Bill Byas

Thank you. How about, did Judyth or Oswald know: Gordon Novell Perry Russo Bill

Bernice, You may notice tha this place is full of people who are ver4y strangely hostile, I do'nt know why. I do'nt really care who says what in they're Bio, I thought we came here to share ideas and reaearch. Of course, I do remember you from Rich's forum where I use to post before he began charging money. I miss that forum because where else can somebody like me 'rub elbows' with Master Researcgers like Jim DiEUgneio and James Fetzer and Jack White? Anyway. They used to call Dallas the CIty of Hate. I think this is the FOrum of Hate. Bill

I'd just like to remind Judyth that this quwestion is here. Bill

Dear Bill: your name DOES seem suspicious, since it is an anagram for "I Will B Biased." I think both of you should stop calling erach other names. You criticized me, Bill because I asked you to read the book. I apologize. I should have mentioned that the book hasn't comer out yet. Since you had read andcommented on other posts where we mentioned that the book was not yet out, I was irritated with what seemed to me a repetitious post. Rest assured that the book will be out. Meanwhile, I believe that John should delete with XXX's any names that people are called on this forum. That includes words such as HOAX, CREEP, JERK, and so on. Mr. Byas, I would like to ask you what you can contribute to the discussion besides posting and then reposting the dsame questions over and over again. I, for one, wish to answer every query as fully as possible. I cannot visit this forum often. I can visit other forums, such as Lancer, even less often. Partially because of eye problems am having, partly because I have a slow computer most of the time and it takes forever to load anything much of the time. All I ask is that the discussion here be kept civil. Wim should not be calling you names. You should not accuse Wim of stalking you. Please stay on topic-- the assassination of Kennedy and related issues, and stop getting personal. I would like to add that Wim is getting better in handling his language. DUTCH is his first language and I assure you, the Dutch are awfully direct and get right down to brass tacks, so some things said in English look trivial and irritating to Wim. I suggest that both of you cool off, and perhaps even ask John Simkin to delete the worst interactions between you. Bill, I really would like to know what your interest is in the Kennedy asaassination, and why you persist showing up here if you are not a researcher OR not trying to get some first-hand information. I have diliogently attempted to answer questions. Some have to wait for the book because the issues or explanations are simply too complex. There are hundreds of pages of information that have been released. there is the Black Op radio interview. There is the documentary The Love Affair which many libraries made copies of. If you have a specific question, I will try to answer, though it may not be timely if this stupod compuiter doesn't perform better, and also, I pray God you can read this because I can hardly see the keyboard. May we all be able to work together peacefully and with respect for each other. I am a living witness, and, as John said, I will defend myself. If we can stop ad hominem attacks and just try to get information to each other, progress can be made. Hopefully, both of you will lay off the name calling and focus on issues instead of each other. But I still believe Wim is right to worry about who you are, Bill--your name, Bill, is a suspicious one and I feel it would be good if you would supply more biographical information if you feel comfortable about that. Right now, your name itself is like Mr. Phil O. Sophy over at alt.conspiracy.... IS Bill Byas your real name (William= will, B ... Biased")? It might well be, but a little more info would help. Do you have a website or something? Best regards, Judyth Vary Baker Thank you, Judyth Vary Baker <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I did not come here to talk about me. I came to talk about the killers of John F. Kennedy-a man and President I admire-and Lee Oswald, a young man who cried out I'M JUST A PATSY. I made the mistake of getting interested in your story. Since then I have seen nothing but attacks and inuenndo from you and your friensds, and you never answer the questions I ask. I apologize fore being ineterested in JFK and Lee Oswald. I aplogize for caring. I guess I came to the wronfg place. Bill

Dear Bill: your name DOES seem suspicious, since it is an anagram for "I Will B Biased." I think both of you should stop calling erach other names. You criticized me, Bill because I asked you to read the book. I did not criticize you at all. I askwed how to order the book you told Mr.Reiztse to read. Bill

Mr. Simkin, Mr. Wim Dankbaar appears ot be 'stalking' me at this forum, posting attacks at me every time I post. Am I with in my rights to ask that Mr. Dankbaar cease and decist? Is not Mr. Dankbaar bound by the same rules of civillity as everyone else? Bill

Judyth, Johnny Roselli and John Martino are consiered prime suspects. Did you know either man? Did Oswald (to your knowledge?) Bill

OK, this is the very last toime I will explain. I was quoting someting I saw that Bob Vernon posted about Wim (or maybe it was a Vernon email someone else posted-sorry, I do'nt remeber now.) I ASSuMEd Wim saw saw it to. I ASSuMEd he wojld know what I was talking about. If I was spyiong on Wim for Bob Vernin I would be dumbn indeed to SENFD WIM A EMAIL FROM BOB VERNOIN FOR GODS SAKE!!!!!!! This is the lasty time I explain. I feel soprry for Wim if he thinks everyone is spying on him. I do not know Bob Vernon. I do not care about Bob Vernon. I don not care abouyt James Files or whatever else Bob Vernion is promoting. I am begin to undestand how Judyth feels when she says all peopl edo is attack her because that is all she and her friends do to me. Bill

Sorry, I never met Bob Vernon. Bill

She jumps down my throat for asking abuot how I can purchase the book of her's SHW JUST TOLD DAVE RIETZERS TO READ!!!! just like her friend Mr. Wim calls me a spy ==!!!!!== for asking if theirs any evidence for her story. Nice people! Bill the Spy

Judyth, How csan I order your book? Bill <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Anybody can you tell me how to order Judyth's book? I do'nt see any listing at Amazon.com Bill <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Is Judyth no longer posting here? Bill

Is Judyth still posrting with us? Bill

Judyth, Johnny Roselli and John Martino are consiered prime suspects. Did you know either man? Did Oswald (to your knowlegde?) Bill

Judyth, How csan I order your book? Bill <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Anybody can you tell me how to order Judyth's book? I do'nt see any listing at Amazon.com Bill

Judyth, How csan I order your book? Bill

I am sorry to see Judyth apparenlty has no response for Mr. Rietzes. I take it their are no lies in his article after all then? In that case it seem Mr. Wim owes Mr. Rietzes an apology, if Mr. Wim is an honorable fellow. Bill

You do'nt think Oswald was ever impersonnated? Bill

I hope Judyth takes the time to correct Mr. Rietze's lies. Bill

Run and hide, little man! Bill

OIC. Its evil to accuse dead people if your Dave Reizrse, because they are not alive to defend themself...but its OK to accuse dead people if your a 'WITNESS' with 'TEXTIMONY' UNDER OATH, because then dead poeple magicaly come back to life and defend themself! Great argum,ent Mr. Wim! You are such a superoir person! Bill

Wim, I do'nt know what you mean by his 'methods' does'nt he pretty much look up things in books? If Reites is wrong the only thing to do is to say what is right. If you do'nt people will say your 'copping out' and then guess what?-Mcadams wins. Sincerenly, Bill <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Bill, I could write a book about Reitzes' methods, but I don't have the time and interest. Let me suffice with one that is enough for me. If you go to the alt.conspiracy.jfk newsgroup and do a serach for Joe West, you will see that he tries to portray Joe West as a conman. Joe West is dead and he can't defend himself. My opinion of Joe West is that he was a great man who tried to do (and would have been succesful had he lived) the only sensible thing in this case as to solving the question if there was a conspiracy involving multiple shooters: exhume the body of JFK. Wim. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Reitzes does a lot of questionable things. One of his favorite things to do is to use something to invalidate a witness he doesn't like while using the same thing to promote witnesses he likes. I know that sounds confusing so I have provided an example. "...polygraphs are a notoriously unreliable indication of dishonesty in the first place, and most courts will not accept polygraph examinations into evidence for precisely that reason. The following is a selection of online articles that might be of interest regarding this topic:..." http://www.jfk-online.com/rubydef.html "Prior to Shaw's preliminary hearing, Garrison ordered a polygraph examination for Perry Russo; the test indicated "deception criteria" when [Perry] Russo claimed to have known Lee Oswald and Clay Shaw." http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100okeefe.html "In March, Garrison had assigned James Kruebbe to administer a polygraph examination to Bundy. Kruebbe's analysis was that Bundy was lying." http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100bundy.html In short, Reitzes is a hypocrite. He attacks Perry Russo and Vernon Bundy for failing a polygraph examination while he defends Jack Ruby even though he himself failed exactly the same test. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I e-maile dReitzes and heres his responsre. =====QUOTE STARTS===== Subject: Re: Simkin forum Date: 9/11 12:33 AM From: Dreitzes Bill, Your correspondent seems to have gone to a lot of trouble to try to discredit me, even scouring my footnotes for something to use against me! I honestly had no idea I was so important. \:^) Unfortunately, in order to "get" me, your correspondent misrepresents some things and takes some statements out of context. Of course polygraph examinations have been shown to be unreliable, so naturally I do not rely upon them; the point I made in the articles your correspondent cites is not that I place any particular value upon polygraphs, but that Jim Garrison did -- and lied about them when they failed to support him. It was Jim Garrison who ordered polygraph examinations for Perry Russo and Vernon Bundy; it was Jim Garrison who deep-sixed the results when they weren't what he wanted; and it was Jim Garrison who lied about them later on (even under oath). See my articles for details. I present plenty of other evidence that Perry Russo, Vernon Bundy, and Jim Garrison were liars, and none of it has anything to do with polygraphs. Your correspondent must agree with me, I gather, as he doesn't challenge any of this evidence. He just seems to want to attack me. Your correspondent also scoured the footnotes of my Ruby article and seized upon the statement that "polygraphs are a notoriously unreliable indication of dishonesty in the first place, and most courts will not accept polygraph examinations into evidence for precisely that reason." This is absolutely true, of course; if I placed any emphasis on polygraph exams, I would have discussed Ruby's exam in the body of my article, instead of relegating the subject to a footnote, where I responded to claims made by another researcher. Unfortunately, your correspondent doesn't seem too familiar with the evidence, as he errs in stating that Jack Ruby failed the polygraph examination ordered by the Warren Commission. Of course Ruby passed the examination. Do I care? Not really, otherwise I'd have emphasized it in the body of my article. Even if one were to accept the validity of polygraph exams, my article lists several specific reasons this particular examination of Ruby's was compromised. In the article I present plenty of other evidence relating to Ruby, and I gather your correspondent can't challenge a word of it, otherwise he certainly would have done so, don't you think? Perhaps your correspondent is confused because, as discussed in my article, the HSCA's panel of polygraph experts found several reasons to doubt the original polygraph operator's conclusions; however, I cite several examples showing that the panel's conclusions don't hold up to scrutiny. For example, they interpreted a physical reaction of Ruby's to suggest he may have been lying when he denied knowing Oswald; but I point out that, in order to accept this, one would also have to accept that Ruby lied when he denied being a Communist: this latter question "evoked by far the most dramatic breathing reaction" of the entire examination. So there's no reason to question the polygraph operator's judgment when he concluded Ruby was telling the truth -- unless one wishes to argue that Ruby secretly was a Communist. At any rate, the whole point of the two articles cited by your correspondent is, in the case of "The JFK 100," that Oliver Stone's movie "JFK" is an unreliable source of information; and, in the case of "In Defense of Jack Ruby," that the assumption that Ruby was part of a conspiracy is unwarranted and ill-informed. Does your correspondent disagree about either of these things, and can he refute either thesis of mine? He doesn't say. He doesn't even seem to care what my articles are actually about. Again, it seems he only wants to attack me. I guess this sort of thing passes for research in some quarters. Thanks for writing, and take care. Dave P.S. Don't expect any meaningful evidence from Wim Dankbaar. If he had anything worthwhile, he would be eager to show it to everyone, instead of sitting around calling people names all the time. =====QUOTE END===== I think Reitzres has a point about Mr. Wim. Bill

Wim, I do'nt know what you mean by his 'methods' does'nt he pretty much look up things in books? If Reites is wrong the only thing to do is to say what is right. If you do'nt people will say your 'copping out' and then guess what?-Mcadams wins. Sincerenly, Bill <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Bill, I could write a book about Reitzes' methods, but I don't have the time and interest. Let me suffice with one that is enough for me. If you go to the alt.conspiracy.jfk newsgroup and do a serach for Joe West, you will see that he tries to portray Joe West as a conman. Joe West is dead and he can't defend himself. My opinion of Joe West is that he was a great man who tried to do (and would have been succesful had he lived) the only sensible thing in this case as to solving the question if there was a conspiracy involving multiple shooters: exhume the body of JFK. Wim. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Reitzes does a lot of questionable things. One of his favorite things to do is to use something to invalidate a witness he doesn't like while using the same thing to promote witnesses he likes. I know that sounds confusing so I have provided an example. "...polygraphs are a notoriously unreliable indication of dishonesty in the first place, and most courts will not accept polygraph examinations into evidence for precisely that reason. The following is a selection of online articles that might be of interest regarding this topic:..." http://www.jfk-online.com/rubydef.html "Prior to Shaw's preliminary hearing, Garrison ordered a polygraph examination for Perry Russo; the test indicated "deception criteria" when [Perry] Russo claimed to have known Lee Oswald and Clay Shaw." http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100okeefe.html "In March, Garrison had assigned James Kruebbe to administer a polygraph examination to Bundy. Kruebbe's analysis was that Bundy was lying." http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100bundy.html In short, Reitzes is a hypocrite. He attacks Perry Russo and Vernon Bundy for failing a polygraph examination while he defends Jack Ruby even though he himself failed exactly the same test. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Paul, You have come up with a damageing point. I am going to e-mail Reiztrs and see what he says. Bill P.S.I notice Mr. Wim has not answered my quewstion of why it is OK for James Files and Judyth Baker to incrimalate dead people but he says it is evil for Dave Rietzes to do the same!

I was hoping she'd have some real evidnece.... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Bill, (a)Just who are you? Your 'bio' gives no real info. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Are you her mommy?

Judyth says--- " Lee Harvey Oswald was an innocent man who was a government intelligence agent. He faithfully carried out assignments such as entering the USSR and pretending to be Pro-Castro. I have proof that he was posing this way in order to be useful to our government during the Cold War. " What is thgis proof? Bill

She looks like Marina??? I do'nt see that at all. Bill