Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[Jack White]

Jim...please submit the following questions to Judyth:

1. What size cage was used for monkeys?

2. How many monkeys were in each cage?

3. What means was used to induce cancer in each monkey?

4. Where did the resulting tumor appear?

5. How long did it take for the cancer to appear and grow to optimum size?

6. What records were kept on each monkey?

7. Was the cancer induced internally or externally?

8. Who killed each monkey to "harvest" the cancer?

9. Who autopsied each monkey and removed the tumor?

10. What tests were performed on the tumor?

11. Who performed the tests?

12. Why were "hundreds of pounds" of monkeys used?

That's enough to start with. My monkey experts are standing by to study

Judyth's responses for medical research accuracy.

Thanks!

Jack

I have been reading several websites devoted to study of cancer

induced in monkeys. They are all very sad, about the little creatures

who will soon be sacrificed to study the effects of various cancers.

This compilation is a summation/amalgamation of what I read on

several sites. (you can do the same):

The typical monkey lives in a cage 6'x6', and careful daily records

are kept, just as they would be on a human hospital patient. They

undergo diagnoses just like a human cancer patient would. They

are xrayed and various tests run, just as humans. When the cancer

has been determined to be at the stage for exhaustive study, maybe

6 months after the cancer inducement, the monkey is euthanized

(as JVB says, sacrificed) euphemisms for KILLED, and a medical

autopsy performed by a skilled doctor, who removes the tumor

for scientific examination. The whole procedure's length depends

on how long it takes the tumor to grow.

Draw your own conclusions.

Jack

[David Lifton]

Jim

I have just finished every video you posted with Judyth

I promise you I watched them with an open mind

I feel the exact same about Judyth after watching them Jim

She is not telling the truth

Just listen to her fantastic stories about meeting Hemming and him just telling Judyth about all of his activities like its no big deal

Just listen to her talk about David Ferrie and the fact that she was at his house for Parties and all this research, I mean come on there is no way in hell any of it is true

Jim I did what you asked, the videos have no evidence that Judyth and LHO were lovers

All they are is Judyth telling fairy tales

Hello Dean,

What you wrote is (of course) subjective, but nonetheless, you're now getting a sense of exactly how I felt after speaking with Judyth on March 4, 2000. You've just had the "Judyth experience" on video. I had it "on audio." It was very unsettling, because it appeared so ridiculous, yet there were those who actually believed her. (And still do.)

As anyone knows who deals with witnesses, demeanor counts.

Completely aside from the factual problems, I found her demeanor to be "non-credible," to put it politely.

DSL

5/3/10; 4:45 AM PDT

Los Angeles, CA

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

David,

Citing Dean Hagerman on Judyth could hardy be less appropriate. His

understanding of this case is about as superficial as it comes--like yours!

Those who have actually spent time with Judyth believe in her. There is

no "demeanor" problem. You are pulling that out of you anal aperture.

Nigel Turned spend hundreds of hours with her. Howard Platzman spent

a huge amount of time with her--at this point, spanning years and years.

Edward Haslam interrogated her relentlessly. I have spent hundreds and

hundreds of hours in communication and dealing with her face to face.

Your shabby treatment of her is beneath contempt. If you believed in

your purported "evidence" you would share it with me. You have not.

We even did a YouTube on "The "Cancun/Kankun" Contretempts, but

apparently you have not watched it, typical of your conduct here.

I can't believe you have the nerve to show up here, time after time,

with these cheap comments that reiterate your indefensible stance.

You have a motive that drives you--to protect your investment in your

manuscript, which I presume has to be tossed if Judyth is correct.

You are not only discrediting your self with irresponsible remarks but

have not even shown the courage to state your take on HARVEY & LEE.

Why don't you come back when you have the integrity to share your

cassette, because I do not believe anything you say about Judyth.

My experience with her is overwhelmingly greater than yours, and I

am completely convinced that she is the person that she claims to be.

And there is no reason in the world to suppose that my conlcusion in

this matter should be inferior to yours, which is driven by self-interest.

Either come clean with your evidence or acknowledge that what you

can contribute has been far exceeded by the discussion on this thread.

I, like Nigel Turner, like Howard Platzman, like Edwar Haslam, all know

Judyth overwhelmingly better than do you. And all of us believe in her.

Jim

Jim

I have just finished every video you posted with Judyth

I promise you I watched them with an open mind

I feel the exact same about Judyth after watching them Jim

She is not telling the truth

Just listen to her fantastic stories about meeting Hemming and him just telling Judyth about all of his activities like its no big deal

Just listen to her talk about David Ferrie and the fact that she was at his house for Parties and all this research, I mean come on there is no way in hell any of it is true

Jim I did what you asked, the videos have no evidence that Judyth and LHO were lovers

All they are is Judyth telling fairy tales

Hello Dean,

What you wrote is (of course) subjective, but nonetheless, you're now getting a sense of exactly how I felt after speaking with Judyth on March 4, 2000. You've just had the "Judyth experience" on video. I had it "on audio." It was very unsettling, because it appeared so ridiculous, yet there were those who actually believed her. (And still do.)

As anyone knows who deals with witnesses, demeanor counts.

Completely aside from the factual problems, I found her demeanor to be "non-credible," to put it politely.

DSL

5/3/10; 4:45 AM PDT

Los Angeles, CA

Edited May 4, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Kevin Greenlee]

mr. fetzer-

if i understand things correctly, the position of judyth's defenders is that

1) it is terribly important for David Lifton to release his recording of his conversation with judyth.

2) that recording was an illegal act.

do you see the problem here? if we accept those points of view (which i do not), then any recording David Lifton releases would be evidence of an illegal act- which could expose him to legal troubles. luckily, there is a way out of this mess. simply get judyth herself to pledge not to pursue legal action and to personally ask for the tape to be released. since you've already indicated you don't believe she's interested in suing David Lifton, i cannot imagine why she would not be willing to do this (unless, of course, she has reasons of her own for not wanting the recording to be released).

Edited May 3, 2010 by Kevin Greenlee

[Pamela Brown]

DL again complains:Completely aside from the factual problems, I found her demeanor to be "non-credible," to put it politely.

Lifton is apparently oblivious to the fact that his credibility in making any claims about Judyth are hindered by his refusal to release a copy of his illegal tape to Jim Fetzer.

And of course his position on Judyth was already probably predetermined in that he is outraged at the Garrison investigation and maybe everything connected to NOLA.

[Pamela Brown]

Oh yes. Jack might remember Whitaker better as the unnamed and unvetted witness he and Weldon tried to foist on the research community in 1998. Back then his name was known only to a 'trusted few'. Guess Jack was not one of them.

Or maybe these are two separate issues and he simply didn't make the connection yet. It took me a few minutes to realize what you were talking about too!

I thought we were discussing JVB, not the windshield issue. I could remember NO Whittaker associated with JVB.

Jack

Let me clarify. I am referencing the process you use in vetting witnesses.

You used one process with Whitaker and another with Judyth. Why is that? Judyth has documentation connecting her to NOLA in the summer of 1963 and that puts her in proximity to LHO at that time. Whitaker had zilch, nada, nothing. But you believed everything Whitaker said and you are scrutinizing every word Judyth says. Why is that?

[Pamela Brown]

LF said:I take it as seriously as I take the content of Oswald's "letter" to the Soviet Embassy dated November 9th 1963. Do you take that seriously?

I see a pattern in the fact that Lee and Marina never lived together after NOLA. Add to that the fact that he was trying to send her and the children back to USSR, left his wedding ring at the Paines, plus some money, and it is my thinking that he was leaving her for good.

These factors open the door for Marina to have been asked if she thought there was another woman involved in their relationship. I believe she had her suspicions and they may have come out. This may have contributed to the sequestration of Marina until she gave her testimony at the WC the way the govt wanted it. It may also have contributed to the govt not protecting LHO. If he lived, and he was proclaiming his innocence, what would he say on the witness stand? He could have opened up the whole Pandora's box. So, conveniently, he was eliminated.

[Barb Junkkarinen]

mr. fetzer-

if i understand things correctly, the position of judyth's defenders is that

1) it is terribly important for David Lifton to release his recording of his conversation with judyth.

2) that recording was an illegal act.

do you see the problem here? if we accept those points of view (which i do not), then any recording David Lifton releases would be evidence of an illegal act- which could expose him to legal troubles. luckily, there is a way out of this mess. simply get judyth herself to pledge not to pursue legal action and to personally ask for the tape to be released. since you've already indicated you don't believe she's interested in suing David Lifton, i cannot imagine why she would not be willing to do this (unless, of course, she has reasons of her own for not wanting the recording to be released).

Hi Kevin,

Interestingly enough, years ago, David offered to make the tape available, when her then supporters/promoters asked for it, as long

as Judyth signed a release. He made the offer several times. Judyth would not do it. Now, years later, David has no longer made that offer, as is his prerogative, but neither Fetzer nor Judyth has even suggested such a thing.

Now Fetzer, who has no standing to ask for it, simply demands it be turned over to him ... and has done so in many posts. Yet, though he posts for Judyth, unless I missed it, there has not been so much as one word from Judyth herself demanding that David release the tape to anyone.

Some might suggest there might be a clue in there somewhere Fetzer should grab onto.

Bests,

Barb :-)

Edited May 3, 2010 by Barb Junkkarinen

[Dean Hagerman]

David,

Citing Dean Hagerman on Judyth could hardy be less appropriate. His

understanding of this case is about as superficial as it comes--like yours!

Jim

You have no idea how much time I have spent reading Judyths posts and emails years before you ever made this thread

How do you know my understanding of this case?

Because I havent read or watched what you asked me to?

Guess what Jim? I just watched all of your Youtube vids, I did what you asked me to do, and your vids made me doubt her story even more!

Her claims are so far out there that every thing she says makes me howl with laughter

I cant believe a man as smart as you let her reel you in

When you find out that Judyth is full of it I will not accept an apology from you for calling me names and saying my research of the assassination means nothing

You have gone to far Jim, I have never insulted you, in fact I have always offered support, you however took it that I had joined a cult and gone crazy because I dont believe this woman

Jim you are going to regret the fact that you ever became involved with Judyth, just like Martin Shackelford

[Kevin Greenlee]

pamela-

i am trying- and badly failing- to understand your recent criticism about jack white and this whitaker fellow. the fault is surely mine and i hope you will clarify. to me, it seems as if you are saying that

1) jack white made a horrible blunder when he blindly accepted the word of whitaker

2) the fact that he chooses not to repeat that mistake with judyth somehow makes him a hypocrite.

when i make mistakes in my own life, i try to analyze where i went wrong so i do not repeat them. if i ever erred by uncritically accepting the testimony of an alleged witness, i would be sure to carefully scrutinize the words of other new witnesses so i would not commit the same sin a second time. that seems to me to be common sense. if that is what jack white is doing then he is to be applauded for it- not criticized for it.

in short, your view makes so little sense to me that i am certain i must be badly confused about it.

if, on the other hand, i have not misunderstood you then it would appear that you have so few honest arguments to make in favor of judyth that you are reduced to hysterically throwing about irrelevant pieces of mud in a childish attempt to personally discredit those who choose to disagree with you on this matter. since we both know that could not possibly be the case, i look forward to you clarifying for me the point you are trying to make.

Oh yes. Jack might remember Whitaker better as the unnamed and unvetted witness he and Weldon tried to foist on the research community in 1998. Back then his name was known only to a 'trusted few'. Guess Jack was not one of them.

Or maybe these are two separate issues and he simply didn't make the connection yet. It took me a few minutes to realize what you were talking about too!

I thought we were discussing JVB, not the windshield issue. I could remember NO Whittaker associated with JVB.

Jack

Let me clarify. I am referencing the process you use in vetting witnesses.

You used one process with Whitaker and another with Judyth. Why is that? Judyth has documentation connecting her to NOLA in the summer of 1963 and that puts her in proximity to LHO at that time. Whitaker had zilch, nada, nothing. But you believed everything Whitaker said and you are scrutinizing every word Judyth says. Why is that?

Edited May 3, 2010 by Kevin Greenlee

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Kevin,

Several times, I have told David Lifton (in the course of this thread) that neither Judyth nor I

has any interest in pursuing legal issues related to his having illegally recorded their phone

conversation. Judyth has observed to me that the statute of limitations has probably run out

and that the only action by him that would bother her is if he were to publish a transcript that

contained inaccuracies or creative edits. I am planning on featuring her on my radio program

again tonight and I will ask her (on the air) to confirm what I am telling you here. I am very

interested in studying the cassette to determine for myself whether Lifton's claims are or are

not justified. I cannot imaging how he could think that he could detect a difference between

"Cancun" and "Kankun", when they are pronounced exactly the same and, as I understand it,

he did not even know of the existence of Kankun at the time. In case you missed it, we have

also done a YouTube on this called "Judyth Vary Baker on the "Cancun/Kankun" Contretempts".

Jim

mr. fetzer-

if i understand things correctly, the position of judyth's defenders is that

1) it is terribly important for David Lifton to release his recording of his conversation with judyth.

2) that recording was an illegal act.

do you see the problem here? if we accept those points of view (which i do not), then any recording David Lifton releases would be evidence of an illegal act- which could expose him to legal troubles. luckily, there is a way out of this mess. simply get judyth herself to pledge not to pursue legal action and to personally ask for the tape to be released. since you've already indicated you don't believe she's interested in suing David Lifton, i cannot imagine why she would not be willing to do this (unless, of course, she has reasons of her own for not wanting the recording to be released).

[Kevin Greenlee]

mr. fetzer-

thanks for the answer. i'll definitely tune in to listen to judyth's answer.

talking about your radio program brings up another thought. from your appearances on "black op radio" over the years, i know how closely you follow politics. you will certainly remember how- in 2008- sarah palin was generally not interviewed on anything but "friendly" shows, programs hosted by the likes of sean hannity or rush limbaugh. this created the lasting impression that the republicans did not have faith or confidence that she could handle tougher interviews. in the minds of many, this notion did far more damage than any gaffes palin might have made on other programs. after all, if the party itself did not have faith in her then why should anyone else?

the comparision is, of course, not exact but i do think something similar is going on with judyth. i have never heard her interviewed by any but the most sympathetic of interviewers. why is this? would it be possible for you to bring some of her critics on your program sometime so they can directly ask tough questions of her? it would certainly get a great deal of attention from the people reading this thread and, since i am sure you believe judyth would be able to answer her critics, it might even do her cause some good.

in any case, i will certainly listen tonight. i have only had a chance to listen to the first 15- 20 minutes of friday's interview but i will listen to the rest and watch the you tube videos at my earliest opportunity.

Kevin,

Several times, I have told David Lifton (in the course of this thread) that neither Judyth nor I

has any interest in pursuing legal issues related to his having illegally recorded their phone

conversation. Judyth has observed to me that the statute of limitations has probably run out

and that the only action by him that would bother her is if he were to publish a transcript that

contained inaccuracies or creative edits. I am planning on featuring her on my radio program

again tonight and I will ask her (on the air) to confirm what I am telling you here. I am very

interested in studying the cassette to determine for myself whether Lifton's claims are or are

not justified. I cannot imaging how he could think that he could detect a difference between

"Cancun" and "Kankun", when they are pronounced exactly the same and, as I understand it,

he did not even know of the existence of Kankun at the time. In case you missed it, we have

also done a YouTube on this called "Judyth Vary Baker on the "Cancun/Kankun" Contretempts".

Jim

mr. fetzer-

if i understand things correctly, the position of judyth's defenders is that

1) it is terribly important for David Lifton to release his recording of his conversation with judyth.

2) that recording was an illegal act.

do you see the problem here? if we accept those points of view (which i do not), then any recording David Lifton releases would be evidence of an illegal act- which could expose him to legal troubles. luckily, there is a way out of this mess. simply get judyth herself to pledge not to pursue legal action and to personally ask for the tape to be released. since you've already indicated you don't believe she's interested in suing David Lifton, i cannot imagine why she would not be willing to do this (unless, of course, she has reasons of her own for not wanting the recording to be released).

[Pamela Brown]

KG humbly said:i am trying- and badly failing- to understand your recent criticism about jack white and this whitaker fellow. the fault is surely mine and i hope you will clarify. to me, it seems as if you are saying that

Kevin seems to have a need to create strawmen rather than acknowledge that I am asking Jack to define the process he uses to vett witnesses. If it has changed, isn't that for him to say? If Kevin doesn't see a need for a process, that's his choice.

[Karl Kinaski]

'Kevin Greenlee'

mr. fetzer-

(...)

talking about your radio program brings up another thought. from your appearances on "black op radio" over the years, i know how closely you follow politics. you will certainly remember how- in 2008- sarah palin was generally not interviewed on anything but "friendly" shows, programs hosted by the likes of sean hannity or rush limbaugh. this created the lasting impression that the republicans did not have faith or confidence that she could handle tougher interviews. in the minds of many, this notion did far more damage than any gaffes palin might have made on other programs. after all, if the party itself did not have faith in her then why should anyone else?

the comparision is, of course, not exact but i do think something similar is going on with judyth. i have never heard her interviewed by any but the most sympathetic of interviewers. why is this? would it be possible for you to bring some of her critics on your program sometime so they can directly ask tough questions of her? it would certainly get a great deal of attention from the people reading this thread and, since i am sure you believe judyth would be able to answer her critics, it might even do her cause some good.

A very good idea, indeed! Let some nameable JVB hostile Interviewer cross swords with Judyth. I am sure she will masterly get out of the affair. The question is: would the enemies of JVB risk such a defeat?

KK

[Glenn Viklund]

KG humbly said:i am trying- and badly failing- to understand your recent criticism about jack white and this whitaker fellow. the fault is surely mine and i hope you will clarify. to me, it seems as if you are saying that

Kevin seems to have a need to create strawmen rather than acknowledge that I am asking Jack to define the process he uses to vett witnesses. If it has changed, isn't that for him to say? If Kevin doesn't see a need for a process, that's his choice.

Pam,

Have you ever tried giving a straight answer to a question directed your way? All I see from you are these endlessly repetitive mantras of ad hominems, processes and strawmen. I don't ever see anything o substance regarding the issues discussed. Why is that?

I asked you very politely a couple of days ago about this 1964 thing with regards to the Z-film. So far, you've just ignored this, why is that?