Guest Gary Loughran Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 what about his missus?? Robert Morrow can probably add about 100 other women JFK found equally useful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 How about what the rest of us think? We don't count? What mean "we," Kemosabe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Phelps Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 (edited) How about what the rest of us think? We don't count? What mean "we," Kemosabe? ========= I am sure JVB supports herself as credible, and I support her, so in the least since We. Others have to speak up for her, if they desire. I do speak up for her and have always done so. Even Fetzer takes up for her, seemingly, just not around Jack White and BK. If Mr. Simkin can write on the same line with Judyth Baker---by the special request of Jim Phelps, if he is somehow worried of her importance in the sceme of things. The Castro Lung Cancer thing is important. Edited June 7, 2011 by Jim Phelps Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Keane Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 And Dr. Mary S. Sherman too. She was on my list. I'd add Ruth Paine Sorry I missed her off the list. Of course, I left Judyth Vary Baker out on purpose. Why? I do not consider her an important figure in the case. Reason? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamela Brown Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 And Dr. Mary S. Sherman too. She was on my list. I'd add Ruth Paine Sorry I missed her off the list. Of course, I left Judyth Vary Baker out on purpose. Why? I do not consider her an important figure in the case. With all due respect, though I have gone out of my way to make sure that Judyth statements can be heard in an open forum due to her having documentation putting her in proximity to Lee Oswald at Reily Coffee in NOLA in the summer of 1963, I also have concerns as to the fact that rather than allowing the research community to define the hoops one needs to go through in order to claim such prominence as to have not only personally known Lee Oswald but have worked on an anti-Castro bioweapon with him, Judyth has instead appeared as a fait accompli and demanded that the community accept her as such. Secondly, Judyth confuses things by wearing more than one hat. She claims to be both witness and researcher. When we evaluate her statements we need to first ask which hat she is wearing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Phelps Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Well Pam, Do you support placing Judyth Baker on the list along with everyone else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Keane Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Secondly, Judyth confuses things by wearing more than one hat. She claims to be both witness and researcher. When we evaluate her statements we need to first ask which hat she is wearing. Can she not be both? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 An odd little book called ''entertaining in the white house'' gives an interesting summary of Jackie (it features some interesting recipies, from Washington to Nixon). A ''10 best dressed women'' list of the time has ''Mrs John F Kennedy'' first. Then all the other mrs' . It was/is a patrirchial society. Imo, this must be a part of a consideration in a look into a why/how of reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 I can see how much folks dismiss what I say, as this hot topic of "Zapruder Nay Sayers" has become a huge topic. I see lots of people value the Zapruder Film. And they agree with my observation that Zapruder and the related evidence falls into place once the Bob Harris second shot to the head detail is made obvious. So, this little mention here will slowly take off also, as everyone makes the connections that what she had to say is important to consider. I continue to support JVB's story and the science of lung cancer she was working with. You can have your opionion, and I mine. You seem to not consider that I come at this issue from hearing what killed JFK from inside the Oak Ridge story, so I don't pay much attention to the speculations on the Internet. I go from what I learned from Oak Ridge. While all you have to go in is the Internet speculators, I don't rely on that as my resource. I also support the Zapruder isn't this faked up film and all the other films and photos and the world altered to support Zapruder was faked. It also correlates that many of this faction are the Nay Sayers against JVB. I don't see any attacks on Ed Haslam's work, and it is basically the same details. What is this but blatant discrimination. JVB bashing. Same sort of bashing happens from this Zapruder is faked gang against anyone that tells it is real. While all you have to go in is the Internet speculators, I don't rely on that as my resource. . Male tells the story and its OK, but the female's isn't. JVB bashing is what I see. Really strange. Inconsistent. Not logical. Looks like an attack on a woman named JVB. Nothing wrong with JVB, nothing wrong with Haslam's research either. They support each other, and stand stronger. Most know the issues of Lung Cancer and Tobacco are huge, there is extreme resistance toward having it exposed. Especially as being a part of the JFK isseus that ties back to the interests of big tobacco. Mortimer Davis and Mortimer Bloomfield are related to the issue in more ways than one. JVB belongs on the list. JVB also deserves to be free of discrimination and bashing, as she tells the truth. Leaving off Big Tobaccos connections with Mortimer Davis and Mortimer Bloomfield is what keeps folks from solving the JFK assassinations main players at the top. If JVB is so bad, follow the exact some issues from Ed Haslam. Solve the crime. phelps quote''... While all you have to go in is the Internet speculators, I don't rely on that as my resource.''...all we had was like 11almost 12 years of following judyth's stories on the web, to rely on....phelps quote..''I don't see any attacks on Ed Haslam's work, and it is basically the same details'' Jim you really do need to get out more, try a search or two within the threads here..try HASLAM ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Phelps Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 (edited) I can see how much folks dismiss what I say, as this hot topic of "Zapruder Nay Sayers" has become a huge topic. I see lots of people value the Zapruder Film. And they agree with my observation that Zapruder and the related evidence falls into place once the Bob Harris second shot to the head detail is made obvious. So, this little mention here will slowly take off also, as everyone makes the connections that what she had to say is important to consider. I continue to support JVB's story and the science of lung cancer she was working with. You can have your opionion, and I mine. You seem to not consider that I come at this issue from hearing what killed JFK from inside the Oak Ridge story, so I don't pay much attention to the speculations on the Internet. I go from what I learned from Oak Ridge. While all you have to go in is the Internet speculators, I don't rely on that as my resource. I also support the Zapruder isn't this faked up film and all the other films and photos and the world altered to support Zapruder was faked. It also correlates that many of this faction are the Nay Sayers against JVB. I don't see any attacks on Ed Haslam's work, and it is basically the same details. What is this but blatant discrimination. JVB bashing. Same sort of bashing happens from this Zapruder is faked gang against anyone that tells it is real. While all you have to go in is the Internet speculators, I don't rely on that as my resource. . Male tells the story and its OK, but the female's isn't. JVB bashing is what I see. Really strange. Inconsistent. Not logical. Looks like an attack on a woman named JVB. Nothing wrong with JVB, nothing wrong with Haslam's research either. They support each other, and stand stronger. Most know the issues of Lung Cancer and Tobacco are huge, there is extreme resistance toward having it exposed. Especially as being a part of the JFK isseus that ties back to the interests of big tobacco. Mortimer Davis and Mortimer Bloomfield are related to the issue in more ways than one. JVB belongs on the list. JVB also deserves to be free of discrimination and bashing, as she tells the truth. Leaving off Big Tobaccos connections with Mortimer Davis and Mortimer Bloomfield is what keeps folks from solving the JFK assassinations main players at the top. If JVB is so bad, follow the exact some issues from Ed Haslam. Solve the crime. phelps quote''... While all you have to go in is the Internet speculators, I don't rely on that as my resource.''...all we had was like 11almost 12 years of following judyth's stories on the web, to rely on....phelps quote..''I don't see any attacks on Ed Haslam's work, and it is basically the same details'' Jim you really do need to get out more, try a search or two within the threads here..try HASLAM ... ======= OK, I typed Haslam and got this: http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/04/ed-haslam-dr-marys-monkey.html Then this: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKhaslamE.htm Looks like his book gets excellent reviews: http://www.amazon.com/Dr-Marys-Monkey-Cancer-Causing-Assassination/dp/0977795306 So, where is the issue? Is this a EF only issue? Do you know the science on SV-40 and the unkilled vaccine programs, which is what he talks about? Every read viral induced diseases research, and know the difference between and exogenous retrovirus and an endogenous one? Do you know the cellular immune system and enzyme processes? How about the Cytokine research? How did you come to be able to rate Mr. Haslam's theme? Sciences background? Show me examples of technical evaluation skills for sciences, for anyone that dismisses either Haslam or Baker. We can also take note that the big solve the case issue on JFK is this Lung Cancer and viral methods combined with radiation that would shut down big tobacco. Once you know who is trying to fake who out, you spot the crooks. I have seen the McAdam stuff and he and his associaties are a big problem on JFK research. They don't impress me at all. However, technical merits and sciences do. People that know science can sort out fakers easily. Edited June 8, 2011 by Jim Phelps Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Andrews Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 (edited) Dual post, sorry. Edited July 5, 2011 by David Andrews Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Andrews Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 (edited) Mary Moorman's recent webcast interview has her saying that she and Jean Hill have always told different stories on what they witnessed. See top of page linked below: http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4671.msg98983.html#new Edited June 8, 2011 by David Andrews Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 where's Jackies hat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Phelps Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 (edited) It sure sounds like the two shots to JFK head, first from rear and then from rt side, as the "bang-bang" quickly and a short later the Connelly hit with the third bang. I don't think they were paying much attention to shots until they saw JFK's head exploding, then they started listening closely. ========= Mary A. Moorman's interview with Mr. Stover is very interesting, and an important part of history. I have just one comment: Earlier, Mary (And Jean Hill) were in a taped interview shortly after the Assassination, and Mary said she heard 3 shots, while Jean on the other hand, said she heard many more than that. Now, in her interview with Mr. Stover, Mary is consistent, and, again said she heard 3 shots: However, the importance, is that the first one she heard was almost simultaneous with the taking of her famous photo, and then she heard 2 more shots (after the "Head shot.") Mary said, the sounds went----Bang....Bang, Bang---she heard no echos. Her testimony coincides very well with what "Roy Kellerman" told the WC: Mr. KELLERMAN. Mr. Specter, these shells came in all together. Mr. SPECTER. Are you able to say how many you heard? Mr. KELLERMAN. I am going to say two, and it was like a double bang--bang, bang. Mr. SPECTER. Now, you are referring to the flurry? Mr. KELLERMAN. That is right. Mr. KELLERMAN. Mr. Specter, these shells came in all together. Conclusion: Obviously, a late "Flurry" of shells coming into the limo does not bode well for the SBT. Edited June 8, 2011 by Jim Phelps Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 (edited) I can see how much folks dismiss what I say, as this hot topic of "Zapruder Nay Sayers" has become a huge topic. I see lots of people value the Zapruder Film. And they agree with my observation that Zapruder and the related evidence falls into place once the Bob Harris second shot to the head detail is made obvious. So, this little mention here will slowly take off also, as everyone makes the connections that what she had to say is important to consider. I continue to support JVB's story and the science of lung cancer she was working with. You can have your opionion, and I mine. You seem to not consider that I come at this issue from hearing what killed JFK from inside the Oak Ridge story, so I don't pay much attention to the speculations on the Internet. I go from what I learned from Oak Ridge. While all you have to go in is the Internet speculators, I don't rely on that as my resource. I also support the Zapruder isn't this faked up film and all the other films and photos and the world altered to support Zapruder was faked. It also correlates that many of this faction are the Nay Sayers against JVB. I don't see any attacks on Ed Haslam's work, and it is basically the same details. What is this but blatant discrimination. JVB bashing. Same sort of bashing happens from this Zapruder is faked gang against anyone that tells it is real. While all you have to go in is the Internet speculators, I don't rely on that as my resource. . Male tells the story and its OK, but the female's isn't. JVB bashing is what I see. Really strange. Inconsistent. Not logical. Looks like an attack on a woman named JVB. Nothing wrong with JVB, nothing wrong with Haslam's research either. They support each other, and stand stronger. Most know the issues of Lung Cancer and Tobacco are huge, there is extreme resistance toward having it exposed. Especially as being a part of the JFK isseus that ties back to the interests of big tobacco. Mortimer Davis and Mortimer Bloomfield are related to the issue in more ways than one. JVB belongs on the list. JVB also deserves to be free of discrimination and bashing, as she tells the truth. Leaving off Big Tobaccos connections with Mortimer Davis and Mortimer Bloomfield is what keeps folks from solving the JFK assassinations main players at the top. If JVB is so bad, follow the exact some issues from Ed Haslam. Solve the crime. phelps quote''... While all you have to go in is the Internet speculators, I don't rely on that as my resource.''...all we had was like 11almost 12 years of following judyth's stories on the web, to rely on....phelps quote..''I don't see any attacks on Ed Haslam's work, and it is basically the same details'' Jim you really do need to get out more, try a search or two within the threads here..try HASLAM ... ======= OK, I typed Haslam and got this: http://jamesfetzer.b...rys-monkey.html Then this: http://www.spartacus.../JFKhaslamE.htm Looks like his book gets excellent reviews: http://www.amazon.co...n/dp/0977795306 So, where is the issue? Is this a EF only issue? Do you know the science on SV-40 and the unkilled vaccine programs, which is what he talks about? Every read viral induced diseases research, and know the difference between and exogenous retrovirus and an endogenous one? Do you know the cellular immune system and enzyme processes? How about the Cytokine research? How did you come to be able to rate Mr. Haslam's theme? Sciences background? Show me examples of technical evaluation skills for sciences, for anyone that dismisses either Haslam or Baker. We can also take note that the big solve the case issue on JFK is this Lung Cancer and viral methods combined with radiation that would shut down big tobacco. Once you know who is trying to fake who out, you spot the crooks. I have seen the McAdam stuff and he and his associaties are a big problem on JFK research. They don't impress me at all. However, technical merits and sciences do. People that know science can sort out fakers easily. I have all her and his books, yes i have read them, and no i do not believe her or him.clear enough..no documentation by either of them that has been presented have proven their stories, ..as Pam mentions the two hats do not and haven't worked,and that's my opinion, and fyi i am not and have not been involved on the alts:blink:..his stuff never has impressed me either, hey we finally agreed on something:blink: .b try this one if you missed it....http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17536 Haslam-Baker Dr. Mary's Monkey Edited June 9, 2011 by Bernice Moore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now