Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[Jack White]

Everyone is missing the point. It is not about the list I posted. It is not about JVB's intelligence.

It is about everyone ASSUMING her IQ is 160 without verification...just because someone

typed it! What are the details of her IQ test? When was the test? Was it the Stanford-Binet

Test or one of the several others? When and where was the test taken? Why is her "IQ" test

part of the story? If her IQ is the same as Bill Gates, why isn't she the world's richest woman?

JVB is given a free pass on anything she says. If she says her IQ is 160, people nod and say,

oh boy is she smart!

What ever happened to research?

Jack

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Jack,

I don't want to make too much of this, but some of those you have been dealing with have extremely high IQs. I would estimate that David S. Lifton has an IQ around 150, for example, and David W. Mantik and John P. Costella have to have similarly high IQs. My GCT (General Classification Test) was 152. That doesn't mean I know everything, but only that I'm pretty good at taking things apart and putting them together--not physical things, as my wife would tell you, but matters intellectual. From your post of 4 May 2010, I take it you discovered that philosophers average around 160 and scientists around 159. Well, I am a philosopher and Judyth is a scientist, so I take that as indirect confirmation of what I am saying. That much should have been obvious even from her early accomplishments as a high-school student. She was a prodigy. Judyth not only has an extremely high IQ but knows more and in more detail about events in New Orleans than anyone else, in my estimation. She cannot have learned these things from reading, because she has often corrected them with new data not previously known. And in the case of controversies over interpretations of events, she has proven herself to be more able than anyone else on his thread, as I have lived through it. My familiarity with IQ is also theoretical, by the way, since I published THE EVOLUTION OF INTELLIGENCE (2005) on the nature of mind and the emergence of human mentality from those of earlier species, including animal mind and primate mind. There is a lot there on intelligence as the ability to learn. I think this is not a subject to which you have given as much attention as have I. Going by your data, I am not equal to the average for philosophers! It is easy to make too much of IQ as those who tout their membership in MENSA often do. Measures of ability are not also measures of accomplishment, which requires effort, discipline, and perseverance. Very few philosophers, for example, publish as many articles and books as I have. That's just something I happen to be good at. I am not equally good at everything, including mathematics.

Jim

Whoever came up with an IQ of 160 for JVB is making the wildest Judyth claim yet!

The standard Stanford-Binet adult IQ Test rates any score above 135 as genius!

........

A normal intelligence quotient (IQ) ranges from 85 to 115 (According to the Stanford-Binet scale). Only approximately 1% of the people in the world have an IQ of 135 or over. In 1926, psychologist Dr. Catherine Morris Cox - who had been assisted by Dr. Lewis M. Terman, Dr. Florence L. Goodenaugh, and Dr. Kate Gordon - published a study "of the most eminent men and women" who had lived between 1450 and 1850 to estimate what their IQs might have been. The resultant IQs were based largely on the degree sof brightness and intelligence each subject showed before attaining the age of 17. Taken from a revised and completed version of this study, table II shows the projected IQs of some of the best scorers.

For comparison I have included table I which shows the IQs' relation to educational level.

Cox also found that different fields have quite widely varying average IQs for their acknowledged leading geniuses. Displayed below are there calculated Deviation IQs (the number in brackets is the number in the sample considered):

Philosophers (22) average IQ 160; Scientists (39) 159; Fiction writers (53) 152; Statesmen (43) 150; Musicians (11) 149; Artists (13) 153; Soldiers (27) 136.

"She has an IQ of around 160 and is superb at research."

-- Jim Fester

Read your own sentence. She's a researcher. Doesn't that give you a clue about what she knows? She didn't live all this. She read about it.

Kathy C

Edited May 4, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Jack,

Here is my post about DiEugenio's review of the first volume of INSIDE THE ARRB (2007). You can

find it on page 9 at the bottom, where perhaps by now it is even at the top of page 10. I take it you

have not read the book. If you had, you would not be making some of the silly remarks you make here.

I was, of course, talking about Horne's book rather than the official stance of the ARRB, which is that it

was not conducing an investigation of the assassination but only releasing JFK documents and records.

Those documents and records have proven to be extremely revealing and substantiate the core views

advanced by David Lifton in BEST EVIDENCE. I certainly hope that you will find time to actually read it.

My suggestion is that you pull back your horns and accept that there is more in heaven and earth than

is dreamt of in your philosophy, which includes the existence of Judyth Vary Baker as "the real deal".

Jim

P.S. Pat Speer pointed out to me that Armstrong had the date of the formation of the commission wrong

in the following post. I was so intent on copying it that it had slipped by me. He is, of course, correct.

Inside the ARRB, Vol. I, by Doug Horne

CITKA review by Jim DiEugenio

Apr 10 2010, 03:40 AM

Some participants on the post about Costella's review of Horne berated me for posing this on that

thread. So I am creating a separate thread to make the points I would like to make here instead.

Michael,

You make some nice points, where not only has Costella missed the boat completely but DiEugenio

in a different way. It seems to me that Jim is very good on the trees, not so good on the forest. I

offer this early paragraph as an illustration of what I mean, where he, too, has something wrong:

All the above introductory material is necessary to understand my decidedly mixed feelings about

Inside the ARRB. There seem to me a lot of good things in Horne's very long work. And I will discuss

them both here and later. But where the author gets into trouble is when he tries to fit the interesting

facts and testimony he discusses into an overarching theory. Because as we will see, although Horne

has revised Best Evidence, he still sticks to the concept of pre-autopsy surgery, and extensive criminal

conduct by the pathologists. And as Lifton clearly suggested in his book, Horne will also argue that the

Zapruder film was both edited and optically printed. (Lifton pgs. 555-557)

Unless DiEugenio is writing his reviews as he goes and does not realize what unexpected findings await

him, the fact of the matter is THERE WAS PRE-AUTOPSY SURGERY and EXTENSIVE CRIMINAL CONDUCT

BY THE PATHOLOGISTS, including lying to the HSCA and to the ARRB. And, of course, as he demonstrates

quite decisively, the arguments against film alteration advanced by ROLLIE ZAVADA, by DAVID WRONE,

and by JOSIAH THOMPSON have been thoroughly demolished in the course of Doug's extensive studies.

Egad! Somewhere DiEugenio expresses his preference for the physical evidence over the medical and

photographic, as though he did not understand that ALL OF IT has been planted, fabricated, or faked.

NOTE: DiEugenio should read the first few pages of HARVEY & LEE, in which John Armstrong observes:

Chief Curry turned the physical evidence over to the FBI and it was immediately taken to FBI Headquarters

in Washington, D.C. FBI Agent James Cadigan told the Warren Commission about receiving the evidence

(Oswald's personal possessions) on November 23rd, the day after the assassination. But when Cadigan's

testimony was published in the Warren volumes, references to November 23 had been deleted. Neither

the FBI nor the Warren Commission wanted the public to know that Oswald's personal possessions (phys-

ical evidence) had been secretly taken to Washington, DC, and quietly returned to the Dallas police.

During the three days that Oswald's possessions were in FBI custody many items were altered, fabricated,

and destroyed. The "evidence" was then returned to the Dallas Police on November 26th, and used by the

FBI and Warren Commission to help convince the American people that Oswald was the lone assassin.

As the physical evidence was undergoing alteration FBI officials prepared a 5-volume report, completed

within 48 hours of the assassination, that named Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone assassin. This report

was released several days before the FBI took over the investigation, before they "officially" received the

"evidence" from the Dallas poice, before they interviewed the vast majority of witnesses, two weeks before

the Warren Commission was formed, and many months before their investigation was complete.

. . .

On November 26 the FBI secretly returned the physical evidence (Oswald's possessions) to the Dallas Police

where it was "officially" inventoried and photographed. When the Dallas Police received t he evidence they

were unaware that many of the items had ben altered, fabricated, and/or destroyed. President Johnson soon

announced the FBI was in charge of the investigation and, a short time later, Bureau agents arrived at Dallas

Police headquarters.

As television cameras recorded the historic event FBI agents collected the evidence, loaded it into a car, and

drove away. The public was unaware that the FBI had secretly returned the same "evidence" to the Dallas

Police earlier that morning.

Here is another--and closely related--defect in DiEugenio's understanding. He spends a lot of time with

denigrating BEST EVIDENCE, which is surely one of the most brilliant and insightful studies published in

the history of the case. Lifton was first to suspect body alteration of the cranium and also alteration by

changing the throat wound, along with the falsification of the X-rays and the substitution of another brain

for that of JFK--not to mention the substitution of another film Sunday night after bringing the original to

the NPIC the night before--but DiEugenio does not seem to understand that is how all of this was done.

The multiple casket entries, which Lifton originally discerned, has also been borne out by Horne's research:

In spite of all the above, Horne still genuflects to Best Evidence. To the point that he essentially admits

that the main reason he joined the ARRB was to prove or disprove Lifton's thesis. (p. lxviii) Sealing and

qualifying this emotional bond is the following statement: "David Lifton's work has been a great inspiration

to me over the years, and he and I eventually became very close personal friends, as well as fellow travelers

on the same intellectual journey." (p. lxix) In light of the warm feelings betrayed in that statement, it is hard

to believe that Horne expended a lot of time on disproving Lifton's thesis. In fact, I feel comfortable in writing

that if Horne had never read Best Evidence, he would never have written his series or joined the ARRB.

Given what Horne has discovered, I cannot imagine what motivates DiEugenio to shortchange Lifton.

I think that the only one who finds anything "extreme" here are those unfamiliar with the evidence,

which I had not expected to included the author of this review. If he doesn't know better, something

is terribly wrong, but it has nothing to do with Horne's research and everything to do with DiEugenio's

apparently partial state of knowledge. And you don't have to have read THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM

HOAX to understand these things. The review I [have now published--below] should actually suffice.

NOTE: US Govenment Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_5772.shtml

Jim

While I am not a fan of Horne's book, I would agree that Costella's review read more like a rant, a rant I can relate to, by the way.

Not an unexpected response. One can conclude that "not a fan" might be an understatement. The urge to rant is strong when one feels that they, their work, their intelligence, or their opinions are in some way, shape or form being challenged, questioned, diminished, etc. Pat Speer has spent a considerable amount of time and effort in researching the medical (and other) evidence.

Horne's five volumes cut a wide swath through the evidentiary landscape. While constantly adding caveats that the evidence has never come together, he nevertheless takes very strong and opinionated stands about what he thinks or speculates really happened. Writing a bible or Rosetta Stone about the Kennedy murder is, and always will be, an impossible task.

Probably the more one has studied President Kennedy's murder, the more likely they are to question Horne's research and some of his conclusions. But the ultimate value of Horne's book is certainly not that it explains everything. The value comes from being able to glean new information or possibly being persuaded to think about certain things in a different way. I challenge anyone to read Horne and not find many things with which they either concur or vehemently disagree. By design, it's an extremely controversial work.

I don't think Horne's work should be studied and reviewed as if it were a textbook, or even a compendium of the medical evidence, although it comes closer to the latter. I view it simply as one man's personal odyssey through the ultimate murder mystery labyrinth, written from his own unique perspective.

Over the years, David Lifton's findings were written about and debated extensively. Regardless whether or not one accepts his major conclusion, much of what Lifton discovered remains important as evidence. His research helped make this major episode in Horne's life possible.

Weisberg, Lane, Meagher, Thompson, Summers, Marrs, Fonzi, Hancock, Russell (and so many others I'm leaving out) did not solve the case. They advanced it, as researchers that followed them so readily admit.

If Horne advances the case, that is enough. Pointing out weaknesses in his arguments or errors in his information is certainly fair game. However, the largely unnecessary tone and content of Costella's rant caused me to lose a certain amount of respect for him.

JIM RESPONDS TO JIM DIEUGENIO COMING FROM OUT OF LEFT FIELD

Well, I embarrassed DiEugenio on another thread and I take it this is his form of retaliation. I suppose he does not mention the dates when this purported "research" was done, because it would reveal the distance in time between the original reports and testimony in relation to the Garrison trial and this (virtually irrelevant) effort expended not long before Reeves Morgan died. There is a natural decay in recollections, which in this case has obviously been exacerbated by deliberate corruption and quite possibly by witness intimidation. Most strikingly, he does not understand that there were two visits and two cars, one of which was a black Cadillac driven by Clay Shaw himself. Judyth, no doubt, will say more. When research is done properly, early testimony when memories are fresher is preferable to later. Just as this guy excoriated Horne for his admiration of David Lifton's work--apparently oblivious that the ARRB had found that there was surgery to the skull and that body alteration had taken place and that there were multiple casket entries, which meant that the key claims of his early work, BEST EVIDENCE, had been vindicated, which Horne was reporting--producing one of the most peculiar reviews I have ever read, where the reviewer apparently wrote the first part of his review completely unaware of the actual findings that would be established during the rest of its pages. This also extends to the issue of Zapruder film alteration, where DiEugnio has declined to take a stand on the ground that the research that would be involved would be too taxing! But that means he has probably not read ASSASSINATION SCiENCE, MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA, or THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX, which don't leave much room for hope by anti-alterationists. Even more peculiar, he apparently doesn't know what is coming in the appendix to INSIDE THE ARRB, Vol. IV, which I summarized in "US Government Official: JKF Cover-Up, Film Fakery". I would say that his positions about the events in Jackson are on a par with his review of Horne, which was grossly incompetent. File trails are frequently distorted and incomplete, as the very post on which he is commenting convincingly demonstrates. As a friend of mine likes to say, "How dumb is that?" I used to think he was a serious scholar, but I am now persuaded that, his review of Bugliosi notwithstanding, his work should not be taken at face value. I will invite Judyth to comment in greater detail, but the thought that he and his "brain trust" are more competent and reliable than Howard Platzman or Judyth herself, in view of these considerations, is not merely a stretch but quite ridiculous. The earlier testimony of Lea McGehee, Reeves Morgan, and Mary Morgan is obviously the more reliable.

Jim, the highlighted section above is just not true. The ARRB made NO conclusions. None of the members of its board came out of their experience as supporters of Lifton's theory of body alteration. The only ARRB employee, to my knowledge, who came out of his ARRB experience a committed alterationist was Horne, who went in as a committed alterationist. Jeremy Gunn, Horne's boss, has claimed in year's past that the only thing he learned for sure about the medical evidence was that one can't trust the thirty-year old memories of old people, or something like that. Horne has spent the last decade trying to weave all the conflicting stories into a convincing whole.

But it's more like an unconvincing hole, IMO.

FWIW, IMO, you need to take your lumps and just let the Judyth story drop, if only for a while. While you may have a valid point to make, and where Judyth and her story--as improbable as it sounds--may have something to it, you have let it become personal, and about YOU. You are hurt that men you considered friends fail to trust your judgment re Judyth. You are now claiming DiEugenio has it in for you, when he is simply sharing his own impressions based on actual conversations he has had with actual witnesses.

It's not about you.

Take care.

Edited May 4, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

God knows, it's NOT about me. It's about the truth in relation to the death of JFK. If you had spent more time reading Doug's work, you

would be much better informed about the assassination. Give me a break. You entertain a host of views that are utterly unsupportable,

such as that the Groden color-photos are not fake, that the blow-out to JFK's skull was at the top of his head, and more. You are not the

right person to be offering advice to anyone about research on JFK. I have suggested that you spend more time on David Mantik's work

especially his brilliant synthesis of the medical evidence in MURDER. To that I must add, more on Lifton and more on Horne would help.

JIM RESPONDS TO JIM DIEUGENIO COMING FROM OUT OF LEFT FIELD

Well, I embarrassed DiEugenio on another thread and I take it this is his form of retaliation. I suppose he does not mention the dates when this purported "research" was done, because it would reveal the distance in time between the original reports and testimony in relation to the Garrison trial and this (virtually irrelevant) effort expended not long before Reeves Morgan died. There is a natural decay in recollections, which in this case has obviously been exacerbated by deliberate corruption and quite possibly by witness intimidation. Most strikingly, he does not understand that there were two visits and two cars, one of which was a black Cadillac driven by Clay Shaw himself. Judyth, no doubt, will say more. When research is done properly, early testimony when memories are fresher is preferable to later. Just as this guy excoriated Horne for his admiration of David Lifton's work--apparently oblivious that the ARRB had found that there was surgery to the skull and that body alteration had taken place and that there were multiple casket entries, which meant that the key claims of his early work, BEST EVIDENCE, had been vindicated, which Horne was reporting--producing one of the most peculiar reviews I have ever read, where the reviewer apparently wrote the first part of his review completely unaware of the actual findings that would be established during the rest of its pages. This also extends to the issue of Zapruder film alteration, where DiEugnio has declined to take a stand on the ground that the research that would be involved would be too taxing! But that means he has probably not read ASSASSINATION SCiENCE, MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA, or THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX, which don't leave much room for hope by anti-alterationists. Even more peculiar, he apparently doesn't know what is coming in the appendix to INSIDE THE ARRB, Vol. IV, which I summarized in "US Government Official: JKF Cover-Up, Film Fakery". I would say that his positions about the events in Jackson are on a par with his review of Horne, which was grossly incompetent. File trails are frequently distorted and incomplete, as the very post on which he is commenting convincingly demonstrates. As a friend of mine likes to say, "How dumb is that?" I used to think he was a serious scholar, but I am now persuaded that, his review of Bugliosi notwithstanding, his work should not be taken at face value. I will invite Judyth to comment in greater detail, but the thought that he and his "brain trust" are more competent and reliable than Howard Platzman or Judyth herself, in view of these considerations, is not merely a stretch but quite ridiculous. The earlier testimony of Lea McGehee, Reeves Morgan, and Mary Morgan is obviously the more reliable.

Jim, the highlighted section above is just not true. The ARRB made NO conclusions. None of the members of its board came out of their experience as supporters of Lifton's theory of body alteration. The only ARRB employee, to my knowledge, who came out of his ARRB experience a committed alterationist was Horne, who went in as a committed alterationist. Jeremy Gunn, Horne's boss, has claimed in year's past that the only thing he learned for sure about the medical evidence was that one can't trust the thirty-year old memories of old people, or something like that. Horne has spent the last decade trying to weave all the conflicting stories into a convincing whole.

But it's more like an unconvincing hole, IMO.

FWIW, IMO, you need to take your lumps and just let the Judyth story drop, if only for a while. While you may have a valid point to make, and where Judyth and her story--as improbable as it sounds--may have something to it, you have let it become personal, and about YOU. You are hurt that men you considered friends fail to trust your judgment re Judyth. You are now claiming DiEugenio has it in for you, when he is simply sharing his own impressions based on actual conversations he has had with actual witnesses.

It's not about you.

Take care.

Edited May 4, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Stephen Roy]

I used to think he [Jim DiEugenio] was a serious scholar, but I am now persuaded that...his work should not be taken at face value. I will invite Judyth to comment in greater detail, but the thought that he and his "brain trust" are more competent and reliable than Howard Platzman or Judyth herself, in view of these considerations, is not merely a stretch but quite ridiculous.

I write as a person who has done quite a bit of primary documentary and witness research on the New Orleans aspects of the JFK case.

While I occasionally disagree with Jim DiEugenio and his "brain trust" (Bill Davy, Peter Vea, Lisa Pease, Carol Hewitt and others), I have profound respect for his (and their) knowledge of the New Orleans aspects of the case. To suggest that their skills in this field are inferior to, equal to, or even in the same league as those of the people cited above is patently ridiculous.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

What is "patently ridiculous" is to place greater weight on later testimony than on earlier, especially

when there is a concerted effort to change history to conform closer to the government's version, in

case you haven't noticed. Your reply does not respond to my argument. Moreover, since you have

entered this fray, I would observe that anyone who has been conducting research on any subject as

long as you claim to have done (for 20 years!) and never published must not have a whole lot to say.

Judyth has suggested that you are waiting until those you discuss are dead so they will not be able

to contradict what you write about them. That would be consistent with my assessment of you, too.

I used to think he [Jim DiEugenio] was a serious scholar, but I am now persuaded that...his work should not be taken at face value. I will invite Judyth to comment in greater detail, but the thought that he and his "brain trust" are more competent and reliable than Howard Platzman or Judyth herself, in view of these considerations, is not merely a stretch but quite ridiculous.

I write as a person who has done quite a bit of primary documentary and witness research on the New Orleans aspects of the JFK case.

While I occasionally disagree with Jim DiEugenio and his "brain trust" (Bill Davy, Peter Vea, Lisa Pease, Carol Hewitt and others), I have profound respect for his (and their) knowledge of the New Orleans aspects of the case. To suggest that their skills in this field are inferior to, equal to, or even in the same league as those of the people cited above is patently ridiculous.

Edited May 4, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Jack and Michael,

How does your praise for them serve as a response to my argument? HINT:

It doesn't! If you know no more about the methodology of historical research,

it is hardly surprising that you would be unable to uncover a missing witness.

Nigel Turner, Edward Haslam, Howard Platzman, "60 Minutes", and others, too

have done better work on this specific aspect of events in New Orleans. They

probably don't mention Alton Ochsner or Mary Sherman either. Think about it!

Incidentally, Judyth told me that Joan Mellen had interviewed her several times

and made use of information she had provided, but without acknowledging her

source. I have had encounters with Joan Mellen, and it would not surprise me.

Jim

Jim DiEugenio and Bill Davy are likely the two most knowledgeable of JFK New Orleans researchers still around.

I would take their studies to the bank. JVB? Account overdrawn.

You could add Paris Flammonde, William Turner and Joan Mellen to that list.

Book Two of Flammonde's Assassination of America opus is entitled The Masques of New Orleans.

He does not mention Judyth Baker.

In the Indices (Book Four), Flammonde includes a review of Bugliosi's Reclaiming History by Jim Fetzer.

There is a typo on the cover and Jim's name appears as Jamers Fetzer.

Mellen's book, A Farewell to Justice does not mention Judyth Baker. Nor does Turner's Rearview Mirror.

Edited May 4, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Doug Weldon]

A very select list of history's smartest pesons:

Abraham Lincoln President USA 128

Adolf Hitler Nazi leader Germany 141

Al Gore Politician USA 134

Albert Einstein Physicist USA 160

Albrecht von Haller Medical scientist Switzerland 190

Alexander Pope Poet & writer England 180

Andrew J. Wiles Mathematician England 170

Andrew Jackson President USA 123

Andy Warhol Pop artist USA 86

Anthonis Van Dyck Artist Belgium 155

Archure Musician Artist Writer USA 147+

Arnauld Theologian France 190

Arne Beurling Mathematician Sweden 180

Arnold Schwarzenegger Actor Austria 135

Baruch Spinoza Philosopher Holland 175

Benjamin Franklin Writer, scientist & politician USA 160

Benjamin Netanyahu Israeli Prime Minister Israel 180

Bill (William) J. Clinton President USA 137

Bill Gates CEO, Microsoft USA 160

Blaise Pascal Mathematician & religious philosopher France 195

Bobby Fischer Chess player USA 187

Bonaparte Napoleon Emperor France 145

Buonarroti Michelangelo Artist, poet & architect Italy 180

Carl von Linné Botanist Sweden 165

Charles Darwin Naturalist England 165

Charles Dickens Writer England 180

Christopher Langan Bouncer & scientist & philosopher USA 195

David Hume Philosopher & politician Scotland 180

Dolph Lundgren Actor Sweden 160

Donald Byrne Chess Player Irland 170

Dr David Livingstone Explorer & doctor Scotland 170

Emanuel Swedenborg " Sweden 205

Felix Mendelssohn Composer Germany 165

Friedrich Hegel Philosopher Germany 165

Friedrich von Schelling Philosopher Germany 190

Galileo Galilei Physicist & astronomer & philosopher Italy 185

Garry Kasparov Chess player Russia 190

Geena Davis Actress USA 140

George Berkeley Philosopher Ireland 190

George H. Choueiri A.C.E Leader Lebanon 195

George Eliot (Mary Ann Evans) Writer England 160

George Friedrich Händel Composer Germany 170

George Sand Writer France 150

George W. Bush President USA 125

George Washington President USA 118

Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz " Germany 205

H. C. Anderson Writer Denmark 145

Hillary Clinton Ex-President wife USA 140

Hjalmar Schacht Nazi officer Germany 143

Honoré de Balzac Writer France 155

Hugo Grotius Writer Holland 200

Hypatia Philosopher & mathematician Alexandria 170

Immanuel Kant Philosopher Germany 175

James Cook Explorer England 160

James Watt Physicist & technician Scotland 165

James Woods Actor USA 180

Jayne Mansfield Actress USA 149

Jean M. Auel Writer Canada 140

Jodie Foster Actor USA 132

Johann Sebastian Bach Composer Germany 165

Johann Strauss Composer Germany 170

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe " Germany 210

Johannes Kepler Mathematician, physicist & astronomer Germany 175

John Adams President USA 137

John F. Kennedy' Ex-President USA 117

John H. Sununu Chief of Staff for President Bush USA 180

John Locke Philosopher England 165

John Quincy Adams President USA 153

John Stuart Mill Universal Genius England 200

Jola Sigmond Teacher Sweden 161

Jonathan Swift Writer & theologian England 155

Joseph Haydn Composer Austria 160

Joseph Louis Lagrange Mathematician & astronomer Italy/France 185

Judith Polgar Chess player Hungary 170

Judyth Vary Baker Novelist USA & Exile 160

Kim Ung-Yong " Korea 200

Leonardo da Vinci Universal Genius Italy 220

Lord Byron Poet & writer England 180

Ludwig van Beethoven Composer Germany 165

Ludwig Wittgenstein Philosopher Austria 190

Madame De Stael Novelist & philosopher France 180

Madonna Singer USA 140

Marilyn Vos Savant Writer USA 186

Martin Luther Theorist Germany 170

Miguel de Cervantes Writer Spain 155

Nicolaus Copernicus Astronomer Poland 160

Nicole Kidman Actor USA 132

Paul Allen Microsoft cofounder USA 160

Philip Emeagwali Mathematician Nigeria 190 (shows that race is no issue)

Phillipp Melanchthon Humanist & theologian Germany 190

Pierre Simon de Laplace Astronomer & mathematician France 190

Plato Philosopher Greece 170

Ralph Waldo Emerson Writer USA 155

Raphael Artist Italy 170

Rembrandt van Rijn Artist Holland 155

René Descartes Mathematician & philosopher France 185

Richard Nixon Ex-President USA 143

Richard Wagner Composer Germany 170

Robert Byrne Chess Player Irland 170

Rousseau Writer France 150

Sarpi Councilor & theologian & historian Italy 195

Shakira Singer Colombia 140

Sharon Stone Actress USA 154

Sir Clive Sinclair Inventor England 159

Sir Francis Galton Scientist & doctor England 200

Sir Isaac Newton Scientist England 190

Sofia Kovalevskaya Mathematician & writer Sweden/Russia 170

Stephen W. Hawking Physicist England 160

Thomas Chatterton Poet & writer England 180

Thomas Jefferson President USA 138

Thomas Wolsey Politician England 200

Truman Cloak " " 165

Ulysses S. Grant President USA 110

Voltaire Writer France 190

William James Sidis " USA 200

William Pitt (the Younger) Politician England 190

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart Composer Austria 165

Obama 126

Nixon 164

George Bush 40

Thanks

Doug Weldon

[Glenn Viklund]

A very select list of history's smartest pesons:

Abraham Lincoln President USA 128

Adolf Hitler Nazi leader Germany 141

Al Gore Politician USA 134

Albert Einstein Physicist USA 160

Albrecht von Haller Medical scientist Switzerland 190

Alexander Pope Poet & writer England 180

Andrew J. Wiles Mathematician England 170

Andrew Jackson President USA 123

Andy Warhol Pop artist USA 86

Anthonis Van Dyck Artist Belgium 155

Archure Musician Artist Writer USA 147+

Arnauld Theologian France 190

Arne Beurling Mathematician Sweden 180

Arnold Schwarzenegger Actor Austria 135

Baruch Spinoza Philosopher Holland 175

Benjamin Franklin Writer, scientist & politician USA 160

Benjamin Netanyahu Israeli Prime Minister Israel 180

Bill (William) J. Clinton President USA 137

Bill Gates CEO, Microsoft USA 160

Blaise Pascal Mathematician & religious philosopher France 195

Bobby Fischer Chess player USA 187

Bonaparte Napoleon Emperor France 145

Buonarroti Michelangelo Artist, poet & architect Italy 180

Carl von Linné Botanist Sweden 165

Charles Darwin Naturalist England 165

Charles Dickens Writer England 180

Christopher Langan Bouncer & scientist & philosopher USA 195

David Hume Philosopher & politician Scotland 180

Dolph Lundgren Actor Sweden 160

Donald Byrne Chess Player Irland 170

Dr David Livingstone Explorer & doctor Scotland 170

Emanuel Swedenborg " Sweden 205

Felix Mendelssohn Composer Germany 165

Friedrich Hegel Philosopher Germany 165

Friedrich von Schelling Philosopher Germany 190

Galileo Galilei Physicist & astronomer & philosopher Italy 185

Garry Kasparov Chess player Russia 190

Geena Davis Actress USA 140

George Berkeley Philosopher Ireland 190

George H. Choueiri A.C.E Leader Lebanon 195

George Eliot (Mary Ann Evans) Writer England 160

George Friedrich Händel Composer Germany 170

George Sand Writer France 150

George W. Bush President USA 125

George Washington President USA 118

Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz " Germany 205

H. C. Anderson Writer Denmark 145

Hillary Clinton Ex-President wife USA 140

Hjalmar Schacht Nazi officer Germany 143

Honoré de Balzac Writer France 155

Hugo Grotius Writer Holland 200

Hypatia Philosopher & mathematician Alexandria 170

Immanuel Kant Philosopher Germany 175

James Cook Explorer England 160

James Watt Physicist & technician Scotland 165

James Woods Actor USA 180

Jayne Mansfield Actress USA 149

Jean M. Auel Writer Canada 140

Jodie Foster Actor USA 132

Johann Sebastian Bach Composer Germany 165

Johann Strauss Composer Germany 170

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe " Germany 210

Johannes Kepler Mathematician, physicist & astronomer Germany 175

John Adams President USA 137

John F. Kennedy' Ex-President USA 117

John H. Sununu Chief of Staff for President Bush USA 180

John Locke Philosopher England 165

John Quincy Adams President USA 153

John Stuart Mill Universal Genius England 200

Jola Sigmond Teacher Sweden 161

Jonathan Swift Writer & theologian England 155

Joseph Haydn Composer Austria 160

Joseph Louis Lagrange Mathematician & astronomer Italy/France 185

Judith Polgar Chess player Hungary 170

Judyth Vary Baker Novelist USA & Exile 160

Kim Ung-Yong " Korea 200

Leonardo da Vinci Universal Genius Italy 220

Lord Byron Poet & writer England 180

Ludwig van Beethoven Composer Germany 165

Ludwig Wittgenstein Philosopher Austria 190

Madame De Stael Novelist & philosopher France 180

Madonna Singer USA 140

Marilyn Vos Savant Writer USA 186

Martin Luther Theorist Germany 170

Miguel de Cervantes Writer Spain 155

Nicolaus Copernicus Astronomer Poland 160

Nicole Kidman Actor USA 132

Paul Allen Microsoft cofounder USA 160

Philip Emeagwali Mathematician Nigeria 190 (shows that race is no issue)

Phillipp Melanchthon Humanist & theologian Germany 190

Pierre Simon de Laplace Astronomer & mathematician France 190

Plato Philosopher Greece 170

Ralph Waldo Emerson Writer USA 155

Raphael Artist Italy 170

Rembrandt van Rijn Artist Holland 155

René Descartes Mathematician & philosopher France 185

Richard Nixon Ex-President USA 143

Richard Wagner Composer Germany 170

Robert Byrne Chess Player Irland 170

Rousseau Writer France 150

Sarpi Councilor & theologian & historian Italy 195

Shakira Singer Colombia 140

Sharon Stone Actress USA 154

Sir Clive Sinclair Inventor England 159

Sir Francis Galton Scientist & doctor England 200

Sir Isaac Newton Scientist England 190

Sofia Kovalevskaya Mathematician & writer Sweden/Russia 170

Stephen W. Hawking Physicist England 160

Thomas Chatterton Poet & writer England 180

Thomas Jefferson President USA 138

Thomas Wolsey Politician England 200

Truman Cloak " " 165

Ulysses S. Grant President USA 110

Voltaire Writer France 190

William James Sidis " USA 200

William Pitt (the Younger) Politician England 190

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart Composer Austria 165

Obama 126

Nixon 164

George Bush 40

Thanks

Doug Weldon

George W. Bush 40?? You've got to be joking?

[John Dolva]

Of course he is, he meant 4.

[Doug Weldon]

A very select list of history's smartest pesons:

Abraham Lincoln President USA 128

Adolf Hitler Nazi leader Germany 141

Al Gore Politician USA 134

Albert Einstein Physicist USA 160

Albrecht von Haller Medical scientist Switzerland 190

Alexander Pope Poet & writer England 180

Andrew J. Wiles Mathematician England 170

Andrew Jackson President USA 123

Andy Warhol Pop artist USA 86

Anthonis Van Dyck Artist Belgium 155

Archure Musician Artist Writer USA 147+

Arnauld Theologian France 190

Arne Beurling Mathematician Sweden 180

Arnold Schwarzenegger Actor Austria 135

Baruch Spinoza Philosopher Holland 175

Benjamin Franklin Writer, scientist & politician USA 160

Benjamin Netanyahu Israeli Prime Minister Israel 180

Bill (William) J. Clinton President USA 137

Bill Gates CEO, Microsoft USA 160

Blaise Pascal Mathematician & religious philosopher France 195

Bobby Fischer Chess player USA 187

Bonaparte Napoleon Emperor France 145

Buonarroti Michelangelo Artist, poet & architect Italy 180

Carl von Linné Botanist Sweden 165

Charles Darwin Naturalist England 165

Charles Dickens Writer England 180

Christopher Langan Bouncer & scientist & philosopher USA 195

David Hume Philosopher & politician Scotland 180

Dolph Lundgren Actor Sweden 160

Donald Byrne Chess Player Irland 170

Dr David Livingstone Explorer & doctor Scotland 170

Emanuel Swedenborg " Sweden 205

Felix Mendelssohn Composer Germany 165

Friedrich Hegel Philosopher Germany 165

Friedrich von Schelling Philosopher Germany 190

Galileo Galilei Physicist & astronomer & philosopher Italy 185

Garry Kasparov Chess player Russia 190

Geena Davis Actress USA 140

George Berkeley Philosopher Ireland 190

George H. Choueiri A.C.E Leader Lebanon 195

George Eliot (Mary Ann Evans) Writer England 160

George Friedrich Händel Composer Germany 170

George Sand Writer France 150

George W. Bush President USA 125

George Washington President USA 118

Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz " Germany 205

H. C. Anderson Writer Denmark 145

Hillary Clinton Ex-President wife USA 140

Hjalmar Schacht Nazi officer Germany 143

Honoré de Balzac Writer France 155

Hugo Grotius Writer Holland 200

Hypatia Philosopher & mathematician Alexandria 170

Immanuel Kant Philosopher Germany 175

James Cook Explorer England 160

James Watt Physicist & technician Scotland 165

James Woods Actor USA 180

Jayne Mansfield Actress USA 149

Jean M. Auel Writer Canada 140

Jodie Foster Actor USA 132

Johann Sebastian Bach Composer Germany 165

Johann Strauss Composer Germany 170

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe " Germany 210

Johannes Kepler Mathematician, physicist & astronomer Germany 175

John Adams President USA 137

John F. Kennedy' Ex-President USA 117

John H. Sununu Chief of Staff for President Bush USA 180

John Locke Philosopher England 165

John Quincy Adams President USA 153

John Stuart Mill Universal Genius England 200

Jola Sigmond Teacher Sweden 161

Jonathan Swift Writer & theologian England 155

Joseph Haydn Composer Austria 160

Joseph Louis Lagrange Mathematician & astronomer Italy/France 185

Judith Polgar Chess player Hungary 170

Judyth Vary Baker Novelist USA & Exile 160

Kim Ung-Yong " Korea 200

Leonardo da Vinci Universal Genius Italy 220

Lord Byron Poet & writer England 180

Ludwig van Beethoven Composer Germany 165

Ludwig Wittgenstein Philosopher Austria 190

Madame De Stael Novelist & philosopher France 180

Madonna Singer USA 140

Marilyn Vos Savant Writer USA 186

Martin Luther Theorist Germany 170

Miguel de Cervantes Writer Spain 155

Nicolaus Copernicus Astronomer Poland 160

Nicole Kidman Actor USA 132

Paul Allen Microsoft cofounder USA 160

Philip Emeagwali Mathematician Nigeria 190 (shows that race is no issue)

Phillipp Melanchthon Humanist & theologian Germany 190

Pierre Simon de Laplace Astronomer & mathematician France 190

Plato Philosopher Greece 170

Ralph Waldo Emerson Writer USA 155

Raphael Artist Italy 170

Rembrandt van Rijn Artist Holland 155

René Descartes Mathematician & philosopher France 185

Richard Nixon Ex-President USA 143

Richard Wagner Composer Germany 170

Robert Byrne Chess Player Irland 170

Rousseau Writer France 150

Sarpi Councilor & theologian & historian Italy 195

Shakira Singer Colombia 140

Sharon Stone Actress USA 154

Sir Clive Sinclair Inventor England 159

Sir Francis Galton Scientist & doctor England 200

Sir Isaac Newton Scientist England 190

Sofia Kovalevskaya Mathematician & writer Sweden/Russia 170

Stephen W. Hawking Physicist England 160

Thomas Chatterton Poet & writer England 180

Thomas Jefferson President USA 138

Thomas Wolsey Politician England 200

Truman Cloak " " 165

Ulysses S. Grant President USA 110

Voltaire Writer France 190

William James Sidis " USA 200

William Pitt (the Younger) Politician England 190

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart Composer Austria 165

Jack, there was no IQ test when most of these people were alive, so whoever made this list was just guesstimating.

100 is by definition average. 200 is the highest score possible. The tests are not standard from year to year. It could very well be, therefore, that a 100 in 1963 would translate to a 105 in 2010, etc.

FWIW, when I was 7 years old my mother was told I had a very high IQ, and was asked if they could skip me ahead in school. She said no, afraid I would be mocked by the older kids. In fifth grade I was put into an experimental program, whereby the kids with the highest IQs from grades 5, 4, and 3, were put in a single class, the "gifted" class. The minimum IQ was 130. if I recall. We put out a school newspaper, for which I was the editor. Later, in sixth grade, my home room teacher pulled me aside to tell me that I was the most respected kid in the school and was a natural born leader, etc.

Now, all of this could have led me to have a big head. But three things got in the way. One, my best friend Dirk was, to my estimation, just as smart as me, and his IQ was not high enough to crash the "gifted" club. (He later proved his smarts by forming a tech company, Xircom, and then selling it to Intel for hundreds of millions of dollars just before the bubble burst.) Two was that, as smart as I was, I would occasionally have brain farts where I couldn't remember simple things. Three was that I realized having great potential did not necessarily translate to having a great outcome, and that what to others might appear to be blessing could in fact be quite a burden. One day after school I had a talk with one of the class stoners--a guy who was already smoking pot in grade school. He told me that Mrs. Olivier, who'd kept me after class to tell me how respected I was, had kept HIM after class one day to tell him he had the highest IQ in the class, and to tell him he should try harder. Now, most of the kids in school would have called him a xxxx for making such a claim, but I instinctively knew he was right. At no time in my conversation with Mrs. Olivier had she ever discussed my IQ.

Anyhow, years later, on the David Letterman show, if I recall, I saw an interview with the woman with the highest recorded IQ. She wrote stories. And flirted. And was funny... Her intelligence didn't drive her to science, as one might think, but to other endeavors. (Malcolm Gladwell's book Outliers discusses the under-performance of geniuses as compared to near-geniuses in detail.)

So...how does this relate to Judyth's story? It relates in that I have no problem believing she has an IQ of 160. She may very well have. But that by no means supports that 1) she is telling the truth, or 2) she was brought on board some top secret science project at an early age.

Pat:

I was placed in a "special" group throughout school where we barked at cars all day.

Doug Weldon

[Stephen Roy]

What is "patently ridiculous" is to place greater weight on later testimony than on earlier, especially

when there is a concerted effort to change history to conform closer to the government's version, in

case you haven't noticed. Your reply does not respond to my argument. Moreover, since you have

entered this fray, I would observe that anyone who has been conducting research on any subject as

long as you claim to have done (for 20 years!) and never published must not have a whole lot to say.

Judyth has suggested that you are waiting until those you discuss are dead so they will not be able

to contradict what you write about them. That would be consistent with my assessment of you, too.

So, it would make more sense to give greater weight to witnesses who gave statements earlier, say, prior to 2000?

Your "argument" is not the issue. It's your dismissal of someone who knows more abut the New Orleans case than you do. A serious scholar would want to know what those with expertise in the New Orleans aspects think about these issues: DiEugenio, Davy, Vea, Pease, Hewitt, Flammonde, Mellen, Epstein, Lambert, Biles, Turner, etc. What DO they think?

We will see what my book - not a one-year-quickie - will have to say.

Interesting comment by Baker. Most of the witnesses I've spoken with are still alive. How many of the people portrayed badly in her account are still alive to give their impressions?

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Incidentally, Judyth told me that Joan Mellen had interviewed her several times

and made use of information she had provided, but without acknowledging her

source.

An email from Joan Mellen to me in 2008. I did not know Joan, it was a cold contact:

From:Joanmel.....

To:barb...@comcast.net

Subject:Re: You are being cited ... can you verify?

Date:Thursday, January 17, 2008 6:37:42 AM

Dear Barb,

Many thanks for writing to me. There is not a single word in my

book that came from Judyth Vary Baker. The information about Oswald in

the restaurant(s) came from Thomas Edward Beckham, in our interviews.

Oswald was alone, according to Mr. Beckham.

In the interest of full disclosure, Judyth Vary Baker did telephone me once,

but the entire conversation involved her attempting to persuade me

that Jim Garrison had a sexual relationship with a Hermaphrodite.

When I asked for a confirming source, she did not produce the name or

contact information. I ended the conversation there. I was not interested

in that line of inquiry in any case.

I was also guided, with respect to some of the

claims about Oswald, by Mary Ferrell, who was a good friend to me.

Mary told me that, based on her knowledge and research, the claims

could not be verified. There were contradictions. I know that the

issue of Mary's position came up some time ago in discussion groups. I

did not say anything because I knew that Mary did not wish to be

disturbed with further, and endless, queries.

Kind regards,

Joan

[Pamela Brown]

"She has an IQ of around 160 and is superb at research."

-- Jim Fester

Read your own sentence. She's a researcher. Doesn't that give you a clue about what she knows? She didn't live all this. She read about it.

Kathy C

While it doesn't follows logically that if you are a researcher you can't also be a witness, the dual role that Judyth has taken on has created confusion and complicates her statements. It would have been much simpler for everyone if she had been able to focus only on what she heard and saw and let others do the research. So that criticism is, I feel, a legitimate issue. It then becomes a baby-bathwater situation. Your choice.

[Stephen Roy]

The processing and selection of ever-more aggressive tumors and cell lines, destined for more recycling and radiation, involved the use of David Ferrie’s large kitchen in his apartment on Louisiana Avenue Parkway. The product was then handled by Dr. Sherman, who made additional decisions.

Dave Ferrie's kitchen, from several angles, taken while he lived there: