Jump to content
The Education Forum

Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile


Guest James H. Fetzer
 Share

Recommended Posts

'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? :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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 by James H. Fetzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by James H. Fetzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since Judyth has no idea what challenges your family faces, she obviously cannot have been attempting to buttress her position at your expense.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i have a daughter with severe autism

As you've just said Kevin, there are varying degrees and types of autism.

hi lee-

i agree there are many different positions on the autism spectrum. over the last 7 years i've done much research on the different degrees of the condition and regularly interact with adults and children who are anywhere from mildly autistic to severely so, like my daughter. i have also watched and listened to and read many interviews with judyth- as well as paid attention to discussion of her. in my opinion, the woman does not exhibit the characteristics that would lead to even a "mildly" autistic diagnosis. i believe she is trying to grasp at what she perceives is a convenient explanation for her improbable detailed recollection of 1963.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if you look at the very first line of my post you will see i explicitly wrote "i do not know mr. lifton."

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Jim:

If you read my post, you will note I did read Dr. Mary's Monkey. I did not e-mail Jack about you or Judyth, I did watch Judyth on TMWKK. I did listen to her interview on Black ops in 2004. I did follow the thread very carefully on Rich's forum. Judyth did not decline to speak with me. I have read everything here. My comments are specific to Judyth and not simply witnesses in general. Unless Judyth is an idiot savant I do not believe she can remember specific days, moments, and the exact dialog from so many years ago. I do not believe the Oswald we have tapes of sounded like that. He would make Obama sound like Gomer Pyle. I have acknowledged that Armstrong made errors. We all do. I have been attacked as a person and researcher , accused directly, and by innuendo of being dishonest. My intelligence and reasoning ability has been ridiculed by you. Whether Judyth is accurate about some things or all things her credibility as a witness has been destroyed, not by others or David or Jack, but by herself.

Doug Weldon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Judyth is about as "real deal" as Anna Anderson

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Anderson

Yes, the Anastasia Syndrome or The Living Lindbergh Baby. There have been men who claimed they were the Lindbergh baby and that another infant was found dead. Of course, it wasn't true. There are a number of examples. I remember some young man posing as the son of Sidney Portier. Several women claimed to be Marilyn Monroe's daughter, whom she gave up for adoption supposedly.

When Judyth was on Rich D.'s forum, everything she said was vague. You would ask her questions and she'd answer that she was too sick to go into detai about her relationship with LHO. I, too, tried to coax her into telling us something. I thought we had a nice exchange. Then she disappeared. Did the people who brought her overseas, stay with her and make sure she had decent housing and access to medical help?

Now someone here, I think Doug Weldon, said she fills all the holes in the Lee Harvey Oswald saga. I agree. Back on jfkresearch.com she talked around things and wasn't specific about anything. She was always ill. She is still ill. But she did a hell of a lot of research since then. (She left Rich's forum, then said he called her a "slut." He in no way did.)

But I wonder about this lady. Why did her science projects not continue? Because the cancer inducer was top secret and Kennedy died? Why would the President's death stop cancer research, even though it was from the CIA? And throwing Oswald into this story. It's ludicrous.

I wish her the best though. She's had a rough life and was so talented.

Kathy C

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

I wondered what a Cajun accent sounds like. Here's an example from Youtube.com. I don't think it sounds like Harvey at all. And I certainly don't hear such an accent from Robert Oswald.

Kathy C

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Bernice, I believe the New Orleans property ownership records are online. I found this after reading your post regarding Katrina. As an example:

http://qpublic.net/la/orleans/search.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what am I supposed to do? Dean says I should choose Jack (and Lifton and Weldon) and abandon Judyth.

Yes this is what I said

And yes I believe you should abandon Judyth and her tall tales to maintain your old friendships with Jack, David and Doug

Jim I am looking out for your best interests

I do not care about Judyth

I do however care about you, I have stood behind you from the day I finished reading "Assassination Science"

Thats why it hurts me to see the friendships being ruined, the last thing I want you to think is that im against you Jim because im not!

Im against what Judyth is doing to you, I have asked over and over for you to step back and look at whats going on Jim, but I feel like you think im against you

Put yourself in my shoes for one second Jim

I grew up in the 1980s with David Lifton and later Jack White (After I saw Jack on TMWKK and reading about him in Crossfire and other books) as my heroes

Then after reading "Bloody Treason" I became a believer in alteration, then came your three books with awesome parts by Jack and David

I felt like I belonged to a group that believed in what I believed in

Jim I have spent 95% of my assassination research on the alteration films and photos since 1997

And YOU were my voice Jim

YOU were my leader in the alteration cause

YOUR books became the most important books when it came to my research

TGZFH became my bible Jim and I looked up to you as my leader

Now I am seeing Judyth ruin the friendships that were formed and came together on TGZFH

Just watch the video of you and Jack together at the end of his presentation at the Duluth Confrence

Its like the group I am proud to be a part of is being torn apart by Judyth

Not by you or Jack or David or Doug

Its Judyth who is doing this Jim

Please read this with an open mind Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JUDYTH RESPONDS TO JACK WHITE ABOUT THE POST THAT UPSET ME SO VERY MUCH

NOTE: This is the post from Jack that caused me to severe our relationship. I will associate with

Jack in professional activities, but I regarded this post as grossly abusive, inappropriate and wrong.

If Jack were to concede that he was wrong to post this, I would welcomed that, but I don't expect it.

JUDYTH REPIES:

Well, let's look at this interesting remark, kindly provided by Jack White, who states that it is anonymous (go ahead, be a coward!):

"I have believed for years.

===for years, huh? Nobody new on the scene===

that sexual frustration lies at the root of JVB’s motives –

==Sounds like David Lifton or one of his pals again...It's their mantra...perhaps because sexual frustration is THEIR problem?===

that she is more to be pitied than deplored. The sad but indisputable fact is that she is now overweight and unattractive

== I find aging to be an adventure. I've lost 50 pounds and have recovered from the assault that put me in the hospital in 2007. As for unattractive, at almost 67, I find myself, as always, with several close male friends 3-15 years younger than I am as my dearest companions. I can't afford to marry, and neither can they. Blame social security, not looks!.==

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,

==Whoa, there! All the disappointment in my life have come from people who behave like this one is behaving--judging someone they've never met. I know they never met me because those who have know how much the gift of life means to me, how happy I am making other people happy. ....I feel sorry for people who have noting better to do than to make nasty, personal remarks about someone they have never met.

01c.jpg

As a writer, poet, artist, song-writer, and activist for human rights and vaccine awareness,as well as the mother of five fine citizens who make me proud, any sufferings and verbal abuse I've endured have been worth it to wake up the country about the dangers of vaccines and the fact that a government coup placed an illegal and destructive cabal into America that took the life of an innocent man I loved. I've seen 35% of the world, and with archaeology as an avocation, intend to see it all. My life has been rich and full, no regrets!==

unable to get along with people for more than a few weeks. Every relationship – mostly with men – eventually goes down the toilet."

==This bloke doesn't know a thing about me...The only part of the sentence above that's true is that most of my closest friendships are with men. I've always had a lot of men in my life. Perhaps because they know I love being around them! I've had several chances to marry. But I can't afford to marry because I'd lose social security.

14udmk0.jpg

I am a gregarious person who loves Allan, Kjell, and George, close friends now for three years. When I am in Sweden, which is half the time, we are together for everything. I was disappointed when the volcano stopped a chance for me to meet a close, longtime friend, Dr. Platzman. And I deeply miss my family and friends in the US.==jvb==

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

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...