Judyth Baker Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 David Reitzes comments in blue. When a supposed “witness” has fabricated a fanciful account of events, the tale is likely to contain some implausible elements. At least, this is so if the witness lacks a complete and reliable knowledge of the facts (in which case the account will likely contain some demonstrable untruths), and if the witness tries to tell the story to a diverse audience (some members of which may be less credulous than others). Mr. Reitzes inserts the words “supposed” ”fabricated” “fanciful” “tale” and implausible” in the very first sentence. He does not pretend to present an unprejudiced viewpoint. After saying that my “tale is likely to contain some implausible elements,” Reitzes then says this is because “the witness lacks a complete and reliable knowledge of the facts” (does Mr. Reitzes assume that HE has “complete and reliable knowledge of the facts”? The last portion of Mr. Reitzes’ second sentence regards Mr. Reitzes’ belief that a diverse audience is less likely to accept my story than a more (unspecified type) homogeneous one. This weakens his thesis that any implausible elements in my story are the fault of my story, rather than the fact that the broader the audience base, the more likely it is that some recipient will register an objection. It shouldn’t surprise us, therefore, when testimony gets “sanitized:” elements that lack credibility and raise suspicion get dropped. Beverly Oliver, for example, for years told of photographing the assassination with a Yashica Super-8 Zoom movie camera. But she had to backtrack when researchers showed that no such camera existed in 1963. Mr. Reitzes sets up the reader with a story from the past where a woman deliberately deceived researchers. He wants the reader to make the link that I have done the same thing. Judyth Vary Baker has told her yarn to pretty much everyone who would listen – including Nigel Turner who recently included her account in his series The Men Who Killed Kennedy. But she also gave her story to her high school classmates on the alumni web page of Manatee High School in Florida. Mr. Reitzes uses the word “yarn” to once more negatively influence the reader concerning me. So far, all he has done, however, is to show the reader that a film producer was sufficiently impressed with the “yarn” to have included my account in his series The Men Who Killed Kennedy. At this point, Mr. Reitzes’ first deceiving ploy is revealed. Yes, my account was included in his series, as have been dozens of other accounts. What Mr. Reitzes does not mention is that my story was the first individual account --ever—to become the subject of an entire documentary in his series. Some “yarn”! This was the reaction of a seasoned investigator who had interviewed hundreds of witnesses. All the other documentaries in Mr. Turner’s series revolved around numerous witnesses and their accounts. My account stands singularly unique in Turner’s nine-part series, with 44 minutes of air time. What was it in my “yarn” that inspired Nigel Turner to devote an entire documentary to this account? The name of the documentary was The Love Affair, Number Eight in the nine documentaries Turner created in his series The Men Who Killed Kennedy. Mr. Reitzes’ deception consists in not giving the reader the entire truth as to the importance of my “yarn” in the series. Of course, Mr. Reitzes might have believed that to tell the whole truth would weaken the thrust of his attack. But the most recent version – which unfortunately has been removed from the Manatee page due to space constraints – differed a bit from the version that was first posted. Mr. Reitzes no doubt will update his comment: the web page has now been restored. Luckily, the web site achive.org archives old web pages, so it it (sic) possible to compare the version of her story she first posted with the most recent one. The following is the version of the “Judyth story” first posted on the alumni web page and archived by archive.org on January 3, 2003. However, the portions that have since been excised by Judyth in the most recent version are highlighted in pink. What Mr. Reitzes does not tell the reader is why the material changed on that web-page. Why didn’t he just ask me first, before jumping to sinister conclusions? Note what Mr. Reitzes stated, above, about why the web page went down: “removed from the Manatee page due to space constraints.” Anyone who looks at the restored web page will see that my account was the BIGGEST and LONGEST of everybody’s, and was TAKING UP TOO MUCH SPACE. I was aware that the page might go down if I took up too much space. But I wanted to add more information. Yes, there were SPACE CONSTRAINTS, just as Reitzes mentions. The page was put up for me and my classmates. After I was sure they had read my page, I then erased some of it to MAKE ROOM for more information. For example, I wanted to add information about the Turner documentary. We’ll look more closely, below, at what Mr. Reitzes feels I should not have removed to make room for more information, keeping in mind that my original communication to my classmates was never intended to be published on the Internet. It was intended as a private communication to my reunion classmates. I was quite surprised when it was posted for everyone to access. Judyth Vary Baker 1961 As you may recall, I was engaged in cancer research, and seemed to drop out of sight. Until now, I could not have mentioned what was going on in my life. The military paramilitary and intelligence communities had interest in me, and I became involved in a dual life: outwardly a student, clandestinely, continuing in sophisticated research – in service to my country as an asset to the CIA. Didn’t you ever wonder why I, who had won national recognition for my magnesium project, and whose cancer research project gained me Honors in the Westinghouse Science Talent Search, plus a trip to Buffalo to work in the nation’s oldest cancer laboratories, did NOT get the science award on graduation night? Larry Jerome got it. I got the art award instead! Even then, efforts had begun to pull me out of the spotlight. After my initial training I had been sponsored by Senator Smathers and others, in anti-Castro factions, including Dr. Harold Diehl and Dr. Alton Ochsner. Between 1961 and 1963, I was trained to do special cancer research. I can’t even discuss the impact of this project, but suffice that by spring of 1963, I was in New Orleans, ostensibly working for Reily coffee company (my boss former FBI agent William Monaghan) but I was actually engaged in clandestine cancer research with ‘Dr.’ David W. Ferrie (supposedly committed suicide but was probably murdered during the Garrison investigation) and renowned medical specialist Dr. Mary Sherman (brutally murdered July 21, 1964 for her part in the scenario I am about to describe). You may recall that I took Russian (all fees paid) at Manatee (then Jr.) Community College. I spoke crude conversational Russian by 1963, when I was introduced in New Orleans to Lee Harvey Oswald. I was almost a dead ringer for Marina Oswald when I wore my hair and makeup the same – was same height, weight, and spoke Russian. Lee Oswald and I worked together for the CIA in an anti-Castro project which included delivery of live biological weapons into Cuba, one of them aimed to kill Castro. Not only was Oswald an innocent man, he was framed in Dallas. He was a patriot who, had he defended himself, would have led our deaths. We had endured the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, and the threat of communism spreading throughout Central and South America. I have been unable to speak about this for all these years, and indeed went into hiding after the events of Nov. 22-24, 1963. I am writing this to let light fall at last upon what must have seemed my many mysterious activities even in high school – such as meeting with Nobel Prize winners in St. Petersburg, and why I was never to become a doctor or research scientist. Within weeks or days of the reunion this matter will come to light before the public. My book (will be called “JUDYTH AND LEE”) will deal with these events, and of my love affair with Lee. (Name Deleted*) and can verify my history. I suggest you order his book from Amazon.com. We expect movie and television productions, etc. I am sorry I cannot attend the reunion, and felt an explanation was in order. If any attendees remember my science research project, etc., please give them my email address. I think now you know why the email address is so named. Rec’d an AA degree in 1965 from U of FL Gainesville. I rec’d a B.S. degree in anthropology from U of Houston. Rec’d M.A. from University of central Florida in Creative Writing/Linguisitics. ABD University of Louisiana. Had five children: Susan – M.A. Creighton U.: she has three children. Josiah has six degrees. Professor at U. of Central FL, economics. World traveled, was present in Berlin year of Fall of Berlin Wall. Recent trips to Russia, Europe, spent year in Japan Has two children. James; graduated valedictorian (rank #1), SE H.S. 1991. Won Gold Feather Award. Has B.S. & M.A. from Vanderbilt U. Computer guru. Has one child. John: graduated valedictorian SE High school 1992 (rank #0, a ‘higher’ rank than #1, as he also graduated PRIOR to H.S. graduation from MCC with an AA in engineering and had a GPA that was off the chart). Won Golden Herald Award in Mathematics, 1992. Works for a company that does projects for the CIA. Grad. U of Central FL and Penn State with MS in computer engineering. Sarah: graduated 1998, valedictorian of her class at North Central HS, Lafayette area, Louisiana. Married and attends U of LA in Lafayette. Plans to be a chemistry teacher. Just as her siblings did, she attends on full scholarships. I never had to pay a nickel’s tuition or fees for any of these five children. I am very proud of them. I was married 24 years – divorced after I left the Mormon Church, which we had both joined in 1969 (I wanted to clear my conscience of the project and the pain of it all – I had seen Lee get shot on TV, and it almost destroyed me.) I had married Robert Baker just after meeting Lee, and had planned to divorce him after Lee and I fell in love (Lee was not getting along with his wife at all). Lee Oswald had been sent into Russia so that he could then be sent into Cuba. there is much, much more, but he was betrayed. They knew he would not betray any of us, and he was a handy scapegoat. He knew he was going to be set up, but hoped he could do something to save Kennedy. This is the man who is blamed for Kennedy’s death. The cruelty of the way Lee Oswald was treated is unbelievable to me. I had even met Jack Ruby, who had liked Lee. The mafia forced Ruby to murder Lee, or they would have exposed his part in everything, as he had been a longtime FBI informant, and I believe the mob held the life of his sister, Eva, over his head. He knew about the cancer research project. He even thought he had been injected with live cancer cells (he died of sudden lung cancer – which was what our project revolved around originally). Lee was a courageous man – as will come out soon. I really don’t expect you to believe any of this without documentation and proof. Don’t be concerned: I’ve got the proof. Disinformation people sponsored by the CIA may try to muddy up my reputation. They have even claimed on the internet that I never did any cancer research in high school, and many other lies. It doesn’t matter. I have my defenders and I’ve been able to prove everything I’m saying. I did want my class to have this information in case they become aware of the situation, which should occur at any time between early September and November 22, 2001. I’ve lived in Mexico and Norway as well as having traveled extensively. I have spent the past five years teaching college English in Louisiana, while gathering witnesses on tape and film who knew about me and Lee. Now I am living in Dallas, and I’m receiving some harrassment, along with my investigative team. Our wonderful physics/science seminar instructor Col. Phillip Doyle knew some of what was going on. David Tracy, class of 1960, who also was trained in Russian, ran into me a few times in nuclear research facility at UF where I should not have had clearances, but did. By 1963 I could handle radiation experiments on human tissues via a special private permit at UF. Those permits were rescinded early in 1964 as everyone became firghtened about tracking down people like me and finding out how much funding was done through NSF, NIH, NCI, and ACS with CIA behind distribution of funds. You can trust (Name Deleted*) and what he may say about me (if he will talk – it’s up to him. Many people have been too frightened to speak up, even now). Now you know. I send my very best wishes to everyone. Judyth (From e-mail) * (“My name appears in two sentences on the MH website. Both are in an email supplied by Judyth Vary Baker 61. I write to request that you take both sentences out of her email. It’s a privacy issue on my part.” – from e-mail) So what has changed? One or two of the changes are quite innocuous. Where Judyth first wrote that her daughter planned to be a chemistry teacher, she later reported that the daughter planned to be a professional artist. No big deal. Kids change their plans. And she also corrected the claim that she was in Dallas to say that she was in the Netherlands – where she had indeed moved. Some of the corrections are a bit embarrassing, such as the claim that her book would soon come out (it didn’t). The something that “should occur at any time between early September and November 22, 2001” apparently is a reference to the release of her book. Mr. Reitzes is just guessing again. He says that I said my book was coming out. I didn’t say that at all. Here is what I said: "Within weeks or days of the reunion this matter will come to light before the public. My book (will be called “JUDYTH AND LEE”) will deal with these events, and of my love affair with Lee. " What I said was "this matter will come to light before the public." In fact, I have been filmed for three different documentaries. “The public” is a public medium, not a book. I’ve been filmed three times-- the first time in 2001. I thought it would come out that fall. But in fact, they are still working on that documentary! If this had been about the book, why did I add that my book “will deal with these events, and of my love affair with Lee”? Because I was going to add “these events,” such as the filming of the documentary, to my book, Judyth and Lee, which would also talk about “my love affair with Lee.” Mr. Reitzes likes to jump to conclusions. Why didn’t he just ask me? (The book exists, but I did not like the organization, which began with Lee’s death. I rewrote the book and reorganized its events in a better chronological order in Lee Harvey Oswald and Me, but that book was over 1,700 pages long when finished—impossibly big. I had to re-write the book again, making three volumes, to get all the information in. Is this as boring to you as it is to me? Let’s slog on, though, to Mr. Reitzes next manufactured objection. Beyond this, there are several deletions that appear to be Judyth sanitizing her story. She drops the claim that she was, even when in high school, a CIA asset. She drops the passage about how Larry Jerome got the science award as the result of some spooky machinations. She drops the claim that her science teacher, Col. Phillip Doyle, was aware of her use by spooky forces. And she drops the reference to classmate David Tracy. Reitzes Objection Number One: He says I dropped “the claim that she was, even when in high school, a CIA asset.” What is Reitzes trying to do to my statement here? And is he being honest? Yes, I was a student—but this was in college, not high school. Note that I say I was “continuing in sophisticated research” – but Mr. Reitzes doesn’t like to mention that I was doing cancer research in college. Why didn’t Mr. Reitzes read this correctly? The military paramilitary and intelligence communities had interest in me, and I became involved in a dual life: outwardly a student, clandestinely, continuing in sophisticated research – in service to my country as an asset to the CIA. Reitzes Objection Number Two: “ She drops the passage about…Larry Jerome” : I dropped the passage about Larry Jerome because I learned something sad about Larry’s later life, and decided it was best not to mention him. Anyone who wishes to know this personal, unhappy information can contact Martin Shackelford, but I prefer to keep it a private matter. Of course, Mr. Reitzes could have asked one of my Reitzes Objection Number Three: “She drops the claim that her science teacher, Col. Phillip Doyle, was aware of her use by spooky forces.” What? I didn’t say that. What I actually wrote was: Our wonderful physics/science seminar instructor Col. Phillip Doyle knew some of what was going on That Col. Doyle “ knew some of what was going on” is not the same as his being “aware of her use by spooky forces.” I repeat – I didn’t say that! Why is Mr. Reitzes doing this with my statement? I removed that sentence –it was near the end of my long, long message --to make room for new stuff. Look at the location of the sentence. The sentence stood alone after removing the reference to David Tracy, so I took it out, too. I “sanitized” nothing. Yes, Col. Doyle “knew some of what was going on.” Want the whole, boring thing? Here it is: specifically (I did not have room on my high school page for this), Doyle knew I was involved in advanced research at the University of Florida when I was not qualified, as I was both a minor and an undergraduate student. So I was placed under the names of other projects to do my work, and this was acceptable to the university because they received more NIH, NCI and NSF grants for allowing this arrangement. This had nothing at all to do with anything spooky. Mr. Reitzes has “spooks” on the brain, and sometimes I wonder why. Reitzes Objection Number Four: “ …she drops the reference to classmate David Tracy.” I have been unable to locate David. I wanted to get a direct quote from him. Since I had to delete material in order to add new, I then deleted this material. After all, my classmates had been reading it for months. I have since located David’s best friend, who has confirmed what I wrote here through an independent researcher. If Mr. Reitzes hadn’t been so rude to me, I would have willingly answered his questions. People have no idea how ugly he’s been in posts, calling me, for example, a lying psychopath. That’s why he doesn’t get the information other people get. He’s the last to know because of his bad manners. David Tracy, class of 1960, who also was trained in Russian, ran into me a few times in nuclear research facility at UF where I should not have had clearances, but did. Mr. Reitzes no doubt will once again “revise” his list after reading these replies, as he always does. He is sure to find something new, and will dig it out for you. Then, if I do not answer within a certain time period, he will announce that I apparently choose not to answer. He used to give me deadlines. The fact is, as do most people, I have other things to do. Considering the sheer magnitude of time and effort that Mr. Reitzes devotes to my destruction, I am inclined to believe that debunking me has become Mr. Reitzes´ full-time job. One must wonder why. All of these claims would be risky when addressed to an audience who actually remembered, from circa 1961, the people and situations she mentioned. Likewise, the claim to have been a “dead ringer” for Marina Oswald would have been risky. People who didn’t know the young Judyth Vary might look at the carefully selected pair of photos that Judyth shows people and think she did indeed look like Marina – much as E. Howard Hunt and Frank Sturgis look like two of the three tramps in very carefully selected photos. But people who looked at Judyth from multiple angles would be unlikely to buy that. Once again, Mr. Reitzes takes my statement, changing it slightly to suit himself. I did not make “ the claim to have been a “dead ringer” for Marina Oswald.” What I said, and I quote: “I was almost a dead ringer for Marina Oswald when I wore my hair and makeup the same – was same height, weight, and spoke Russian.” Why did Mr. Reitzes leave out the word “almost”? Why is Mr. Reitzes doing this with my statement? As anyone knows, using makeup, and taking care with hairstyles, can create a big visual difference. “People who didn’t know the young Judyth Vary might look at the carefully selected pair of photos that Judyth shows people and think she did indeed look like Marina – much as E. Howard Hunt and Frank Sturgis look like two of the three tramps in very carefully selected photos. But people who looked at Judyth from multiple angles would be unlikely to buy that.” If Mr. Reitzes had not been so rude to me, he, too, would have been provided with additional photos—from different angles. People’s opinions vary on how closely I resembled Marina, but everyone who has seen more than the one pair of photos Mr. Reitzes wants you to see might agree that there was enough of a resemblance that I could have succeeded in posing as Lee’s wife to those who never met Marina.. Remember, we were the same height, weight, eye color, hair color, and even hair style. Plus, I spoke some Russian. I tried to post a few more photos—from different angles--but the file size is too large. I am going to try to post the photos below, in portions. Most people agree that I resembled Marina. After looking at the photos below, ask yourself IF YOU’D NEVER MET MARINA OSWALD, AND YOU WERE ASKED TO DESCRIBE A WOMAN YOU REMEMBERED SEEING WITH LEE HARVEY OSWALD IN NEW ORLEANS, COULD BOTH OF THESE WOMEN HAVE FIT YOUR DESCRIPTION? Judyth’s changes to her account on her high school alumni was page are a microcosm of the way her story changes. Elements get added, but other elements that she senses are not gaining acceptance get dropped. While nothing can help the massive implausibilities at the core of her story, the process makes the account a bit more believable. Except to people who have watched it evolve. “Microcosm” is the way Mr. Reitzes has to function dealing with me. After five years, only in quantity, not quality, can he create anything resembling objections, let alone serious ones. I do see “evolution” occurring in my story—when Mr. Reitzes fools around with it, dropping off words here and there – or adding words here and there and then blaming it on me. His pattern extends to most things he has written about me. I ask again: who is creating evolution here? Of course I have added more details to my story as people have asked questions I hadn’t considered. For example, a researcher asked me if I could prove that Lee actually lived at 4905 instead of at 4907. After some thought, I added the proof to my book – some twenty pages. My book will be coming out, we believe, sometime in 2005, despite all the efforts of Mr. Reitzes and his friends to impede its publication. And more books, I promise, will follow. Best Regards to All, Judyth Vary Baker (“I am nothing. But my cause is worth everything.”) Seeking the Exoneration of Lee Harvey Oswald Judyth's photos can be seen here: http://judyth.freehomepage.com/photo.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judyth Baker Posted December 22, 2004 Author Share Posted December 22, 2004 To all: have tried to add the photos for the above post, but the files are too big. I´m hoping John S. can find somebody to convert the photos I sent him to jpeg, as currently my server won´t even send the photos anywhere...it is Christmastime and I share this computer with four other people in this country...so these photos may have to wait a bit until somebody can step in to convert them to a jpeg format and then divide up the file under 400 megs... thanks for your patience... Best regards... JVB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wim Dankbaar Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 (edited) Judyth, the fact that Mcadams and his servant Reitzes are so relentless in their attacks and smear attempts, only adds to your credibility. There is no serious honest researcher that does not see their agenda. Besides they add to the publicity of your important story, although they may not realize it. There is only one remedy left for them. Attack and discredit. The lies are obvious. In my view there is hardly a need to point out their modus operandi. Most of the pictures can still be found here: http://judyth.freehomepage.com/ (Click on the photopages on the top menu bar) http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/canc...archarticle.jpg http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/Robertletter.jpg http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/Robertletter1.jpg http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/checkfront.jpg http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/Bankstatement.jpg http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/judyth1.jpg http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/judyth2.jpg http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/judyth3.jpg http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/judyth4.jpg http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/judyth5.jpg http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/judyth6.jpg Edited December 22, 2004 by Wim Dankbaar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 Judyth's photos can be seen here: http://judyth.freehomepage.com/photo.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawn Meredith Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 Judyth, the fact that Mcadams and his servant Reitzes are so relentless in their attacks and smear attempts, only adds to your credibility. There is no serious honest researcher that does not see their agenda. Besides they add to the publicity of your important story, although they may not realize it. There is only one remedy left for them. Attack and discredit. The lies are obvious. In my view there is hardly a need to point out their modus operandi. ________________________- Wim: THANK YOU!!! You said it so much more eloquently than I could have. Readers note "Their agenda". Right on Wim!!! Dawn ________________________________________________________________-- Most of the pictures can still be found here: http://judyth.freehomepage.com/ (Click on the photopages on the top menu bar) http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/canc...archarticle.jpg http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/Robertletter.jpg http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/Robertletter1.jpg http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/checkfront.jpg http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/Bankstatement.jpg http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/judyth1.jpg http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/judyth2.jpg http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/judyth3.jpg http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/judyth4.jpg http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/judyth5.jpg http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/judyth6.jpg <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nancy Eldreth Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 Seems that they don't even have the proof. I thought that David R. was going to wait to see her book before he would give any more comments. Guess he was wrong in NOT waiting for the book to come out. They even still wish to attack and it is getting a bit much. Judyth I still wish you well. Can't wait to see your book! I hope that then there is little attack on you and the book then. But, I know the hidden adjenda and some may also know it all to well. Have a counter attack even before the book comes out. That is how evil they are and that is the plan from what I have heard and NOT FROM ONE SOUCE BUT FROM SEVERAL SOUCES. That is HOW EVIL These cover up guys are. If anyone wishes to put me down on saying this, well, LET THE TRUTH BE TOLD. UP FRONT and not in the hidden darknesses of it. That is sinister and yes it is the PLAN OF THESE GUYS. I just hope enough people do realize it and take actions against it. As far as I can see, and from what Judyth Baker has sent to me to let me see prior to seeing some of this, she is telling the truth. A lot of people got poisoned by others on their comments and that is so wrong. Dan Marvin should have the respect of his postion to be heard. Yet, he isn't. He gets it hard. James Files, well, I do need to see more from him to know his words are truthful and to back up his claim so far not enough, to show and tell for itself there. Just things I went through enough to know that someone does fear what could come out and I don't know why. This is only personal knowledge to back him and not enough to prove his story. Tosh Plumlee, is the same need more and don't have it. Yet, Bob Vernon knows that Tosh would have a hard time telling the exact time of his arrival in Dallas on 11/22/63. He knew it was a cover on the flight. So, why the hard to hit him on it questions? YEAH, so much for details from Bob. I am asked to look at and what would I say on third hand materials and circumstances to cover that. OK again NOT enough. This is my words to this. WE NEED HARD FACTS and HARD EVIDENCE. Even to my own story. WAY TO LATE, YET VERY REAL. When is it going to be that someone in this government starts backing the truth instead of covering and paying for people to keep the truth covered? Because wake up many, we have a lot hidden and told bunk from our government and big up in power people just don't want it out. A LOT OF PAY OFFS AND BY THE WAY THAT IS ILLEGAL SO OF COURSE THEY AREN'T GOING TO SAY OK LET THE TRUTH OUT............ I hope for one day a lot to be put behind bars and with enough to shove them there for a very long time for doing the cover up's they do and keep. Most are dead and so they hold on with well we will let it out in what year? Who knows even then they probably won't tell it all. Keep the children's children's names clean and won't want them to stress. So, no I wouldn't count on in the year of 2026 or so still getting the truth even then. NOT unless if something is done and stated NOW. NOT LATER ON BUT NOW. Judyth knows a lot and so does Bob Vernon. One on one side and the other on the other side. Yet, don't kid yourself on just how much Vernon knows. BOB SAYS HE DOES KNOW A LOT MORE THAN DANIEL HOPSICKER. I have a feeling he does too. Yet, he won't tell it? I know I am going to get him really mad about now. Well, Bob I mean too. He has played games one way and now another. Know he has taken the time to talk to me write to me and so has Judyth. I sit between this maze with a total dizzy perplexed feeling and dismayed. Yes, I saw the time cards. This is another thing, why in the world wasn't anyone able to get the darn cards. It wasn't that hard even. For me just put into my hands and told by an FBI agent to make copies of them you are going to need them. Heck it was handed to me. Yet, I out of five people going for Judyth was the only one to get them to make copies of them. Seems a bit strange to me. I know what the agent stated and questioned me. Again odd several people knew the information I told him, yet he never heard of it before. COME ON>>>>>>> What is going on here? Yes, it does Show Judyth was with Lee at the time of working at Reily Coffee Company. It shows a cover for Lee by both Judyth and her boss former FBI agent Monahan. What the agent at NARA was told by me was it was a former FBI agnet Monahan who covered for Lee when he left the building of the Reily Coffee Company. FOr him to tell me he didn't know that blew my mind. WHY NOT??? OK I get my foot in my mouth many times. I am probably getting in my mouth again. Making a lot of people mad at me and about now, I don't care because it is going to one side or the other that I make mad at me. I for one am just sick of it. I should love my country and say it is the best. Well, I do love it but NOT IT"S DAMN LIES. What hurts more is that those lies from the past keep chocking us today. It still hurts citizens and kills some, it still makes people pawns to the act and it is still as much as a conspiracy today as it was over 41 years ago. To Dan Marvin, Judyth Baker, Tosh Plumlee, James Files and maybe others as well. I wish you the best and I do hope in this new year brings finally the truth out on your stories. Even to myself as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judyth Baker Posted December 23, 2004 Author Share Posted December 23, 2004 Thanks to every one of you for your kind comments. One thing has occurred because of speaking out: the unmasking of those who work together, such odd bedfellows! We now know that McAdams, Conway, Reitzes and Robert Vernon work together, along with Robert Johnson, Peter Fokes (the showcase "CT" for McAdams'group, with Barb Junkarenin (sp?), Mssrs. Leyden and Paul Seaton... along with David Lifton, Robert Chapman, and DelaRossa & Co. (who too readily embrace all records pushing the Two Oswald Theory From Childhood rather than admit that perhaps a few files simply are misinterpreted, as I can and will prove)... we have learned the whole network behind these people, and how, when they are desperate to discredit, will, by bombast, name-calling, changing words in my story, and via thousands of useless posts did their very best this year to bury me under a mountain of words and invective. Despi9te all they did, wisps of the truth kept poking out. I am a living witness, and am grateful to have been given the opportunity to defend myself while still alive. This year I learned to be grateful for the smallest word of encouragement, as many hardships occurred, but as this year ended, a watershed was reached. The tide has turned. Yet more witnesses, evidence, and support came rolling in, while some of the truly nasty deeds pulled on me this year ( really don't care much about losing money, or things, but name-calling is tougher to handle) have only shown that sometimes this backfires, proving I Must Know Something. And by all that's good, I Do. Thank you all, God bless you all! Best Regards, Judyth Vary Baker Seeking the Exoneration of Lee Harvey Oswald Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nancy Eldreth Posted December 23, 2004 Share Posted December 23, 2004 To say the least it is confusing as well. See MacAdams and Bob Vernon grit teeth over each other. OR at least that is what would seem? Yes, I do question it because they more tend to be together and off set. Part of the game I guess. Conway and Vernon do link very much so and it shows. Wonder why on somethings all one has to do is observe to see things. WATCH. OR should I say watch out. Judyth one more thing that does need very much to be found out. How Marina was treated as well. I have a feeling the same names come up on her part as well as to the look out below catagory. In other words there are two soucres very much coming together to prove one thing THAT LEE WAS VERY MUCH SET UP> NOT just your own story but hers as well and the same people to do to you did to her. Interesting I might add. Gee, that is something that actually helps your own story out. I have stated this before birds of a feather do flock together and also stated that in the end the truth will come out. I also have a feeling there are more names to the list added that you are NOT STATING AND ALL THE FACTS HERE. Judyth it does need to be told all of it. You have fears and they are for real. I have done you wrong and I admit it wasn't right of me to do that. I wanted to pull the rug out from under certain people's feet and did that well too. It got me back hard and it wasn't good to go through that but I don't regreat it. If Lee H. Oswald didn't even pull a trigger that day then what is to fear about any papers of his getting destroyed. Proof of who did it is more needed. They threatened you if you were tell it. Who did that to you Judyth, who threatened you? I know because you told me. What did they tell you that they would do to you and or papers of Lee's? You know I know a person who once threatened me over his own life to take and all I told him was well do it. He is still alive today. Sometimes it takes calling a bluff. The neat Part Judyth is every paper that is missing down in NARA is documented and they can't get away with it. Now that is worth thinking about. I took the time to find out. So what is the threat. NONE, NONE LEFT TO DO THAT ANYMORE. Not in this, they can't they don't have a leg to stand on to do that now. You are like me you worry a lot about everything. I do too. You can't image what I am really going through. It is the same thing over evidence. What is threatened to me even is very much the same thing even almost the same manner. I can't even tell. What I did tell I came to realize wait a minute it is documentated and they know it. I KNOW IT. It is already written down. They can't get a hold of it either. NOW THAT PUTS THINGS INTO ANOTHER PERSPECTIVE. This is the same thing. You think for one minute that they are going to put live materials into NARA? Think again. Every thing in NARA is copies except for James Files materials. Majority of papers in NARA is all with copies with each one it is what is allowed to be showed. They know where it is at. What they don't wish for anyone to see. I don't know if what Bob Vernon told me is true as to where all the hidden materials are at. That would mean it isn't even in the US. But, I can bet they aren't the only copies of the real facts. NARA told me that any of the papers that I am touching are the originals. The ones that stated to be originals are marked that and the only ones I saw to be that were as I stated to be with James Files. Also of the James Files materials were in sets of several of the copies together and the originals of certain meetings that took place. All the rest are copies even of his. This is serious I might add. I know the questions I had to answer after viewing all of Files matierals. I went through a lot that day. I know how they asked me. It is as if I was saying what to do with them. Wiether I would be back again for them or not. I also know now that Dick Clarks office also has them as well. Not sure of the one set of them though. It is as if it was posed to close them, to me, what do I make of it? Those kind of questions. It could as easy as one two three on it. I also know this as well. Clark doesn't have the originals of ONE SET. NARA does. This is what I am tring to say here. It is an important meeting too. OK when I showed up on Lancer a lot of documents from NARA. I showed one set that did have the word on it copy and another one of the same papers that showed it to original It is that set of papers. When I talked to Clarks office I found out they have everything. NOT REALLY. They don't have this one set. Not unless they have only a copy of it. But too many copies where of that meeting. Don't know why. It is time I name this. As I said by me even having just the two one page parts does prove this. Maybe this is something that Wim should know as well. Well, from that it showed me how things work. Several sets of copies are done of everything. One original and all originals are maked with red ink in most cases I guess. So, no Judyth it would seem odd to me that someone would tear apart an original in front of you and think they can literally get away with it. Maybe a copy of an original and have to keep it. Think of the trouble this could cause. I still wish to get in touch with Marina to find out the background of your story way back to the beginning roots of it. This I also feel could help you out. Judyth, Mr. Marrs maybe right this could take time to work out. Not just bring out the question but to talk to Marina, as well. Especially if they did to her what they did to you? I have a feeling, they did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judyth Baker Posted December 23, 2004 Author Share Posted December 23, 2004 (edited) Thanks for responses. The subject here is Dave Reitzes, and who he really is, and what he is doing. I would like to publish a few items here to bring this topic to the fore, and invite any comments. Edited December 23, 2004 by Judyth Baker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nancy Eldreth Posted December 23, 2004 Share Posted December 23, 2004 Just a dropped line question. Judyth is David Lifton and David Reitez the same David just using another last name? Or you know for a fact it is two separate people? I know you have a worried concern over this in another issue. Just want to know if it is one way or another. Now, I am wondering this myself? Seems almost like the same person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judyth Baker Posted December 25, 2004 Author Share Posted December 25, 2004 (edited) Just a dropped line question.Judyth is David Lifton and David Reitez the same David just using another last name? Or you know for a fact it is two separate people? I know you have a worried concern over this in another issue. Just want to know if it is one way or another. Now, I am wondering this myself? Seems almost like the same person. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Dear Nancy: David Lifton is the recipient of $65,000 in two loans, one of them non-interest, given him by the non-profit Mary Ferrell Foundation to write a scholarly book during 2001-2002. He had long ago written BEST EVIDENCE, which was a best seller. Debra Conway worked closely with him on a biography of Lee for several years, a fifteen-year-long effort now variously called "I Led three Lives"and "Charade." Lifton's "Lee"is sadly lacking in detail, however, since Lifton refuses to even consider my estimony. Of course, publishers were not very likely to want to hear from him about Lee whewn they knew my biography on Lee was in the works. I am Lee's former lover. Lifton interviewed me by telephone for an hour and a half --while taping our conversation, even though in both states (CA and LA) it was illegal without my knowledge. I could say a great deal more, but suffice that Mr. Lifton's biography on Lee will NOT be the final word, and he knows it, and he sure would like to see me out of the picture. He did threaten to stop the book at all costs. Mr. Lifton is greatly disliked by many people, and I do understand why. I do not trust any of his interviews after experiencing what he did with mine. Mr. Lifton has no visible means of support except for his "grants." I'm afraid he sees my book as the ruination of his "Charade." But then, there was always far more to Lee than his Charades. INCLUDING his having a love affair that Mr. Lifton missed entirely because I posed as Lee's wife, Marina, successfully. Dave Reitzes has never written a book. He likewise seems to have no visible means of support, but since he began cooperating with McAdams up, down, and sideways, he has unlimited webspace now. Dave owns sharpeis with skin problems and writes poetry, etc. and did fool me into thinking he was a good man. As Wim says, he is the servant of John McAdams. He gave me his word I could confide in him, but broke his promise, unlike the trustworthy Martin Shackelford and others. For a long time he wrote well. It was just as he began changing to a sharecropper on McAdams'intellectual plantation that I encountered him. I saw Reitzes turn into a LN advocate before my eyes, and at the same time, his writing began to deteriorate visibly. Name calling, twisting the facts subtly, and diatribe replaced what used to be some noteworthy thought. He ceased to provide any trsutworthy research after that (nor do I consider his obsessive websites about me to have any merit). I wish I could understand what happened. A similar change occurred to Matt Allison, once atlasrecrd, then changed to altasrecrd after somebody threatened him to stop using the "atlas" label as his moniker...and that is the pattern of Mr. Allison. He changed from CT to LN, apparently overnight. For some time as a CT he wrote convincingly and well, and then, after beginning a series of attacks against me in apparent support of the stance of the above two fellows already mentioned, announced that meeting me had convinced him to become LN. His descent that direction included adding invective and profanity to his posts, which were stripped of any real information. His posts grew shorter and he almost ceased posting anywhere, except at me. these posts finally contained only profanity and threats. He ceased to offer any new research after that. I consider all three men as beings whose long-term goal seems to have been to draw out information for LN use. But as evidence accumulated -- some form me-- that Lee Oswald really was innocent, and might be a hero, all three of them resorted to name calling, fact-twisting, and diatrivbe. Pointless jokes were also used to derail a thread of genuine research. Two of them utilize obfuscation, behind torrents of words that bury the truth. Reitzes writes tomes that nobody has the patience to read, full of trivialities. Lifton, after creating fanciful junk about me, withdrew to do his damage offline. Allison simply uses profanity and one-line threats whenever he appears now. The three are thus easily identified as unveiled, willing to say almost anything in their eagerness to try to discredit legitimate research in the right direction. If they fight it, folks, look into it. There's a reason for all that expenditure of time, energy, and pure ill will and nastiness. It's calculated to stop serious investigation in that direction. Just my opinion, based on experience. Best regards, Judyth Vary Baker Seeking the Exoneration of Lee Harvey Oswald Edited December 25, 2004 by Judyth Baker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nancy Eldreth Posted December 25, 2004 Share Posted December 25, 2004 Dear Judyth, The first thing you stated to me about Lifton taping your conversation and it was about one hour and half. That isn't enough time. When Wyeth had his book done, the author of his book was with him days on ends and yes, they taped it. At first he didn't wish for any taping of conversation and finally he said God I wish this was taped. They then let him know it was. He felt better. It needs to be done in front of a person and direct and with a lot of time and effort if doing a book. This puts his book way out of wacks right there. Another words NO GOOD. Judyth Keep what you just posted up to me. Send it to a newspaper and help the real truth about these guys to get out. I know that Marina went through the same and I know the source isn't you telling me this. THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO DO KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON HERE. I just wish that these people would come out from hidding and tell it as well. They hide too. What they aim to do to all of us is to bring down ones creditability and then say they lie. Well, I still do believe in God and I know Jesus never had it easy either. I do believe that in the end the truth somehow would come out all of it. No women would tell that they had an affair when married and with children that goes out into the streets and to the public. SO you did. Also to say some of the things that you told me I KNOW THAT YOU DID AND WOULD HAVE HAD TO HAVE BEEN WITH LEE H. OSWALD. I know you are telling the truth all of it but still holding information deep down. I have a feeling soon you will tell it too. You are going to have too. The pattern for most is the same. Threats, attacks that can be violent and horrible and then the twisting of stories to belittle. All of those things are the same pattern they use. I can first hand say I KNOW THIS and it is with experienes that teach me as well. You know this from our private talks in the past. Then there is the bringing out the skeltons from the closest methods as well. Use it against to still try to swing. The only thing is when a person goes though it themselves can they truely know it is for real. If there wasn't anything to Dan Marvins story than they would never do this, James Files they scuff at, well it was Files letters they wanted from me so bad to do some horrible things, also yourself if there wasn't anything to your story then why in the world would they even take any time to bother you and or the story. They have given you a short end stick. Just like the time you were at Dallas conference never to have your materials with you when giving the speech to prove your points is hardly letting you prove yourself and what you are saying. Then use it against you afterwards. Judyth I am not you. I can't fill in for you as I have tied to do in the past you are you and knowing what you have seen and experienced far more than I can ever fill in for you. I made the mistake and tired to for you. That was wrong of me to do that. I am truely sorry for that, and I do mean it too. God Bless you and have a Merry Chirstmas contact those kids of yours and talk to them!!! I still enjoy and marvel at my family which is now very large. Also I haven't done that yet of what I talked to you about, sending to the Kennedy family information and going to the level of hand delivery. My printer isn't working still. Someone can still gather the information though and submit it. I maybe with them when this is done. I was told the level it is could mean the level it would go to them. I am not good at writing and Judyth this has to come from YOU and YOU alone. Your words not my own. This will ensure it to be RIGHT. I look for means of which on my own I have limited means to do things. When something comes to my attention I think about it and then try to do it. This would help the story NOT to GET TAMPERED WITH and be very DIRECT TO THEM. I felt like I went through a third degree even with my own sister over this. Why? What reasons? Is this for healing? What purpose? Those were the words my sister asked me. She wanted to know information on how to handle this. The Kennedy family went trough a lot. Still do and so they ignore a lot of this. They hear somethings and they block it out. People on here wonder why don't the Kennedy's care. They do, but they need information. To have informations that join in the same stories helps the cause to help the truth to come out. (I know you gave me some information but Judyth I know I would have gotten it wrong) Easy part well tell them I am out of the country isn't enough. Yes, I do need to talk to Marina very much so. I wish she wrote on Forums like you do this would be so much easier to tie in the loose ends of why the real truth never did come out. Who is behind it to cause this to be so ignored and not understood. We together can pull together to help this to happen. Also, if I were to solely write it and mess it up and then get blamed no that would not be good. My offer still stands for this to happen please help this out. Thanks, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judyth Baker Posted January 1, 2005 Author Share Posted January 1, 2005 Judyth Vary Baker Sat Nov-06-04 08:07 PM Member since Oct 13th 2004 18 posts To all: Dave Reitzes has brought up the matter of Lee's tooth, and when it was knocked out, and in fact, he brought up some good questions. He didn't purtsue his scholarly work in order to establish a better chronology, however. He did it to attack me. That's fine with me, if it means the truth will be established. The problem is that Reitzes allows me no slack in the matter of chronology. I stated what I was told, and tried to fit it in with what I was told. It turned out I didn't have enough of the correct information to place what I was told by both Lee and Dave Ferrie in the proper chronological sequence. Understand, I was NOT THERE when the event happened. I had only the description of the event and a few comments placing it at a certain time. One researcher sat with me for about two hours trying to get pin down the timing. I had been very uncertain about the time it occurred. The researcher, whose name was Japp, was a Dutchman highly interested in the case. Mr. Dankbaar can confirm that this person has written a book, which I refuse to authorize because an English translation has not been provided to me, on the relationship between me, Lee, and Dave Ferrie. ===================Chronology Errors I Relied On========== I wrote to David Blackburst to try to pin down the chronology, showing him what he had published in Dave Reitzes' Blackburst archives, and upon which I had relied regarding the chronology. Blackburst apologized for several small but important errors. The last time I looked, the errors had not been corrected. In July, 2004, David Blackburst wrote to me that: "I don't know which "CAP issue" you reference, but it is a fact that Ferrie left his position as Commander of the Lakefront Airport CAP squadron in April 1955, and went to the Moisant Airport CAP squadron as a volunteer trainer during June-August 1955," My mistake. As noted, his papers were not renewed in December 1954, and were returned unsigned in April 1955. A new commander was running the unit before the end of January 1955. Ferrie joined Moisant as a guest lecturer in June 1955. ================================================== On July 15th, Blackburst wrote: I am sorry for the confusion about the dates. I just don't understand the chronology of the Voebel matter. Voebel indicated that the Neumeier fight was the start of their relationship, and that the CAP period came after that. How could Ferrie have assaulted Oswald a few days before the Neumeier fight, if he hadn't met him yet? ==================================================== I had based my statements on Blackburst's chronology, for Lee never gave me dates. All I knew, for sure, was that Dave Ferrie hit Lee's tooth, loosened it, and was concerned that it would fall out. I assumed, based on Blackburst's chronology, that Dave must have struck Lee first, and then Johnny Neumeyer knocked out the loosened tooth. I wish Lee and Dave had given me dates. they did not. I pursued the problem further: on July 17, 2004, Blackburst gave more information. To protect his book, I am deleting names here, but the gist will be seen: "Judyth: You keep making me dribble out things I want to keep quiet until I publish. FYI, NOT to be repeated, I have spoken several times with ... <snip> ....commanded the Lakefront Squadron in between Ferrie's departure in December 1954, and his return in March 1958.....<snip> ..became interim commander in January 1955, and officially commissioned in April. He said Ferrie "came skulking around...once or twice" in January, but not after that. ....<snip> There is also a hard record of Lee Oswald joining the Moisant Squadron on July 27, 1955. <snip> ...Ferrie indicates that his own research shows that he encountered Oswald at the time he joined Moisant, this is, July 1955." The problem with Blackburst is that he contends that Dave Ferrie is always telling the truth when it suits him, and he will also declare Dave is lying when it suits him. For example, Blackburst said Dave was lying when he told friends he flew over Cuba and was even wounded. But Dave does not lie when he is being questioned by the FBI and other agency reps right after the assassination: =============a year earlier, David Blackburst told the newsgroups this about me, (after Wim Dankbaar asked Did David ever meet with Judyth? I would say that at least he should be >interested to interview someone who claims to have known David Ferrie >personally. Whether he believes her is up to him, but at least I would >make that effort.) "I corresponded with Judyth for some time, and I tried to set up a meeting a year or two ago." David in fact wrote to some of my friends that I refused to meet with him at all. Upon being corrected, he stated this was not so, that we simply couldn't get our schedules together. However, he had given me his phone number, and I called to find out when I could go up to meet David. I talked to his wife on the phone. David even sent me photos of his children. But he enever returned my calls. Despite the fact that Blackburst said he was interviewing everybody who knew Dave, he said he was satisfied simply with our email correspondence, and declined to receive copies of materials I had from 1963 that came from dave;s apartment. A year later, I finally wrote to David the following: Dear David, I am grateful that you have been patient with me. I have finally figured out what happened with Dave and the tooth. I assumed a certain sequence, due to the fact, originally, that I only heard one side of the story from Lee and Dave, and never heard about Voebel at all. Let me construct what I believe is the true sequence after having my ignorance about Voebel , which existed when I first tried to place the timing on this event, having influenced the sequence. Neither Lee nor Dave ever mentioned a prior event at school, and I assumed the event with Dave happened prior to that. My original assumption was that Dave knocked Lee´s tooth loose, then he was in the neighborhood fight, and then it fell out when the football kid hit him. This was basedon the fact that Dave gave lee twenty dollars for a dentist and told him he might loose the tooth. But what I think actually occurred is that Lee had his tooth loosened in the neighborhood fight, and then it got knocked out. Lee had milk at school and saved his tooth, being told to do so, and went to a dentist soon after lunch. Lee´s tooth was saved. His aunt remembered paying his dentist bill, I believe. But it was still in a delicate condition and would be for some weeks. If then Dave invited him over, and this ended with a smack in the mouth that loosened the tooth once more, and it indeed would have been in danger of being lost once more. Dave gave him twenty dollars. Lee said he used some of the money to buy his uniform instead. When did Lee buy his uniform? It would have had to have been in 1955, not 1954. I think this is the true sequence of events. I was ignorant of Voebel incident and guessed to Dr. Platzman, who told me it DID fall out, that maybe Dave Ferrie saved it. I told him it was a guess, because neither Lee nor Dave told me the tooth actually fell out, so that was a surprise to me. I think we do not have any conflict. I just had the order of events backwards. easy to do, since no mention was made to me that the tooth had previously come out. They only m,entioned that if the tooth came out, money had been provided to pay a dentist, which Lee did not have to use because the tooth did get saved, and Lee used some of that money, as well as some from his brother, to buy his uniform.... "David, thank you for being patient with me. I am especially grateful that you supplied me a real quote. I do not think there is any conflict after all. Dr. Platzman reminded me of how I began on that assumption that the tooth did fall out after Dave punched Lee. But that, as Dr. Platzman reminded me, was a guess. Once the guess is removed, I could see that the sequence could have been as easily after as before the time Lee and Voebel became friends. I think this chronology problem is no longer a problem. It came about with my mindset that Lee´s tooth was first loosened by Dave, and that he saved it, when I guessed this for Dr. Platzman...was never told that Dave himself reseated the tooth, never at any time...I guessed it at one point....which Dr. Platzman pointed out. The possible and more sensible sequence is, instead of Dave loosening the tooth and then the later events, it was after the Voebel friendship began...I never knew about Voebel when questioned because, despite accusations against me, I did not research the literature on this. What must be the sequence is that Dave hit Lee´s mouth during their struggle and because it was already a tooth that had been saved and was growing in again, it was easily loosened once more by this blow. It had been saved after Voebel and Lee became friends and were going to CAP meetings. Lee did not say Dave ran the CAP meeting. He said that vafter the meeting, Dave invited everyone to his place. °°Judyth°°°" By this time, I had learned, to my distress, that David Blackburst was not David Blackburst. The man praised on the internet by John McAdams, Dave Reitzes, and Jerry McNally -- all of them ardent Lone Nutters-- wasn't named Blackburst at all. I had some clues about him. He was teaching classes, because he told me he had to go run teach. He had married rather late in life. And, most important, he used to be a security or police or other kind of law enforecment officer. Greg Parker learned from Lancer Forum the following: Stephen Roy - Massachusetts based University Director of Television and Radio and teach Television Production. Roy obtained the Report and Hearings and Exhibits in 1965, and read all the early critical literature. He followed the Garrison probe very closely. In the 70s, began lecturing on the assassination and visiting the National Archives. In the late 70s, became a New Orleans specialist. TOPIC: Oswald in New Orleans Panel I learned this: David Blackburst wrote: [When it's published]. See my book "Magic Box: Specialized Techniques for Television Production" by David Blackburst Newsgroups: rec.video.production From: blackbu...@aol.com (Blackburst) - Find messages by this author Date: 10 Feb 2004 16:08:15 GMT David told me he changed his name online because of an incident that occurred that upset his wife. The fact is, David Blackburst seems to be the same person as Stephen Roy. And Roy sat on the Lancer panel in Dallas in 2000, knowing all about my existence. The name of the panel, again? OSWALD IN NEW ORLEANS. Debra Conway asked former panel members to speak up as to whether they had been instructed-- or not-- to not mention my name. The members of the panel, in fact, included Steve Tyler, who knew about me and had posted. Then there was Jim Olivier, who had been told about me by Dr. Joseph Riehl, but who declined to meet me though we lived in the same city for six years. I did try to meet with him. He never responded. Carol Hewitt was on the panel, too. We had spoken once by telephone. She was very supportive and positive on the phone and had a good report to give of me. This changed after meeting with others. From the Lancer site: Carol Hewett, Florida based attorney and JFK researcher specializing in the study of Michael and Ruth Paine. TOPIC: The Paines, Oswald in New Orleans Panel: A Legal Review of the Clay Shaw Trial From the Lancer site: Jim Olivier, Louisiana based television journalist and JFK researcher. Jim has been researching and studying the assassination of John F. Kennedy for over 30 years. He has produced numerous television segments on various aspects of the assassination including several interviews with Jim Garrison. TOPIC: Oswald in New Orleans, Jim Garrison From the Lancer site: Stephen Tyler, New Orleans based film maker of "He Must Have Something" about the Jim Garrison/Clay Shaw case. He also produced "Dega In New Orleans," winner of numerous awards, and "Our Heritage Is At Stake," a documentary on the controversial politician David Duke. Tyler has also produced segments for the "Ophra" show and "Access Hollywood." He is now in the process of producing a new documentary on David Ferrie. TOPIC: Oswald in New Orleans Panel Now, Debra Conway stated she never instructed any of these people not to bring up my name. Tyler knew about me. Hewitt knew about me. Roy knew about me. Olivier knew something about me. People paid Lancer good hard cash to attend the conference 2000 in Dallas. They paid good, hard cash to attend this panel. Two of the participants confirmed they had never been instructed to talk about me. One was Carol Hewitt. The other was Roy (Blackburst). The weird part is, if they confirm they had noy been instructed not to bring up my name, then they made this decision by themselves. To understand Reitzes'arguments, we must understand that something is going on here, first, before we look to at all this enormous effort to discredit me. I am making this effort, though I am not very well, because I was saddened to learn that John Simkin said he saw no real evidence to believe me. That has to change. First, though, this background information is necessary to show that Reitzes' materials are written not as some afterthought, but as a dedicated effort to destroy my credibility, and that there has been a consistent pattern that has emerged to discredit or ignore me. As for my evidence, it was freely shown to Nigel Turner, who forbore to present it in the documentary The Love Affair (also called The Love Story by some). And I presume that John and others have not been able to make much of various materials such as newspaper articles about my cancer research, Reily check stubs that prove I was hired the dsame day as Lee to a small subcompany run by Reily, etc., etc. So I will have to try again to present these materials in a way that will make sense. Meanwhile, to finish, I would like to show what Pamela McElwain-Borwn had to say recently, after Barb Junkarenin stated that my star witness, Anna Lewis, had recanted. Martin Shackelford and Pamela both responded, adding additional comments. : 60 Minutes is fascinated by Judyth's statements, invests 18 months of research and personnel, and then has the door 'slammed in their faces' by some unknown person. Even Don Hewitt has puzzled ever since as to why that 'story of our lifetimes was unbreakable'. Why? Next, apparently all 'reputable' American publishers, who were initially blown away by Judyth's story and fascinated by her 'teaser' mini-book, have suddently become uninterested. Why? Then we have Lancer 2000, where everyone knows of Judyth's existence; there is a panel on LHO in New Orleans, and, for some reason, there is NO mention made of Judyth's name or statements during the panel. As Judyth represents new research, I find this a staggering omission, however it happened. Remember, I attended 98 NID where Weldon's presentation was center-stage -- the entire thing consisted of the statements of someone whose name was never given, nor his job description. There had been absolutely no vetting of this story prior to presentation -- NONE. But it was new research, and it was welcomed with open arms for that reason. Why was Weldon's nameless witness (at that time) given a red carpet, and Judyth, who had not only a name, job title, proof that she worked with LHO in NO, but a personal story to tell ignored? Why? . Last but hardly least we have TLS, with an hour devoted to Judyth's story. All the other participants in the new episodes are furious -- why is Nigel spending so much time on Judyth and so little time on them? Their feelings are understandable, especially when the entire hour about Judyth excludes witnesses that were available and willing to talk, included statements and photographs that had not been approved, and omitted anything about Anna Lewis. Why would Nigel spend so much time with Judyth's statements and yet omit the very things that would seem to clinch them? Why? What I am perceiving is that there may be specific people at key places putting pressure on for reasons that they don't want understood. The public is supposed to believe that Judyth is just not credible; but if that is the case, why have there been so many odd and unexplained things going on? Why after 4 years is Judyth more talked about than most anything else? I find it odd to the point of being sinister. - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Pamela "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" A Study in Scarlet, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, 1887 For more information on the JFK Assassination Presidential Limousine SS-100-X visit www.jfk100x.com. Also, for more detailed limocentric questions and requests, please join jfk100x on Yahoogroups.com. For information about my life away from research, visit www.themagicflute.org Reply Martin Shackelford Oct 7, 11:47 pm show options Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk From: Martin Shackelford <msh...@concentric.net> - Find messages by this author Date: 08 Oct 2004 02:47:18 EDT Local: Thurs, Oct 7 2004 11:47 pm Subject: Re: "Judyth Baker to Debra Conway" Thu Sep-23-04 Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse Pamela--as I've posted, Howard provided me with a copy of the copy of the Anna interview he received from Debra. I haven't seen either the Judyth interview, nor the New Orleans tour which I mostly filmed. Martin Pamela McElwain-Brown wrote: - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - > On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 01:18:28 GMT, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John > McAdams) wrote: >>On 7 Oct 2004 21:10:58 -0400, Pamela McElwain-Brown >><pamelaj...@mindspring.com> wrote: >>>On 7 Oct 2004 20:00:38 -0400, "Dr Truth" <bobkat2...@comcast.net> >>>wrote: >>>>"Pamela McElwain-Brown" <pamelaj...@mindspring.com> wrote in message >>>>news:89d9m0t69vmlbddahrdji0na9r7khgvd4f@4ax.com... >>>>>On 6 Oct 2004 22:46:27 -0400, "Dr Truth" <bobkat2...@comcast.net> >>>>>wrote: >>>>>>Debra Conway told me that Judyth has a copy of the Anna Lewis tape. >>>>>The copy is not usable at a professional level. >>>>No such thing. Any tape can be used in broadcast TV. It happens every day. >>>Untrue. 60 Minutes claimed they could not use the copy and would need the >>>original. >>I can't imagine that "60 Minutes" would use an amateur tape of any >>kind, rather than simply sending a crew to New Orleans to interview >>Anna. >>Or is this an implicit admission that Anna had backed off her story by >>that time? > 60 Minutes worked on Judyth's story for 18 months. It is my > understanding that the threat to Anna happened during that time. >>>Debra has promised to send the originals of all three tapes to >>>Judyth but has yet to relinquish them. Why would Debra create a catch-22 >>>situation for herself, where the longer she retains the tapes the more >>>likely she appears to have been directly involved in the sequence of >>>sabotages that took place regarding Judyth's projects. >>But you guys have copies, right? > No. One copy of Anna's interview was sent to Howard, who then sent it > to Judyth, I think. Nobody except Debra has had access to anything > else. >>It's not sabotage to insist on keeping the originals when copies were >>readily available. > Did I use the word 'sabotage'? I said ownership and possession. > Nonetheless, most of the material has remained known only to Debra. >>>If Debra wanted to >>>be acknowledged by everyone as being removed from any involvement in the >>>sinister shenanigans involved with 60 Minutes and TLS, why hasn't she seen >>>to it that the tapes had been sent to Judyth? >>"Sinister shenanigans?" > IMO yes. >>Where did you get that? > Well, deduction. 60 Minutes is fascinated by Judyth's statements, invests > 18 months of research and personnel, and then has the door 'slammed in > their faces' by some unknown person. Even Don Hewitt has puzzled ever > since as to why that 'story of our lifetimes was unbreakable'. > Why? > Next, apparently all 'reputable' American publishers, who were initially > blown away by Judyth's story and fascinated by her 'teaser' mini-book, > have suddently become uninterested. > Why? > Then we have Lancer 2000, where everyone knows of Judyth's existence; > there is a panel on LHO in New Orleans, and, for some reason, there is NO > mention made of Judyth's name or statements during the panel. As Judyth > represents new research, I find this a staggering omission, however it > happened. Remember, I attended 98 NID where Weldon's presentation was > center-stage -- the entire thing consisted of the statements of someone > whose name was never given, nor his job description. There had been > absolutely no vetting of this story prior to presentation -- NONE. But it > was new research, and it was welcomed with open arms for that reason. > Why was Weldon's nameless witness (at that time) given a red carpet, and > Judyth, who had not only a name, job title, proof that she worked with LHO > in NO, but a personal story to tell ignored? > Why? . > Last but hardly least we have TLS, with an hour devoted to Judyth's story. > All the other participants in the new episodes are furious -- why is Nigel > spending so much time on Judyth and so little time on them? Their > feelings are understandable, especially when the entire hour about Judyth > excludes witnesses that were available and willing to talk, included > statements and photographs that had not been approved, and omitted > anything about Anna Lewis. Why would Nigel spend so much time with > Judyth's statements and yet omit the very things that would seem to clinch > them? > Why? > What I am perceiving is that there may be specific people at key places > putting pressure on for reasons that they don't want understood. The > public is supposed to believe that Judyth is just not credible; but if > that is the case, why have there been so many odd and unexplained things > going on? Why after 4 years is Judyth more talked about than most > anything else? > I find it odd to the point of being sinister. > Pamela > "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the > impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" A > Study in Scarlet, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, 1887 For more information on the > JFK Assassination Presidential Limousine SS-100-X visit www.jfk100x.com. > Also, for more detailed limocentric questions and requests, please join > jfk100x on Yahoogroups.com. For information about my life away from > research, visit www.themagicflute.org Reply Martin Shackelford Oct 8, 2:57 pm show options Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk From: Martin Shackelford <msh...@concentric.net> - Find messages by this author Date: 8 Oct 2004 16:57:26 -0500 Local: Fri, Oct 8 2004 2:57 pm Subject: Re: "Judyth Baker to Debra Conway" Thu Sep-23-04 Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse (to Barb J) I know you keep trying to say that Anna has backed off from her account, but as you know, she recently contacted me and confirmed that she stands by her videotaped statement of January 2000. No one who knows what they are talking about is saying implicitly or explicitly that Anna has backed off from her statement. She hasn't. Why do you keep trying to suggest that she has? "But you guys have copies, right?" Wrong. "copies were readily available"? Wrong. I eventually received a copy of a copy of the Anna video from Howard, not a copy from Debra. I have never received copies of the Judyth video nor the tour video--MOST OF WHICH I FILMED FOR HER--from Debra, despite repeated requests that she send them as agreed. Now she simply states that she never agreed to send them to me. Apparently, though everyone else present remembers her promise to do so, she insists that her revised version is accurate. Martin The tapes have since been sent somewhere-- not to me. I think Howard Platzman got one or more. These tapes were kept under wraps almost four years and we want them made available to all researchers, badly filmed as they are. The copies are worse than the originals...which is why we sought to obtain them. The fact is that I have never consented to be filmed unless I gave a written consent , which of course Ms. Conway never obtained, since the film was created for US, not for Lancer. She has finally yielded them. The evidence John Simkin and others seek will be, partially, on these tapes. I will next address Mr. Reitzes Tooth Ferrie essay. Please do give me time to get back to this because of current time constraints. I expect to respond with my defense in two weeks, Happy New year to everyone-- 2005 has to be better than 2004, that closed with so much agony and death for so many. God bless us, everyone, in the coming year! I do hope that those who oppose the truth will stop obstructing the way. Best regards, Judyth Vary Baker Seeking the Exoneration of Lee Harvey Oswald please forgive any typos. My eyes are not very good. Thanks. ==j== So all this time, we do not have David Blackburst's real name, except by difficult means. Why? David may be perfectly honest, but since he has been describing himself as a "Ferrie expert"-- and there is no doubt he's done a lot of work in that area-- people are taking his word as script writ in stone. Dave Reitzes' attack on me has been based on the chronology supplied by Blackburst. OK, so far as it goes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard J. Smith Posted January 1, 2005 Share Posted January 1, 2005 Judyth, the fact that Mcadams and his servant Reitzes are so relentless in their attacks and smear attempts, only adds to your credibility. Wim: THANK YOU!!! You said it so much more eloquently than I could have. Dawn <{POST_SNAPBACK}> <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The fact that people are so relentless in their attacks only adds to the credibility of the story. This type of statement is ridiculous. It couldn't be further from the truth. Nearly everyone disagrees vociferously with the Files story. Does it give his story more credibility? We as researchers relentlessly attack the official story of the assassination of JFK. Does it give more credibility to the "Oswald did it alone" theory? Is the official story true and do we have an "agenda"? Is there convincing evidence that Ms Baker is everything she claims to be? No. Does it give her more credibility that so many people don't believe her story, and an LN like Dave Reitzes has found many many conflicting statements that can't be explained away? No. Because so many dissent doesn't always make it more credible. RJS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judyth Baker Posted January 1, 2005 Author Share Posted January 1, 2005 (edited) I believe these people are quite aware that you are entirely correct, Richard. I believe that you might have oversimplified the matter. These people were responding not so much to the fact that I was being attacked as a measure of my credibility, but by WHOM I was being attacked. I have received many emails stating that my credibility is enhanced because of both the nature and composition of the attacks, and because of who is attacking me: Mr. Vernon, Mr. Reitzes, and Dr. McAdams and his retainers. I think you would be surprised who is backing me. People will know in 2005, when the book comes out, why the attackers are all of a feather who flock together. I have to note that you are taking this thread off-track. We're not talking about a credibility matter here, which you have dragged into this thread. We are talking about the fact I am insisting that Mr. Reitzes has created a mass of disinformation about me, as has McAdams and Vernon. I am laying a foundation to show why this might be occurring, before entering the fray. I wonder how YOU would react if YOU had been attacked by these individuals in the same manner that I have been? Are you aware that outright lies are being perpetuated and repeated? That email were stolen and altered? That witnesses have been intimidated? That filmed evidence has been held back from researchers? In order to keep this thread on track, my goal is to first show some of the actions behind the scenes, so to speak, of those who are attempting to discredit me. And then we will look directly at the attacks themselves after understanding the nature of the beast, Therefore, the next post will be to place this thread back on topic. I appreciate your interest and hope you will use your time and effort to keep this thread on a research level. I am not trying simply to defend myself in this thread about Mr. Reitzes. My goal is to ultimately to show how his websites about Lee Oswald, me, and researcher Martin Shackelford obscure and distort the truth. That is important because many researchers, especially students, hap upon Reitzes'website to answer their research questions. I invite others who have noticed distortions of the truth on Mr. Reitzes' website to add their observations to this thread. I have seen many revealing distortions, errata, and omissions. Therefore, being criticized by Mr. Reitzes, while it of course cannot enhance my cfredibility, I offer that a close look at his own writings will destroy his, when we are finished with him. Then his slanted data and observations will not have their present effect on students and others seeking the impartial and unadorned truth. Best regards, Judyth Vary Baker Edited January 1, 2005 by Judyth Baker 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