Wim Dankbaar Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 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}> Wim, If I can play 'The Devils Advicate' for a minute, the people incrimanated by James Files and Judyth Baker are also all dead and can not defend themselve. If critizing dead people is 'off limits' then there is not a lot for us to talk about! It was Judyth Baker I wanted to talk about, however. I guess people are'nt too inetersted. I had been lead to believe she had alot of evidence but I take it she does not. Bill <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well Bill, apparently you are dissapointed with the evidence given so far and are not interested to see more. I would think this would be independent of other people's interest. Tell me Bill, is this the first forum you participate in, or have you posted on other forums or newsgroups in the 10 years that you have been interested in the case Wim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Byas Posted August 31, 2004 Author Share Posted August 31, 2004 Well Bill, apparently you are dissapointed with the evidence given so far and are not interested to see more.<{POST_SNAPBACK}> I ask if their is evidence and you say I'm not inetersted???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Stocker Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 Well Bill, apparently you are dissapointed with the evidence given so far and are not interested to see more.<{POST_SNAPBACK}> I ask if their is evidence and you say I'm not inetersted???? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Bill, I think maybe you and Wim are talking about two different issues. As I understand your question, you're asking whether there is evidence, through Judyth's account, of conspiracy in the assassination? If that's what you're asking, I believe it's purely circumstantial. If you're satisfied that Judyth is who she claims to be, you can then look at what she says regarding the assassination itself, and reach a conclusion from there. I don't think I phrased that very well, but basically, if you believe that she and Lee Oswald had an affair and that she did become engaged in a CIA plot to kill Castro, it seems logical (to me, at least) to also believe her statement that Lee tried to prevent the assassination. If you find these things credible, I think it presents a strong case for conspiracy. I'll be the first to say that it's a complex issue, and it's not easy to plow through the information and disinformation presented. I hope this helps in some small way. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wim Dankbaar Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 (edited) Bill, I do indeed think you are more interested in suggesting that Judyth has no evidence and quite frankly I have some doubts about your sincerety. "I guess people are'nt too inetested. I had been lead to believe she had alot of evidence but I take it she does not." I have started giving you some clear evidence that Judyth was indeed a cancer researcher, lived in New Orleans at the time (having moved from Florida) and worked at the Reily coffee company at the same time Oswald did. I have also shown that Ochsner is a clear promoter of "the lone nut assassin/Lee did it" school right from day one. Should I assume that you really believe Ochsner didn't know any better? Then you suggest that people are not "too interested" and she does not have "a lot of evidence", although I have offered to provide more after this warming up. So yes, I'd say you are not really interested. You come here out of nowhere inquiring about Judyth Baker, saying that you have been interested in for 10 years. Yet I don't recall having seen your name before anywhere. If you have been interested that long, it is inconceivanle to me that you don't know anything about Judyth Baker and her evidence, cause she has been the subject of heated debates on virtually all Kennedy forums. Then you are also the very first inquiring about my summary of my dealings with Bob Vernon (Vernon was next). We have had a character by the name of T. Folsom here before. I can't help thinking back of him at this time. It just seems somewhat weird to me that from your 10 years of interest in the case, your first topics to pick out are Judyth Baker and my dealings with Vernon. You give me a telephone number and I'll tell you all about Vernon if you are really that interested. Steve, I doubt whether all of Judyth's evidence should be marked as "circumstancial". After all she has two contemporary witnesses who confirm her relationship with Lee Harvey Oswald and they acted as lovers. These are Anna Lewis (widow of David Lewis, the investigator who worked for Guy Banister) and Mac McCullough (bouncer of the 501 club owned by Carlos Marcello). Then there is at least 3 witnnesses who saw Lee Harvey Oswald in the company of a young woman, of whom it has been proven it was not Marina. These are Delphine Roberts (secretary of Banister) and her daughter. They were both thinking it was Marina, as she was introduced by Oswald as such. Because Marina has testified she never was in Banister's office, these witnesses have been discredited by the usual sharks among us. There are also 2 witnesses of Clinton on record, having spotted Oswald with a young woman. These are barber McGehee, where Oswald made a stop on his Clinton trip with Judyth, to do the first experiment with the cancer causing virus on a human patient in Eastern Louisiana State hospital. The other is the daughter of Reeves Morgan, who saw her sitting in the car. All of these testimonies can be looked up on the net, for example here: http://www.jfk-online.com/chron.html No wonder that Jim Garrison wanted to locate his mystery woman. And ofcourse there is much more evidence. Wim Edited August 31, 2004 by Wim Dankbaar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Stocker Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 <snip>Steve, I doubt whether all of Judyth's evidence should be marked as "circumstancial". After all she has two contemporary witnesses who confirm her relationship with Lee Harvey Oswald and they acted as lovers. These are Anna Lewis (widow of David Lewis, the investigator who worked for Guy Banister) and Mac McCullough (bouncer of the 501 club owned by Carlos Marcello). Then there is at least 3 witnnesses who saw Lee Harvey Oswald in the company of a young woman, of whom it has been proven it was not Marina. These are Delphine Roberts (secretary of Banister) and her daughter. They were both thinking it was Marina, as she was introduced by Oswald as such. Because Marina has testified she never was in Banister's office, these witnesses have been discredited by the usual sharks among us. There are also 2 witnesses of Clinton on record, having spotted Oswald with a young woman. These are barber McGehee, where Oswald made a stop on his Clinton trip with Judyth, to do the first experiment with the cancer causing virus on a human patient in Eastern Louisiana State hospital. The other is the daughter of Reeves Morgan, who saw her sitting in the car. All of these testimonies can be looked up on the net, for example here: http://www.jfk-online.com/chron.html No wonder that Jim Garrison wanted to locate his mystery woman. And ofcourse there is much more evidence. Wim <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Wim, My phrasing was obviously very misleading, thanks for pointing it out. What I should have said is that Judyth's *evidence of conspiracy in the assassination* was, IMO, cirmcumstantial. Most definitely, there is direct (and some circumstantial) evidence of her status as a cancer researcher and of her affair with Lee. I may have misunderstood the original question, but I took it as an inquiry into what, if any, evidence she has supporting conspiracy in the assassination. My point was that if one can examine the evidence of the first two premises and finds it valid, it provides strong circumstantial evidence of her credibility regarding conspiracy. Hopefully that expresses what I was trying to say more clearly. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wim Dankbaar Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 (edited) "I may have misunderstood the original question, but I took it as an inquiry into what, if any, evidence she has supporting conspiracy in the assassination." I understood it as evidence for her own story. Wim Edited August 31, 2004 by Wim Dankbaar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Byas Posted September 1, 2004 Author Share Posted September 1, 2004 Bill, I think maybe you and Wim are talking about two different issues. As I understand your question, you're asking whether there is evidence, through Judyth's account, of conspiracy in the assassination? If that's what you're asking, I believe it's purely circumstantial. If you're satisfied that Judyth is who she claims to be, you can then look at what she says regarding the assassination itself, and reach a conclusion from there. I don't think I phrased that very well, but basically, if you believe that she and Lee Oswald had an affair and that she did become engaged in a CIA plot to kill Castro, it seems logical (to me, at least) to also believe her statement that Lee tried to prevent the assassination. If you find these things credible, I think it presents a strong case for conspiracy. I'll be the first to say that it's a complex issue, and it's not easy to plow through the information and disinformation presented. I hope this helps in some small way. Steve <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Thanks for your honest answer, Steve. Its good to see not all Judyth's friends are ass holes like Mr. Wim. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wim Dankbaar Posted September 1, 2004 Share Posted September 1, 2004 (edited) Interesting answer, Bill. Why am I an asshole? Because I doubt your sincerity? I do increasingly so. I'm also suspecting you're not posting under your real name and maybe allied with "Dr. Truth". I admit this is pure speculation, based on what I see. You're welcome to prove me wrong. Most active members post some biographical information. Have you done so? If not, John Simkin can lead you to the appropriate URL's on this site. Wim PS: And Steve, it doesn't make any difference what he meant. If you can prove Judyth is telling the truth, you will have proven the case for conspiracy and the lie of the Warren Report. It's as simple as that. For starters, it would prove that Lee was not the lone dissaffected commie nut they still make him out to be. It would prove he was a patriotic hero instead. Edited September 1, 2004 by Wim Dankbaar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted September 1, 2004 Share Posted September 1, 2004 Most active members post some biographical information. Have you done so? If not, John Simkin can lead you to the appropriate URL's on this site. Wim is right. It is compulsory to post a biography: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1471 Can you also watch your language. This is a forum that is used by students and we like to set them a good example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wim Dankbaar Posted September 2, 2004 Share Posted September 2, 2004 John, I think we won't enjoy any more posts of Mr. Byas. Wim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Byas Posted September 4, 2004 Author Share Posted September 4, 2004 Evidence that she was involved with Oswald personally--three witnesses from that summer <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Who are the witnesses? Bill <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Mr. Wim says there two witnesses, are you sure there are threee? Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kerrigan Posted September 6, 2004 Share Posted September 6, 2004 Judyth has answered me about the claims of Dave Reitzes, who is a staunt follower of John Mcadams in my book. I am sure she will answer you once she sees this post. Personally I would not dignify any of Reitszes' claims with a response. His methods are despicable in my view. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antti Hynonen Posted September 7, 2004 Share Posted September 7, 2004 From what I've read and heard so far Judyth Baker has had an interesting story to tell. Interestingly enough, she has evidence and eye witnesses to back some of her story. This we can't say about too many others who claim to know pieces of the puzzle. It will be interesting to see what her book will contain. As I recall she tells us, she will be attempting to publish a book soon. I would hear out any witnesses without prejudice, especially the ones who have something to say about this case that differs from the Warren Commission findings. Many key (eye) witnesses with first hand statements/evidence differing from the official line have been physically attacked, killed, intimidated or have "committed suicide". I believe Judyth Baker falls into the same category. Evidently there still is an unidentified group that feels some witnesses should not speak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Byas Posted September 8, 2004 Author Share Posted September 8, 2004 Evidence that she was involved with Oswald personally--three witnesses from that summer <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Who are the witnesses? Bill <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Mr. Wim says there two witnesses, are you sure there are threee? Bill <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I am trying to keep an open mind about Judyth but it's not easy when she never answers quetstions, Martin Shackleford never answers quetsoins, Mr. Wim goes 'ballistic' on anybody who asks questions.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Byas Posted September 9, 2004 Author Share Posted September 9, 2004 Judyth has answered me about the claims of Dave Reitzes, who is a staunt follower of John Mcadams in my book. I am sure she will answer you once she sees this post. Personally I would not dignify any of Reitszes' claims with a response. His methods are despicable in my view. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now