Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

Certainly as regards my area of expertise (Ferrie), his books cannot be taken as presenting any verifiable evidence that Ferrie had a secret lab in his apartment or even worked with Dr. Mary Sherman.

And yet, with all due respect, your view is that of a '3 Monkey Ferrie' is it not? He neither sees, hears, nor speaks anything connected to conspiracy. So how are we to evaluate your statements that Ferrie had no connection to Dr. Sherman?

No, you're deeply mischaracterizing a book you haven't even read yet. I report everything about Ferrie, good & bad, including some new stuff.

The Sherman connection is a two-parter: Haslam presents no verifiable evidence that they were connected (nor does Baker); and there is evidence that argues against it. It is not simply "my statements," although I think one reader wishes it was.

Edited by Stephen Roy
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 320
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Certainly as regards my area of expertise (Ferrie), his books cannot be taken as presenting any verifiable evidence that Ferrie had a secret lab in his apartment or even worked with Dr. Mary Sherman.

And yet, with all due respect, your view is that of a '3 Monkey Ferrie' is it not? He neither sees, hears, nor speaks anything connected to conspiracy. So how are we to evaluate your statements that Ferrie had no connection to Dr. Sherman?

No, you're deeply mischaracterizing a book you haven't even read yet. I report everything about Ferrie, good & bad, including some new stuff.

The Sherman connection is a two-parter: Haslam presents no verifiable evidence that they were connected (nor does Baker); and there is evidence that argues against it. It is not simply "my statements," although I think one reader wishes it was.

Not so. I know nothing about any 'book'.

I correctly characterize posts you have made here on aaj where you have repeatedly said Ferrie had no connection to Lee Oswald, much less Dr. Sherman.

When Oswald and Ferrie appear in a photo together the question becomes not whether they knew each other, but how well. But you don't seem to have grasped that concept yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesse Ventura:

"It was stunning to learn that Lee Harvey Oswald had a mistress. Her book shows beyond any doubt that he was clearly a

government agent — because when Oswald was away on a mission in early 1963, Baker punched his time card at work every day!"

Jesse Ventura's 6 favorite books about conspiracies: http://theweek.com/article/index/214197/jesse-venturas-6-favorite-books-about-conspiracies

Jesse is strongly influenced by Jim...good on most things except JVB.

Jack

Well, Jesse is famous for saying 'Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Attempting to demonstrate that a particular kind of LINAC was most likely not available in NOLA in 1963 begs the question of whether or not a LINAC could have caused the damage noted to Dr. Sherman.

Here is a link that discusses a few accidents with LINACS:

http://users.csc.calpoly.edu/~jdalbey/SWE/Papers/THERAC25.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly as regards my area of expertise (Ferrie), his books cannot be taken as presenting any verifiable evidence that Ferrie had a secret lab in his apartment or even worked with Dr. Mary Sherman.

And yet, with all due respect, your view is that of a '3 Monkey Ferrie' is it not? He neither sees, hears, nor speaks anything connected to conspiracy. So how are we to evaluate your statements that Ferrie had no connection to Dr. Sherman?

No, you're deeply mischaracterizing a book you haven't even read yet. I report everything about Ferrie, good & bad, including some new stuff.

The Sherman connection is a two-parter: Haslam presents no verifiable evidence that they were connected (nor does Baker); and there is evidence that argues against it. It is not simply "my statements," although I think one reader wishes it was.

Not so. I know nothing about any 'book'.

I correctly characterize posts you have made here on aaj where you have repeatedly said Ferrie had no connection to Lee Oswald, much less Dr. Sherman.

When Oswald and Ferrie appear in a photo together the question becomes not whether they knew each other, but how well. But you don't seem to have grasped that concept yet.

I have noted that Ferrie denied remembering Oswald. Am I supposed to suppress that? As for Sherman, there is just no evidence that he knew her. As for the photo, I have noted that it was taken in 1955, when Oswald was 15. Am I supposed to suppress that? Is there something wrong with objectively relating both sides?

I am one researcher who has looked very carefully at (and behind) the Haslam and Baker books, and expressed an opinion about them. The opinion of one person should be of no consequence to either writer; so I don't understand why Baker finds it necessary to start attacking me, largely through others, where my opportunities to respond are limited. I'm not trying to limit book sales by doing reviews on Amazon; I'm just expressing an opinion with my colleagues in the research field. Baker shouldn't feel so threatened by my opinions.

Edited by Stephen Roy
Link to post
Share on other sites

Attempting to demonstrate that a particular kind of LINAC was most likely not available in NOLA in 1963 begs the question of whether or not a LINAC could have caused the damage noted to Dr. Sherman.

Here is a link that discusses a few accidents with LINACS:

http://users.csc.calpoly.edu/~jdalbey/SWE/Papers/THERAC25.html

There were three deaths discussed in that paper. One person lived five months after the accident. Another lived three months. The other lived for three weeks. None of those incidents has anything to to with the begged question or sheds any light on Mary Sherman's death.

What evidence does Ed Haslam offer that a particle accelerator could have caused Sherman's death? Can any of his supporters answer that simple question?

Haslam's critics are not obligated to "demonstrate that a particular kind of LINAC was most likely not available in NOLA in 1963."

It is incumbent on Haslam to demonstrate that there likely was one. Or as Haslam puts it:

And it put new emphasis on our question: Did Mary Sherman have access to a linear particle accelerator?

I had fairly good personal information that there was at least one linear accelerator in New Orleans in the 1960s: The Jesuit priest who taught physics in 1968 confided to our class that there was a linear accelerator being used 'for research at a medical facility in New Orleans.'

Although the linear accelerator is one of the linchpins of his book, Haslam doesn't bother to give the reader any more details of that encounter.

What did the priest say about the accelerator? Where was it located? What kind of research was it used for? What was the teacher's name? The careful reader is left wondering if Haslam just made it up.

Why didn't Haslam attempt to look his teacher up? Did he attempt to find any of the faculty that might have worked with that teacher?

Did Haslam attempt to find any of his classmates? Even if unsuccessful, he could have mentioned such attempts in his footnotes.

Do people really believe that a LPA so top-secret that there is no evidence (no paper trail and no eyewitnesses) that it ever existed and yet, paradoxically, a high school teacher knew about it?

These are the types of questions Ed Haslam does not want to be asked and consistently has refused to answer in the almost five years since Dr Mary's Monkey was published.

These questions and scores more were posted repeatedly in more detail on the JVB threads. Haslam's biggest booster, Jim Fetzer didn't want to answer them either.

Too much of Haslam's book has a distinctly fictive feel. If people want to buy what he is selling, more power to them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly as regards my area of expertise (Ferrie), his books cannot be taken as presenting any verifiable evidence that Ferrie had a secret lab in his apartment or even worked with Dr. Mary Sherman.

And yet, with all due respect, your view is that of a '3 Monkey Ferrie' is it not? He neither sees, hears, nor speaks anything connected to conspiracy. So how are we to evaluate your statements that Ferrie had no connection to Dr. Sherman?

No, you're deeply mischaracterizing a book you haven't even read yet. I report everything about Ferrie, good & bad, including some new stuff.

The Sherman connection is a two-parter: Haslam presents no verifiable evidence that they were connected (nor does Baker); and there is evidence that argues against it. It is not simply "my statements," although I think one reader wishes it was.

Not so. I know nothing about any 'book'.

I correctly characterize posts you have made here on aaj where you have repeatedly said Ferrie had no connection to Lee Oswald, much less Dr. Sherman.

When Oswald and Ferrie appear in a photo together the question becomes not whether they knew each other, but how well. But you don't seem to have grasped that concept yet.

I have noted that Ferrie denied remembering Oswald. Am I supposed to suppress that? As for Sherman, there is just no evidence that he knew her. As for the photo, I have noted that it was taken in 1955, when Oswald was 15. Am I supposed to suppress that? Is there something wrong with objectively relating both sides?

I am one researcher who has looked very carefully at (and behind) the Haslam and Baker books, and expressed an opinion about them. The opinion of one person should be of no consequence to either writer; so I don't understand why Baker finds it necessary to start attacking me, largely through others, where my opportunities to respond are limited. I'm not trying to limit book sales by doing reviews on Amazon; I'm just expressing an opinion with my colleagues in the research field. Baker shouldn't feel so threatened by my opinions.

My question is how do you intend to deal with two people being documented in the same photo. Nothing needs to be 'suppressed'. Is it not up to you to determine how to weigh Ferrie's statement that he did not remember Lee Oswald when he in fact appeared in a photo with him and interacted with him at CAP? Was Ferrie trying to get off the hook or was he sincere?

I don't know what you mean by 'Baker attacking you through others'. I have criticized your perspective on Ferrie since I first read your posts. How do you weigh and evaluate people being in proximity and yet supposedly having nothing to do with each other?

As far as Ferrie's connection, if any, to Dr. Sherman, I get the impression you have no curiousity about that at all, despite the fact that Ferrie had an interest in cancer, did have mice at one time, and was in possession of a treatise on cancer when he died. Are these all just curious coincidences that we will not look at, hear of, or speak about?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Attempting to demonstrate that a particular kind of LINAC was most likely not available in NOLA in 1963 begs the question of whether or not a LINAC could have caused the damage noted to Dr. Sherman.

Here is a link that discusses a few accidents with LINACS:

http://users.csc.calpoly.edu/~jdalbey/SWE/Papers/THERAC25.html

There were three deaths discussed in that paper. One person lived five months after the accident. Another lived three months. The other lived for three weeks. None of those incidents has anything to to with the begged question or sheds any light on Mary Sherman's death.

What evidence does Ed Haslam offer that a particle accelerator could have caused Sherman's death? Can any of his supporters answer that simple question?

Haslam's critics are not obligated to "demonstrate that a particular kind of LINAC was most likely not available in NOLA in 1963."

It is incumbent on Haslam to demonstrate that there likely was one. Or as Haslam puts it:

And it put new emphasis on our question: Did Mary Sherman have access to a linear particle accelerator?

I had fairly good personal information that there was at least one linear accelerator in New Orleans in the 1960s: The Jesuit priest who taught physics in 1968 confided to our class that there was a linear accelerator being used 'for research at a medical facility in New Orleans.'

Although the linear accelerator is one of the linchpins of his book, Haslam doesn't bother to give the reader any more details of that encounter.

What did the priest say about the accelerator? Where was it located? What kind of research was it used for? What was the teacher's name? The careful reader is left wondering if Haslam just made it up.

Why didn't Haslam attempt to look his teacher up? Did he attempt to find any of the faculty that might have worked with that teacher?

Did Haslam attempt to find any of his classmates? Even if unsuccessful, he could have mentioned such attempts in his footnotes.

Do people really believe that a LPA so top-secret that there is no evidence (no paper trail and no eyewitnesses) that it ever existed and yet, paradoxically, a high school teacher knew about it?

These are the types of questions Ed Haslam does not want to be asked and consistently has refused to answer in the almost five years since Dr Mary's Monkey was published.

These questions and scores more were posted repeatedly in more detail on the JVB threads. Haslam's biggest booster, Jim Fetzer didn't want to answer them either.

Too much of Haslam's book has a distinctly fictive feel. If people want to buy what he is selling, more power to them.

Michael,

Your post is very well thought out and you bring up excellent points. I did not intend to make any direct claims about a connection of the damage documented in the link I posted to Dr. Sherman's injuries, but just to open up the topic for discussion. Is it completely unreasonable that such damage could have been done by a LINAC?

On the other hand, your points about Haslams' speculations are well taken. It is very frustrating reading about how his hunches just happen to link together really important issues. He just happens to meet the right person at the right time, smell a certain smell that could only be dead mice, and so on. I thorougly enjoyed the first edition of MF&TMV just because it was so far out. It talked about tantilizing possibilities in the dark recesses of NOLA. But when he paired up with Judyth my interest and curiousity were challenged. Could something like this bioweapon possibly have happened, or is it so unrealistic as to be just plain ludicrous? Is Haslam revealing things we will thank him for 20 years from now, or has he created a parallel universe which Judyth has just hopped right into?

Link to post
Share on other sites

My question is how do you intend to deal with two people being documented in the same photo. Nothing needs to be 'suppressed'. Is it not up to you to determine how to weigh Ferrie's statement that he did not remember Lee Oswald when he in fact appeared in a photo with him and interacted with him at CAP? Was Ferrie trying to get off the hook or was he sincere?

I don't know what you mean by 'Baker attacking you through others'. I have criticized your perspective on Ferrie since I first read your posts. How do you weigh and evaluate people being in proximity and yet supposedly having nothing to do with each other?

As far as Ferrie's connection, if any, to Dr. Sherman, I get the impression you have no curiousity about that at all, despite the fact that Ferrie had an interest in cancer, did have mice at one time, and was in possession of a treatise on cancer when he died. Are these all just curious coincidences that we will not look at, hear of, or speak about?

Is there a conflict between Ferrie and Oswald being seen in a photograph eight years before the assassination and Ferrie saying he didn't remember him?

Attacking me through others: On Fetzer's blog, which will not accept my responses.

For God's sake, PLEASE stop saying things like I have no curiosity at all about a Ferrie-Sherman connection. OF COURSE I had curiosity about it. That's why I have spent time looking though documents and hunting down people to try to find traces of it, looking at the Haslam and Baker materials to see if I could find anything to confirm or deny them. It is insulting for you to make such an untrue statement.

And what research have you been doing on the Ferrie-Sherman relationship, or original research to copnfirm or deny the Haslam and Baker stories? You've been commenting on this matter for years. What research have you done to advance our knowledge?

Edited by Stephen Roy
Link to post
Share on other sites

Stephen, just a Ferrie-tangential question: in 1963, were there Civil Air Patrol cadet uniforms?

Prior to reaching Houston Street, the Dallas motorcade was interrupted when a teenage male wearing a uniform ran out in the street. Secret Service subdued him. A suspected weapon may have been involved - but I may be in error there.

It's in a thread from c. 2006 on EdForum. It will probably come up in a search under Civil Air Patrol, as I asked this back then.

Edited by David Andrews
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tom Scully

....What evidence does Ed Haslam offer that a particle accelerator could have caused Sherman's death? Can any of his supporters answer that simple question?

Haslam's critics are not obligated to "demonstrate that a particular kind of LINAC was most likely not available in NOLA in 1963."

It is incumbent on Haslam to demonstrate that there likely was one. Or as Haslam puts it:

And it put new emphasis on our question: Did Mary Sherman have access to a linear particle accelerator?

I had fairly good personal information that there was at least one linear accelerator in New Orleans in the 1960s: The Jesuit priest who taught physics in 1968 confided to our class that there was a linear accelerator being used 'for research at a medical facility in New Orleans.'

Although the linear accelerator is one of the linchpins of his book, Haslam doesn't bother to give the reader any more details of that encounter.

What did the priest say about the accelerator? Where was it located? What kind of research was it used for? What was the teacher's name? The careful reader is left wondering if Haslam just made it up.

Why didn't Haslam attempt to look his teacher up? Did he attempt to find any of the faculty that might have worked with that teacher?

Did Haslam attempt to find any of his classmates? Even if unsuccessful, he could have mentioned such attempts in his footnotes.

Do people really believe that a LPA so top-secret that there is no evidence (no paper trail and no eyewitnesses) that it ever existed and yet, paradoxically, a high school teacher knew about it?

These are the types of questions Ed Haslam does not want to be asked and consistently has refused to answer in the almost five years since Dr Mary's Monkey was published.

These questions and scores more were posted repeatedly in more detail on the JVB threads. Haslam's biggest booster, Jim Fetzer didn't want to answer them either.

Too much of Haslam's book has a distinctly fictive feel. If people want to buy what he is selling, more power to them.

Michael, if the following is an indication, Haslam, and Baker for that matter, get plenty of help spreading what amounts to thinly or unsupported declarations. I inserted the pricing reporting I could find... an estimate in 1954 of $200k for a yet to be installed, pioneering medical therapy linac, a 1958, $500k after the fact cost report refering to that same 1954 installation, and a $1 million price tag at Yale in 1961. Contrast that with the information furnished by this blogger. Unskeptical supporters of Haslam only make themselves look similar to the way he looks, to me, anyway. Why are he and Baker held to almost no level of proof? Why don't these same people accept almost everything in the WCR? They seem incurious and accepting of what Haslam and Baker tell them, why is the WCR held by them to a much higher standard of proof? Where are the "5 or 6 checks"? Has the statute of limitations run out on the REAL alleged crime; the secret installation in NOLA of a vastly overpriced LINAC that killed Dr. Sherman?

Mr. Haslam is portrayed in a third party transcript making bold, unsubstantiated claims, and then a fan blogs a redistribution

of those claims, not only accepting Haslam's price claims and payment details without question, but also embellishing them with his own "stuff".

http://polioforever.wordpress.com/dr-marys-monkey/

(excerpts, part 1)

(min.2)

Haslam: Mary Sherman went to the University of Chicago…which is an organ of the Rockefeller Foundation – it’s where the neocon thinking came out of and it’s the headwaters of nuclear, biological and chemical research in America…

....(min.41)

So, Sarah Stewart is involved in this. Mary Sherman is involved in this. Dr. Ochsner is involved…[and] of course, they had a linear particle accelerator so they have to have an operator…and I’ve tracked down the person who I think that is. I’m not gonna say his name..because I’d like him to stay alive…and I tracked down the guy that built the linear particle accelerator in New Orleans…and he said that normally..there’d be something like a mortgage, a payment plan where you’d set it up and over years you’d pay off the huge expense of setting this thing up. He said the one in New Orleans was paid off within a week and he got six different checks from six different bank accounts in odd amounts of money.

(polioforever>>>N.P.Davis's biography of E.O.Lawrence demonstrates that huge amounts of private funding from wealthy donors was funneled into particle accelerator construction --with no info to go on, this scenario could just as well be a typical scheme a la Lawrence. One of the more intrepid linac builders was Lawrence's colleague and friend, Luis W. Alvarez**, who assumed many of Lawrence's Bohemian Club connections and patronage)

http://johndelanewilliams.blogspot.com/2010/11/dr.html

A linear particle accelerator (linac). Haslam obtained evidence from confidential sources that a linac had vaporized a technician; he theorized that Dr. Sherman was mortally wounded by such a machine.

The Machine

It was while reading Chapter 11 on “The Machine” that I became aware that my ’97 edition was different than the original ’95 version. The 1997 edition had a chapter similar to the one in his current book regarding Haslam’s investigation into the possibility of a linear accelerator being used in New Orleans. He did his research on the existence of the linear accelerator after the original work was published. While I was familiar with Haslam’s making new chapters available over the internet I wasn’t aware that his original book had quietly gone through revisions. This is possible with small runs of self-published books. This chapter is a focal chapter; it bears on the death of Dr. Mary Sherman, and the possibility that the underground laboratory was changing monkey viruses through mutation, using the linear accelerator, into deadly cancers, perhaps including the development of the AIDs virus.

This chapter is perhaps his most important contribution.

He began by hypothesizing that no normal fire could have completely burned the bones in Dr. Sherman’s right arm. Nor would electricity cause the damage done to her arm and right side and yet leave the rest of her body and clothing virtually unharmed. A linear accelerator might be able to accomplish this outcome, but at the time, there was no public knowledge that there had been a linear accelerator in New Orleans. Haslam interviewed the man who installed the accelerator in New Orleans, who couldn’t tell Haslam the location of the linear accelerator because of a secrecy agreement. Haslam concluded that the CIA must have funded the project, given the unusual payment process. In the late 1950’s and early 1960’s most research institutes would pay for an accelerator over a several-year period, as they came with price tags of upwards of $10 million. ...

http://www.google.com/search?q=first+linac+%22new+orleans%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:unofficial&client=firefox-a#q=linac+yale&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:unofficial&tbm=nws&source=lnt&tbs=cdr:1,cd_min:1961,cd_max:1961&sa=X&ei=fEC2TfPgKajq0gGJ8qAG&ved=0CA8QpwUoBQ&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=e9cc54b50df4d35

Yale Installs New Million Dollar Linear Accelerator .

Meriden Journal - Sep 11, 1961

New Haven. Sept. 11 —new million dollar electron linear 'acc

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22since+the+huge+%24500,000+linear%22&tbs=nws:1,ar:1&source=newspapers#hl=en&ds=n&sugexp=ldymls&pq=%22since%20the%20huge%20%24500%2C000%20linear%22&xhr=t&q=%22since+the+huge%22+linear&cp=16&pf=p&sclient=psy&tbs=ar:1&tbm=nws&source=hp&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=%22since+the+huge%22+linear&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=e9cc54b50df4d35&bs=1

New Cancer Technique Developed .

News-Sentinel - Feb 1, 1958

... is produced by the hospital's linear accelerator the only machine of its ... in cancer therapy Since the huge 500000 linear accelerator was installed at ...

http://www.google.com/search?q=first+linac+%22new+orleans%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:unofficial&client=firefox-a#hl=en&ds=n&sugexp=gsqvh&pq=linear%201954%20esophageal&xhr=t&q=linear%20UhImann%20tumor%20chicago&cp=15&pf=p&sclient=psy&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aunofficial&biw=1320&bih=689&tbs=ar:1&tbm=nws&source=hp&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=linear+UhImann+tumor+chicago&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=e9cc54b50df4d35

Unveil $200,000 Cancer Weapon

Pay-Per-View - Chicago Tribune - Jun 11, 1954

Dr Erich M4 UhImann di rector of thes tumor clinic said the machine may not ... and Dr Charles Hsiehseated chief physicist at control console of linear ac ... A machine also is being prepared for use by the University of Chicago at Ar

....The one in New Orleans was paid for with 5 or 6 checks paid by different companies and drawn from different banks, all within a week. Haslam eventually concluded that the linear accelerator was located in the Infectious Disease Laboratory of the U.S. Public Health Hospital in New Orleans.

Edited by Tom Scully
Link to post
Share on other sites

My question is how do you intend to deal with two people being documented in the same photo. Nothing needs to be 'suppressed'. Is it not up to you to determine how to weigh Ferrie's statement that he did not remember Lee Oswald when he in fact appeared in a photo with him and interacted with him at CAP? Was Ferrie trying to get off the hook or was he sincere?

I don't know what you mean by 'Baker attacking you through others'. I have criticized your perspective on Ferrie since I first read your posts. How do you weigh and evaluate people being in proximity and yet supposedly having nothing to do with each other?

As far as Ferrie's connection, if any, to Dr. Sherman, I get the impression you have no curiousity about that at all, despite the fact that Ferrie had an interest in cancer, did have mice at one time, and was in possession of a treatise on cancer when he died. Are these all just curious coincidences that we will not look at, hear of, or speak about?

Is there a conflict between Ferrie and Oswald being seen in a photograph eight years before the assassination and Ferrie saying he didn't remember him?

Attacking me through others: On Fetzer's blog, which will not accept my responses.

For God's sake, PLEASE stop saying things like I have no curiosity at all about a Ferrie-Sherman connection. OF COURSE I had curiosity about it. That's why I have spent time looking though documents and hunting down people to try to find traces of it, looking at the Haslam and Baker materials to see if I could find anything to confirm or deny them. It is insulting for you to make such an untrue statement.

And what research have you been doing on the Ferrie-Sherman relationship, or original research to copnfirm or deny the Haslam and Baker stories? You've been commenting on this matter for years. What research have you done to advance our knowledge?

Perhaps what is missing is intellectual curiosity. If you are perfectly comfortable with Ferrie appearing in a photo with Lee Oswald and then claiming he doesn't remember him, that might be the case. It probably hasn't occurred to you that Ferrie could have been making a pragmatic statement to distance himself from Lee Oswald when he did know him.

I find it puzzling that you claim to have thoroughly researched a possible connection between Ferrie and Dr. Sherman and yet have found not one shred of possible connection to at least weigh and evaluate. Why are you insulted by constructive criticism?

The WC had no curiosity either in anything that might point to conspiracy. I am not saying I think you are suppressing anything, just that you don't seem to care. I hope I am mistaken.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My question is how do you intend to deal with two people being documented in the same photo. Nothing needs to be 'suppressed'. Is it not up to you to determine how to weigh Ferrie's statement that he did not remember Lee Oswald when he in fact appeared in a photo with him and interacted with him at CAP? Was Ferrie trying to get off the hook or was he sincere?

I don't know what you mean by 'Baker attacking you through others'. I have criticized your perspective on Ferrie since I first read your posts. How do you weigh and evaluate people being in proximity and yet supposedly having nothing to do with each other?

As far as Ferrie's connection, if any, to Dr. Sherman, I get the impression you have no curiousity about that at all, despite the fact that Ferrie had an interest in cancer, did have mice at one time, and was in possession of a treatise on cancer when he died. Are these all just curious coincidences that we will not look at, hear of, or speak about?

Is there a conflict between Ferrie and Oswald being seen in a photograph eight years before the assassination and Ferrie saying he didn't remember him?

Attacking me through others: On Fetzer's blog, which will not accept my responses.

For God's sake, PLEASE stop saying things like I have no curiosity at all about a Ferrie-Sherman connection. OF COURSE I had curiosity about it. That's why I have spent time looking though documents and hunting down people to try to find traces of it, looking at the Haslam and Baker materials to see if I could find anything to confirm or deny them. It is insulting for you to make such an untrue statement.

And what research have you been doing on the Ferrie-Sherman relationship, or original research to copnfirm or deny the Haslam and Baker stories? You've been commenting on this matter for years. What research have you done to advance our knowledge?

Perhaps what is missing is intellectual curiosity. If you are perfectly comfortable with Ferrie appearing in a photo with Lee Oswald and then claiming he doesn't remember him, that might be the case. It probably hasn't occurred to you that Ferrie could have been making a pragmatic statement to distance himself from Lee Oswald when he did know him.

I find it puzzling that you claim to have thoroughly researched a possible connection between Ferrie and Dr. Sherman and yet have found not one shred of possible connection to at least weigh and evaluate. Why are you insulted by constructive criticism?

The WC had no curiosity either in anything that might point to conspiracy. I am not saying I think you are suppressing anything, just that you don't seem to care. I hope I am mistaken.

OF COURSE I've considered that Ferrie might have been lying.

Sherman: I've pored through thousands of pages of documents and found no trace of her or anyone like her in the Ferrie story. I have asked all of the surviving people I could find who knew Ferrie (some friends, some not) if Sherman or anyone like her shows up in the Ferrie story, and none does.

Do you see how insulting you are being?? You suggest that I'm "missing...intellectual curiosity," that I'm "perfectly comfortable" with things, that obvious things probably haven't occurred to me, that you "find it puzzling" that I CLAIM to have researched something, suggesting that it is a false claim. This is constructive criticism? Then you have the nerve to compare me to the Warren Commission and say I "just don't seem to care." How rude and insulting. Have you done any primary research on this matter?

I'm saying I HAVE done primary research, and I've been unable to establish any kind of relationship between them. YET. That's it. That's all I'm saying. I, one person, have not found anything to establish the relationship. I am not making any claims that something did happen; I'm just saying that I can't find evidence that it did happen. No, I am not convinced by the Haslam and Baker books. But I'm just one person. What does it matter what I think?? Why do you find it necessary to try to pre-emptively attack my integrity? Is Baker behind this?

If I am missing any evidence that Ferrie worked with Sherman or Baker, tell me what you have found. It might change my OPINION.

Edited by Stephen Roy
Link to post
Share on other sites

Stephen, just a Ferrie-tangential question: in 1963, were there Civil Air Patrol cadet uniforms?

Prior to reaching Houston Street, the Dallas motorcade was interrupted when a teenage male wearing a uniform ran out in the street. Secret Service subdued him. A suspected weapon may have been involved - but I may be in error there.

It's in a thread from c. 2006 on EdForum. It will probably come up in a search under Civil Air Patrol, as I asked this back then.

Wow, bear with me while I recover from my tirade in my post above...

Yes, there were uniforms. Most CAP cadets wore them, but some did not (in the New Orleans and Moisant Squadrons. I'm not sure how it was in other states, but I think most wore uniforms.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...