Douglas Caddy

Announcement today from Judyth Baker

57 posts in this topic

As posted on Facebook:

We are pleased to announce that the acknowledged world's civilian expert on the Secret Service, Vince Palamara, will be speaking at the JFK Assassination Conference. Vince Palamara was born and raised in Pittsburgh, PA and is a Duquesne University graduate. Vince is considered the leading civilian Secret Service authority. His first book, SURVIVOR'S GUILT: THE SECRET SERVICE: THE FAILURE TO PROTECT PRESIDENT KENNEDY(2013), took over 20 years to research and write and has garnered much favorable reaction. His second book, JFK: FROM PARKLAND TO BETHESDA- THE ULTIMATE KENNEDY ASSASSINATION COMPENDIUM(2015), took over 15 years to research and write and has also garnered much favorable reaction. Vince has appeared in over 120 other author's books, on radio, in television programs, on DVDs, in newspapers, at national conferences, and in many online resources. Watch for his third book THE NOT SO SECRET SERVICE - AGENCY TALES FROM FDR TO THE KENNEDY ASSASSINATION TO THE REAGAN ERA (2016). Vince is working on a fourth book, as well. This is your opportunity to meet Vince in person! Register at the Conference website at http://www.jfkconference.comto attend this historic conference! MORE GREAT NAMES TO COME!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I shall be one of the speakers on a panel on Sunday that includes a discussion about Malcolm Wallace.

Edited by Douglas Caddy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like they landed two more great people. Sounds like a very intriguing conference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I shall be one of the speakers on a panel on Sunday that includes a discussion about Malcolm Wallace.

Who else will be on this panel? I'd sure like to see my dear friend Nathan Darby's name cleared.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what I find so confusing, and annoying. Why is Judyth putting out this announcement? Is she actually organizing the conference? Is it "her" conference? Is she paying for it? Is she signing the checks? Defenders of this (and other) conferences featuring Judyth sometimes state that they are conferences put on by Trine Day, and that Judyth is one of their authors. In such case, her appearance at such a conference would hardly be surprising. But this goes way beyond her putting in an appearance.

It's as if Lancer decided to build all their conferences around Beverly Oliver, and have Beverly send out emails announcing the various presenters. It just smells. I mean, I'm not willing to say that Judyth or Beverly are 100% unreliable, and total fakes. I'm leaning strongly in one direction, but am still on the fence in both cases. But I find this conspiracy (yes, I used the word) to boost Judyth's credibility (and marketability) by rounding up a number of credible researchers trying to push their books, and putting them on the undercard, so to speak, nauseating.

Now, the thought occurs that maybe I'm reading too much into this. Maybe those speaking at the conference are more than just window-dressing. Maybe they'll have the liberty to say whatever's on their mind, including that Oswald never had a mistress, and that Judyth is almost certainly a fantasist. But I doubt it.

Edited by Pat Speer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I shall be one of the speakers on a panel on Sunday that includes a discussion about Malcolm Wallace.

Who else will be on this panel? I'd sure like to see my dear friend Nathan Darby's name cleared.

What do you mean by "cleared"? I don't think anyone disputes that he was an actual fingerprint analyst, once upon a time. In fact, if it's any help, I recently came across his name in the Dallas FBI files received by Weisberg in the late 70's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pat:

It really is kind of odd is it not?

From my impression, Kris at Trine Day really fell for Judith. Thinks she is the real deal.

She has now written I think three books for him. I think the third one is being advertised now.

So therefore, Kris lets her announce the new guests at the conferences.

I think from what I can garner its a cooperation between Kris M and Baker to prop up her credibility.

But in my view the bigger question is, why do these people participate? In my view someone like Baker being a part of the conference touches on the credibility of them all.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello, Jim (and everyone):

I can only speak for myself (well, alright- I'll speak for William Law, too LOL): I am a two-time (soon to be three-time) Trine Day author. I was invited to speak via my publisher and I said yes. It is an opportunity for my wife and I to go to Dallas and make a presentation, too. I haven't done any conferences in-person (other than local stuff and two Skype offerings) since 1991-1997.

Having said that, I chuckle to myself whenever I am invited by an organization of any kind, as THIS always happens:

I was invited to speak at COPA in 1995 and 1996 in Washington and, both times, I received flack from researchers before, during [some people who showed up uninvited like Harry Livingstone], and after saying, in effect, "Vince, why are you dealing with these people?!?!? They are trying to co-opt and take over the case. So and so is evil" etc. etc. etc.;

I was invited to speak at Lancer in 1997 in Dallas and I received flack from researchers before, during [COPA people and others in the plaza], and after saying, in effect, "Vince, why oh why would you speak there?!?!?!? They are trying to monopolize the research community. I don't trust" so and so, etc. etc. etc.

I was invited to speak at the Dallas 2016 conference for Trine Day and...I think you know where this is heading. :)

I think ALL speakers at all conferences should carry (next to their name tag) a sign that reads "I do not necessarily espouse or endorse the views of ______."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vince why are you speaking there..... :ice

Sorry m8 could not resist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was told that I was being invited to participate in Judyth's 2016 JFK Conference because I could speak from first hand experience (in contrast to being solely a researcher), having been directly involved in both Watergate in 1972-74 (in which the JFK assassination played a key role) and in the LBJ-Billie Sol Estes-Mac Wallace historical saga (representing Billie Sol Estes 1983-84.)

No other assassination conference has ever invited me to speak on these topics even though I was first interviewed in depth about the relationship between LBJ-Billie Sol Estes-Mac Wallace and the JFK assassination as far back as 1998 when Lyle Sardie released his ground-breaking video, "LBJ: A Closer Look." You can view it here.

Joan Mellen's fascinating new research book due out in September draws upon work done by Lyle Sardie and me decades ago. Joan will be a featured speaker at another conference in November.

http://joanmellen.com/wordpress/

Edited by Douglas Caddy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I echo what Vince and Douglas said. Those of us who aren't published by Simon and Schuster or Random House have a limited public platform. It's important for any author to deliver your message to the largest number of people you can. Even those of us who have publicists still have to do most of our own promotion.

I've rarely turned down an offer for an interview, no matter who it is. I didn't accept one from an anarchist host, but that was only because he demanded I swear an oath to anarchism first. I've seen "Coast to Coast" criticized here, for instance. They get anywhere from 5-7 million listeners every night. Why would any author turn down a platform like that? Alex Jones and Infowars are nearly as big. Again, if there's a chance for millions of potential new readers to hear you, why turn that down?

I'm sure Vince, Douglas, William Law and maybe some of the other speakers at this conference don't endorse everything Judyth says. They probably don't support some of the books Trine Day has published. But they have an opportunity to share their own work and perspectives, which I don't imagine Judyth will control. I'm certainly not a Judyth groupie, but if her book leads more people to question the official story, isn't that a good thing?

If we have to endorse everything about a particular show, or its previous guests, or all the speakers at a particular conference, before we deign to participate, then we're not going to get much further than these kinds of forums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think what people like Judy Baker and Bev Oliver do is shameful to the memory of President Kennedy. Where were these people right after 11/22? Why were neither interviewed by the government immediately afterward? In Baker's case, you'd think the government would have tracked her down to see what she knows. Neither are heard from until 20 years after the fact.


And yet, here they are today. And here *we* are today. It's amazing to me that any serious researcher of this case would even think to go to this Oswald NO conference. It's purely a money grab and you can count on it in dollar bills that there will be plenty of tables around with the "distinguished authors" manning them, signing their books, smiling for photos and grabbing cash, too.


I've always known there are some pretty flaky people out there who call themselves experts about this case, and I'm talking about the people who think the limo driver shot Kennedy, or the poison dart from the umbrella, and other nonsense. What's even sadder though are those who actually fall for this stuff, who can't see the forest from the trees, who lack the ability to just have the common sense flag fly up just a little bit, to question, poke and prod.


It reminds me of the Simpsons episode about how Halloween began back in the times of the Pilgrims. The premise was, all you had to do was point to someone and yell, "Witch!" and everyone falls into line. A funny episode but sadly true in this case when a fake like Baker comes along and a thousand people are going to trod down to NO to hear her speak and buy her book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't blame the researchers attending such a conference. I get it. A singer of protest songs might very well play a concert promoted by an oil company.

My concern is the cross-promotion. Will those in attendance be prohibited from questioning the credibility and sincerity of the "host"? Will they be asked to share a table with her at a dinner? Or sit on a panel with her in front of the audience? Will they be asked to share a moment of prayer for the soul of her supposed boyfriend? And if they say "no" will they be banned from future conferences?

I have been at conferences where a featured speaker presented what was essentially blithering nonsense. I have subsequently been criticized for not standing up and protesting this nonsense. But it's against most people's DNA, in my opinion, to get up and argue with someone, in front of a crowd, when they have clearly spent some time working on something. I mean, if I went to a school science fair in which some kid presented an argument against global warming, I would be reluctant to tell him his argument was silly, or fueled by religion. I would simply figure it was not my place to explain this to him.

I suspect something similar happens at these Judyth-fests. Those who fail to buy into her story say little or nothing. And let those attending the conference think her story has been accepted by the "community" as a whole. When this is far from the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think what people like Judy Baker and Bev Oliver do is shameful to the memory of President Kennedy. Where were these people right after 11/22? Why were neither interviewed by the government immediately afterward? In Baker's case, you'd think the government would have tracked her down to see what she knows. Neither are heard from until 20 years after the fact.
And yet, here they are today. And here *we* are today. It's amazing to me that any serious researcher of this case would even think to go to this Oswald NO conference. It's purely a money grab and you can count on it in dollar bills that there will be plenty of tables around with the "distinguished authors" manning them, signing their books, smiling for photos and grabbing cash, too.
I've always known there are some pretty flaky people out there who call themselves experts about this case, and I'm talking about the people who think the limo driver shot Kennedy, or the poison dart from the umbrella, and other nonsense. What's even sadder though are those who actually fall for this stuff, who can't see the forest from the trees, who lack the ability to just have the common sense flag fly up just a little bit, to question, poke and prod.
It reminds me of the Simpsons episode about how Halloween began back in the times of the Pilgrims. The premise was, all you had to do was point to someone and yell, "Witch!" and everyone falls into line. A funny episode but sadly true in this case when a fake like Baker comes along and a thousand people are going to trod down to NO to hear her speak and buy her book.

It probably won't be a thousand people, Michael. 200 is probably more like it. If 150 are wise to the situation, and go there to see the other speakers, the conference may yet have a positive benefit. But if 150 are not wise to the situation, and leave there with the impression Judyth is at the center of the research community, and that the other authors in attendance have all signed off on her bona fides, then it will probably represent a step backwards. At least in my opinion.

Edited by Pat Speer

Share this post


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