Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

I'm reading a library copy now, and am not far in yet. I heard Ed Haslam on Fetzer's "Real Deal" podcast, talking about how the publisher had him edit Baker's memoir into something more biographical ("Me and Lee") - but whatever smiley-face job he had to perform,

1) It's hard to believe this is a book written by a scientist, the breed being part-historian by profession. It badly needs reportage and detatchment.

2) Many of the most interesting leads dropped and events named occur in the chapter endnotes, where an author can use space and form as an excuse to obviate detail and investigation needed.

3) This and other idiosyncrasies lead to a type of book that you wonder that any publisher would want, or could sell. In a conspiracy-book marketplace, this is rather a Harlequin Romance version of assassination events. Why? Who's the audience here? Who would buy this, if there weren't extramural controversies stirred up on internet sites?

Edited by David Andrews
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 320
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You position yourself as a Ferrie expert, which raises the bar.

What Stephen said was, "I have been called an expert on David Ferrie, but I see myself more as a specialist." (In fact, Baker or someone writing for her referred to me repeatedly as a “Ferrie expert.”) In any case, it is fair to say that I know more about Ferrie than most people, and I offer the following conclusions in that context:..."

He "positioned" himself as a Ferrie *specialist* ... and noted that others have referred to him as a Ferrie expert... Judyth, for one. *Judyth* referred to him as a Ferrie expert in her first book .... more than once. One is a particularly long footnote in which she not only refers to him as an expert, but expresses her appreciation for the caution and care he takes.

I believe Stephen is a Ferrie expert, but specialist or expert, he based his thoughtful and well expressed opinion on the deep knowledge of Ferrie that he has gained through years and years of research focused directly on Ferrie. That is important.

Bests,

Barb :-)

Edited by Barb Junkkarinen
Link to post
Share on other sites

It is up to the reader to decide whether your blanket statements on Judyth not knowing Ferrie are credible, or whether perhaps the logic you invoke is analogous to that of the WC when they claimed that LHO did not know Ruby, or anyone else by means of refusing to walk through any door that might lead to conspiracy.

The Warren Commission came to their conclusions by excluding evidence that was bothersome. Stephen Roy's conclusions

seem inclusive of what is known about David Ferrie.

His opinion that Judyth Baker did not know, associate with or work with David Ferrie is not inconsistent with what other

researchers have been able to ascertain about Ferrie's associations. His opinion that there is no credible evidence that

David Ferrie had any sort of relationship with Dr. Mary Sherman also seems consistent with what is known.

Stephen's conclusions fit the model of common sense, in my opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My conclusions are based on an unusually deep knowledge of David Ferrie; I began gathering information on Ferrie many years ago for my own knowledge base. This eventually led to obtaining virtually every available document about or related to Ferrie in government collections and from other sources, and to contacts with many people who knew Ferrie.

Mr. Roy: THank you for sharing this. Based on your studies of David Ferrie, have you reached a conclusion on whether he was involved in the assassination of JFK?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is up to the reader to decide whether your blanket statements on Judyth not knowing Ferrie are credible, or whether perhaps the logic you invoke is analogous to that of the WC when they claimed that LHO did not know Ruby, or anyone else by means of refusing to walk through any door that might lead to conspiracy.

The Warren Commission came to their conclusions by excluding evidence that was bothersome. Stephen Roy's conclusions

seem inclusive of what is known about David Ferrie.

His opinion that Judyth Baker did not know, associate with or work with David Ferrie is not inconsistent with what other

researchers have been able to ascertain about Ferrie's associations. His opinion that there is no credible evidence that

David Ferrie had any sort of relationship with Dr. Mary Sherman also seems consistent with what is known.

Stephen's conclusions fit the model of common sense, in my opinion.

What Mr. Hogan says is clearly consistent with what is known.

Jack

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote;snapback.pngPamela Brown, on 10 November 2010 - 05:30 PM, said:

You position yourself as a Ferrie expert, which raises the bar.

My conclusions are based on an unusually deep knowledge of David Ferrie; I began gathering information on Ferrie many years ago for my own knowledge base. This eventually led to obtaining virtually every available document about or related to Ferrie in government collections and from other sources, and to contacts with many people who knew Ferrie.

Mr. Roy: THank you for sharing this. Based on your studies of David Ferrie, have you reached a conclusion on whether he was involved in the assassination of JFK?

page 552;''Assassination America'' ;book two;''The Masques of New Orleans'' Quote; '' ''However, as David Blackhurst, who has investigated the aviator's career as much as this author and in whose research he has the greatest confidence. ''quote off..Paris Flammone.2006..b

Edited by Bernice Moore
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to Michael, Barb, Jack, Bernice and others for the notes of support.

Let me address the false equivalence issue brought up by another poster. It is true that I did not live through these events or know Ferrie, but I have spoken with numerous people who did know him well, and can prove that they knew him. I don't see how this equates to one person who claims to have known him but has never offered any proof of this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Warren Commission came to their conclusions by excluding evidence that was bothersome.

Indeed, Mike. Savor the irony when it comes to this issue, eh? What research has revealed about Judyth's claims is obviously bothersome to those who choose to just believe.

All nicely said, Mike.

Bests,

Barb :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the overall scheme of things...

...even IF JVB was briefly acquainted with LHO

...even IF JVB briefly was acquainted with EVERY major player in the JFK case

...even IF JVB was a brilliant science student, and

...even IF a few of the events JVB describes happen to be true...

...IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE IN SOLVING THE CASE AND FINDING THE

PERPETRATORS. Nothing she says leads to Lyndon Johnson and his

New World Order cronies. Everything she says points to the long discredited

MAFIA DID IT theories of the 1970s, making her a disinformation agent of

sorts. It is a false trail for readers of romance fiction.

Jack

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the overall scheme of things...

...even IF JVB was briefly acquainted with LHO

...even IF JVB briefly was acquainted with EVERY major player in the JFK case

...even IF JVB was a brilliant science student, and

...even IF a few of the events JVB describes happen to be true...

...IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE IN SOLVING THE CASE AND FINDING THE

PERPETRATORS. Nothing she says leads to Lyndon Johnson and his

New World Order cronies. Everything she says points to the long discredited

MAFIA DID IT theories of the 1970s, making her a disinformation agent of

sorts. It is a false trail for readers of romance fiction.

Jack

Jack:

The fact remains there is NO evidence;

... that Judyth was even briefly acquainted or ever met Oswald

... that Judyth was even briefly acquainted with ANY major player in the assassination

... though Judyth appears to have been a good high school student that she was a "brilliant" student who as a teenager was one of the top cancer researchers in the United States and the world.

... that any of the events that may have been true included Judyth being involved

Absent Judyth inserting herself Forrest Gump style into events, there is no serious corroboration for anything that would suggest her presence, she refuses to entertain any serious questioning by people such as myself and Greg Burnham, and any physical evidence that she has claimed to have, i.e., Oswald's writing on an Aristotle book, suddenly mysteriously "lost" or she refuses to allow such evidence to be examined by experts.

The tragedy is that such a con is not harmless. It makes a mockery of the assassination, the memory of Oswald, Marina, and his daughters. What may be most disturbing of all is that Judyth may have convinced herself this was true and as information is contradicted it is simple to omit accounts or conform to the best known facts. It is interesting historical fiction.

Doug Weldon

... that a

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is my firm opinion that there is no credible evidence that David Ferrie had any sort of relationship with Dr. Mary S. Sherman or had a medical laboratory at his apartment at 3330 Louisiana Avenue Parkway. (“Dr. Mary’s Monkey” cannot be regarded as corroborative evidence, as Haslam fails to provide evidence to support either assertion.)

I expect to be attacked for saying these things, but these are my conclusions based on years of research. Others may feel differently.

With all due respect, you are entitled to your opinion, and there is no reason for you to be 'attacked' for it.

At the same time, it is up to everyone else to decide what to think about what you have to say. You position yourself as a Ferrie expert, which raises the bar. You are also a researcher and were not present in 1963 in NOLA when these events took place.

It is up to the reader to decide whether your blanket statements on Judyth not knowing Ferrie are credible, or whether perhaps the logic you invoke is analogous to that of the WC when they claimed that LHO did not know Ruby, or anyone else by means of refusing to walk through any door that might lead to conspiracy.

Indeed?

Well, at the same time it is up to everyone else to decide what to think of what Pamela Brown has to say on this subject. She position herself as a JVB expert and die hard supporter, which raises the bar. She is also a researcher and were not present in NOLA when these events took place.

The logic and the process behind this position has yet to be explained.

Stephen,

Thanks for your information. I can't say I'm surprised about your conclusion as I was already convinced that your knowledge about David Ferrie in all respects was endless as compared to that of Judyth Bakers.

Nevertheless, it would be interesting if you would care to elaborate just a little bit on your reasons...

Glenn V.

Edited by Glenn Viklund
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...