Jump to content
The Education Forum
Guest James H. Fetzer

Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

Recommended Posts

Guest James H. Fetzer

As many times as I have explained why Judyth's story is so important, it

grieves me that Monk and Jack are unable to acknowledge the elements:

(1) it humanizes the man the Warren Commission demonized as a "lone,

demented assassin", when he was actually a highly sociable, intelligent,

and responsible agent of the US government who appears to have been

working in several capacities (for the FBI, the ONI, and the CIA); (2) it

leads back to the rapid-cancer bio-weapon project, which seems to have

been #1 among the CIA's "family jewels", the only one that it redacted,

even after publicizing the others in its collection, apparently because it is

still TOO HOT to handle; and (3) it would inevitably reveal and reinforce

interest in the polio vaccine that was mandated for some 100,000,000

your people but was contaminated with a cancer-causing monkey virus,

which may be responsible for the epidemic of soft-tissue cancers which

is ravaging the United States and which Haslam's DR. MARY'S MONKEY

so ably explains. I don't understand why Jack and Monk are unable to

appreciate that there is a great deal at stake here far beyond details of

the personal relationship between Lee H. Oswald and Judyth Vary Baker.

Research on this specific thread is amply justified on multiple grounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest James H. Fetzer

Since I addressed this question in post #2516 and several since, I do not

understand this mindless repetition of a question "asked and answered".

Or, to be more precise, I do not understand this mindless repetition of a

question "asked and answered" unless that's all you've got, as appears

to be the case here. Why don't you find some other trick to entertain us,

Barb, because this one has long since become stale, tedious and boring?

Super Member

Group: Members

Posts: 1432

Joined: 23-August 04

Member No.: 1135

Doug,

Partial circumcision is apparently rather common. Enter "circumcision, partial",

and get http://www.askmen.com/dating/dzimmer_100/1...ve_answers.html

I appreciate your agreement that there appears to be a difference between the

color and the black-and-whites. I have asked Jack to do a comparative study.

I also agree that sometimes Judyth muddles her own credibility, and that this is

one of those occasions. It doesn't mean her story is false, but it has that effect.

I think their sexual relationship may have been conducted more in the dark than

many couples today. I also think the question, as usually asked, has no answer.

I think she wasn't sure based on her own experience because he was only partially

circumcised. If even you don't know that, she might now have known what to say.

Under those conditions, she may have used the autopsy report to settle a question

about which she was uncertain how to answer, lest she be rejected on that account.

Jim

QUOTE (Doug Weldon @ May 13 2010, 05:40 AM)

Doug,

Why don't you agree that the question of circumcision is moot? If you ask,

"Was he (completely) circumcised?", the answer is "No". I you ask, "Was

he (partially) circumcised?", the answer is "Yes". So the question, "Was he

circumcised?" has no definite answer. I therefore consider the question to

be irrelevant to this investigation from this point forward. My concern is

not with the black-and-whites, Doug, but only with the color photo, which

Dean Hagerman agrees shows a much smaller member than the others.

Jim

A response from Dave Reitzes to Judyth's accusation he altered an e-mail.

Please note that the entire e-mail in question is included below, as well as a couple other e-mails showing what led into her e-mailing him. I have bolded the paragraph where she mentions Debra asking her if O was circumcised and her parenthetical "no" ... and I have also bolded a sentence later down where she notes that Martin is NOT copied on all her emails because I see where she has used Martin not being copied on this email as some sort of proof it is fake. - Barb :-)

All of the following is from Dave, who has also posted this on the mod group:

Some background:

As I posted about a couple days ago at this newsgroup (although these posts never showed up on Google Groups, for some reason), Barb Junkkarinen recently noticed that Judyth has contradicted herself on the issue of whether Lee Harvey Oswald, supposedly her lover, was circumcised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Who claimed that the "unauthorized book" was Haslam's?

Not you or me, Michael! Fetzer seems to have not read thoroughly. In my response to you, what we were talking about is quite clear, imo. I said ....

"why would Judyth tell him to read her book and not tell him it was unauthorized if it is so error ridden and incomplete?"

Obviously it is Judyth's book, which she has declared "unauthorized." Neither of us made any such comment about Haslam's book.

Am playing catch up today after being gone most of yesterday and last night ... so later in the thread I see where Fetzer is still fussing and fuming and not addressing what you clearly have said or asked ...and then asks you why YOU keep posting about it and making a mountain out of a molehill. ROTFL.

You either misread or misunderstood, Fetzer. Any "shoddy effort" was yours. Geesh. All better now. And all done.

Barb :-)

Anyone reading the whole email from which you are extracting a quote would

see that the "unauthorized book" was not Haslam's but Livingstone's. Do you

and Barb think that, by posting reinforcing comments, you can put one over on

the members of this thread? I invite anyone to go back to Hogan's earlier post

about this and read it through for themselves. It is very clear (by the time that

you reach the end of the email) that she was talking about Livingstone's book,

not Ed's. This is a nice example of the shoddy efforts being expended by those

who fear that Judyth's story may be taken seriously, which it certainly should be.

In fact, I have made this point (about the book under consideration) previously.

I have shortened Judyth's reply. This is the pertinent paragraph:

"In addition, I did not know Haslam was writing another book. It came as a complete surprise,

or otherwise I would have warned him about the unauthorized status of the book."

So my question remains: Even though Haslam had JVB "correct and corroborate" her story that he published in DMM,

why did he never divulge to her that he was writing a book in which she would play a key role? (That is what JVB claimed)

Good question, Michael. Judyth knew he was an author, she had reviewed his book on Amazon in January 2000. What year did they meet again? And does Haslam say when he decided to write another book?

And having Haslam interested in her story, whether he was writing another book or not ... why would Judyth tell him to read her book and not tell him it was unauthorized if it is so error ridden and incomplete?

Bests,

Barb :-)

They met by telephone in 2000. Haslam writes of meeting her in person at a restaurant in Bradenton, Florida in 2001.

Judyth Baker's aging mother lived in Bradenton. I don't recall if Haslam said when he decided to write another book.

As for your last question, I believe Judyth Baker answered it here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=189339

I intend to post more about this later. Thanks for your comment, Barb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What the heck are you yabbering about .... and why have you seemingly replied to a post I put up on behalf of Dave Reitzes this morning, but that post is incomplete/cut off in your post ...and some exchange you had with Weldon is included instead.

I realize you are desperate to shift things away from Judyth having given 2 different answers to the question of whether or not O was circumcised .... but now she has accused Reitzes of fabricating or altering an e-mail .... and Dave has responded to that accusation....and Gary made a call for the entire e-mail to be posted, and it is included in my post.

Mindless repetition? It's not me who is known for that here. :D

The other question as to whether or not O was circumcised has also been addressed ... by the autopsy report. He was. But whether or not he was is not the central issue when it comes to Judyth's credibility .... that issue is that she gave two different answers to that question 9 years apart. Oops.

You don't seem all that bored with that issue. Frantic is a better word, imo. Since truth is the objective, one might wonder why.

Since I addressed this question in post #2516 and several since, I do not

understand this mindless repetition of a question "asked and answered".

Or, to be more precise, I do not understand this mindless repetition of a

question "asked and answered" unless that's all you've got, as appears

to be the case here. Why don't you find some other trick to entertain us,

Barb, because this one has long since become stale, tedious and boring?

Super Member

Group: Members

Posts: 1432

Joined: 23-August 04

Member No.: 1135

Doug,

Partial circumcision is apparently rather common. Enter "circumcision, partial",

and get http://www.askmen.com/dating/dzimmer_100/1...ve_answers.html

I appreciate your agreement that there appears to be a difference between the

color and the black-and-whites. I have asked Jack to do a comparative study.

I also agree that sometimes Judyth muddles her own credibility, and that this is

one of those occasions. It doesn't mean her story is false, but it has that effect.

I think their sexual relationship may have been conducted more in the dark than

many couples today. I also think the question, as usually asked, has no answer.

I think she wasn't sure based on her own experience because he was only partially

circumcised. If even you don't know that, she might now have known what to say.

Under those conditions, she may have used the autopsy report to settle a question

about which she was uncertain how to answer, lest she be rejected on that account.

Jim

QUOTE (Doug Weldon @ May 13 2010, 05:40 AM)

Doug,

Why don't you agree that the question of circumcision is moot? If you ask,

"Was he (completely) circumcised?", the answer is "No". I you ask, "Was

he (partially) circumcised?", the answer is "Yes". So the question, "Was he

circumcised?" has no definite answer. I therefore consider the question to

be irrelevant to this investigation from this point forward. My concern is

not with the black-and-whites, Doug, but only with the color photo, which

Dean Hagerman agrees shows a much smaller member than the others.

Jim

A response from Dave Reitzes to Judyth's accusation he altered an e-mail.

Please note that the entire e-mail in question is included below, as well as a couple other e-mails showing what led into her e-mailing him. I have bolded the paragraph where she mentions Debra asking her if O was circumcised and her parenthetical "no" ... and I have also bolded a sentence later down where she notes that Martin is NOT copied on all her emails because I see where she has used Martin not being copied on this email as some sort of proof it is fake. - Barb :-)

All of the following is from Dave, who has also posted this on the mod group:

Some background:

As I posted about a couple days ago at this newsgroup (although these posts never showed up on Google Groups, for some reason), Barb Junkkarinen recently noticed that Judyth has contradicted herself on the issue of whether Lee Harvey Oswald, supposedly her lover, was circumcised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aren't you the same one who posted the massively ignorant suggestion

that Oswald might have had an erection from his swift and violent death,

which demonstrates that you do not even know that Oswald did not die

on the spot--that his death was not "swift and violent"--but that he lived

for nearly 2 hours? He was shot at 11:21 AM and only pronounced dead

at 1:07 PM. Chuck Crenshaw, M.D., was the one responsible for treating

him in Trauma Room #2 after he had been brought to Parkland Hospital

in the ambulance. I can't believe you know so little about his death when

you are making posts about it. No one should take you seriously again.

Somehow ...again ... you seem to have not read thoroughly, for regarding priapism, it includes, as can easily be seen it what John posted below:

"damage to major blood vessels"

You do know Oswald's cause of death, don't you? "Hemorrhage, secondary to gunshot wound of the chest."

As for your assertion about Crenshaw being "the one responsible for treating him in Trauma Room #2" ...

please post a citation for that assertion.

Yesterday, 07:34 AM

Post #2472

Super Member

Group: Members

Posts: 5418

Joined: 26-June 05

From: OZ

Member No.: 3136

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_erection

''Spinal cord injuries are known to be associated with priapism''

''Other causes of death may also result in these effects, including fatal gunshot wounds to the brain, damage to major blood vessels, or violent death by poisoning. Forensically, a postmortem priapism is an indicator that death was likely swift and violent.''

lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If anyone has made more meaningless posts than Mike Williams, I cannot imagine

whom that would be. Notice the contentlessness of each and every one of them,

none of which displays the least understanding of the issues under consideration.

And that pattern continues here. If anyone qualifies as a laughing stock, it is not

me or Jack or Dean or even Junkkarinenen, who raised the question that led to this

aspect of our investigation (about his circumcision), but he--Mike Williams--himself!

Fetzer,

I expected as much from someone who common sense seems to elude so often.

You Sir are a joke on any forum, or on any platform.

"This is America, you wanna be a nut, be a nut, and you Sir are a nut!"

Todd,

In the face of the absurdity of the whole thread, my comments are the least of the atrocities.

The fact is that your absurd comments were among those that took the discussion into the gutter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gary, thank you for posting this. I will respond to Judyth and to your comments as well. My comments are in blue.-Barb :-)

Judyth responds

Dear Gary:

Thank you for giving me an opportunity to respond to this.

1) In October, 2000, Conway and I were not friends. I would not have used Conway as an example to Mr. Reitzes.

You were complaining and being snide about Conway in the October 2000 e-mail. Doesn't matter if you were friends or not.

I am not in the habit of bringing up private matters as "examples."

In an e-mail to Rich DellaRosa, already posted here, you said that that O was "well endowed" .... similar comment to Fetzer, who has posted your comment to him that O was well equipped or that his equipment was impressive several times now. Those are "private matters."

2) Note that only Howard Platzman is cc'd. However, I always cc'd Martin Shackelford as well.

Not according to what you wrote in the e-mail I posted in full this morning. You wrote, martin said he has a stack of email messages four feet high. Martin does not have ALL the messages. Howard has the most. As you note, Howard was cc'd on this e-mail ... how stupid it would be for someone to fake or alter an email someone else was copied on.

3) Reitzes has written large, complex website attacks against me, employing stolen emails, emails with quotes taken out of contex entirely, and so on. We have seen "quotes" where he has posted "emails" supposedly from me but replete with so many typos that they were hardly legible. The email he cites is poorly written--does it really sound like me, Gary?

Looks and sounds exactly like you, Judyth! Pam has made constant allegations that Dave's website is full of errors and misquotes, etc ... though asked several times by several different people to post examples, Pam has yet to come up with even one.

4) with all he above, you might still wonder if the email could be a legitimate one in its entirety--it is true that I did write Reitzes several times, after all--but ask yourself why this 'gem' is NOT MENTIONED IN ANY OF HIS WEBSIES ATTACKING ME? It might be added to one of his atack sites NOW, but until now, it wasn't to be seen anywhere? WHY?

Because he hadn't noticed it ... as he himself commented on the mod group after I posted excerpts from both e-mails. He may not have realized your "no" was incorrect back in 2000, and 9 yrs later when you wrote DellaRosa, he may have forgotten about it. You probably forgot about that "no" response 9 yrs ago too or, more likely, not seeing it pointed out anywhere on Dave's site, figured he didn't still have that email or had never posted it. :-) It is included in a series Dave put together called Judyth: From the beginning which has like 18 parts. The email in question appears in Part 10, and Dave posted it on 6-3-08. I don't know if he had it posted anywhere before that or not.

Answer: it has been altered, oh-so-conveniently, Gary. I NEVER bring up private matters such as this about Lee.

You clearly do, Judyth, as noted above. And it makes no sense that it would have been altered. If you had not told Debra "no" when she asked you the question, there would have been no reason for Chapman to call you and challenge you on it. As you yourself said in your email to Dave, Debra knew things that you didn't even know were available. That was in 2000. What year was it when you discovered the autopsy report and maybe

the photo as well? :-)

To Mr. Chapman, in response to his statement that I had AGREED WITH DEBRA CONWAY--this was ten months earlier, mind you--that Lee had not been circumcized (and of course, I'd read the autopsy, so how could I have made such an 'error' even if I were not telling the truth?

Chapman's statement to you was not that you had "agreed" with Debra ... even by your own telling in your 2009 e-mail to DellaRosa. In it, you stated, Chapman called me shortly after Debra Conway and i had met, and said, "Debra tells me you said Oswald was not circumcized."

In 2000, you had not yet seen the autopsy report and did not know that it contained such information. But by 2009, when you wrote your missive to Rich DellaRosa, you were falling all over yourself trying to wriggle all around making it Debra's fault ....and apparently not even remembering at that time, your comment to Reitzes 9 years earlier. And "10 months earlier" than *what*? As cited above, in your 2009 letter you said, "Chapman called me shortly after Debra Conway and i had met, and said, "Debra tells me you said Oswald was not circumcized." 10 months is not a "shortly."

I have no response to Judyth's 'I was only looking out for poor plotting Debra' and victim impact statement about Dave ... so have deleted that portion here. Now, on your thoughts, Gary:

My first thoughts on this:

Judyth Baker maintains that the email in question was either invented or altered by Dave Reitzes. I would certainly urge Mr. Reitzes to release the entire unedited email. It is true that Dave Reitzes is a Lone Nutter affiliated with John McAdams. I do find it difficult to believe that he would simply invent an email from Judyth, who admits to having sent him emails in the past.

The e-mail in question was posted in full, by me, earlier today ... along with some e-mails that led up to it, as a response from Dave. Dave is an LN now, but he used to be quite an avid CT. I do not recall when he fell over to the other side of the grassy knoll, but it was after 2000 and his dealing with Judyth, as far as I know. I've known Dave online for many years. And no one who has known him and read his posts and collections over the years, either as a CT or LN, would ever cast aspersions on his character and would never believe he would ever ever alter evidence. Never. And for what reason?

He received the letter in 2000, he posted it as just one more thing as part of his Judyth series TWO TEARS ago in 2008 ... not even realizing what it contained! Is he supposed to have posted an altered email 2 years ago ... not said a word about Judyth saying LHO was not circumcised, what, just hoping and waiting Judyth would send an email to Rich a year later ... and that after another year, someone like me would stumble upon it and see the error in one and the contradiction in another? Yeah, that makes sense ....NOT.

Judyth writes, "We have seen "quotes" where he has posted "emails" supposedly from me but replete with so many typos that they were hardly legible. The email he cites is poorly written--does it really sound like me, Gary?" Yes, I am afraid it does. Judyth Baker is an intelligent and educated woman but most of her emails appear to be hurriedly written and contain numerous typos. She has also suffered from eye and other health problems.

Exactly. It is quintessential Judyth for anyone who has seen even a few of her emails or posts (that she has written herself).

Her strongest point is that even if she were faking it would not make sense for her

to simply guess as to whether LHO was circumsized or not, especially since that information was in the autopsy record.

Unless she didn't know that information was in the autopsy report ... that the autopsy report was even available ...and had never seen it herself. And when asked the question by Debra ... when they had met and were speaking to one another ... she could hardly hem and haw right there on the spot, now could she?

There are 2 emails, written 9 yrs apart. One says "no" ... the other wriggles and squirms and blames Debra and purports to be trying to protect Debra and states of course she couldn't get it wrong because it was in the autopsy report. Now she claims the 9yr old email was altered.....posted 2 yrs ago without this "gem" being mentioned, just waiting for Judyth to write a conflicting email to Rich DellaRosa 1 yr later in 2009 ...and then for someone like me to find it and note the problem another 1 yr after that in 2010. Some of us were born at night, but not last night.

Bests,

Barb :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As many times as I have explained why Judyth's story is so important, it

grieves me that Monk and Jack are unable to acknowledge the elements:

(1) it humanizes the man the Warren Commission demonized as a "lone,

demented assassin", when he was actually a highly sociable, intelligent,

and responsible agent of the US government who appears to have been

working in several capacities (for the FBI, the ONI, and the CIA); (2) it

leads back to the rapid-cancer bio-weapon project, which seems to have

been #1 among the CIA's "family jewels", the only one that it redacted,

even after publicizing the others in its collection, apparently because it is

still TOO HOT to handle; and (3) it would inevitably reveal and reinforce

interest in the polio vaccine that was mandated for some 100,000,000

your people but was contaminated with a cancer-causing monkey virus,

which may be responsible for the epidemic of soft-tissue cancers which

is ravaging the United States and which Haslam's DR. MARY'S MONKEY

so ably explains. I don't understand why Jack and Monk are unable to

appreciate that there is a great deal at stake here far beyond details of

the personal relationship between Lee H. Oswald and Judyth Vary Baker.

Research on this specific thread is amply justified on multiple grounds.

Jim,

I don't personally need Judyth's story to help me appreciate the humanity of Oswald. I have studied him for decades. I have no interest in the cancer bio-weapon subject as it is not related to the assassination. Let me qualify that: I have an interest in the subject, but not in forcing a combining of it with this subject. I feel the same about the Polio vaccine allegations. I do not think they are related to JFK.

I don't see the connection, at least not yet. Perhaps I will in the future. My mind is open--However, it is not "wide" open or too accepting without more proof. I will read her new book. I expect that it will answer a lot of questions, one way or another. If it fails to adequately address concerns that have been legitimately raised here (and many have been legitimate) that, in itself, will be an answer.

It is my prerogative to disagree after evaluating the evidence for myself. But, until then, I must refrain from finalizing my opinion. In any event, I will be as intellectually honest with myself as possible--as a matter of self respect. You have my word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do not recall when he fell over to the other side of the grassy knoll, but it was after 2000 and his dealing with Judyth, as far as I know. I've known Dave online for many years. And no one who has known him and read his posts and collections over the years, either as a CT or LN, would ever cast aspersions on his character and would never believe he would ever ever alter evidence. Never. And for what reason?

His conversion occurred months before JVB appeared on the scene.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspir...amp;lnk=ol&

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do not recall when he fell over to the other side of the grassy knoll, but it was after 2000 and his dealing with Judyth, as far as I know. I've known Dave online for many years. And no one who has known him and read his posts and collections over the years, either as a CT or LN, would ever cast aspersions on his character and would never believe he would ever ever alter evidence. Never. And for what reason?

His conversion occurred months before JVB appeared on the scene.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspir...amp;lnk=ol&

As his post says ... that's when he announced he was "on the fence" for the first time. I don't recall how long it took him to fall off, hit his head and wake up on the wrong side...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do not recall when he fell over to the other side of the grassy knoll, but it was after 2000 and his dealing with Judyth, as far as I know. I've known Dave online for many years. And no one who has known him and read his posts and collections over the years, either as a CT or LN, would ever cast aspersions on his character and would never believe he would ever ever alter evidence. Never. And for what reason?

His conversion occurred months before JVB appeared on the scene.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspir...amp;lnk=ol&

As his post says ... that's when he announced he was "on the fence" for the first time. I don't recall how long it took him to fall off, hit his head and wake up on the wrong side...

He was in the process of falling off the fence that summer.

From the alt.con.jfk "Yoo Hooooo Bob Harris" thread, July 10, 1999:

Cliff, I don't know how long you've been around here, but I used to argue the same

exact thing you're arguing [JFK's T3 back wound]. I now accept that I was probably

wrong.

It amuses me to see folks effectively critique one subject (e.g., JVB) but allow all reason

to desert them when confronted with overwhelming evidence on another subject (e.g.,

JFK's T3 back wound).

The research value of this thread is low but it's entertainment value is high!

Carry on... ;->

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael and Jim seem not to be "communicating".

As an outsider to their misunderstanding, let me try to see whether I understand.

My understanding is that JVB claims that Livingstone's book was unauthorized.

Somehow Jim thinks that Michael says that it was Haslam's.

Is this the gist of the misunderstanding? Is this minor point worth so much

verbiage?

Peace.

Jack

Jack, thanks for your questions. Contained in all that verbiage was a simple question

that I have been trying to get Jim to answer for a month. To me the point is not minor.

I will try to explain it again in the near future. As long as Jim prefers to insult me as a

means of ducking the question and as long as he continues to make assertions that

are not true, it is difficult for me to let it go.

Edited by Michael Hogan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: images.

To ensure researchers can obtain these subject images, we have a couple of options:

1. Place them onto a site like Photobucket, and allow people to download them from there;

2. Mods can post images to members on request; or

3. A restricted access sub-Forum can be made, and only those people requesting access can see the contents. This would prevent what can be called inappropriate images being seen by underage persons whilst still allowing access to researchers.

Perhaps researchers might indicate what their personal preferences are. I am happy to set up a Photobucket site for Forum general use, if member would like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As many times as I have explained why Judyth's story is so important, it

grieves me that Monk and Jack are unable to acknowledge the elements:

(1) it humanizes the man the Warren Commission demonized as a "lone,

demented assassin"

But Dr. Fetzer, what if Judyths story is not true?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As many times as I have explained why Judyth's story is so important, it

grieves me that Monk and Jack are unable to acknowledge the elements:

(1) it humanizes the man the Warren Commission demonized as a "lone,

demented assassin"

But Dr. Fetzer, what if Judyths story is not true?

Exactly, Bill. I have never understood what "humanizing" this man has to do with researching the JFK murder.

Since the odds are OVERWHELMING that the man killed by Ruby was NOT the man born as Lee Harvey Oswald,

what we need to learn is just WHO WAS THIS MAN and how did he come to be using Oswald's name. A fictional

account of his life for a few months in 1963 when he was operating as a spy presents a false "humanized image."

Jack

Edited by Jack White

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

×