Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[Glenn Viklund]

We keep going round and round on specific issues on this thread. We need to focus on a more general purpose.

For those who do not believe Judyth, I have a question:

What would it take to convince you she is telling the truth?

You may say "more evidence" or "documentation" but I would like to know:

What type of evidence or what kind of documentation?

What kind of evidence could you reasonably expect that has not been shown to you?

If there is no way to convince you, I am not sure what purpose this thread would serve you.

Thank you,

Dean

Dean,

I have a suggestion.

Why don't we start with the evidence, in the form of documents, that she's already claimed to be in possession of?

Such as, related to my own piece of research:

- The documents she claimed to have that supposedly proved that she'd been harrassed, beaten and subjected to attempted murder, before she came to Sweden? She told the courts she had them, but failed to produce anything.

- She also stated (as can be seen in early postings I did in this thread) that she has a document proving that she "was not deported" out of Sweden.

This would be a good start. If she can produce these, I will take another look at the asylum issue.

Now, from various newsgroups over the years, there has been many other claims from Judyth of having other important documents. I'm sure we have many experienced researchers here, who can fill in the blanks about this. Barb pointed out some of them in this thread. But there are more, lots more.

This would be a good start, wouldn't you agree? If JVB would come up with this, chances are that many non believers would take a second look at this.

Edited April 29, 2010 by Glenn Viklund

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Trying to revived dead issues is Glenn Viklund, who has been in collusion with

Barb Junkkarinen and John McAdams to discredit Judyth, which, of course, has

been documented previously on this thread. We know that he is mistaken, since

she was allowed to live in Sweden and not deported, which would have happened

if Viklund's "song and dance" had any merit. So please cease this endless quest

to have everyone chasing their tails, when we already know the score. Thanks!

We keep going round and round on specific issues on this thread. We need to focus on a more general purpose.

For those who do not believe Judyth, I have a question:

What would it take to convince you she is telling the truth?

You may say "more evidence" or "documentation" but I would like to know:

What type of evidence or what kind of documentation?

What kind of evidence could you reasonably expect that has not been shown to you?

If there is no way to convince you, I am not sure what purpose this thread would serve you.

Thank you,

Dean

Dean,

I have a suggestion.

Why don't we start with the evidence, in the form of documents, that she's already claimed to be in possession of?

Such as, related to my own piece of research:

- The documents she claimed to have that supposedly proved that she'd been harrassed, beaten and subjected to attempted murder, before she came to Sweden? She told the courts she had them, but failed to produce anything.

- She also stated (as can be seen in early postings I did in this thread) that she has a document proving that she "was not deported" out of Sweden.

This would be a good start. If she can produce these, I will take another look at the asylum issue.

Now, from various newsgroups over the years, there has been many other claims from Judyth of having other important documents. I'm sure we have many experienced researchers here, that can fill in the blanks about this. Barb pointed out some of them in this thread. But there are more.

This would be a good start, wouldn't you agree? I JVB would come up with this, chances are that many non believers would take a second look at this.

Edited April 29, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Stephen Roy]

This business about "documentation" astonishes me. There is copious documentation in Ed's book.

Where did you derive the impression of "absence of documentation"? Here are some facts about it:

DR. MARY'S MONKEY (2007), xi + 374 pages.

Foreword by Jim Marrs

Prologue (two photos, one is a photo/map)

Chapter 1 (17 photos including photo maps, 47 end notes, many with multiple references)

Chapter 2 (6 photos, 5 end notes with references)

Chapter 3 (one photo, 14 end notes with references)

Chapter 4 (6 photos, including one photo map, 7 end notes with references)

Chapter 5 (18 photos, including photo maps, 30 end notes with references)

Chapter 6 (12 photos, including photo maps, 12 end notes with references)

Chapter 7 (16 photos, photo maps, graphics, 13 end notes with references)

Chapter 8 (17 photos, 63 end notes with references)

Chapter 9 (17 photos, including 3 graphs, 42 end notes with references)

Chapter 10 (4 photos, including photo maps, many quotes from reports)

Chapter 11 (18 photos, diagrams, maps, 11 end notes with references)

Chapter 12 (3 photos, two maps, 17 end notes with references)

Chapter 13 (8-9 photos and graphics, 15 end notes with references)

Chapter 14 (three photos, including two photo maps, two end notes with references)

Appendix (13 photos, including several photo maps, 20 end notes with references)

Epilogue (10 photos, 16 end notes with references)

Document A (one photo, 6 pages)

Document B (one page/cancer rates)

Document C (three pages, autopsy report)

Bibliography (8 pages)

Index (10 pages)

This is actually one of the best "documented" books for the general public that I have ever read.

By "references," I think Jack means citations of evidence to support the assertions in the book. Photos and maps cobbled from the Internet or other sources, which do not prove or disprove anything, are not citations of evidence. While helpful, a bibliography does not point a reader to specific citations of evidence. The index is not a citation of evidence.

The list above mentions about 314 end notes. In a 344 page book, that's less than one footnote per page. And there is a difference between footnotes which cite sources (SNs), and those which are parenthetical explanatory notes (ENs).

Chapters 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12 offer mostly source notes.

Of the 5 endnotes for chapter 2, 2 are Source Notes while 3 are Explanatory Notes.

Of the 7 endnotes for chapter 4, 1 is an SN while 6 are ENs.

Of the 13 endnotes for chapter 7, 6 are SNs while 7 are ENs.

There are no endnotes for chapter 10.

Of the 11 endnotes for chapter 11, 1 is an SN while 10 are ENs.

Of the 15 endnotes for chapter 13, 1 is an SN while 14 are ENs.

Of the 2 endnotes for chapter 14, 1 is an SN while 1 is an EN.

Of the 20 endnotes for the Appendix, 20 are ENs.

Of the 16 endnotes for the Epilogue, 16 are ENs.

So there are less source notes - actual references - than the list above suggests. There are a number of things in the book for which there are no cited sources. What matters is not quantity, but citations for the parts of the book most relevant to JFK researchers.

[Stephen Roy]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but there is ample exposure to lines of argument AGAINST Judyth and her

story. My point is that, unless you are also considering the lines of argument SUPPORTING Judyth and her

story, you are not satisfying the requirement of total evidence, which insists that, in the search for truth,

you must base your reasoning on all the available relevant evidence. That means you are not entitled to

pick and choose by selecting the evidence that agrees with a predetermined conclusion and eleminating the

rest. Mr. Roy seems rather cavalier in his willingness to disregard some of the most important sources of

evidence SUPPORTING Judyth and her story, which does not surprise me, because the requirement applies

to those who are attempting to discover the truth. Those with different aims are at liberty to violate it, as I

have repeatedly demonstrated to be the case with Jack White several times in my most recent posts. When

it comes to reason and rationality, this guy simply does not know what he is talking about. And from what

we have heard from Ed Haslam, he appears to disregard this requirement in his own research on Ferrie, too.

Another (stunning) example, of course, is to criticize a post (about rationality) before I have even put it up!

??? I haven't addressed Baker's story at all in this thread. I've discussed Ed Haslam's book. I'm not disregarding it; I'm indicating that it needs further corroboration.

I would not shy away from contrasting my research on Ferrie with Ed's. I've done a lot of interviews and collected a lot of documents. Ed made a few mistakes in his Ferrie material, which I didn't bring up.

Serious question: Do YOU "pick and choose by selecting the evidence that agrees with a predetermined conclusion and eliminate...the rest?"

[Josiah Thompson]

Pamela, this is really unfair and short-sighted. David is a well-respected researcher. Although many researchers disagree with David's conclusions, no one of whom I am aware has ever caught him in a flat-out lie. If he says he has a tape, he has a tape, and doesn't need to send a copy to Jim or anyone else.

FWIW, I, too, think he should make it available. But his credibility as a researcher and person far outweighs Judyth's at this point.

Is Judyth willing to bet HER credibility no such tape exists?

Is she?

If not, WHY NOT?

It seems likely that Judyth is holding back because she knows she said what David says she said, and that David is holding the tape for strategic reasons. Because he is waiting for her to call him a xxxx... So that he then can whip it out and prove her wrong...

Good post, Pat. Were David Lifton dumb enough to send a copy of his tape to Fetzer, he would have bought himself entrance into a lawsuit he would have to defend for years. Lacking any real evidence, Fetzer is simply flapping his mouth about irrelevant issues.

What you said about David Lifton is correct. His reputation for integrity stretches over many decades. If David Lifton says a witness said "X," you can take it to the bank. If James Fetzer says a witness said "X," you can take it to the waste basket.

Josiah Thompson

[Greg Burnham]

Monk,

No one is about to go after Lifton for recording a conversation, even though it was illegal. That is not my intention nor Judyth's nor anyone elses. So this business about protecting himself from legal repercussions is a subterfuge, a deceit, and an excuse to immunize himself from the potential of having (what I take to have been) exaggerated claims refuted by his own evidence.

As for the point about "whistleblowing", you can define it narrowly or broadly, but do you personally have any doubt that what Judyth is talking about (the contaminated polio vaccine, the bioweapon research, relationships between Alton Ochsner, Ferrie, Mary, Vary, and Lee and links to the assassination) is a VERY BIG STORY that exposes corruption at the core of US covert ops?

Have you read the latest take by my psy ops expert on Judyth's story? I think he makes a very compelling case for why her account fits into the profile of cover ops in this country, why she was an appropriate choice for this assignment, and why she has been subjected to such a systematic and sustained effort to discredit her and assassinate her character. Did you read it?

There is a lot of trifling and splitting hairs going on here. This is a form of WHISTLEBLOWING in the highest traditions of our country, more or less roughly on a part with Daniel Ellsberg's release of THE PENTAGON PAPERS. As Ed Haslam explains in DR. MARY'S MONKEY, the contaminated vaccine story alone may be the greatest scandal in the history of the United States.

Jim

Jim,

As to your first point regarding the illegality of the tape: it's good to know that prosecution isn't the point, but I still suggest not emphasizing or reiterating it if that's the case. Otherwise, what's the point? As to the definition of whistleblowing, I don't think that a court would allow a broader interpretation than that which is already spelled out. Since the context in which we were talking about whistleblowing was as a possible defense, i.e., mitigating circumstances, I think that the most prudent expectation would be the narrowest definition. If one was fortunte enough to draw an extremely liberal judge maybe he or she would loosen the definition. However, yes I definitely agree that her story is HUGE.

I did read your psy ops latest. The problem with Judyth's story, even assuming it is 100% accurate, is that it is peppered with credibility problems by the design of her former "handlers" or by those running the op. For those who are uninitiated about such matters, those credibility gaps equal deciept. For those who are familiar with these things the possibility exists that she's the "real deal" but it isn't necessarily so. For those, such as yourself, who have really dug into the evidence you have an advantage in perspective. For not only does it become troublesome to explain the mounting quantity of evidence as the product of deceipt, it becomes absurd to explain the existence of the many holes in the story similarly because they could not exist without being a part of a much larger body of evidence. Why would one have chosen to save many of these items from 1963 to begin with and not save others? It's my feeling that much of her information was compartmentalized within her psyche as a defense mechanism. I'm not a mental health professional and I am not intending to cast aspersions on her by that statement. But there is basis for my claim. The ability to dissociate is a gift that allows survival, and is therefore, not necessarily dysfunctional in such a case. Ask your expert about this point, please.

I also have an advantage...I met her. Her claims were stated matter of factly--no hesitation, with confidence. I couldn't "trap her" -- not even close -- and I tried. If I judge solely from my "gut" ... "She's the real deal". But since I haven't done enough homework to verify or debunk enough of her claims, I can not, in good conscience, have a rational opinion about it. (Yes, I said "rational"). If I were to commit at this stage, either way, it would be irrational, and therefore I haven't. Even for me, this has caused a degree of cognitive dissonance.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Not to suggest that I have somewhat more experience with research and scholarship than Mr. Roy,

but DR. MARY'S MONKEY is every thorough, every detailed, and very painstaking. I would be very

glad to compare Ed Haslam's work with that of Stephen Roy. Where are your books and articles?

This business about "documentation" astonishes me. There is copious documentation in Ed's book.

Where did you derive the impression of "absence of documentation"? Here are some facts about it:

DR. MARY'S MONKEY (2007), xi + 374 pages.

Foreword by Jim Marrs

Prologue (two photos, one is a photo/map)

Chapter 1 (17 photos including photo maps, 47 end notes, many with multiple references)

Chapter 2 (6 photos, 5 end notes with references)

Chapter 3 (one photo, 14 end notes with references)

Chapter 4 (6 photos, including one photo map, 7 end notes with references)

Chapter 5 (18 photos, including photo maps, 30 end notes with references)

Chapter 6 (12 photos, including photo maps, 12 end notes with references)

Chapter 7 (16 photos, photo maps, graphics, 13 end notes with references)

Chapter 8 (17 photos, 63 end notes with references)

Chapter 9 (17 photos, including 3 graphs, 42 end notes with references)

Chapter 10 (4 photos, including photo maps, many quotes from reports)

Chapter 11 (18 photos, diagrams, maps, 11 end notes with references)

Chapter 12 (3 photos, two maps, 17 end notes with references)

Chapter 13 (8-9 photos and graphics, 15 end notes with references)

Chapter 14 (three photos, including two photo maps, two end notes with references)

Appendix (13 photos, including several photo maps, 20 end notes with references)

Epilogue (10 photos, 16 end notes with references)

Document A (one photo, 6 pages)

Document B (one page/cancer rates)

Document C (three pages, autopsy report)

Bibliography (8 pages)

Index (10 pages)

This is actually one of the best "documented" books for the general public that I have ever read.

By "references," I think Jack means citations of evidence to support the assertions in the book. Photos and maps cobbled from the Internet or other sources, which do not prove or disprove anything, are not citations of evidence. While helpful, a bibliography does not point a reader to specific citations of evidence. The index is not a citation of evidence.

The list above mentions about 314 end notes. In a 344 page book, that's less than one footnote per page. And there is a difference between footnotes which cite sources (SNs), and those which are parenthetical explanatory notes (ENs).

Chapters 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12 offer mostly source notes.

Of the 5 endnotes for chapter 2, 2 are Source Notes while 3 are Explanatory Notes.

Of the 7 endnotes for chapter 4, 1 is an SN while 6 are ENs.

Of the 13 endnotes for chapter 7, 6 are SNs while 7 are ENs.

There are no endnotes for chapter 10.

Of the 11 endnotes for chapter 11, 1 is an SN while 10 are ENs.

Of the 15 endnotes for chapter 13, 1 is an SN while 14 are ENs.

Of the 2 endnotes for chapter 14, 1 is an SN while 1 is an EN.

Of the 20 endnotes for the Appendix, 20 are ENs.

Of the 16 endnotes for the Epilogue, 16 are ENs.

So there are less source notes - actual references - than the list above suggests. There are a number of things in the book for which there are no cited sources. What matters is not quantity, but citations for the parts of the book most relevant to JFK researchers.

[Dean Hagerman]

my psy ops expert

Jim

Who is this stupid lame Psy Ops expert you are posting for?

Why cant he create his own account with his own name and post his thoughts under it instead of you doing it for him?

Is he scared?

Why dont you post his name?

Until you post his name or until he posts his lame "Psy Ops" reports on members of this forum himself then how do you expect anyone to care about what he has to say?

Ask your friend to do a Psy Ops report on my lemming like research

Edited April 29, 2010 by Dean Hagerman

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

It comes as no surprise that Josiah Thompson would be here endorsing posts by

some of those who are not up-to-speed on the history of the thread, supporting

those who are suppressing evidence and others who violate the requirement of

total evidence. That's not going to bother someone who makes a practice out of

ignoring inconvenient arguments, distorting positions he attacks, and reviewing

books he has never read! This thread certainly makes for strange bedfellows.

Pamela, this is really unfair and short-sighted. David is a well-respected researcher. Although many researchers disagree with David's conclusions, no one of whom I am aware has ever caught him in a flat-out lie. If he says he has a tape, he has a tape, and doesn't need to send a copy to Jim or anyone else.

FWIW, I, too, think he should make it available. But his credibility as a researcher and person far outweighs Judyth's at this point.

Is Judyth willing to bet HER credibility no such tape exists?

Is she?

If not, WHY NOT?

It seems likely that Judyth is holding back because she knows she said what David says she said, and that David is holding the tape for strategic reasons. Because he is waiting for her to call him a xxxx... So that he then can whip it out and prove her wrong...

Good post, Pat. Were David Lifton dumb enough to send a copy of his tape to Fetzer, he would have bought himself entrance into a lawsuit he would have to defend for years. Lacking any real evidence, Fetzer is simply flapping his mouth about irrelevant issues.

What you said about David Lifton is correct. His reputation for integrity stretches over many decades. If David Lifton says a witness said "X," you can take it to the bank. If James Fetzer says a witness said "X," you can take it to the waste basket.

Josiah Thompson

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

You really are a child at heart, aren't you, Dean? I know I hurt your feelings, but this is just ridiculous.

Arguments have to be evaluated on their own merits. If you study it, you might learn something. Why

don't you critique his arguments, if you think they are mistaken? That might be an interesting exercise.

my psy ops expert

Jim

Who is this stupid lame Psy Ops expert you are posting for?

Why cant he create his own account with his own name and post his thoughts under it instead of you doing it for him?

Is he scared?

Why dont you post his name?

Until you post his name or until he posts his lame "Psy Ops" reports on members of this forum himself then how do you expect anyone to care about what he has to say?

Ask your friend to do a Psy Ops report on my lemming like research

[Dean Hagerman]

You really are a child at heart, aren't you, Dean? I know I hurt your feelings, but this is just ridiculous.

Arguments have to be evaluated on their own merits. If you study it, you might learn something. Why

don't you critique his arguments, if you think they are mistaken? That might be an interesting exercise.

my psy ops expert

Jim

Who is this stupid lame Psy Ops expert you are posting for?

Why cant he create his own account with his own name and post his thoughts under it instead of you doing it for him?

Is he scared?

Why dont you post his name?

Until you post his name or until he posts his lame "Psy Ops" reports on members of this forum himself then how do you expect anyone to care about what he has to say?

Ask your friend to do a Psy Ops report on my lemming like research

Now I am a child? What are you going to call me next? 1st I am a Lemming, now I am a child

Why dont you be a man and tell this idiot to post his Psy Ops garbage himself

[Jack White]

My marmoset expert (who has been denied membership on the forum) further emails me that

BABY (THUMB-SIZED) MARMOSETS CANNOT BE USED for medical research. Their immune

systems are not fully developed, and if separated from their parents, they die quickly.

So the thousands of pounds of monkeys processed by JVB, if thumb-sized, required that

the parents accompany them. What is involved in "processing" ONE marmoset, and how

long does it take? How long would it take to "process" 3000? A time and motion study might

verify the monkey processing claim.

Jack

Two different authorities on MARMOSET monkeys who have been

following this thread have sent me information which seems to

demolish the statement of JVB that she, Ferrie and LHO "processed

thousands of pounds of monkeys" in their apartment laboratory

cancer virus experiments. Here are some quotes I received this morning

from a PhD who is an author of scientific papers regarding medical

experiments using marmosets (I have added bold face to emphasize

certain points):

QUOTE:

The picture that someone googled to include in the EF thread is that of C. jacchus babies. Within months they double in size and then those juveniles double in size. Adult common marmosets are the size of large rats. The reason I wanted to join the thread was to clarify that although they are small they do need huge amounts of space. They only thrive in family groups and they need to leap around and graze on branches or they get sick. You would be looking at a minimum of two cubic metres for a pair of adults. Consequently, keeping large numbers (say more than 10) is not something you can do at home. They do tend to screech a lot, by the way. You do know it when you are near a primate colony . . .

From my reading of the thread the claim was that Judyth used large numbers of C. jacchus. The only way you could do this in a domestic setting is to put them in shoe-box size cages and they would just get sick and die. There is no question about it: the only way to keep them healthy enough for research purposes is to give them large amounts of space and keep them as family units. Even then you can get health problems.

No one would ever use an animal for research that was unhealthy and likely to die due to lack of space and activities. No point at all. If ‘testing in a primate’ was seen as the final stage in the development of a bioweapon then it would have been easier, cheaper and safer to have used some monkeys from an existing research colony. I find it quite likely that the US military would have had access to a primate colony, for instance. I would also want to check that the product worked in large primates, not C. jacchus. But, again, that’s just my opinion.

I suggest that the bioweapons story is Judyth’s ‘big lie’ - something so outrageous that intelligent people should spend no time analysing it.

[Jack White]

We keep going round and round on specific issues on this thread. We need to focus on a more general purpose.

For those who do not believe Judyth, I have a question:

What would it take to convince you she is telling the truth?

You may say "more evidence" or "documentation" but I would like to know:

What type of evidence or what kind of documentation?

What kind of evidence could you reasonably expect that has not been shown to you?

If there is no way to convince you, I am not sure what purpose this thread would serve you.

Thank you,

Dean

INDEPENDENT DOCUMENTATION is needed to verify claims. Self-serving claims are not evidence nor

documentation. An impartial independent source is needed.

[Pat Speer]

It comes as no surprise that Josiah Thompson would be here endorsing posts by

some of those who are not up-to-speed on the history of the thread, supporting

those who are suppressing evidence and others who violate the requirement of

total evidence. That's not going to bother someone who makes a practice out of

ignoring inconvenient arguments, distorting positions he attacks, and reviewing

books he has never read! This thread certainly makes for strange bedfellows.

Pamela, this is really unfair and short-sighted. David is a well-respected researcher. Although many researchers disagree with David's conclusions, no one of whom I am aware has ever caught him in a flat-out lie. If he says he has a tape, he has a tape, and doesn't need to send a copy to Jim or anyone else.

FWIW, I, too, think he should make it available. But his credibility as a researcher and person far outweighs Judyth's at this point.

Is Judyth willing to bet HER credibility no such tape exists?

Is she?

If not, WHY NOT?

It seems likely that Judyth is holding back because she knows she said what David says she said, and that David is holding the tape for strategic reasons. Because he is waiting for her to call him a xxxx... So that he then can whip it out and prove her wrong...

Good post, Pat. Were David Lifton dumb enough to send a copy of his tape to Fetzer, he would have bought himself entrance into a lawsuit he would have to defend for years. Lacking any real evidence, Fetzer is simply flapping his mouth about irrelevant issues.

What you said about David Lifton is correct. His reputation for integrity stretches over many decades. If David Lifton says a witness said "X," you can take it to the bank. If James Fetzer says a witness said "X," you can take it to the waste basket.

Josiah Thompson

Jim, believe it or not, I have actually read 95% or more of this thread. The tape, to my mind, is the game.

If Judyth says what Lifton says she does on the tape--all that nonsense about writing a science fiction book with Lee, etc--it would seem she is a fraud.

If she doesn't say what Lifton claims she said, then, well, Lifton has been exposed for the first time as a flat-out xxxx.

Both have something to lose.

Now, IF Judyth is positive she did not say what Lifton says she said, beyond the minor Kankun issue she has already tried to explain, then she should call him out...call his bluff...call him a xxxx. It's what most of us would do under the circumstances.

If, however, she knows she did say what he claims she said, then she should go through the points other than Kankun and explain them one by one.

It's up to Judyth. She needs to 1) call Lifton to task for misrepresenting their conversation, or 2) acknowledge Lifton is telling the truth, and offer an explanation for the claims she made to him.

Failing to take one of these two actions, IMO, can be taken as an indication she knows Lifton is telling the truth and has no explanation for some of the things she told him.

In either case, your study of the tape is unnecessary.

Edited April 29, 2010 by Pat Speer

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Perhaps I have this mixed up with the alleged visit by LHO, Ferrie and Shaw

to Jackson, Louisiana, to the East Louisiana State Hospital. My memory was

that the cancer virus was given to someone there. Maybe I am wrong.

What was the prison facility where the prisoner was killed? I do not remember

a prison being used. What was the prison, who was the prisoner, what was

the date, and how was this accomplished? What is the source of this

documentation?

Hi Jack,

You are correct ... the claimed injection took place at the mental hospital in Jackson... into a prisoner who was brought down

from Angola prison, according to Judyth. It is unclear if more than one prisoner was brought down or more than one injected.

The one who was definitely injected, according to Judyth, was of Cuban descent ... and injected on 8-29-63. And while I recall

somewhere where she wrote that she never did know if or when the prisoner died, her latest is that he died on 9-26-63.

Bests,

Barb :-)