Jump to content
The Education Forum
Judyth Baker

David Reitzes

Recommended Posts

This post is to place the thread back on topic. Thank you! I intend to provide information about Mr. Reitzes next, so that a firm foundation about him will be available. I have decided these steps were necessary because many students and neophytes in the assassination debates rely upon Reitzes' highly visible websites about Lee Oswald, and they are also reading his websites (yes, plural) about me, and about the highly regarded researcher, Martin Shackelford.

People need to know who is trustworthy in these matters, and who is not. I will devote time and energy to this matter in the next few weeks. Since my health is fragile, I ask your patience.

Best Regards,

Judyth Vary Baker

repost:

Judyth wrote....

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-Brown had to say recently, after Barb Junkarenin stated that my star witness, Anna Lewis, had recanted. Martin Shackelford responded that this was not true, and Pamela added additional comments, including this one:

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.

========comments that remain on topic are invited! ====Happy New Year!

Best regards,

Judyth Vary Baker

Seeking the Exoneration of Lee Harvey Oswald

Edited by Judyth Baker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

____________________________________--

Richard,

I was commenting on Wim's quote re Dave Reitzes. Files has zero to do with my post. Judyth does not even have a lot to do with it: I was responding to Wim's words. Re Just who Dave Reitzes really is and what his agenda really is. I have some experience in this regard. One mission of his is to assist in those who wish to "re- discredit" the Jim Garrison investigation. Reitzes reviewed the trash Garrison book, False Witness (Patricia Lambert) In the 4/99 issue of JFK Quarterly (Walt Brown's publication). I believe if you google Dr Brown you will still see this disinformation piece on Walt's site. Last time I checked it was still there. Read it. Then read the facts of this disinformation in a piece by Jim DiEugenio and Bill Davy in Probe (Vol 6 No 4 May-June 1999).

(If any reader cannot access Probe I will contact Jim to be certain I can scan this piece to this forum). As I said I am certain Reitzes' "review" is online. (But will re-check)

Then I read an article entitled "Yellow Roses" (allegedly) by him on a subject where I have much knowledge, and he and I were in agreement: Mac Wallace. I sent him an emails with questions and praise. No reply. Did he really write this article? I have no idea. I have no idea who he "really" is. But many suspicions.

So, as I said, my comments were about Wim's words. An "author" who purposfully employs disinformation disquised as a "book review" is someone who needs to be outed. And Wim did just that.

Happy New Year.

Dawn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Dawn, thank you for your observations.

I continue here to show how Dave Reitzes uses rhetoric and sophistry to create contradictions in my history where little or none exist. The man actually literally took my words "I can prove everything I am saying here" down to the tiniest possible bit of minutia.

Anyway, I will certainly look at "Yellow Roses," etc. Linguistically speaking, a "voiceprint" can be made on written materials to prove the author. Such a study can be done.

In the meantime, here is material that was just posted at Lancer about Mr. reitzes Wrongs, Continued.:

I have decided, looking at Mr. Reitzes' long, long list of stuff, to begin answering some of his various points here. Thbis is just a beginning, and we will start at the beginning, of Mr. Reitzes'lavish and extensive attempt to discfedit me as a witness.

To begin, Mr. Reitzes wrote this:

This is a rough draft. Comments are welcome.

(He has since refined his 'rough draft'and has published it as yet another website attack against me-- but let us press on...)

*************************

John McAdams's article on Judyth Baker <http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/judyth.htm> highlights many of the problems with those portions of Judyth's story that have been made publicly available; but I'd like to also take a minute to emphasize a few more of the contradictions inherent in Judyth's accounts to date."

==========================================================

JUDYTH: (I assume Mr. Reitzes is quoting from John McAdams'website about me here)

=====================================================

JUDYTH VARY BAKER: THE STORY SO FAR

(According to Judyth Vary Baker, Martin Shackelford, and Howard Platzman, Ph.D.)

Note: Howard Platzman is co-author (with Judyth) of "Deadly Alliance: Outline of the Conspiracy," various drafts of which Judyth has submitted to assassination researchers and prospective publishers. Martin Shackelford has been described by Platzman as Judyth's lead researcher.

----------------------------------------------------------------

JUDYTH: Mr. Reitzes seems to be referring here to an outline which he says I co-authored with Dr. Platzman. Technically speaking, Dr. Platzman authored this outline, which I then corrected. Several versions were written over time as I responded to additional questioning and more information was deemed important enough to add to the outline.

JVB: NOTE: this outline is not my book, and never was. It is an "Outline."

Of course various researchers and a couple of prospective publishers saw the outline. Mr. Reitzes also takes the time to reproduce a message intended only for my high school classmates, but he does not show you Dr. Platzman's outline. Why? In fact, it is very informative.

Well, let's go on and see what's next.....ah, how could I forget? Mr. Reitzes now takes information which I wrote to my classmates, and hijacks my letter to my friends to make the following statement:

===========================================================

REITZES:

Judyth Vary Baker worked for the CIA on an anti-Castro assassination project, and she can prove it. (1)

===========================================================

JUDYTH: Mr. Reitzes then produces examples, especially from the confidential emails that I sent him that he promised never to publish. But here they are:

quote #1:

(1) "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."

REITZES ASKED ME QUESTIONS AND I ANSWERED HIM. HE PROMISED TO KEEP OUR CORRESPONDENCE CONFIDENTIAL, BUT BROKE HIS PROMISE.

==================================================================

(quote #2:

2) Judyth Vary Baker, e-mail to Dave Reitzes, October 6, 2000: "I knew important people, and in indianapolis (sic) got conscripted into the CIA though (I) was just a minor."

REITZES ASKED ME QUESTIONS AND I ANSWERED HIM. HE PROMISED TO KEEP OUR CORRESPONDENCE CONFIDENTIAL, BUT BROKE HIS PROMISE.

===============================================

quote #3:

(3) Judyth Vary Baker, e-mail to Dave Reitzes, October 7, 2000: ". . . (Dr. Canute) Michaelson gave my name to the CIA as one of the bright brains in the country, and from that time on, I had access to equipment, funds, you name it, as well as special training involving doctors who got trained at Oak Ridge. . . . In short--and i (sic) can fill in many details--I had gone through projects starting in indianapolis (sic) with my being, apparently, conscripted into service of the CIA. I sa(y) apparently because i (sic) was a minor, and my father may have signed papers for me.

===============================================

REITZES ASKED ME QUESTIONS AND I ANSWERED HIM. HE PROMISED TO KEEP OUR CORRESPONDENCE CONFIDENTIAL, BUT BROKE HIS PROMISE.

===================================================

JUDYTH: What I state, above, is

(1)that Lee and I worked for the CIA in a project to kill Castro

(2)I was conscripted into the CIA though I was just a minor... if you look up the word 'conscripted' you will learn that I had no choice... this happened to me... I became a CIA asset. Did I know it at the time? Not at all.

(3) how did it happen? Dr. Canute Michaelson was responsible. I did not understand any of it at the time and my father might have helped... for me, it was just a matter of getting supplies.

I have stated that I can prove this (to the satisfaction of researchers who are honest). My book will provide the structure and the evidence to back up what I've said. Mr. Reitzes has never seen those materials, nor the evidence. Interestingly, those who have seen ALL my evidence, and had the details explained, have never ceased to defend me. These researchers are very different people, often at odds with each other over other issues.

Since Mr. Reitzes hasn't seen the evidence, but those who have seen the evidence defend me, it seems that Mr. Reitzes would have done well to have seen the evidence before decrying me.

=============================================================

He entraps the reader by rhetoric, just as Pamela and others have noted. He says I state I can prove everything I am saying...but he applies this even to statements that I have made that I clearly said were conjecture or guesses. He makes a grandiloquent remark:

"Judyth has stated numerous times that she has evidence to support all she says."

==================== he writes:

For example: Judyth Vary Baker, biographical blurb posted at Manatee High School alumni website. Online at <http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sanitize.htm>:"I'>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sanitize.htm>:"I really don't expect you to believe any of this without documentation and proof. Don't be concerned: I’ve got the proof. . . . I have my defenders and I've been able to prove everything I’m saying." Judyth Vary Baker, Internet forum post, May 7, 2004

JUDYTH: ============in the context of what I had said, Mr. Reitzes applied an iron-bound definition to a remark made meaning I had the evidence for my tstimony. He applies this to every dot and jot.

JUDYTH: ===nowhere in what I wrote to my high school classmate did I say I was an agent or employee of the CIA, as Mr. Reitzes tried to imply.=====================

<http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?act=ST&f=126&t=696&hl=&view=findpost&p=4498>: ". . . WHEN ONE HAS BEEN TRAINED AS A SCIENTIST, AND THEY HAVE WRITTEN AND REVIEWED AND READ MANY PAPERS, GENERALLY THEY ARE AWARE THAT IF THEY MAKE A STATEMENT, THERE HAD BETTER BE BACK-UP. SOME PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT TRAINED IN THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD MAY NOT REALIZE THIS RESPONSIBILITY. I TAKE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE OR BACK-UP FOR MY STATEMENTS SERIOUSLY. MU (sic) HAVING BEEN TRAINED IN THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD MEANS THAT I AM PARTICULARLY SENSITIVE TO THE ISSUE OF PROOF AND DOCUMENTATION." Judyth Vary Baker, JFKresearch.com post, November 2, 2002: ". . . I can prove every word i (sic) am writing here--- i (sic) can assure you that what we were doing was trying to create a biological weapon to get castro (sic) inn (sic) what would seem to be a natural death."

JUDYTH:======================== What I wrote there (at a time when I was very ill, just out of hospital, and suffering from after-effects of a brain concussion)of course was an expression that I have the evidence. I had to write in caps because I was seeing double. Mr. Reitzes does not show you any of my evidence. Why? He hasn't seen it, and he wants you to assume that it does not exist. I have refused to post most of my evidence on the internet to protect my witnesses and related evidence. I was wise to do so, since one of my witnesses reported she was threatened by Mafia after her name was posted. I have posted related materials useful to support my story, however. Some can be seen at The Education Forum, Spartacus. I have benunable to post materials here of the same type. I am told the situation will improve in the future. ====================================

But, back to the present difficulties. MR. REITZES TAKES THE MESS HE MADE OF MY STATEMENTS, ABOVE, AND PRETENDS THAT I CONTRADICTED MYSELF BY SAYING:

===========================================================

Reitzes:

Judyth (contends she)was never an employee or agent of the CIA, and never said she was.

==============================================================

JUDYTH: Mr. Reitzes uses his rhetoric to change things around. He does this all the time. WHERE, in the above quotes, etc. is there anything about my BEING AN EMPLOYEE OF THE CIA? AN AGENT? I was never an employee of the CIA. It is Mr. Reitzes' word, not mine. I was never an agent. Thatbis Mr. Reitzes at it again, not I.

======================

I repeat: of course I was never a CIA agent or employee and never said I was, though Mr. Reitzes tries to imply this, and that NOW I am changing my story. This is dishonest of him, and it's merely a rhetorical exercise.

It is one thing to be used by the CIA, to be conscripted, to be working for the CIA as an untraceable asset, as I was for the majority of the time in question. It is quite another to then have that morphed into my claiming I had been an EMPLOYEE or an AGENT.

Mr. Reitzes perhaps counts on the poor reading skills of his readers. I have more faith in their intelligence. He also is being dishonest by shifting what I said in this matter. He continues his dishonesty by then posting my objection to being called an AGENT...see below... as "proof" that I am now changing my story.

Mr. Reitzes should be ashamed of himself, but he isn't.

Below is his shameless 'evidence" that I changed my story, where I protest that I never was a CIA agent, and had been called one by Jack White. I have no bone to pick with Mr. White. I corrected the matter here (note that the word RECRUITED is different from the word CONSCRIPTED. I was never RECRUITED,as accused below. I said I had been conscripted, my will was not involved, my knowledge was not even necessary. A recruit knows what is going on. )

It is important to read carefully what Martin Shackelford says. I was never HIRED by the CIA. never recruited. :

===============================================

(2)REITZES repost:

2. Judyth Vary Baker, JFKresearch.com post, November 14, 2002 (5:59 AM): "I am VERY upset that jack (sic) White has been posting a message to my high school classmates saying my story is 'bizarre' and asking their opinion, including the erroneous statement that I claimed to be a CIA agent--I NEVER EVER CLAIMED SUCH A THING." Judyth Vary Baker, JFKresearch.com post, November 12, 2002:

". . . YOU SENT AN EMAIL (sic) MESSAGE . . . STATING THAT I SAID I WAS A CIA AGENT. THAT IS SOMETHING I HAVE N- E- V- E- R SAID!!!!" Judyth Vary Baker, JFKresearch.com post, November 14, 2002 (6:43 AM): "I was introduced to people I suspected were working for the CIA. I was never, myself, 'recruited' to my knowledge. I did sign loyalty oaths---three of them." Judyth Vary Baker, JFKresearch.com post, November 14, 2002

(7:56 AM): "When somebody first suggested i (sic) was CIA connected, I was shocked, it had not been that way in my experience. lee (sic) never said so in so many words." Judyth Vary Baker, JFKresearch.com post, November 15, 2002: "Was it a CIA project? I am not certain even of that, i (sic) assume it because CIA people I now know were involved."

Martin Shackelford, alt.assassination.jfk post, July 9, 2003: "There has never been a claim that she was hired 'by the CIA.' You repeat this claim twice, totally without foundation. You also falsely suggest that Judyth claims the cancer project was a direct CIA project." Martin Shackelford, alt.assassination.jfk post, October 28, 2001: "There is no claim that Judyth was a CIA employee." Martin Shackelford, alt.assassination.jfk post, December 17, 2000: "You keep assuming CIA employment is claimed. On what basis?" In a JFKresearch.com post of November 2, 2002, Judyth describes herself as "an untraceable asset."

Judyth Vary Baker, JFKresearch.com post, November 20, 2002: "Please, I have been told I was a CIA asset, that my time and labor was used by the CIA. To me, that is working for the CIA, but not as a member of the CIA, and some work I did before New oleans (sic) was also under the table. I will be happy to modify the terminology if it is manifestly misleading people, never my intention."

Martin Shackelford, alt.assassination.jfk post, August 5, 2004: "Dave, once again you compare your interpretations in order to find a contradiction that isn't really there. In 1 and 2, she indicates she was 'apparently' conscripted into the service of the CIA, and also that she wasn't a CIA agent or employee--no contradiction at all there."

1. Judyth Vary Baker, biographical blurb posted at Manatee High School alumni website. Online at <http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sanitize.htm>: "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." act=ST&f=126&t=696&hl=&view=findpost&p=4498>: ". . . WHEN ONE HAS BEEN TRAINED AS A SCIENTIST, AND THEY HAVE WRITTEN AND REVIEWED AND READ MANY PAPERS, GENERALLY THEY ARE AWARE THAT IF THEY MAKE A STATEMENT, THERE HAD BETTER BE BACK-UP. SOME PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT TRAINED IN THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD MAY NOT REALIZE THIS RESPONSIBILITY. I TAKE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE OR BACK-UP FOR MY STATEMENTS SERIOUSLY. MU (sic) HAVING BEEN TRAINED IN THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD MEANS THAT I AM PARTICULARLY SENSITIVE TO THE ISSUE OF PROOF AND DOCUMENTATION." Judyth Vary Baker, JFKresearch.com post, November 2, 2002: ". . . I can prove every word i (sic) am writing here--- i (sic) can assure you that what we were doing was trying to create a biological weapon to get castro (sic) inn (sic) what would seem to be a natural death."

=JUDYTH: ============ I urge you to carefully read this rebuttal and ask yourself why Mr. Reitzes is being dishonest. There is always hope that Mr. Reitzes will do a better job presenting the rest of his "objections"-- but there's precious little. Mr. Reitzes has tried to bury real discussion of the issues I raise under a mountain of disinfo. Atop that, he created this very strange and convoluted mass of questions, with enormous "footnote references" nobody in his or her right mind would want to take the time to read.

That doesn't mean the mass of stuff he put there was even applicable to his argument. Decide for yourself, if you have the energy to plow through it. Mr. Reitzes is counting on your believing him-- just because he says so.

I am counting on the good sense and intelligence of readers to see what Mr. Reitzes' methodology and rhetoric is all about. I doubt they'll bother to look at much more. Al, they have to do is look carefully at his beginning arguments to realize that he's practicing sophistry.

I invite honest researchers and readers to go next to The Education Forum, where this material and additional material on Mr. Reitzes' Wrongs can be accessed.

Best Regards to all,

Judyth Vary Baker

sorry about any typos...my eyes are not very good. I thank God I am still alive to defend myself against these misrepresentations. JVB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dear  Dawn, thank you for your observations.

I continue here to show how Dave Reitzes uses rhetoric and sophistry to create contradictions in my history where little or none exist. The man actually literally took my words "I can prove everything I am saying here" down to the tiniest possible bit of minutia.

Anyway, I will certainly look at "Yellow Roses," etc. Linguistically speaking, a  "voiceprint" can be made on written materials to prove the author.  Such a study can be done.

In the meantime, here is material that was just posted at Lancer about Mr. reitzes Wrongs, Continued.:

I have decided, looking at Mr. Reitzes' long, long list of stuff, to begin answering some of his various points here. Thbis is just a beginning, and we will start at the beginning, of Mr. Reitzes'lavish and extensive attempt to discfedit me as a witness.

To begin, Mr. Reitzes wrote this:

This is a rough draft. Comments are welcome.

(He has since refined his 'rough draft'and has published it as yet another website attack against me-- but let us press on...)

*************************

John McAdams's article on Judyth Baker <http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/judyth.htm> highlights many of the problems with those portions of Judyth's story that have been made publicly available; but I'd like to also take a minute to emphasize a few more of the contradictions inherent in Judyth's accounts to date."

==========================================================

JUDYTH: (I assume Mr. Reitzes is quoting from John McAdams'website about me here)

=====================================================

JUDYTH VARY BAKER: THE STORY SO FAR

(According to Judyth Vary Baker, Martin Shackelford, and Howard Platzman, Ph.D.)

Note: Howard Platzman is co-author (with Judyth) of "Deadly Alliance: Outline of the Conspiracy," various drafts of which Judyth has submitted to assassination researchers and prospective publishers. Martin Shackelford has been described by Platzman as Judyth's lead researcher.

----------------------------------------------------------------

JUDYTH: Mr. Reitzes seems to be referring here to an outline which he says I co-authored with Dr. Platzman. Technically speaking, Dr. Platzman authored this outline, which I then corrected. Several versions were written over time as I responded to additional questioning and more information was deemed important enough to add to the outline.

JVB: NOTE: this outline is not my book, and never was. It is an "Outline."

Of course various researchers and a couple of prospective publishers saw the outline. Mr. Reitzes also takes the time to reproduce a message intended only for my high school classmates, but he does not show you Dr. Platzman's outline. Why? In fact, it is very informative.

Well, let's go on and see what's next.....ah, how could I forget? Mr. Reitzes now takes information which I wrote to my classmates, and hijacks my letter to my friends to make the following statement:

===========================================================

REITZES:

Judyth Vary Baker worked for the CIA on an anti-Castro assassination project, and she can prove it. (1)

===========================================================

JUDYTH: Mr. Reitzes then produces examples, especially from the confidential emails that I sent him that he promised never to publish. But here they are:

quote #1:

(1) "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."

REITZES ASKED ME QUESTIONS AND I ANSWERED HIM. HE PROMISED TO KEEP OUR CORRESPONDENCE CONFIDENTIAL, BUT BROKE HIS PROMISE.

==================================================================

(quote #2:

2) Judyth Vary Baker, e-mail to Dave Reitzes, October 6, 2000: "I knew important people, and in indianapolis (sic) got conscripted into the CIA though (I) was just a minor."

REITZES ASKED ME QUESTIONS AND I ANSWERED HIM. HE PROMISED TO KEEP OUR CORRESPONDENCE CONFIDENTIAL, BUT BROKE HIS PROMISE.

===============================================

quote #3:

(3) Judyth Vary Baker, e-mail to Dave Reitzes, October 7, 2000: ". . . (Dr. Canute) Michaelson gave my name to the CIA as one of the bright brains in the country, and from that time on, I had access to equipment, funds, you name it, as well as special training involving doctors who got trained at Oak Ridge. . . . In short--and i (sic) can fill in many details--I had gone through projects starting in indianapolis (sic) with my being, apparently, conscripted into service of the CIA. I sa(y) apparently because i (sic) was a minor, and my father may have signed papers for me.

===============================================

REITZES ASKED ME QUESTIONS AND I ANSWERED HIM. HE PROMISED TO KEEP OUR CORRESPONDENCE CONFIDENTIAL, BUT BROKE HIS PROMISE.

===================================================

JUDYTH: What I state, above, is

(1)that Lee and I worked for the CIA in a project to kill Castro

(2)I was conscripted into the CIA though I was just a minor... if you look up the word 'conscripted' you will learn that I had no choice... this happened to me... I became a CIA asset. Did I know it at the time? Not at all.

(3) how did it happen? Dr. Canute Michaelson was responsible. I did not understand any of it at the time and my father might have helped... for me, it was just a matter of getting supplies.

I have stated that I can prove this (to the satisfaction of researchers who are honest). My book will provide the structure and the evidence to back up what I've said. Mr. Reitzes has never seen those materials, nor the evidence. Interestingly, those who have seen ALL my evidence, and had the details explained, have never ceased to defend me. These researchers are very different people, often at odds with each other over other issues.

Since Mr. Reitzes hasn't seen the evidence, but those who have seen the evidence defend me, it seems that Mr. Reitzes would have done well to have seen the evidence before decrying me.

=============================================================

He entraps the reader by rhetoric, just as Pamela and others have noted. He says I state I can prove everything I am saying...but he applies this even to statements that I have made that I clearly said were conjecture or guesses. He makes a grandiloquent remark:

"Judyth has stated numerous times that she has evidence to support all she says."

==================== he writes:

For example: Judyth Vary Baker, biographical blurb posted at Manatee High School alumni website. Online at <http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sanitize.htm>:"I'>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sanitize.htm>:"I really don't expect you to believe any of this without documentation and proof. Don't be concerned: I’ve got the proof. . . . I have my defenders and I've been able to prove everything I’m saying." Judyth Vary Baker, Internet forum post, May 7, 2004

JUDYTH: ============in the context of what I had said, Mr. Reitzes applied an iron-bound definition to a remark made meaning I had the evidence for my tstimony. He applies this to every dot and jot.

JUDYTH: ===nowhere in what I wrote to my high school classmate did I say I was an agent or employee of the CIA, as Mr. Reitzes tried to imply.=====================

<http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?act=ST&f=126&t=696&hl=&view=findpost&p=4498>: ". . . WHEN ONE HAS BEEN TRAINED AS A SCIENTIST, AND THEY HAVE WRITTEN AND REVIEWED AND READ MANY PAPERS, GENERALLY THEY ARE AWARE THAT IF THEY MAKE A STATEMENT, THERE HAD BETTER BE BACK-UP. SOME PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT TRAINED IN THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD MAY NOT REALIZE THIS RESPONSIBILITY. I TAKE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE OR BACK-UP FOR MY STATEMENTS SERIOUSLY. MU (sic) HAVING BEEN TRAINED IN THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD MEANS THAT I AM PARTICULARLY SENSITIVE TO THE ISSUE OF PROOF AND DOCUMENTATION." Judyth Vary Baker, JFKresearch.com post, November 2, 2002: ". . . I can prove every word i (sic) am writing here--- i (sic) can assure you that what we were doing was trying to create a biological weapon to get castro (sic) inn (sic) what would seem to be a natural death."

JUDYTH:======================== What I wrote there (at a time when I was very ill, just out of hospital, and suffering from after-effects of a brain concussion)of course was an expression that I have the evidence. I had to write in caps because I was seeing double.  Mr. Reitzes does not show you any of my evidence. Why? He hasn't seen it, and he wants you to assume that it does not exist. I have refused to post most of my evidence on the internet to protect my witnesses and related evidence.  I was wise to do so, since one of my witnesses reported she was threatened by Mafia after her name was posted. I have posted related materials useful to support my story, however. Some can be seen at The Education Forum, Spartacus. I have benunable to post materials here of the same type. I am told the situation will improve in the future. ====================================

But, back to the present difficulties. MR. REITZES TAKES THE MESS HE MADE OF MY STATEMENTS, ABOVE, AND PRETENDS THAT I CONTRADICTED MYSELF BY SAYING:

===========================================================

Reitzes:

Judyth (contends she)was never an employee or agent of the CIA, and never said she was.

==============================================================

JUDYTH: Mr. Reitzes uses his rhetoric to change things around. He does this all the time. WHERE, in the above quotes, etc. is there anything about my BEING AN EMPLOYEE OF THE CIA? AN AGENT?  I was  never an employee of the CIA. It is Mr. Reitzes' word, not mine. I was never an agent. Thatbis Mr. Reitzes at it again, not I.

======================

I repeat: of course I was never a CIA agent or employee and never said I was, though Mr. Reitzes tries to imply this, and that NOW I am changing my story. This is dishonest of him, and it's merely a rhetorical exercise.

It is one thing to be used by the CIA, to be conscripted, to be working for the CIA as an untraceable asset, as I was for the majority of the time in question. It is quite another to then have that morphed into my claiming I had been an EMPLOYEE or an AGENT.

Mr. Reitzes perhaps counts on the poor reading skills of his readers. I have more faith in their intelligence.  He also is being dishonest by shifting what I said in this matter. He continues his dishonesty by then posting my objection to being called an AGENT...see below... as "proof" that I am now changing my story.

Mr. Reitzes should be ashamed of himself, but he isn't.

Below is his shameless 'evidence" that I changed my story, where I protest that I never was a CIA agent, and had been called one by Jack White.  I have no bone to pick with Mr. White. I corrected the matter here (note that the word RECRUITED is different from the word CONSCRIPTED. I was never RECRUITED,as accused below. I said I had been conscripted, my will was not involved, my knowledge was not even necessary. A recruit knows what is going on. )

It is important to read carefully what Martin Shackelford says. I was never HIRED by the CIA. never recruited.  :

===============================================

(2)REITZES repost:

2. Judyth Vary Baker, JFKresearch.com post, November 14, 2002 (5:59 AM): "I am VERY upset that jack (sic) White has been posting a message to my high school classmates saying my story is 'bizarre' and asking their opinion, including the erroneous statement that I claimed to be a CIA agent--I NEVER EVER CLAIMED SUCH A THING." Judyth Vary Baker, JFKresearch.com post, November 12, 2002:

". . . YOU SENT AN EMAIL (sic) MESSAGE . . . STATING THAT I SAID I WAS A CIA AGENT. THAT IS SOMETHING I HAVE N- E- V- E- R SAID!!!!" Judyth Vary Baker, JFKresearch.com post, November 14, 2002 (6:43 AM): "I was introduced to people I suspected were working for the CIA. I was never, myself, 'recruited' to my knowledge. I did sign loyalty oaths---three of them." Judyth Vary Baker, JFKresearch.com post, November 14, 2002

(7:56 AM): "When somebody first suggested i (sic) was CIA connected, I was shocked, it had not been that way in my experience. lee (sic) never said so in so many words." Judyth Vary Baker, JFKresearch.com post, November 15, 2002: "Was it a CIA project? I am not certain even of that, i (sic) assume it because CIA people I now know were involved."

Martin Shackelford, alt.assassination.jfk post, July 9, 2003: "There has never been a claim that she was hired 'by the CIA.' You repeat this claim twice, totally without foundation. You also falsely suggest that Judyth claims the cancer project was a direct CIA project." Martin Shackelford, alt.assassination.jfk post, October 28, 2001: "There is no claim that Judyth was a CIA employee." Martin Shackelford, alt.assassination.jfk post, December 17, 2000: "You keep assuming CIA employment is claimed. On what basis?" In a JFKresearch.com post of November 2, 2002, Judyth describes herself as "an untraceable asset."

Judyth Vary Baker, JFKresearch.com post, November 20, 2002: "Please, I have been told I was a CIA asset, that my time and labor was used by the CIA. To me, that is working for the CIA, but not as a member of the CIA, and some work I did before New oleans (sic) was also under the table. I will be happy to modify the terminology if it is manifestly misleading people, never my intention."

Martin Shackelford, alt.assassination.jfk post, August 5, 2004: "Dave, once again you compare your interpretations in order to find a contradiction that isn't really there. In 1 and 2, she indicates she was 'apparently' conscripted into the service of the CIA, and also that she wasn't a CIA agent or employee--no contradiction at all there."

1. Judyth Vary Baker, biographical blurb posted at Manatee High School alumni website. Online at <http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sanitize.htm>: "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." act=ST&f=126&t=696&hl=&view=findpost&p=4498>: ". . . WHEN ONE HAS BEEN TRAINED AS A SCIENTIST, AND THEY HAVE WRITTEN AND REVIEWED AND READ MANY PAPERS, GENERALLY THEY ARE AWARE THAT IF THEY MAKE A STATEMENT, THERE HAD BETTER BE BACK-UP. SOME PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT TRAINED IN THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD MAY NOT REALIZE THIS RESPONSIBILITY. I TAKE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE OR BACK-UP FOR MY STATEMENTS SERIOUSLY. MU (sic) HAVING BEEN TRAINED IN THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD MEANS THAT I AM PARTICULARLY SENSITIVE TO THE ISSUE OF PROOF AND DOCUMENTATION." Judyth Vary Baker, JFKresearch.com post, November 2, 2002: ". . . I can prove every word i (sic) am writing here--- i (sic) can assure you that what we were doing was trying to create a biological weapon to get castro (sic) inn (sic) what would seem to be a natural death."

=JUDYTH: ============ I urge you to carefully read this rebuttal and ask yourself why Mr. Reitzes is being dishonest. There is always hope that Mr. Reitzes will do a better job presenting the rest of his "objections"-- but there's precious little. Mr. Reitzes has tried to bury real discussion of the issues I raise under a mountain of disinfo. Atop that, he created this very strange and convoluted mass of questions, with enormous "footnote references" nobody in his or her right mind would want to take the time to read.

That doesn't mean the mass of stuff he put there was even applicable to his argument. Decide for yourself, if you have the energy to plow through it. Mr. Reitzes is counting on your believing him-- just because he says so.

I am counting on the good sense and intelligence of readers to see what Mr. Reitzes' methodology and rhetoric is all about. I doubt they'll bother to look at much more. Al, they have to do is look carefully at his beginning arguments to realize that he's practicing sophistry.

I invite honest researchers and readers to go next to The Education Forum, where this material and additional material on Mr. Reitzes' Wrongs can be accessed.

Best Regards to all,

Judyth Vary Baker

sorry about any typos...my eyes are not very good. I thank God I am still alive to defend myself against these misrepresentations. JVB

Judyth,

if no one answers my question on lancer I ask them also here now:

1) Can you prove beyond reasonable doubt, that you were involved in a

"get Castro" project together with David Ferrie, Jack Ruby and Lee Harvey

Oswald ?

2) Can you prove beyond reasonable doubt, that you were Lee Harvey Oswald's

girlfriend/lover ?

3)Can you prove beyond reasonable doubt that you had prior knowledge of the

assasination ?

Or can you "only" prove that in a way that "honest researcher's =those who have chosen to not question you and your story ?" will be satisfied

with the evidence you present(ed).

Is it not fair to ask that Judyth, even if I am a "doubting Tom" in regard of your story.

Is it not a valid opinion of mine, when I say that if none of the points 1-3 are

answered by you with yes, that I can rightfully say, that for me that are "only"

claims, which are not proven, then.

So, just to satisfy my curiousity, can you prove points 1-3 beyond reasonable

doubt ?

You consider yourself an important witness, but can you prove that Judyth,

to the satisfactory of those who will look at your evidence that you will

present in your book ?

Will the reader, be left with no other choice than to believe you, or

will there be room for interpretation of your evidence.

Am i right in saying this :

If you have 100% proof about points 1-3, than your "claims" become facts.

If you have not 100% proof, than your "claims" are just that, unproven claims.

Up until now, the evidence you presented on the internet, was not satisfactory

to make facts out of your claims, I trust that the proof will be in your book.

And in reading your posts in response to Reitzes claims, well Judyth,

it is not Reitzes fault, when you are the one stating claims like

facts, only to later have a lot of explaining to do about, why you forgot

to mention that you were only guessing or interpreting based on paritally wrong information (as you say) given to you.

Did you not write the things Reitzes has posted, even if you now explain why,

and based on what information, you did write that ?

You are an importand witness (if not the most importand one alive) and participant, as you say, so I think one should expect from you, and one should also apply,only the highest standard in regards of presenting and evaluating your evidence.

Or am I wrong ?

Edited by Dave Weaver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Judyth,

Easy question don't know if you know the answer to this or not.

How was the relationship of Lee's brother Robert to Lee and via versa?

Do you know how close they were or were not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In answer to you, Nancy, Lee told me he loved his brother, but he considered him pedestrian in his thoughts, a conventional thinker. Robert betrayed his brother, as I have previously posted.

Nevertheless, your question is off-topic. I am attempting to keep this thread focused on the rhetoric of Dave Reitzes, and his methods of obscuring the truth by changing just one word, or by overwhelming the reader with a lot of extraneous material the reader will not bother to read and just miught assume is important material that supports what Reitzes says.

Similarly, David Weaver, Uwe, who has attacked me over at Lancer, has now landed here in this thread, and instead of devoting one word to the topic, once again makes his list of demands, which I already told him would be asnswered in my book.

If Mr. Weaver has a comment about Dave Reitzes' rhetoric and methodology and whether or not he think Mr. Reitzes is being honest in the way he has mounted his attacks, I will be happy to reply.

I am not pursuing this thread simply because of what Mr. Reitzes has done to me. He has also subtly presented information about Jim Garrison's case, and other subjects, where the same little tricks of rhetoric are used to create disinformation. In order to be able to distinguish where Reitzes' direct quotes stop and where his opinions start is not always easy in his essays. I hope to be able to present examples of these little tricks so that the student or researcher will not be sidetracked, confused, or led astray.

I will be presenting these soon. Meanwhile, I have a comment to make in the next post about Mr. David Blackburst's research and activities, after receiving some emails from him.

Best Regards,

Judyth Vary Baker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In answer to you, Nancy, Lee told me he loved his brother, but he considered him pedestrian in his thoughts, a conventional thinker. Robert betrayed his brother, as I have previously posted. 

Nevertheless, your question is off-topic. I am attempting to keep this thread focused on the rhetoric of Dave Reitzes, and his methods of obscuring the truth by changing just one word, or by overwhelming the reader with a lot of extraneous material the reader will not bother to read and just miught assume is important material that supports what Reitzes says.

Similarly, David Weaver, Uwe, who has attacked me over at Lancer, has now landed here in this thread, and instead of devoting one word to the topic, once again makes his list of demands, which I already told him would be asnswered in my book.

If Mr. Weaver has a comment about Dave Reitzes' rhetoric and methodology and whether or not he think Mr. Reitzes is being honest in the way he has mounted his attacks, I will be happy to reply.

I am not pursuing this thread simply because of what Mr. Reitzes has done to me. He has also subtly presented information about Jim Garrison's case, and other subjects, where the same little tricks of rhetoric are used to create disinformation. In order to be able to distinguish where Reitzes' direct quotes stop and where his opinions start is not always easy in his essays. I hope to be able to present examples of these little tricks so that the student or researcher will not be sidetracked, confused, or led astray.

I will be presenting these soon.  Meanwhile, I have a comment to make in the next post about Mr. David Blackburst's research and activities, after receiving some emails from him.

Best Regards,

Judyth Vary Baker

Mrs. Baker,

i don't care if it is a miss of the topic, Mr. Simkin is the boss here,

he will let me know, until now, he never had said anything negative

in response to what I wrote to you, quite to the contrary.

David Reitzes has not made up anything you wrote on the internet

over the years.

You just want to make us all believe he did.

Big difference !!!

And like with so many other things, it is just a smokescreen,

while you try to build up all the dark and evil forces in the readers

heads, who will serve as an excuse for your book not having the

proof it need's to let your claims become facts, in regard of your affair,

the "get Castro" project participation and the prior knowledge of the asssasination.

I and I'm sure many other's simply wanted to see your so called proof in our

lifetime.

Btw., you guarantee that the book will be published in 2005, or

can we expect your publisher to be threatend so he won't

publish it or other things that will prevent publication ?

What's next Mrs. Baker ?

You're a clever gal, at least you think you are .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To all:

I noticed Mr, Weaver also wrote:

Or can you "only" prove that in a way that "honest researcher's =those who have chosen to not question you and your story ?" will be satisfied

with the evidence you present(ed).

============== I wish to state that I do not mind questions. But the qwuestions need to be specific. Nancy Eldreth, for example, asked me what Lee thought of Robert. I answered her -- and can write a lot more if she emails me. There is a lot to say. Of course I do not mind people questioning my story. WHY would I be here, trying to help out, if I minded? But I am not happy to see hostility directed at me. And Mr. Weaver, your first three questions demand proof that literally takes a book to bring forth. The book will be out this year. yet you persist once again in asking questions that are equivalent to demanding of John Simkin, "prove to me that you have a Forum that presents everything honestly and allows preople to express their opinions honestly, and it had better be 100% proof." In other words, your questions, as I have told you before, are too huge to answer without presenting a book. And your questions are worded in a way that pretends interest but demands hundreds of pages of replies.

================================================

I would like to remind people that if this case had been easy to solve, it would have been solved by now. If what I have to say was easy to relate, I wouldn't need to have it in a book. The book would have been out by now had I not been threatened with lawsuits.

====================================================

Was I Lee's girlfriend? read the book, it will be coming out.

Did I know about the assassination ahead of time? Yes. How in the name of God could I prove that now? Was I supposed to have gone to a notary public and had a statement written out on Nov. 21 in order to be believed? Is it not enough that my own sister vouches for this, having been told in 1964? Anybody who sees a photo of me from 1963 and then the sad portrait of me, about to burst into tears, in 1964, would see what a profound change had occured to me.

No more cancer research. No college degree for twenty-five years. My whole life was ruined. ANYbody who knew me before and saw me after could hardfly believe I was the same person, it affected me so much.

==============================================

THE BLACKBURST PROBLEM

My primary concern about David Blackburst, who is really Stephen Roy, stems from the fact that none of us should hide our real names. I firmly believe that when a fake name is used, it should be consistent or it should not be used.

For example, Bob Dylan's real name is... heck, I can;t remember, but he is Bob Dylan to all of us and uses the name all the time. That's just fine.

But what if Bob Dylan appeared elsewhere and critiqued his own singing career by pretending to be somebody else, who was an expert on Bob Dylan, and liked him?

When Mr. Blackburst was Mr. Blackburst and criticizing me (or not) I had no objections. He had been Mr. Blackburst for years. But when he apppeared on a Lancer panel called "Lee Harvey Oswald in New Orleans"as n expert on New Orleans, he was not appearing as an expert on David Ferrie (that is what he is when he is Mr. Blackburst). Instead, he suddenly had become an expert on Lee Oswald in New Orleans. The other "experts"were Carol Hewlitt (who lived in Florida and knew a lot, but was especially a Mary Sherman expert), Jim Olivier (he qualified, IMHO, as a Louisiana native with years of interest in Lee Oswald), and finally, Steve Tyler (who IMHO qualified as a Clay Shaw expert, but he lives in New Orleans and knew a lot).

In other words, Mr. Stephen Roy, whom nbody had ever heard of, was sitting empaneled with three known experts. Had he used the name "Blackiburst"it would have been a fake name, so I assume this is why he used his real name.

But nbody was told this was David Blackburst, the Dave Ferrie expert. Nobody.

And yes, I regret that I have made an enemy, because long after all of you forget I wrote this, Mr. Blackburst will never forget I have said here, that this was dishonest of him and concerned me.

Would like to add that Mr. Blackburst...Roy... has accomplished a lot in obtaining important information about Dave Ferrie. But as Mr. Roy, not telling the people who paid their dollars that he was really Blackburst, he showed himself capable of playing a part, an act.

When he wrote to me that he believed I fell for 90% of the stuff out there that showed Dave Ferrie was a bad fellow, I realized that he did not understand my testimony at all after all this time. I have defended Dave Ferrie, almost alone except for Mr. Blackburst, as an innocent man.

Why should we care if Mr. Blackburst and Mr. Roy are the same people? We should care because this case is filled with such duplicity, falsehood and faked evidence and testimonies that we MUST know who our researchers are that we are supposed to trust.

Mr. Blackburst has presented himself as THE authority on Dave Ferrie. One problem. there is NO David Blackburst.

Mr. Blackburst made a statement that in his opinion it remained to be seen whether or not I was credible. This, after I had given Mr. Blackburst inside information that he finally did admit was not published anywhere. He was waiting to see about me, he said, after all that I had told hi. I have witnesses, i thank God, who know I told Mr. Roy/Blackburst things about Dave Ferrie that were never part of the record.

Tonight I received an email from Mr. Roy saying how upset he was because he had asked that his identity be kept a secret, and I had not kept my promise. I explained to him that Greg Parker had already revealed who he was.

Mr. Roy has stated in an email to me that Dave Ferrie had NO mice whatsoever in his apartment, that there was nobody who ever said this, since 1957. He never names the names of thes epeople. Though Perry Russo's testimony has been discounted by many, Perry described Dave, his apartment, and many of Dave's friends correctly, and NOBODY doubted that Perry Russo knew Dave and had bene inside his apartment.

Perry Russo described Dave as having mice and rats in his apartment in September, 1963. But Blackburst/Roy says NOBODY ever reported any mice after 1957.

I have run into so many such statements from Blackburst/Roy, and I have seen the slavish acceptance of everything that researcher has announced about Dave Ferrie, to the point that I have had to speak out. Blackburst/Roy HAS made errors, whether accidentally or on purpose.

I want to make it clear that Mr. Roy is a gentleman. Polite. Unlike many others, he is not verbally abusive. He is an intellectual, intelligent, and he indeed has spent countless hours amassing evidence in the case about Dave.

I also know that he failed to properly vet me, has never even spoken to me once by phone, declined my invitation to send him evidence, and in his email tonight to me contends that our schedules made it impossible for us to meet when I was willing to make an overnight flight to see him. I have been aware for some time that his interview methods in my case were non-existent, and that means there is at least one witness that he did not properly handle.

I am also aware, thrugh his emails, that he has photos of himself with multiple witnesses. The first obligation of a good researcher is to keep your witnesses from seeing or knowing each other so they do not contaminate each other. When I admonished Mr. Blackburst/Mr. Roy concerning the fact that his owning a photo of hinmself with several Ferrie witnesses was proof of sloppy investigative techn ique, and indeed, could corrupt the witnesses, he said he did not agree.

A few months later, Blackburst/Roy then said he never DID cinduct his investigation with witnesses tiogether, but unfortunately for him, he had already told me in prior emails how they all got together for a good time, etc.

Thus thew collective memories of these witnesses have blended through being corrupted by placement, late in their lives as witnesses, with each other. Memories blend and become similar under these circumstances. I no longer am perplexed that Blackburst/Roy keeps repeating how "all"his witnesses agree on this or that.

I am bringing up these matters because we MUST know who are researchers are and if they can be trusted. Mr. Blackburst/Roy also brought up in his email that I seemed to be discrediting Patricia Lambert and George Lardner. Indeed I do. I find both of these researchers/reports to lack objectivity in some areas of investigation into the assassination. Lambert hates Garrison with palpable passion. I was raised in the same town as Lardner and I also know what kind of feloow he is (God help me, I am making more enemies with every sentence I write!). In my opinion, loaded down with the onus of Ring Lardner, accused communist, as his uncle, dear old George would do anything to prove he was anything but, including whatever it took in the matter of handling Ferrie, and, later, Jim Garrison.

In short, telling me I should respect lambert and Lardner did little to raise my opinion of where Mr. Blackburst/Roy was really coming from.

I hope I am wrong.

I hope when Mr. Blackburst/Roy's book comes out about Dave, that it will be a fair and honest reportage of the complex, weird, talented, and fascinating near-genius that I considered Dave to v=be -- as well as my friend.

I do consider Blackburst more amiable and decent than many other researchers who often have enormous egos standing in the way. I do not detect any of that in Blackburst/Roy. But alas, I do detect an aim to make Dave Ferrie into what he was not, showing him as weaker, more stupud, without a goal in life, without drive or ambition or almost any saving grace. Dave had B.O. But he also had charisma, and brains. Blackburst./Roy's Dave Ferrie is not the man I knew. Of course, he never met Dave Ferrie, and one wonders HOW he ever got interested in him.

As I gaze over the terrain I now know so much better-- the researchers who are out to prove their theory for or against poor Lee Oswald-- the researchers who are out to 'get'each other--- we simply do not need fake names and identities in this volatile mix.

I apologize for upsetting Mr. Roy, but I feel it is for the health of the research community that everybody face the music here together. I have not published under a fake name, and I have paid a price, too, for that. Mr. Stephgen Rpy needs to face the fact that there is no room in the research community for fake names.

I hid under fake names for years and I am aware of the kind of mentality that goes with using fake names. I swore to myself that I would not hide under a fake name when telling the truth about Lee Harvey Oswaldm, no matter what the consequences. I even use my maiden name as my middle name.

I am a witness, and I feel a responsibility to speak out. There are somethings I will never be able to prove 100%. Witnesses rarely can obtain documents for whole days spent with a person of interest. HOW can I prove I was with Lee on August 9th? In fact, I do have considerable circumstantial evidence to prove this, but you will not find a photo.

Give me a break! Lovers having an affair who are both married will not create evidence of their affair. But nevertheless, read the bgook when it comes out. Then decide for yourself.

Meanwhile, I am interested in cleaning up the research community.

I brought up the fake name of a "Dave Ferrie"expert because we must have the truth at every level. It would be sad to see "Mr. Roy"praising "Mr. Blackburst's"book on Dave Ferrie. Not that he would ever do such a thing. But now he will never have to worry about the temptation.

People can decide for themselves if Mr. Roy deserves to be trusted as much as Mr. Blackburst. That is the way it should be.

I will now return to to the matter of Mr. Reitzes and his rhetoric and methodology.

REITZES' RHETORIC:

FEATURE NUMBER ONE: Present an objection in a sneering manner so that all dignity is stripped from it. Make sure that no element of respect can be found in any statement made about the person being criticized. SAtay consistent.

FEATURE NUMBER TWO: Create as much confusion as possible by producing big blocks of text so that people will get tired of reading it and will simply accept the big block of text as 'evidence'. Describe this biog block of text as supporting Feature Nukmber One.

FEATURE NUMBER THREE: Present a conclusion based on the two above-named features that states unequivocally that the two features 'prove' the point -- even if they do not.

FEATURE NUMBER FOUR: Go on to another objecdtion and repeat the above. The etire piece will be enormous and the person being attacked, if they attempt to answer, will just make the whole mass of junk even BIGGER than before, guaranteeing that NOBODY in their right mind will actually read the material.

AND, FINALLY: put it all together on a slick-looking web page with bells and whistles so that people will be impressed.

I will use the above-named features and show you how Mr. Reitzes used them on not only me, but on Mr. Shackelford, Jim garrison, and others.

Then we will look at John McAdams, because he, too, has slick websites that can fool people into believing that everything therein can be trusted, just becauise a lot of it can be trusted.

I am doing this not to defend myself-- for heaven knows this is just making me more enemies ...but because these people, who use sophistry and rhetoric to slant things, need to be shamed and exposed.

I am doing this because I CARE about the research community and the truth. I have been mocked and libeled, yes, by these people. But more than that, the truth gets killed if these people get away with it.

These tricks and tricksters and methods need unmasking. And so, sadly to say, do all those fake names out there...from Tempty Pockets to -- David Blackburst.

Sorry, David. I have done what is right.

Best regards,

Judyth Vary Baker

reference material:

Judyth wrote....

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Judyth,

Im not to up to date with your story, But I was wondering if you have or would take a polygraph test, say after your book is released to verify what you are saying is true?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have 100% proof about points 1-3, than your "claims" become facts.

If you have not 100% proof, than your "claims" are just that, unproven claims.

==============================================

One more comment about rhetoric. I use David Weaver's query, pos6ted above, as an example of rhetorical sophistry.

1) he places his question in a ytes or no, either/or situation.

Look at this question, as an example of why this can be a faulty form:

If you have 100% proof that I, David Weaver, exists, then your 'claim"becomes a fact. If you have not 100% proof that I, David Weaver exists, then your çlaim'is just that, an unproven claim.

He leaves no middle ground whatsoever.

I bring this up because David Weaver also calls himself Uwe. ASnd as a matter of fact, he is from germany. And as a matter of fact, David Weaver is not Uwe's real name. I believe it is Uwe Ubold or some similar last name (can;t quite recall thje spelling).

Can I prove these two men are the same people, 100% Of course not--not without photos and going to Germany and getting birth certificates, and the whole nine yards.

Can i, however, make a good, logical case that these two men are one and the same? (AND ARE WE NOT TIRED OF FAKE NAMES BEING USED HERE, WHEN JOHN SIMKINS HAS ASKED US TO USE OUR REAL NAMES HERE? SEE WHAT I MEAN ABOUT CLEANING UP THE RESEARCH COMMUNITY AND HAVING OUR REAL NAMES USED? ) Of course, David weaver might be the 'real'name and Uwe ubolde or whatever the fake name.

But am I not to be believed because i cannot come up with birth certificates?

What level of evidenc eis needed to prove this matter?

Dio we, in fact, need DNA testing (100% proof, well, 99% proof) in order to get you, the reader, to accept the fact that they are most likely one and the same person?

Similarly, it is a fallacy to say that siomply because I have a big revelation to make that i MUST produce MORE than theusual amountof evidenc enecessary to be believed. That is mere rhetoric.

if in fact, Uwe were accused of killing Kennedy, and I had proof that Uwe was most likely David, to a veyr high degree, and should not be executed, would a jury need 100% proof to decide not to give the death penalty? No... if there is reasonable doubt, the man does not go to the electric chair.

Similarly, a WITNESS may not be able to prove with dcuments, etc what in fact he oir she EXPERIENCED. But if enough evidence--and the testimonies of supporting witnesses (I have that) are presented to produce reasonable belief that the person is telling the truth, then the testimony of that person deserves a closer look, more scrutiny. And if a closer look shows that even more evidence keeps popping up that supports the testimony-- which keeps happening in my case-- and that after years of attacks, that testimony cannot be shaken, then 100% evidence may not be necessary to provide basis for belief.

For a last example:

One of my sons has darker skin than his other four siblings, and he always wondered if his father was his real father. Answer, Yes. Does he believe it? He finds it hard to believe. I have shown him that his grandfather had darker skin, and that he had a 25% chance, statistically, of getting darker skin.

Is he 100% convionced that his father was my husband? No.

A DNA test would prove it 100%.

But 100 years ago, DNA tests didn't exist. 200 years ago, genetic tables were little known. I could have been accused 200 years ago of cheating on my husband having this darker skinned son. Abd yet I know who the father is.

The fact is, rhetoric may make unreasonable demands while looking reasonable.

Do not ask me to produce 100% evidence or otherwise I have a mere claim. What I can produce is a lot of circumstantial evidence that is linked together in an unbroken chain, plus the testimonies of living witnesses, plus the fasct that new evidence has been found because of my testi9mony.

In the book, it will be made clear.

The next post will return to the rhetoric and methods used by Dave Reitzes. It is my hope that my efforts will help uncover the problems I see, of distorting facts with rhetoric devices, of fallacious thinking such as I have just shown regarding David weaver's either/or --100% -or -nothing demands, and so on. Thoughtful, intelligent readers should demand the following:

1) the real identity of the researcher and their real biography

2) quotes that are not snipped in order to change their meanings

3) balanced and fair reportage

4) restraint so that name calling and tags such as "team Judyth" for supporters or calling somebody a xxxx doesn't enter a research article

5) that fallacies, logical snafus, and rhetorical devices be discouraged as potentially dishonest

6) that accuracy of reportage be the goal, despite personal feelings

best ragards,

Judyth Vary Baker (yes, it is my real name)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you have 100% proof about points 1-3, than your "claims" become facts.

If you have not 100% proof, than your "claims" are just that, unproven claims.

==============================================

One more comment about rhetoric. I use David Weaver's query, pos6ted above, as an example of rhetorical sophistry.

1) he places his question in a ytes or no, either/or situation.

Look at this question, as an example of why this can be a faulty form:

If you have 100% proof that I, David Weaver, exists, then your 'claim"becomes a fact.  If you have not 100% proof that I, David Weaver exists, then your çlaim'is just that, an unproven claim.

He leaves no middle ground whatsoever.

I bring this up because David Weaver also calls himself Uwe. ASnd as a matter of fact, he is from germany. And as a matter of fact, David Weaver is not Uwe's real name. I believe it is Uwe Ubold or some similar last name (can;t quite recall thje spelling).

Can I prove these two men are the same people, 100% Of course not--not without photos and going to Germany and getting birth certificates, and the whole nine yards.

Can i, however, make a good, logical case that these two men are one and the same? (AND ARE WE NOT TIRED OF FAKE NAMES BEING USED HERE, WHEN JOHN  SIMKINS HAS ASKED US TO USE OUR REAL NAMES HERE?  SEE WHAT I MEAN ABOUT CLEANING UP THE RESEARCH COMMUNITY AND HAVING OUR REAL NAMES USED? ) Of course, David weaver might be the 'real'name and Uwe ubolde or whatever the fake name.

But am I not to be believed because i cannot come up with birth certificates?

What level of evidenc eis needed to prove this matter?

Dio we, in fact, need DNA testing (100% proof, well, 99% proof) in order to get you, the reader, to accept the fact that they are most likely one and the same person?

Similarly, it is a fallacy to say that siomply because I have a big revelation to make that i MUST produce MORE than theusual amountof evidenc enecessary to be believed. That is mere rhetoric.

if in fact, Uwe were accused of killing Kennedy, and I had proof that Uwe was most likely David, to a veyr high degree, and should not be executed, would a jury need 100% proof to decide not to give the death penalty? No... if there is reasonable doubt, the man does not go to the electric chair.

Similarly, a WITNESS may not be able to prove with dcuments, etc what in fact he oir she EXPERIENCED. But if enough evidence--and the testimonies of supporting witnesses (I have that) are presented to produce reasonable belief that the person is telling the truth, then the testimony of that person deserves a closer look, more scrutiny. And if a closer look shows that even more evidence keeps popping up that supports the testimony-- which keeps happening in my case-- and that after years of attacks, that testimony cannot be shaken, then 100% evidence may not be necessary to provide basis for belief.

For a last example:

One of my sons has darker skin than his other four siblings, and he always wondered if his father was his real father. Answer, Yes. Does he believe it? He finds it hard to believe. I have shown him that his grandfather had darker skin, and that he had a 25% chance, statistically, of getting darker skin.

Is he 100% convionced that his father was my husband? No.

A DNA test would prove it 100%.

But 100 years ago, DNA tests didn't exist. 200 years ago, genetic tables were little known. I could have been accused 200 years ago of cheating on my husband having this darker skinned son.  Abd yet I know who the father is.

The fact is, rhetoric may make unreasonable demands while looking reasonable.

Do not ask me to produce 100% evidence or otherwise I have a mere claim. What I can produce is a lot of circumstantial evidence that is linked together in an unbroken chain, plus the testimonies of living witnesses, plus the fasct that new evidence has been found because of my testi9mony.

In the book, it will be made clear.

The next post will return to the rhetoric and methods used by Dave Reitzes. It is my hope that my efforts will help uncover the problems I see, of distorting facts with rhetoric devices, of fallacious thinking such as I have just shown regarding David weaver's either/or --100% -or -nothing demands, and so on. Thoughtful, intelligent readers should demand the following:

1) the real identity of the researcher and their real biography

2) quotes that are not snipped in order to change their meanings

3) balanced and fair reportage

4) restraint so that name calling and tags such as "team Judyth" for supporters or calling somebody a xxxx doesn't enter a research article

5) that fallacies, logical snafus, and rhetorical devices be discouraged as potentially dishonest

6) that accuracy of reportage be the goal, despite personal feelings

best ragards,

Judyth Vary Baker (yes, it is my real name)

So in short Mrs. Baker,

you have now confirmed that you don't have the proof to make your claims

become facts in the eye of the public.

Maybe you have a problem with my style of asking questions ?

Mrs. Baker, all your talk about my or anyone other's

style of writing, has no relevance to your storie's veracity.

I am german by chance, and left school some 20 years ago, I hated

rhetorics class, cause I am not needing it, never planned

to become a writer or holding speaches.

I'm always saying what I think the way I do, and your

try to use that against me shows only that you're running

out of arguments.

Your talk about who I am, and what my real name is,

has nothing to do with your storie's veracity, trying

to use that against me only shows that you are running out of arguments.

Btw. look through your mails, I think I told you my realname

in my first mail, as I usualy do when I have contact with

members on JFK forums.

You may also ask Martin, Pamela, Wim, Anita they also

know my real name.

Nancy and Wim even have my phone number and address.

You are the one claiming deeper knowledge since 1999,

not me or anyone else,you are promising for years to

produce the proof,and it is you that could not satisfy the publics curiousity and

justify their willingness to give you the benefit of the doubt.

You have not presented one shred of evidence that prooves

that you were Lee Harvey Oswald's girlfriend/lover and

did also participate together with David Ferrie ,Jack Ruby and

Lee Harvey Oswald in a "get Castro" project.

All you do is claiming Mrs. Baker, about those 3 points.

And btw. your point about witness contamination is to be regarded

as classical, remember what you did answer when I said

that you are contaminating yourseslf by doing research of your

own.

Bingo !

How often did you speak with Anna Lewis before she made her testimony ?

How often did you speak with any other witness yourself before they

made their testimony ?

Nothing what you came and do come up with after you gave your

innitial testimony to Martin and started researching (well who knows

when you realy started it anyway) will help you to have your

claims about points 1 and 2 become accepted as facts.

And as you said, you can not prove that you had prior knowledge,

so sorry, it's just a claim then and can never become a fact in the

eye of the public, unless maybe someday there turns up a tape

with that conversations you had with Lee.

I never doubted that you did highschool cancer research,

I never doubted you where promoted, I never doubted you

worked at Reily's.

Cause you showed proof of that, about the other things you

only made unproven claims.

And backing away from 100% now makes me feel absolutely

certain, that your book will only prove what good researcher

you have become, but not that you did what you said you did

(see points 1 and 2) .

Edited by Dave Weaver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tonight I received an email from Mr. Roy saying how upset he was because he had asked that his identity be kept a secret, and I had not kept my promise. I explained to him that Greg Parker had already revealed who he was.

Hi Judyth,

I did indeed send you that quote on Stephen Roy I found on the Lancer website from one of my google searches on Ferrie. I knew you were interested in knowing Blackburst's real identity... in fact, had a right to know the real identity of the person you were dealing with. What I did not do is publicly "out" him as some might conclude from your statement.

I want to make it clear that Mr. Roy is a gentleman. Polite. Unlike many others, he is not verbally abusive. He is an intellectual, intelligent, and he indeed has spent countless hours amassing evidence in the case about Dave.

I lost all confidence in him when he allowed me to argue about Ferrie's death... pretending he did not know any of the arguments/information I was using regarding Proloid etc. I later found out a doctor had pointed out all the same information to him a couple of years previously.

Now that you've exposed him, I may as well now add he did some trolling a few years ago on an African-American newsgroup using his real name. You want an insight into his character? I suggest you read the posts he made to that newsgroup.

As for his claim that the use of the fake name was due to a threat... why the hell then would he use his REAL name at conferences?

Lastly, I'd also point out that David Atlee Phillips was also "polite". But does that mean you could accept anything he said on face value?

greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Greg, I stand corrected about your 'outing ' Mr. David Blackburst ---who is actually Mr. Stephen Roy --- I am the one Mr. Roy should blame for making this information public, not you.

I will take that responsibility. I am grateful for the excellent research you do. I have found you to be consistently honest and reliable. We needed you back in 1964!

I have been told by Mr. Roy that I had better have an 'epiphany"and remove the information posted here. I have also been ordered to remove his name from any mention in my book.

He has also told me to apologize.

It is important that we be aboveboard here.

As a witness, I had to speak out. I do apologize for making Mr. Roy feel that he has in some way been harmed.

Mr. Roy wrote to me that he intends to publish his book under his real name and also that a number of people already knew his real name.

If this is so, why is he so upset?

I am here to get to the truth.

I am concerned with Mr. Roy's data gathering methods. He has broken rules that ethnologists understand should remain intact, e.g. where taboos are concerned, such as information handed out by a former sexual partner. Such witnesses should be interviewed without other witnesses knowing it. Mr. Roy has attended social functions with multiple witnesses involved with Dave Ferrie, and they all knew he had come to interview them. Such an approach contaminates the interviews..

As for why we should know his real name, it is because this person is offering special information to students and scholars on the Internet about Dave Ferrie. His information is quoted constantly. "David Blackburst says..." Well, we need to know who ave ferrie is in the business of the Kennedy Asassination and its periphery.

I know his information may be biased, because of how he has treated me. For example (and this is just ONE example) I have said I was Dave Ferrie's friend. Yet Mr. Roy writes that "all" of Dave's friends say there were no mice in Dave's apartment in 1963.

When I protested that both I and Perry Russo have said otherwise, he discounted Russo, saying he wasn't a close friend. And I do not count, I must conclude.

Perry Russo brought up mice and rats in cages in Dave's apartment in September, 1963 as a side statement while describing (correctly) the interior of Dave's apartment. Nobody asked him, he did it spontaneously.

But Perry Russo doesn't count. And I do not count.

There is much, much more to say.

At the very least, we must know who this "Ferrie expert" whom everyone quotes REALLY is.

I regret making him angry--I apologize for making him feel uncomfortable ---

and I realize that he is angry with me and he will now no doubt attack me.

But despite the attacks to come, I will not erase the truth from these pages.

The research community has the right to know who is who.

Best regards,

judyth Vary Baker

Edited by Judyth Baker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To try to answer Mr. Crowe's question about taking a polygraph, three things come to mind. I will list them below. But I primarily wish to make the statement that I am on record not once but twice about agreeing to take polygraphs

1. I asked Sixty Mintutes to give me a polygraph to prove I was telling the truth. This was before I understood that false positives can occur, and in emotional matters such as with me (I saw Lee shot before my eyes), the ability to repress emotions about the loved one may be impossible when asked questions. Polygraph basically says if you are telling the truth, there will be no reaction. But I was reacting to questions about Lee emotionally. This is because I had not spoken about him for over three decades. Sixty Minutes refused to polygraph me when I requested it. They said they had recently done a special on polygraph testing and they advised me that polygraphs can have false positives. They proved innocent people were being accused of stealing. They also told me that even if I passed a piolygraph, the very act of taking a polygraph means there are serious concerns that the story is not true, and that they had proved that prepped individuals, such as spies, know how to pass a polygraph. They had proven that guilty people can pass polygraphs, while innocent ones can fail them. They advised me NEVER to submit to a polygraph, citing the fact that would I get on a plane with a two to ten percent chance of crashing?

2. Nevertheless, I again agreed to take polygraph, if there were three of them given, soon after my first brain concussion, and just after I got out of the hospital, when approached by a film-maker (bot Turner). I believed that if one test might be a false positive, it would be impossible, statistically, for all three to turn up that way. This I wished to do and went on record. But then my doctor refused to allow me to travel because of fear of subdural hematoma spreading (brain bleed).

In the end, I had a second brain concussion and was ordered to see how much brain damage was done. I was subjected to an enormous battery of tests, including the MMPI II, which is routinely used to detect criminal and evasive behavior. I was given a letter which has been shown to key individuals. I am not prone to story telling. I am not delusional. I have no mental problems. I have a printout of all the tests. I have shown these to selected individuals. I am, however, a victim of traumatic stress syndrome because of what I have been through. I have been advised that the MMPI II is a document even more reliable than a polygraph, and since it says I am not delusional, and that I am an honest person, all within normal bounds in all axes except for physical damage to my brain, I do not have to go through a polygraph, and its stigma, and its potential to provide a false positive, to prove I am a truthful person.

Do not believe Mr. Weaver--who uses a different name other places---that I do not have evidence. I attempted to tell him that I do not have Lee's DNA on a dress somewhere. But I have enough evidcence. He must wait for the book. He acts as if he has not heard this before. And, once more, he throws everything off track.

We will get back on track (if there are other things you want to say, sytart a new thread). We have just finished talking about Mr. Blackburst--who is really Mr. Roy. We are looking into the methods and rhetoric of Mr. Reitzes, but we brought up the identity matter of prominent researchers in the case, because they influence the general public, especially on the internet. The biggest and flashiest websites proclaim Lee Oswald DID IT. wel;l, he didn't do it.

And anyone without prejudice knows how the evidence was stacked against Lee Oswald. Therefore we need to look carefully at the identities and motives of these people with their big, fqancy websites. And why, in fact, they have devoted so much time and effort to attacking me, a newly emerged witness. Others about my age are also now speaking up. We are a group of people who waited until our primary enemies were dead so we wouldn;t be hurt. Sadly, I've been plenty hurt. If friends hadn;t sent me money recently, I would have been homeless. I've lost EVERYTHING for speaking out. You woukld not lioke to be in my shoes.

But back to the problem: WHO are these researchers, what are the rhetorical tactics that they use to obscure the truth, and shoulkd they be allowed to hide behind fake names?

For example, David Weaver is NOT David Weaver. That's a fake name. He lives in germany and he should use his real name on this forum where the real name has been requested. Mr. David Weaver has ignored that rule.

We need to know where our sources of information come from, especially when they report interviews and then post conclusions made from those interviews.

To return, then, to Mr. Reitzes' identity, methods and rhetoric, is my primary concern in this thread. Mr. Reitzes' "research"on me comcerns me-- this man who has written so many pages about me has never met me. He has never met my primary witnesses. He has never met my primary defenders. He has never, to my knowledge, met any of the people who have met me. He has never spoken to me on the phone. He has never seen anything but stolen and, in some cases, faked documents.

Concerning who Mr. Reitzes is, does anyone know how he makes his living?

I know he owns sharpeis and likes music and perhaps writes poetrty. His websites are extensive and expensive. They have become elaborate and linked with John McAdams primarily. Mr. Reitzes has used other names, and I will post them here. He does not seem to have a job, for he never mentions a personal life. I would be happy to be proven wrong, but he seems to exist solely to run these websites.

As we seek to understand what good research is, it is imperative, too, that we know something about the life and agenda, if it exists, of the researcher. The TRUTH MUST BE RESPECTED. We all know that disinfo, spin doctoring, and propaganda exists. Mr. reitzes must be cleared of any accusation that he doctors the truth. In this thread, we will inspect what he has written and make our decision. We will tyr to find out who he is, and if he can be trusted. Thousands of people read what he writes every day.

We know that history can be bent out of shape. Josephus was a very famous historian at the very time his people were wiped out in Jerusalem and Medina. Is there anyone who knows Josephus' life well who would take-- without a grain of salt-- Josephus' written opinions about his Roman masters as accurate? Was he just a tiny bit influenced by the fact that he will get his head cut off if he says something naughty?

Who is Reitzes' master? He is the protege of John McAdams. There is an old thread here about McAdams that I will also eventually revive.

We must know who the researcher is. If the researcher's name is false,why? Who is the master of the researcher who hides his name from view?

I am not hiding evidence. I am preserving it from harm, as those who have personally interrogated me know full well. I have seen my witnesses threatened and coerced, I have had my home entered and selected items destroyed, so I now exert great caution. I am speaking out at great cost. As Mr. Weaver denounces me for not placing my entire book, it seems, online, I have paid my dues. I've lost my job, my health, and, obviously, Mr. Weaver's respect. My dear God, it's been hard. He just impedes. He knows very well all this must wait for the book.

.

In the next post, I will try to address additional examples of Mr. Reitzes'use of rhetoric. I think it will be educational.

NOTE: IF YOU WISH TO ASK ME QUESTIONS, ETC. OFF TOPIC, START A NEW THREAD. I WILL IGNORE QUESTIONS OFF-TOPIC ON THIS THREAD. To Uwe (David Weaver): I suggest you present real questions to me instead of shouting objections that I do not have evidence. That is not what this thread is about. Wait for the book. It won't be that much longer. And start using your REAL NAME here, as you have been asked to do.

Best regards,

Judyth Vary Baker

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...