Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[Jack White]

Jim...I have not seen this before. So I googled MACKLE CORPORATION IQ TESTS FLORIDA 1960s,

and could find NOTHING indicating that a "Mackle Corporation" had conducted such testing.

So could Judyth provide documentation for this, instead of just saying it?

This reply also fails to name the NOBEL PRIZE WINNERS who support her story.

Therefore this reply is non-responsive to the questions, which are NOT trick questions nor attacks.

Jack

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

Edited June 1, 2010 by Jack White

[Kevin Greenlee]

I don't think anyone familiar with judyth is the least bit surprised that she would reject an opportunity to be interviewed by a non fawning interviewer. but it is a real pity that she is trying to mask her cowardice by unjustly attacking len osanic. unlike greg, i do not know len. but i am a longtime listener to his program. he has never made a secret of his low opinion of john mcadams but when mcadams was a guest on his program len took great pains to treat him with fairness and dignity. there is no doubt in my mind he would do the same for judyth.

mr. fetzer used to be quite the regular guest on the program. it disappoints (but does not surprise) me that he would pass along judyth's unfair criticism of his friend without a word of defense.

as to coast to coast.... that is a very popular program run by media professionals. i do not think they let prospective guests bring on friends to interview them.

[Greg Burnham]

as to coast to coast.... that is a very popular program run by media professionals. i do not think they let prospective guests bring on friends to interview them.

Just to be clear, I'm no friend. Indeed, I am now more skeptical than I have ever been! But, you are probably correct. They probably won't agree to such an arrangement. I hope that suggestion wasn't just designed for her to "get out" of it?

That's another reason why I prefer Black OP Radio.

I prefer Black Op Radio with Doug asking the questions, not me. However, I really am not "an easy mark" -- or a push over, either... Hell, I debated McAdams, didn't I?

Edited June 1, 2010 by Greg Burnham

[Jack White]

Impugning the character/fairness of Doug Weldon or Greg Burnham adds no JVB credibility.

They are likely the two most fair members of this forum. Asking in-depth questions based

on understanding of the subject IS fair, and does not constitute an attack. Asking uncomfortable

questions (like circumcision) does not constitute an attack. Asking questions for which an

accurate answer is not given does not constitute an attack. Asking a question for which the answer

is "no comment" is not an attack.

If JVB is what she claims, she should welcome the opportunity to answer questions about her

credibility without being attacked. Her answers should speak for themselves.

Jack

Edited June 1, 2010 by Jack White

[David Andrews]

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?

Devil's Advocate: It might have put Oswald's fingerprints in a lot of inculpatory places, as if he had been stalking JFK.

Edited June 2, 2010 by David Andrews

[Greg Burnham]

Impugning the character/fairness of Doug Weldon or Greg Burnham adds no JVB credibility.

They are likely the two most fair members of this forum...

Thanks Jack.

If JVB is what she claims, she should welcome the opportunity to answer questions about her

credibility without being attacked. Her answers should speak for themselves.

Jack

[emphasis added]

Indeed.

[Doug Weldon]

as to coast to coast.... that is a very popular program run by media professionals. i do not think they let prospective guests bring on friends to interview them.

Just to be clear, I'm no friend. Indeed, I am now more skeptical than I have ever been! But, you are probably correct. They probably won't agree to such an arrangement. I hope that suggestion wasn't just designed for her to "get out" of it?

That's another reason why I prefer Black OP Radio.

I prefer Black Op Radio with Doug asking the questions, not me. However, I really am not "an easy mark" -- or a push over, either... Hell, I debated McAdams, didn't I?

Monk:

Coast to Coast would not allow a third party interviewer and the questions would likely be "soft ball" questions with Ed Haslam or someone else on line cheeriing and expressing their support. Furthermore to wait to November makes this practically useless. A worthwhile interview may take four hours, either at once or divided into two sections.

I agreed to the rules proposed and the rules are consistent with decorum I would exercise in questioning any witness. I have done this thousands of times. There is no one person's intelligence I respect more than yours but I would have liked the opportunity simply because I am so familiar with exploring inconsistencies in someone's testimony.

Judyth should welcome the opportunity to establish her legitimacy but perhaps her response and refusal speak louder than any interview could. What is Jim's response? He thought the idea had merit. I cannot believe that he could agree with the weak rationale given by Judyth. My response would have been "hit me with your best shot" and ask me the hardest questions you can conceive of because this was MY experience and it is TRUE. Why does Judyth have to dodge answering questions if she is "the real deal?" What does she have to fear? Jim? Dean? Anyone who supports her? Is she above scrutiny? Someone is going to ask those questions.

Judyth's credibility seems to be even in question about the most simple of matters. She states she has been sending e-mails to you. You reply "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."Does Dean Hartwell dispute this?

Judyth states " Mr. Weldon has already revealed his tendency to insult me on this forum." Translation: Mr Weldon has not swallowed my story hook, line, and sinker. He asks questions I cannot or refuse to answer and asks for verification of physical evidence which I refuse to do."

If Judyth truly cares about anything other than her own notierity then she should reconsider her response. If her real or imaginary concerns for Lee Harvey Oswald are legitimate she may not recognize that her actions do nothing but mock his memory and the sincere attempts by so many people to find out the truth about what happened on November 22, 1963. If Judyth notes my skepticism it should be more of a reason, not less, to persuade me and others of her legitimacy.

I have always found Jim Fetzer, whether one agrees or disagrees with his methodology or conclusions, to be one who wants truth. I cannot believe he would not be surprised by this response from Judyth. To those in the poll who found her story credible please let me know what is the foundation for that belief? Why should Judyth not be subject to answering my questions? Why is her story accepted without corroboration? Please don't say Anna Lewis. I would be glad to examine Anna Lewis or any person she wants to offer to support her story on Black Op Radio under the same proposed conditions.

The Wizard of Oz is real. Ignore the man behind that curtain. Is that what we are asked to believe? Life does not work that way. Jack's most recent post is very accurate. Am I surprised by Judyth's response? No, not at all. However, there was a part of me that was hopeful that Judyth might have really cared about History and things bigger than herself.

Ultimately. the irony cannot escape me. I honestly did follow this thread with an open mind. So many people asked such legitimate questions which were avoided or ignored. The better the question, the more the character of that person was disparaged. I, myself, transcended from rationale to arrogant and unknowledgeable depending on my observations at the time. The irony is that despite the flow of the thread it was Judyth herself who convinced me that her story was not credible. I am certain I am not alone. The tragedy is that I somehow feel that Judyth may truly believe her story. I cannot explain that fantasy. Several people have told me that if she wrote this story as a piece of historical fiction she may have had a best seller. In offering it as non-fiction I have only empathy and pity for her. I went to Washington D.C in the 1970's and a top journalist described Nixon in that every day of his life Nixon believed that the whole world was having a party and he wasn't invited. The reporter said,"Love me, hate me, or feel whatever emotion you may feel towards me, but please do not pity me. I pitied Richard Nixon."

Again, I pity Judyth Baker. My offer remains open.

Doug Weldon

Edited June 2, 2010 by Doug Weldon

[Dean Hartwell]

Monk:

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.

Judyth's credibility seems to be even in question about the most simple of matters. She states she has been sending e-mails to you. You reply "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."Does Dean Hartwell dispute this?

Doug Weldon

I am not clear who is bringing me up in this post. I will assume that Doug is quoting Monk because that makes the most sense based on a prior post.

I sent Monk a PM on May 22 telling him that JVB did not have his email address and that she wanted to correspond with him. Monk sent me his email address via PM shortly thereafter and I then sent it on to JVB.

I have personally received messages from JVB that showed Monk's email as a "CC" since that time. Why these emails did not get to Monk is a question I do not have the answer to. I have since sent another PM to Monk and will try to figure out what happened.

Dean

[Jack White]

Excellent, Doug! I too pity Judyth. She has wasted 20 years of her life chasing a fantasy which she believes true,

but to careful observers fails to pass the "fiction or fact" test.

She raises many questions which deserve documentable answers, not just her assertions. For instance, her claim

that LHO assisted the SS in planning the motorcade route is laughable at best!

Jack

as to coast to coast.... that is a very popular program run by media professionals. i do not think they let prospective guests bring on friends to interview them.

Just to be clear, I'm no friend. Indeed, I am now more skeptical than I have ever been! But, you are probably correct. They probably won't agree to such an arrangement. I hope that suggestion wasn't just designed for her to "get out" of it?

That's another reason why I prefer Black OP Radio.

I prefer Black Op Radio with Doug asking the questions, not me. However, I really am not "an easy mark" -- or a push over, either... Hell, I debated McAdams, didn't I?

Monk:

Coast to Coast would not allow a third party interviewer and the questions would likely be "soft ball" questions with Ed Haslam or someone else on line cheeriing and expressing their support. Furthermore to wait to November makes this practically useless. A worthwhile interview make take four hours. either at once or divided into two sections.

I agreed to the rules proposed and the rules are consistent with decorum I would exercise in questioning any witness. I have done this thousands of times. There is no one person's intelligence I respect more than yours but I would have liked the opportunity simply because I am so familiar with exploring inconsistencies in someone's testimony.

Judyth should welcome the opportunity to establish her legitimacy but perhaps her response and refusal speak louder than any interview could. What is Jim's response? He thought the idea had merit. I cannot believe that he could agree with the weak rationale given by Judyth. My response would have been "hit me with your best shot" and ask me the hardest questions you can conceive of because this was MY experience and it is TRUE. Why does Judyth have to dodge answering questions if she is "the real deal?" What does she have to fear? Jim? Dean? Anyone who supports her? Is she above scrutiny? Someone is going to ask those questions.

Judyth's credibility seems to be even in question about the most simple of matters. She states she has been sending e-mails to you. You reply "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."Does Dean Hartwell dispute this?

Judyth states " Mr. Weldon has already revealed his tendency to insult me on this forum." Translation: Mr Weldon has not swallowed my story hook, line, and sinker. He asks questions I cannot or refuse to answer and asks for verification of physical evidence which I refuse to do."

If Judyth truly cares about anything other than her own notierity then she should reconsider her response. If her real or imaginary concerns for Lee Harvey Oswald are legitimate she may not recognize that her actions do nothing but mock his memory and the sincere attempts by so many people to find out the truth about what happened on November 22, 1963. If Judyth notes my skepticism it should be more of a reason, not less, to persuade me and others of her legitimacy.

I have always found Jim Fetzer, whether one agrees or disagrees with his methodology or conclusions, to be one who wants truth. I cannot believe he would not be surprised by this response from Judyth. To those in the poll who found her story credible please let me know what is the foundation for that belief? Why should Judyth not be subject to answering my questions? Why is her story accepted without corroboration? Please don't say Anna Lewis. I would be glad to examine Anna Lewis or any person she wants to offer to support her story on Black Op Radio under the same proposed conditions.

The Wizard of Oz is real. Ignore the man behind that curtain. Is that what we are asked to believe? Life does not work that way. Jacck's most recent post is very accurate. Am I surprised by Judyth's response? No, not at all. However, there was a part of me that was hopeful that Judyth might have really cared about History and things bigger than herself.

Ultimately. the irony cannot escape me. I honestly did follow this thread with an open mind. So many people asked such legitimate questions which were avoided or ignored. The better the question, the more the character of that person was disparaged. I, myself, transcended from rationale to arrogant and unknowledgeable depending on my observations at the time. The irony is that despite the flow of the thread it was Judyth herself who convinced me that her story was not credible. I am certain I am not alone. The tragedy is that I somehow feel that Judyth may truly believe her story. I cannot explain that fantasy. Several people have told me that if she wrote this story as a piece of historical fiction she may have had a best seller. In offering it as non-fiction I have only empathy and pity for her. I went to Washington D.C in the 1970's and a top journalist described Nixon in that every day of his life Nixon believed that the whole world was having a party and he wasn't invited. The reported said,"Love me, hate me, or feel whatever emotion you may feel towards me, but please do not pity me. I pitied Richard Nixon."

Again, I pity Judyth Baker. My offer remains open.

Doug Weldon

[Greg Burnham]

I am not clear who is bringing me up in this post. I will assume that Doug is quoting Monk because that makes the most sense based on a prior post.

That is correct because I mentioned your PM to me.

I sent Monk a PM on May 22 telling him that JVB did not have his email address and that she wanted to correspond with him. Monk sent me his email address via PM shortly thereafter and I then sent it on to JVB.

Agreed.

I have personally received messages from JVB that showed Monk's email as a "CC" since that time. Why these emails did not get to Monk is a question I do not have the answer to.

Me either.

I have since sent another PM to Monk and will try to figure out what happened.

Dean

Well, Dean, I received your email earlier tonight, which stated that you sent me a another PM on the Ed Forum tonight. So, I decided to take a "screen shot" of my screen before replying (actually "during" my reply) because when a member has a "PM" they are "alerted" -- I have been alerted to PM's many times on this forum when I log on.

Note that there is NO such "alert message" -- Also note it says "0" [ZERO] New Messages. I did not receive any new messages on the forum today. I don't claim to know what this means, but...

Edited June 2, 2010 by Greg Burnham

[Dean Hartwell]

I have since sent another PM to Monk and will try to figure out what happened.

Dean

Well, Dean, I received your email earlier tonight, which stated that you sent me a another PM on the Ed Forum tonight.

Hi Monk,

I misfired on my PM to you. So that explains why you did not receive it. Thanks!

Dean

[Dean Hagerman]

Hell, I debated McAdams, didn't I?

Greg did you debate McAdams on Black-Op? If so how in the world did I miss that?

Im going to check the Black-Op archives, if I cant find it can you post a link please Greg I would really like to listen to the debate

Thanks

[Greg Burnham]

Hell, I debated McAdams, didn't I?

Greg did you debate McAdams on Black-Op? If so how in the world did I miss that?

Im going to check the Black-Op archives, if I cant find it can you post a link please Greg I would really like to listen to the debate

Thanks

Dean,

I debated McAdams on The Paul Garson Show in 1999 (I think that's the right year). This was before the internet was "user friendly" and meticulous archives were kept. Unfortunately, there is no known record of the debate, except in the minds and memories of those who "ear" witnessed it.

Len Osanic did record it on CD and sent me the ONLY copy. It was a "streaming" broadcast rife with long "blank spots" in it. I was unable to recover it in its entirety, and only a very small portion remains.

I regret that I cannot provide it...

[Greg Burnham]

I have since sent another PM to Monk and will try to figure out what happened.

Dean

Well, Dean, I received your email earlier tonight, which stated that you sent me a another PM on the Ed Forum tonight.

Hi Monk,

I misfired on my PM to you. So that explains why you did not receive it. Thanks!

Dean

No problem...

[Doug Weldon]

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.

"==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

This is again absolutely ridiculous.

Doug Weldon