Glenn Viklund

Yes, it did actually become interesting. But not because of the reasons you've outlined, but because this demonstrates very clearly why anything you say should be taken with a huge grain of salt. That's why. First, you declare that Witt is a xxxx and involved in the assassination. And that the Cuban looking guy and Witt knows each other and thus he is also accused of complicity in this crime. But just like that, ABRAKADABRA - you change your mind about Witt. When you discover (after taking part of his testimony for the first time?) that he was actually saying something that apparently fits with another of your claims, then we are told that now, Witt is indeed a believable guy. What does it mean, though? Lets see: If Witt is telling us the truth about how he understood the situation it means that: (1) He couldn't possibly be part of any conspiracy, since he actually claims something that according to you, was one of the ideas behind the alleged Z film-alteration; namely to hide that the limo ever stopped. (2) It means that the cuban looking guy for all we know is just as innocent a bystander as Witt, despite these men being close to each other during the assassination. (One can assume that Fetzer doesn't often visit crowded events similar to a presidential motorcade - it's not uncommon that perfect strangers actually do talk to each other, or even sit down for a moment together, in all certainty it proves no one guilty of anything) Have you decided yet just how you're gone cherry pick your way out of this? So, who is it that doesn't have a clue here, I wonder?

"There's more to it than Oswald". Is what GM has said for many years, unless I'm mistaken. Where can you find this in the Warren Commissions report?

Quite possibly it takes the beliefs that there was "another film", showing a different reality of what happened? Of course you are not. After throwing me to the wolfs five minutes after having announced to you that I had documentation that proved Judyth Baker was lying, nothing surprises me about you. You have no judgment and your understanding of what constitutes evidence is zero. What else is new? "JVB is the real deal" - hehe, the most ridiculous position anyone has ever tried to get away with on this forum. But you don't understand this and you never will. "Witt was lying and the two of them were obviously a couple". Pure baloney, without anything to back it up, which you never do. You want this and that to be a fact and therefor it is. Laughable.

"Now in reference to the Three Amigos. Just because Fetzer is rude and cranky does not mean he is not right about the JFK assassination. Fetzer knows damn well it was a full blown coup d'etat. As for David Lifton, he has consistently been one of the most brilliant minds in JFK research, certainly a lot smarter than me. And experienced old hand like Lifton also recognizes the the JFK assassination was a coup d'etat and like Fetzer, Lifton recognizes that Lyndon Johnson has blood up to his armpits in the 1963 Coup d'etat" Being an agnostic to the JFK case, this pretty much indicates where things are today. 48 years on, no one in the CT community agrees with anyone else about much. There are always a whole range of 'issues' surfacing. A couple of weeks ago, someone clamped down hard on me for using the description "absurd" - to a statement that claimed "there are now more evidence of a conspiracy than there is that the Holocaust took place". If that was the case, then tell me what happened at Dealey Plaza and who was behind it? Having been a member of McAdams forum for a few years, I have to say that the discussions in that forum are more to the point. Plenty of disagreements, but the issues are discussed far more up front. Not this much BS, far from these personal attacks and more importantly, the evidence are discussed - here they are dismissed. This TUM thing - it's been discussed, debated and thrown in the garbage a long time ago. Rightly so, in my opinion. But it just takes one little thing to ignite the never-ending story of the CT community agreeing on - nothing. Basically. Where does one truly learn about this case?

Quite possibly it takes the beliefs that there was "another film", showing a different reality of what happened?

OIC. That's the problem? Tell me Lee, where was DL right? This Bledsoe-matter is just too much for you? The rest is kosher.

Lifton, Fetzer and Thompson. Not a patch on Martin, Chase and Short though, Jim. Once a quarter they pop out of their holes to bitch and moan about each other. Constantly swapping allegiances depending upon the topic. Calling each other, and anyone who disagrees with them, idiots I wish they'd meet in a car park somewhere to hit each other with their handbags and leave the rest of us alone. It's an unfortunate situation that it will be these three lined up for the TV slots the year after next. God help us. And I'm an atheist. Lee, While I agree that you are probably right about the 50th and the three amigos, I think your underlying assumption that it isn't deserved, is wrong. First, I can't imagine that Josiah Thompson is calling anyone an "idiot". Nor have seen Lifton use such language. I may be wrong. Lifton and Thompson deserves the attention, they were out there long before most others, with theories and questions about the assassination that had never before been raised. Some of those questions are still to this day relevant and unanswered. Personally, fwiw, I disagree with quite a few of their conclusions, as they stand today. But they both deserve a lot of respect for their efforts, which I believe are genuine, to find the truth about the JFK assassination. You, like a few others, have the drive and possibly the skills to move things forward one way or the other. In short, I don't understand your constant need to jump on those people who actually were among the first to ask questions about the JFK-case. Fetzer is another dimension of this, and I'm not referring to him. Have you thought about this yourself? If you think David Lifton is after the truth - then more fool you. He deserves no respect from me and will not receive any. That's ridiculous, Lee. Those who have spent the better part of their life to this could be accused of quite a few motives. Not being after the truth is not one of them. You can do better than that?

Lifton, Fetzer and Thompson. Not a patch on Martin, Chase and Short though, Jim. Once a quarter they pop out of their holes to bitch and moan about each other. Constantly swapping allegiances depending upon the topic. Calling each other, and anyone who disagrees with them, idiots I wish they'd meet in a car park somewhere to hit each other with their handbags and leave the rest of us alone. It's an unfortunate situation that it will be these three lined up for the TV slots the year after next. God help us. And I'm an atheist. Lee, While I agree that you are probably right about the 50th and the three amigos, I think your underlying assumption that it isn't deserved, is wrong. First, I can't imagine that Josiah Thompson is calling anyone an "idiot". Nor have seen Lifton use such language. I may be wrong. Lifton and Thompson deserves the attention, they were out there long before most others, with theories and questions about the assassination that had never before been raised. Some of those questions are still to this day relevant and unanswered. Personally, fwiw, I disagree with quite a few of their conclusions, as they stand today. But they both deserve a lot of respect for their efforts, which I believe are genuine, to find the truth about the JFK assassination. You, like a few others, have the drive and possibly the skills to move things forward one way or the other. In short, I don't understand your constant need to jump on those people who actually were among the first to ask questions about the JFK-case. Fetzer is another dimension of this, and I'm not referring to him. Have you thought about this yourself?

Martin, I think you are confusing the manner in which Jim Fetzer presents his ideas with the ideas themselves. Any rational person has to admit there is very strong witness testimony to the limo stop, for example. The manner in which Jim Fetzer presents this information may grate, but he has sufficient witness testimony on his side that argument in and of itself cannot be ignored. There is also the observations at Parkland of an avulsive wound in the back of the head, but according to ITEK, the extant film shows no debris exiting the back of the head. In fact such material exiting the rear of Kennedy's head should have been one of the predominant features of the film, were it genuine. I do not agree with all of Dr. Fetzer's ideas, nor the manner in which he speaks to those with whom he disagrees. But separate the man from his claims, and give thought only to the claims. OK, not all the claims, but ones which have obvious corroboration -- the limo stop for one. Sometimes confusion and conflict within the community are not caused by the works of Jim Fetzer, but by the extraordinary way evidence was falsified in this case, enough to make the collective research community's heads spin in collective confusion. Having said that, I do wish Dr.Fetzer would tone it down, if only to gain a more sympathetic hearing on points where I believe he is on solid ground. Regards, Daniel Daniel, Fetzer "toning" it down? Well, according to the article there's been six hours of interviews done with JT. It is a safe bet to assume that Fetzer is not going to tone anything down about that, once more of this becomes published.

Well said, Martin! Hmmm, no that last one was difficult to figure out..

Well, whatever it is that I "don't understand" - you are certainly not the right person to change that. That much I understood a long time ago.

I think Josiah Thompson made a great performance in this short little snippet. Truly well done in six minutes. It was personal, humorous and underpinned by a very thoughtful tone. And Thompson is probably spot on; The explanation from the umbrella man was so unimaginable and completely far fetched that it may well be true.

Having been a member of EF for a year and a half, I am seriously beginning to think the other way; what can be excluded from having anything to do with the Kennedy assassination?

Sort of like half-pregnant, you mean? No, sort of like reality: people both lie and tell the truth. The trick is to figure out why they are lying and what is the lies and what are the truths. For example, Marina Oswald was very vulnerable in 1963-64 and told a whopping amount of lies that tended to incriminate Lee Harvey Oswald. 40-50 years out of the pressure cooker and the net of US intelligence, Marina Oswald tells a completely different story. Knowing the context and why Marina was lying in 1963-64 is critically important. So what do you think about Oswald's name supposedly appearing in Mary Sherman's address book? That would tell support the accounts of what Judy Baker and author Ed Haslam have told. The bottom line is I currently believe Judyth Baker's general account about being Oswald's summer 1963 mistress in New Orleans. I am willing to change, though. There are 2 careful researchers who believe her accounts: Ed Tatro and Martin Schackleford. Those are 2 guys who kick the tires on cars before they buy them. First, Shackelford didn't kick a single tire when it comes to her asylum business. That much I know for sure, he got seriously suckered by Baker on that one - he made the fatal mistake of taking Baker's sayso for granted. Here's a quote from Judyth Baker, page one of this thread: "Mr. Lifton spoke to me in a single telephone conversation lasting about an hour and a half. He illegally taped that conversation. He soon broke his promise to keep our conversation confidential, perhaps because the biography of Lee Oswald he had been working on for over ten years was hopelessly inaccurate, since he missed our love affair altogether, even though I have witnesses and considerable supporting evidence (much is circumstantial evidence, but it´s good, nevertheless, because I have so much of it). Lifton seems to have decided to discredit me rather than go to the trouble of rewriting his book. Debra Conway helped him write a portion of this book and admits to the friendship and influence of David Lifton. Conway shared materials with Lifton that she promised to keep confidential "to the grave." Lifton, knowing nothing about my actually interesting and exciting life, proposed that I made up everything because I was simply a bored housewife with nothing else to do who decided to insert herself into history. As if I saved all the evidence I have all these years all by accident! " So, do you think she ever got around to produce this evidence? The answer is, no she did not. She told the Migration Courts in Sweden the exact same thing; but never produced anything of what she told them she had. They didn't get to see it and neither has anyone else over the years. Could it be that there is no evidence? Of course there is no evidence. On this subject I am in complete agreement with David Lifton, she has inserted herself into this story without foundation. So no, I don't believe half of it is true. I believe, on very solid grounds, that she is making up the entirety of this story.

Sort of like half-pregnant, you mean?

Sorry, duplicate.

The simple answer is this: Her story is a hoax, and she should not in the slightest little way be connected to Oswald or the JFK assassination. She has inserted herself into these events completely without foundation. I'm frankly amazed that anyone who has done any research about this, believes in her story. (Well, the latest version of it..). My personal experiences confirmed that you cannot trust what she says. Barb Junkkarinen and many others have done excellent research into several areas of her story, and found errors and inconsistencies that have no other explanation than being lies. You either have the credentials you claim or you don't. You either are the woman in a photo or you are not. You either talked about Cancun or you didn't. You either have been granted asylum or you have not. Just to mention a few examples. None of these are a question of memory. There's one logical explanation, and I would hope that you as well as I, can see what that is. There's also a very distinctive pattern in her behavior about her story. As soon as inconsistencies and errors have been pointed out, she has immediately changed her story. This has happened over and over again for ten years. Many of her original claims are not there anymore. New ones are there instead. Others have changed so that they are hardly recognizable today. She said she had "lots of evidence" to corroborate her story. And even though some of it "was eaten by a dog", to this day, nothing has ever appeared. Not even in front of two Migration Courts did she bring the evidence she said that she had. Despite the obvious importance about it. There has, in short, been a pay-as-you-go approach to her story that boarders the farsical. As for time and money. My efforts regarding JVB have been miniscule, both in time and money. The documents I obtained took a number of phone calls and perhaps a day to get hold of. Nothing exceptional or expensive about it at all. But her behavior vs me certainly convinced me about her character, had I ever had any doubts: - She said those documents were confidential. They were not and are not. Fetzer still has Utube videos out where this is claimed. Wrong. - She said her lawyers told her this. Not a chance they did. They're experts. - She conducted an Internet search about me and came up with all kinds of ridiculous accusations. - She said I was a government agent. I'm not. - She said I was a translator who stole these documents. I'm not and I did not. And I could go on. This is not how anyone honest behaves. Period. She's a hoax.

Why do you speak when you know nothing about it? I was there, and Kris Millegan has been a friend for years. TrineDay had moral support from some people in Toronto, like Conspiracy Culture bookstore and from Jesse Ventura, who would have driven up (refuses to fly while he's suing TSA), but had to be unexpectedly in southern New Mexico. So Kris did all the work and TrineDay paid for it. I'll vouch for Judyth's credibility up against the "experts" like you any day. Well, good for you. You've spent a week [in the same room?] with Judyth. You know, that's admirable. I don't think I'd endure five minutes with her. I was invited, to put it mildly, a couple of years ago, but I turned her down. However, spending time with Judyth does not cut it, not one little bit. I'm no "JFK expert researcher". But I did find the relevant documentation to show that she was not telling the truth about her "political asylum". She had been granted no such thing, which is what she'd told the world for a couple of years. Nowadays she's telling everyone she was in the "asylum process", but she's still very silent indeed about telling anyone why she was rejected - twice. And why she never brought forward the evidence she said that she had. As a lawyer yourself, I suggest you find this documentation to make your own conclusions about those Migration Court decisions. You just might find it an interesting read. [in addition, I find it a bit disturbing that you, as a lawyer yourself, are questioning my credibility, of which you know absolutely nothing. In fact, that's very disturbing.] Does it matter? Well, if that information is added to the mountain of evidence from ten years of research, it certainly fits very well into the larger picture about Judyth Baker's character. She's not the type I would buy a used car from. I did not 'question' your credibility. If I had to choose between what you say and what Judyth says, as a juror not as a lawyer, I choose her story instead of yours. I have read what you have to say. In fact, Judyth told me how you or someone like you tried to track her down to her place of exile. Whether that fits within your definition of legal exile or not is unimportant. I have talked to her family, and they confirm that the threats she endured and "accidents" suffered were real. They were there; you were not. And as for debunked, I have to agree with you. de·bunk/diˈbəNGk/ Verb: Expose the falseness or hollowness of (a myth, idea, or belief). Reduce the inflated reputation of (someone), esp. by ridicule: "comedy takes delight in debunking heroes". Attempts have been made over and over to reduce her reputation, to deflate it by ridicule. But the myth is that she was not where she said she was. The book has been out for a year now. Prove that anything she said in the book is untrue. You can't do that, so you attack her. You were invited to meet her, and you declined. That says a great deal about how much you value finding truth. She was a witness you failed to meet. You made it your job to undermine all she has said and done. Your actions speak for themselves. "Track her down"? This is what she told you? And you think that's what happened? It's amazing how people around her seems to, completely without using one little bit of critical thinking, swallow whatever Baker says. Let me tell you what really happened. First, as far as "someone like me", I have no idea who that might be. Second, Baker was not hiding from anyone. Today she says that's what she was doing, because that fits better in with this "chase of her" and the rest of that fantastic story. She was doing interviews for a local newspaper in Dalarna (mid-Sweden), as well as a TV interview. When one of her supporters hinted that she could be in Sweden, I found that interesting, did a Google search and it took me about two minutes to find out her whereabouts. So you see, Linda. There was no tracking her down going on. She basically asked to be found, as she no doubt was looking for the limelight and got bored, Sweden can be pretty miserable in the late autumn, you know. And I'm sure these interviews cheered her up a bit. She got to be someone again and got away for a few hours from that boring asylum process with all the limitations such a thing requires. Let me ask the juror Linda Minor this: If, as she claims, there had been some sort of chase of her through Europe, and if, as she claims, these forces were somehow connected to the US government - what is then the likelyhood that Baker would give interviews in local newspapers and TV-stations where she reveals her whereabouts? Do you find this behavior perfectly believable, coherent and logical? Is that what the juror Linda Minor would vote for?

Why do you speak when you know nothing about it? I was there, and Kris Millegan has been a friend for years. TrineDay had moral support from some people in Toronto, like Conspiracy Culture bookstore and from Jesse Ventura, who would have driven up (refuses to fly while he's suing TSA), but had to be unexpectedly in southern New Mexico. So Kris did all the work and TrineDay paid for it. I'll vouch for Judyth's credibility up against the "experts" like you any day. Well, good for you. You've spent a week [in the same room?] with Judyth. You know, that's admirable. I don't think I'd endure five minutes with her. I was invited, to put it mildly, a couple of years ago, but I turned her down. However, spending time with Judyth does not cut it, not one little bit. I'm no "JFK expert researcher". But I did find the relevant documentation to show that she was not telling the truth about her "political asylum". She had been granted no such thing, which is what she'd told the world for a couple of years. Nowadays she's telling everyone she was in the "asylum process", but she's still very silent indeed about telling anyone why she was rejected - twice. And why she never brought forward the evidence she said that she had. As a lawyer yourself, I suggest you find this documentation to make your own conclusions about those Migration Court decisions. You just might find it an interesting read. [in addition, I find it a bit disturbing that you, as a lawyer yourself, are questioning my credibility, of which you know absolutely nothing. In fact, that's very disturbing.] Does it matter? Well, if that information is added to the mountain of evidence from ten years of research, it certainly fits very well into the larger picture about Judyth Baker's character. She's not the type I would buy a used car from.

About this JVB trip to Canada. I wonder who financed this thing, Trine Day would obviously be part of it. But they're just the commercial side of things. I strongly doubt they organized this thing. Could it be that James Fetzer is the "dark force" behind this charade? What do you say, Mr. Fetzer?

appears you and Blackburst are losing to the Team Judyth PR machine... Momentum is building. Perhaps old Martin Shackleford was right, eh? Well David, If that is what you think, you need to think again. It's all there. JVB has been debunked over and over again. You know, historians will not pay much attention to mainstream media in Canada. They will pay attention to a decade of serious scrutiny by expert JFK-researchers from all camps. The unanimous verdict? She failed miserably. A few interviews in Canada changes nothing, in the long run. Wouldn't you think?

There is no credible evidence that Judyth Baker knew or ever met, a single person related to the JFK-case, mentioned in this book.

Sorry, I haven't been around for a while and got a bit taken by seeing a posting from Jack. I apologize to anyone who might have been offended, not my intention.

Thank you for your kind words. I agree with your assessment of the treatment of anyone who in Judyth's eyes is less than a devoted sycophant. A few times since January I have wondered how those who survived Jonestown felt, then just put that thought down to raw nerves. One last quick observation on Baker's behavior, something I have felt for some time now: I have never encountered a witness who behaves as Baker behaves. To quote Dr. Henry Lee: "Something wrong." There is nothing about Judyth that seems to be comparable with other witnesses. For one thing, she wears a lot of hats. A witness usually has a statement about what they have personally seen and heard and that is that. Judyth has things she says were told to her, other things she has apparently researched and brought forth on her own, so her environment seems very complicated. Also, Judyth is using a genre that creates more problems than it solves; that of a dramatic narrative. What would be normal tweaking and editing of any other such project becomes, when it involves a witness statement, tainted with the possibility of sanitizing and correcting. Then, of course, the research community was not really given a chance to set up the hoops that anyone claiming to be the Holy Grail of the assassination would have to go through to gain those credentials. Instead, it was pretty much hit over the head with the promise of a 60 Minutes episode; a fait accompli, as it were. Of course, that didn't happen, but the effect of having her statements vetted at that level undermined what the community itself ought to have been able to accomplish. My, My. Please Pam, Give us one good reason as to why anyone should believe there is anything sincere about what you say here? Just one?

There are TWO different versions of this photo print. The provenance of both prints is unknown. I looked and cannot find my two copies nor my studies regarding them. The studies likely were three computers ago or lost in a computer crash. I strongly believe that LHO was added to the photo. For example, just look at the gray scale. LHO is the only person with a WHITE t-shirt. His whole gray scale differs from the rest of the photo. Was he the only one with BLACK hair and a BLACK belt, when no other blacks are in the picture? Jack Jack Good to see you back. Disagreements aside, I hope you have recovered well from your problems.