Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[Jack White]

Doug...the studies I did were about 30 years ago. I doubt that I could find any of them now. I may

have a slide of some of the signatures if I can find it. However, a graphologist or questioned document

examiner would examine A COMPLETE DOCUMENT, not just signatures as I did. I will look to see

whether I can find some of the signatures I collected.

Jack

Barb,

It is the least important of her claims if it does NOT establish anything beyond itself! Them having known each other, in and of itself, means nothing. It is unbelievable to me that you are acting this "clever".

It looks like we just disagree, Greg. Them having known one another is the base of virtually all her claims re New Orleans and the assassination. Thus, it is vital to her entire story that she can establish that she even knew Oswald. Everything else flows from that. I stand by what I said before ...

The "least important" of her claims?? Helloooo? That she knew Oswald is the **base** ... the springboard ... for all of her claims about her adventures in New Orleans that summer and beyond! According to Judyth, Oswald introduced her to Ferrie and Ochsner and Mary Sherman .... lets not forget "Sparky" and Marcello and Thornley and most any other alleged assassination player you care to name. Oswald worked with her in Ferrie's kitchen, she trained him to handle the "bioweapon" for transport. He took her to the mental hospital in Jackson to make sure the "patient" there who had been injected with their little cocktail would die.

She supposedly learned all about the assassination that was coming down from Oswald .... then throw in the love affair, plans to disappear together after the assassination, etc .... and you think her claim of LHO's handwriting in her book, which would establish that she even knew him, is the "least important"?

I am not "acting" "clever" ... it is how I see it and I stated why. Are you trying to be "clever"? :-)

Let's assume for the sake of conversation that the handwriting expert confirmed it was Oswald's writing. At this point you would concede what exactly? Anything? Perhaps you'd concede "the least important" claim? I can hear you now: "Based on this analysis, yes, they probably knew each other, but so what? That still doesn't prove anything else!"

I think I've answered this about 3 times now. If the handwriting is certified by an appropriate professional to be Oswald's handwriting, I would acknowledge that they knew one another. As noted above, I do not think that is the "least important" claim. And, of course, it would prove nothing about her other claims beyond that. How could it? And, as I recall, you agreed it would not.

IMO: Since Jim doesn't need that confirmation in order to believe her, he isn't compelled to pursue it. And, since her detractors still wouldn't be convinced even with the confirmation, he's again not compelled to pursue it.

What Fetzer personally needs is not my problem. All he seems to need on anything is her sayso. What Judyth's claims need are verification. And this is one claim that could be confirmed or denied by having a professional, court approved documents examiner confirm or deny that the writing in her book is that of Lee Harvey Oswald. As I already noted before as well ...This is research. There is a claim. It is a claim that can be confirmed or denied by a professional.

I believe you have stated more than once that you are on the fence regarding Judyth ... you just don't know, haven't had time to do research, verification, etc. Yet you don't seem to think verifying whether or not her claim that LHO wrote these notes in the margins of her book is true is important. Go figure.

Bests to you, Greg

Barb :-)

I am not a graphologist (handwriting expert) but many years ago I spent months studying

every sample alleged to be the writing of LHO reproduced in the 26 volumes. I xeroxed

each sample in the 26 volumes, cut out his signature (I only studied his signature, not

entire documents) and classified them according to printing (always all capitals) and

cursive. I then broke these down by letter shapes and slants. My conclusion was that

the LHO signatures were written by TWO OR MORE persons.

I am not a graphologist...but these are things anyone can observe.

Jack

PS. I recall that once LHO even misspelled his own name, spelling it LE instead of LEE.

Several times he misspelled the names of his mother and father, and once had the

date of his father's birth wrong. He twice spelled his mother's name MARGRET instead of

MARGUERITE.

Jack:

It would be appropriate to give all these examples to compare with Judyth's sample. Will it match any of them? If there was more than one person portraying themselves as Oswald any match would be beneficial to Judyth. I disagree with Monk that this is trying to prove a negative. It is simply an issue that goes to credibility. Judyth should be held to the same standard as anyone. As Jim has demanded Lifton's tape I would like to hear such things as Judyth's tape of the incident at Mary Ferrill's house that she asserts gives a totally different account of what others said happened. Again, for credibility purposes, I believe it would help anyone weighing the truth and veracity of what people are asserting to have Jim post these recordings.. Again, this is hard evidence and not the he said, she said that seems to exist many times throughout the thread.

Doug Weldon

[David Lifton]

Dixie,

Thanks for your post, and especially this part:

QUOTE:

In addition, there has been a whole lot of past discussion regarding the CanCun story, as David Lifton has mentioned.... . . after she learned there was no CanCun Resort at that time, she denied ever saying that. Then later she claimed it was her past agent that added it and she had only meant the CanCun area, since she didn't feel anyone would know where nearby Chichen Itza was. (It is not all that nearby though). So, then a woman on the discussion group posted some info that the Village of KanKun had been there for many, many years and she even had a link to an old map, showing it. In addition, that same woman mentioned there had been a nice hotel in Chichen Itza for years....the Mayaland Hotel. Up until that point, Judyth was still denying she ever said it was a fine hotel in CanCun. But suddenly with that new info and after mentioning various places they intended to visit, she ran with it....and later appeared in her book, as her own claim. Now she insists that she had always known about the old Village of KanKun. If so, it never came up until that woman appeared with that info....then sudenly she had always known it and what she meant when speaking to David L. I just do not buy that, at that point in time, when she spoke to him. UNQUOTE

If you can ever come up with the actual Internet posts --including the date(s)--of the woman who volunteered this information (i.e., who discovered "Kankun", and posted that data) I would appreciate having these details. They mark an important "inflection point" in the evolution of her story. Because they demonstrate exactly how Judyth operates, and how she bobs and weaves around the existing record. In this instance, first she tap danced around the major gaffe she had committed; and then, when she learned of "Kankun," she immediateley adjusted/changed her story to incorporate the new-found information. That's precisely how she handles inconsistencies, "making it up" as the goes along. She evinces the psychology (and even the methodology) of a combination of producer and screenwriter of her own fictions, who, when a gaffe has occurred in a film shoot, respondings by saying, "Oh well, we'll fix that in the editing room."

In this case, the "editing room" is the fertile imagination of Judyth's mind.

This would all be very amusing if it were not the case that this lady if hawking a completely fictional history of a major aspect of the Kennedy assassination, duping many who should know better, and, in addition, besmirching the true character of someone she claims to have loved.

I'm not surprised that someone who claims to have seen the Zapruder film at a New York City theater, in the fall of 1964 (when it was clearly under lock and key, and obviously not being screened at any New York City theater) should rush to her defense, but I would think most people, without an agenda, and with a modicum of good judgment, would know better, and behave accordingly.

What total nonsense.

DSL

5/1/10 2:25 AM

Los Angeles, CA

[Jack White]

I would like to compare the Mary-Ferrie-Vary/Lee SECRET BIOLAB with the Manhattan Project

when it comes to "secret government projects".

The atomic bomb was developed in TOTAL SECRECY which involved thousands of people at

universities, major companies and government offices. So an important government project

CAN be done with complete secrecy.

But according to JVB the CIA secret bioweapon lab was SO SECRET that it had to be done

"off the record" in a New Orleans apartment with a freaky homosexual former airline pilot,

a teen-aged girl, and a former defector to Russia...supervised by a little known doctor...and

the doctor had to be killed later by a linear particle accelerator because "she knew too

much"...but the teen girl was allowed to survive for a half century.

And the "secret kitchen lab" remained "secret" despite the frequent delivery of large cages

of monkeys of all sizes. Few things would attract as much attention as having a "monkey

house" in the neighborhood.

Jack

Edited May 1, 2010 by Jack White

[Glenn Viklund]

I would like to compare the Mary-Ferrie-Vary/Lee SECRET BIOLAB with the Manhattan Project

when it comes to "secret government projects".

The atomic bomb was developed in TOTAL SECRECY which involved thousands of people at

universities, major companies and government offices. So an important government project

CAN be done with complete secrecy.

But according to JVB the CIA secret bioweapon lab was SO SECRET that it had to be done

"off the record" in a New Orleans apartment with a freaky homosexual former airline pilot,

a teen-aged girl, and a former defector to Russia...supervised by a little known doctor...and

the doctor had to be killed later by a linear particle accelerator because "she knew too

much"...but the teen girl was allowed to survive for a half century.

And the "secret kitchen lab" remained "secret" despite the frequent delivery of large cages

of monkeys of all sizes. Few things would attract as much attention as having a "monkey

house" in the neighborhood.

Jack

A familiar pattern. As the explanations mature, they often tend to end up where it's impossible to get confirmation. Same thing with the asylum issue, JVBs special treatment was so special that not even the Swedish government was aware of it, things developed "off the record".

Bizarre.

Edited May 1, 2010 by Glenn Viklund

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

JIM REPLIES TO THE ANTI-JUDYTH VARY BAKER CULT OF LIFTON/WELDON/WHITE/JUNKKARINEN

NOTE: I love this Lifton/Weldon/White/Junkkarinen "brain trust". No matter what we provide in the form of refutations of specific claims, like this Lifton nonsense about "Cancun/Kankun", the myths persist. This does not appear to be a research effort but the performance of a cult, where the method of tenacity prevails, which is not going to change its mind, no matter what the evidence. This is a self-preservation exercise. What more can we do than repost previous replies:

Judyth and I have discussed this and I don't know why you think you can discredit her on this basis. QUOTE 1 is the basic story: she had told her agent at the time, Peter Cox, that they were going to meet in the Yucatan in the vicinity of Chichen Itz. Lee had not used the name "Cancun", which, as you have observed, did not exist other than in the form of the village of Kankun. She put her finger on a map at his request and he said, "Oh, Cancun!", and ran with it. Since in QUOTE 2 Shackelford said what had happened (how the misunderstanding had arisen), there is certainly no inconsistency there. And QUOTE 3 is one where Judyth is being more specific about what they (she and Lee) had actually discussed, where QUOTE 4 expands on their tentative plans. Mexico is a predominantly Catholic country, of course, so they would expect to be married by a priest. There is nothing here that impugns the integrity of Judyth. On the other hand, this appears to me to be a nice example of TRYING TO CREATE A CONFLICT rather than TRYING TO SORT THINGS OUT. I discussed each of the quotes with Judyth and, the more we talked about it, the more it became apparent to me that this arose from violating the condition of translation known as "the principle of charity", where you should (in ordinary conversational contexts) look for interpretations that make what you are being told come out to be true. Instead, you and your allies are looking for an interpretation that makes what you are being to told come out false. But it all hangs together the right way. I have done a YouTube interview with Judyth about this, which I recommend to everyone. This is a great to-do about nothing.

Dixie,

Thanks for your post, and especially this part:

QUOTE:

In addition, there has been a whole lot of past discussion regarding the CanCun story, as David Lifton has mentioned.... . . after she learned there was no CanCun Resort at that time, she denied ever saying that. Then later she claimed it was her past agent that added it and she had only meant the CanCun area, since she didn't feel anyone would know where nearby Chichen Itza was. (It is not all that nearby though). So, then a woman on the discussion group posted some info that the Village of KanKun had been there for many, many years and she even had a link to an old map, showing it. In addition, that same woman mentioned there had been a nice hotel in Chichen Itza for years....the Mayaland Hotel. Up until that point, Judyth was still denying she ever said it was a fine hotel in CanCun. But suddenly with that new info and after mentioning various places they intended to visit, she ran with it....and later appeared in her book, as her own claim. Now she insists that she had always known about the old Village of KanKun. If so, it never came up until that woman appeared with that info....then sudenly she had always known it and what she meant when speaking to David L. I just do not buy that, at that point in time, when she spoke to him. UNQUOTE

If you can ever come up with the actual Internet posts --including the date(s)--of the woman who volunteered this information (i.e., who discovered "Kankun", and posted that data) I would appreciate having these details. They mark an important "inflection point" in the evolution of her story. Because they demonstrate exactly how Judyth operates, and how she bobs and weaves around the existing record. In this instance, first she tap danced around the major gaffe she had committed; and then, when she learned of "Kankun," she immediateley adjusted/changed her story to incorporate the new-found information. That's precisely how she handles inconsistencies, "making it up" as the goes along. She evinces the psychology (and even the methodology) of a combination of producer and screenwriter of her own fictions, who, when a gaffe has occurred in a film shoot, respondings by saying, "Oh well, we'll fix that in the editing room."

In this case, the "editing room" is the fertile imagination of Judyth's mind.

This would all be very amusing if it were not the case that this lady if hawking a completely fictional history of a major aspect of the Kennedy assassination, duping many who should know better, and, in addition, besmirching the true character of someone she claims to have loved.

I'm not surprised that someone who claims to have seen the Zapruder film at a New York City theater, in the fall of 1964 (when it was clearly under lock and key, and obviously not being screened at any New York City theater) should rush to her defense, but I would think most people, without an agenda, and with a modicum of good judgment, would know better, and behave accordingly.

What total nonsense.

DSL

5/1/10 2:25 AM

Los Angeles, CA

Edited May 4, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Glenn Viklund]

Fetzer:

"There is nothing here that impugns the integrity of Judyth."

You've by now gotten arguments from 15-20 of the most experienced JFK researchers, and from several others too. I cannot recollect that the two of you have accepted one single argument to this day from the other side as of yet. You are lecturing others about how to deal with arguments, and still you are far from acting this way yourself.

What I remember from the mod group back in 2008 is that you are doing exactly what Shackelford did then. He's not around anymore - I wonder for how long you'll be around with this nonsense?

Edited May 1, 2010 by Glenn Viklund

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Sorry about that, Bernicie. These links should work:

1/6

2/6

3/6

4/6

5/6

6/7

1

WHERE DO YOU CLICK ON THE INTERVIEWS DR.JIM I CANNOT GET ANY TO WORK, THEY ARE LIKE JUST PHOTOS..NO LINKS...THANKS B I BELIEVE THIS LINK WILL TAKE YOU TO THE VIDEOS FYI

Edited May 4, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Viklund, I should have added you as a cheerleader for the anti-Judyth cult.

In case you haven't noticed, I have posted rebuttals to virtually every one

of the vast number of criticisms that have been lodged against her. Why in

the world would you think that I would believe in Judyth without doing my

own homework? I have explained many times why your claims about her

stay in Sweden are baseless on their face. Jack has made many worthless

criticisms and does not even bother to read the most important work about

Judyth. Lifton won't share his precious cassette, no doubt because it would

reveal aspects of their conversation that he wants to conceal. Weldon has

gone off the deep end with this absurdity about bringing murder charges

against her. None of you has ever conceded that she had anything right!

This kind closed-mindedness in the face of contrary evidence is distinctive

of a cult. I plan to tackle some issues that remain, but I have no reason to

think anti-Judyth zealots like the four of you will ever change your minds.

Fetzer:

"There is nothing here that impugns the integrity of Judyth."

You've by now gotten arguments from 15-20 of the most experienced JFK researchers, and from several others too. I cannot recollect that the two of you have accepted one single argument to this day from the other side as of yet. You are lecturing others about how to deal with arguments, and still you are far from acting this way yourself.

What I remember from the mod group back in 2008 is that you are doing exactly what Shackelford did then. He's not around anymore - I wonder for how long you'll be around with this nonsense?

[Glenn Viklund]

None of my claims are "baseless" or "rebutted" as you've also stated. She invented a lot of stories around this that are simply fiction. I have asked you many times to specify exactly where my errors are. My translations of the documents involved have since long been verified.

The simple fact of the matter is that you consistently is buying JVBs arguments, no matter what the issue is or what the evidence presented are. You are obviously afraid to discuss the substance of several issues, instead you out of hand dismisses any argument and discredits those who are behind these arguments.

Tell me, Mr Fetzer, is this what you taught at your university?

Edited May 1, 2010 by Glenn Viklund

[Glenn Viklund]

About the murder charges.

I'm sure she would love the attention that would no doubt bring her. Because she can rest assured she will not ever get charged. There's hundreds, if not thousands that have confessed to being part of the alledged conspiracy to kill JFK.

None of them has ever been charged with anything. What makes Judyth's confession any different?

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

If your allegations were true, Judyth would not have been allowed to remain in Sweden for a protracted period of time.

Friends of hers have tried to track you and the access you appear to have gained to non-public information. We know

enough about your modus operandi to conclude that you are not on a search for truth but are doing everything you can

to try to tarnish Judyth's image. It isn't working. Indeed, with every post, you reveal the depth of your own corruption.

None of my claims are "baseless" or "rebutted" as you've also stated. She invented a lot of stories around this that are simply fiction. I have asked you many times to specify exactly where my errors are. My translations of the documents involved have since long been verified.

The simple fact of the matter is that you consistently is buying JVBs arguments, no matter what the issue is or what the evidence presented are. You are obviously afraid to discuss the substance of several issues, instead you out of hand dismisses any argument and discredits those who are behind these arguments.

Tell me, Mr Fetzer, is this what you taught at your university?

[Glenn Viklund]

If your allegations were true, Judyth would not have been allowed to remain in Sweden for a protracted period of time.

Friends of hers have tried to track you and the access you appear to have gained to non-public information. We know

enough about your modus operandi to conclude that you are not on a search for truth but are doing everything you can

to try to tarnish Judyth's image. It isn't working. Indeed, with every post, you reveal the depth of your own corruption.

None of my claims are "baseless" or "rebutted" as you've also stated. She invented a lot of stories around this that are simply fiction. I have asked you many times to specify exactly where my errors are. My translations of the documents involved have since long been verified.

The simple fact of the matter is that you consistently is buying JVBs arguments, no matter what the issue is or what the evidence presented are. You are obviously afraid to discuss the substance of several issues, instead you out of hand dismisses any argument and discredits those who are behind these arguments.

Tell me, Mr Fetzer, is this what you taught at your university?

You have inderstood just as little as JVB about the asylum process. NO ONE is thrown out if their application is considered for asylum. I told in our first correspondance "with this incredible story it's no wonder she wasn't thrown out immediately.

Amazing that you still are incapable of understanding this. Or, perhaps it just disturbs your arguments a little bit too much.

Edited May 1, 2010 by Glenn Viklund

[Glenn Viklund]

You are never late to accuse others of nasty modus operandi's, and so forth. I've been looking a little bit on your modus operandi, Mr Fetzer, I hope you are proud of this, all your words, nothing added nothing erased. You are truly a shining beacon of balanced argumentation:

Posting 24:

This woman has a lot of nerve! After dealing with her for years, I have found

for a certainty that she posts a lot of absolute rubbish! Not for nothing is her

name a variation on 'junk'!

Posting 26:

Barb Junkkarienen is about as big a fraud as I have encountered on this

forum short of Thompson, Lamson, and Colby.

Posting 46:

Reason #13: Why is Baker ‘s life being threatened? She is currently in hiding in a Scandinavian country under EU political asylum rules and regulations due to denigrating Internet and television productions, break-ins, robberies, burglaries, Internet stalking, persecution, live stalking, arrest threats, and death threats.

Posting 116:

When Junkkanrien talks about "fact checking", you know what is coming will be fanciful. She almost never knows what she is talking about, where this is a nice example of her distortions in attacking Judyth. When Barb posts, I know to expect substantial departures from the truth.

Posting 143:

Here is a nice example of Billy Kelly's research skills: "We have already heard from John Simpkin concerning her allegations that forming this forum was her idea. Now we'll just have to wait and see what Syndey has to say."

John said (in his post, which Kelly takes as authoritative), "I then invited her to answer my question on the Forum. She agreed and joined on 27th March 2004." Except that, In POST #1 of 13 March 2004, he wrote:

(in relation to a story by John McAdams): "I believe his account is full of inaccuracies. As Judyth Baker is a member of the forum I hope she will point this out for us. "

So obviously John's memory is faulty, since Judyth was a member from the beginning. What you, Bill, have taken to be authoritative was wrong, which I find to be typical of you.

Posting: 145:

If it looks like a buffoon, walks like a buffoon, and talks like a buffoon . . . Why do you continue to pursue these things when you simply do not know what you are talking about? Just how dumb are you? I put up a post--several times now--that show John Simkin was referring to Judyth as a member of the forum on 13 March 2004. I have already posted the content of the post from Simkin in which he mentions Judyth right off the bat as a member of the forum on that date long prior to 27 March 2004, which he recently mentioned. Take a good look, Bill Kelly. A more stunning illustration of your research incompetence would be difficult to arrange.

Posting 179:

Nothing about anything Barb Junkkarinen has ever posted gave me any hope that she was interested in historical truth!

Posting 212:

Judyth already rebutted this drivel about "Cancun", Barb. Don't you have anything better than to recycle? I almost hate to say it, but your are giving Judyth's critics a bad name. Maybe you need to reread the thread.

Posting 243:

A post of mine about Glenn Viklund seems to be missing, where I

explained that Viklund has been selective in attempting to smear me

by only using parts of our correspondence. Based upon my experience

with him, which I have documented here, he is a highly dubious source.

Posting 309:

NOTE: It grieves me to see people I admire, like Jack White and Doug Weldon,

making nice with people I don't. …..But then, none of Judyth's critics appears to be

the least bit affected, even by Judyth's demonstration that Junkkarinen, Viklund,

and McAdams are in collusion.

Posting 311:

NOTE: This appears to me to be an acid test of Judyth's critics. We already know that

Junkkarinen, Viklund, and McAdams have been collaborating in attacking her.

Posting 346:

NOTE: This appears to me to be an acid test of Judyth's critics. We already know that

Junkkarinen, Viklund, and McAdams have been collaborating in attacking her.

Posting 353:

Judyth has already proven coordination between Viklund, Junkkarinen, and McAdams,

who appear to be collaborating in a systematic effort to discredit her, which Junkkarinen

has not denied. Under the circumstances, I find it offensive that she continues to put up

one attack after another, frequently recycling old claims that have already been refuted.

Posting 393:

I DON'T GET IT, BARB. JUDYTH HAS LOADS OF PROOF. YOU SIMPLY IGNORE IT (AGAIN AND AGAIN)!

Posting 395:

I FIND BARB'S ABUSE OF THE MEMORY OF MARY FERRELL ESPECIALLY OFFENSIVE.

Posting 397:

JACK HAS REPEATED THE CLAIM THAT JUDYTH ADDS NOTHING TO OUR KNOWLEDGE OF THE

CASE THAT SOME MAY EVEN BE TAKING IT SERIOUSLY. HERE ARE THREE COUNTEREXAMPLES:

Posting 421:

THE ONLY CONFLICT LIES IN YOUR PREJUDICE, JACK!

Posting 451:

NOTE: I would remind those new to this thread that

collusion between Viklund, Junkkarinen, and McAdams

has been established based upon exchanges between

them that are found in earlier posts on this very thread.

Posting 456:

Are you using a false name? The only instance of "John Dolva" is

right here on the forum. Not even in Facebook where there is nothing.

Posting 459:

Consider the evidence, Pat. He appears to be posting under a false name,

which he has, interestingly enough, not denied.

Posting 461:

More happy horsexxxx from John Dolva.

Posting 489:

I never heard of Mike Williams, but he has committed an elementary fallacy of equivocation.....

My guess would be that this guy did not wander into this forum on his own to attack me on a thread about Judyth Vary Baker! No, I would bet that this guy was encouraged to make this post and to use a word like "blather", which is not a common Marine Corps expression but the kind of word Josiah would have wanted him to use.

Posting 495:

I find it very peculiar that you show up on this important thread with rubbish. And that you are continuing suggests that I am right in my belief that Tink led you here.

Posting 612;

Judyth is nearly blind, needs glasses, and has an old computer with a Hungarian keyboard.

Posting 619:

There are lots of things you can't imagine, Jack, but that does not mean that they are not true.

Posting 724:

On a personal note, and one unrelated to the matter of Judyth: if you want to know when it became evident to me that your research on the windshield could be safely set aside, and that Doug Weldon had in fact nailed down the facts in that area--the tipping point came with your false accusations against me regarding Judyth.

Posting 724:

So I say about this, someone has his head where the sun doesn't shine and --

here's a big clue! -- it ain't Judyth!

Posting 764:

Jack stated as a condition of the guess I had "one chance in six" to get

it right. That was false. They were all modified. He was being dishonest.

Posting 766:

Jack,

The production of indefensible posts appears to be becoming a pastime for you.

Posting 771:

David,

I appreciate your contributions to this thread. You raise serious questions that

I shall pursue and attempt to nail down.

Posting 773

Mr. Viklund,

Several posts have already rebutted your drivel about Judyth's asylum status,

in case you missed them.

Posting 782:

This is a nice example of presumptuous reasoning passing for research.

Posting 784:

NOTE: If there is a non-entity on this thread who is doing his best to insert himself into the discussion, it is Glenn Viklund. …....Interestingly, Mr. Viklund is like Mr. Lifton. he was not there. ALL HE SEES IS THE OFFICIAL VERDICT, which says my statemens weren't supported by evidence, which we didn't much care about, insofar as they had to deny my request.

Posting 786:

NOTE: It is just the least bit embarrassing when Jack does not know the

difference between a "street car" and a bus route.

Posting 803:

As a former professor of critical thinking, I am not used to your committing so many fallacies at once:

Posting 805:

Isn't this the same woman who was corresponding with Vilkund and McAdams to trash Judyth?

Posting 806:

David, I believe you have crossed the line several times in impugning Judyth's integrity.

Posting 821:

Apparently, she has to get her eyes right up next to the screen to view images on the computer.

If she were less brilliant, I doubt she could do any of this. It lies far beyond my own competence.

Posting 827:

(5) You are displaying an obsession with Judyth that exceeds the bounds of rationality. To

apply "Lifton logic" once again, it concerns me that you are tarnishing your reputation and

all the good work you have done in the past, including, of course, your BEST EVIDENCE. …..Your methodology appears to be the tenacious reiteration of the position you have already

advanced, regardless of its merits. She told me when we discussed it that your technique

was to repeat and repeat and repeat, and that her reply was to rebut and rebut and rebut

to expose your chicanery.

Posting 844:

I have been doing this for quite some time. I have been confronted with dozens

and dozens of reasons to disbelieve Judyth. But when I have looked into them,

they fall apart. I must have had eight or more from Jack alone. David Lifton is

giving this his best shot and, so far as I can see, falling short by quite a ways.

Posting 852:

This may be the first time in the history of the forum that John Simkin has twice descended from on high to offer his definitive statement, which appears to bear no relationship whatsoever to the content of this thread.

Posting 856

NOTE: This has nothing to do with loyalty and everything to do with truth. My relationship with Jack and with David is not going to change because of our differences about Judyth.

Posting 864

And, since she is getting new glasses, it's a good thing you are doing this now, since your posts will be even more pointless in the future.

Posting 879:

Apparently I can anticipate more drivel from you in an apparently hopeless effort to save face.

Posting 891:

No, I don't "get your point". I don't think you have one. What in the world do you think is going on? Do you also question whether David Mantik could have performed his optical density studies? You are off the deep end. This is quite bizarre. JUST EXACTLY WHAT DO YOU THINK IS GOING ON?

Posting 893:

Why you display such an arrogant and insulting attitude toward Judyth when this book to which you constantly refer commits such a grevious blunder from scratch is beyond me.

Posting 903:

NOTE: Why am I not surprised that Barb would post something completely irrelevant to distract attention from the blockbuster post I have just made about the "missing tooth"?

Posting 904:

NOTE: Once again, what Judyth has to say is even more accurate and complete than what Jack White has to say. This reinforces my complete disillusionment with the "brain trust" of Jack White, John Armstrong, and David S. Lifton, whom I have naively assumed knew all there is to know about Lee H. Oswald.

Posting 908:

So why did you bring it up again now, right after this blockbuster about Lee's missing tooth? You trade in trivia, while Judyth is making major contributions.

Posting 911:

driv·el   [driv-uhl] Show IPA noun, verb,-eled, -el·ing or (especially British) -elled, -el·ling.

–noun

1. saliva flowing from the mouth, or mucus from the nose; slaver.

2. childish, silly, or meaningless talk or thinking; nonsense; twaddle.

–verb (used without object)

Posting 921:

Your position is such drivel you are not even willing to tell us. What precisely do you think is going on? And, in this context, if we needed another example of the childishness of your posts, you have just provided it.

Posting 1000

I believe that Kathy is sincere but that others are flooding this thread with junk.

Posting 1019

I find it unsurprising in the extreme that several of Judyth's most severe critics have been shown to be in collusion with John McAdams, whom no reasonable person dedicated to discovering the truth about the death of JFK would ever consider taking seriously in their wildest dreams. Thus,

the fact that they have joined together in attempts to discredit her is, to my mind, indispensable to appreciating their role on this thread.

Posting 1031

This is ludicrous. I was asked about it by another party and it appeared to be relevant.

It was my mistake to think it concerned Barb. She could have explained it effortlessly,

but instead withheld information in a hypocritical effort to create a cause. The effort to

promote trivia is going full blast, since this gang has nothing of meaning to contribute.

Posting 1047

Complete and total rubbish. Why should Barb be making a federal offense over information that her own son had posted on Facebook? In case she hasn't noticed, Facebook is a public source. There is nothing unusual about her son posting information about his career, as many of other millions of people have done, where what they do for a living is available in their Facebook page. It is not private.

Posting 1091

With it or without it, my inference is that Judyth had grounds to believe that Lifton had shortchanged Rachel, which means that, even if her belief turns out to be false, as Lifton insists, she did not satisfy the third or fourth conditions for committing a lie. Under these circumstances, it seems to me that it is Lifton who owes Judyth an apology and not vice versa.

Posting 1099

NOTE: I suppose that Greenlee, who has been posting nasties to Junkkarinen on

another site, belongs here to add to the fray. How many have now piled on about my

inquiry about some code that was linked to Junkkarinen's site but turned out to be

about her son rather than her? Junkkarinen, Thompson, Farley, Viklund, Greenlee,

and no doubt others. …....We already knew that Vikelund, Junkkarenin, and McAdams were working together. Now Greenlee joins them This is a nice example of the critics methodology: find something to attack, no matter how innocuous, and beat it to death! No one will even protest this genuinely indefensible crap!

Posting 1103

Judyth debunked that rubbish claim long ago, Jack. Try reading post #945.

Posting 1148

Because there is no reason in the world to suppose that Ruth Paine would be a reliable source about Lee H. Oswald.

Posting 1171:

Simkin seems intent upon spinning situations to the detriment of Judyth. I

find this offensive coming from the founder of a forum which is ostensibly

dedicated to discovering the truth in controversial and complex situations.

Posting 1270:

ON THE MANIFEST ABSURDITY OF DOUG WELDON'S POSITION

Posting 1273:

I am sorry, Jack. I thought you were committed to research. It is obvious that I'm wrong.

Posting 1277:

Douglas Weldon does a soft shoe to spare himself embarrassment. …And after all the insults I have endured from Jack White (no doubt, at least in part, on the basis of emails from Lifton and Weldon), I am just not going to take it any longer! When they have something serious to offer, I'll be glad to hear from them--not before. .

Posting 1292:

If ever there were a contributor to this thread who does not deserve to be taken seriously, it is Robert Harris. Notice he has only joined the forum in the last two days. How could this guy be standing on the sidelines with his "dynamite" refutation of Judyth over more than 1,200 posts and not become involved before this?

Posting 1326:

Jack,

A few questions for my friend, who has evidently gone off the deep end: …...(11) Are you and Barb Junkkarinen now collaborators?

Posting 1343:

NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF FRIENDSHIP WITH JACK WHITE, WHO HAS FINALLY DISGUSTED ME

Posting 1350:

Junkkiarinen is endlessly recyclying old material from the McAdams' site, where she and Viklund have been exposed as collaborating to attack her. The fact that she has been so massively abused in other forums is no excuse not to grant her a level playing field here.

Posting 1350:

I am probably more versed in scholarship than anyone else on this forum.

Posting 1364:

Well, Dean, God knows I wouldn't want your mind to be changed by anything like new relevant evidence! What is this forum coming to?

Posting 1369:

Dean,

You say to me, "I am very open and will read or listen to anything you have to say Jim", yet from the answers to my questions, it does not appear to me that you are open or willing to read or listen to my suggestions. At least five of your answers below were "No", where several others also seem to fit. You appear to be taking your cues from Junkkarinen and Viklund, whom I regard as completely unreliable. Jack and Barb may be new BFFs, but it baffles me as to why you say you are listening to me or will read what I suggest when you are not.

Posting 1380:

There is more fakery and fraud in this single post from Doug Weldon than in the hundreds of posts that I have exchanged with Judyth.

Posting 1401:

The other attacks from Viklund, Junkkarinen, Lifton, Weldon, and others do not,

in my opinion, warrant serious concern, since many of them, though not all, are

of the variety "I just can see how . . . " or "Who would believe that . . .?" variety.

Posting 1407:

WAKE UP, JACK! If Judyth were the flake you take her to be, who would care? She has been under assault here and elsewhere precisely because she IS "the real deal"!

Posting 1416:

Fascinating how Barb is orchestrating the opposition! Great work, Junkkarinen.

I imagine a count would show that you have posted more attacks on Judyth than

anyone else here.

Posting 1432:

And now Dean enters the fray as well? I am fascinated. I guess we should just let Jack say anything he likes and let it go at that, no matter how irresponsible its content or inadequately justified by the evidence.

Posting 1437:

This is pretty weird, Pat. I have been doing a lot of research, including studying the massive attacks upon her. What is your take? That I am some kind of thoughtless, automated posting-mechanism? In the face of this onslaught of attacks, you are asking me if IT IS POSSIBLE that I could be wrong? Well, of course, IT IS POSSIBLE. That is not the question. The question is IS IT LIKELY? And the answer to that is NO, IT IS NOT LIKELY.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Typical example of your methodology: quote the part you think will smear

me without explaining the context! Every one of those comments was well-

justified by the posts to which I was responding. Why don't you show us you

are not a completely disgraceful con-artist by going through and adding the

background context against which they must be understood? Of course, you

won't do that, because it would expose you as a fraud and a charlatan! As I

previously remarked, each of your posts demonstrates the depth of your own

corruption. This is about as nice an example as I can image! Some of these

"quotes", by the way, were not even from me. If anyone wants to study the

incompetence of Glenn Viklund, this is a great place to start. Give us more!

You are never late to accuse others of nasty modus operandi's, and so forth. I've been looking a little bit on your modus operandi, Mr Fetzer, I hope you are proud of this, all your words, nothing added nothing erased. You are truly a shining beacon of balanced argumentation:

Posting 24:

This woman has a lot of nerve! After dealing with her for years, I have found

for a certainty that she posts a lot of absolute rubbish! Not for nothing is her

name a variation on 'junk'!

Posting 26:

Barb Junkkarienen is about as big a fraud as I have encountered on this

forum short of Thompson, Lamson, and Colby.

Posting 46:

Reason #13: Why is Baker ‘s life being threatened? She is currently in hiding in a Scandinavian country under EU political asylum rules and regulations due to denigrating Internet and television productions, break-ins, robberies, burglaries, Internet stalking, persecution, live stalking, arrest threats, and death threats.

Posting 116:

When Junkkanrien talks about "fact checking", you know what is coming will be fanciful. She almost never knows what she is talking about, where this is a nice example of her distortions in attacking Judyth. When Barb posts, I know to expect substantial departures from the truth.

Posting 143:

Here is a nice example of Billy Kelly's research skills: "We have already heard from John Simpkin concerning her allegations that forming this forum was her idea. Now we'll just have to wait and see what Syndey has to say."

John said (in his post, which Kelly takes as authoritative), "I then invited her to answer my question on the Forum. She agreed and joined on 27th March 2004." Except that, In POST #1 of 13 March 2004, he wrote:

(in relation to a story by John McAdams): "I believe his account is full of inaccuracies. As Judyth Baker is a member of the forum I hope she will point this out for us. "

So obviously John's memory is faulty, since Judyth was a member from the beginning. What you, Bill, have taken to be authoritative was wrong, which I find to be typical of you.

Posting: 145:

If it looks like a buffoon, walks like a buffoon, and talks like a buffoon . . . Why do you continue to pursue these things when you simply do not know what you are talking about? Just how dumb are you? I put up a post--several times now--that show John Simkin was referring to Judyth as a member of the forum on 13 March 2004. I have already posted the content of the post from Simkin in which he mentions Judyth right off the bat as a member of the forum on that date long prior to 27 March 2004, which he recently mentioned. Take a good look, Bill Kelly. A more stunning illustration of your research incompetence would be difficult to arrange.

Posting 179:

Nothing about anything Barb Junkkarinen has ever posted gave me any hope that she was interested in historical truth!

Posting 212:

Judyth already rebutted this drivel about "Cancun", Barb. Don't you have anything better than to recycle? I almost hate to say it, but your are giving Judyth's critics a bad name. Maybe you need to reread the thread.

Posting 243:

A post of mine about Glenn Viklund seems to be missing, where I

explained that Viklund has been selective in attempting to smear me

by only using parts of our correspondence. Based upon my experience

with him, which I have documented here, he is a highly dubious source.

Posting 309:

NOTE: It grieves me to see people I admire, like Jack White and Doug Weldon,

making nice with people I don't. …..But then, none of Judyth's critics appears to be

the least bit affected, even by Judyth's demonstration that Junkkarinen, Viklund,

and McAdams are in collusion.

Posting 311:

NOTE: This appears to me to be an acid test of Judyth's critics. We already know that

Junkkarinen, Viklund, and McAdams have been collaborating in attacking her.

Posting 346:

NOTE: This appears to me to be an acid test of Judyth's critics. We already know that

Junkkarinen, Viklund, and McAdams have been collaborating in attacking her.

Posting 353:

Judyth has already proven coordination between Viklund, Junkkarinen, and McAdams,

who appear to be collaborating in a systematic effort to discredit her, which Junkkarinen

has not denied. Under the circumstances, I find it offensive that she continues to put up

one attack after another, frequently recycling old claims that have already been refuted.

Posting 393:

I DON'T GET IT, BARB. JUDYTH HAS LOADS OF PROOF. YOU SIMPLY IGNORE IT (AGAIN AND AGAIN)!

Posting 395:

I FIND BARB'S ABUSE OF THE MEMORY OF MARY FERRELL ESPECIALLY OFFENSIVE.

Posting 397:

JACK HAS REPEATED THE CLAIM THAT JUDYTH ADDS NOTHING TO OUR KNOWLEDGE OF THE

CASE THAT SOME MAY EVEN BE TAKING IT SERIOUSLY. HERE ARE THREE COUNTEREXAMPLES:

Posting 421:

THE ONLY CONFLICT LIES IN YOUR PREJUDICE, JACK!

Posting 451:

NOTE: I would remind those new to this thread that

collusion between Viklund, Junkkarinen, and McAdams

has been established based upon exchanges between

them that are found in earlier posts on this very thread.

Posting 456:

Are you using a false name? The only instance of "John Dolva" is

right here on the forum. Not even in Facebook where there is nothing.

Posting 459:

Consider the evidence, Pat. He appears to be posting under a false name,

which he has, interestingly enough, not denied.

Posting 461:

More happy horsexxxx from John Dolva.

Posting 489:

I never heard of Mike Williams, but he has committed an elementary fallacy of equivocation.....

My guess would be that this guy did not wander into this forum on his own to attack me on a thread about Judyth Vary Baker! No, I would bet that this guy was encouraged to make this post and to use a word like "blather", which is not a common Marine Corps expression but the kind of word Josiah would have wanted him to use.

Posting 495:

I find it very peculiar that you show up on this important thread with rubbish. And that you are continuing suggests that I am right in my belief that Tink led you here.

Posting 612;

Judyth is nearly blind, needs glasses, and has an old computer with a Hungarian keyboard.

Posting 619:

There are lots of things you can't imagine, Jack, but that does not mean that they are not true.

Posting 724:

On a personal note, and one unrelated to the matter of Judyth: if you want to know when it became evident to me that your research on the windshield could be safely set aside, and that Doug Weldon had in fact nailed down the facts in that area--the tipping point came with your false accusations against me regarding Judyth.

Posting 724:

So I say about this, someone has his head where the sun doesn't shine and --

here's a big clue! -- it ain't Judyth!

Posting 764:

Jack stated as a condition of the guess I had "one chance in six" to get

it right. That was false. They were all modified. He was being dishonest.

Posting 766:

Jack,

The production of indefensible posts appears to be becoming a pastime for you.

Posting 771:

David,

I appreciate your contributions to this thread. You raise serious questions that

I shall pursue and attempt to nail down.

Posting 773

Mr. Viklund,

Several posts have already rebutted your drivel about Judyth's asylum status,

in case you missed them.

Posting 782:

This is a nice example of presumptuous reasoning passing for research.

Posting 784:

NOTE: If there is a non-entity on this thread who is doing his best to insert himself into the discussion, it is Glenn Viklund. …....Interestingly, Mr. Viklund is like Mr. Lifton. he was not there. ALL HE SEES IS THE OFFICIAL VERDICT, which says my statemens weren't supported by evidence, which we didn't much care about, insofar as they had to deny my request.

Posting 786:

NOTE: It is just the least bit embarrassing when Jack does not know the

difference between a "street car" and a bus route.

Posting 803:

As a former professor of critical thinking, I am not used to your committing so many fallacies at once:

Posting 805:

Isn't this the same woman who was corresponding with Vilkund and McAdams to trash Judyth?

Posting 806:

David, I believe you have crossed the line several times in impugning Judyth's integrity.

Posting 821:

Apparently, she has to get her eyes right up next to the screen to view images on the computer.

If she were less brilliant, I doubt she could do any of this. It lies far beyond my own competence.

Posting 827:

(5) You are displaying an obsession with Judyth that exceeds the bounds of rationality. To

apply "Lifton logic" once again, it concerns me that you are tarnishing your reputation and

all the good work you have done in the past, including, of course, your BEST EVIDENCE. …..Your methodology appears to be the tenacious reiteration of the position you have already

advanced, regardless of its merits. She told me when we discussed it that your technique

was to repeat and repeat and repeat, and that her reply was to rebut and rebut and rebut

to expose your chicanery.

Posting 844:

I have been doing this for quite some time. I have been confronted with dozens

and dozens of reasons to disbelieve Judyth. But when I have looked into them,

they fall apart. I must have had eight or more from Jack alone. David Lifton is

giving this his best shot and, so far as I can see, falling short by quite a ways.

Posting 852:

This may be the first time in the history of the forum that John Simkin has twice descended from on high to offer his definitive statement, which appears to bear no relationship whatsoever to the content of this thread.

Posting 856

NOTE: This has nothing to do with loyalty and everything to do with truth. My relationship with Jack and with David is not going to change because of our differences about Judyth.

Posting 864

And, since she is getting new glasses, it's a good thing you are doing this now, since your posts will be even more pointless in the future.

Posting 879:

Apparently I can anticipate more drivel from you in an apparently hopeless effort to save face.

Posting 891:

No, I don't "get your point". I don't think you have one. What in the world do you think is going on? Do you also question whether David Mantik could have performed his optical density studies? You are off the deep end. This is quite bizarre. JUST EXACTLY WHAT DO YOU THINK IS GOING ON?

Posting 893:

Why you display such an arrogant and insulting attitude toward Judyth when this book to which you constantly refer commits such a grevious blunder from scratch is beyond me.

Posting 903:

NOTE: Why am I not surprised that Barb would post something completely irrelevant to distract attention from the blockbuster post I have just made about the "missing tooth"?

Posting 904:

NOTE: Once again, what Judyth has to say is even more accurate and complete than what Jack White has to say. This reinforces my complete disillusionment with the "brain trust" of Jack White, John Armstrong, and David S. Lifton, whom I have naively assumed knew all there is to know about Lee H. Oswald.

Posting 908:

So why did you bring it up again now, right after this blockbuster about Lee's missing tooth? You trade in trivia, while Judyth is making major contributions.

Posting 911:

driv·el   [driv-uhl] Show IPA noun, verb,-eled, -el·ing or (especially British) -elled, -el·ling.

–noun

1. saliva flowing from the mouth, or mucus from the nose; slaver.

2. childish, silly, or meaningless talk or thinking; nonsense; twaddle.

–verb (used without object)

Posting 921:

Your position is such drivel you are not even willing to tell us. What precisely do you think is going on? And, in this context, if we needed another example of the childishness of your posts, you have just provided it.

Posting 1000

I believe that Kathy is sincere but that others are flooding this thread with junk.

Posting 1019

I find it unsurprising in the extreme that several of Judyth's most severe critics have been shown to be in collusion with John McAdams, whom no reasonable person dedicated to discovering the truth about the death of JFK would ever consider taking seriously in their wildest dreams. Thus,

the fact that they have joined together in attempts to discredit her is, to my mind, indispensable to appreciating their role on this thread.

Posting 1031

This is ludicrous. I was asked about it by another party and it appeared to be relevant.

It was my mistake to think it concerned Barb. She could have explained it effortlessly,

but instead withheld information in a hypocritical effort to create a cause. The effort to

promote trivia is going full blast, since this gang has nothing of meaning to contribute.

Posting 1047

Complete and total rubbish. Why should Barb be making a federal offense over information that her own son had posted on Facebook? In case she hasn't noticed, Facebook is a public source. There is nothing unusual about her son posting information about his career, as many of other millions of people have done, where what they do for a living is available in their Facebook page. It is not private.

Posting 1091

With it or without it, my inference is that Judyth had grounds to believe that Lifton had shortchanged Rachel, which means that, even if her belief turns out to be false, as Lifton insists, she did not satisfy the third or fourth conditions for committing a lie. Under these circumstances, it seems to me that it is Lifton who owes Judyth an apology and not vice versa.

Posting 1099

NOTE: I suppose that Greenlee, who has been posting nasties to Junkkarinen on

another site, belongs here to add to the fray. How many have now piled on about my

inquiry about some code that was linked to Junkkarinen's site but turned out to be

about her son rather than her? Junkkarinen, Thompson, Farley, Viklund, Greenlee,

and no doubt others. …....We already knew that Vikelund, Junkkarenin, and McAdams were working together. Now Greenlee joins them This is a nice example of the critics methodology: find something to attack, no matter how innocuous, and beat it to death! No one will even protest this genuinely indefensible crap!

Posting 1103

Judyth debunked that rubbish claim long ago, Jack. Try reading post #945.

Posting 1148

Because there is no reason in the world to suppose that Ruth Paine would be a reliable source about Lee H. Oswald.

Posting 1171:

Simkin seems intent upon spinning situations to the detriment of Judyth. I

find this offensive coming from the founder of a forum which is ostensibly

dedicated to discovering the truth in controversial and complex situations.

Posting 1270:

ON THE MANIFEST ABSURDITY OF DOUG WELDON'S POSITION

Posting 1273:

I am sorry, Jack. I thought you were committed to research. It is obvious that I'm wrong.

Posting 1277:

Douglas Weldon does a soft shoe to spare himself embarrassment. …And after all the insults I have endured from Jack White (no doubt, at least in part, on the basis of emails from Lifton and Weldon), I am just not going to take it any longer! When they have something serious to offer, I'll be glad to hear from them--not before. .

Posting 1292:

If ever there were a contributor to this thread who does not deserve to be taken seriously, it is Robert Harris. Notice he has only joined the forum in the last two days. How could this guy be standing on the sidelines with his "dynamite" refutation of Judyth over more than 1,200 posts and not become involved before this?

Posting 1326:

Jack,

A few questions for my friend, who has evidently gone off the deep end: …...(11) Are you and Barb Junkkarinen now collaborators?

Posting 1343:

NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF FRIENDSHIP WITH JACK WHITE, WHO HAS FINALLY DISGUSTED ME

Posting 1350:

Junkkiarinen is endlessly recyclying old material from the McAdams' site, where she and Viklund have been exposed as collaborating to attack her. The fact that she has been so massively abused in other forums is no excuse not to grant her a level playing field here.

Posting 1350:

I am probably more versed in scholarship than anyone else on this forum.

Posting 1364:

Well, Dean, God knows I wouldn't want your mind to be changed by anything like new relevant evidence! What is this forum coming to?

Posting 1369:

Dean,

You say to me, "I am very open and will read or listen to anything you have to say Jim", yet from the answers to my questions, it does not appear to me that you are open or willing to read or listen to my suggestions. At least five of your answers below were "No", where several others also seem to fit. You appear to be taking your cues from Junkkarinen and Viklund, whom I regard as completely unreliable. Jack and Barb may be new BFFs, but it baffles me as to why you say you are listening to me or will read what I suggest when you are not.

Posting 1380:

There is more fakery and fraud in this single post from Doug Weldon than in the hundreds of posts that I have exchanged with Judyth.

Posting 1401:

The other attacks from Viklund, Junkkarinen, Lifton, Weldon, and others do not,

in my opinion, warrant serious concern, since many of them, though not all, are

of the variety "I just can see how . . . " or "Who would believe that . . .?" variety.

Posting 1407:

WAKE UP, JACK! If Judyth were the flake you take her to be, who would care? She has been under assault here and elsewhere precisely because she IS "the real deal"!

Posting 1416:

Fascinating how Barb is orchestrating the opposition! Great work, Junkkarinen.

I imagine a count would show that you have posted more attacks on Judyth than

anyone else here.

Posting 1432:

And now Dean enters the fray as well? I am fascinated. I guess we should just let Jack say anything he likes and let it go at that, no matter how irresponsible its content or inadequately justified by the evidence.

Posting 1437:

This is pretty weird, Pat. I have been doing a lot of research, including studying the massive attacks upon her. What is your take? That I am some kind of thoughtless, automated posting-mechanism? In the face of this onslaught of attacks, you are asking me if IT IS POSSIBLE that I could be wrong? Well, of course, IT IS POSSIBLE. That is not the question. The question is IS IT LIKELY? And the answer to that is NO, IT IS NOT LIKELY.

Edited May 1, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Glenn Viklund]

I will smear you??

As everyone can see, that's not necessary. You are doing one heck of a job about that yourself - no assistance needed!

Posting no's are there, just get whatever context you look for! No matter the context, I'm sure you're not capable of seeing the pattern here.

I was thinking of naming this "Fetzer's top 100 gutter list" or something along those lines.

Edited May 1, 2010 by Glenn Viklund