Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[Greg Burnham]

Judyth?

[Greg Burnham]

I just spoke with Jim. He said he thinks the idea has merit and he will run it by Judyth.

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Evan,

This has become unbelievably convoluted, but my impression is that Barb

implied that JUDYTH had put pressure on McGeehee to alter his testimony

when he was talking about OTHERS who had pressured him. I will ask for

more clarification from Judyth about this and, if I am mistaken, then I will

acknowledge that and apologize to Barb. But that is the basis of my claim,

which I thought was clear from the post to which the remark was prefaced.

Jim

Non-responsive, professor. The only thing convoluted is your trying to put lipstick on this latest pig of yours.

You had an "impression" that I "implied" something ... so that means you flat out state that I have a penchant

for altering evidence and that I am not a reliable source?

The reason you now say it is convoluted and that you need to check with Judyth (what?) is that you know dang good and well that I have *never* posted a quote inaccurately, nor have I ever posted one I could not back up. This was just one more attack that has been a consistent theme of your posts throughout this thread ... not only on me, but on anyone who believes other than you do on Judyth ... especially those who post information that conflicts with her story.

Not to mention I had already posted the document with the line I had quoted highlighted in yellow. Some have it in them to, on their own, say sorry, my bad, I can't cite you any examples because I know of none.

And some don't.

JUDYTH RESPONDS TO JUNKKARINEN (WITH MORE TO COME)

NOTE: This seems to be a nice example of how Junkkarinen likes to make slight

alterations to the evidence in order to create a false target to attack.

Professor,

Do you mean to say Barb has altered quotes from members and/or external sources? If so, could you highlight an example please? Thank you.

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Doug,

At this juncture, I don't think that the proper venue would be Jim Fetzer's show. (No offense, Jim). In order for a public interview to be conducted properly I would think that a much more "neutral venue" is preferred.

I just spoke with Len Osanic. He agreed to have both Doug and Judyth on Black Op Radio. The purpose of the show will be to have a non-confrontational "question and answer" session.

Neither he nor I want a "knock down drag out" show! So, it needs to be cordial, but NOT restrained. Respectful adversity is acceptable.

Also, due to the "time difference" it might be preferable to pre-record the show so that Judyth is not forced to participate at 4:00am (her time) for a "live" show that will be on the air at 6:00 pst.

Well, any takers?

Excellent, Greg. And you are as spot on about a "neutral venue" as Doug is in his response that this needs to be Judyth, on her own, speaking spontaneously, for herself.

Many of us have questions we have asked ... and would like to ask ... Judyth. Doug could certainly handle that. Pre-recording because of time differences is a fine idea ... as long as the recording is not edited in any way.

Kudos to you for thinking of this.

Barb :-)

[Greg Burnham]

Doug,

At this juncture, I don't think that the proper venue would be Jim Fetzer's show. (No offense, Jim). In order for a public interview to be conducted properly I would think that a much more "neutral venue" is preferred.

I just spoke with Len Osanic. He agreed to have both Doug and Judyth on Black Op Radio. The purpose of the show will be to have a non-confrontational "question and answer" session.

Neither he nor I want a "knock down drag out" show! So, it needs to be cordial, but NOT restrained. Respectful adversity is acceptable.

Also, due to the "time difference" it might be preferable to pre-record the show so that Judyth is not forced to participate at 4:00am (her time) for a "live" show that will be on the air at 6:00 pst.

Well, any takers?

Excellent, Greg. And you are as spot on about a "neutral venue" as Doug is in his response that this needs to be Judyth, on her own, speaking spontaneously, for herself.

Many of us have questions we have asked ... and would like to ask ... Judyth. Doug could certainly handle that. Pre-recording because of time differences is a fine idea ... as long as the recording is not edited in any way.

Kudos to you for thinking of this.

Barb :-)

I can assure you that there will be no editing at all.

[Jack White]

Doug,

At this juncture, I don't think that the proper venue would be Jim Fetzer's show. (No offense, Jim). In order for a public interview to be conducted properly I would think that a much more "neutral venue" is preferred.

I just spoke with Len Osanic. He agreed to have both Doug and Judyth on Black Op Radio. The purpose of the show will be to have a non-confrontational "question and answer" session.

Neither he nor I want a "knock down drag out" show! So, it needs to be cordial, but NOT restrained. Respectful adversity is acceptable.

Also, due to the "time difference" it might be preferable to pre-record the show so that Judyth is not forced to participate at 4:00am (her time) for a "live" show that will be on the air at 6:00 pst.

Well, any takers?

Excellent, Greg. And you are as spot on about a "neutral venue" as Doug is in his response that this needs to be Judyth, on her own, speaking spontaneously, for herself.

Many of us have questions we have asked ... and would like to ask ... Judyth. Doug could certainly handle that. Pre-recording because of time differences is a fine idea ... as long as the recording is not edited in any way.

Kudos to you for thinking of this.

Barb :-)

I can assure you that there will be no editing at all.

Pipedream. The last thing JVB wants is impartial intelligent questions by an unbiased emcee.

She does not want to be asked about the "Nobel scientists" who back her. Who are they?

She does not want to reveal why she claims to have the highest IQ in Florida. How was this determined?

Jack

[Greg Burnham]

Pipedream. The last thing JVB wants is impartial intelligent questions by an unbiased emcee.

Here are a few of the reasons that Judyth should accept this opportunity:

1) She will be enabled to present her case unfiltered, and without question, verbatim;

2) She won't be subjected to the inherent limitations associated with the "written" word as oppposed to the "spoken" word;

3) The nuances and subtleties of verbal expression will be captured;

4) No one will be able to unfairly claim that "she selectively avoided questions" as it will be self apparent either way;

5) This venue will eliminate the awkward delay between when a question is asked and an answer delivered;

6) If she is "the real deal" -- it is my belief that nothing speaks louder than the truth -- and so she should speak it.

[Michael Hogan]

Evan,

This has become unbelievably convoluted, but my impression is that Barb

implied that JUDYTH had put pressure on McGeehee to alter his testimony

when he was talking about OTHERS who had pressured him. I will ask for

more clarification from Judyth about this and, if I am mistaken, then I will

acknowledge that and apologize to Barb. But that is the basis of my claim,

which I thought was clear from the post to which the remark was prefaced.

Jim

Non-responsive, professor. The only thing convoluted is your trying to put lipstick on this latest pig of yours.

You had an "impression" that I "implied" something ... so that means you flat out state that I have a penchant

for altering evidence and that I am not a reliable source?

The reason you now say it is convoluted and that you need to check with Judyth (what?) is that you know dang good and well that I have *never* posted a quote inaccurately, nor have I ever posted one I could not back up. This was just one more attack that has been a consistent theme of your posts throughout this thread ... not only on me, but on anyone who believes other than you do on Judyth ... especially those who post information that conflicts with her story. (bold added, m.h.)

Throughout the course of this thread my respect for Barb has grown. Her statements have proven to be far more reliable and credible than Jim Fetzer's ugly brand of sophistry:

JUDYTH RESPONDS TO JUNKKARINEN (WITH MORE TO COME)

NOTE: This seems to be a nice example of how Junkkarinen likes to make slight

alterations to the evidence in order to create a false target to attack. Judyth has

more to say about her latest posts, which I think will explain to Jack why I take

nothing from Junkkarinen at face value. She is very devious and misleading in

her posts, as I read them, which means that she is an untrustworthy source. I

believe that Doug Weldon has been misled from time to time by relying upon

posts from Barb. They are not reliable and should never be taken for granted.

This statement of Jim's sort of sums up the entire thread:

....Remember, I have received hundreds of emails from her, posted hundreds of them on her behalf, interviewed her for YouTube features, created several blogs on her behalf, studied the voluminous arguments that have been advanced against her. As an expert in logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning, why would I depend on anyone else to evaluate her sincerity, her integrity, her dedication and her knowledge when I am in the best possible position? I am convinced that she is "the real deal" and that, within the bounds of her ability, she is telling us the truth. She is among the most admirable persons I have ever known.

[Stephen Roy]

RE: The proposed Black Op program:

I would like Baker to expand on this a bit, from her unauthorized book, pages 615-617:

"In early November, Lee's concern for Kennedy's safety increased. 'I was invited to help test security problems at Love Field,' he told me. 'I was to see where hiding places might be, things like that. What was I doing - helping or hindering - when I gave my report?' Lee spent a week checking out Love Field in every aspect. He'd be picked up and taken there, then returned discreetly to the TSBD building a few hours later...After their work at Love Field, other locations were also investigated. Lee was working with a Secret Service agent. 'I'm the trusted local native,' Lee explained. 'In a way, it's an honor to help scout out Kennedy's route, as well as emergency routes. The agent and me, we've become friends,' he added, a bit proudly. 'I think I can trust him'...Ironically, Lee, himself, soon to be thrust into the role of accused lone assassin, made many recommendations for the sake of the safety of the President."

Lee Harvey Oswald was a consultant to the Secret Service on Kennedy's motorcade route and safety procedures?

[Karl Kinaski]

RE: The proposed Black Op program:

I would like Baker to expand on this a bit, from her unauthorized book, pages 615-617:

"In early November, Lee's concern for Kennedy's safety increased. 'I was invited to help test security problems at Love Field,' he told me. 'I was to see where hiding places might be, things like that. What was I doing - helping or hindering - when I gave my report?' Lee spent a week checking out Love Field in every aspect. He'd be picked up and taken there, then returned discreetly to the TSBD building a few hours later...After their work at Love Field, other locations were also investigated. Lee was working with a Secret Service agent. 'I'm the trusted local native,' Lee explained. 'In a way, it's an honor to help scout out Kennedy's route, as well as emergency routes. The agent and me, we've become friends,' he added, a bit proudly. 'I think I can trust him'...Ironically, Lee, himself, soon to be thrust into the role of accused lone assassin, made many recommendations for the sake of the safety of the President."

Lee Harvey Oswald was a consultant to the Secret Service on Kennedy's motorcade route and safety procedures?

One has to be careful: there were two kinds of Secret Service in Dallas on 22.11.63. The Secret Secret which was on the follow up car, and some false SS-men. Maybe the false SS-men where there days prior to the assassination: to mislead Oswald ( to cosy him along) and, without his knowledge, to prepare the scene for the murder...

KK

[Greg Burnham]

I personally don't find it too implausible that Oswald "might have thought" he was actually involved in such a thing and, if he knew JVB, could have told her about it. I don't find that to be particularly far fetched. As the "patsy" it is quite possible he was being "worked" from several directions by several handlers.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Jack,

I thought I had already addressed the Nobel question. It appears to me

you have been very casual about reading posts on this thread. That's too

bad. Here's what Judyth has sent in response to your question about IQ.

I discuss IQ scores and intelligence in THE EVOLUTION OF INTELLIGENCE.

Jim

REPLY TO JACK:

At the same time, please clarify her statement that Judyth's IQ test showed

'that she had the highest IQ of anyone in the state of Florida.

==I already answered this. Didn't Jack read the answer when he brought it

up the first time? I stated that Mackle Corporation feted we kids who scored

highest in Project Talent in the State of Florida, a nationwide IQ and cognitive

testing program where students were assessed in their high schools for a full

week....I was ranked #1 on that series of tests: we were lined up and photo-

graphed. But high IQ means little if not given the opportunity to excel. There

are many other people out there who are smarter than I am who also never

got their chance to help humanity, my big dream.==

Doug,

At this juncture, I don't think that the proper venue would be Jim Fetzer's show. (No offense, Jim). In order for a public interview to be conducted properly I would think that a much more "neutral venue" is preferred.

I just spoke with Len Osanic. He agreed to have both Doug and Judyth on Black Op Radio. The purpose of the show will be to have a non-confrontational "question and answer" session.

Neither he nor I want a "knock down drag out" show! So, it needs to be cordial, but NOT restrained. Respectful adversity is acceptable.

Also, due to the "time difference" it might be preferable to pre-record the show so that Judyth is not forced to participate at 4:00am (her time) for a "live" show that will be on the air at 6:00 pst.

Well, any takers?

Excellent, Greg. And you are as spot on about a "neutral venue" as Doug is in his response that this needs to be Judyth, on her own, speaking spontaneously, for herself.

Many of us have questions we have asked ... and would like to ask ... Judyth. Doug could certainly handle that. Pre-recording because of time differences is a fine idea ... as long as the recording is not edited in any way.

Kudos to you for thinking of this.

Barb :-)

I can assure you that there will be no editing at all.

Pipedream. The last thing JVB wants is impartial intelligent questions by an unbiased emcee.

She does not want to be asked about the "Nobel scientists" who back her. Who are they?

She does not want to reveal why she claims to have the highest IQ in Florida. How was this determined?

Jack

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

COMMENT:

That you guys are spending so much of your time speculating about what Lee Oswald would or would not have know is simply incredibly. You trash Judyth over matters where you quite obviously know nothing at all. This is very, very unimpressive.

Reply to Monk #2897

I'm very much "caught up" Doug! Thanks. The mere implication that Oswald was somehow "privy" to this information is inescapably absurd. If he said this to Judyth, it was nothing more than a fluke. But, in light of the aftermath, to believe that such a statistically implausible fluke actually occured, is beyond the pale.

==What lee said is not to forget the names Billie Sol Estes and Bobby Baker, that BECAUSE OF THEM the assassination was not going to be stopped. I stated this in THE LOVE AFFAIR. I extrapolated from that statement that it was LYNDON JOHNSON who did not stop the assassination. I did not mean that Lee said that directly. I only meant that this was the logical conclusion.==jvb==

Monk:

I hope Judyth does not point to Life Magazine which detailed many of LBJ's legal problems the week befeore the assassination. This is research, not memory.

Well, in any event, the Life Magazine article's headline (or content) didn't say:

"Vice President Wants JFK Dead Within a Week or So Due to Involvement with Billie Sol Estes and Other Sordid Scandals"

So, that dog don't hunt, anyway.

Is Judyth suggesting that Oswald was specially briefed about these problems? If so, by whom and for what reason? If you catch up with the thread you will see that virtually every good question is left unanswered.

I'm very much "caught up" Doug! Thanks. The mere implication that Oswald was somehow "privy" to this information is inescapably absurd. If he said this to Judyth, it was nothing more than a fluke. But, in light of the aftermath, to believe that such a statistically implausible fluke actually occured, is beyond the pale.

Judyth will not or has not produced the tape that allegedly contradicts the account of the Mary Ferrell incident and will not subject the alleged writing of Oswald for expert analysis. I just recently found out that Judyth is a member of this forum and sees everything. Why do all of her responses have to get filtered through a third party? I will gladly interview and tape Anna Lewis myself. I hope you get a chance to review the threads.

Doug Weldon

Perhaps Judyth will agree to be questioned by you "on the air" so that there are no "problems with tape recordings" and such? She held up quite well to my "in person" interview, so it's not like she's too fragile, IMO. Of course, that was over 10 years ago.

Edited June 1, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Reply to Monk #2907

Len Osanic has told hostile stories about me to many people. HE IS NOT NEUTRAL. ASK ANITA LANGLEY. SHE KNOWS THIS. Osanic is on record putting me down. Anita interviewed me for Black Op Radio, the only radio program I consented to speak on until Dr. Fetzer convinced me to speak again recently.

I am not interested in being on ANY radio or TV program.

I have to leave this country and move again. After the book comes out, I believe everyone might be able to propose better questions.

If my editors agree, I would suggest COAST TO COAST, around November of this year, if they agree. I would do it only to remind people of Lee Oswald's innocence, perhaps (I sincerely hope) for the last time.

But because Mr. Weldon is already on record as having called me crazy, and has stated many negative comments, I would suggest Greg Burnham to be the person asking the questions that he believes are appropriate. I trust his judgment. I have written to him a number of times without a single reply, for awhile now, so it cannot be said that he is rooting for me in any way. Nevertheless, I believe he would provide measured, impartial means of questioning me, with good judgment. He would not suddenly say something nasty, demeaning, imprudent or rude. Mr. Weldon has already revealed his tendency to insult me on this forum.

Though Greg Burnham has not responded a single time to numerous emails I've cc'd him on, I nevertheless believe that he has not yet become hostile to me and would do his best to do a good job of interviewing. Furthermore, it is my hope that he would give a JFK impression on COAST TO COAST. Kennedy has been maligned so much: I think Burnham could bring a spark of life into the program with his uncanny ability to mimic JFK. I liked his comments on THE MEN WHO KILLED KENNEDY--spot on, in my opinion.

If he says 'no,' then so will I.

JVB

Pipedream. The last thing JVB wants is impartial intelligent questions by an unbiased emcee.

Here are a few of the reasons that Judyth should accept this opportunity:

1) She will be enabled to present her case unfiltered, and without question, verbatim;

2) She won't be subjected to the inherent limitations associated with the "written" word as oppposed to the "spoken" word;

3) The nuances and subtleties of verbal expression will be captured;

4) No one will be able to unfairly claim that "she selectively avoided questions" as it will be self apparent either way;

5) This venue will eliminate the awkward delay between when a question is asked and an answer delivered;

6) If she is "the real deal" -- it is my belief that nothing speaks louder than the truth -- and so she should speak it.

[Greg Burnham]

Reply to Monk #2907

Len Osanic has told hostile stories about me to many people. HE IS NOT NEUTRAL. ASK ANITA LANGLEY. SHE KNOWS THIS. Osanic is on record putting me down. Anita interviewed me for Black Op Radio, the only radio program I consented to speak on until Dr. Fetzer convinced me to speak again recently.

I am not interested in being on ANY radio or TV program.

I have to leave this country and move again. After the book comes out, I believe everyone might be able to propose better questions.

If my editors agree, I would suggest COAST TO COAST, around November of this year, if they agree. I would do it only to remind people of Lee Oswald's innocence, perhaps (I sincerely hope) for the last time.

But because Mr. Weldon is already on record as having called me crazy, and has stated many negative comments, I would suggest Greg Burnham to be the person asking the questions that he believes are appropriate. I trust his judgment. I have written to him a number of times without a single reply, for awhile now, so it cannot be said that he is rooting for me in any way. Nevertheless, I believe he would provide measured, impartial means of questioning me, with good judgment. He would not suddenly say something nasty, demeaning, imprudent or rude. Mr. Weldon has already revealed his tendency to insult me on this forum.

Though Greg Burnham has not responded a single time to numerous emails I've cc'd him on, I nevertheless believe that he has not yet become hostile to me and would do his best to do a good job of interviewing. Furthermore, it is my hope that he would give a JFK impression on COAST TO COAST. Kennedy has been maligned so much: I think Burnham could bring a spark of life into the program with his uncanny ability to mimic JFK. I liked his comments on THE MEN WHO KILLED KENNEDY--spot on, in my opinion.

If he says 'no,' then so will I.

JVB

Very interesting reply. Judyth, I am unaware of the many emails of which you speak that I have been recently "cc'd" -- I have not seen ANY -- to my knowledge. I didn't know I was being cc'd by you at all! To confirm your point, however, even if I had been aware, there is a high probablility that I wouldn't have replied.

Moreover, Dean Hartwell sent me a "PM" last week stating that you did not even have my email address at all and you wished to correspond with me. I provided it to him, but I reiterated to him that [paraphrased]: 1) I wish you well; 2) Your story, as presented, is NOT compelling--even IF true! 3) and, even if 100% true, it does not appear to add anything relevant to what we already know about the JFK assassination, IMO. -- I am truly sorry if that is painful because I am not intending to be hurtful at all. But, as a researcher and student of this history, I must draw boundaries for myself based on my best judgment of what is worth me pursuing.

After I sent that reply to Dean, I still have not received a single email from you. So, I really don't know what you are talking about.

Now, having said all of that: my answer is yes.

However, please understand, I will not "pull punches" and I will want a list of questions from your detractors to put to you or this will serve NO PURPOSE at all. If you are "vulnerable" due to being less than credible, I will "go there" with considerable vigor.

Lastly, I take exception to your comments about Len. He is a very close friend. He is quite willing to express his opinions to me about those for whom he has little or no respect, or doesn't trust. He has never uttered a single derrogatory word to me about you. In fact, in order to be fair to you, he is the one who suggested a pre-recorded show so that you wouldn't have to be subjected to the time difference like you had to the first time.

I prefer Black Op Radio. If I am the one posing the questions you won't need to be concerned about Len's opinion. If, however, Coast to Coast will help book sales...so be it.