Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[Mike Williams]

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.?

Kevin,

I have become quite good at decoding Fetzer.

What he is really saying to you here is that he can not support the first point let alone the other 16. He claims he is too "spent" and yet I assure you my good man, he will be posting to this thread for eons to come.

Laughing,

Mike

[Jack White]

But Jim...Mary Sherman died at home in her apartment. If the LINEAR ACCELERATOR was located

in the Public Health Hospital, how could it have been responsible for her death?

Have you read the reports of her death?

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

[Stephen Roy]

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.

Great, great. I am in the presence of greatness.

Start by telling me all you know about David Ferrie.

Then tell me the evidence Haslam offers to support the claim that Ferrie had an underground lab in his apartment.

Then tell me about the interviews you've done with the New Orleans witnesses.

Edited April 22, 2010 by Stephen Roy

[Mike Williams]

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.

Great, great. I am in the presence of greatness.

Start by telling me all you know about David Ferrie.

Then tell me the evidence Haslam offers to support the claim that Ferrie had an underground lab in his apartment.

Then tell me about the interviews you've done with the New Orleans witnesses.

Stephen,

Shame on you for asking Fetzer for anything resembling accurate evidence. When his greatness speaks you are to follow BLINDLY please try to remember this in the future.

Mike

[Stephen Roy]

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.

Great, great. I am in the presence of greatness.

Start by telling me all you know about David Ferrie.

Then tell me the evidence Haslam offers to support the claim that Ferrie had an underground lab in his apartment.

Then tell me about the interviews you've done with the New Orleans witnesses.

Stephen,

Shame on you for asking Fetzer for anything resembling accurate evidence. When his greatness speaks you are to follow BLINDLY please try to remember this in the future.

Mike

Oh, you're right. I've been so wrong. How could I possibly think that twenty-some-odd years of acquiring every Ferrie document I could find, of interviewing every surviving acquaintance of Ferrie I could find, of acquiring reams of unpublished stuff about Ferrie might qualify me to have an opinion on these matters, in contrast to...

[Stephen Roy]

OK, all kidding aside. Miss Baker: Do you think you could convince him to cool it?

[Kevin Greenlee]

mr fetzer-

i appreciate your response.

can you allow me to make an observation or three?

as i've indicated before, i have read this thread and i also have made myself with judyth's story as it's been offered in other venues. the only "evidence" i have seen which backs up most of your 17 points is "because judyth said so." i do not find that particularly compelling and was hoping you could offer something more substantial.

even though- as you said- some of your points have more backing than others you said in a recent message that the fact that Judyth was "induced to come to New orleans by Alton ochsner" was among "the most important and best supported" of the 17 points. i imagined then that you had plenty to say about it. apparently that's not the case.

throughout this thread, it seems to me you have fairly consistently been frustrated by how critics have focused on what you feel are trivial aspects of judyth's story. i believed then that you would welcome the opportunity to shift the attention to what you believe are the essentials of her tale. those 17 points, after all, were created by a judyth supporter. since an ally created that rhetorical battleground (and you trumpeted it), i assumed you would be ready- even eager- to defend it. instead, you seem more interested in going back to arguing trivia (ie, the location of a linear accelerator). this is, of course, your right. but it certainly does create the impression that you are unable to back up what you say are the crucial elements of the story you have been so strenuously defending for the last couple of months. and if you cannot back up one of "the most important and best supported" of the 17 points it makes me wonder just how weak and flimsy the other 16 most be.

thanks again for the response.

[Glenn Viklund]

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.

Great, great. I am in the presence of greatness.

Start by telling me all you know about David Ferrie.

Then tell me the evidence Haslam offers to support the claim that Ferrie had an underground lab in his apartment.

Then tell me about the interviews you've done with the New Orleans witnesses.

Stephen,

Shame on you for asking Fetzer for anything resembling accurate evidence. When his greatness speaks you are to follow BLINDLY please try to remember this in the future.

Mike

Oh, you're right. I've been so wrong. How could I possibly think that twenty-some-odd years of acquiring every Ferrie document I could find, of interviewing every surviving acquaintance of Ferrie I could find, of acquiring reams of unpublished stuff about Ferrie might qualify me to have an opinion on these matters, in contrast to...

Stephen.

Yes, how could you possibly dare?

We should all remember that this is Fetzer's own little Kangaroo Court. He will decide what's admissible evidence, he will be the judge and he will decide the punishment.

Edited April 22, 2010 by Glenn Viklund

[Barb Junkkarinen]

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.

Please detail ... briefly ... the "solid support" that renders "Judyth's statements" to be FACTS.

In Fetzer's own words, as I posted recently, on what is or is not a FACT:

It should be observed that no claim is a "fact" unless it happens to be

true. Indeed, in its stronger sense, "facts" are claims whose truth has

been verified. (James Fetzer, Sunday, Apr 5, 2009 8:37am Altgen's thread, yahoo group)

We are familiar with Judyth's many statements and claims. Please post the verification for those 17 points that your are calling "facts."

For instance, on point #1 .... Judyth claims she was invited to New Orleans by Dr. Ochsner.

What have you or anyone been able to *verify* that confirms that claim is a "fact"?

Thanks,

Barb :-)

[Dean Hagerman]

But Jim...Mary Sherman died at home in her apartment. If the LINEAR ACCELERATOR was located

in the Public Health Hospital, how could it have been responsible for her death?

Have you read the reports of her death?

Boom-shaka-laka

Since Jack and I are both huge Basketball fans I figured that my favorite saying would be approprite for Jacks smackdown

[David G. Healy]

...

Stephen,

Shame on you for asking Fetzer for anything resembling accurate evidence. When his greatness speaks you are to follow BLINDLY please try to remember this in the future.

Mike

A possible lone nut reality, Sgt Mike...

Dr. Jim Fetzer publishes books (at least 25 by my count -- and they SELL), he does national radio talk shows (plenty of them), has his OWN internet syndicated radio talk show (tri-weekly?), he does seminars all across the country, puts on JFK assassination related symposiums, participated in national-cable talk shows, supports (more than verbal, I suspect monetary terms, as in donations) various conspiracy related internet forums, etc, etc, ETC..... And what or who do the WCR-lone nutters have challenging him? Not much, and certainly no one with any, read it again ANYONE with credibility to challenge him and back it up!

The lone nut contingent and the preservers of DP 11/22-24/63 history on this forum and other internet venues simply can't gather any public WCR support, nor do they have hope in mustering any traction concerning same.... Trotting out Dr. Josiah Thompson, Gary Mack (and his PM machine), Len Colby, Craigster Lamson and the remaining Gang 8 -- which I suspect Steve Roy (aka David Blackburst ?) is now part of, simply need to get PUBLIC, as in get in front of the cameras....

Dr. Jim Fetzer is PUBLIC! So, in short, what I see here is more (of the same) lone nut whining, whiners full of envy because Dr. Jim Fetzer is making things happen. Forcing an otherwise thought of dead issue? Assembling old/new facts (as he and Judyth see them), presenting evidence as his findings dictate...

Controversial? Yep! ! ! But hey, so was Zapruder Film alteration years ago. My question is, why are folks so upset? Perhaps they don't want to be on the receiving end of any future Dr. Jim Fetzer's JFK assassination related pet-project looksees, eh?

Edited April 22, 2010 by David G. Healy

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Stephen,

Shame on you for asking Fetzer for anything resembling accurate evidence. When his greatness speaks you are to follow BLINDLY please try to remember this in the future.

Mike

Now *that* is a demonstrable truth, Mike!

Funny thing about facts ... those who have them, use them. And aren't the least bit shy about whipping them out. Those who don't have them ...

Bests,

Barb :-)

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

You continue to make a fool of yourself, Jack! How many times do I have to tell

you that you don't know what you are talking about. This is beyond bewildering.

But Jim...Mary Sherman died at home in her apartment. If the LINEAR ACCELERATOR was located

in the Public Health Hospital, how could it have been responsible for her death?

Have you read the reports of her death?

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]

Kevin Greenlee,

I gave you a very appropriate response. Between DR. MARY'S MONKEY and

ME & LEE, there should be the opportunity to do this all over again! Think of

it--a reprise of the longest thread in the forum's history, where you appear to

have learned next to nothing. I am sorry, but your insinuations are the kind

intended to excuse you or any others of your ilk from serious research on the

subject, when this exercise has provided massive opportunities to learn and

explore the evidence. If you blew it, that's not my fault, but your own failing.

Jim

mr fetzer-

i appreciate your response.

can you allow me to make an observation or three?

as i've indicated before, i have read this thread and i also have made myself with judyth's story as it's been offered in other venues. the only "evidence" i have seen which backs up most of your 17 points is "because judyth said so." i do not find that particularly compelling and was hoping you could offer something more substantial.

even though- as you said- some of your points have more backing than others you said in a recent message that the fact that Judyth was "induced to come to New orleans by Alton ochsner" was among "the most important and best supported" of the 17 points. i imagined then that you had plenty to say about it. apparently that's not the case.

throughout this thread, it seems to me you have fairly consistently been frustrated by how critics have focused on what you feel are trivial aspects of judyth's story. i believed then that you would welcome the opportunity to shift the attention to what you believe are the essentials of her tale. those 17 points, after all, were created by a judyth supporter. since an ally created that rhetorical battleground (and you trumpeted it), i assumed you would be ready- even eager- to defend it. instead, you seem more interested in going back to arguing trivia (ie, the location of a linear accelerator). this is, of course, your right. but it certainly does create the impression that you are unable to back up what you say are the crucial elements of the story you have been so strenuously defending for the last couple of months. and if you cannot back up one of "the most important and best supported" of the 17 points it makes me wonder just how weak and flimsy the other 16 most be.

thanks again for the response.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Dean,

I haven't wanted to address you about this, but your performance on this thread

has been less than mediocre. When you compliment Jack for his ignorance with

regard to basic information about the case, I find it inexcusable. I want to think

you are a serious student of various aspects of the assassination. But, as I see

it, your posts here continue to demonstrate that you haven't a clue! I'm sorry.

Jim

But Jim...Mary Sherman died at home in her apartment. If the LINEAR ACCELERATOR was located

in the Public Health Hospital, how could it have been responsible for her death?

Have you read the reports of her death?

Boom-shaka-laka

Since Jack and I are both huge Basketball fans I figured that my favorite saying would be approprite for Jacks smackdown

Edited April 22, 2010 by James H. Fetzer