Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[Kevin Greenlee]

i appreciate the tone of your response.

to answer your question-

i have listened to judyth's interview on black op radio.

i listened to your interview with edward haslam (i have not yet had a chance to listen to his appearance on Coast to Coast but i do plan to)

i have watched Judyth's episode of the men who killed kennedy.

i have read countless newsgroup discussions about judyth in which her defenders and her critics vigorously argued points of evidence.

i have read your blogs on the subject but have not read haslam's book.

i have read this thread!

i consider all of this to have given me at least a decent understanding of judyth's story and, i am sorry to say, i don't accept any of the 17 points you listed.

at the same time, i understand your frustration. it must seem to you that a terribly important story is being ignored and criticized for the most trivial of reasons (ie, "Cancun.") i hope you understand how things appear from the other side- that you are clutching onto a wildly implausible story despite its obvious problems. i don't know how to reconcile these points of view.

i do, though, have a suggestion. why don't we focus for a while on your 17 points? spell out the evidence that supports them- and let critics accept or refute them, one by one. as i mentioned, i don't believe her story but i would be delighted to be proven wrong.

perhaps we can start with point #1

.

1. Judyth went to New Orleans in the 1963 at the invitation of Dr. Alton Ochsner.

what evidence supports that claim? in my opinion, judyth's word alone cannot be enough. what other evidence is there?

i thank you again for the tone of your reply.

Well, Kevin, I was sure as soon as I expressed the least concern, someone would jump on it--just as you have. The broader argument that might be made is that this is simply one more example of an initially implausible claim that may also turn out to be true--just as has occurred with the rest of her story. Which of the 17 points that I have listed, after all, do you not accept? Because, in my view, there is more than enough grounds to accept all of them. I am very troubled by the double-standard: unless Judyth has every single point exactly right, she is thereby completely and totally discredited! That is not a rational attitude, but it is the attitude that has been displayed by most of her critics, among whom I take it you are one. No doubt, parts of her story are going to be flawed. But that is only to be expected. What I find remarkable is that the core of her story stands not only unrefuted but actually confirmed. Are you another case where I have to ask how much of the evidence you have reviewed? In my opinion, within the limits of human frailty, Judyth has told us the truth as she knows it--and what she has to tell us transforms our understanding of the assassination of the 35th President of the United States.

Mr. Fetzer-

i enjoyed your last post and was particularly interested in your admission that the oswald reading list was, even for you, "a bit much." this, of course, raises some very interesting questions. we have been led to believe that ms. baker has an amazingly accurate memory, that the events of 1963 were of great emotional import to her and that we should therefore trust implicitly every jot and tittle she chooses to impart to us about that momentous era. apparently that is no longer the case. perhaps you can enlighten us, professor- how are non academics such as myself supposed to figure out which portions of her amazing account are so implausible they must be true (or however it was you phrased it) and which parts are simply "a bit much"?

i wonder too about something else. what was it that motivated judyth to concoct that reading list? was it a desire to make oswald look better? do you concede that that same motivation could lead her to create other embellishments? do you believe there are in fact other embellishments in her tale? what are they? at what point do the embellishments- in your opinion- fatally wound her credibility? i am quite genuinely interested in your response to these questions.

[Kevin Greenlee]

while i was writing my reply, you added a few words about john armstrong to your last post.

for what it's worth, i agree with you that there are errors in his work. i don't accept his theory of the case any more than i do judyth's.

i appreciate the tone of your response.

to answer your question-

i have listened to judyth's interview on black op radio.

i listened to your interview with edward haslam (i have not yet had a chance to listen to his appearance on Coast to Coast but i do plan to)

i have watched Judyth's episode of the men who killed kennedy.

i have read countless newsgroup discussions about judyth in which her defenders and her critics vigorously argued points of evidence.

i have read your blogs on the subject but have not read haslam's book.

i have read this thread!

i consider all of this to have given me at least a decent understanding of judyth's story and, i am sorry to say, i don't accept any of the 17 points you listed.

at the same time, i understand your frustration. it must seem to you that a terribly important story is being ignored and criticized for the most trivial of reasons (ie, "Cancun.") i hope you understand how things appear from the other side- that you are clutching onto a wildly implausible story despite its obvious problems. i don't know how to reconcile these points of view.

i do, though, have a suggestion. why don't we focus for a while on your 17 points? spell out the evidence that supports them- and let critics accept or refute them, one by one. as i mentioned, i don't believe her story but i would be delighted to be proven wrong.

perhaps we can start with point #1

.

1. Judyth went to New Orleans in the 1963 at the invitation of Dr. Alton Ochsner.

what evidence supports that claim? in my opinion, judyth's word alone cannot be enough. what other evidence is there?

i thank you again for the tone of your reply.

Well, Kevin, I was sure as soon as I expressed the least concern, someone would jump on it--just as you have. The broader argument that might be made is that this is simply one more example of an initially implausible claim that may also turn out to be true--just as has occurred with the rest of her story. Which of the 17 points that I have listed, after all, do you not accept? Because, in my view, there is more than enough grounds to accept all of them. I am very troubled by the double-standard: unless Judyth has every single point exactly right, she is thereby completely and totally discredited! That is not a rational attitude, but it is the attitude that has been displayed by most of her critics, among whom I take it you are one. No doubt, parts of her story are going to be flawed. But that is only to be expected. What I find remarkable is that the core of her story stands not only unrefuted but actually confirmed. Are you another case where I have to ask how much of the evidence you have reviewed? In my opinion, within the limits of human frailty, Judyth has told us the truth as she knows it--and what she has to tell us transforms our understanding of the assassination of the 35th President of the United States.

Mr. Fetzer-

i enjoyed your last post and was particularly interested in your admission that the oswald reading list was, even for you, "a bit much." this, of course, raises some very interesting questions. we have been led to believe that ms. baker has an amazingly accurate memory, that the events of 1963 were of great emotional import to her and that we should therefore trust implicitly every jot and tittle she chooses to impart to us about that momentous era. apparently that is no longer the case. perhaps you can enlighten us, professor- how are non academics such as myself supposed to figure out which portions of her amazing account are so implausible they must be true (or however it was you phrased it) and which parts are simply "a bit much"?

i wonder too about something else. what was it that motivated judyth to concoct that reading list? was it a desire to make oswald look better? do you concede that that same motivation could lead her to create other embellishments? do you believe there are in fact other embellishments in her tale? what are they? at what point do the embellishments- in your opinion- fatally wound her credibility? i am quite genuinely interested in your response to these questions.

[Dean Hartwell]

I had stopped posting on this thread because I thought that what had needed to be said here had been said. I was mistaken.

Jim has provided us with 17 facts in support of the belief that Judyth Vary Baker has told us the truth. All of these facts have been derived from Judyth's statements and have solid support.

There will always be those who contend that they need to hear more or they "hang their hat" on the idea that perhaps Judyth exaggerated something.

It is to these critics who ignore relevant facts at their own peril that I can only offer my own story as an example of the imperfection of the human and the human memory:

Three years ago, a judge removed me from a noteworthy case AFTER we had turned in our verdict.

The judge said I had withheld a bias against one of the parties. This made the news on the Internet and embarassed me as I felt (and still feel) I did nothing wrong.

My point is this: if there were a forum on jurors and I told my story on it, I am sure others would ask me questions about my experience.

Some questions would be relevant and some would not.

Though my memory is good and it has been only three years, I am sure I would give some incorrect information.

I cannot name all of my fellow jurors, for example. Nor do I recall a whole lot about the case itself.

And I would probably say I stood up to the judge in his chambers. Alas, the transcript does not support me there. (Maybe it is my pride)

But I know this nightmare occurred and I know I was a part of it.

If any critic of Judyth can honestly say they have held her to a fair standard, I am not going to sit here and question them. I can only ask that we consider what it is like to be questioned.

[Barb Junkkarinen]

When and why was she in Florida when Kennedy was assassinated? I thought she was in New Orleans when that happened. And she and her co-workers (working on cancer inducement?) watched the TV because they all knew Kennedy was going to be assassinated? These had to be underworld people. She was working with them?

Kathy C

Hi Kathy,

After his summer job in the Gulf was over, Judyth and her husband returned to Gainesville, Florida where he was completing his degree. This is when Judyth is purported to have worked as a lab assistant at PenChem. (Fetzer posted some check stubs from PenChem a few days ago.)

The story about the co-workers and what they saw on TV is one of the things that underwent some changes over the years.

1.This from an early draft of her book posted on the net .... in 2006, as I recall:

A television set perched over our heads showed the news. JFK and Jackie had

arrived at Love Field in Dallas. I tried to maintain an outward calm. The

TV programs then were in black and white, but I could imagine that the

roses Jackie Kennedy was [sic] given probably complemented her dress. I

prayed to a God I did not believe in that there would be a bubble top

placed over the limousine. When I saw the President and his wife enter a

vehicle without a bubble top, I felt sick.

A major problem with this is that the Kennedy's arrival at Love Field was only televised live

on Dallas/Ft. Worth TV stations.

2. In her book printed by Trafford, pg 626, it was this:

A television set perched over our heads showed the news, sports and

weather beginning at noon. I saw the news about JFK arriving in Dallas,

trying to maintain outward calm. All the TV programs were then in black

and white, but I could imagine that the roses Jackie Kennedy was

given probably complemented her dress.

The problem with this is that there was no hour long noon news show in Gainesville according to any of the TV stations, as well as someone I was referred to at the university, I contacted a few years ago. Even if there was even a half hour news show at noon in Gainesville, Florida ... that would only be 11am in Dallas ... and the Kennedy's arrived at 11:40am Dallas time. That would be 12:40pm in Gainesville. Not in time for any 1/2 hour noon news show.

3. In 2003,in a Dutch interview originally broadcast in

streaming audio, Judyth said this:

Oh, I knew what was going to happen. I was working at a lab where I had

been placed making special chemicals for our project in Florida and they

all got chairs out to watch the assassination on TV. . . . And I saw it

happen on TV, and we had worked so hard to stop that from happening.

The problems with that are obvious.

The complete interview is here .... narrated in Dutch, but Judyth speaks in English, it's just a few seconds under 14 minutes in length. The quote above is from the beginning of the interview:

Judyth Dutch Radio interview, 2003 ... click here

Bests,

Barb :-)

[Greg Burnham]

None of the following has any bearing on "the message" but is an observation about "the messenger" who I personally consider to be a dear friend.

IF an individual [FETZER] has indeed discovered the truth about a subject [presumptive]; and has mastered the appropriate application of both applied and/or pure logic; as well as mastered the disciplines related to critical thinking; and has presented the case in a manner that is consistent with both TRUTH [presumptive] and the skills associated with critical thinking; and presented the case to an audience [White, Lifton & Weldon et al] with whom he has developed a strong bond due to a common respect for the truth; and if said audience has heretofore demonstrated traits consistent with profound integrity even—and especially—in the judgment of the individual [FETZER]; and if the audience consists of a diverse group (as opposed to a single person who might be subject to personal bias) that has demonstrated consistent behaviors in the past… and if ultimately, said audience rejects the presentation of the individual…THEN, all other things being equal, the individual’s presentation did not PERSUADE. End of story.

Rhetoric is an art. Indeed, it is a fine art. It is not logical to look beyond the simplest explanation when the simplest explanation is adequate to the evidence. It might be unpalatable, but--it is what it is.

The evidence indicates that the manner in which the material was presented FURTHER disenchanted an already disillusioned audience. The presenter’s representation of the evidence in question did not initially persuade. Why? Perhaps the stubbornness of the audience was a factor, initially, but it didn't have to be later. Indeed, the most persuasive and best arguments should properly have been offered only after the original resistance that pre-existed the current argument was bested. Why? Only a foolish man ignores the armaments of his adversary especially when they are on public display prior to battle! It doesn't matter how long such besting would have taken because without it the ground was infertile irrespective of the quality of your proofs.

Rhetoric is an art form, Jim. Mistaking it for anything else is a blunder. Remember Phaedrus?

Edited April 22, 2010 by Greg Burnham

[Jack White]

Regardless of what anyone says, I have read every NEW posting in this thread.

What I do not read is the endless repetitions of the SAME posting. So anyone

who says I have not read all the postings is making that up. As a result of

reading the postings, I spent half a day googling many of the items of interest.

I have received more than a dozen private emails from researchers who

agree with my postings. That I posted a typical one (with permission) seems

upsetting to some. But it represented what many people emailed me. It

attacked NOBODY, although the writer did express some UNFLATTERING

observations. That was an opinion, not an attack. And I was just the

messenger, not the writer. I reiterate that the writer was not David Lifton

nor Doug Weldon, but was someone who had studied the claims of JVB

intensively for years.

One interesting revelation I find is that it was recently stated that JVB

did not become interested in the JFK murder until seeing a videotape

of Stone's JFK. I find this peculiar.

I also find many JVB recent statements incredible. The most recent

is that Ferrie's "underground lab" processed "thousands of monkeys

in the couple of months of their operation. How was this ZOO managed?

Did all the neighbors notice all the monkeys coming and going?

This is very peculiar.

Jack

[Jack White]

Barb J. wrote:

A major problem with this is that the Kennedy's arrival at Love Field was only televised live

on Dallas/Ft. Worth TV stations.

As a DFW resident, I believe that this statement is not true. Gary Mack would know. A

live hookup in those days would require a special microwave signal hookup and large

bulky studio cameras, which were few back then. The local stations shot the arrival on FILM,

not live video feed. Ask Gary.

The only LIVE feed that weekend, as I recall, was the abortive LHO jail transfer and shooting.

Jack

Edited April 22, 2010 by Jack White

[Greg Burnham]

[...] One interesting revelation I find is that it was recently stated that JVB

did not become interested in the JFK murder until seeing a videotape

of Stone's JFK. I find this peculiar.

I find that more than interesting! It smells of something disingenuous, IMO.

I also find many JVB recent statements incredible. The most recent

is that Ferrie's "underground lab" processed "thousands of monkeys"

in the couple of months of their operation. How was this ZOO managed?

Did all the neighbors notice all the monkeys coming and going?

This is very peculiar.

Jack

I wonder what "processed" means? Perhaps it means "fed to the millions of dogs" we also had there that nobody noticed? I get your point, Jack, and it's another good one, IMO.

I have no answers to any of this, and...as one of those who did meet with her in person, I can only say that she presented herself very credibly to me--even though I was disinclined to believe her from the start.

For what it's worth, HEMMING believed her. And HEMMING was a hard case--a difficult man to convince of anything. He was probably tougher than most skeptics could ever be. He wouldn't have asked me to give her the time of day otherwise.

[John Simkin]

For what it's worth, HEMMING believed her. And HEMMING was a hard case--a difficult man to convince of anything. He was probably tougher than most skeptics could ever be. He wouldn't have asked me to give her the time of day otherwise.

Hemming did know a lot but as one CIA insider told me, he was paid by the word. Hemming was one member of the Forum who was a disinformation agent.

[David Lifton]

Jim,

A number of statements made in your post #1447 (a post asserting who was responsible for a number of original discoveries re theories pertaining to the falsification of the Z film) are incorrect. Immediately below is your statement, and below that is my attempt to “clarify the record” regarding your claim of being “apparently the first” to discover an “interlocking pattern of deception” etc.

Here is your statement:

• Re “It was I who . . . [was] 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 the back of the head (which Mantik discovered), the Life Magazine caption for its Frame 313. . . “

This statement contains multiple errors, and numerous false implications. Rather than try to sort through each one, here is my own statement, “for the record” (as the saying goes):

•The school year 1966-67: The business of the back of the head being blacked out on the Zapruder frames was perfectly obvious --certainly, to me--when I was able to examine Life’s 3" x 4 “ transparencies when they were sent to Los Angeles as part of Professor Wesley Liebeler’s UCLA Law School seminar on the Warren Commission, in the school year 966-67. That the back of the head was “blacked out” was already noticeable from frames of the film published in the 11/29/63 of Life Magazine, the LIFE MEMORIAL issue (Dec 7, 1963) and the October, 1964 issue Life Magazine. But Liebeler's UCLA class was the first time I realized that it actually appeared that way (i.e., blacked out) on the Life slide set.

•In June, 1970, at the Beverly Hills office of Time-Life: it was very obvious to me—and three other JFK researchers—who spent hours examining the 35 mm version of the Zapruder film that (a) the back of the head seemed artificially blacked out and (b ) the so-called “large head wound” was painted on. This was the first time I could see with my own eyes that this blacking out was not just a feature of the Life slide set (which I had already seen, as noted, when I examined the slides as part of Liebeler's UCLA Law class) but on the actual film itself. In June, 1970, I was able to actually pull a 16mm copy of the original Z film through a Recordak Microfilm reader, and could see the blacking out right there on the screen. All this is described in detail in “Pig on a Leash,” which I wrote and was published in the anthology you edited (2003). As a consequence of a letter written by the famous Hollywood director, Haskell Wexler, (in which we were described as "appraisers"), we all were able to examine these extraordinary materials, and we could all see that (a) the back of the head had been blacked out and (b ) the “wounds” appeared painted on. The four were: Fred Newcomb, Jack Clemente, Dennis Roy, and myself—we all saw it. It was rather obvious. “Can you believe this?! They altered the Zapruder film!” That was the general tone of the reaction. Of course, we didn’t know how “they” had done it, or exactly who “they” were.

•Turning to the situation as it existed in 1980: in writing Best Evidence, I was quite aware that while I was contrasting the Dallas and Bethesda description of the wounds (in making the case that the boy had been altered) that the Zapruder film frames portrayed “Bethesda-like” wounding. Also, by that time, the famous CIA documents (CIA 450) had been released to Paul Hoch under the FOIA. Consequently, firmly convinced that the film had been altered, but seeing no practical way to argue that on the pages of a hardcover book (remember: there was no email, or YouTube back then), I wrote what I called my “Zapruder film footnote”—a 750 word summary about the situation, calling attention to these key facts. This was written specifically with an eye to the future, and to preempt anyone who would cite the imagery on certain Z film frames and attempt to argue my central thesis was false. The “Zapruder film footnote” was published in Chapter 24 in Best Evidence, published in January, 1981,and discusses the artificiality of the back of the head being blacked out, as it appears on the Zapruder film. It also published the text of an April 1980 letter by Dallas doctor Peters (to JFK researcher Wallace Milam, another JFK researcher who, by the way, also firmly believed the Z film had been falsified, and that the head wound imagery had been painted on. Dr. Peters, who saw the President’s head in Dallas, said the large head wound that appeared towards the front, in the Z film frames sent him by Milam, must be an artifact, and in any event was not what he examined JFK at Parkland Hospital. In any event: please note that I was on record with the belief that the Zapruder film was altered, for these reasons, and published this in Best Evidence in 1981.

Continuing with my own follow-up activities re Z film being altered, and specifically, the head wound imagery being “painted on”:

•It was again rather obvious when I was able to obtain the actual 35mm Weitzman negative in July, 1990, in New York City, rented facilities at an optical lab, personally operated the Oxberry Optical Printer, and made blowups of this sequence—and, for precisely that reason: that the back of the head looked blacked out, and the head wounds painted on. Another purpose of doing all this was to break--once and for all--Robert Groden's "monopoly" on the Z film. Again, see my essay in Pig on a Leash, published in TGZFH, 2003, for details.

•In October, 1992, I decided to “give away” all my Zapruder insights, because I was fed up with Robert Groden presenting slow motion enlarged imagery, implying that the wounding of Kennedy, as shown in the Zapruder film, was faithful to what the Dallas doctors saw. Obviously, it was not. In my presentation, which was preserved on audio tape, I explained how the Zapruder film could have been altered using an optical printer. In the audience was Noel Twyman, and Harrison Livingstone. Both were quite excited by my presentation. Twyman immediately sought some guidance and advice, which I provided. Both went on to write books on the subject of the Z film being altered, and both talked about the falsification of the imagery. Also, by this time, JFK researcher Wallace Milam was thoroughly convinced the Z film had been falsified, and we had many conversations about it.

•At the JFK Lancer convention of 1996, I gave a multi-hour talk on the falsification of the Zapruder film, and the related falsification of the imagery. (Its all on video tape.)

•At the Lancer convention in 1998, and looking for something additional to say, since I had already presented all the major points in my 1996 presentation, I decided to focus on the back of the head being blacked out, and the artificality of the head wound imagery. So I went to the trouble of taking my Weitzman 35 mm internegative to an L.A. optical house, again hiring time on an optical printer, and creating a “reversal color internegative,” --this time focusing on the enlarged imagery of JFK’s head, in the 20-30 frames after the fatal show, and creating the result in "reversal" color--i.e., so that the blackened out area would appear to be white, in frame after frame, and then step-printing the result and presenting it as the main feature of my presentation arguing that the Zapruder film had been falsified, and the back of the head had been blacked out. (My presentation should be available as a JFK Lancer video).

•Regarding David Mantik: no doubt, once he became interested in the JFK assassination (he called me around 1992, with high praise for my book, which I assumed he had recently read), he also realized the obvious: that the back of the head was artificially patched, but I do not know when that was. When did he first have an opportunity to examine a high quality duplicate of the Zapruder film? I know he asked to borrow certain Nix frames about 1994; and I also do remember on at least one occasion, in the early 1990s, asking Mantik—who had done densitometry on the JFK X-rays, whether it would be possible to do densitometry readings on the 35 mm Weitzman negative to show that the “blacking out” was completely artificial.

•As to the changing captions in the frames of Life Magazine’s famous issue of October, 1964—your statement also implies that you were the first in that area, too. FYI: those discoveries were made starting in October, 1964, so I do not understand why anyone would lay claim to such discoveries much beyond that. Specifically: Ray Marcus in Southern California and Vince Salandria in Philadelphia (not to mention Josiah Thompson, Thomas Stamm, Sylvia Meagher and others)--all knew that the captions had been changed. (Salandria even obtained a letter from Life editor Ed Kearn on the extraordinary and explicable changes). At UC/Berkeley, Paul Hoch collected all the Life issues and produced a tabular graphic –a matrix of sorts--tracking the changing caption and pictures. In Best Evidence, published in January, 1981, I commented on Hoch’s work—and I did the same in Pig on a Leash, published in the anthology you edited, published in 2003. So that discovery—about the Life issue of October, 1964, and its changing captions—goes back some 47 years.

In summary: Having lived and toiled in these vineyards for some 40 years, it irks me to see someone come along decades later and blithely claim credit for discoveries which were made decades ago, and were a source of constant commentary among knowledgeable JFK researchers (back then called “Warren Report critics”).

As an expert in logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning, you should be more careful.

DSL

4/22/10; 2 AM PDT

Los Angeles, CA

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

JUDYTH REPLIES TO STEVEN ROY ABOUT LEE H. OSWALD AND DAVID FERRIE

NOTE: I take this opportunity to expand on the principles of reasoning that apply

in this case, which are presented in bold. They may be more important to under-

standing the case than I have realized before and deserved earlier consideration.

JUDYTH COMMENTS:

Mr. Roy, who came forth to McAdams' group as "David Blackburst" ---has sated here that Edward Haslam's research is a 'sream of consciousness" approach. Mr. Blackburst is a good researcher, but not this time: Ferrie's underground lab was across the street from his residence: though he kept mice there, he removed them when he had parties and moved them across the street. Said Ferrie to me, when I asked him, "I don't want anybody messing with my mice."

Jim Garrison in his OTTA book states he saw the cages, though the mice were gone, when he arrived on the scene. Death photos show a relativerly clean apartment, with some things missing, that to me are very telling: the photos on the wall of Dave Ferrie's CAP students and his associates are all gone. The walls are empty and that was not the case in 1963. Lots of stuff, especially books, are missing. The fact that Ferrie is shown in his bed conflicts with other reports that he was found on his mother's couch, a condition I told Blackburst I did not accept. Now the photos show that wasn't so, unless the body was moved there for photos.

==Blackburst says,

"The normal process is to marshall facts, then state some reasonable conclusion permitted by those facts. Haslam takes a less-rigorous stream of consciousness approach..."

JVB: Blackburst tries to tell us that this approach may not be 'normal" --

However, Haslam posts citations all along. He shows us how he reasoned his way from one clue to another. "Most" researchers don't tell us how they arrive at conclusions. Haslam tells us -- we can see the process. In essence, Haslam actually demonstrates MORE precision than usual because he tells us HOW he arrives at his conclusions. This is a scientific approach: you look a the data and you decide what it means and record the course of your decision-making.==

He offers a few possible pieces of evidence, then asks a question in boldface (not always in strict conformity with the cited evidence). But a few pages later, the question has hardened into a fact,

==Citations needed...not mere opinions==

NOTE FROM JIM ABOUT INDUCTIVE AND DEDUCTIVE REASONING IN THIS CASE

The differences between inductive and deductive reasoning are not well-understood, where

rational agents confronted with relevant evidence are not free to believe or not believe any-

thing they want. Suppose, for example, that you believe all rabbits are white. When you

encounter a brown rabbit, that belief is no longer rationally warranted. If you are rational in

your adherence to the principles of deductive reasoning, in this case, then when confronted

with a brown rabbit, you will reject your belief that all rabbits are white. Analogously, with

respect to the claim that there is a pink elephant in your living room, if you visit your living

room and detect no signs of a pink elephant, if you are rational, you will reject that belief.

Deductive reasoning is conclusive in the sense that, given the truth or the existence of the

premises as evidence, the conclusion cannot be false. In the examples I have just given,

we are dealing with deductive reasoning, where the existence of even a single brown rabbit

guarantees the truth of the conclusion that it is not the case all rabbits are white, and where

the absence of evidence that would have to be present if the elephant hypothesis were true

provides (virtually) conclusive evidence that no elephant is present based upon perception,

which is not as definitive because of the possibility of visual problems, mental states, etc.

Perceptual reasoning tends to be a highly reliable form of inductive reasoning, where the

content of the conclusion goes beyond the content of its premises by adding something to

it. Familiar examples of inductive reasoning include drawing inferences about populations

on the basis of sampling, reasoning from the past to the future, and from the observable

to the unobservable. But there are well-established standards, in general, for the weight

that should be assigned to the evidence, which is the domain of the study of logic, which

is concerned with the investigation and certification of those standards for rational belief.

In general, for a person to be rational, there should be an approximate correspondence

between their degree of belief (or strength of conviction) and the strength of the evidence

for that belief when objective standards are applied to the available relevant evidence. As

a general indication of this relationship, where the schematization I provided is intended to

reflect the fact that our knowledge of events in the world is characteristically inductive, not

deductive, which means that the conclusions we draw go beyond the truth of our premises.

Every belief we form about the world around us could possibly be false, even when there is

no reason to doubt their truth, where we could be hallucinating, misperceiving, and all that.

The most important principle, however, is known as "inference to the best explanation", in

which we compare likelihoods to discover which explanation for the evidence confers upon

it the highest probability if the hypothesis were true. The question becomes what account

can provide the most adequate explanation for events in New Orleans during this period of

time with respect to cancer research, the death of Mary Sherman, and everything related

to that. Ed Haslam's reseach seems to me to provide the best explanation for the available

relevant evidence, namely: that Ochsner had a problem involving cancer research, that he

put together a research group involving Mary Sherman, David Ferrie, Lee Oswald, and Judy,

where the core of what she has been telling us is right. Nothing else makes sense of it all.

None of it can be known with certainty, but the basic elements are very strongly supported.

It would be a mistake to suppose that every aspect of her story has to be supported to the

same degree as every other. Among the 17 findings that Haslam enumerates, which I have

reiterated above, the most important and best supported concern Judyth's ability to conduct

reseach on cancer, that she was induced to come to New Orleans by Alton Ochsner, that she

met and worked with Mary Sherman, David Ferrie, and Lee Oswald, that Mary was killed by

a massive source of electricity (almost certainly the linear particle accelerator at the Public

Health Hospital), and that Judyth was summarily dismissed by Ochsner after she complained

about the prisoner who was used in a (fatal) experiment conducted without informed consent.

These are the crucial elements of her story, which appear to me to be very difficult to doubt.

The deployment of an impostor and the campaign against her appear to me to be elements

of a classic agency operation to neutralize a threatening source of information. It would not

be necessary to take her out if she could be discredited by a massive campaign against her.

Because she was naive in presenting herself and emphasis was placed on the romance, not

the cancer research, which was the heart of the matter, she made herself vulnerable to many

kinds of attacks, which have continued to this day unrelentingly. That some points about the

books Lee may or may not have read seem less plausible than others, will affect some more

than others in considering her case. But it is important to bear in mind that none of this can

be known with certainty and that there appears to be no alternative that can explain as much.

I should also add that Judyth has the kind of detailed knowledge that could only be acquired

by living through the experiences that she discusses. The rest of her response to Blackburst,

as she refers to him (for reasons she explains), seems to me to be a perfect illustration. The

fact that she knows the bus route, that the route back was not the same as the route going

there, and all of that is ultimately the most convincing aspect of her story. I know that many

claims are made about inconsistencies and contradictions that are alleged to discredit her. My

experience with her, which has become more extensive than I could have ever imagined, has

convinced me that she has to be the person she claims to be. Nothing else makes any sense.

But I respect the right of others to disagree, even if it appears to me that they are not being

fully responsive to the available relevant evidence, which convinces me that her story is true.

As she observes, study Halsam's book and ME & LEE and decide what you think for yourself.

==

JUDYTH CONTINUES:

The net effect is that the ideas he postulates are not always supported by (or not always the

sole interpretation of) the cited evidence. Among the items for which the evidence is short are

the notions that Ferrie authored a certain "cancer treatise" and that he had an "underground

laboratory" in his apartment at 3330 Louisiana Avenue Parkway; yet, these are primary points

of that first edition. I found myself wishing to hear more evidence to support these points.

==Mr.Blackburst could have consulted me about "the cancer treatise" and I would have told him

what to look for to see if Ferrie had authored it or adapted it for his own particular use. In fact, to

own such a treatise, which gives directions for creaing a cell-free filtrate full of cancer-causing virus

material, is not the kind of thing one would expect to be cooked up in former aitline pilot's kitchen.

In fact, the most important recipe in the treatise indeed must be cooked up on a stove of some kind.

Irrelevant is how much of the treatise Ferrie himself wrote.

He possessed it.

He was making copies of it, which is why we know it was important to him.

Why would Ferrie WANT a 'cancer treaise' with a recipe for creating a medium to grow cancer cells in,

and with instructions on how to obtain cancer-causing viruses from cancerous maerials?

I am at an airport and working from memory, but I clearly recall seeing the treatise myself in 1963.

It was UNPUBLISHED--an insider's paper--as were so many that we used in 1963.

The references cited were old ones, tried and true.

How did Ferrie get his hands on it without being in contact with cancer researchers?

Why would he be working with that recipe to get cell-free flrates -- working not only with cancers, but

with filtrates cllecting cancer-causing viruses?

It seems that a forest can be lost looking at a single tree.

The discovery that Ferrie owned such a paper is a prodigious one, given its insider-status and its topic.

Did Mr. Blackburst know about this treatise owned by Ferrie?

Did he ever analyze the treatise?

Mr. Blackburs is the "Ferrie expert" and should be telling us what he knows about the treatise that differs

from what Haslam has told us.

Once again, Mr. Blackburst could have asked me about the relevance and importance of this treatise. By

the way, Mr.Edward T. Haslam did ask. He got the information. While it is impossible to ascertain who wrote

every word of the "cancer treatise" at the very least, we know that Ferrie copied it for himself and that a

change of verbiage shows the treatise was not composed all a the same time. It's the kind of research

paper you needed to have on hand if you were working by yourself. That fit Ferrie's situation to a "t".==

Blackburst also wrote:

"....and that he had an "underground laboratory" in his apartment at 3330 Louisiana Avenue Parkway; yet,

these are primary points of that first edition. I found myself wishing to hear more evidence to support these

points..."

I do appreciate the gentlemanly restraint used by Mr. Blackburst (I'm used to calling him that, as that is what

he told me his name was, for years)... and I will try to be as circumspect.

Mr. Blackburst says he wanted to see more evidence about the "underground laboratory" -- this kichen lab --

though he was presented with the information that the lab animals and the procedures used on them there--

a particular concern of Ferrie's-- did not involve his residence, but instead, were located across the street and

to the right, facing the street from Ferrie's residence on the second floor at 3330 Louisiana Avenue Parkway....

Yet Haslam presented a witness that he thoughly vetted.

Mr. Blackburst does not consider the witness to the laboratory as sufficient evidence of is existence. Tha witness

(myself) offers witnesses, in addition, attesting to her relationship with Lee Oswald. Haslam had already discerned

that Oswald for some reason (which I told him about) owned a health card form the US Public health Service, with

the fake Hidell doctor's name. Why the card? Read Haslam's book and mine.

Besides finding his witness, the treatise, and having learned many details that ONLY a New Orleans native raised

in a medically-oriented household could have known or apprerhended correctly, Haslam brought in evidence for

the linear particle accelerator and much, much more. He presents it in a fashion that allows the reader to deduce

his or her own conclusions. By doing so, he allows the introduction of new evidence at any time.

In other words, his theory is not agenda-driven. I encourage you, Mr. Blackburst, to present arguments as to why

he should discard me as a witness after ceaseless and thorough invesigations, grillings and astute challenges. One

interesting challenge was to prove I had actually been in Ferrie's apartment:

Haslam asked me the bus route to Dave's place. Those who had never been there by bus would have flunked the

test, because you could not ake the ame way going back tha you took going up, and there are no records of the

routes, which changed several times over the decades.

But in 1963, Edward Haslam was a student who rode the bus that went through Ferrie's very neighborhood every

day. We no doubt rode that bus sometimes together!

But the bus route back was different, not as close to Ferrie's house....

Haslam knew from personal experience that I rode tha route--a lot.

I'd been there. Therefore, if Mr. Blackburst does not accept me as a witness, despite the thorough vetting I've

received from numerous researchers and from Haslam himself, then i suppose no amount of evidence could ever

convince him that we did cancer research routines on a regular basis in Dave Ferrie's kitchen -- mostly while Ferrie

was at work and not when Ferrie had a pary, of course -- and Ferrie also worked at what we called "the Mouse House"

... This is sad news, because I would not like to think that Mr. Blackburst embraces an agenda, or keeps a closed mind.

Well, my time here is over, though surely there will be more strange and diverse comments, ad hominem atacks, and

so on, but here's hoping some of these issues are now settled..Please --let's move on. People should have enough

infomation to decide whether or not they want to read Me & Lee, Dr. Mary's Monkey, or buy Harvey and Lee. I know

Mr. Blackburst has a book on Dave Ferrie and that he and I do not agree whatsoever on Ferrie's character or history.

I do know that Mr. Blackburst never met Dave Ferrie,... and I have never been able to figure out why he appeared

right after the film "JFK" came out, with so much information about David Ferrie, having never known him. Inquiring

minds would like to know how he became so dedicated to this single person, and has remained so for almost two

decades, to the exclusion of almost all other topics, and why he made his original debut a John McAdams' newsgroup,

modestly saying he wasn't really an expert and was a fence-sitter about Lee Oswald. He was welcomed immediately,

nevertheless, by John McAdams as THE expert.

However--time passes......and comments made last year, etc. show us that Mr. Blackburst -- Stephen Roy -- believes

Lee Oswald shot JFK and has even stated some hostile remarks about Oswald.

Therefore, I do understand where Mr. Blackburst has come from, following a pattern first carved by Dave Reitzes, Gary

Mack, and BJ. However, he's more intelligent than all of them put together, and I respect him for his restraint, which is

an attribute sorely lacking among his compatriots.

Just a thought....I believe he may still tell some that he's a fence-sitter, but rather recent comments he has posted have

obliterated that stance in favor of WC Defender. Certainly his take on Dave Ferrie is a steady campaign to diminish the

man in every aspect, in every possible way.

Thank you.

JVB

There has been some discussion in this Forum about the books of Edward Haslam. In the interest of balance, I wanted to offer a few observations, some of which I have made in the past on this and other Forums, having researched in some detail some of the matters Haslam discusses. What follows is based on the "Mary, Ferrie and the Monkey Virus" first edition and a later update; I am in the process of obtaining "Dr. Mary's Monkey" for further examination. My comments mainly concern his Ferrie material, but I believe they may also apply in a more global sense.

The normal process is to marshall facts, then state some reasonable conclusion permitted by those facts. Haslam takes a less-rigorous stream of consciousness approach: He offers a few possible pieces of evidence, then asks a question in boldface (not always in strict conformity with the cited evidence). But a few pages later, the question has hardened into a fact, and it is combined with other pieces of evidence to form a new boldface question. And so on. The net effect is that the ideas he postulates are not always supported by (or not always the sole interpretation of) the cited evidence. Among the items for which the evidence is short are the notions that Ferrie authored a certain "cancer treatise" and that he had an "underground laboratory" in his apartment at 3330 Louisiana Avenue Parkway; yet, these are primary points of that first edition. I found myself wishing to hear more evidence to support these points.

He bases much of his Ferrie research on (one of several installments of) a report by the Southern Research Company. Helpful as it may be, the SRC report has certain limitations: It was commissioned by Eastern Air Lines for the purpose of digging up dirt to be used against Ferrie in a grievance hearing related to his dismissal by that airline; The focus of the report is very narrow in terms of Ferrie's overall activities; and the report itself contains errors.

I have been unsuccessful in attempting to initiate discussion with the author on these and other issues. I can't say one way or the other if his points are solid or not, but I would suggest that interested readers consult additional primary evidence where possible.

Edited April 25, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

JIM REPLIES TO DAVID LIFTON ABOUT THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE IN RELATION TO ZAPRUDER FAKERY

Just for the record, I have no problem with what you are saying here. What I was referring to was the use of the combination of these findings--the patch to the back of the X-ray, the missing mass at the right-front, the LIFE Magazine caption, the TV appearance of Abraham Zapruder, and the addition of the "blob" to the images in the film--for the purpose of providing mutually-reinforcing but fabricated "evidence" to support the thesis that the shooter was above and behind. It was putting these pieces together in the fashion that I presented them in "Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid" to explain how they intended to create the impression that he had been hit in the head by a bullet from above and behind, when the actual event blew his brains to the left and to the rear, for which I was claiming credit (and, of course, the discovery that the blow out is actually visible in frame 374). It was only the way I put all of these pieces together to discern exactly how they were going to try to get away with it for which I meant to assert discovery--which is hard to dispute, since, to the best of my knowledge, no one else (including you and David Mantik) has made the point about the missing mass from the right-front of the lateral-cranial and the anterior-posterior X-rays. Correct me if I am wrong, but even Gary Aguilar, on the occasion of our first meeting, told me that the APPEARANCE of missing mass was an effect of OVEREXPOSURE and was not genuine. I thought that was a rather odd thing to say to me on our first meeting, but it stuck with me and I now believe not only that he was wrong but that the missing mass was a crucial ingredient in the medical cover-up that could be used to support what is seen in the film. We know it was not true, of course, from Jackie's testimony and virtually every other report about the appearance of his face where, as Jackie put it, from the front, he looked just fine (but that she had had a terrible time trying to hold his brains and skull together at the rear of his head). My admiration for your and David's work on the medical evidence, which has now been reinforced by Doug Horne, knows no bounds. But, so far as I am aware, I was the first to put all of these pieces of the puzzle together in the article that I cite, where, even today, David has not told me that he agrees with me about that missing mass I discern in the X-rays. I am glad to have you post about this here, a "collateral benefit" of our differences about Judyth and what happened in New Orleans. Consider what I said as I meant it to be understood and see if you don't agree with me about it.

Jim,

A number of statements made in your post #1447 (a post asserting who was responsible for a number of original discoveries re theories pertaining to the falsification of the Z film) are incorrect. Immediately below is your statement, and below that is my attempt to “clarify the record” regarding your claim of being “apparently the first” to discover an “interlocking pattern of deception” etc.

Here is your statement:

• Re “It was I who . . . [was] 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 the back of the head (which Mantik discovered), the Life Magazine caption for its Frame 313. . . “

This statement contains multiple errors, and numerous false implications. Rather than try to sort through each one, here is my own statement, “for the record” (as the saying goes):

•The school year 1966-67: The business of the back of the head being blacked out on the Zapruder frames was perfectly obvious --certainly, to me--when I was able to examine Life’s 3" x 4 “ transparencies when they were sent to Los Angeles as part of Professor Wesley Liebeler’s UCLA Law School seminar on the Warren Commission, in the school year 966-67. That the back of the head was “blacked out” was already noticeable from frames of the film published in the 11/29/63 of Life Magazine, the LIFE MEMORIAL issue (Dec 7, 1963) and the October, 1964 issue Life Magazine. But Liebeler's UCLA class was the first time I realized that it actually appeared that way (i.e., blacked out) on the Life slide set.

•In June, 1970, at the Beverly Hills office of Time-Life: it was very obvious to me—and three other JFK researchers—who spent hours examining the 35 mm version of the Zapruder film that (a) the back of the head seemed artificially blacked out and (b ) the so-called “large head wound” was painted on. This was the first time I could see with my own eyes that this blacking out was not just a feature of the Life slide set (which I had already seen, as noted, when I examined the slides as part of Liebeler's UCLA Law class) but on the actual film itself. In June, 1970, I was able to actually pull a 16mm copy of the original Z film through a Recordak Microfilm reader, and could see the blacking out right there on the screen. All this is described in detail in “Pig on a Leash,” which I wrote and was published in the anthology you edited (2003). As a consequence of a letter written by the famous Hollywood director, Haskell Wexler, (in which we were described as "appraisers"), we all were able to examine these extraordinary materials, and we could all see that (a) the back of the head had been blacked out and (b ) the “wounds” appeared painted on. The four were: Fred Newcomb, Jack Clemente, Dennis Roy, and myself—we all saw it. It was rather obvious. “Can you believe this?! They altered the Zapruder film!” That was the general tone of the reaction. Of course, we didn’t know how “they” had done it, or exactly who “they” were.

•Turning to the situation as it existed in 1980: in writing Best Evidence, I was quite aware that while I was contrasting the Dallas and Bethesda description of the wounds (in making the case that the boy had been altered) that the Zapruder film frames portrayed “Bethesda-like” wounding. Also, by that time, the famous CIA documents (CIA 450) had been released to Paul Hoch under the FOIA. Consequently, firmly convinced that the film had been altered, but seeing no practical way to argue that on the pages of a hardcover book (remember: there was no email, or YouTube back then), I wrote what I called my “Zapruder film footnote”—a 750 word summary about the situation, calling attention to these key facts. This was written specifically with an eye to the future, and to preempt anyone who would cite the imagery on certain Z film frames and attempt to argue my central thesis was false. The “Zapruder film footnote” was published in Chapter 24 in Best Evidence, published in January, 1981,and discusses the artificiality of the back of the head being blacked out, as it appears on the Zapruder film. It also published the text of an April 1980 letter by Dallas doctor Peters (to JFK researcher Wallace Milam, another JFK researcher who, by the way, also firmly believed the Z film had been falsified, and that the head wound imagery had been painted on. Dr. Peters, who saw the President’s head in Dallas, said the large head wound that appeared towards the front, in the Z film frames sent him by Milam, must be an artifact, and in any event was not what he examined JFK at Parkland Hospital. In any event: please note that I was on record with the belief that the Zapruder film was altered, for these reasons, and published this in Best Evidence in 1981.

Continuing with my own follow-up activities re Z film being altered, and specifically, the head wound imagery being “painted on”:

•It was again rather obvious when I was able to obtain the actual 35mm Weitzman negative in July, 1990, in New York City, rented facilities at an optical lab, personally operated the Oxberry Optical Printer, and made blowups of this sequence—and, for precisely that reason: that the back of the head looked blacked out, and the head wounds painted on. Another purpose of doing all this was to break--once and for all--Robert Groden's "monopoly" on the Z film. Again, see my essay in Pig on a Leash, published in TGZFH, 2003, for details.

•In October, 1992, I decided to “give away” all my Zapruder insights, because I was fed up with Robert Groden presenting slow motion enlarged imagery, implying that the wounding of Kennedy, as shown in the Zapruder film, was faithful to what the Dallas doctors saw. Obviously, it was not. In my presentation, which was preserved on audio tape, I explained how the Zapruder film could have been altered using an optical printer. In the audience was Noel Twyman, and Harrison Livingstone. Both were quite excited by my presentation. Twyman immediately sought some guidance and advice, which I provided. Both went on to write books on the subject of the Z film being altered, and both talked about the falsification of the imagery. Also, by this time, JFK researcher Wallace Milam was thoroughly convinced the Z film had been falsified, and we had many conversations about it.

•At the JFK Lancer convention of 1996, I gave a multi-hour talk on the falsification of the Zapruder film, and the related falsification of the imagery. (Its all on video tape.)

•At the Lancer convention in 1998, and looking for something additional to say, since I had already presented all the major points in my 1996 presentation, I decided to focus on the back of the head being blacked out, and the artificality of the head wound imagery. So I went to the trouble of taking my Weitzman 35 mm internegative to an L.A. optical house, again hiring time on an optical printer, and creating a “reversal color internegative,” --this time focusing on the enlarged imagery of JFK’s head, in the 20-30 frames after the fatal show, and creating the result in "reversal" color--i.e., so that the blackened out area would appear to be white, in frame after frame, and then step-printing the result and presenting it as the main feature of my presentation arguing that the Zapruder film had been falsified, and the back of the head had been blacked out. (My presentation should be available as a JFK Lancer video).

•Regarding David Mantik: no doubt, once he became interested in the JFK assassination (he called me around 1992, with high praise for my book, which I assumed he had recently read), he also realized the obvious: that the back of the head was artificially patched, but I do not know when that was. When did he first have an opportunity to examine a high quality duplicate of the Zapruder film? I know he asked to borrow certain Nix frames about 1994; and I also do remember on at least one occasion, in the early 1990s, asking Mantik—who had done densitometry on the JFK X-rays, whether it would be possible to do densitometry readings on the 35 mm Weitzman negative to show that the “blacking out” was completely artificial.

•As to the changing captions in the frames of Life Magazine’s famous issue of October, 1964—your statement also implies that you were the first in that area, too. FYI: those discoveries were made starting in October, 1964, so I do not understand why anyone would lay claim to such discoveries much beyond that. Specifically: Ray Marcus in Southern California and Vince Salandria in Philadelphia (not to mention Josiah Thompson, Thomas Stamm, Sylvia Meagher and others)--all knew that the captions had been changed. (Salandria even obtained a letter from Life editor Ed Kearn on the extraordinary and explicable changes). At UC/Berkeley, Paul Hoch collected all the Life issues and produced a tabular graphic –a matrix of sorts--tracking the changing caption and pictures. In Best Evidence, published in January, 1981, I commented on Hoch’s work—and I did the same in Pig on a Leash, published in the anthology you edited, published in 2003. So that discovery—about the Life issue of October, 1964, and its changing captions—goes back some 47 years.

In summary: Having lived and toiled in these vineyards for some 40 years, it irks me to see someone come along decades later and blithely claim credit for discoveries which were made decades ago, and were a source of constant commentary among knowledgeable JFK researchers (back then called “Warren Report critics”).

As an expert in logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning, you should be more careful.

DSL

4/22/10; 2 AM PDT

Los Angeles, CA

Edited April 25, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[David Lifton]

Jim,

I am writing this simply "for the record" and in response to just one statement that is made in your post #1480.

Quoting you:

"It was only the way I put all of these pieces together to discern exactly how they were going to try to get away with it for which I meant to assert discovery--which is hard to dispute, since, to the best of my knowledge, no one else (including you and David Mantik) has made the point about the missing mass from the right-front of the lateral-cranial and the anterior-posterior X-rays. Correct me if I am wrong, but even Gary Aguilar, on the occasion of our first meeting, told me that the APPEARANCE of missing mass was an effect of OVEREXPOSURE and was not genuine. I thought that was a rather odd thing to say to me on our first meeting, but it stuck with me and I now believe not only that he was wrong but that the missing mass was a crucial ingredient in the medical cover-up that could be used to support what is seen in the film. We know it was not true," UNQUOTE

FYI: I believe this very point--the clear visual contradiction between what the JFK lateral X-Ray shows, with a major "black" area on the forward right hand side, and the JFK "stare of death" autopsy photograph was published in the 1988 Carroll and Graf edition of Best Evidence, which published the JFK autopsy photographs for the first time. I do not have the Carroll and Graf edition of B.E. in front of me as I write this, but here's what I recall.

It was the Spring of 1988, I had had these photographs since 1982, and the decision had been made by Carroll and Graf to re-publish BEST EVIDENCE, and to publish these photographs; and I was drafting the Epilogue describing the results of what happened in December, 1982 and January, 1983, when I visited Dallas and--along with Pat Valentino, in January--showed the autopsy photos to as many Dallas doctors and nurses as would meet with us. To get the finest possible prints, I had submitted my best copies to the photo lab at the UCLA Medical Center. I also happened to work at UCLA, at the time, in the pediatric radiology unit. I was looking at the autopsy photographs--and at the X-rays--and I had one of those "aha" moments, because there, on my desk, was this amazing, and--to me--inexplicable, contradiction. How could the X-rays show this huge black area, and yet the "stare of death" photo show the front of JFK's face so completely uninjured.

Being at UCLA, it was easy to solicit the opinion of a variety of doctors, and I did so. As I recall, the verdict was near unanimous: the two were contradictory.

What I remember then doing was either adding to the text of the 1988 Epilogue or actually incorporating this observation into the captions I was then responsible for writing. But somehow, I do remember communicating this clash between what the photos appeared to show, and what seemed so evident on the X-rays.

If I am wrong, I will modify this post, but that is my current recollection.

As to Gary Aguilar, he has made a small career out of attempting to deny the validity of BEST EVIDENCE, so I would heavily discount anything he has to say. Many years ago, when I first met Aguilar, and when I would speak to him on the phone, he referred to me as "chief" (as if he were a soldier, snapping his heels. "Yes, chief", etc.). That was when I was up on some sort of pedestal. Then I fell off the pedestal, and he busily tries to discount the major tenets of my book, all the while qualifying his negative message with statements like, "Now, mind you, I am not saying there couldn't have been surgery!" FYI: I tried to get a slot at the 2004 Wecht Conference so that Doug Horne and I might present the new ideas--recently synthesized by Doug--that there was "post-midnight" photography and that Knudsen may have been the photographer. I approached Wecht via a close friend of his, and his immediate response was "yes." Then, about one to two weeks later, came another message: "No," and the explanation: "Aguilar."

So that year, many heard the usual speeches about the Single Bullet Theory, but some truly original work was not presented--and it could have been.

That's all I have to say for now.

DSL

4/22/10, 5AM PDT

[Cliff Varnell]

So that year, many heard the usual speeches about the Single Bullet Theory, but some truly original work was not presented--and it could have been.

That's all I have to say for now.

DSL

4/22/10, 5AM PDT

David, I believe you're referring to the 2003 Wecht Conference?

There were at least two "CT" speakers there -- John Hunt, Stu Wexler -- who

are convinced that a bullet struck JFK in the posterior base of the neck and

exited his throat.

The NAA was the big controversy. I'm under the impression that JFK's back

wound at T3 was never mentioned during the entire conference (although

I'm open to correction on this point; the roster of speakers indicates as

much.)

IOW, it was a conference of Single Bullet Theorists out to impeach the SBT

on grounds other than trajectory.

I regard the event as a major joke, and I personally would be glad to have

had nothing to do with it if I were you.

Thanks for your ground-breaking work on the FBI autopsy report, David. That

said, I find the construct "David Lifton's body alteration theory" to be historically

inaccurate.

It's "Commander Humes' body alteration observation as recorded by Sibert

and O'Neill and made known to the world by David Lifton with an assist from

Paul Hoch."

Not as snappy, obviously, but infinitely more accurate.

Those who challenge the basic tenent of your research are not challenging

a "theory" -- they are challenging a properly recorded statement which

happens to impeach the validity of all the head wound(s) evidence.

Humes observation is part of the credible historical record, and as such belongs

to all of us, not just you, David.

Edited April 22, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Karl Kinaski]

xxx

Edited October 29, 2010 by Karl Kinaski