Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[Jack White]

Jim...you have it exactly BACKWARD. It is the tiny group of Judyth lovers who form a small cult.

Among the definitions for cult:

5 a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b : the object of such devotion c : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion

On the other hand, those you mention are skeptical independent researchers, not allied with anyone else,

and whose sole devotion is to truth.

Jack

PS...you accuse me of PREJUDICE, and of course that is true! Prejudice means "previously judged", and

I reached a conclusion about JVB 8 or 10 years ago and have seen nothing new to change my previous

judgment.

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.

Edited May 1, 2010 by Jack White

[Glenn Viklund]

I'd just like to add this.

A couple of days ago I decided to walk through this giant thread in peace, that is, no postings or worries about the latest. I started from scratch and at first there was not much of a problem, many declared their standings and not a lot of arguing around this.

However, soon enough this thread became something entirely different. It turns out that Mr Fetzer wants no opposition to the stuff from Judyth, that he's posting. And, to once again use Pat Speer's adequate description, the urinating contest had started (And yes, I was drawn into it myself at one point, I am not proud of some of the things I said, for which I've apologized).

The reason for this havoc, was, almost without exception that Fetzer started all kinds of offensive language. The mud was thrown in all directions - except towards those who agreed, they were praised. But in all directions as far as known, unknown, researchers of any duration, non-researchers. Especially vs those Fetzer like to team up with McAdams. But, many, many more as well. Old friends.

So, I simply decided to look at Fetzer's postings. And yes, of course they often includes much more than my quotes. My quotations are taken from the initial comments Fetzer is regularly making, and therefore these characterizations, accusations and conclusions often sets the tone of the debate. The JFK issue is certainly much more important than these things, but I think Fetzer should take a long hard look at the way he's been acting in this debate.

But I'm not holding my breath.

Edited May 1, 2010 by Glenn Viklund

[Dean Hagerman]

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

Perfect was to sum things up Jack!

Jim please read what Jack just wrote and ask yourself this, Is Judyth's story absurd?

The only answer is a huge YES

[Pamela Brown]

GV hilariously said: The JFK issue is certainly much more important than these things, but I think Fetzer should take a long hard look at the way he's been acting in this debate.

Pot calling the kettle black?

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Dean and Jack and Doug and Lifton and other members of this little cult:

Have you read DR. MARY'S MONKEY? Did you listen to my two-hour interview

last night? Have you watched the seven new YouTube interviews that I have

done, which were posted last night and for which links have been provided?

I am confident you and the others I have named are not studying the latest

evidence because your minds are made up. It is an embarrassment that you

would claim to have an open mind about Judyth. This is all quite disgraceful.

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

Perfect was to sum things up Jack!

Jim please read what Jack just wrote and ask yourself this, Is Judyth's story absurd?

The only answer is a huge YES

[B. A. Copeland]

Hmm...I will not divert this topic but Fetzer...you're a real piece of work. I do wonder how many here on the EduForum know of your oddball act on the GCN a couple years back with Fintan Dunne lol....I simply see topics like this and it makes me wonder.....this from the same guy who lended credibility to Judy Wood's 'space beam' or directed energy weapon theory regarding 9/11....Actually...there are a couple of topics there concerning "Is Fetzer CIA?" at BreakForNews.com's Forum, which are pretty interesting reading or food for thought if anything.

Edited May 1, 2010 by B. A. Copeland

[Kevin Greenlee]

Dean and Jack and Doug and Lifton and other members of this little cult:

Have you read DR. MARY'S MONKEY? Did you listen to my two-hour interview

last night? Have you watched the seven new YouTube interviews that I have

done, which were posted last night and for which links have been provided?

Mr. Fetzer-

"You need to make the arguments here and cite the interview for additional discussion. Most of the members are not going to go there without having a very good idea what hey will hear. Please elaborate your position. Your presence will make a difference, but you have to state your case."

the above words are yours- post #201 on this page

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...5173&st=195

i urge you to follow your own counsel and provide whatever evidence you have here instead of constantly assuring us that we can find it elsewhere. once again i invite you to share with us evidence for the 17 crucial points of judyth's story, starting with point #1- which you have assured us is especially important and well supported. that point, of course, is that ochsner lured judyth to new orleans. your continued failure to offer this evidence is in itself becoming evidence that you recognize the weakness of your position and that you are peddling a fraud upon us all.

i remind you once again of your own words: "You need to make the arguments here and cite the interview for additional discussion. Most of the members are not going to go there without having a very good idea what hey will hear. Please elaborate your position. Your presence will make a difference, but you have to state your case."

[Barb Junkkarinen]

However, if the writing is shown to be inconsistent, that would seriously damage Judyth's credibility. I asked Barb if that was her aim--which is her prerogative, but she denied it. Given the above, could it possibly be anything else?

It could be ... and is ... an interest in assessing the truth of her claim. Simple as that.

Bests,

Barb :-)

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Monk:

I would agree with Barb. If it is not Oswald's signature it would and should damage Judyth's credibility. It is Judyth who is asserting that it is Oswald's writing. How would you explain it if the handwriting is not Oswald's? Yes, she has a lot to lose, but she has a lot to gain. You are correct, it is an issue of credibility. If Judyth was in court and testifying and the writing turns out not to be Oswald's then she would be confronted with it and it would weigh on her credibility about everything she states.

She is in the court of public opinion. If it is not his writing Judyth would be far better served by saying it's not. It's simple. If it's legitimate let's prove it. If not, explain why she claimed it was. It's difficult to accept her legitimacy on anything if she cannot jump such a simple hurdle. Barb is absolutely correct. It would be proof that she knew him. I cannot fathom any other way that she could have obtained the writing. This is not smearing Judyth. It is giving her an opportunity to present solid evidence.

Doug Weldon

Precisely, well stated, Doug. Judyth's claims can/will alter the way we look at Oswald, at the assassination and at avenues of research. Anything and everything she claims that can be confirmed, must be confirmed, lest our history ... and the history of trying to study and resolve this case ... be forever altered and sent down false trails. We deserve, and need, an accurate history.

Bests,

Barb :-)

[Pamela Brown]

DW says:If Judyth was in court and testifying and the writing turns out not to be Oswald's then she would be confronted with it and it would weigh on her credibility about everything she states.

<sigh>If only Weldon had applied the same level of scrutiny to Whittaker's statements instead of swallowing them whole.

[Barb Junkkarinen]

QUOTE: "The actual location was not where Lee and I expected to go to a hotel, only to meet . . . we were going to then go explore Chichen Itza, which was supposed to be relatively close, and ruins, all of which we believed from a book [sic] we read together was in Quintana Roo . . . we were going to go to a fine hotel...maybe that was a joke of Lee's...and we were going to get a Catholic priest to marry us." UNQUOTE

((DSL comment: Attention All Readers Please Note: Lee, an atheist, and married to Marina, loving his daughter June, and happily expecting the birth of his second child. . . was planning to go off with this lady “to get a Catholic priest to marry us” ?! - - -Oh pleeez.))

Jim

How can you possibly defend this crazy statement that Judyth made?

Let us count the ways ... sigh.

[Doug Weldon]

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?

Jim:

A hysterical response does not change reality. The simple facts are Judyth, if she is truthful, participated in creating a substance to kill Castro. Judyth became awre that the substance was going to be used on person(s) who lacked the capacity to know what was going to happen to them. She objected, knew that tests were being done, but did nothing. She visited one of the subjects who was dying in agony and again did nothing. Tell me why this is not muurder. There are a number of attorneys on this forum. Dean Hartwell has stated that he is a law school graduate and he is a supporter of you and Judyth. I am open to analysis but you, with no experience in the law, are not in a position to simply ignore or dismiss such. Let the attorneys come forward and tell me where my analysis is faulty. I was very careful in charging people with crimes because I knew that decision I would make would forever change the life of the person I accused no matter what the final outcome would be. I took the responsibility very seriously. This case would need a corpus, an identifiable victim(s), but if that could be established it would be a very powerful case for murder. Whether that legal obstacle could be overcome the fact is, again if Judyth is telling the truth and its a big if unless more bona fide evidence for her veracity can be presented, this is a woman who would be morally guilty of murder.

I have watched to the you-tube videos. Judyth has certain things correct but they are things that can be researched or things that can be fabricated. Apparently there is even a research team that is assissting the preparation of her book. When I watch the you-tube videos I see someone being tossed softballs and the interviewer clapping for her without pursuing the inconsistencies that are known to exist in her changing of stories. Judyth elaborated on the fine hotel in Kankun in this thread but her stories go all over the place. I have been to Chichen Itza and throughout Mexico. Chichen Itza was very remote in 1963 and in many ways it still is in that it is still a long drive from Cancun today. I am open to the hard facts that would enhance her credibility. They are very simple but you continue to ignore them.

1. Have a professional analysis of the supposed writing of Oswald.

2. Have Judyth produce the tape she says she has that she claims gives a totally different account of her encounter with Mary Ferrell.

3. Tell how they were going to get these quickie divorces and find crooked priests in Mexico when she was not even sure they were going.

4. Where did Oswald learn Russian and why did Marina say he could not read it very well? What evidence is there that he read Pushkin. Listening to an opera does not qualify. Where are the books? How did Oswald get books from New York to Marina when he was never in New York in 1963?

5. Where is the evidence of the science fiction book Judyth and Oswald were writing together? What evidence is there that Oswald was interested in science fiction?

There are many more questions but this would be a good place to start. These are very fair. Do you realize what a competent attorney could do in shredding Judyth right now. Bugliousi, despite his despicable book, would salivate at the chance to cross examine Judyth. How many people on this forum do you believe are convinced by Judyth so far? My guess would be less than 10 and all the rhetoric is not going to change that until she and you begin to address the hard evidence as noted above. If I am wrong submit a list of people on this forum whom you believe support your position with the evidence presented to date. Monk is very analytical but I have to believe that even he has questions before he would totally commit to his support for her veracity. I am willing to weigh the evidence but until such issues can be addressed this is nothing more than historical fiction. Name calling is not going to change these fundamental issues. Judyth would be far better served by simply addressing them.

Doug Weldon

[Glenn Viklund]

Pam,

Would you care to explain this thing about the 1964 screening of Z-film? David Lifton has mentioned this a couple of times and it would be enlightening to hear your version of this - as it seems - rather sensational story?

[Barb Junkkarinen]

There is more than enough evidence to establish

that Judyth was lured to New Orleans by Alton Ochsner

Please share this evidence with us!

Yes, Jim, please tell us, in your own words, what "more than enough" evidence exists to

establish that Judyth "was lured to New Orleans by Alton Ochsner."

This question has been asked by a few now.

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Barb,

If, in order for conclusion "A" (they did all that) to be true

premise "B" (they knew each other) must necessarily be true

and if evidence "C" (handwriting analysis) supports premise "B" (which is now accepted as true as a result of "C")

...logically, it still MEANS NOTHING ABOUT CONCLUSION "A" beyond "a maybe" -- You have said the same from the beginning and I agree. So why not drop it already? Sheesh. It doesn't mean anything!

Unless you are pretty darn sure that the analysis would be negative thus disproving THAT claim and damaging her credibility?

Why not just admit that's why you're pushing so hard? It's obvious anyway--and it's OK to say so.

Maybe I'm out of line. Perhaps you really make a good point that I'm just missing. Let's just disagree.

Greg,

'

Whether I believe the analysis will be "negative" or not is not an issue ... the book with the handwriting, the claim ... and a professionals analysis is all that matters, no matter which way it falls.

As for your "sheesh" ... yeah, sheesh, Greg, I've only been responding to questions you kept asking - as you'll recall, you told your friend Fetzer not to speak ... until you were through "questioning" the "witness." I've answered every one of them. I think it just didn't pan out they way you thought it would. And yes, as I noted in my last response to you ... we do just seem to disagree. And that's okay. :-)

Bests,

Barb :-)