For Jim/Judyth II

[Jack White]

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 just this evening received two more

messages of support; the people email me privately because they say

they cannot have a productive exchange with Jim.

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).

Cite facts, not opinions.

(Lengthy cut and paste messages will be ignored!)

I will then attempt to reply to the alleged "error".

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

about JVB or H&L.

(Lengthy cut and paste messages will be ignored!)

This might contribute something to the investigation.

(Lengthy cut and paste messages will be ignored!)

Jack

DO NOT POST ANYTHING TO THIS THREAD WHICH DOES NOT MEET

THE ABOVE CRITERIA. IT WILL BE IGNORED.

John has "retired" from JFK research and DOES NOT WANT ANY

PART OF INTERNET DEBATES. He has said everything that he

intends to say IN HIS BOOK. He stands behind everything in

his book, as do I. I will attempt to answer any legitimate

questions about alleged "errors". But one at a time, please.

Edited April 7, 2010 by Jack White

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Jack,

No matter what you are saying, this thread has exposed major problems

in the HARVEY & LEE scenario as well as explaining quite a lot about the

relationship between Judyth and Lee, who were collaborating with David

Ferrie and Dr. Mary Sherman in a project to develop an anti-cancer-virus

cure that became crucial when it was discovered that the polio vaccine

being use to inoculate around 100,000,000 children and young adults

was contaminated with the SV-40 virus, derived from the incubation of

batches for study in the kidneys of Rhesus monkeys. It is a fascinating

and remarkable story, which I am only now beginning to piece together.

It is my belief that you are abandoning the thread because you are not

able to cope with the arguments that have been posted, especially those

about the "missing tooth" and the presence of "Harvey" and "Lee" at the

same junior high school, the sole evidential basis for which is the report

of an elderly woman who seems to be a completely incompetent witness.

The idea that I "hijacked" your thread is rather ridiculous. I interpreted

your invitation as one to repost the posts in which challenges to the work

of John Armstrong had been presented. I therefore went through the

thread to pick out those that were most relevant, which I posted there.

My presumption was that you would send them to John, one at a time,

for his consideration. Why you can't see your way to do that is beyond

me. I believe that you are not only hostile to Judyth but have become

hostile to me. For all the years of our relationship, I have never seen

you act in such an obdurate and obstructionistic fashion. I have given

you what you need if you choose to contact John, namely, a collection of

the posts in which challenges to his work are presented. I didn't think in

my wildest dreams that I had to drag it out, one by one. So do with what

I presented as you will. There was no reason to reject what I have done.

The reason you are not reading these posts and learning from them, of

course, is that your mind has been closed on this subject since before

the thread began. I realize that you are not alone in failing to begin to

appreciate what Judyth is all about. Let me recommend that you could

take a giant step in the right direction by reading DR. MARY'S MONKEY,

in which Ed Haslam offers a fascinating exploration of the circumstances

that brought Judyth, Lee, Ferrie, Sherman, and Ochsner together in one

of the most remarkable covert operations in American medical history.

Jim

P.S. Even simpler, tune in to revereradio.net this Friday from 5-7 PM/CT

and listen to Jesse Ventura for the first hour and Ed Haslam the second.

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 just this evening received two more

messages of support; the people email me privately because they say

they cannot have a productive exchange with Jim.

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).

Cite facts, not opinions.

(Lengthy cut and paste messages will be ignored!)

I will then attempt to reply to the alleged "error".

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

about JVB or H&L.

(Lengthy cut and paste messages will be ignored!)

This might contribute something to the investigation.

(Lengthy cut and paste messages will be ignored!)

Jack

DO NOT POST ANYTHING TO THIS THREAD WHICH DOES NOT MEET

THE ABOVE CRITERIA. IT WILL BE IGNORED.

Edited April 8, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Jack White]

I created this thread for people to post "errors" that they find in Harvey & Lee.

I said I would try to respond to them.

I did NOT create it to showcase lectures on my shortcomings as a human being.

Jack

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

You have been issuing too many public denigrations of the Judyth thread

for my taste. It is some kind of propaganda offensive to discourage those

who might want to learn something about one of the murkiest aspects of

JFK assassination research. I have tolerated these insults because you

are a friend. But I think it's about time that they cease. If you know of

anyone who takes exception to the arguments that Judyth and I have

posted, let them come on the thread and confront me with them. I am

tired of hearing that there are so many who think I am mistaken. Well,

if I am wrong, let them come forth and prove it. This behind-the-back

version of character assassination does not become you, Jack. Stop it!

I created this thread for people to post "errors" that they find in Harvey & Lee.

I said I would try to respond to them.

I did NOT create it to showcase lectures on my shortcomings as a human being.

Jack

[Greg Parker]

John has "retired" from JFK research and DOES NOT WANT ANY

PART OF INTERNET DEBATES. He has said everything that he

intends to say IN HIS BOOK. He stands behind everything in

his book, as do I. I will attempt to answer any legitimate

questions about alleged "errors". But one at a time, please.

Jack,

What happened?

First you post a complaint that Mr Armstrong wanted to join, but was having some problem in doing so (though if I recall, a solution was quickly arranged?)

Next you said you would forward alleged errors to Mr Armstrong for his response, and now you are saying he wants nothing to do with this forum; is not interested in answering questions or defending his work, and that you will attempt to do that yourself?

Apart from anything else, there is a false dichotomy in operation in these threads: If X is wrong, Y must be right, when in fact both may be right, just as both may be wrong.

I think Mr Armstrong needs to do what he originally said he wanted to do. This exit from wanting to join and defend his work makes it look like he has no backbone; and worse; no answers.

[David G. Healy]

John has "retired" from JFK research and DOES NOT WANT ANY

PART OF INTERNET DEBATES. He has said everything that he

intends to say IN HIS BOOK. He stands behind everything in

his book, as do I. I will attempt to answer any legitimate

questions about alleged "errors". But one at a time, please.

Jack,

What happened?

First you post a complaint that Mr Armstrong wanted to join, but was having some problem in doing so (though if I recall, a solution was quickly arranged?)

Next you said you would forward alleged errors to Mr Armstrong for his response, and now you are saying he wants nothing to do with this forum; is not interested in answering questions or defending his work, and that you will attempt to do that yourself?

Apart from anything else, there is a false dichotomy in operation in these threads: If X is wrong, Y must be right, when in fact both may be right, just as both may be wrong.

I think Mr Armstrong needs to do what he originally said he wanted to do. This exit from wanting to join and defend his work makes it look like he has no backbone; and worse; no answers.

there you go.... This Armstron guy doesn't need to sell books, they're all SOLD!

Frankly, based on Ed Forum's past track record with authors that have joined.... I'd probably tell the forum to buzz off, too! That's the beauty of a sold out, self publishing author -- *if you don't like it, write your own book and prove me wrong*!

Edited April 7, 2010 by David G. Healy

[John Simkin]

John has "retired" from JFK research and DOES NOT WANT ANY

PART OF INTERNET DEBATES. He has said everything that he

intends to say IN HIS BOOK. He stands behind everything in

his book, as do I. I will attempt to answer any legitimate

questions about alleged "errors". But one at a time, please.

Jack,

What happened?

First you post a complaint that Mr Armstrong wanted to join, but was having some problem in doing so (though if I recall, a solution was quickly arranged?)

Next you said you would forward alleged errors to Mr Armstrong for his response, and now you are saying he wants nothing to do with this forum; is not interested in answering questions or defending his work, and that you will attempt to do that yourself?

Apart from anything else, there is a false dichotomy in operation in these threads: If X is wrong, Y must be right, when in fact both may be right, just as both may be wrong.

I think Mr Armstrong needs to do what he originally said he wanted to do. This exit from wanting to join and defend his work makes it look like he has no backbone; and worse; no answers.

I sent details to John Armstrong how he could join after Jack's complaints but he never replied. Very strange.

[Jack White]

I STARTED THIS THREAD HOPING FOR PROGRESS.

IT DID NOT WORK. THEREFORE I DECLARE THE THREAD CLOSED.

ARMSTRONG'S HARVEY AND LEE STANDS ON ITS OWN MERITS, DESPITE

DETRACTORS.

JOHN IS RIGHT NOT TO JOIN IN FOOLISH ARGUMENTS LIKE THESE.

JACK

[Greg Parker]

John has "retired" from JFK research and DOES NOT WANT ANY

PART OF INTERNET DEBATES. He has said everything that he

intends to say IN HIS BOOK. He stands behind everything in

his book, as do I. I will attempt to answer any legitimate

questions about alleged "errors". But one at a time, please.

Jack,

What happened?

First you post a complaint that Mr Armstrong wanted to join, but was having some problem in doing so (though if I recall, a solution was quickly arranged?)

Next you said you would forward alleged errors to Mr Armstrong for his response, and now you are saying he wants nothing to do with this forum; is not interested in answering questions or defending his work, and that you will attempt to do that yourself?

Apart from anything else, there is a false dichotomy in operation in these threads: If X is wrong, Y must be right, when in fact both may be right, just as both may be wrong.

I think Mr Armstrong needs to do what he originally said he wanted to do. This exit from wanting to join and defend his work makes it look like he has no backbone; and worse; no answers.

I sent details to John Armstrong how he could join after Jack's complaints but he never replied. Very strange.

John, I expected there to be a strategic retreat after this: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15688

I was hoping I was wrong, but since then, stocks in H & L could hardly be said to have improved.

I'll guaruntee there are prominent researchers who, having hitched a ride on the coat-tails of H & L to varying degrees, will be gratefull for this withdrawal. At the moment, colateral damage is barely on the radar (except for poor Jack who has been left to do all the heavy lifting), but all that could change if Mr Armstrong decides he has a spine, afterall.

Edited April 7, 2010 by Greg Parker

[Greg Parker]

John has "retired" from JFK research and DOES NOT WANT ANY

PART OF INTERNET DEBATES. He has said everything that he

intends to say IN HIS BOOK. He stands behind everything in

his book, as do I. I will attempt to answer any legitimate

questions about alleged "errors". But one at a time, please.

Jack,

What happened?

First you post a complaint that Mr Armstrong wanted to join, but was having some problem in doing so (though if I recall, a solution was quickly arranged?)

Next you said you would forward alleged errors to Mr Armstrong for his response, and now you are saying he wants nothing to do with this forum; is not interested in answering questions or defending his work, and that you will attempt to do that yourself?

Apart from anything else, there is a false dichotomy in operation in these threads: If X is wrong, Y must be right, when in fact both may be right, just as both may be wrong.

I think Mr Armstrong needs to do what he originally said he wanted to do. This exit from wanting to join and defend his work makes it look like he has no backbone; and worse; no answers.

there you go.... This Armstron guy doesn't need to sell books, they're all SOLD!

Frankly, based on Ed Forum's past track record with authors that have joined.... I'd probably tell the forum to buzz off, too! That's the beauty of a sold out, self publishing author -- *if you don't like it, write your own book and prove me wrong*!

That's all well and good, but It was Mr Armstrong (through Jack White) who said he wanted to come here and set a few things straight. I'd like to know why the change of heart. The book was sold out long before he said he wanted to join, so that can't be the reason.

[Jack White]

John has "retired" from JFK research and DOES NOT WANT ANY

PART OF INTERNET DEBATES. He has said everything that he

intends to say IN HIS BOOK. He stands behind everything in

his book, as do I. I will attempt to answer any legitimate

questions about alleged "errors". But one at a time, please.

Jack,

What happened?

First you post a complaint that Mr Armstrong wanted to join, but was having some problem in doing so (though if I recall, a solution was quickly arranged?)

Next you said you would forward alleged errors to Mr Armstrong for his response, and now you are saying he wants nothing to do with this forum; is not interested in answering questions or defending his work, and that you will attempt to do that yourself?

Apart from anything else, there is a false dichotomy in operation in these threads: If X is wrong, Y must be right, when in fact both may be right, just as both may be wrong.

I think Mr Armstrong needs to do what he originally said he wanted to do. This exit from wanting to join and defend his work makes it look like he has no backbone; and worse; no answers.

there you go.... This Armstron guy doesn't need to sell books, they're all SOLD!

Frankly, based on Ed Forum's past track record with authors that have joined.... I'd probably tell the forum to buzz off, too! That's the beauty of a sold out, self publishing author -- *if you don't like it, write your own book and prove me wrong*!

That's all well and good, but It was Mr Armstrong (through Jack White) who said he wanted to come here and set a few things straight. I'd like to know why the change of heart. The book was sold out long before he said he wanted to join, so that can't be the reason.

SIMPLE. HE CAME HERE AND READ ALL THE FOOLISHNESS GOING ON...THE NAME CALLING...THE MISINTERPRETATIONS...THE LIES. HE WISELY

WANTS NOTING TO DO WITH THE CHARACTERS HERE. (One does not have to be a member to read the foolish postings...such as calling him

a coward.)

Narrow minded people can always use portions of the information provided to reach a their own self-serving conclusions. This is nothing new, the WC did this in 1963 and were followed by many other clever but deceitful people promoting their own agendas. But any reasonably intelligent person who takes the time to read this book, and understand all of the information, all of the testimony, and all of the documents, will be likely arrive at a very different conclusion. Simple minded people make simple choices and generate simple conclusions. Serious minded people make serious choices and generate serious conclusions.

THIS THREAD IS NOW CLOSED!

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

It pains me that my dear friend, Jack White. has been left high-and-dry by his mentor,

John Armstrong. When he created the earlier version of this thread, I replied by doing

my best to collate the posts in which questions have been raised about HARVEY & LEE.

Anyone who wants to see what he appears to be avoiding should visit that thread. The

idea of "closing a thread" was one I floated past John Simkin some time back, given I

do not want to continue the Judyth thread forever, but I was told it could not be done.

Please know that my understanding of the role of Judyth in relation to Lee Oswald and

David Ferrie and Mary Sherman and Alton Ochsner has been transformed by an inter-

view I taped last night with Ed Haslam, DR. MARY'S MONKEY, which I encourage every

one with an interest in these issues to hear. It will be broadcast on Friday as the 2nd

hour of "The Real Deal" on http://revereradio.net following the 1st with Jesse Ventura,

AMERICAN CONSPIRACIES. I invite those with questions to post on the Judyth thread.

John has "retired" from JFK research and DOES NOT WANT ANY

PART OF INTERNET DEBATES. He has said everything that he

intends to say IN HIS BOOK. He stands behind everything in

his book, as do I. I will attempt to answer any legitimate

questions about alleged "errors". But one at a time, please.

Jack,

What happened?

First you post a complaint that Mr Armstrong wanted to join, but was having some problem in doing so (though if I recall, a solution was quickly arranged?)

Next you said you would forward alleged errors to Mr Armstrong for his response, and now you are saying he wants nothing to do with this forum; is not interested in answering questions or defending his work, and that you will attempt to do that yourself?

Apart from anything else, there is a false dichotomy in operation in these threads: If X is wrong, Y must be right, when in fact both may be right, just as both may be wrong.

I think Mr Armstrong needs to do what he originally said he wanted to do. This exit from wanting to join and defend his work makes it look like he has no backbone; and worse; no answers.

there you go.... This Armstron guy doesn't need to sell books, they're all SOLD!

Frankly, based on Ed Forum's past track record with authors that have joined.... I'd probably tell the forum to buzz off, too! That's the beauty of a sold out, self publishing author -- *if you don't like it, write your own book and prove me wrong*!

That's all well and good, but It was Mr Armstrong (through Jack White) who said he wanted to come here and set a few things straight. I'd like to know why the change of heart. The book was sold out long before he said he wanted to join, so that can't be the reason.

SIMPLE. HE CAME HERE AND READ ALL THE FOOLISHNESS GOING ON...THE NAME CALLING...THE MISINTERPRETATIONS...THE LIES. HE WISELY

WANTS NOTING TO DO WITH THE CHARACTERS HERE. (One does not have to be a member to read the foolish postings...such as calling him

a coward.)

Narrow minded people can always use portions of the information provided to reach a their own self-serving conclusions. This is nothing new, the WC did this in 1963 and were followed by many other clever but deceitful people promoting their own agendas. But any reasonably intelligent person who takes the time to read this book, and understand all of the information, all of the testimony, and all of the documents, will be likely arrive at a very different conclusion. Simple minded people make simple choices and generate simple conclusions. Serious minded people make serious choices and generate serious conclusions.

THIS THREAD IS NOW CLOSED!

Edited April 8, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Greg Parker]

John has "retired" from JFK research and DOES NOT WANT ANY

PART OF INTERNET DEBATES. He has said everything that he

intends to say IN HIS BOOK. He stands behind everything in

his book, as do I. I will attempt to answer any legitimate

questions about alleged "errors". But one at a time, please.

Jack,

What happened?

First you post a complaint that Mr Armstrong wanted to join, but was having some problem in doing so (though if I recall, a solution was quickly arranged?)

Next you said you would forward alleged errors to Mr Armstrong for his response, and now you are saying he wants nothing to do with this forum; is not interested in answering questions or defending his work, and that you will attempt to do that yourself?

Apart from anything else, there is a false dichotomy in operation in these threads: If X is wrong, Y must be right, when in fact both may be right, just as both may be wrong.

I think Mr Armstrong needs to do what he originally said he wanted to do. This exit from wanting to join and defend his work makes it look like he has no backbone; and worse; no answers.

there you go.... This Armstron guy doesn't need to sell books, they're all SOLD!

Frankly, based on Ed Forum's past track record with authors that have joined.... I'd probably tell the forum to buzz off, too! That's the beauty of a sold out, self publishing author -- *if you don't like it, write your own book and prove me wrong*!

That's all well and good, but It was Mr Armstrong (through Jack White) who said he wanted to come here and set a few things straight. I'd like to know why the change of heart. The book was sold out long before he said he wanted to join, so that can't be the reason.

SIMPLE. HE CAME HERE AND READ ALL THE FOOLISHNESS GOING ON...THE NAME CALLING...THE MISINTERPRETATIONS...THE LIES. HE WISELY

WANTS NOTING TO DO WITH THE CHARACTERS HERE. (One does not have to be a member to read the foolish postings...such as calling him

a coward.)

Jack, at the time he backed out of coming here, I don't think anyone had called him any names. If I'm wrong about that, please show me the quotes. I said he lacked backbone if he has abondoned you to defend his work on your own, and I do not resile from that. Abandoning friends in time of need would fit most people's definition of a cowardly act.

Whatever his reasons, it had nothing to do with name-calling. That is just an excuse without substance.

Narrow minded people can always use portions of the information provided to reach a their own self-serving conclusions. This is nothing new, the WC did this in 1963 and were followed by many other clever but deceitful people promoting their own agendas. But any reasonably intelligent person who takes the time to read this book, and understand all of the information, all of the testimony, and all of the documents, will be likely arrive at a very different conclusion. Simple minded people make simple choices and generate simple conclusions. Serious minded people make serious choices and generate serious conclusions.

Attacking those who disagree with Armstrong, or have questions about his evidence is just masking a lack of confidence in being able to respond to those disagreements/questions adequately. Or maybe you're (rightly, imo) just sick of having to do this on your own. I'd be pissed at Armstrong if I were you.

THIS THREAD IS NOW CLOSED!

Unfortunately, you need the supernatural wisdom and powers of a Moderator to do that. Shouting it is closed won't work any better than waving a wand and chanting "abracadabra" will make the questions disaapear.

Edited April 8, 2010 by Greg Parker

[Kathleen Collins]

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:

John has "retired" from JFK research and DOES NOT WANT ANY

PART OF INTERNET DEBATES. He has said everything that he

intends to say IN HIS BOOK. He stands behind everything in

his book, as do I. I will attempt to answer any legitimate

questions about alleged "errors". But one at a time, please.

This doesn't fit your criteria -- or maybe it does. John Armstrong is the cause of my long-held frustration regarding Donald O. Norton, who is supposed to be Lee Oswald. It isn't fair. If there is something to it, Jack, please tell me. You know Armstrong.

Kathy C

Edited April 8, 2010 by Kathleen Collins

[Jack White]

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:

John has "retired" from JFK research and DOES NOT WANT ANY

PART OF INTERNET DEBATES. He has said everything that he

intends to say IN HIS BOOK. He stands behind everything in

his book, as do I. I will attempt to answer any legitimate

questions about alleged "errors". But one at a time, please.

This doesn't fit your criteria -- or maybe it does. John Armstrong is the cause of my long-held frustration regarding Donald O. Norton, who is supposed to be Lee Oswald. It isn't fair. If there is something to it, Jack, please tell me. You know Armstrong.

Kathy C

Based on John's six-month investigation of Norton, I believe Norton is the original LEE Oswald.

Here is a comparison of LEE and NORTON signatures. I believe the characters show great

similarity.

Jack