Jump to content
The Education Forum

Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile


Guest James H. Fetzer

Recommended Posts

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 by David Andrews
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Doug Weldon
Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Greg Burnham
Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Link to post
Share on other sites
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...

Link to post
Share on other sites
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...

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dean:

BTW, there is nothing so humiliating and humbling as going through law school. In enduring that journey, for that reason alone, I have deep respect for you. You actually seemed to have survived it and maintained being a decent person. Don't lose that.

Doug Weldon

Thank you, Doug! Law school was rough. I appreciate your comments.

Dean

Link to post
Share on other sites

Earlier in this miles-long thread it was stated that:

1. Judyth has trouble typing because she has to use a Hungarian keyboard; and

2. Can read the type on a computer screen only from one inch away.

The main difference between a standard keyboard and a Hungarian keyboard

is that the letters Z and Y are switched. How hard a handicap is that?

I would like to know what ailment can cause that. It seems to me physically

impossible that the lens of the eye can be so distorted that it focuses only at

one inch. Also one eye would have to be shut, because parallax would cause

double vision at that distance. Such a person would be legally blind. I have

unsuccessfully googled "one inch eye focus".

Jack

Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

I understand what Karl, Greg and David are saying, but I don't buy it.

Why would the Secret Service need to consult with a "trusted local native" at all? They had an office in the D/FW area staffed with professionals, and they also used advance agents on this trip. (Vince Palamara, does this make sense??)

Why would the Secret Service pick a guy who, despite living in the area at various times in the past, had only been in the area for about a month, and thus was not up to date on any current threats? Why would they pick a guy with no known expertise in security or presidential protection?

What are the odds that the Secret Service would choose to consult with the very guy who would be accused of killing the president whose security was at stake? Could that have been covered up for more than 45 years without a hint?

Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

I understand what Karl, Greg and David are saying, but I don't buy it.

Why would the Secret Service need to consult with a "trusted local native" at all? They had an office in the D/FW area staffed with professionals, and they also used advance agents on this trip. (Vince Palamara, does this make sense??)

Why would the Secret Service pick a guy who, despite living in the area at various times in the past, had only been in the area for about a month, and thus was not up to date on any current threats? Why would they pick a guy with no known expertise in security or presidential protection?

What are the odds that the Secret Service would choose to consult with the very guy who would be accused of killing the president whose security was at stake? Could that have been covered up for more than 45 years without a hint?

Stephen,

Just for clarity, I don't buy that at all either. Not for a second. The Secret Service was NOT actually employing his assistance. The part that I don't find far fetched is the possibility that "he was under the impression" that he was being somehow helpful. Again, as the patsey, he was likely told many things that were untrue by those who were setting him up to take the fall. This might be a detail that could be true. It makes no difference to my personal research work whether true or false. But, if he was told this falsehood and he told it to Judyth, she appears to erroneously believe it was true, and is now reporting from memory. I see that as possible, but not necessarily probable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...