disagree with the conclusions he presented in "best evidence." i have, however, always had the highest regard for his skills as a researcher and for his personal integrity. i thought, then, that i would take a moment to point out that you have done him an injustice. in numerous newsgroup postings in the year or so after his conversation with Judyth, he mentioned many reasons why he disbelieved her. you should be able to easily find them all with a google search. i will quote a bit from a message you can find in its entirety at

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspir...ca7348809?hl=en

"Here are two more things Judyth told me last March:

(1) Judyth told me that she co-wrote a science fiction story with Lee Oswald.

Question to Shackelford: Did she tell you this tale, too, Martin? and you

have the manuscript? Is it in her hand only‹or is some of Lee Oswald¹s

purported handwriting in that document? Is that one of the documents you

have been trying to hawk to media outlets? Is this one of the Oswald

so-called "writings"??

(2) When I asked Judyth how she would answer the question of how she could

have had so much foreknowledge and yet not reported it to the authorities

(prior to 11/22/63), part of her long rambling answer was that, in order to

get greater protection for JFK on his Dallas visit, Lee fomented the

Stevenson incident. That¹s right: Lee fomented the Adlai Stevenson incident

so that the authorities would beef up protection on Kennedy.

Question to Martin Shackelford: Did she tell you this tale, too? Any

comment? Do you find it reasonable? Just another one of the adventures in

the life of (or perhaps, more accurately, in the mind of) Judyth

Wonderwoman?

I also want to repeat, and remind anyone reading this post, of other things

she said to me last March, 2000 (some of these are repeats from a previous

post; some are new):

ITEM: Judyth told me that she (and her co-workers in Florida) "knew" the

assassination was going to happen, and so prepared to watch it on TV. (Just

consider the implications of that statement, which was said most

deliberately).

ITEM: Judyth told me that her income was $12.000 per year and that she had

declared bankruptcy in the recent past. She also claimed that she turned

down one million dollars (or some huge comparable sum of money) from a

tabloid for her story.

Question to Martin Shackelford: Did she tell you this? Do you find that

plausible? That a woman in such modest economic circumstances would turn

down a million dollars?

ITEM: Judyth told me that despite her connection with all these evens in

1963, she had no idea of‹and never heard of‹the Garrison investigation at the

time it was occurring. And in fact, Judyth said she didn¹t get re-interested

in all this until she saw the movie JFK, in 1991. (And she even had the

details wrong there: it was not released as video until some time later in

1992, yet Judyth said one of her children brought the video home; and that¹s

when she first saw the movie‹on video, in 1991).

Question to Shackelford: Did she tell you this? Forget the error about

format. Do you find that plausible‹that she didn¹t know about the Garrison

investigation at the time it was occurring?

ITEM: Judyth told me that at the "cancer lab" at Dave Ferrie¹s apartment,

they "processed" 4,000 mice per month.

Question to Shackelford: Did she tell you this, too? Do you find that

plausible? Do you understand what it would mean to be "processing" 4,000

mice per month? (Martin: do you know anyone who has a pet gerbil? Do you

know what it would mean to have 4,000 of them house in Ferrie¹s apartment?)

ITEM: Judyth told me, in connection with her alleged knowledge of Lee¹s visit

to lecture at the Jesuit college at Spring Hill, Alabama, that Robert Kennedy

made a phone call there.

Question to Shackelford: Did she tell you this? Do you find that plausible?

That Robert Kennedy was calling Lee Oswald at the Jesuit House of Studies,

and that she, Judyth Baker, knew about this?

SUMMARY COMMENT: I don¹t think one has to know the "order" in which these

facts go to find them implausible. These items are---individually or

collectively‹inherently implausible."

this has nothing to do with Lifton but reading again Judyth's claim that oswald organized the rough time Adlai Stevenson had in Dallas reminds me of Judyth's claim that oswald also had a hand in planning the route of the JFK motorcade. talk about "inherently implausible!"

you have also suggested, Mr. Fetzer, that Lifton did no research or study on any of Judyth's claims. that also is not true. Below you will find a link to a lengthy message where he analyzes a claim Judyth made again in her most recent posting- that she had to clock oswald out of work.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspir...c1cb707a4?hl=en

A brief excerpt: " this "smoking time-clock" business...illustrate(s) just how Judyth probably went about fabricating this

fictional "Lee and me" story in the first place. She reads the record

and looks for "holes"—factual interstices—where she can "insert"

herself."

Sounds right on the money to me.

There is more at stake than the opinions of those on this forum, Lee. We are talking about crucial events in the history of this nation. If I have to lose some friends in defense of (what I am completely convinced is) the truth about Judyth and Lee, then that is the price that I have to pay. But I am not going to sacrifice my integrity and commitment to truth for those who may have lost their way and who have attacked me and Judyth for bad reasons. That they have yet to read DR. MARY'S MONKEY speaks volumns about their dedication to the search for truth. I simply don't know what else to say.

What's the deal, Lee? You want to play "amateur philosopher"? I hate to say it again, but when people I like abuse logic, ignore evidence, and make fallacious arguments, again and again and again, there is a point at which I have to question their competence or their integrity. Do you think I LIKE being at odds with some of my oldest and dearest friends? Jack White, David Lifton, and Doug Weldon have been close friends and allies in the past. For some reason, this Judyth thing has affected them in ways that, in my considered opinion, has taken them off the deep end.

For example, given my response to Pat, which of them has actually read DR. MARY'S MONKEY? Well, I am quite sure that Jack has not and that David will not. Doug is a possibility, but, to the best of my knowledge, he has not yet either. IF EVERYONE WOULD READ WHAT ED HASLAM HAS WRITTEN, based upon extremely patient and thorough research, MOST OF THIS CONTROVERSY WOULD SUBSIDE. I have posted a chapter of his from the revised version of MARY, FERRIE, AND THE MONKEY VIRUS, but so far as I can tell, no one here is actually reading it. That's the score.

Of course, I would like to have my friends and truth, too. But when Dean Hagerman, for example, tells me that I am letting Judyth disrupt my relationships with some of my old friends, I am confronted with a dilemma. I KNOW THAT JUDYTH IS THE REAL DEAL. I HAVE STUDIED HER, TALKED WITH HER, READ ABOUT HER, EVALUATED THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST HER, AND I AM CONVINCED. I HAVE NO DOUBT ABOUT IT. So what am I supposed to do? Dean says I should choose Jack (and Lifton and Weldon) and abandon Judyth. That is the conflict that I confront.

I can only do that if I abandon my commitment to truth. If I have to choose between friendships and truth, I have to side with truth. If friendships take precedence over truth, then there is no truth, only friendships. Given who I am, that is not something that I can do. I want to have both. Who does not? But if I am compelled to choose between friends who abuse logic, ignore evidence, and make fallacious arguments, again and again and again, I have no choice but to stand with truth and let friendships go. Forced to choose, my choice is truth.

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.

I don't get this Jim.

Why can't you have both?

I've always found the question of what is "truth" fascinating. Fact is Jim, the truth doesn't need us all to believe in it for it still to be true. Agreed?

If I don't believe that the sun rises each morning and sets each evening it doesn't make the fact that it does any less true does it?

If I believe that sound is faster than light it doesn't make the fact that light is faster than sound any less true does it?

Would you or Jack fall out with me and not treat me with respect because I believed that there is nothing after we die and you both believed in heaven?

If your wife turned around and told you that she didn't believe a word Judyth said, would you divorce her? I think not...

I'm awaiting some sanity to return and some further discussion of the issues if possible.

Regards

Lee

Let's flip it Jim.

If you place truth over friendships then there is only truth and no friendships, so my question is this; what the hell is the point in having the truth if this is what it costs? What a sad lonely existence it would be having all the answers. If you change the level of the discourse with each other then things might improve. But shouting "my truth is better than your truth" at each other is getting you and everyone else with an interest in this thread nowhere.

If you are all getting angry with one another because you can't agree what the bloody truth is, then there's a problem wouldn't you say?

My post, although written to you, was to everyone getting hot under the collar on this thread. Apologies if you took it as some sort of direct attack Jim. I was, in fact, directly attacking ALL individuals on this thread who have somewhat "lost the plot!!"

I'm going for a large single malt and a pint of Guinness - I recommend everyone else do the same.

Regards

Marcus Aurelius Jr.

P.S. I was going to respond to David Lifton's last posting in this thread because I felt it was insulting to every member of the board. I ultimately decided "what's the point", he only ever responds to people that he considers to be in the same "intellectual class" as himself and I would have invited the wrath of many other members. So I left it...

...I recommend, from time to time, you do the same

Edited April 21, 2010 by James H. Fetzer