ZACHARY JENDRO: "MAYBE JUDYTH NEEDS TO GET SERIOUS..."

ZACHARY SAYS I NEED TO GET SERIOUS.

I have never met Zachary D. Jedro. However, he keeps posting negative comments about me, so it's time for some straight talk.

     I didn't realize how long he'd been at it, until today (Jan. 19, 2015).  I accidentally found the very same negative comment he recently posted on my own Facebook page as a 'repeat' from all the way back to November.  Zach Jendro and Trish Fleming have written an article replete with misinformed and inaccurate statements based on opinions and misquotes form longtime anti-Oswald critics, and are passing it off as a researched article, never having checked with me as to the authenticity or accuracy of the statements they used to assail my credibility. 

    Now it's my turn to provide evidence of their bias.

    (1) Fleming said she did not have to read Me & Lee to write her opinion about my credibility, and Mr. Jedro was cheering her one. She posted this on my own 'Vindication' page. 

     (2) Zach Jendro said he had not read the book, but would do so. A few days later, he said he had read the book and disputed what he called the "evidence." 

     (3) Mr. Jendro had the means to contact me -- meaning he could have checked the accuracy of his woefully inaccurate article with me before publishing it-- thus showing himself to be an honest researcher. Had he obtained my side of things rather than relying, as he has done, only on secondhand material and quotes from the Internet, including lies that I have long pointed out,  can be seen in the November, 2014 Facebook exchange shown here:

===Jennifer Stone, on Facebook, posted:

"Judyth Baker told me to get serious with one of her messages to me, I am serious yet I look at the evidence differently to anyone else. That's okay it's not a solved crime yet."  November 21, 2014 at 1:48am · Like · 1

THIS is when Zack Jendro decided to post a negative comment about me that he repeated on my Facebook page :

===Zachary D. Jendro "Maybe Judyth needs to get serious... throwing a birthday party for Lee Oswald?" November 21, 2014 at 7:07pm · Like

I RESPONDED TODAY (Jan. 19, 2015): Jennifer, not sure what I said to you, but am sure it was meant in a spirit of support. As for Zach Jendro, he says "Maybe Judyth needs to "get serious....throwing a party for Lee Oswald" --which displays his total ignorance of what occurred October 18 in New Orleans. 

He has posted his negative comment not only here, but elsewhere, apparently unaware that I also held a Symposium at Loyola University on the 18th of November as well, attended by 130 persons, with three speakers presenting information about the Kennedy assassination, besides my own 2-hour presentation about David Ferrie's life and his relationship to the Kennedy assassination.     

I here post one of the talks... about Rose Cherami. Near the end, author Todd Elliot thanks me for holding the Symposium. Prior to the Symposium, we held a dinner at Katie's Restaurant where again I spoke, this time about Lee Oswald's innocence. The restaurant was packed and everyone received handouts. Lee Oswald's Birthday party was held the evening of the 18th to show that Lee Oswald was an innocent man, to humanize him in the minds of the public. It was a way to get people thinking about what he lost when he was gunned down. He would have been 75 years old. Thank you for you attention."     http://vimeo.com/78789923

Now, the hostility shown by Mr. Jendro was exhibited back in November. He had contact with Jennifer Stone and could have contacted me.

Instead, he chose to write, with Trish Fleming, an article dissing me, BEFORE EITHER OF THEM READ THE BOOK ME & LEE, WHICH THEY CRITICIZED.

For all interested, what follows next is a HUGE bunch of articles the pair has written. I'm going to post all of them below. HOWEVER, I'LL PICK OUT THE PROBLEMS THEIR WORK PRESENTS. Primarily,. neither Jendro nor Fleming have been scientifically trained, nor are they experts in photography. Further, they never asked me for a full report, but, rather, decided to criticize a general summary I made of my work with PIXELS. It seems they decided it was important to discredit this work even though they failed to show 1/25th of it to readers. WHILE I'LL PRESENT WHAT THEY'VE WRITTEN, BELOW, THE NEXT BLOG POST WILL DEAL WITH THEIR MAIN ARTICLE, WHICH SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN BASED ON A DETERMINATION TO DISCREDIT ME, RATHER THAN TO PRESENT THE TRUTH.

It's time for Straight Talk.  

So let's look at JUST A LITTLE of what they wrote (WE'LL LOOK AT MORE INA LATER BLOG):. They announce "The end of the pixel study... forever" :

debunkedblog

TRISH AND ZACH SORT THROUGH THE MYSTERIES OF HISTORY

Menu

Widgets

Search

The end of the pixel study… forever.

Robin Unger has provided all of the JFK researchers an amazing service with his website. I am sure that most of us have already been there many times, but here is the link just in case:

http://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/

Robin and others have also done yeoman’s work on the topic of Doorman. 

NEXT, THEY SHOW THE READER A LINK TO A THREAD  THAT ACTUALLY LEADS THEM INTO TROUBLE ON THE LAST FEW PAGES (BUT DID THEY READ THAT FAR?):

 JVB: "DOORWAY MAN' IS THE FIGURE STANDING IN THE DOORWAY OF THE TEXAS SCHOOL BOOK DEPOSITORY. IF THE FIGURE IS LEE HARVEY OSWALD, HE COULD NOT POSSIBLY HAVE BEEN KENNEDY'S KILLER BECAUSE HE WASN'T ON THE SIXTH FLOOR AS CHARGED.      BILLY NOLAN LOVELADY CLAIMED IT WAS HE WHO WAS STANDING THERE.  

WAS CURIOUS, SO  I CONDUCTED A PIXELATION STUDY OF THE PATTERN OF THE SHIRT OF THE DOORWAY FIGURE (WHICH I WILL CAREFULLY EXPLAIN IN A LATER BLOG) .  A PORTION OF THE STUDY ACCESSED A SECTION OF WHAT APPEARS, TO MOST VIEWERS, TO BE THE LEFT SHIRTSLEEVE OF THE DOORWAY MAN,  

 JENDRO AND FLEMING SAY  THE ARM OF THE DOORMAN'S SHIRT --WHICH HAS THE SAME PATTERN AS THE SHIRT-- ISN'T REALLY THE ARM OF THE DOORMAN'S SHIRT.  IT IS THE  WAVING ARM  OF A  BLACK MAN , EVEN THOUGH THE ARM IS THE SAME TEXTURE AND PATTERN AS THE DOORWAY MAN'S SHIRT SLEEVE. 

  A RESPECTED RESEARCHER CONTENDS THAT THE WAVING ARM BELONGS TO THE BLACK MAN AND THAT THERE IS NO VISIBLE LEFT ARM FOR THE DOORWAY MAN.  IT SOUNDS GOOD, BUT IS IT TRUE? 

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,8770.0.html

We were unaware of this thread before we wrote our piece.

AFTER POINTING OUT THE MATTER, JENDRO AND FLEMING SAY BOLDLY:

"... it has been established, beyond a doubt that the arm that Judyth Baker analyzed in her ill-conceived “study” actually was in front of the man “G”, it now should be made clear that, unless Doorman’s arms were 10 feet long, Judyth was grossly incorrect with her study. Hopefully, this should clear this up…"

.BUT IN FACT, THE THREAD THEY USE TO 'PROVE' THE POINT THAT "IT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED WITHOUT A DOUBT" WASN'T ESTABLISHED BEYOND A DOUBT.  THE THREAD ACTUALLY ENDED WITH AN AGREEMENT TO EITHER DISCARD THE IDEA, ENTIRELY OR TO DROP IT BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T AGREE AND DIDN;T HAVE THE EXPERTISE TO DO MORE.  DON'T JUST READ THE FIRST PAGES-- READ THE LAST PAGES!

,   JENDRO AND FLEMING FAILED TO NOTICE THAT NOT EVERYONE AGREED WITH THIS ANALYSIS. FOR EXAMPLE, MARTIN HINRICS SENSIBLY WROTE: 

"Robin, after long inspection i'am inclined to say thats actually Lovelady's shirt cuff.

You are correct in saying Lovelady must have had Gorilla arms to be in front of the colored

 man.    But when you consider this black man to be 90° from Altgens camera looking

 towards Houston, then there  is no shoulder, except the right shoulder which is hidden by

 the huge black hair of the black lady on Elm street.

This is how i see it:

The head of the black man is clearly visible. His neck among his right shoulder are hidde

His chest (white shirt) is in parts again visible.
Look at the pattern of Lovelady's red shirt, Robin. The cuff has the same pattern..

His cuff is not in front but behind of the black man (does he have a name?)
If the black lady would be out of sight, then the rest of Black man's body whould show up blocking the view to Lovelady's hand."

To me it makes sense.
But i agree, it's a very difficult area.

To which Robin Unger replied: Thanks Martin     Now that is interesting

white spot = tshirt and the shirt is partially open at the bottom...

ROBIN UNGAR FINISHES BY SAYING: The problem being, is that Altgens 6 and Wiegman have corresponding Timelines

and no where in Wiegman do we ever see [JVB: Carl Jones?] Roy Lewis raise his arm..

AFTER A GREAT DEAL OF WORK BY THE ABOVE PEOPLE, AND OTHERS,, IT WAS DECIDED THAT MOST LIKELY, AN ARM WAS NOT RAISED AND WAVED AND THAT THE SLEEVE HAD TO BELONG TO DOORMAN.

NOT THAT ANYBODY WAS  CERTAIN.  WOULD AN HONEST OR COMPETENT RESEARCHER DECLARE --WITH CERTAINTY-- AS DID JENDRO AND FLEMING, THAT THIS THREAD CONSTITUTED 'PROOF' THAT THERE WAS NOW EVIDENCE OF  "THE END OF THE PIXEL STUDY ...FOREVER"  ?????

THIS IS OBVIOUSLY NOT THE 'END' OF THE PIXELATION ANALYSIS.

WHAT SHOULD BE NOTED IS THAT IT IS ASSUMED THE DOORWAY MAN WAS STATIC, WHEN IN FACT, HE COULD HAVE SWUNG HIS ARM DOWN FOR A MOMENT.TH E MAN'S BODY COULD HAVE TURNED SLIGHTLY TO THE RIGHT, MAKING HIS SHIRT AND ARM LOOK SO PECULIAR.  

 THEY IDENTIFY HIM AS LOVELADY. THAT'S JUST FINE. (PRIOR TO MY PIXELATION ANALYSIS, I HAD REASON TO BELIEVE IT WAS LOVELADY, TOO).

NOTE: JENDRO AND FLEMING ALSO ERRONEOUSLY WROTE THAT I WAS ATTEMPTING TO PROVE THAT LEE OSWALD STOOD IN THE DOORWAY. THAT WAS NEVER THE OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY.

NOTE THAT THE THREAD THEY BASED THEIR ARGUMENT ON DISCUSSED OF THERE WAS A BLACK MAN'S ARM WAVING THERE OR NOT, AND WERE TEMPORARILY MISLED BY A NEWSGROUP MEMBER THAT CLAIMED THAT A HALFTONE PLATE [USED BY NEWSPAPERS BACK THEN] SHOWED A 'WHITE' ARM-- (SEE THE HALFTONE PRINT BELOW) BUT THE HALFTONE PRINT, OF COURSE, IS PRIMITIVE COMPARED TO REGULAR PHOTOS, AND AN AGREEMENT WAS REACHED ON THAT.  

SECTION OF ALTGENS6 PHOTO -- NOTE DARK SLEEVE ON ARM ON DOORWAY MAN

SECTION OF ALTGENS6 HALFTONE NEWSPAPER PRINT - NOTE 'WHITE' ARM ON DOORWAY MAN
MISINTERPRETED AS SOMEBODY ELSE'S WAVING ARM BUT IS A HALFTONE ANOMALY

IT WAS FINALLY AGREED,  AFTER TRYING MANY WAYS TO MEASURE VARIOUS WAVING ARMS, AND POSITIONS OF PEOPLE IN THE CROWD, TO NOT COME TO A DEFINITIVE DECISION, BUT TWO THINGS BECAME CLEAR: (1) DOORWAY ,MAN HAD AN ARM THAT LOOKED TOO LONG,  BECAUSE OF PERSPECTIVE, NOT BECAUSE HE WAS A GORILLA (2)  IT WAS AGREED  BY HALF THAT NOBODY SEEMED TO BE WAVING NEAR DOORWAY MAN, BUT AT A DISTANCE, WHILE THE OTHER HALF STILL ARGUED THAT IT WAS POSSIBLE THE WAVING WAS NEAR DOORWAY MAN.

JENDRO & FLEMING'S CONFIDENT STATEMENT THAT THE THREAD PROVIDED PROOF OF "THE END OF THE PIXEL STUDY -- FOREVER" IS A DEPARTURE FROM REALITY.  IT SEEMS THEY ONLY READ THE FIRST PAGE OF THE LONG THREAD. 

BELOW, JENDRO COMPLAINS THAT HE WAS CENSORED BY 'JFK TRUTH MATTERS' WHERE HE SAYS HE AND I WERE HAVING A CIVIL DEBATE THAT SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN STOPPED:

JANUARY 9, 2015  ONLY MR. JENDRO IS WRITING:

Unreasonable Censorship

Normally, my partner in crime, Trish, helps me write. But, her internet is not working its best right now and I wanted to get something off my chest. So, this is just Zach talking here.

Today, there was a very reasonable debate about the information that Trish and I presented on our blog yesterday about Judyth Baker’s pixel study. This debate was being held in the Facebook group “JFK Truth Matters,” and was between Judyth Baker, Richard Charnin, and myself. I do not personally know the moderators of “Truth Matters,” but they seem to be a pretty reasonable people. This debate was available for everyone to see and, for the most part, was above the belt. As far as I could tell, no group rules were being challenged and no one was being insulted. Judyth was very reasonably responding to the claims made by Trish and myself. Then, the thread was pulled. With no warning or explanation.

JUDYTH: I REPLY HERE: AS FOR FACEBOOK 'DEBATES' THEY CAN HIJACK A WHOLE GROUP AND DRIVE OTHERS AWAY.  PEOPLE DO NOT CENSOR OR PULL PLUGS OVER NOTHING. AS FOR CENSORSHIP, MR. JENDRO AND TRISH FLEMING IMMEDIATELY BEGAN POSTING ON MY PERSONAL PAGES AND BROUGHT WITH THEM SUPPORTERS CHEERED THEM ON. ALL WELL AND GOOD, EXCEPT THEY BECAME HUFFY AFTER SOME LONG AND LENGTHY 'DEBATE'.  AGAIN THEY SHOWED SUCH BAD MANNERS THAT WE, TOO, FINALLY HAD TO PULL THE PLUG.  WHILE I WAS ANGRY AND WASN'T PARTICULARLY KIND, SINCE THEY STARTED THE 'DEBATE' ALL OVER AGAIN AND REJECTED ALL MY ANSWERS, SO I HAD TO WRITE THEM OVER AGAIN, THEY BECAME RUDE TO ME AND MY FRIENDS. HERE ARE EXAMPLES:

FOR EXAMPLE: Zachary D. Jendro  ... You have no credentials to do any of

 this sort of work, Judyth. Get out of the game. People are onto you... a lot of people.

MY INITIAL REPLY: Show me your credentials to judge the work I have done..

• January 12 at 3:47am · 
• 
  
• 
  

GREG PARKER, AT THE SAME TIME,  WAS BECOMING RUDE AND DISMISSIVE, EVEN THOUGH I WAS ANSWERING SOME OF HIS QUESTIONS [MANY OF THEM WERE SO IGNORANT THAT I TOLD HIM TO READ THE BOOK FIRST].   ZACHARY AND TRISH WOULD JUMP IN, TOO, AND MAKE IT WORSE.  FOR EXAMPLE, GREG CALLS MY TESTIMONY 'CRACKPOT THEORIES' AND  JENDRO CHEERS HIM ON:

• Greg Parker Now please get back to showing where I am wrong. As always - I will 

  
  
• correct any further errors. I  just wish you'd do the same... but then, you can't can you? 
• 
  
• You're not a fallible reseracher,[sic] you're an infallible witness...
• 
  
• 
  Look at who you have supporting you here... Marty who thinks Linda is the bees knees
• 
  
•  because she knows Bush   was in DP and thinks I'm in the employ of the Bushes. Oh,
• 
  
•  and Linda herself of course,  is another of your supporters    There is no kind way to
• 
  
•  put... crackpot theories don't  attrack [sic] the creme de la creme of this community.
• 
  
•  They attract.... well ... people like  Marty  and Linda...
• 
  
• 

  Zachary D. Jendro  "Greg, don't expect straight answers.... expect long 
• 
  
• rambling "essays" that border on  hit pieces... then a bunch of trash talk from Judy's little
• 
  
•  worker bees. Don't worry, they are only further isolating themselves..."

YOU CAN FIND THEIR THREADS AND THEIR METHODS USED RIGHT ON MY FACEBOOK PAGE, 'VINDICATION FOR JUDYTH VARY BAKER" --- AND JUDGE FOR YOURSELF:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/348063875669/

THE PREJUDICE OF THESE PERSONS WAS STRIKING. IT WAS FOR REMARKS LIKE THESE THAT MR. JENDRO, TRISH FLEMING AND GREG PARKER WERE FINALLY REMOVED FROM MY FACEBOOK PAGES,   THEIR COMMENTS REMAIN FOR ALL TO SEE.  IF THEY GET EVENTUALLY REMOVED -- CENSORED --- YOU CAN SEE WHY. JUST READ IT.  ENOUGH WAS ENOUGH. -- ALL E DUE TO THEIR OWN POOR CONDUCT.

UNLIKE THE DEBATE AT 'JFK TRUTH MATTERS' I KEPT THE MATERIAL UP FOR PEOPLE TO READ AND JUDGE FOR THEMSELVES. ANYONE CAN SEE HOW THEY HIJACKED THE GROUP AND WERE RUDE. THEY WERE FINALLY BOOTED AFTER WE ASKED THEM TO STOP POSTING (THEY WERE GIVEN A LOT OF FREEDOM) --AND THEY KEPT RIGHT ON. KEEP THIS IN MIND WHEN READING MR. JENDRO'S COMPLAINT ABOUT IT:

MR. JENDRO WROTE, RATHER MIFFED:

"I understand that Facebook groups are not a public service. They are actually little oligarchies run by the people who create them. They make their own rules and enforce them. Sometimes, they do things without much common sense being applied, such as cutting people off or kicking someone out of the group when the feelings of an admin get hurt. And, that is perfectly within their rights.

However, those people should not kid themselves into thinking that they are “truth seekers.” They are actually holding back the truth, they are just too naive or selfish or stubborn to see that. ..Every time someone pulls the plug on a well-meaning debate, they are hurting their own reputation. This sort of behavior in these groups is a common affair. Leaders need to treat everyone with respect, or people will slowly stop respecting them.

COMMENT BY JVB:  WAS THE "DEBATE" MR. JENDRO CALLS REASONABLE AND RESPECTFUL REALLY THAT? IN FACT. MR. JENDRO AND TRISH FLEMING WERE MAKING DEMANDS THAT COULD NOT BE ANSWERED WITHOUT REWRITING MY ENTIRE THESIS FOR THEM, WHICH IN FACT COULD NOT BE DONE ON FACEBOOK. THAT'S WHY THE SUMMARY I PLACED ON FACEBOOK SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN USED TO 'DISPROVE' MY WORK. . BUT WAS I NEVER TO ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS I HAD YET TO PUBLISH IN A JOURNAL? IN FACT, I CANNOT GET A JOURNAL TO LOOK AT MY WORK BECAUSE IT HAS TO DO WITH THE KENNEDY ASSASSINATION. THAT IS NO REFLECTION ON ME: IT REFLECTS THE POLITICAL CLIMATE. I HAVE SHARED MUCH MORE WITH THOSE WHO HAVE HAD THE INTELLIGENCE TO ASK ME QUESTIONS PRIOR TO INVESTING THEIR REPUTATIONS IN ARTICLES, FROM WHICH THEY REFUSE TO BACK DOWN.. 

     NEXT TIME-- STRAIGHT TALK ABOUT GREG PARKER'S ARTICLE, "THE UNDOING OF A FANTASIST".... (AND YES, WE WILL EVENTUALLY GET BACK TO THE SCREEDS OF MR. JENDRO AND TRISH FLEMING!)