Greg Burnham

Well done! Hey, better late than never.

Hmmm. It doesn't? Perhaps it begs a different question. Ok, then, who the hell are these people? Does anyone even know besides Judyth? How do/can we substantiate their claims? Or, an even better question: Have their claims been substantiated yet? At this late date, it is reasonable to expect that Judyth wouldn't be surprised to find that SUBSTANTIATION is a prerequisite to acceptance. It's not like she just released her story. She's been public for more than a decade, yet there remains very little corroberation for her claims. I know, I know, she still could be telling the truth...but, THAT does not persuade. Trust me, I believe her. Ok? I really do and always have. But, I could never go to the bank with that! And neither can she or you guys. It just will not fly as it stands. I have remained neutral in this discussion for the most part. But now, as an advocate FOR her, I must say, this is not convincing or persuasive--even for me--and I believe her!

Well, I think that's an improvement. But, still--the implication "begs the question" again! Read your own post below and tell me what you really think, please. I'll even give you a clue... the key phrase is "Also ignored..." -- Point: "If there is nothing there of relevance" to begin with, then there is "nothing there of relevance to ignore" either! So, again the presentation begs the question by assuming there was something there to ignore in the first place--but that is exactly what's in question....

Agreed. Evidence is not the same thing as proof. And sometimes evidence is counter-indicative to the claim or claims being made, in terms of support. However, if you believe that "evidence is not proof" then please refrain from "begging the question" in your presentation. As an example, you said [in bold my emphasis]: "Also ignored is the Charles Thomas family that has verified that their father/grandfather/uncle worked in clandestine matters and was engaged in activities that Baker described to them, proving she had been with Oswald and Thomas in New Orleans. Baker presented the family with irrefutable proof of having known Charles Thomas." I thought this was evidence only...not proof? It would be preferable that you not frame testimony/evidence as though they were "already facts in evidence" for the jury when they are not.

Ok, Tink--now "we're into it" -- you and me...again. It's been a long time. "Tally ho, here we go--I'm in!" To whom exactly are you referring in your post? Jim or Noel? Don't you think that the term "anything" is fallacious by definition in this context?

Tink, Noel Twyman is also my friend. For the record, I confronted him with this dispute years ago and advanced (as devil's advocate) the theories that you and others expressed. Noel stood by his original conclusions and was unwavering in his conviction. His position is unequivocal and firmly based not just on the photographic interpretation, but on witness interviews that he conducted. I haven't communicated with him in a while, but I would be very surprised if he changed his position. Noel is known for his attention to detail--and has voluntarily corrected errors and omissions without being requested to do so. It is the nature of his personality. He has nothing to prove and no image of himself to which he must cling. But alas, we post erroneously to a thread about Judyth Vary Baker.

Burnham on Re-Cross asks: You say that "Mac is acknowledged" to have been...etc. Question: Who has acknowledged that "Mac" worked as a musician for Marcello? What does "is acknowledged to have been in New Orleans, etc." --mean?? I might be behind here, but is the audio tape available in which he says he saw them together? I'm confused, he warned Baker that she should not speak out because he had a heart condition? This is obviously an example of "begging the question" -- PLEASE! C'mon, now. First, are the "slashes / " used above indicative of their lack of certainty as to who in their family was involved in "clandestine matters", such as, it might have been our "father OR grandfather OR uncle"? Or do they mean all of them were involved in clandestine activities? Or probably it means that this individual who workded in clandestine activities was the grandfather to some, father to others, and uncle to others--or something like that. If I assume that it is the latter, is there any reason beyond pure "faith" that I should take their word for it? How do I or we know that this family's "father, grandfather, and uncle" was involved in "secret" (clandestine) matters? Even if we established a high probability that this family is telling the truth, where's the proof...after all, it was SECRET? Without substantiation, it is fallacious to conclude that their statement constitutes PROOF that JVB was with Oswald and whoever in New Orleans. It "might" be true, but it hasn't been proved. Has the "irrefutable proof" presented by Baker to the family of Thomas been made available to researchers for analysis? Is the "statistical analysis" by Dr John DeLane Williams regarding Baker and Oswald's activities [inappropriately presumed] available for researchers to scrutinize? (begging the question again!) I might just be way behind on all of this information, so please forgive me if that's the case...but--even if Thomas worked at the border crossing during that time: 1) has that been proved? 2) so what if he did? 3) I can't keep up with all of this! IOW: Am I expected to assume the veracity of every premise upon which these arguments are or will be built? Will the consequent conclusions postulated also be built upon unsupported assertions? What I'm saying is simple: I concede that IF the "premises" are true, then the case in favor of Judyth is formidable. The problem is that THE PREMISES THEMSELVES have not been substantiated! Now, I am not stupid. I understand that even so, she may be telling the truth. However, this is a real problem as far as PERSUADING anyone else! Well counselor, the burden of proof is on Judyth, as you invited. Has she met it?

Mike, Just for the record, I agree that Jim has also crossed the line, IMO. In fact, Jim admitted that himself when he recommended that the irrelevant posts be removed, including his own. I have been friends with both Jim and Jack for over a decade. So watching them bicker is kinda yucky. But, Jim drew first personal blood with Jack, too, IMO. And it was not appropriate. However, Jim reacted to what he perceived as a personal attack on Judyth -- with his own personal attack on Jack. Unfortunately, that really is what happened and how the nastiness began. Perhaps all "personal" attacks, even of folks not currently posting themselves (JVB) should have been stopped before the temperature rose to its current level. As it is, we seem to have a "pile on" effect, where those, like you, who even admit to only having a very narrow field of expertise (ballistics, that does NOT include sufficient knowledge about JVB) are weighing in to the discussion and doing so with considerable force. So, while I agree that both sides have crossed the line, one should not expect that a person will remain non-defensive when a mob is attempting to back them into a corner. Moreover, I think the only reason you injected yourself into this thread is because you have a bone to pick with Jim on another topic relating to ballistics, which is why this thread has been steered away from JVB and re-directed to ballistics. IOW: Hijacked. I think it is unreasonable for anyone to think that thread topics won't drift sometimes, but there is a difference between drifting and steering.

Perhaps Jim will invite both of us on his radio show to debate...each other. However, the topic will need to be expanded beyond mere ballistics, which is only one aspect of this case. Are you up to it?

Greg, have you read her book Lee Harvey Oswald? No Mike, I haven't. I don't know if you recall (since it got buried in the enormity of the other thread), but I stopped researching her story completely about a year after I interviewed her. I concluded, based upon that interview, that: 1) I personally found her believable (although granted parts of her story were a strain, she herself was credible); 2) I couldn't find any motive for her to "make it all up" -- NONE -- and I still can't; 3) I had not the time, nor the interest, nor the funds, nor the necessary resources to pursue the details contained in 40 year old memories about an extra-marital affair concerning an individual that did NOT kill JFK--as told by someone who was 19 years old at the time who knew him nearly 40 years previous; So, I haven't read or bought any books about her story. The main reason I haven't is because even if I assume everything she has said to date is 100% true, it bears only in the most minimal way upon the JFK assassination. For those who already know that LHO did not act alone (or perhaps did not act at all) it has NO value. We already find him to be "humanized" without her story. And for those who believe he is the lone nut--NOTHING will ever convince them that he isn't. --NOTHING WILL-- It is already OBVIOUS to those who aren't disingenuous. Those who deny the obvious will not be persuaded by the obscure...

Paul Groody told me the same thing when I interviewed him before my appearance on "Infamous Gravesites" a documentary featuring the "Exhumation of Lee Harvey Oswald/The Norton Report".

Thanks Dean--and good luck!

Dean, Although I commend you for attempting to resolve the issues, I think that the "form" of your mock trial is counter-intuitive to our system of jurisprudence and hence inadequate to the task. Here's the reason why: a "defendant" is not required to prove their innocence; not required to prove they are NOT guilty; not even required to "take the stand" in their own defense. Moreover, such refusal to take the stand is NOT to be considered by a jury as indicative of guilt. It seems to me that the burden of proof is on those who are claiming she is a fraud (guilty of prevarication). So far, I am not personally convinced either way. But, by my way of thinking, if faced with "having to choose" definitively one way or another--in the absence of additional evidence--I would choose to believe her. However, I'm not faced with having to make any choice at all. So I don't. I understand why those who believe her would continue to fight for this information to get widely known...for if true, some of it is important (just not the marginally related to JFK part). But, I fail to understand why those who don't believe her make such a point of loudly declaring her story to be either outright false or too confabulated beyond their concept of reality to even partially accept. At this stage, IMO, we'd have a mis-trial. Remember, she is "innocent of being untruthful" unless and until she is proven otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt. That's why I think this "form" is inadequate to the task. Judyth is the one making the positive assertion. Her detractors are accusing her of being guilty of prevarication. She shouldn't be attempting to prove a negative i.e., "I'm not lying" -- Yet that's what she is forced to do in this model. GO_SECURE monk

Agreed. However, here's why I asked. As far as I'm personally concerned--I would not use ammo that I hadn't stored myself or ammo that I didn't know "who or how" it had been stored. This would apply even more if the weapon make and model I chose (for a very important "assignment"--as opposed to target practice) had itself not been produced for nearly 20 years prior to my using it [Mannlicher Carcanos retired from Italian Army circa 1940 and all production was discontinued by 1945]. As I think you will agree, delitirious effects on elements of precision, as they negatively impact accuracy, tend to be cumulative and also tend to compound each other even further if more than one are present. So, the age and condition of the weapon are factors, as is the age and condition of the ammunition. The healthy physical appearance judged by the naked eye is not necessarily indicative of a reliable weapon or ammunition. Since you tend to believe that LHO was the lone shooter, he apparently was capable of being quite thorough in his execution of his task and quite composed in the aftermath. 1) He pulled it off -- that alone is huge. (Not so much for the marksmanship, perhaps, as for the audacity and coolness under extreme pressure). 2) He escaped immediate death! No one returned fire let alone killed him on the spot in defense of the POTUS). 3) His escape from the immediate crime scene worked quite well--escape route was effective. 4) Upon arrest and interrogation he was calm and cool (after initial altercation) and never admitted guilt. And there's more, but I'll stop with that much for another reason... It seems inconsistent to me that he would choose an MC for the job? Doesn't seem to jibe with his level of competence (which was quite high). He employed a weapon that was about 18-23 years old--now, he could have completely refurbished and/or cleaned it up for the task, but there is no record that he did. The scope has alignment problems that he didn't correct. Maybe he could "shoot round it" -- but even if true, why would such a thorough guy leave that glaring loose end? He even had a weird "sling" attached to it. Odd. As for the ammunition, it was traced back to Western Cartridge Company in Chicago. It was part of a batch of Four Hundred Thousand (400,000) that was manufactured in 1954. It was ordered by the USMC, who had NO weapons in which it could be used. The FBI believed it was ordered (probably for CIA) by the USMC for "concealment" purposes. But, this was 9 year old ammo whose provenance and method of storage was unknown to Oswald as far as we can tell from the documentation. Using that weapon, prticulrly with THAT ammo, just doesn't seem consistent with his "competent" behavior, IMHO.

Mike, On a slightly different, but relevant note, in your opinion, how old is "too old" for ammunition? I know what the answer for me personally would be, and there are some variables that could extend or diminish the "safe shelf life" expectancy. But, in general terms, how long would you feel comfortable and confident to use 6.5 WCC ammo after its original date of manufacture?

Great story, Mike. Freeman was indeed a hero--without question. Were you one of those he rescued? If not, is there a specific reason that this story is significant for you? I'd like to hear your story, if you want to share. Were you in combat? Wounded? Deployed and in the line of fire, etc.? If you can't say, I understand... I'm confused as to the relevance of your reference to the University of Indiana. It is a cheap shot that has no bearing on anything. If you are confident in your criticisms of Jim Fetzer's arguments perhaps it would be appropriate to remain focused there else your own credibility might suffer. But, that's just my opinion. Feel free to disregard it.

I agree 100%, Jack. It is unknowable given the evidence available. I would be equally foolish to claim that there definitely is a God, or conversely, that there definitely is NOT a God. Both positions are based on assertions that are less than adequately supported.

Thanks a lot for your reply. Sounds interesting. I do have the list of calls from Ferrie's employer, the law offices of Gill, Bernstein, Schreiber and Gill; while we can't be sure he made every call, it is likely that he made many of them. I have checked into some of the numbers, but not others. (It'll be great when we eventually have "historical" phone listings online. For now, it's a matter of getting old phone books.) I do know that Ferrie had extensive phone and mail contacts that summer with a man in Washington D.C. named George Augustine Hyde, regarding Ferrie's possible ordination by the "Orthodox Catholic Church of America." Hyde was born in July 1923, attended (but left) traditional Catholic seminary, taught in high school, was ordained in July 1946 in Atlanta in the "Orthodox Church of Greece," moved to D.C. in 1950, became a bishop in the "American Holy Orthodox Catholic Church" and "Apostolic Eastern Church" in May 1957. in 1960, he founded the above-mentioned "Orthodox Catholic Church of America," with "an active pastoral outreach to gay people as members and priests." (In 1970, Hyde would be elected Archbishop of this church.) I need to look into Hyde more deeply, and try to check some of the other numbers Ferrie likely called. Any information in this regard would be appreciated.

Thanks Judyth! A few other questions, but you might not have had any way of knowing this information unless... Let me first ask, were you EVER at Gill's office? Thanks--

Great observations, John! And, as to your question, IMO, the answer is unequivocally: NO!!!

Magic Ballot defeats Magic Bullet!!!

To: Stephen Roy & Judyth Baker, I have a few questions to which either (or both) of you may have answers. Do you have the New Orleans telephone number that was used by David Ferrie from the summer of 1963 to call various individuals in Washington DC? Just to be up front, I have had the number--verified by the FBI--since 1998, as well as the list of all of the numbers he called from that number during that period of time. Have either of you any knowledge as to the significance of the numbers he called (or from which he received calls) or done any research on the subject? Thanks--

I don't mean to butt in--but IMO, the answer is no. It would make it a faulty scope that was mounted on a weapon that had also been rotated. It is remotely possible that the rotation could compensate for the inaccuracy created by the faulty scope, but it is highly improbable, and completely unpredictable. IOW: you couldn't do it (compensate) on purpose with any degree of confidence, and "doing it by accident" is a fantasy. It would be like you aimed at Deer #1 using a known faulty scope, but before squeezing off a round, you applied rotation to compensate for the faulty scope-- and voila` -- you accurately shoot Deer #7 right between the eyes by random chance. SCORE!!!

I haven't read that one yet, Mike. Thanks, I'll pick it up right away.

Hey John, I know this is a very late reply, but I've never read this post. Anyway, you said: "I will tell you what happened next later." Well, what happened next?