Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

Wonderfully said!

I've not, in any real way, seen many WC Defenders give that much time to Judyth's story.

What I have seen, is some proper research put forth on this thread regarding the validity of her claims, and as it must stand now, on her finished book.

There has been many statements made, and I'm not really seeing spiteful vitriol against Judyth, just intelligent arguments for the shortcomings of her work.

That's healthy, surely?

Hi Steve,

Yes, surely. How can research be research without fact checking, vetting and evaluating how any witness, or other evidence, stacks up....

Bests to you,

Barb :-)

And after ten years of fact checking, vetting and evaluation many people have come to the conclusion that Judyth Baker

has concocted her story. She has written two books and there is a seemingly endless supply of information promulgated

by her and her supporters on the internet. Ed Haslam, one of her most ardent supporters, has consistently avoided and

deflected questions about her story. He often urged people to wait for her new book, as if it was going to provide new

revelations. Deep down, Haslam must realize that there is an underwhelming amount of evidence that indicates that Judyth

Baker and Lee Oswald were lovers. His continual refusal to answer meaningful questions about his conclusions and speculations

really speaks volumes, as far as I'm concerned. And I don't think I'm alone in drawing conclusions from his approach.

And I think your observations are right on from what I have seen ... "WC defenders" mostly just sit back and watch and laugh. Clearly Judyth has been subjected to her share of vitriol and unkind remarks ... and she has uttered her share as well. There are few saints in this arena. Many other alleged witnesses, known witnesses .... and researchers too ... have been subjected to some pretty nasty stuff by those who see things differently. In my opinion,and in my experience, the vitriol in threads about Judyth's story, is often as not from Judyth supporters, as many posts show. I like your word ... "healthy" ... we should all strive for healthy research and discussion, and on many subjects, it is not difficult to achieve. On point robust discussion is healthy for research and the only way we can really move forward on any subject.

If one reaches the conclusion that Judyth Baker's story never happened the way she claims it did, it is only natural to feel resentment for what

she has done. So many people have invested so much blood, sweat and tears researching President Kennedy's murder and what role Lee

Oswald played. Baker and her supporters have seemingly always refused to understand this irritation at what many people honestly believe

is an affront to both history and the truth.

These researchers have seen more than enough healthy debate and robust discussion. At some point in time they had enough

information to make up their minds. And at some point in time they have decided that it is not incumbent on them to continue

to give Baker their unconditional respect, or continue to keep an "open mind" about an issue that has already been decided.

At some point in time, for them the benefit of doubt for Baker's story became unsupportable.

If Judyth Baker's claims are not true, in the eyes of many her story is a repugnant one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And after ten years of fact checking, vetting and evaluation many people have come to the conclusion that Judyth Baker

has concocted her story. She has written two books and there is a seemingly endless supply of information promulgated

by her and her supporters on the internet. Ed Haslam, one of her most ardent supporters, has consistently avoided and

deflected questions about her story. He often urged people to wait for her new book, as if it was going to provide new

revelations. Deep down, Haslam must realize that there is an underwhelming amount of evidence that indicates that Judyth

Baker and Lee Oswald were lovers. His continual refusal to answer meaningful questions about his conclusions and speculations

really speaks volumes, as far as I'm concerned. And I don't think I'm alone in drawing conclusions from his approach.

[....]

If one reaches the conclusion that Judyth Baker's story never happened the way she claims it did, it is only natural to feel resentment for what

she has done. So many people have invested so much blood, sweat and tears researching President Kennedy's murder and what role Lee

Oswald played. Baker and her supporters have seemingly always refused to understand this irritation at what many people honestly believe

is an affront to both history and the truth.

These researchers have seen more than enough healthy debate and robust discussion. At some point in time they had enough

information to make up their minds. And at some point in time they have decided that it is not incumbent on them to continue

to give Baker their unconditional respect, or continue to keep an "open mind" about an issue that has already been decided.

At some point in time, for them the benefit of doubt for Baker's story became unsupportable.

If Judyth Baker's claims are not true, in the eyes of many her story is a repugnant one.

Well said, Mike. And I absolutely agree.

Haslam seems to me to be trying to latch onto the witness his own story desperately needs but at the same time be tip-toeing around something he himself sees as underwhelming evidence and, perhaps, over the top claims.

Let me clarify my other remarks. As you know, I am one of those who has invested a great deal of time and energy in researching her claims, which I found preposterous on the face (especially given that she has managed to connect herself to knowing virtually every major name connected to the case)and, after learning that not even her supporters had done even basic fact checking on some of her claims, I was appalled ... and decided to do some. For me, and for others who have undertaken this sort of thing, the "agenda" behind it has never been to "attack" Judyth personally, but to expose, clarify, document ... whatever ... something that, if not true, is completely repulsive to me .... the very idea of leading research into this case down false rabbit trails, of muddying the already contentious and often confusing evidence issues in this case is bad enough .... but the very idea that the truth of our history could be even further removed from the truth is just unconscionable to me.

The vitriol I was speaking of is the personal jibes and schoolyard taunts that I have to admit Judyth has endured from time to time .... but she and her supporters do not have clean hands in that respect either. Why anyone who calls them self a researcher, and who supposedly wants nothing more than the truth in this case, refers to people who are trying to fact check her claims as "attackers" and other names, and casts aspersions on the characters and motives of those people is beyond me.

In my opinion, research in this case should be a no tolerance zone for such antics, mindsets and such a woeful lack of scholarship and methodology serves not only to impede progress in the case, but to muddy the waters even further. I like your word "repugnant" ... that's exactly it.

Hope that's clearer than mud.<g>

Bests,

Barb :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And after ten years of fact checking, vetting and evaluation many people have come to the conclusion that Judyth Baker

has concocted her story. She has written two books and there is a seemingly endless supply of information promulgated

by her and her supporters on the internet. Ed Haslam, one of her most ardent supporters, has consistently avoided and

deflected questions about her story. He often urged people to wait for her new book, as if it was going to provide new

revelations. Deep down, Haslam must realize that there is an underwhelming amount of evidence that indicates that Judyth

Baker and Lee Oswald were lovers. His continual refusal to answer meaningful questions about his conclusions and speculations

really speaks volumes, as far as I'm concerned. And I don't think I'm alone in drawing conclusions from his approach.

[....]

If one reaches the conclusion that Judyth Baker's story never happened the way she claims it did, it is only natural to feel resentment for what

she has done. So many people have invested so much blood, sweat and tears researching President Kennedy's murder and what role Lee

Oswald played. Baker and her supporters have seemingly always refused to understand this irritation at what many people honestly believe

is an affront to both history and the truth.

These researchers have seen more than enough healthy debate and robust discussion. At some point in time they had enough

information to make up their minds. And at some point in time they have decided that it is not incumbent on them to continue

to give Baker their unconditional respect, or continue to keep an "open mind" about an issue that has already been decided.

At some point in time, for them the benefit of doubt for Baker's story became unsupportable.

If Judyth Baker's claims are not true, in the eyes of many her story is a repugnant one.

Well said, Mike. And I absolutely agree.

Haslam seems to me to be trying to latch onto the witness his own story desperately needs but at the same time be tip-toeing around something he himself sees as underwhelming evidence and, perhaps, over the top claims.

Let me clarify my other remarks. As you know, I am one of those who has invested a great deal of time and energy in researching her claims, which I found preposterous on the face (especially given that she has managed to connect herself to knowing virtually every major name connected to the case)and, after learning that not even her supporters had done even basic fact checking on some of her claims, I was appalled ... and decided to do some. For me, and for others who have undertaken this sort of thing, the "agenda" behind it has never been to "attack" Judyth personally, but to expose, clarify, document ... whatever ... something that, if not true, is completely repulsive to me .... the very idea of leading research into this case down false rabbit trails, of muddying the already contentious and often confusing evidence issues in this case is bad enough .... but the very idea that the truth of our history could be even further removed from the truth is just unconscionable to me.

The vitriol I was speaking of is the personal jibes and schoolyard taunts that I have to admit Judyth has endured from time to time .... but she and her supporters do not have clean hands in that respect either. Why anyone who calls them self a researcher, and who supposedly wants nothing more than the truth in this case, refers to people who are trying to fact check her claims as "attackers" and other names, and casts aspersions on the characters and motives of those people is beyond me.

In my opinion, research in this case should be a no tolerance zone for such antics, mindsets and such a woeful lack of scholarship and methodology serves not only to impede progress in the case, but to muddy the waters even further. I like your word "repugnant" ... that's exactly it.

Hope that's clearer than mud.<g>

Bests,

Barb :-)

Barb and Mike:

This eloquently expresses the sentiments of very many people. As I have stated many times I have no animosity towards Judyth. it would not surprise me if she does believe these things happened but such thoughts are not grounded in reality. As to Haslam it is much more difficult to analyze why this is so important to him but I suspect that Mike's analysis may be accurate. Both you and Mike have expressed this very well.

Best,

Doug Weldon

Edited by Doug Weldon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These researchers have seen more than enough healthy debate and robust discussion. At some point in time they had enough

information to make up their minds. And at some point in time they have decided that it is not incumbent on them to continue

to give Baker their unconditional respect, or continue to keep an "open mind" about an issue that has already been decided.

At some point in time, for them the benefit of doubt for Baker's story became unsupportable.

If Judyth Baker's claims are not true, in the eyes of many her story is a repugnant one.

These are my exact feelings Michael

You said it better then I would have

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael, Barb and others have crystallized what has been concerning me about the Baker story (and to a large extent, the Haslam story.)

Based on my long and detailed study of David Ferrie (and the related New Orleans milieu), I have concluded that it is very unlikely that Baker ever met Ferrie, much less worked on some secret medical project with Ferrie and Dr. Mary Sherman in Ferrie's apartment at 3330 Louisiana Avenue Parkway. And in the same regard, I don't believe that Haslam has provided evidence to show that Ferrie worked with Sherman (or Baker) or had anything resembling a medical laboratory in that apartment. Haslam does not corroborate Baker, and Baker does not corroborate Haslam. This is not a lightly-held opinion on my part; it is a deep conviction. And if parts of the story are untrue, what are we to think about the rest of the story?

I can accept that a few other people believe Baker's story. They are so entitled, despite my feelings about the lack of evidence. What concerns me is that portions of her story are now filtering out into the body of knowledge about the JFK assassination, and mixing with proven knowledge. When I search Ferrie or Sherman on the Internet, I am horrified to see see unproven (and possibly untrue) information being cited as fact. It is hard enough for those familiar with the evidence to critically decide what is fact and what is not; It is nearly impossible for rookies and novices to make such necessary distinctions. History and truth suffer when this happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What concerns me is that portions of her story are now filtering out into the body of knowledge about the JFK assassination, and mixing with proven knowledge. When I search Ferrie or Sherman on the Internet, I am horrified to see see unproven (and possibly untrue) information being cited as fact. It is hard enough for those familiar with the evidence to critically decide what is fact and what is not; It is nearly impossible for rookies and novices to make such necessary distinctions. History and truth suffer when this happens.

YES .... exactly, and well stated, Steve. There have been witnesses/claims before that proved to be untrue .... or even ones that some decide are valid and believe ... but they have been limited to a specific issue for the most part, and have not infected assassination research overall. With Judyth's claims of being virtually everywhere, having known virtually every one and claiming to have known so much about so many different facets of the assassination .... it is nearly impossible to look for info on anything on the net without finding her claims involved with it all. Aside from working at Reily and her high school science achievements, none of her claims have been verified ... and several of her claims have been shown to be at complete odds with documentation. I agree.... history and truth suffer. And that is just tragic, imo.

Barb :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The builders of rooms of smoke and mirrors continues unabated infecting every facet of the truth, promoted with amazing vigour. Could it fulfil a deliberate purpose as such? Where does it take one AWAY from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What concerns me is that portions of her story are now filtering out into the body of knowledge about the JFK assassination, and mixing with proven knowledge. It is hard enough for those familiar with the evidence to critically decide what is fact and what is not; It is nearly impossible for rookies and novices to make such necessary distinctions. History and truth suffer when this happens. (Steven)

It's a romance, and may go to several printings - Just wait until that qualifies it for the movies.

How could Oswald protect the President when according to Jim Fetzer he was on the second floor? He didn't know the motorcade was passing by? Why would you stay indoors instead of looking at the President and Jackie? Was he waiting for a phone call? (Kathy)

Does anybody else wish Oz had shot himself with that short carbine in the TSBD, like Laurence Harvey at the end of The Manchurian Candidate?

Edited by David Andrews

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I were the CIA, I would want to muddy the waters and mingle fact with fiction.

I would recruit (mind control???) an unwitting peripheral minor member of the motley cast of characters

to spin an odd but believable and unprovable tale to baffle researchers for truth, and divide and conquer.

A complete scenario implanted by hypnosis in that person would then be repeated as true, and indeed

the chosen person would believe it to be true.

Read about this in THE CONTROL OF CANDY JONES, wherein a famous model was hypnotized by

the CIA to perform assigned tasks implanted by hypnosis, and later have no remembrance of the

hypnosis and other events.

Jack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I were the CIA, I would want to muddy the waters and mingle fact with fiction.

I would recruit (mind control???) an unwitting peripheral minor member of the motley cast of characters

to spin an odd but believable and unprovable tale to baffle researchers for truth, and divide and conquer.

A complete scenario implanted by hypnosis in that person would then be repeated as true, and indeed

the chosen person would believe it to be true.

Read about this in THE CONTROL OF CANDY JONES, wherein a famous model was hypnotized by

the CIA to perform assigned tasks implanted by hypnosis, and later have no remembrance of the

hypnosis and other events.

Jack

The story of Jessica Wilcox, aka "CandyJones," is connected to the assassination through her husband,

Long John Nebal, a late night radio talk show host who once received a call from Oswald and who tape

recorded her conversations while in a trance, which led to the discovery of her CIA past.

See: The Control of Candy Jones - Donald Bain (I think) Playboy Press - paperback edition.

BK

Edited by William Kelly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem most have is not that one could be expected to forget exact words and details, but that the conversations given in quotes *changed* ... and not just a word here or there, but as problems (conflicts with facts for the most part) were pointed out, they changed radically, and new ones emerged to replace them.

But, I understand your point. So why not let Judyth herself address it, as she did just about a week ago in a long missive on scribd titled,

"ME & LEE: HOW I CAME TO KNOW, LOVE AND

LOSE LEE HARVEY

OSWALD --AND WHY I DID

NOT FORGET HIS WORDS

by Judyth Vary Baker"

It was posted on October 16th. It runs 9 pages and not all pertains directly to this question, but here are a couple of paragraphs that do.

Quoting Judyth:

Once a year, around Thanksgiving, I would go through several boxes of ‘old things’ – a

habit that also produced stacks of Christmas ornaments and other items to begin

Christmas decorating. I would dedicate a whole day to what I believed was my duty:n o t

to forget. After my 1986 divorce, I was able to spend far more time going over the

conversations and events, without fear of being discovered.

and ...

I wish to make it clear that the conversations that Lee Oswald and I shared were

memorized and kept fresh in my memories over time because they were not the ordinary

kind of conversations that a man and a woman share, who are in love. They were

conversation kept intact in my memory because they were conversations involving the

planned murder of Cuba’s communist leader, Fidel Castro, the clandestine development

of formidable bioweapons, and the knowledge that Lee Oswald confided to me that he

had penetrated an assassination ring intent on killing Kennedy. Would YOU forget such

conversations?

There are a couple others, as well. The entire thing can be seen here:

Me and Lee - And Why I Did Not Forget His Words

Judyth tells us she set aside time every year to reinforce her memories. This is a new claim ... as previously she has always said she couldn't bear to see or hear anything that reminded her of that time. Nevertheless, conversations memorized, and reinforced yearly, shouldn't change and become completely different conversations, imo.

Bests,

Barb :-)

The above was a new claim by Judyth when people were questioning her ability to depict actual conversations accurately. In the above (my post #28 of this thread) Judyth noted on October 16th, that she actually practiced memorizing these details every year so she would be sure to remember them. Nowhere does she mention having written anything down. Well, now she does...

On December 14, she wrote more about it, this time in her blog .... NOW claiming that she actually wrote down conversations in some sort of encrypted form and inserted them into other texts as a way of preserving the conversations, and says that is how she was able to decades later write these conversations accurately.

It has been difficult for some people to believe that I could remember the conversations that Lee H. Oswald and I had together -- or other conversations, for that matter,from those long-ago days.

I searched the Internet to see if anyone else has reported recalling conversations from the past, verbatim. The person below describes the same kind of recollection ability that I have, "like a movie playing in my head" --and also reports the same ability to remember everything on a page by just looking a it, without studying, (though I didn't have any cognitive problems)-- a skill now lost since my head injuries:

"...it seems there are quite a few oddities with regard to my memory, like how I can remember conversations verbatim for years, like a movie playing in my head. And being such a strong visual thinker I would memorize the pages in my textbooks to "look at" when testing, which really had nothing to do with developing total cognitive understanding of certain difficult subjects, but helped me score a good grade. Could this be what they refer to as a photographic memory?"

(ref:
)

It was brought up there that just because you have confidence in your memory, that doesn't mean it's accurate -- a point well taken. However, I did write down enough to keep my memories accurate, and the conversations, moreover, were very important, since they had to do with my cancer research career, planning to kill Castro, life with Lee (whom I dearly loved, who died before my eyes on TV), and knowing Lee Oswald was blamed for Kennedy's death. The murder of a President makes you pay attention.....

..... The sense of responsibility becomes great, and as time passes, the burden is also heavy and sad. If I forgot what Lee and others in New Orleans had said, I knew I would do a disservice to posterity.....

.....I also kept diaries and two scrapbooks, as well as items once hidden behind photos and inside my many books. An important diary was destroyed in 2001-- items from that diary had been copied onto sheets of pink paper when I had been practicing typing in 1963, at the A-1 Employment Agency....

.....Many conversations were recorded in 1965 and 1966 by inserting them into two unpublished novels I wrote....

.....For almost every event, I had written down portions of the conversations, though masked because of fear...... Some were in the form of short stories or poems, as well. I was able to insert Lee's words and my own within those pages. It was easy because it had already happened to me.

The entire blog entry can be seen here:Judyth blog 12-14-10

One has to wonder then, if this is true, why the conversations she has written over the years have changed, some significantly, as, for example, in what she says is the last conversation she ever had with Lee Harvey Oswald, certainly one that would be memorable.

The original writing of that conversation and its subsequent major revisions have been quoted before, and if requested, I will be happy to quote them again.

But what is very notable to me here is the ever growing changes in how she now says that she was able to accurately remember those conversations. As people apparently have questioned, even doubted, her ability to do so, it has gone from her just having a remarkable memory ... to her actually practicing keeping the memories firmly in her mind every Thanksgiving (Oct 16, 2010) ... to now having kept diaries and hidden bits of things behind photos and even having inserted bits of conversations into other stories and poems she has written. To those who have followed Judyth's claims over the last decade, this evolution, adding additional layers as claims are questioned, is quintessential Judyth.

And whatever method she claims ... the fact is that the conversations, as she has written them, *have* changed, some significantly.

Happy Holidays, everyone!

Barb :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also in Judyth's blog entry of December 14, 2010, is this comment:

Of course there were other things I brought up--such as Lee working with Customs, long before researcher Joan Mellen brought out details (after I told her about the matter -- which she has always failed to acknowledge, as Dr. Howard Platzman pointed out in 2008, who was privy to my telephone conversation with her). Customs agent Charles Thomas and I were introduced by Lee Oswald on the steps of the Customs House in New Orleans.

Judyth's blog 12-14-10

In 2008, there was a lot of discussion about some of Judyth's claims, including the customs agent story, and including claims that Judyth had been the one who gave author Joan Mellen information but received no acknowledgment in the book.

At that time, I contacted Joan Mellen, gave her a couple of quotes from the discussion and then posted Joan's reply to me. Here it is, as I posted it all then, with Joan's permission.

Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk

From: Barb Junkkarinen <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net>

Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 09:58:11 -0800

Local: Thurs, Jan 17 2008 9:58 am

Subject: A response from Joan Mellen on Judyth was:Re: Let's help Pamela get over her repetitious "acknowledge

[.....]

Last night I e-mailed Joan Mellen and asked her if she would comment

on two quotes I sent her.

These are the quotations I sent her:

QUOTE

From:barb...@comcast.net

To:

BCC:barb...@comcast.net

Subject:You are being cited ... can you verify?

Date:Wednesday, January 16, 2008 8:51:08 PM

[View Source]

[.........]

As part of his "proof" regarding Judyth Vary Baker's tale, Martin

Shackelford said this in a newsgroup post today:

QUOTE

On Jan 16, 8:44 am, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>

wrote:

13) Two researchers, Joan Mellen and Bill Kelly, confirmed (as Judyth

had first reported) that Oswald had a connection to U.S. Customs in

NewOrleans.

END QUOTE

Dixie Dea replied saying this:

QUOTE

I believe that Joan Mellen said Oswald was seen in Thompson's

Restaurant.I do not believe that she mentioned anything at all in her book about

himbeing with a woman. According to Judyth, Joan Mellen got this info

fromher. I have no idea if true or not. But then, I think it rather

strange that Joan did not mention Judyth at all in her book.

END QUOTE

I am curious as to whether or not you know Judyth .. and whether or

not Judyth claiming that you got your info re Oswald at Thompson's

Restaurant is true/accurate? I would appreciate a comment I can post

as a quote, but can paraphrase if you would prefer.

Given your extensive knowledge on the goings on in New Orleans that

summer ... and of Garrison's investigation ... do you have an opinion

on Judyth's claims that you'd be willing to let me post?

[.......]

Barb :-)

END QUOTE

I received this reply from Joan this morning, with her permission to

post her comments in full. So here it is:

QUOTE

From:Joanmel.....

To:barb...@comcast.net

Subject:Re: You are being cited ... can you verify?

Date:Thursday, January 17, 2008 6:37:42 AM

[......]

Dear Barb,

Many thanks for writing to me. There is not a single word in my

book that came from Judyth Vary Baker. The information about Oswald in

the restaurant(s) came from Thomas Edward Beckham, in our interviews.

Oswald was alone, according to Mr. Beckham.

In the interest of full disclosure, Judyth

Vary Baker did telephone me once, but the entire conversation involved

her attempting to persuade me that Jim Garrison had a sexual

relationship with a Hermaphrodite. When I asked for a confirming

source, she did not produce the name or contact information. I ended

the conversation there. I was not interested in that line of inquiry

in any case.

I was also guided, with respect to some of the

claims about Oswald, by Mary Ferrell, who was a good friend to me.

Mary told me that, based on her knowledge and research, the claims

could not be verified. There were contradictions. I know that the

issue of Mary's position came up some time ago in discussion groups. I

did not say anything because I knew that Mary did not wish to be

disturbed with further, and endless, queries.

Kind regards,

Joan

END QUOTE

Joan Mellen is not anyone I know, this was a cold contact. I

appreciate her speedy ... and very forthcoming ... rsponse.

Barb :-)

It was a very long thread overall and can be found here:

Link to thread

I have been in contact with Joan recently over another matter. While she is currently unavailable, I can certainly ask her for any additional comments she may have in another week or two.

Bests,

Barb :-)

Edited by Barb Junkkarinen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dawn:

The picture is in the next posting. I am computer-challenged. I do not believe there is credible evidence that Judyth ever met Oswald.

With all due respect, that comes across as an equivalent to Gary Mack's infamous statement, "I have not seen any hard evidence of conspiracy."

Doug: She has proof that they worked together. What about Anna Lewis? Anna did not even like Judyth so why would she lie?

Have you read Ed Haslam's book? Judyth's? I do not think it is fair to pass judgement on someone withouth reading the person's book first. In fact you and I are in agreement on Armstrong's work on another thread.

Dawn

Dawn:

Your point is fair. Yes, I have Haslam's book and have read it. I have followed Judyth for over a decade and carefully followed the monumental thread here.I have seen Judyth change so many things to conform to the tough questions asked of her. I don't want to raise questions here because I don't want to tip Judyth off. If her story is legitimate then she can enhance her credibility in a number of ways: produce the physical evidence, i.e., the Oswald handwriting, the Mary Ferrell tape recording, etc. and submit herself to questions that she doesn't have a chance to ponder and choose which one's to ignore and answer. The truth can defend itself. If she does not produce the evidence she claims to have do you not agree the failure to do so should construe that evidence against her. Judyth had stated she wasn't going to subject herself to any further questions but she has appeared on the radio, etc. It is easy to fool the unknowing. There were , as I mentioned before, aspects of her story that at first intriqued me, i.e., where would she get the idea that she and Oswald were going to write a science fiction book? I discovered how she was able to do that. I am always reticent with witnesses who embrace their own celebrity. Judyth has motive to fabricate and I believe that could be exposed. Do you really believe she could remember all the dialogue she writes? I certainly could not. Whoever Oswald was I do not believe any evidence establishes he was a James Bond-Renaissance man character. As far as Armstrong, you can see I was one of the many people he dedicated the book to, so many things were run by me directly. I do believe there are stronger aspects of his book than others and I have questions but most people do not know the right questions to ask. I am curious. Did Judyth contact you or did you contact her?

My best,

Doug Weldon

Doug: I am pretty sure that I contacted her. I was asked to help by another forum member. This was to try to get the Anna Lewis video. But I am not in touch with Ms. Conway so I had no way to accomplish that, other than enlist others to assist.

I have not followed her every word. Just do not have the time. As far as the dialogue goes in her book I am assuming this is mostly made up. No one could remember ACTUAL dialoge from that long ago. So it has to be paraphrased.

I do not know what celebrity she has embraced or what motive she would have for ruining her life and not being able to be in this country with her children and grandchildren.

That part of the Love Affair that jumped out at me as false was when they "accidentally" met. But in reading her book it became clear that this meeting was no accident. I would indeed like to see the handwriting tested and any other recordings she claims to have. But would even this satisify people?

Even her detractors agree that they worked at Reily together.

Dawn

Dawn:

Lo and behold. JVB is not claiming to paraphrase anything. She is indicating that her quotes are there for a reason. She remembers all of the conversations. Do you honestly believe that?

Best,

Doug Weldon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Barb,

"It was brought up there that just because you have confidence in your memory, that doesn't mean it's accurate -- a point well taken. However, I did write down enough to keep my memories accurate, and the conversations, moreover, were very important, since they had to do with my cancer research career, planning to kill Castro, life with Lee (whom I dearly loved, who died before my eyes on TV), and knowing Lee Oswald was blamed for Kennedy's death. The murder of a President makes you pay attention....."

This is a pretty good example of what I suggested earlier in this thread. There's always the option of changing the story. Now that she's apparently understood that it's impossible to remember conversations that took place several decades ago,

******* SHE HAS NOTES! *********

(Add details, remove details or change details..cut the tail and new heads will grow, cut the head and there will be new tails...)

And so the never ending and ever changing organism called 'the Baker story' keeps living it's life all of it's own.

-------

Well, much can be said about Judyth Baker. But I'll give her this - she's displaying an absolutely outstanding creativity.

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Barb,

"It was brought up there that just because you have confidence in your memory, that doesn't mean it's accurate -- a point well taken. However, I did write down enough to keep my memories accurate, and the conversations, moreover, were very important, since they had to do with my cancer research career, planning to kill Castro, life with Lee (whom I dearly loved, who died before my eyes on TV), and knowing Lee Oswald was blamed for Kennedy's death. The murder of a President makes you pay attention....."

This is a pretty good example of what I suggested earlier in this thread. There's always the option of changing the story. Now that she's apparently understood that it's impossible to remember conversations that took place several decades ago,

******* SHE HAS NOTES! *********

(Add details, remove details or change details..cut the tail and new heads will grow, cut the head and there will be new tails...)

And so the never ending and ever changing organism called 'the Baker story' keeps living it's life all of it's own.

-------

Well, much can be said about Judyth Baker. But I'll give her this - she's displaying an absolutely outstanding creativity.

:D

She admits to having taken a course in CREATIVE WRITING. Now that is believable!

Jack

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

×
×
  • Create New...