Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

This is a nice illustration of the deceptive practices of Stephen Roy. In earlier work, Ed Haslam talked about the use of Ferrie's apartment as a lab. Since then, he has uncovered additional evidence that explains that, while Ferrie's apartment was used for many of the experiments (killing mice and extracting their tumors, for example), the primary lab was located across the street and down from his apartment, as I explained in the post just before his! Since Haslam has acquired new evidence about how these things were being done, which he has explained in later editions of his book, Roy tells us that he is only going to talk about the mistaken earlier edition! How outrageous is that? This is a nice example of someone not letting their prior probs be affected by new evidence, because it would cause them to have to modify their position. This tells me that Roy is not seeking the truth but attempting to distort it, which is deplorable.

Miss Baker:

I still do not wish to be drawn into a debate about this case. I will respond to points you have raised.

Since the time Mr. Haslam's first edition was published, and through an updated edition, my feelings about the book have not changed. (As I noted, I have ordered a copy of the newest edition.) Despite some implications in this thread that Haslam's book is the authoritative word on certain matters, I disagree, with all due respect to Mr. Haslam. One of the central claims of the first edition is that Ferrie had an "underground lab" in his apartment at 3330 Louisiana Avenue Parkway, but the book provides little, if any, evidence to support this. If I am missing any evidence from the book to support this claim, please correct me.

Jim Garrison did say that he saw mice cages there after Ferrie's death, but the first responders on that day (police, Assistant DAs, coroner (and others) did not see them, and the death scene pictures do not show them. I have to surmise that Garrison was mistaken. (Garrison had recently received a Gurvich memo mentioning mice cages in a earlier Ferrie home, in 1957.)

I think Haslam concedes today that Ferrie might not have written the cancer treatise, but in his first edition, he implied that Ferrie wrote it. Ferrie had a number of medical books and papers among his effects.

You mention the possibility of a medical lab in an apartment across the street. In this discussion, I am considering only Mr. Haslam's claim that Ferrie had such a lab in his apartment.

I don't understand your comments about why I "appeared" right after the JFK film came out, and why I have specialized in David Ferrie, because I've addressed these things many times. I was interested in the assassination from the time it happened. I read all of the first wave of critical literature, ordered the WC report and volumes, and even gave lectures and wrote articles, all from a CT perspective. In 1967, I became interested in Ferrie, thinking he may have been the mastermind. I read Weisberg, Epstein, Flammonde and other books dealing with Ferrie. Because the Ferrie info was scattered in many places, I started collating it into chronologies. I started ordering documents and contacting witnesses. In the 70s, several relevant reports and many new documents became available. At that point, I decided to write it all up as a biography. To help with that, I got a computer, which eventually led me to the Internet in the early 90s, which is when I "appeared." The only discussion groups I could find at that time were the newsgroups. At one point, Dave Reitzes wrote and asked if he could collate a few of my posts into an archive, and I consented. By then, I was known as a Ferrie specialist, and I was invited to speak on Ferrie a few times at conferences. My work on the biography is ongoing; It is hard to ever declare it "done"!!! I keep finding new things, contacting new people. The text is about 2/3 done (but open to revision, as it's on MSWord). Since I've married and had kids, it has cut my research/writing time down to just a few hours a week. I think that covers it.

As for Oswald, I'm no expert on any of those aspects of the case; I just keep up with the research and have opinions, like everybody else out here. I once felt Oswald was completely innocent; but I have come to feel that it is hard to support that belief unless a great deal of evidence was faked. And in re-reading Oswald's writings, I find his thought process very idiosyncratic.

So no, I'm not in league with anybody else. I do thank you for a few of the things you said in your post. Again, I'd prefer if you kept me out of the general debate. I just don't have time to plow through page after page of stuff.

Again, my whole point was that Haslam may be right, may be wrong. I recommend that interested readers seek alternate primary sources wherever possible.

Edited April 26, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Pamela Brown]

JF said: This is a nice illustration of the deceptive practices of Stephen Roy.

It is my understanding that the Davie Ferrie of Stephen Roy's research was not even acquainted with Lee Oswald. He can correct me if I am mistaken. However, if Roy chooses not to look into evidence of conspiracy, how shall we weigh whatever else he has to say?

[Pamela Brown]

DL said:

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.

Let's keep in mind that Lifton is one who claims to be an alterationist, yet has no interest in early viewings of the Zapruder.

Let's not also forget that MFW, though self-published, came out long before BE and put forth not only the concept of body alteration but of Z-film(s) alteration.

Murder From Within was never "self published" as far as I know. It existed only as a typewritten

manuscript. The only copy of it I ever saw was a xerox copy owned by Mary Ferrell.

My understanding is that all copies of it which proliferated were similar xeroxes. Am I wrong?

Jack

It was published, copyright 1974, by Lifton's LA buddy Fred Newcomb and Perry Adams, by PROBE, PO Box 13390, UCSB, Santa Barbara, CA 93107. It is in a spiral bound format.

[Stephen Roy]

JF said: This is a nice illustration of the deceptive practices of Stephen Roy.

It is my understanding that the Davie Ferrie of Stephen Roy's research was not even acquainted with Lee Oswald. He can correct me if I am mistaken. However, if Roy chooses not to look into evidence of conspiracy, how shall we weigh whatever else he has to say?

>Sigh<

What I've said is that, on one side, we have several people who have claimed that they associated in 1963; On the other, we have Ferrie denying it (except for a brief brush in the CAP in 1955) and his friends saying they never knew of such a 1963 relationship.

[Stephen Roy]

"This is a nice illustration of the deceptive practices of Stephen Roy. In earlier work, Ed Haslam talked about the use of Ferrie's apartment as a lab. Since then, he has uncovered additional evidence that explains that, while Ferrie's apartment was used for many of the experiments (killing mice and extracting their tumors, for example), the primary lab was located across the street and down from his apartment, as I explained in the post just before his! Since Haslam has acquired new evidence about how these things were being done, which he has explained in later editions of his book, Roy tells us that he is only going to talk about the mistaken earlier edition! How outrageous is that? This is a nice example of someone not letting their prior probs be affected by new evidence, because it would cause them to have to modify their position. This tells me that Roy is not seeking the truth but attempting to distort it, which is deplorable."

How dare you. Who do you think you are, speaking to me in such a condescending way?

"Deceptive practices...outrageous...attempting to distort [truth]...deplorable"

I made it crystal clear that I was speaking about the research process in the only two editions I own, and I commented in a restrained and polite way.

And I noted that I have ordered the newer edition.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

COMMENT ON JACK'S METHODOLOGY

In post #1474, Jack asserted that he is reading all of the new posts, even

though he has said repeatedly that he is not reading those from Judyth.

In post #1479, I identified the location of the linear particle accelerator:

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.

In post #1495, he asks if the accelerator was located in Ferrie's apartment or lab across the

street. Not to put too fine a point on it but, given this post, how can post #1474 be truthful?

Here is a LINEAR PARTICLE ACCELERATOR. Did David Ferrie have his in his apartment

or his laboratory across the street?

Jack

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

If you can't see the dishonesty of your methodology, I can't help you. Come back when you are up-to-speed on the evidence.

"This is a nice illustration of the deceptive practices of Stephen Roy. In earlier work, Ed Haslam talked about the use of Ferrie's apartment as a lab. Since then, he has uncovered additional evidence that explains that, while Ferrie's apartment was used for many of the experiments (killing mice and extracting their tumors, for example), the primary lab was located across the street and down from his apartment, as I explained in the post just before his! Since Haslam has acquired new evidence about how these things were being done, which he has explained in later editions of his book, Roy tells us that he is only going to talk about the mistaken earlier edition! How outrageous is that? This is a nice example of someone not letting their prior probs be affected by new evidence, because it would cause them to have to modify their position. This tells me that Roy is not seeking the truth but attempting to distort it, which is deplorable."

How dare you. Who do you think you are, speaking to me in such a condescending way?

"Deceptive practices...outrageous...attempting to distort [truth]...deplorable"

I made it crystal clear that I was speaking about the research process in the only two editions I own, and I commented in a restrained and polite way.

And I noted that I have ordered the newer edition.

[Jack White]

Food for thought...Ed Haslam's father was an employee of the Oschner Clinic.*

*I came across this tidbit on some internet site a few days ago; I do not remember

the site.

Edited April 22, 2010 by Jack White

[Jack White]

DL said:

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.

Let's keep in mind that Lifton is one who claims to be an alterationist, yet has no interest in early viewings of the Zapruder.

Let's not also forget that MFW, though self-published, came out long before BE and put forth not only the concept of body alteration but of Z-film(s) alteration.

Murder From Within was never "self published" as far as I know. It existed only as a typewritten

manuscript. The only copy of it I ever saw was a xerox copy owned by Mary Ferrell.

My understanding is that all copies of it which proliferated were similar xeroxes. Am I wrong?

Jack

It was published, copyright 1974, by Lifton's LA buddy Fred Newcomb and Perry Adams, by PROBE, PO Box 13390, UCSB, Santa Barbara, CA 93107. It is in a spiral bound format.

Then it was not self-published.

[Pamela Brown]

JF said: This is a nice illustration of the deceptive practices of Stephen Roy.

It is my understanding that the Davie Ferrie of Stephen Roy's research was not even acquainted with Lee Oswald. He can correct me if I am mistaken. However, if Roy chooses not to look into evidence of conspiracy, how shall we weigh whatever else he has to say?

>Sigh<

What I've said is that, on one side, we have several people who have claimed that they associated in 1963; On the other, we have Ferrie denying it (except for a brief brush in the CAP in 1955) and his friends saying they never knew of such a 1963 relationship.

You really must quit making my point for me, Stephen.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Mr. Fetzer-

Both you and Dean Hartwell have asserted that there is solid support for the 17 points you listed earlier. Since we are all interested in getting to the truth of this matter, i ask again if you would be kind enough to spell out- point by point- exactly what that support is. i would hope that the support is more than just "judyth told me so."

Could we begin with point #1? what is your hard evidence, your solid support for

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

[Todd W. Vaughan]

DL said:

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.

Let's keep in mind that Lifton is one who claims to be an alterationist, yet has no interest in early viewings of the Zapruder.

Let's not also forget that MFW, though self-published, came out long before BE and put forth not only the concept of body alteration but of Z-film(s) alteration.

Murder From Within was never "self published" as far as I know. It existed only as a typewritten

manuscript. The only copy of it I ever saw was a xerox copy owned by Mary Ferrell.

My understanding is that all copies of it which proliferated were similar xeroxes. Am I wrong?

Jack

It was published, copyright 1974, by Lifton's LA buddy Fred Newcomb and Perry Adams, by PROBE, PO Box 13390, UCSB, Santa Barbara, CA 93107. It is in a spiral bound format.

Then it was not self-published.

Not positive, but I think PROBE may have been a company they formed for publishing.

[Stephen Roy]

If you can't see the dishonesty of your methodology, I can't help you. Come back when you are up-to-speed on the evidence.

"This is a nice illustration of the deceptive practices of Stephen Roy. In earlier work, Ed Haslam talked about the use of Ferrie's apartment as a lab. Since then, he has uncovered additional evidence that explains that, while Ferrie's apartment was used for many of the experiments (killing mice and extracting their tumors, for example), the primary lab was located across the street and down from his apartment, as I explained in the post just before his! Since Haslam has acquired new evidence about how these things were being done, which he has explained in later editions of his book, Roy tells us that he is only going to talk about the mistaken earlier edition! How outrageous is that? This is a nice example of someone not letting their prior probs be affected by new evidence, because it would cause them to have to modify their position. This tells me that Roy is not seeking the truth but attempting to distort it, which is deplorable."

How dare you. Who do you think you are, speaking to me in such a condescending way?

"Deceptive practices...outrageous...attempting to distort [truth]...deplorable"

I made it crystal clear that I was speaking about the research process in the only two editions I own, and I commented in a restrained and polite way.

And I noted that I have ordered the newer edition.

Knock off the condescension until your familiarity with the New Orleans evidence equals mine.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Kevin,

I cannot redo some 1,500 posts! If you have read some of my most recent posts,

you would know that the weight of support for all 17 is not necessarily the same.

I recommend waiting until ME & LEE appears and another thread shows up. I am

frankly spent over this. But there is loads of evidence to be found on this thread,

in Ed Haslam's books, on my blog, and elsewhere. But thanks for the invitation.

Jim

Mr. Fetzer-

Both you and Dean Hartwell have asserted that there is solid support for the 17 points you listed earlier. Since we are all interested in getting to the truth of this matter, i ask again if you would be kind enough to spell out- point by point- exactly what that support is. i would hope that the support is more than just "judyth told me so."

Could we begin with point #1? what is your hard evidence, your solid support for

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

Edited April 22, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Evidently, it is already superior!

If you can't see the dishonesty of your methodology, I can't help you. Come back when you are up-to-speed on the evidence.

"This is a nice illustration of the deceptive practices of Stephen Roy. In earlier work, Ed Haslam talked about the use of Ferrie's apartment as a lab. Since then, he has uncovered additional evidence that explains that, while Ferrie's apartment was used for many of the experiments (killing mice and extracting their tumors, for example), the primary lab was located across the street and down from his apartment, as I explained in the post just before his! Since Haslam has acquired new evidence about how these things were being done, which he has explained in later editions of his book, Roy tells us that he is only going to talk about the mistaken earlier edition! How outrageous is that? This is a nice example of someone not letting their prior probs be affected by new evidence, because it would cause them to have to modify their position. This tells me that Roy is not seeking the truth but attempting to distort it, which is deplorable."

How dare you. Who do you think you are, speaking to me in such a condescending way?

"Deceptive practices...outrageous...attempting to distort [truth]...deplorable"

I made it crystal clear that I was speaking about the research process in the only two editions I own, and I commented in a restrained and polite way.

And I noted that I have ordered the newer edition.

Knock off the condescension until your familiarity with the New Orleans evidence equals mine.