Jump to content

For Jim/Judyth


Recommended Posts

Guest James H. Fetzer

JUDYTH ADDRESSES THE COLOR OF LEE H. OSWALD'S EYES

NOTE: This is a nice example of why I maintain that Judyth is better

at JFK research than 95% of all students of the assassination and of

most if not all of her critics. Here she presents a study of Lee's eye

colors compiled with comments, based upon my personal knowledge

of Lee--personal observation of Lee's actual eye colors--after running

across a "Harvey & Lee" statement that one of the subjects had blue

eyes and the other one had hazel eyes. If this is indeed the claim,

a study of the "hazel eye phenomenon" is called for. It is attached.

SEEING EYE TO EYE: A STUDY OF LEE H. OSWALD’S ‘HAZEL’ EYES

Judyth Vary Baker

The man that I knew as "Lee" considered his eyes to be blue-gray in color.

9fr5ap.jpg

THEY WERE DESCRIBED AS "GREY" ON HIS PASSPORT APPLICATION, BUT AS "GREY-BROWN"

ON HIS MILITARY ID:

2iw3lu0.jpg

Mae Brussell reported these words, from 11:00-11:20 PM, Nov. 22, 1963:

"I was in Russia two years and liked it in Russia. . . . I am 5 ft. 9 in., weigh 140 lb., have brown hair, blue-gray eyes, and have no tattoos or permanent scars."

NOTE by Source: “Oswald had mastoidectomy scars [JVB: this scar was hidden in a simple procedure conducted while Lee was hospitalized in Minsk] and left upper-arm scars [JVB: this is true, but when Lee’s arm was straight, it was hard to see…if the autopsy was done with Lee in a stage of rigor mortis, the ventral arm scar might have been missed. ] both noted in Marine records. "Warren Report," pp. 614-618, lists information from Oswald obtained during this interview about members of his family, past employment, past residences.)..”

Source: http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/LHO.html

242stxh.jpg

[Off the subject, but fascinating :Interestingly, Lee stipulated that if he dies:

(Beneficiary of Death Benefits): Marguerite OSWALD or John Edward PIC [Marguerite was also to receive his pay if he is listed as missing.] ==Where’s Robert Oswald?==And organizations to which Lee belonged while in the Armed Services:

ELSINORE PROGRESSIVE LEAGUE

EVERYBODY'S COMMITTEE TO OUTLAW WAR

IDAHO PENSION UNION

MASSACHUSETTS COMMITTEE FOR THE BILL OF RIGHTS

Source: http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/03/MS/mil.html

Oswald joined the military at age 17, not yet quite mature. Weights also could vary due to maturation or physical stressors. But the eye colors must be confusing to those who don’t understand the “hazel eye phenomenon” of the gray-blue/hazel eye.

The above records show a multiplicity of eye colors for Lee Harvey Oswald, including eye colors of “blue-gray,” “grey” and “grey-brown” – while a few more seem to have reported “hazel.”

One comment on the Inernet reporting “hazel” is this one:

“Armstrong never said they [the two "Oswalds"] both worked at the TSBD. Nor did he say they were identical in appearance. One was 5'7" and the other 5'10". One was 135 lbs, the other was 165. One had blue eyes, the other hazel."

Perhaps Armstrong was misquoted. Perhaps this was a distinction he, himself, did not make. Please correct me, Jack, if the statement above is wrong.

Lee H. Oswald was 5’9“ ( and a bit more, but seems to have been measured while in the state of incipient rigor mortis)…and really measured 5’ 10” in shoes in the morning, as my father was 5’ 10” and Lee was the same visual height. Since I was 5’2” he seemed tall to me. Lee looked like he’d lost weight from what was 160 pounds when I knew him to about 140 pounds (my visual estimate) in arrest photos. He told me he had lost weight and not to concern myself about it.

THE STATEMENT ABOVE ABOUT “HARVEY” AND “LEE” – MENTIONS THEIR TWO DIFFERENT EYE COLORS AS A WAY TO DISTINGUISH “HARVEY” FROM “LEE.” WHOEVER WROTE THAT NEVER MET LEE HARVEY OSWALD.

PEOPLE WHO HAVE HAZEL EYES REALIZE THAT HAZEL EYES MAY PRESENT A RANGE OF COLORS, DEPENDING ON THE COLOR OF CAST SHADOWS AND WHETHER THE OWNER OF SUCH EYES IS INSIDE OR OUTSIDE WHEN OBSERVED, AND DEPENDING ON WHAT ANGLE THE LIGHT COMES INTO THEIR EYES, AS WELL AS THE THICKNESS OF THE STROMA. LEE APPARENTLY HAD THIN STROMA (SEE BELOW).

My own mother was classified as having green eyes, amber eyes or hazel eyes, depending on what the people at the driver’s license bureau decided it was. She generally was classified as having hazel eyes, because indoors, they looked more brownish. Outdoors, they were green, but in direct sun looked golden. Other forms of hazel eyes turn bluish-gray in certain slants of light, but are generally considered hazel in color.

Lee had unusual blue-gray eyes with a ring of hazel around the iris and flecks of hazel around the pupil–and exhibited a kind of blue – when indoors or under incandescent light---but they seemed hazel if he was under fluorescent light or outdoors. I have seen his eye color described as blue-gray, blue and hazel, and all would be correct, depending on lighting and his moods, re chomatophores.

JVB: Lee described his own eyes as blue-gray, but they also had little flecks of hazel in a ring around the pupil and a few hazel flecks around the outside edge of the iris. He could be classed as having blue eyes or hazel eyes depending on the light – outside his eyes looked more blue, and inside, they looked more hazel. He could pass for both.

NOTE: “The perception of [eye] color depends on viewing conditions (e.g., the amount and kind of illumination, as well as the hue of the surrounding environment),...”.[16 ] (REF: Wikipedia)

mr2qtv.jpg

I read that Marina had to look at the eyes of her dead husband to determine it was really him…great loss of blood can flatten facial tissues, and this occurred in Lee’s case.

FROM THE INTERNET:

“I have hazel green eyesbut when I wear blue or am in a low mood they take on an aqua blue tone. When I wear green or when I am angry they turn a brighter green. When I wear golds, yellows, or oranges, they get more of a golden tint. …’

”It cannot be the light. I have hazel eyes that change from a green, to blue, to an icy looking blue. They don't change with the color of clothes I'm wearing. They change by my moods which is weird. When I cry they seem to turn a blueish color, when I'm happy they seem to turn a greenish color. I've looked through all my pictures that I took and it's never the same eye color, which I think is really cool..”

file:///Users/jamesfetzer/Library/Caches/TemporaryItems/msoclip1/01/clip_image001.gif

Note about chromatophores:

Mammals and birds have only one class of chromatophore-like cell type: the melanocyte.

Eye color is a polygenic phenotypic character and is determined by the amount and type of pigments in the eye's iris.[1][2] Humans and animals have many phenotypic variations in eye color, as blue, brown, green and others. These variations constitute phenotypic traits.[3]

The genetics of eye color are complicated, and eye color is determined by multiple genes. Some of the eye-color genes include EYCL1 (a green/blue eye-color gene located on chromosome 19), EYCL2 (a brown eye-color gene) and EYCL3 (a brown/blue eye-color gene located on chromosome 15).

The once-held view that blue eye color is a simple recessive trait has been shown to be wrong. The genetics of eye color are so complex that almost any parent-child combination of eye colors can occur.[4][5]

In human eyes, these variations in color are attributed to varying ratios of eumelanin produced by melanocytes in the iris.[2] The brightly colored eyes of many bird species are largely determined by other pigments, such as pteridines, purines, and carotenoids.[6]

Three main elements within the iris contribute to its color: the melanin content of the iris pigment epithelium, the melanin content within the iris stroma, and the cellular density of the iris stroma. [7] In eyes of all colors, the iris pigment epithelium contains the black pigment, eumelanin.[2][7] Color variations among different irises are typically attributed to the melanin content within the iris stroma.[7]

The density of cells within the stroma affects how much light is absorbed by the underlying pigment epithelium.[7] OCA2 gene polymorphism, close to proximal 5′ regulatory region, explains most human eye-color variation.[8]

Blue eyes with a brown spot, green eyes and gray eyes are caused by an entirely different part of the genome. As Eiberg said: "The SNP rs12913832 [of the Herc2 gene] is found to be associated with the brown and blue eye color, but this single DNA variation cannot explain all the brown eye color variation from dark brown over hazel to blue eyes with brown spots."

In other words, witnesses could have reported Lee H. Oswald as having hazel eyes, gray-blue or blue eyes, depending on lighting and other factors, due to the fact that Lee possessed blue–gray elements as well as hazel elements in his eyes. [NOTE: Which means the alleged difference in eye color between "Harvey" and "Lee" may have no basis in fact.]

JVB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

THIS IS A CORRECTED REPOSTING OF POST #658 ON PAGE 44. AS

INDICATED, I WAS GOING TO VERIFY WITH JUDYTH THAT I HAD IT

RIGHT, AND IT TURNS OUT THAT I HAS MISSED A CRUCIAL PHOTO.

I HAVE CORRECTED A COMMENT ON THE PHOTOS OF MARGUERITES

AND AN ADDITIONAL PHOTO OF MARGUERITE NEEDS TO BE ADDED.

JUDYTH COMMENTS ON KATHY'S CATCH ON TWO PHOTOGRAPHS

[NOTE: I am going to verify with Judyth that I have this post right.]

WHAT HAPPENED HERE?

KATHY C. MADE SOME GOOD REMARKS ABOUT THE PHOTO TO THE

LEFT OF LEE OSWALD OF NOV. 22 –TAKEN WHEN HE WAS YOUNGER.

I DECIDED TO COPY A MORE PRISTINE PHOTO ON THE INTERNET.

5ufwnn.jpg

IN FACT, IT IS FROM JACK WHITE’S COLLECTION – A PASTICHE THAT

INCLUDES A COUPLE OF PHOTOS, SOME OF WHICH I DO NOT ACCEPT

AND WANT TO KNOW THEIR TRUE PROVENANCE.

14ln3pj.jpg

THE PHOTO SHOWN ON THE LEFT IS THE ONE JACK WHITE POSTED AT

THE EDUCATION FORUM.

1) IT HAS BEEN COPIED SO MUCH THAT MANY DETAILS THAT ARE ON

THE PHOTO TO LEFT ARE MISSING. MANY OF THESE DETAILS (WASHED

OUT) WOULD HAVE MATCHED TO THE NOV. 22 PHOTO OF LEE H. OSWALD.

THAT WAS SHOWN NEXT TO IT. THE DETAILS CAN BE SEEN JUST FINE

IN THE MORE PRISTINE PHOTO.

2) THIS PHOTO, OF ‘LEE’ TOO, IS TOO WIDE, AGAIN BY ABOUT 10% --

BUT CURIOUSLY, THIS TIME THE EXTRA WIDTH BEGINS JUST WHERE THE

‘LINE’ IS SHOWN (MUCH MORE CLEARLY, FOR SOME REASON, IN PHOTO

TO THE LEFT)…WHERE THIS LINE, IN FACT, SHOULD HAVE FADED OUT MORE,

AS DID OTHER DETAILS. INSTEAD, THIS LINE IS STRONGER. AND NOT ONE

BUT TWO LINES ARE VISIBLE.

3) THE TRULY DISTURBING THING IS THAT ONLY A SECTION OF THIS PHOTO

HAS BEEN WIDENED — AN AREA EXTENDING APPROXIMATELY AT THE JUNCTION

WHERE EARS ATTACH AT THE TOP OF THE EARS TO THE HEAD, AND JUST BELOW

THE LINE OF THE LOWER LIP, CENTER. THE DISTORTION ENHANCES THE WIDTH

OF THE FACE IN JUST THIS AREA, MAKING ONLY HIS PART OF THE FACE MARKEDLY

WIDER THAN THE ORIGINAL PRISTINE PHOTO.

jfx30j.jpg

THE DIFFERENCE CAN BE SEEN BY THE UNAIDED EYE.

THE HUMAN EYE SCANS THIS LENGTH DIFFERENCE AUTOMATICALLY.

A LONGER DISTANCE RADICALLY CHANGES IDENTIFICATION FACTORS

FOR PEOPLE.

4) TAKE A RULER AND SEE FOR YOURSELF. IT’S AMAZING, ACTUALLY.

5) THIS KIND OF DISTORTION COULD NOT BE MADE UNDER A SCANNER,

OR BY PHOTOS REPHOTOGRAPHED TOO MANY TIMES. THE DISORTION IS

ACROSS ONLY A CERTAIN AREA — NOT THE WHOLE PHOTO — WHICH IS A

PHOTOSHOP EFFECT.

THE CHANGES FROM THE PRISTINE PHOTO ARE SO EXTREME THAT THE PHOTO

JACK SUPPLIED SHOULD BE DISCARDED AS HOPELESSLY DISTORTED FOR ID

PURPOSES.

6) I HAVE NOW SEEN THREE INSTANCES OF DISTORTED OR MISREPRESENTED

PHOTOS:

1) THE FEET OF MARGUERITE NOT LINED UP PROPERLY TO ACCOUNT FOR

WEARING HEELS IN ONE PHOTO AND FLOPPY SLIPPERS IN THE OTHER…

1o14bo.jpg

IN ADDITION, THE STATEMENT SAYING BOTH PHOTOS WERE TAKEN IN 1947

IS NOT CORRECT. THE WOMAN ON THE LEFT ON THE ORIGINAL DUAL PASTICHE

WAS MARGUERITE WHEN LEE WAS IN THE SERVICE. CLEARLY, HOWEVER, IT

WAS NOT TAKEN IN 1947 WHEN LEE WAS ONLY 8 YEARS OLD AND COULD NOT

YET HAVE BEEN IN THE MARINES. PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG...

2) THE NOV. 22 PHOTO OF LEE WAS DISTORTED 10% -- WHICH MADE HIS FACE

LOOK TOO FAT AND THUS DID NOT MATCH THE PHOTO HERE AT UPPER RIGHT.

WHEN CORRECTED, THERE WAS A BETTER MATCH…THEN KATHY POINTED OUT THE

ODDITIES OF THE PHOTO ON THE UPPER LEFT.

3) SURE ENOUGH, SHE WAS RIGHT. THE LINE SHOLD HAVE BEEN FADED OUT.

IT’S ALMOST AS IF SOMEBODY CUT THE PHOTO THERE AND BLEW THAT PART

UP AND THEN CONNECED IT AGAIN, USING PHOTOSHOP OR A LITERAL PRINTOUT

THAT WAS CUT.

THAT MAY NOT BE EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED, BUT SOMETHING HAPPENED TO IT.

THE PHOTO AT THE UPPER LEFT, HERE, HAS BEEN DISORTED IN A VERY PARTICULAR

SECTION. WHEN CORRECTED (BY REMOVING THE EXTRA WIDTH OF THE DISTORTED

SECTION), HOWEVER, IT THEN MATCHES THE PRISTINE PHOTO’S SECTION.

7) PRINT THIS OUT 3 TIMES, CUT OUT THE PHOTOS, REMOVE THE EXTRA LIP AMOUNT

(USE RULER) AND THEN THE FEAURES OF BOTH PHOTOS LINE UP JUST FINE.

8) WHAT HAPPENED TO THE FADED-OUT EDUCATION FORUM PHOTO THAT IT HAS

SIGNIFICANT DISTORTION IN A KEY FACIAL I.D. AREA, FORENSICALLY SPEAKING?

NOW I HAVE RESERVATIONS ABOUT THE PROVENANCE AND HANDLING OF THESE

PHOTOS.

WHERE DID THEY COME FROM?

WHY ARE THEY DIFFERENT FROM EARLIER, CLEARER PHOTOS?

WHO GAVE THEM TO JACK WHITE, OR TO JOHN ARMSTRONG?

JVB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

JUDYTH OFFERS MORE OBSERVATIONS ABOUT "HARVEY & LEE"

NOTE: All of this twaddle about Judyth's eyesight and odious smells is quite ridiculous.

Either you have it (in knowing what you are doing) or you don't. Judyth, of all of the

students and witnesses of JFK I have ever known--which includes Madelene Duncan

Brown and Chauncey Marvin Holt--has it. Madeleine knew well the man of whom she

spoke, Chauncey knew his business with the mafia and the CIA, and Judyth not only

knew her man but is a woman of many research talents. I am stunned to read Jack

say that many people could alter the aspect ratio on photographs, yet it turns out to

be Judyth, not Jack, who makes the observation that the apparent differences in the

crucial photos being used to justify the distinction between "Harvey" and "Lee" seem

to have arisen because of manipulation. The question thus becomes, How many more?

JUDYTH REPLIES:

fjhi5e.jpg

WE HAVE SOME “OVER-PROCESSED” SEPIA-TINTED PHOTOS PURPORTING TO BE

“HARVEY” AND “LEE”. THESE ARE “FUZZY” HOWEVER, COMPARED TO THE BLACK

AND WHITE EXAMPLES BELOW. OF SPECIAL CONCERN IS THAT THE ADULT PHOTOS

ARE NOT SHOWN AT THE SAME HEAD SIZE.

qpl028.jpg

THE BLACK-AND-WHITE PHOTOS AVAILABLE ARE NOT NEARLY AS “FUZZY” AND

HAVE MUCH MORE DETAIL. WE WILL USE THESE CLEARER PHOTOS, OR ONES

IDENTICAL TO THEM, FOR OUR COMPARISON WORK.

FIRST OF ALL, WE WILL ELIMINATE THOSE PHOTOS WHICH ARE OBVIOUSLY NOT

LEE H. OSWALD. SOMEBODY MAY HAVE SAID THAT THEY WERE OF OSWALD:

THE PROVENANCE OF THESE DISPUTED EXAMPLES MUST BE MADE KNOWN TO US.

THERE ARE ONLY TWO PHOTOGRAPHS IN THE COLLECTION ABOVE THAT ARE NOT

LEE H. OSWALD: ONE IS IN THE 2ND ROW, CENTER. THE OTHER IS IN THE FIFTH

ROW, SECOND FROM THE RIGHT.

BOTH PHOTOS ARE QUITE DIFFERENT FROM THE OTHERS. THE “HARVEY” PHOTO

SHOWN IN THIS COLLECTION (ROW FOUR, SECOND FRONM RIGHT), HOWEVER, IS

THE ‘BLOATED’ ONE OF REAL CONCERN. IT SHOULD BE REPLACED WITH THE TRUE,

UNBLOATED VERSION.

WE HAVE MANY MORE “BLOATED PHOTOS” IN THE ABOVE COLLECTION. HOW DID

THIS HAPPEN? IT IS A MATTER OF CONCERN. THE FOLLOWING PHOTOS ARE ‘BLOATED”:

ROW ONE: SECOND FROM LEFT, THIRD FROM LEFT, FOURTH FROM LEFT. (3)

ROW TWO: ALL OKAY, EXCEPT REMOVE THE BOGUS PHOTO, THIRD FROM THE LEFT.

ROW THREE: ALL OF THESE PHOTOS HAVE SUFFERED SOME ‘BLOATING’ DISTORTIONS (5)

ROW FOUR: THIRD FROM THE LEFT AND SECOND FROM THE RIGHT ARE BOTH ‘BLOATED’ (2)

ROW FIVE: ALL OKAY. EXCEPT REMOVE THE BOGUS PHOTO, SECOND FROM THE RIGHT.

TEN OF THE 25 PHOTOS HAVE BEEN DISTORTED IN THIS COLLECTION. TWO OTHERS ARE

BOGUS.

WE WILL USE THE “PRISTINE” PHOTO OF LEE H. OSWALD AS A GUIDE TO CORRECT HEAD

WIDTHS, AS THE WIDTH OF THE HUMAN SKULL CHANGES VERY LITTLE.

Some other forensic factors to consider:

“Since most bones in the body stop growing after puberty, experts assumed the human skull stopped growing then too. But using CT scans of 100 men and women, the researchers discovered that the bones in the human skull continue to grow as people age. The forehead moves forward while the cheek bones move backward. As the bones move, the overlying muscle and skin also move, subtly changing the shape of the face.” stemcells.alphamedpress.org In addition, there is some “baby fat’ on young faces. Under stress, ‘baby fat’ can temporarily disappear if the subject is dehydrated or has temporarily lost weight. Other factors are ear infections that can swell up one or both sides of the face (an occasional problem for Lee H. Oswald until he had an adenoidectomy in the USSR). Lee Oswald was only 24 when he died, so most underlying muscle structures had just reached the development status of a mature face. The ‘baby fat’ or more rounded face of Lee Oswald at ages 18-21 display softer features than at age 17, when Oswald was under boot camp stressors, or after he lost weight between September and November, 1963 (as he reported to Judyth Baker).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

MORE FROM JUDYTH ABOUT THE PURPORTED PHOTOS OF "HARVEY" AND "LEE"

NOTE: Just in case anyone has any lingering doubts about my replies to Duncan

MacRae, realize that even if Judyth did not have problems with her vision, there

would be the opportunity to confirm or disconfirm her findings by replicating her

research and determining whether or not you obtain the same results. If she is

right, then the results should be the same. And this is the case even if she had

perfect vision, since having perfect vision alone is not sufficient to conduct the

studies that she has reported in the past and continues to report on in this post.

JUDYTH COMMENTS:

Amazing, bringing up braille...I am not blind...and with new glasses will be able to

see the keyboard without it being 'double vision'. The person who wrote that remark

is not stupid and anybody can see what the intent was.

I welcome a duplication of findings because my vision is not that good and I could be

off by some percentage points. However, I will continue to do my best with these photos.

So far:

1) Photos have been over-copied, where in the case of the sepia reproductions significant

degradation of feaures is involved -- yet people are asked "Which is Harvey?" and "Which

is Lee?" from this set of photos that are degraded in their clarity.

2) Every photo of "Lee" that I have examined so far has been a) bloated or otherwise

distorted or 2) could be a photo of Robert Oswald insead of Lee H. Oswald. More later...

3) I have seen photos of Marguerite where the feet were placed at different levels, making

Marguerite (the sort one, so called) look shorter: when the disparity was corrected and, in

addition, high-heels versus slippers were taken into consideration, very little difference in

height remains--nothing like the six or seven inches clamed...This is a serious blunder, in

my opinion, on the part of the researchers.

4) In a photo to 'prove' Marguerite was 'much shorter", a FUNERAL photo was the one that

was provided with a line that clearly showed, instead, the angle of slope, going downhill from

left to right, reducing the height of Marguerite to an APPARENT but not actual LOWER HEIGHT.

5) We were then shown a photo of Lee fishing in the USSR, where once again a line was drawn,

without any reference to the steep slope of a riverbank upon which Oswald was sanding so that

his feet could not be seen.

6) We were next shown a photo of Lee with Marina, where Lee is shown as too short once more

-- with more lines pointing this out -- -but Peter Wronsky took photos showing that (ONCE AGAIN)

a significant slope is involved that artificially visually raised the height of the person as seen to

the left by a viewer of the photo (Marina, in this case)....Therefore, in examples 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7,

slopes are involved or position of photos are placed that fool the eye.

7) We next find that a "hunting photo" of Lee might very well be that of Robert Oswald, but it, too,

is distorted -- 'bloated' -- and could possibly be of Lee Oswald as well...What is obvious to me is

that the person in this 'hunting photo' is not holding the rifle correcty and therefore may be joking.

Whoever took the photo was clearly friendly toward the person being photographed.

8) We need a DNA sample to ascertain if Robert Oswald and Lee were biological brothers....Lee's

daughters can provide enough DNA, because they are females (mitochondria will be the same),

to provide the answer.

9) There is increasing evidence that Robert Oswald had the incentives and motives to betray his

brother and support the findings of the Warren Commission; his records in the miliary need close

examining to see if some of the official "Lee Oswald" records are really about Robert.

JVB

The question is not to become Judyth but to replicate the measurement

of the photographs to see if you arrive at the same results. It's called

"data". No one has to have her problems with visual acuity to do this,

and that you would even imply as much is beyond ridiculous. You are

either massively ignorant of the objectivity of scientific inquiries, which

is based upon the inter-subjective capacity for replication to verify or to

falsify data or you are playing the kind of games we expect from XXXXX

I really don't think anyone here has any doubt as to what you are about.

Observation and measurement are basic to scientific inquiries, Duncan.

Judyth is reporting the results of her studies. If you want to replicate

them to verify or falsify them, they you should do that, precisely as in

the case of any other scientific inquiry. You can redo the experiments

of Galileo and review the calculations of Newton, if you like, or perhaps

you can print out photos and see if you obtain the same results Judyth

is reporting. I would think you are smart enough to have figured that

out. But of course that is not really the point of your posts, is it? And,

since she is getting new glasses, it's a good thing you are doing this

now, since your posts will be even more pointless in the future. I am

sure that everyone who has been following this thread appreciates it.

JUDYTH REPLIES TO DUNCAN MACRAE ON HER PHOTO STUDIES

The comment about how I can analyze these photos with my bad eyesight:

I print them out and measure them with a tape measure. I can see very well

at about an inch from a page.

JVB

This leads to the obvious question.

If you can't see the letters of a keyboard properly from an inch or any further distance away, leaving Jim Fetzer to correct your mistakes and finish sentences,

then how can you read a tape measure with any guaranteed degree of accuracy, and how can anyone, including Jim, know your measurements are correct?

And what is your angle on the point of my posts, Jim?

I ask straight no nonsense questions, and expect straight no nonsense answers.

The point of my posts were, and still are, to try to get some straight no nonsense answers to questions that in my opinion needed to be asked, in view of her vision disability.

They have not been answered to a satisfactory degree.

Suggesting that I replicate her results is a sidetracking strategy, any replication of her studies being pointless and unfruitful, given that I do not have her vision disability. Newton couldn't replicate her studies and the disability conditions under which they were studied, and neither could Galileo.

I am sure that everyone reading this will understand my concerns, and understand that my points, far from being pointless, need to be answered...Now.

edited for offensive language.

The problem is not the the data, it is about how she acheived her results with her visual impairment.

You of course know this, you're not that stupid, and neither are the members here who will be noticing your avoidance at giving satisfactory answers on Judyth's behalf.

Judyth puts her face to within an inch of a print out and then makes measurements from that distance with a measuring tape without obscuring the data.

Wasn't April fools day 2 days ago?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

JUDYTH COMMENTS ON "THE HUNTING PHOTO" AND ON ROBERT OSWALD

2dtvzsw.jpg

This, of course, is Jack's work and Jack's caption and, in case anyone has

missed it, I suspect Robert of playing a key role--both as an impersonator

and as a conspirator--implicating his brother for a crime he did not commit.

From Judyth's excerpts from Robert's Warren Commission testimony, it is

apparent that he was deliberately casting his brother in an unfavorable light.

No Marine could confound an "undesirable" with a "dishonorable" discharge.

NOTE FOR THIS POSTING: Judyth had previously observed that when Lee

was released from the Marines, he was transferred to the reserves. Jack,

however, promptly asserted he had received a "dishonorable discharge".

As Judyth explained in her post, Oswald was originally given an "honorable"

discharge and transferred to the reserves. It was only after fake "defection"

that he was given an "undesirable" discharge. So Judyth was right, again!

JUDYTH COMMENTS:

JACK WHITE MENTIONS THE "HUNTING PHOTO" -- BUT DOES NOT GIVE US ITS

PROVENANCE. GERALD POSNER ("CASE CLOSED") WAS GIVEN THE "HUNTING

PHOTO" FOR USE IN HIS BOOK (A BOOK FILLED WITH LIES ABOUT OSWALD):

"...the first of two photographs appearing in Gerald Posner's book "Case Closed."

It shows Oswald with a severe Marines-style haircut, dressed in casual clothes,

standing alone in a field, clutching what appears to be some sort of rifle (32).

He is holding the weapon by his left side in a very relaxed manner. The caption

reads: "A rare photo of Lee hunting while on his first leave from the

Marines in February 1958, when he visited his family in Fort Worth, Texas.

The photograph appears courtesy of Robert L Oswald (Lee's elder brother)."

During his periods of leave, Lee would hunt squirrels and other game with

Robert (33), but does not appear among the Warren Commission Exhibits.

We are mystified by Mr. Posner's statement that this photograph was taken

during Oswald's first leave in February 1958. (34) Oswald did not have to

wait 16 months for his first leave <http://www.jfklancer.com/byphotos.html>.

Robert Oswald cooperated with Gerald Posner in assassinating Lee's character.

AN FBI TAPE SUPPOSEDLY CAUGHT ROBERT OSWALD MAKING LOVE WITH MARINA

... THAT INFO VANISHED FROM THE INTERNET...EXCEPT FOR A SOLE REFERENCE I

FOUND IN NEWSGROUP POSTS ...

BELOW, WE LEARN THAT ROBERT OSWALD PICKED UP THE LAST OF THE THINGS

FROM RUTH PAINE'S HOME THAT BELONGED TO LEE (MARINA WAS WITH HIM AT

THE TIME, ALONG WITH HER LOVER, HER MANAGER, MR. MARTIN, WHOM SHE

WOULD SOON LEAVE TO STAY WITH ROBERT OSWALD -- HE SAYS FOR ONE DAY):

From Ruth Paine's W/C testimony.

Mr Liebler, "Did you have anything left in your house that belonged to Lee Harvey

Oswald?"

Mrs Paine, "No, they were eventually taken by Robert Oswald, in company with John

Thorne & Jim Martin, it was probably the first W/E in December at least two weeks

after the assassination, more likely three."

Mr Liebler, "Do you recall what was among those things that Robert Oswald, and Mr

Martin took?"

Mrs Paine, "They took the clothes from the closet, boxes and things that I did not look

into. I have heard from the police that it also included an old camera, WHICH THEY

HAD TOO CHASE LATER, AND WENT UP TO ROBERT OSWALD'S TO FIND IT....

Now, if she's telling the truth, how did she know the police had to go looking for

the incriminating camera, and went "up to Robert Oswald's to find it"?

ONE NEWSGROUP POST SAID:

1 Given that the DPD had gone over Oswaldss things with a fine-toothed comb, how

did they miss this camera?

2 Given that they had to chase it up, Robert had obviously not informed that he had it,

so who did?

3 [Ruth Paine deposed:] "They took clothes from the closet, boxes and things that I did

not look into." Right you have given bed and board to the most infamous man in the world,

yet you dont bother to have a look at his possessions when the chance presents itself...

See anything green....

THERE ARE OTHER PROBLEMS WITH ROBERT....BELOW IS MOST OF ROBERT OSWALD'S

INTERVIEW WITH FRONTLINE, "WHO WAS LEE OSWALD?", WITH MY ADDED COMMENTS:

"You see him for a few days when he gets out [of the Marines]. Tell me about that, and what

his attitude is and the kinds of things you talked about.

"When Lee is discharged, early discharge in September 1959..."

[[JVB: Robert should know that Lee was not discharged, but placed in the Marine

Reserves, a bit early...]]

"...he returns to Fort Worth for about three days. …"

[[Robert Oswald should know that Lee spent only one or two days with his mother.]]

"...We spent some time together. He was relaxed, but at about the second day, he starts talking

about where he's going. He's thinking about going to Cuba...."

[[Lee told me that he did not breathe a word as to his intentions to anybody in the family..]]

"...He wants to "do like Hemingway." He wants to get some experience and write about it. …"

[[Robert is just starting this interview and uses 'Hemingway' -- but Lee told me 'Hemingway' was

a code word he was told to use. So why is it coming out of Robert Oswald's mouth?]]

"....His plans, as we well know now, were already made to go to Russia, rather than to Cuba. … But

then, Oct. 31, we hear that he's in Russia. That's the shocker. That's almost unbelievable. This was

1959. The Cold War was going on. He was just out of the Marine Corps. It just didn't fit. I know he

wanted to travel. ... But my goodness, this is completely out of the ballpark."

[[Lee had already done considerable "traveling" and could have stayed in the Marnes to keep doing more.]]

You don't think that there was any possibility that he was on some mission when he went to Russia?

[[strikingly, Robert Oswald acts as if he can read his brother's mind, saying there was 'definitely' no

possibility that his brother was on a mission... yet he says he was shocked that Lee went to Russia.]]

"Definitely not. This was something all his own. This was his grand experience at the time. I anticipated,

and I said to the family, "He'll be back within a year." Well, it took him a little bit longer than that, but he

started trying after a year to come back."

When you learned he had defected, did you have any explanation?

"I wasn't real sure what the explanation was. ... I was just completely in the dark. Apparently he'd been

planning this for a long time. ... The planning that Lee did probably at least extended all the way back to

the time he was in Japan ... because of the clothes he purchased at the time."

[[Yet Robert is certain Lee was on no mission, though he offers evidence of long planning to go to Russia.]]

"If it didn't work for Russia, he was going to stay in Europe anyway. He'd actually applied for Albert

Schweitzer's school in Switzerland, and been accepted for that summertime or fall semester. So, to me,

that was his back-up plan if everything else failed. Those are the indications that say he took some thought,

some planning over a long period of time. ..."

From Russia, he had written you, saying that he was worried about charges being brought against him

when he came back. What was his concern?

"Well, his concern was, was there anything that I was aware of that [there] were going to be charges

placed against him from anybody? This would have to be at the federal level. I wrote him back that, to

my knowledge, nothing he has done warrants any charges, because they did not let him accomplish

anything over there, i.e., the U.S. Embassy did not accept his citizenship rejection. They didn't finalize

that. He was, in fact, an American citizen all the time, and still had the rights of the American citizen.'

[[Robert Oswald is saying he knew this Embassy information--and wrote about it to Oswald?]]

But he had said he was going to give the Russians any information he had, and it seemed like he did.

"As far as Lee giving any information to the Russians while he was over there, even though he said he

would if they had asked, apparently they weren't interested in it. Now apparently, for whatever reasons

or however they checked it out, they found out whatever he knew wasn't necessarily anything they'd be

interested in."

[[OK, we'll take Robert's word for it...]]

With regard to his return home from Russia in June 1962 with his family -- what did he tell you about

reporters meeting him, and what do you think it really meant?

"He indicated that, if reporters were asking about when he's coming back, to say nothing. He wanted

not to be bothered by the reporters. But ... he had prepared answers and statements, anticipating

reporters either at the ship or some place down the line on the return. I think he was surprised when

he stepped off the plane in Dallas Field -- he asked me, "What, no reporters?" I said, "Yes. I've managed

to keep it quiet." That was it. But I think he was disappointed. He was ready."

Did he talk about the Russian system and the American system and comparing the two?

"When Lee got back from Russia, the way he talked about the Russian system, he didn't talk about

it politically, in the sense that he was wrapped up in communism or Marxism. He was making fun of

how inept they were, and he was making fun of them all the time. ...He wasn't political. He really

wasn't. I say that in all honesty,..."

[[Lee must have told some of his very humorous jokes about the USSR to Robert...]]

"...because he tried to become what he needed to be to achieve his immediate objectives; i.e., he

needed to be a Marxist and accept the Russians [to] get the experience in Russia. When he returned

to the United States, he didn't want to be a Russian. He wanted to be an American, to be accepted by

the American society, and so wherever he was ... he wanted to be accepted. He wasn't political.

He was what's convenient to be."

[[The malice in this statement is barely concealed, IMHO]]

So you're saying, in a sense, he is the ultimate pragmatist?

"I think it says that he is very pragmatic, and he's going to go with the punches. He's going to fit in

to where he needs to fit in to accomplish what he needs to accomplish ... "

[[This is hardly unacceptable behavior -- nor suggestive of the ambitions of a "lone assassin" JHF]]

"...what is very essential to get by with, to be somebody. That's what it comes down to -- he wanted

to be unique, by whatever it took..."

[[but Lee Oswald WAS already unique...Was his brother jealous of that?]]

When Lee came back, how did he react to visits from the FBI when they came and saw him here?

"After Lee's return, approximately two weeks, in the latter part of June 1962, he gets a call from one

of the FBI agents -- I believe that was Mr. Fain -- in wanting to have a meeting with him. He told me

about it, and I told him I'd go with him. He said no, that wasn't necessary, he could take care of it. ...

He went the following day, had the meeting. When I returned home from work that evening, I asked

him about it, and he said, "Well, everything went all right. They even asked me if I'd ever been an

agent of the federal government or the CIA." I said, "What did you tell them?" He says,"Well, don't

you know?" and he just laughed. I mean, they had asked the wrong man. There's another seed that's

planted in him that stayed there forever."

[[How peculiar! Robert says his brother asks, "Well, don't you know?" That doesn't sound like the

answer one would expect from a 'non-agent']]

What do you mean? What did he have in the back of his mind?

"If they didn't know who worked for them, he could always say he worked for them; ..."

[[Robert Oswald is implying that Lee Oswald would play the game of pretending to be an FBI agent..or..

CIA?...His line of reasoning here is strange and illogical and appears to be deceptive...]]

"...he was in control of the FBI then. They didn't know for sure if he was an agent or not...."

[[Yet another illogical and suspicious statement made because he got himself into a linguistic jam

further up about relating that his brother was laughing about, "Don't you know?"]]

"...He was toying with them. He toyed with people like that...."

[[A surprisingly snide statement from a brother...]]

"...He toyed with the interrogators down at the Dallas police station, all that weekend [after the

assassination]. It was a game to him...."

[[beaten, friendless, alone, surrounded by frowning police, sleepless, accused of slaying a police

officer and then the President--he TOYS with his interrogators? The statement is malicious.]]

"He knew something they didn't know, and he would keep it to himself. He was in control. ..."

[[Lee knew a coup occurred and that people would die if he broke under interrogation. He was

handcuffed, sleep-deprived, indicted without legal representation in "short and sweet" hearings--

hardly 'in control' of anything but his own self-discipline, not to break under pressure...]]

When Lee came back to Fort Worth, what kind of spirits was he in, and what kind of hopes did he

have for his new life here?

<snip>

"...The third thing was he wanted to look into his dishonorable discharge from the Marine Corps,..."

[[The ex-Marine, Robert Oswald, tells an important TV program interviewer that his brother had a

'dishonorable discharge from the Marine Corps.' This is untrue, and Robert knows the difference. Lee

had an 'undesirable' discharge, much less serious...We now understand that Robert is interested in

placing his brother in a bad light.]]

...because he felt like that was unwarranted ... because, i.e., he was released with honorable conditions.

We talked about this at a great length during that first week."

[[Here Robert Oswald shows that he knew Lee had an undesirable discharge--he could not have 'talked

about this at a great length' and FORGOTTEN that his brother did not have the onerous 'dishonorable'

discharge on his record.]]

Conclusion: Robert Oswald is displaying a considerable degree of malice toward his brother, Lee Oswald.

JVB

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

WHY HAS MY NEW THREAD BEEN HIJACKED? THIS IS EXTREMELY RUDE!

BELOW IS WHAT I ASKED FOR...

INSTEAD I GET A REPOSTING OF PREVIOUSLY POSTED MESSAGES

FROM A PREVIOUS THREAD. THIS IS NONSENSE!!!

I WILL ATTEMPT TO START A NEW THREAD

Like the numerous others who have grown tired of this thread, I have

now found it counterproductive to read and/or reply to the 10,000+-word

daily treatises on the JVB stories and how accurate and marvelous

the research is. I have received over a half-dozen emails from researchers

saying what a waste of time the Jim/Judyth thread has become, and they

refuse to read any new postings. I now join them

I am starting this new thread which I hope will be limited to a single

subject....which Jim/Judyth have suggested:

"THE ERRORS OF JOHN ARMSTRONG."

Both have the book Harvey & Lee. I ask that if they wish to address

these "errors" that they do so in this thread, and with the following

limitations:

Address only "error" in one posting, thusly:

Error: LHO's Missing Tooth, cite pages in H&L.

Why Armstrong Is Wrong (100 words or less).

or:

Error: LHO Could Not Drive.

Why Armstrong Is Wrong (100 words or less).

I will then copy each posting and forward it to Armstrong for a reply,

which I will post here.

This is the ONLY thread in which I will respond to any postings

about JVB or H&L.

This might contribute something to the investigation.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...