Lee and Me

[Michael Hogan]

So ask yourself, given the nature of your own experience, are Barb and Lifton, among others, being reasonable or fair toward Judyth and her story or are they conducting some kind of vendetta to discredit her for reasons of their own?

Here we go again. Ask yourself if Ed Haslam and Jim Fetzer are being reasonable in their assumptions, or have an agenda of their own.

Ask yourself if the information in Barb's post is accurate -- that is what matters. Ask yourself if Jim Fetzer's questions about her motives

and his use of the inflammatory term vendetta have any bearing on the veracity of what Barb writes.

Ultimately, you want to ask how what Judyth has to say fits in with everything else we know about the assassination. Does her "hypothesis" about events in New Orleans "hang together" with everything else we know? The book is loaded with photos, records, clippings, and other substantiating evidence.

And ask if it is possible that Judyth Baker used the extant record in embellishing her story so it would "fit in" better and "hang together"

with things we already knew. Ask which of those photos, records, and clippings (there are many and some of them are quite interesting)

constitute substantiating evidence that she and Lee Oswald were lovers.

Ed Haslam, the author of DR. MARY'S MONKEY, has made a huge investment in time and effort to confirm her account. He even met personally with a woman who posed as "Judyth Vary Baker" but whom he came to discover was an impostor! If Judyth was not real, why in the world would anyone seek to impersonate her?

And ask if there is anyone with a more vested interest in propagating Judyth Baker's story than Ed Haslam.

Without a "witness" Dr Mary's Monkey would probably never have published; certainly not in it's present form.

Why is Jim Fetzer so concerned about David Lifton's motives and not about Haslam's?

Ed Haslam, the author of DR. MARY'S MONKEY, has made a huge investment in time and effort to confirm her account. He even met personally with a woman who posed as "Judyth Vary Baker" but whom he came to discover was an impostor! If Judyth was not real, why in the world would anyone seek to impersonate her?

Ask why Haslam never made an effort to find his ex-girlfriend or any of the other students that attended the party.

Any of them could have corroborated his account of a Baker impostor. Ask why Haslam has given varying accounts of when

he first contacted Judyth Baker. Ask why Haslam had Judyth Baker correct and corroborate the two chapters about her that

appeared in Dr Mary's Monkey, yet Judyth had "no idea" that Haslam was writing a book. If she had known, she would

have warned him that her first book was "unauthorized" and contained errors. Haslam has never mentioned why he did not tell

Judyth he was writing DMM. Ask why Haslam studiously avoids answering all questions about Judyth Baker, instead constantly

referring them to her books, including the first "unauthorized" one. Ask Jim Fetzer why he never bothered to read Baker's

first book, particulary in light of the fact of the value (more important than friendship) he ascribes to determining truth.

Many of us who have no axe to grind, such as Jim Marrs, Wim Dankbaar, Dean Hartwell, Nigel Turner and "60 Minutes" have become convinced, based on our own research, that she is "the real deal".

In her new book, Judyth Baker mentions JFK and the Unspeakable ("well-researched and powerfully written") and Inside the ARRB

("comprehensive) and neither of those books mention her. Ask why. She allows that Douglass sent her a copy of his book. None of the leading

researchers on Oswald in New Orleans ever uncovered any evidence that Oswald and Baker even knew each other. Why? If the evidence that Judyth

presents is so persuasive why haven't more researchers accepted her story? Do you believe Haslam when he writes it is because:

"New information that is incovenient for critics, historians and pundits, all of whom are vested in their interpretations of these same events."

Ask yourself if you believe Jim Fetzer that only a handful of researchers believe that Judyth is the "real deal" and his implication that many

other researchers that don't have an axe to grind?

Ask yourself why Jim claims "60 Minutes," based on their own research, believed Judyth was the "real deal" and yet refused to run her story.

Beware of those who want to mislead and deceive you and ask yourself which take on her story makes the most sense.

Good advice. Be particulary wary if someone tells you they are smarter than you, understands logic better than you do,

and has spoken with Judyth Baker repeatedly and therefore their opinion carries more weight than yours.

[Dean Hartwell]

Hi Steve,

Most of the people posting so far were participants in the previous debate. Since you are a "relative" newcomer, you may be able to present a perspective that would make this debate more productive than the other one.

You asked about Oswald in Mexico. Me and Lee upholds the belief that Oswald really went. The Warren Report says he went, but showed photographs that do not look like Oswald. Mark Lane, in Plausible Denial, contends that Oswald did not go to Mexico by train. I do not know if there is a consensus, but I have not seen evidence of Oswald's whereabouts outside of Mexico during the time in question, either.

What is another specific question you have about the book Me and Lee?

Dean

I have read it, but still would like some thoughtful debate, without the flaming. Or is that going to be impossible?

Passions do run high here. Lets pretend there are some relative newcomers to this story,(I've stayed away from the previous debate)who are asking genuine questions. Like myself.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

And ask yourself why Michael Hogan, who to the best of my knowledge has never made any contact with Judyth Vary Baker -- other than to ask me to invite her to answer a question or two, which I dutifully forwarded to her -- should fault someone who has dealt with her as extensively as I have -- including interviewing her fifteen times on YouTube -- as though his opinions should carry MORE WEIGHT than mine? The only agenda Ed or I or Jim Marrs or Nigel or Wym Dankbaar or Dean Hartwell or others, including Karl and Pamela, appear to have to the best of my knowledge is exposing the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about the assassination of JFK. If Michael doesn't know by now that "60 Minutes" wanted to run the program but was stopped by the highest level executives at CBS, then he hasn't done his homework. Howard Platzman was there and has dealt with this question in the past. And ask why Nigel Turner, who is about as astute a student of JFK as they come, would devote an entire segment of "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" to her if he had not become convinced that she was authentic after conducting extensive research? Ed Haslam, by the way, is as principled as anyone I have ever encountered in JFK research. I have interviewed him in the past and will be doing so again this Wednesday (on "The Real Deal", M/W/F on revereradio.net from 5-7 PM/CT). If I thought Michael Hogan had anything worthwhile to contribute, then I would interview him, too. So, if he has some allegation to make about me, let him make it instead of offering one insinuation after another about honest people who are searching for the truth. What sinister motive am I supposed to have in relation to Judyth specifically or JFK research in general? Please tell us, Michael. Are we all supposed to be agents of disinformation? I can't wait to hear. This exchange is proving to be more revealing than I had anticipated. Do tell us.

So ask yourself, given the nature of your own experience, are Barb and Lifton, among others, being reasonable or fair toward Judyth and her story or are they conducting some kind of vendetta to discredit her for reasons of their own?

Here we go again. Ask yourself if Ed Haslam and Jim Fetzer are being reasonable in their assumptions, or have an agenda of their own.

Ask yourself if the information in Barb's post is accurate -- that is what matters. Ask yourself if Jim Fetzer's questions about her motives

and his use of the inflammatory term vendetta have any bearing on the veracity of what Barb writes.

Ultimately, you want to ask how what Judyth has to say fits in with everything else we know about the assassination. Does her "hypothesis" about events in New Orleans "hang together" with everything else we know? The book is loaded with photos, records, clippings, and other substantiating evidence.

And ask if it is possible that Judyth Baker used the extant record in embellishing her story so it would "fit in" better and "hang together"

with things we already knew. Ask which of those photos, records, and clippings (there are many and some of them are quite interesting)

constitute substantiating evidence that she and Lee Oswald were lovers.

Ed Haslam, the author of DR. MARY'S MONKEY, has made a huge investment in time and effort to confirm her account. He even met personally with a woman who posed as "Judyth Vary Baker" but whom he came to discover was an impostor! If Judyth was not real, why in the world would anyone seek to impersonate her?

And ask if there is anyone with a more vested interest in propagating Judyth Baker's story than Ed Haslam.

Without a "witness" Dr Mary's Monkey would probably never have published; certainly not in it's present form.

Why is Jim Fetzer so concerned about David Lifton's motives and not about Haslam's?

Ed Haslam, the author of DR. MARY'S MONKEY, has made a huge investment in time and effort to confirm her account. He even met personally with a woman who posed as "Judyth Vary Baker" but whom he came to discover was an impostor! If Judyth was not real, why in the world would anyone seek to impersonate her?

Ask why Haslam never made an effort to find his ex-girlfriend or any of the other students that attended the party.

Any of them could have corroborated his account of a Baker impostor. Ask why Haslam has given varying accounts of when

he first contacted Judyth Baker. Ask why Haslam had Judyth Baker correct and corroborate the two chapters about her that

appeared in Dr Mary's Monkey, yet Judyth had "no idea" that Haslam was writing a book. If she had known, she would

have warned him that her first book was "unauthorized" and contained errors. Haslam has never mentioned why he did not tell

Judyth he was writing DMM. Ask why Haslam studiously avoids answering all questions about Judyth Baker, instead constantly

referring them to her books, including the first "unauthorized" one. Ask Jim Fetzer why he never bothered to read Baker's

first book, particulary in light of the fact of the value (more important than friendship) he ascribes to determining truth.

Many of us who have no axe to grind, such as Jim Marrs, Wim Dankbaar, Dean Hartwell, Nigel Turner and "60 Minutes" have become convinced, based on our own research, that she is "the real deal".

In her new book, Judyth Baker mentions JFK and the Unspeakable ("well-researched and powerfully written") and Inside the ARRB

("comprehensive) and neither of those books mention her. Ask why. She allows that Douglass sent her a copy of his book. None of the leading

researchers on Oswald in New Orleans ever uncovered any evidence that Oswald and Baker even knew each other. Why? If the evidence that Judyth

presents is so persuasive why haven't more researchers accepted her story? Do you believe Haslam when he writes it is because:

"New information that is incovenient for critics, historians and pundits, all of whom are vested in their interpretations of these same events."

Ask yourself if you believe Jim Fetzer that only a handful of researchers believe that Judyth is the "real deal" and his implication that many

other researchers that don't have an axe to grind?

Ask yourself why Jim claims "60 Minutes," based on their own research, believed Judyth was the "real deal" and yet refused to run her story.

Beware of those who want to mislead and deceive you and ask yourself which take on her story makes the most sense.

Good advice. Be particulary wary if someone tells you they are smarter than you, understands logic better than you do,

and has spoken with Judyth Baker repeatedly and therefore their opinion carries more weight than yours.

Edited October 24, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Glenn Viklund]

So ask yourself, given the nature of your own experience, are Barb and Lifton, among others, being reasonable or fair toward Judyth and her story or are they conducting some kind of vendetta to discredit her for reasons of their own?

Here we go again. Ask yourself if Ed Haslam and Jim Fetzer are being reasonable in their assumptions, or have an agenda of their own.

Ask yourself if the information in Barb's post is accurate -- that is what matters. Ask yourself if Jim Fetzer's questions about her motives

and his use of the inflammatory term vendetta have any bearing on the veracity of what Barb writes.

Ultimately, you want to ask how what Judyth has to say fits in with everything else we know about the assassination. Does her "hypothesis" about events in New Orleans "hang together" with everything else we know? The book is loaded with photos, records, clippings, and other substantiating evidence.

And ask if it is possible that Judyth Baker used the extant record in embellishing her story so it would "fit in" better and "hang together"

with things we already knew. Ask which of those photos, records, and clippings (there are many and some of them are quite interesting)

constitute substantiating evidence that she and Lee Oswald were lovers.

Ed Haslam, the author of DR. MARY'S MONKEY, has made a huge investment in time and effort to confirm her account. He even met personally with a woman who posed as "Judyth Vary Baker" but whom he came to discover was an impostor! If Judyth was not real, why in the world would anyone seek to impersonate her?

And ask if there is anyone with a more vested interest in propagating Judyth Baker's story than Ed Haslam.

Without a "witness" Dr Mary's Monkey would probably never have published; certainly not in it's present form.

Why is Jim Fetzer so concerned about David Lifton's motives and not about Haslam's?

Ed Haslam, the author of DR. MARY'S MONKEY, has made a huge investment in time and effort to confirm her account. He even met personally with a woman who posed as "Judyth Vary Baker" but whom he came to discover was an impostor! If Judyth was not real, why in the world would anyone seek to impersonate her?

Ask why Haslam never made an effort to find his ex-girlfriend or any of the other students that attended the party.

Any of them could have corroborated his account of a Baker impostor. Ask why Haslam has given varying accounts of when

he first contacted Judyth Baker. Ask why Haslam had Judyth Baker correct and corroborate the two chapters about her that

appeared in Dr Mary's Monkey, yet Judyth had "no idea" that Haslam was writing a book. If she had known, she would

have warned him that her first book was "unauthorized" and contained errors. Haslam has never mentioned why he did not tell

Judyth he was writing DMM. Ask why Haslam studiously avoids answering all questions about Judyth Baker, instead constantly

referring them to her books, including the first "unauthorized" one. Ask Jim Fetzer why he never bothered to read Baker's

first book, particulary in light of the fact of the value (more important than friendship) he ascribes to determining truth.

Many of us who have no axe to grind, such as Jim Marrs, Wim Dankbaar, Dean Hartwell, Nigel Turner and "60 Minutes" have become convinced, based on our own research, that she is "the real deal".

In her new book, Judyth Baker mentions JFK and the Unspeakable ("well-researched and powerfully written") and Inside the ARRB

("comprehensive) and neither of those books mention her. Ask why. She allows that Douglass sent her a copy of his book. None of the leading

researchers on Oswald in New Orleans ever uncovered any evidence that Oswald and Baker even knew each other. Why? If the evidence that Judyth

presents is so persuasive why haven't more researchers accepted her story? Do you believe Haslam when he writes it is because:

"New information that is incovenient for critics, historians and pundits, all of whom are vested in their interpretations of these same events."

Ask yourself if you believe Jim Fetzer that only a handful of researchers believe that Judyth is the "real deal" and his implication that many

other researchers that don't have an axe to grind?

Ask yourself why Jim claims "60 Minutes," based on their own research, believed Judyth was the "real deal" and yet refused to run her story.

Beware of those who want to mislead and deceive you and ask yourself which take on her story makes the most sense.

Good advice. Be particulary wary if someone tells you they are smarter than you, understands logic better than you do,

and has spoken with Judyth Baker repeatedly and therefore their opinion carries more weight than yours.

Mr Hogan,

This is absolutely brilliant. I humbly agree, these questions are bang on target.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

It's always good to see the usual suspects congratulate one another even when they are wrong. Others will not be far behind.

Edited October 24, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Michael Hogan]

What sinister motive am I supposed to have in relation to Judyth specifically or JFK research in general? Please tell us, Michael. Are we all supposed to be agents of disinformation? I can't wait to hear. This exchange is proving to be more revealing than I had anticipated. Do tell us more.

The word sinister is your own invention and a figment of your imagination. I never used it.

Ed Haslam may be the most principled man in the world, but his research is judged by what he writes and says, not what you

think of his principles. You certainly don't have a problem attacking anyone's principles who fails to agree with you.

I've seen that first hand.

I spent dozens of hours reading Dr Mary's Monkey over and over. There were a number of things Haslam wrote that just

didn't add up. On the Exile thread I queried you about them repeatedly over a span of months and your answers were either non-existent,

evasive, or dismissive.

I could care less what you write about me on this Forum. But the purpose of this thread is to discuss Me & Lee. For you to imply that

Barb Junkkarinen has some sort of vendetta because she shares her research and opinions strikes me as petty and small on your part.

[Pamela Brown]

I received (edit) 'Me and Lee' (edit) last week and I'm very impressed with this book. I'm about halfway through the book and am interested to see what others think of this work.

I truly feel that this is the book that will exonerate Lee Harvey Oswald beyond question, and will fundamentally restructure the way informed Americans view the assassination. It complements and builds on Ed Haslam's Dr. Mary's Monkey, so perfectly, giving the reader a very clear grasp of the events in New Orleans and beyond.

It is easily the most important book I have read on the assassination.

No question, this book's impact will be broad and far-reaching.

What do other readers of this book think?

The publication of ME AND LEE is a vindication of Judyth's tenacity despite almost insurmountable obstacles. It is well-presented with a wealth of documentation and gives the reader an opportunity to decide for themselves what to think about what she has to say. Judyth's experiences fall into a murky area of the assassination where little research has been done though much has been done to steer everyone away from NOLA in the summer of 1963. Some of us want to know more about this area; and in that regard this book is really valuable.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

You really haven't responded to my post, Michael. Delete the word "sinister", if you like. What is my motive for conducting biased research? You suggest that I might have "an agenda". Well, what is that supposed to be? If the rest of my career has been devoted to discovering the truth (about complex matters both historical and philosophical), what would cause me to depart from that agenda, which is mine? I don't think you are a bad guy, Michael, but sometimes you surprise me. If you want me to ask Ed some questions during our interview on Wednesday, send them to me and, if I think they are appropriate for the occasion, I will ask them. And I certainly respect your right to another point of view about Judyth and other things.

What sinister motive am I supposed to have in relation to Judyth specifically or JFK research in general? Please tell us, Michael. Are we all supposed to be agents of disinformation? I can't wait to hear. This exchange is proving to be more revealing than I had anticipated. Do tell us more.

The word sinister is your own invention and a figment of your imagination. I never used it.

Ed Haslam may be the most principled man in the world, but his research is judged by what he writes and says, not what you

think of his principles. You certainly don't have a problem attacking anyone's principles who fails to agree with you.

I've seen that first hand.

I spent dozens of hours reading Dr Mary's Monkey over and over. There were a number of things Haslam wrote that just

didn't add up. On the Exile thread I queried you about them repeatedly over a span of months and your answers were either non-existent,

evasive, or dismissive.

I could care less what you write about me on this Forum. But the purpose of this thread is to discuss Me & Lee. For you to imply that

Barb Junkkarinen has some sort of vendetta because she shares her research and opinions strikes me as petty and small on your part.

Edited October 25, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Michael,

Send me any questions you have for Ed that you would like me to ask and I will see what I can do during the interview.

Jim

Edited October 25, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Ask yourself why Jim claims "60 Minutes," based on their own research, believed Judyth was the "real deal" and yet refused to run her story.

Hi Mike,

What an overall excellent post ... you make good and reasonable points, and ask pointed questions no one should overlook. And, I thank you for the kind words. :-)

On the 60 Minutes question ... it is a good one.

60 Minutes spent about 14 months investigating Judyth's claims, and, in the end, chose not to do the story. Don Hewitt, a 60 Minutes producer, was one who was quite hot to do it. In Don Hewitt's oral history, done at the Sixth Floor Museum in 2002, and broadcast on C-Span, there was this exchange:

"Interviewer: Why has the media not gone after this story…?

Hewitt: Because ... I did. I brought this woman to New York. We had Gloria Borger of ...

Interviewer: CBS?

Hewitt: No, she also worked for U.S. News. Gloria and I were convinced that we

were about to break the biggest story of our times and a guy who is a

lawyer for that senator I quoted, who was a member of the Warren Report,

was a counsel there in the Report, was all for us. He kept saying 'Let’s

go ahead. You’re onto something. Let’s do this' All of a sudden we came

to the conclusion. The door was slammed in our face. Actually, Brian Duffy, who was

the Washington bureau chief of the U.S. News and was doing this with us,

and Brian called one day and said, 'We don’t have any evidence. We only have

her story.' "

At some point in time, 60 Minutes had flown Judyth to New York. CBS had brought in a psychiatrist to evaluate her. In an e-mail to her supporters

on 11-8-00 she herself said of the experience with the psychiatrist:

"He obviously thought I was just a story teller and that hurt my feelings."

That he had labeled her a "story teller" has been a topic of much discussion in assorted newsgroups, on and off, for years, being restated by Judyth herself as well as her main supporters.

CBS also brought in a medical student to assess Judyth's knowledge and abilities with medical terminology. He was less than impressed, even according to then Judyth insiders, who eventually made comments on the net. Though her supporters were asked several times for copies of the actual reports the psychiatrist and medical student made, none were ever forthcoming.

CBC/60 Minutes eventually pulled the plug on doing any Judyth story.

Posted by diehard Judyth insider and supporter Martin Shackelford in 2008:

Quote ON

Tue, On 15 Jan 2008 20:40:26 -0500, "Martin Shackelford"

<msha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

This was the communication from the segment producer at

"60 Minutes," explaining their decision not to do the segment.

It is dated October 19, 2000:

We have been looking into Judyth's story off and on, mostly on, for

fourteen months. This morning Don and I reviewed this effort. Our

primary question was whether or not all the information we had gathered

could be transformed into a 60 Minutes segment. The conclusion we

reached was that it could not. As a consequence we have called off our

research.

We are sorry that you have invested so much time and effort into this

enterprise, and we will honor any financial commitments we have made.

We, too, have invested a great deal of time, and money, in this effort,

more time I believe than we have put in on any story in the 30 years I

have been here. Which makes our decision as difficult for me as I know

it is for you.

We wish you well.

END QUOTE

This post/thread can be found at:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/62f7af51f125b98d/3b0fbfe157e876e1?hl=en&q=Judyth+60+Minutes+note+hewitt

Though contacted by a couple of researchers over the years, 60 Minutes always declined to discuss/make any statement about Judyth's story. Judyth and her main insiders and supporters ... like Martin Shackelford ... always claimed that 60 Minutes had been given every piece of Judyth's "evidence" and "documentation."

Bests,

Barb :-)

[Josiah Thompson]

Nice piece of information,Barb. But I can't really get much interest up for the whole Judythy imbroglio. Were it not for Fetzer the new version of her book would have sunk like a lead fishing weight given the history of the last ten years. So Fetzer will "fetzer" for awhile about it inspiring a few new people to be offended by his tone and tactics. What else is new?

Well, there is that lurking little matter of Fetzer buying David Lifton's participation in his little Duluth "conference", then giving Lifton money and a chunk out of royalties from HOAX. Then it turns out that Fetzer welched on his commitment to Lifton and never sent him any royalty information. Fetzer said he never got such information which would have made it supremely difficult to do his income tax for the last few years. But no matter. Fetzer said he would get the information and provide it to Lifton. Did he? Or did he just hope everyone would forget about it?

JT

Ask yourself why Jim claims "60 Minutes," based on their own research, believed Judyth was the "real deal" and yet refused to run her story.

Hi Mike,

What an overall excellent post ... you make good and reasonable points, and ask pointed questions no one should overlook. And, I thank you for the kind words. :-)

On the 60 Minutes question ... it is a good one.

60 Minutes spent about 14 months investigating Judyth's claims, and, in the end, chose not to do the story. Don Hewitt, a 60 Minutes producer, was one who was quite hot to do it. In Don Hewitt's oral history, done at the Sixth Floor Museum in 2002, and broadcast on C-Span, there was this exchange:

"Interviewer: Why has the media not gone after this story…?

Hewitt: Because ... I did. I brought this woman to New York. We had Gloria Borger of ...

Interviewer: CBS?

Hewitt: No, she also worked for U.S. News. Gloria and I were convinced that we

were about to break the biggest story of our times and a guy who is a

lawyer for that senator I quoted, who was a member of the Warren Report,

was a counsel there in the Report, was all for us. He kept saying 'Let’s

go ahead. You’re onto something. Let’s do this' All of a sudden we came

to the conclusion. The door was slammed in our face. Actually, Brian Duffy, who was

the Washington bureau chief of the U.S. News and was doing this with us,

and Brian called one day and said, 'We don’t have any evidence. We only have

her story.' "

At some point in time, 60 Minutes had flown Judyth to New York. CBS had brought in a psychiatrist to evaluate her. In an e-mail to her supporters

on 11-8-00 she herself said of the experience with the psychiatrist:

"He obviously thought I was just a story teller and that hurt my feelings."

That he had labeled her a "story teller" has been a topic of much discussion in assorted newsgroups, on and off, for years, being restated by Judyth herself as well as her main supporters.

CBS also brought in a medical student to assess Judyth's knowledge and abilities with medical terminology. He was less than impressed, even according to then Judyth insiders, who eventually made comments on the net. Though her supporters were asked several times for copies of the actual reports the psychiatrist and medical student made, none were ever forthcoming.

CBC/60 Minutes eventually pulled the plug on doing any Judyth story.

Posted by diehard Judyth insider and supporter Martin Shackelford in 2008:

Quote ON

Tue, On 15 Jan 2008 20:40:26 -0500, "Martin Shackelford"

<msha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

This was the communication from the segment producer at

"60 Minutes," explaining their decision not to do the segment.

It is dated October 19, 2000:

We have been looking into Judyth's story off and on, mostly on, for

fourteen months. This morning Don and I reviewed this effort. Our

primary question was whether or not all the information we had gathered

could be transformed into a 60 Minutes segment. The conclusion we

reached was that it could not. As a consequence we have called off our

research.

We are sorry that you have invested so much time and effort into this

enterprise, and we will honor any financial commitments we have made.

We, too, have invested a great deal of time, and money, in this effort,

more time I believe than we have put in on any story in the 30 years I

have been here. Which makes our decision as difficult for me as I know

it is for you.

We wish you well.

END QUOTE

This post/thread can be found at:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/62f7af51f125b98d/3b0fbfe157e876e1?hl=en&q=Judyth+60+Minutes+note+hewitt

Though contacted by a couple of researchers over the years, 60 Minutes always declined to discuss/make any statement about Judyth's story. Judyth and her main insiders and supporters ... like Martin Shackelford ... always claimed that 60 Minutes had been given every piece of Judyth's "evidence" and "documentation."

Bests,

Barb :-)

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Just for the record, I want to note that I strongly support a lot of Jim's work, including his contributions to the thread, "Was Oswald Practicing Tradecraft?", as in my post #172, http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16776&st=165 While I have faulted him for methodological and other mistakes of reasoning here, in this case, I think he was right on the mark as with his long review of RECLAIMING HISTORY.

Posted Today, 05:09 PM

Having just stumbled over this thread, I want to side with Jim on this. I think he has nailed it. Surely we all know by now

that Waggoner Carr launched his own investigation after the assassination and discovered that Oswald was working as an

informant for the FBI, that he had informant number 179 and that he was being paid $200 per month right up to the time

of the assassination. No one can have established his income with any precision, since Marina has refused to allow his

W-2 forms to be released to the public, which would confirm it. Anyone who has studied his conduct in New Orleans must

know that he was consorting with Guy Banister, David Ferrie, and others, while he was posing as a pro-Castro, communist

sympathizer, where, in retrospect, the agency appears to have been "setting him up" to take the fall for JFK. Those who

read ME & LEE will find more and more indications of his involvement with the government as an undercover op. No doubt,

some of these points are made elsewhere in this thread, but Jim is right: How can there be any doubt at this very late date

that Oswald appears to have been recruited by ONI, made a pseudo-defection to the Soviet Union on behalf of the CIA, was

greeted warmly and given funds to relocate upon his return to the US by a CIA-front organization, and thereafter served

as an informant for the FBI? He thereby outdid his own idol, Herbert Philbrick, by leading even more than "three lives".

The above discussion is unbelievable in this day and age. And it shows how Mr. Carroll has not gotten over his old tricks.

Its actually a surprising exchange since other people who should know better are actually entertaining this absurdity.

The idea that somehow Oswald was not some kind of espionage agent is today, beyond the pale to contemplate. That is with the work of John Newman, John Armstrong and Philip Melanson, to me there should be no argument.

And for Carroll to seriously use the work of two thoroughly compromised and discredited authors in the field--Mailer and Liebeler--well this shows us that he is still in league with those who were best pals with the likes of Mark Zaid back in the nineties.

If Oswald was not an espionage agent, then please explain to me why Otto Otepka was put through the ordeal he was when he tried to find out if he was a genuine or fake defector? Why was his office bugged, his trash gone through,his car followed, speeches made against him in Congress? All this over a guy who had been a fine employee for years. He is then removed from his job THREE WEEKS before the assassination! Coincidence? Phooey.

If Oswald was not an espionage agent, then why was he trying to call (former?) military intelligence officer John Hurt from the Dallas jail on Saturday night? Maybe because the giant Nags Head navy base was nearby? The place that according to VIctor Marchetti housed the fake Navy defector program? Why was this call not allowed to go through? Why was it then covered up? Try and find it mentioned in the Warren Commission. I have an idea as to why. It has to do with what happened the next morning--Ruby's murder of Oswald. As Marchetti said, that call sealed the intelligence operative's fate.

If Oswald was not an intelligence operative, how the heck do you explain the stuff he was up to in New Orleans? Was it just a coincidence that at the time he is making the FPCC look foolish by leafleting on main streets in New Orleans at rush hour, that both the FBI and CIA have such a program in operation? And that Davdid Phillips is one of the managers of it? And that the group he would end up in violent street conflict with--the DRE--was beign run by Phillips? (According to Howard Hunt at least.)

What is the payoff of the New Orleans charade? The Butler interview. Where Oswald slipped up and admitted he was sponsored by the State Department in Russia.

And the End Game of all this FPCC playing around is Mexico CIty. Where Oswald's image and voice will be manipulated by Anne Goodpasture into makign it seem as if he is in cahoots with Valery Kostikov, KGB assassination agent. And I supposed that its another coincidence that the lying Goodasture was Phillips' right arm in Mexico City.

Mr Carroll must really miss his cohort Dennis Ford these days. In this preposterous discussion of Oswald's identity and role in the plot, he sounds more and more like the guy the late Gene Case threw out of his house with the words: "I don't know what your goal is, but it sure is not ours."

Edited October 26, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Ron Ecker]

I think Judyth's story would be more interesting if she said that she had an affair with Lee and Harvey both, not realizing they were two different people.

[Linda Minor]

I would suggest that, while it may be helpful to ask yourself all the questions posed by Michael Hogan, it would be much more helpful just to read the book first. What are the attackers so afraid of? It's as though people can't make an objective decision on their own. Read, compare and think for yourselves.

So ask yourself, given the nature of your own experience, are Barb and Lifton, among others, being reasonable or fair toward Judyth and her story or are they conducting some kind of vendetta to discredit her for reasons of their own?

Here we go again. Ask yourself if Ed Haslam and Jim Fetzer are being reasonable in their assumptions, or have an agenda of their own.

Ask yourself if the information in Barb's post is accurate -- that is what matters. Ask yourself if Jim Fetzer's questions about her motives

and his use of the inflammatory term vendetta have any bearing on the veracity of what Barb writes.

Ultimately, you want to ask how what Judyth has to say fits in with everything else we know about the assassination. Does her "hypothesis" about events in New Orleans "hang together" with everything else we know? The book is loaded with photos, records, clippings, and other substantiating evidence.

And ask if it is possible that Judyth Baker used the extant record in embellishing her story so it would "fit in" better and "hang together"

with things we already knew. Ask which of those photos, records, and clippings (there are many and some of them are quite interesting)

constitute substantiating evidence that she and Lee Oswald were lovers.

Ed Haslam, the author of DR. MARY'S MONKEY, has made a huge investment in time and effort to confirm her account. He even met personally with a woman who posed as "Judyth Vary Baker" but whom he came to discover was an impostor! If Judyth was not real, why in the world would anyone seek to impersonate her?

And ask if there is anyone with a more vested interest in propagating Judyth Baker's story than Ed Haslam.

Without a "witness" Dr Mary's Monkey would probably never have published; certainly not in it's present form.

Why is Jim Fetzer so concerned about David Lifton's motives and not about Haslam's?

Ed Haslam, the author of DR. MARY'S MONKEY, has made a huge investment in time and effort to confirm her account. He even met personally with a woman who posed as "Judyth Vary Baker" but whom he came to discover was an impostor! If Judyth was not real, why in the world would anyone seek to impersonate her?

Ask why Haslam never made an effort to find his ex-girlfriend or any of the other students that attended the party.

Any of them could have corroborated his account of a Baker impostor. Ask why Haslam has given varying accounts of when

he first contacted Judyth Baker. Ask why Haslam had Judyth Baker correct and corroborate the two chapters about her that

appeared in Dr Mary's Monkey, yet Judyth had "no idea" that Haslam was writing a book. If she had known, she would

have warned him that her first book was "unauthorized" and contained errors. Haslam has never mentioned why he did not tell

Judyth he was writing DMM. Ask why Haslam studiously avoids answering all questions about Judyth Baker, instead constantly

referring them to her books, including the first "unauthorized" one. Ask Jim Fetzer why he never bothered to read Baker's

first book, particulary in light of the fact of the value (more important than friendship) he ascribes to determining truth.

Many of us who have no axe to grind, such as Jim Marrs, Wim Dankbaar, Dean Hartwell, Nigel Turner and "60 Minutes" have become convinced, based on our own research, that she is "the real deal".

In her new book, Judyth Baker mentions JFK and the Unspeakable ("well-researched and powerfully written") and Inside the ARRB

("comprehensive) and neither of those books mention her. Ask why. She allows that Douglass sent her a copy of his book. None of the leading

researchers on Oswald in New Orleans ever uncovered any evidence that Oswald and Baker even knew each other. Why? If the evidence that Judyth

presents is so persuasive why haven't more researchers accepted her story? Do you believe Haslam when he writes it is because:

"New information that is incovenient for critics, historians and pundits, all of whom are vested in their interpretations of these same events."

Ask yourself if you believe Jim Fetzer that only a handful of researchers believe that Judyth is the "real deal" and his implication that many

other researchers that don't have an axe to grind?

Ask yourself why Jim claims "60 Minutes," based on their own research, believed Judyth was the "real deal" and yet refused to run her story.

Beware of those who want to mislead and deceive you and ask yourself which take on her story makes the most sense.

Good advice. Be particulary wary if someone tells you they are smarter than you, understands logic better than you do,

and has spoken with Judyth Baker repeatedly and therefore their opinion carries more weight than yours.

[Barb Junkkarinen]

I would suggest that, while it may be helpful to ask yourself all the questions posed by Michael Hogan, it would be much more helpful just to read the book first. What are the attackers so afraid of? It's as though people can't make an objective decision on their own. Read, compare and think for yourselves.

Oh, I think everyone should read the book ... both books, the original outline, all the discussions they can find where her claims vs evidence and documentation can be found, what Judyth herself has written on websites and in blogs and on newsgroups over the last decade. Everything they can get their hands on!

Then they should ask themselves lots of questions .... like the ones Michael posed ... and beyond. And they should go beyond to see if they can answer those questions ... by fact checking every claim where it can be done, by comparing versions of the story from year to year, sometimes from day to day.

Only then can anyone make an *informed* decision, let alone an objective one. Just reading the book, hers or anyone elses, without doing some independent fact checking and research, will not allow one to do either.

I would ask what her supporters are so afraid of? Why is it that anyone who actually does more than just read her words and believe, anyone who does compare and check whatever resources are available .... and anyone who does think for themselves and like a researcher, and anyone who does come to their own conclusion based on that sort of research, and based on that research, disagrees with the veracity of her story ... is called an "attacker" ... and worse.

Never have understood that. Odd in an arena that is supposedly all about research and establishing facts... and truth. Most Judyth acolytes seem to prefer to discuss those that have come to a different conclusion, rather than address the information that led them to that conclusion... or to do nothing but wax poetic on her behalf. Very odd, and very telling, imo.

Barb :-)

Edited October 26, 2010 by Barb Junkkarinen