Jump to content
The Education Forum

Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile


Guest James H. Fetzer

Recommended Posts

As for the missing emails. Approximately 15 to 20 emails have now been forwarded to me from Jim Fetzer and/or Dean Hartwell. I have examined the original headers and can report with certainty that I was indeed on the "cc" list of recipients and my email address was correctly entered there.

I cannot explain why I didn't receive them originally. I have not experienced such a problem before, at least, not to my knowledge. I checked my "Spam" folder, just in case, and it was empty. It appears, however, that Judyth was clearly telling the truth when she claimed that she sent me correspondence to which I had not replied.

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

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest James H. Fetzer

JUDYTH REPLIES TO JACK ABOUT IQs AND NOBEL PRIZE WINNERS

NOTE: As I have previously observed, this is old hat, Jack. This has been discussed

before and the same article I am reposting below appeared earlier on this thread. I

think it would be great if you were to pay more attention to these posts. Thank you.

JUDYTH RESPONDS:

RE THE NOBEL PRIZE WINNERS WORKING WITH ME: THESE MATERIALS WERE VETTED

EARLY ON. I NO LONGER EVEN OWN THEM, HERE OVERSEAS. BUT THE ONE ARTICLE I

CAN PROVIDE FROM HERE, I HAVE THE QUOTE--WHICH IS BELOW--FROM THE ARTICLE.

AS FOR THE STATEMENT OF 'HIGHEST IQ IN FLORIDA' --I HAVE TOLD YOU BEFORE THAT

IS WRONG AND YOU KEEP REPEATING IT. WAS RANKED NUMBER ONE IN IQ AMONG HIGH

SCHOOL STUDENTS IN FLORIDA IN 1960 IN FLORIDA WHO TOOK THE WEEK-LONG NATIONAL

TEST SERIES IN PROJECT TALENT .

MACKLE CORPORATION SPONSORED LOTS OF EVENTS AND GAVE OUT LOTS OF SCHOLARSHIPS

THROUGHOUT THE 1960S . IT OCCURRED IN MELBOURNE. I WAS SIXTEEN AND EVEN SYDNEY

WILKINSON SAW THE PHOTO AND SPECIFICS AS RECENTLY AS 2007.

A LOT OF EVENTS HAVE OCCURRED IN THE WORLD THAT ARE NOT ON THE INTERNET. The 35th

science writer seminar is on the internet, but try to find

Abstracts: Novel therapies dominate American Cancer Society's 35th ...

Innovations in therapy were discussed at the 35th Annual American Cancer Society's Science Writers Seminar. A drug currently being tested may inhibit cancer ...

www.faqs.org/.../Novel-therapies-dominate-American-Cancer-Societys-35th-Annual-Science-Writers-Seminar.html - Cached - Similar

THE 4TH SCIENCE WRITER'S SEMINAR, FOR EXAMPLE, WHICH I ATTENDED, IS MENTIONED

ON THE INTERNET. BUT TRY TO FIND SOME OF THE OTHERS. THEY WERE HELD EVERY YEAR,

BUT MANY ARE MISSING FROM THE INTERNET RECORD.

THE QUOTATION OF THE ARTICLE I HAPPEN TO HAVE AT HAND (THERE WERE OTHERS), SAYS,

"WITH TWO NOBEL PRIZE WINNERS, AND LEADERS IN CANCER RESEARCH, JUDY VARY...

RECENTLY ATTENDED..."

5dovh3.jpg

IT DOES NOT SAY I MET THEM. IT SAYS I WAS WITH THEM, ATTENDED THE EVENT WITH THEM,

NOT IN THE AUDIENCE. I SAT IN THEIR MIDST, RIGHT NEXT TO THE VICE PRESIDENT OF CANCER

RESEARCH FOR THE AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY, DR. DIEHL. I ATE LUNCHES WITH THEM, WAS

TUTORED BY THEM, THEY WERE FASCINATED WITH MY WORK AND ACTUALLY WENT TO MY HIGH

SCHOOL TO CHECK MY WORK 9ALSO IN A NEWSPAPER OR YEARBOOK ARTICLE).

THE ROBINSONS --HUSBAND AND WIFE-- ARE IN ANOTHER ARTICLE AS PROVIDING TRANSPORTATION

MONEY FOR ME TO GO TO ROSWELL PARK IN BUFFALO, WHERE, BY THE WAY, HIS SECOND WIFE AND

HE OWNED A HOME: .

"In 1912 Sir Robert married Gertrude Maud Walsh, a fellow student at Manchester University. They

collaborated in several fields of chemical research, notably in a survey of anthocyanins. She died in

1954; they had one son and one daughter. In 1957, he married Stearn Sylvia Hillstrom (née Hershey)

of New York REF: nobelprize.org/.../1947/robinson-bio.html

THIS WAS BUFFALO, NEW YORK. I LIVE OVERSEAS AND DO NOT HAVE THESE ARTICLES WITH ME, BUT

THE EDITORS OF MY BOOK TRACKED DOWN EVERY DETAIL AND ARTICLE.

robinson_postcard.jpg

The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1947 was awarded to Sir Robert Robinson "for his investigations on plant

products of biological importance, especially the alkaloids".

NEWSPAPER ARTICLES MENTION THE NOBEL PRIZE WINNERS AND ONE TELLS US THE ROBINSONS

PAID FOR MY TRIP TO BUFFALO, NEW YORK.

JVB

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim? Judyth?

Fetzer, you accused me of altering evidence.

Judyth called for me to post the document, stating that details were different than what I had related

...and said that what I quoted was what McGehee said to her ... not what she said to McGehee.

I posted the document straight away ... with the lines I quoted highlighted. My quotation was correct,

and, as anyone can see in this email, I correctly attributed it ... it is what Judyth, in her own telling in this email,

said to McGehee. And what Judyth related in her response is clearly at odds with what the email clearly says.

And not a word of response from either of you.

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.

Actually, what this is a nice example of is you popping off a shot at me prematurely and managing only to shoot yourself in the bee-hind. For the second time today, no less. The first time you leaped to the keyboard before you read everything I had said in my post. This time you go in for the kill without knowing whether or not Judyth's sayso was accurate, but go full throttle ahead and pile accusations of playing fast and loose with evidence upon my character anyway.

If you are going to *ever* accuse me of altering evidence or being an unreliable source, I suggest you engage a little of that critical thinking you preach to everyone about and make sure you've got the goods and can pony up the proof for your allegations. Don't hold your breath though, because it will never happen, that is not the way I roll .. *ever*. It is not me who has a reputation for being an unreliable source. :-) One would think you would have learned by now about running on nothing but Judyth's sayso ... LOL!

JUDYTH REPLIES:

]BJ has again made a misrepresentation. This is getting tiresome:

BJ WROTE:

"She reports one suggestion she made to this witness in her introductory remarks

to those she was sending these "highlights" to. That is very troubling as well. It

was when she was relating that McGehee told her he had the impression that

Oswald was in a big black car with Ferrie and Shaw, and she writes,

"I suggested that perhaps others had tried to influence him about that incident

prompting a false memory, but he said no, he had not been influenced by anyone."

==WHERE DO YOU GET THIS QUOTE FROM, BJ? WHAT OCCURRED IS THAT A

RESEARCHER SAID HE HAD A FALSE IMPRESSION ABOUT OSWALD IN THE OLD

CAR, AND THAT ACTUALLY HE HAD SEEN OSWALD IN A BLACK CADILLAC, AND

MCGEHEE SAID HE WAS PRESSURED TO SAY THAT, WHEN THAT WAS NOT HIS

IMPRESSION AT ALL, THAT I SHOULD LOOK AT HIS FIRST STATEMENTS, NOT

HIS LATER ONES, BECAUSE HE FELT HE HAD BEEN PRESSURED TO CHANGE

HIS STORY.

THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HE COMPLAINED OF.

IN FACT, THE SAME PEOPLE WHO 'REMOVED ' THE 'WOMAN' FROM THE CAR

ARE THE ONES WHO ALSO REPORTED THE CHANGED DETAILS IN MCGEHEE'S

STORY.

I REPEAT, MCGEHEE SAID OTHERS TRIED TO INFLUENCE HIM. I DID NOT SAY

THAT TO HIM, HE SAID IT TO ME.

GET IT STRAIGHT.

SHOW US THE ENTIRE SOURCE AND QUOTATION YOU GOT THIS FROM, BJ.

My pleasure. It's an 8 page email. Here is the first page.

post-1480-1275195909.jpg

And you are correct ... it is tiresome. But according to the document *you* wrote, it is not me who is misrepresenting anything. :-)

Now that I have responded to your request by posting this document, it's your turn. Turn about is fair play and all that, right?

Please have Jim post a couple of the documents from the "sheaf" you claim to have, and that you quoted from in a BlackOp radio interview, that you said showed the apportionment of assorted grants and funds for your research while at the U Fl Gainesville.

And since you are already questioning things posted about your "highlights" email about your McGehee interview ... get that tape out here so we can all hear exactly what was said and how it was said.

I know you want to get all your proofs out, you have stated many times in the past that you know how important proof and documentation is. So, what better time than here and now to tend to some things, like the two I mentioned above ... as well as the other questions that have been asked in this thread.

Barb

This is absolutely worthless! Judyth is taking her own testimony and is repeatedly tainting the witness, It sounds like she had prepped him also, otherwise why would he say:

Baker: I don't know what you were able to see in the car.

McGehee: Just saw the back of your head. That was all I saw.

"your head?" She's even telling him it was a two toned car!

If this is an example of how she prepped and approached Lewis and other witnesses it is far worse than I thought. Her paper on cancer could have been taken from an encyclopedia at the time. I look for evidence and there is nothing. Again, I would be happy to interview Lewis and tape it.

Doug Weldon

Exactly. And I agree ... if this is her approach to interviewing a witness ... none of their statements can be used for much of anything. And we do know that Judyth found and spoke with Lewis before the New Orleans meeting with other researches when Debra Conway made the videotape of Lewis.

Bests,

Barb :-)

Edited by Barb Junkkarinen
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest James H. Fetzer

HOWARD PROVIDES DEBBEE'S ACCOUNT OF JUDYTH'S VISIT WITH MARY

NOTE: As Monk has observed, Judyth's claims are not always subject to verification,

which has been compounded by the theft of much of her supporting documentation.

As he also observes, that does not mean what she is saying is not true. What I am

finding fascinating is that, when new documents emerge, as in this case, they tend

to support Judyth and not her detractors. She is traveling and will not be available

for a while, but this seems important enough to post here and now. If she changes

her mind about doing an interview on Black Op Radio, for example, I will report it.

HOWARD'S NOTE:

NOTHING COMES EASY. WHILE LOOKING FOR MARTIN'S TRANSCRIPT,

WHICH I KNOW I READ RECENTLY, I FOUND DEBBEE'S ACCOUNT:

DEBBEE'S ACCOUNT:

Subject: Debbee's message...dictated 12:20-12:48 am April 9,2002

Sunday, April 7, 02, about 4:30 P to 6P:

Judy, Lynda and i visited Mary Ferrell unannounced. We chose to visit

unannounced due to the fact that any time we've tried to reach her it has

been unsuccessful. Upon arriving at Mary's, we found the door to be locked

and there was no answer to our knocking. We checked at the nurse's station,

no one there, we went to the main entrance, checked there to see if Mary was

home, the receptionist stated that she was possibly in the dining room and we

should go upstairs because that would be where all the nurses would be at this time.

We checked upstairs, Mary was not there, we talked to head nurse, she stated

that she would let us in. We met with her back downstairs at Mary's, and she let us in.

Upon entering Mary's home, the nurse checked to see where Mary was at and found

her asleep in the bedroom. We told the nurse to let her sleep, she insisted upon

waking Mary to let her know that she had visitors. Lynda and I went into the bedroom,

Mary was very happy to see us, we told her Judy was in the other room, the living room,

waiting to see if it would be all right for her to come in.

Mary looked concerned about why she was in the other room and stated yes,

of course, have her come in. When she came into the room, Mary stated that

she had been very ill and was still ill at this time, but she was concerned

why Judy had lingered behind in the living room.

Judy stated that it was posted on the newsgroup that Mary did not want to see her,

or any of us. Mary stated she knew nothing of this, and was brought to tears by the

information. She told us that it was totally untrue.

She asked about each and every one of us and what had been going on with

us: jobs, health, family, and then wanted to know more about what was on the newsgroup.

Judy told her that it was posted by John McAdams with Mary's permission, that we were

dangerous people and that Judy was dangerous even to herself, according to the statement

supposedly made by Mary. Lynda mentioned in the posting that Mary had Judy basically

thrown out of the house, and Mary became very stiff at that even being mentioned. "You

were there, you know that didn't happen," she said to Judy. "You tell them, it didn't happen."

She said she had never thrown Judy out, but if she wanted to, she would throw the devil himself out!

We explained why we had not been around, that we were nervous about seeing her, we were

afraid of being rebuffed. She was so incensed over that. She then wanted to know about where

and when this posting had come about, and if it had her name on it. She asked more than once,

in disbelief, when we told her it had her name on it. We told her it was on the newsgroup, she stated

she had not given McAdams permission at any time to use her name or anything of that nature,

and she also stated that she had nothing whatsoever to do with McAdams at any time whatsoever.

Lynda read a portion, the beginning portion of the posting to her. She stated that different parts

were told to different people, but not everything that was posted, that there were discrepancies

in the posting. She also said these had come from early on, mostly when she had first met Judy.

She stated to us that the three people were Chapman, Lifton, and Conway. In my opinion, these

three will be called on the carpet when Mary gets better.

Judy asked Mary in front of us if Mary believed in her and what she had told her. Mary said that

she did. But while Lynda was reading the posting, the part about the free travel on American,

Mary became incensed over this, stating that saying something like that could cost me my job.

She inquired if my job was OK, and I told her it was. She said that she would never write or say

anything about anyone that could cost them their job, because Carol Annonce worked for American

and the company had supplied her with an apartment in White Plains, New York. Carol Ann let a

friend stay there when she wasn't there, which caused many problems for Carol Ann, and she was

called on the carpet about it.

Mary is in the know on airline travel because Carol Ann has worked for American, Braniff, and many

other major carriers. Free travel with my company is only given to the employees after five years,

and their spouse or companion traveler that is listed with the company. This is only good for coach

travel on domestic flights. Lynda is my designated companion traveler, and has been since October

of last year. Judy has a D3 or a 'friend to travel' that puts her lower on the list than anybody.

I'm worried about Mary's health. We had asked what is wrong and the doctor stated that she had

congestive heart failure and emphysema. Any time Mary would move to turn over, she would moan

in pain. Her body was wracked with pain. Mary also stated that she was afraid she was going to die,

and thinks it would be soon, and began to tear and to cry. She told us that she had not eaten for

about twenty-four hours and that she has lost considerable weight.

Mary had also mentioned during our conversation that Peter Dale Scott had been there a little earlier.

Later she got back from her conference. I'm not sure how long the conference lasted, how many days

it was, but in attendance I believe she said were Conway, and Chapman and a millionaire, the gentleman

who had purchased her books and things , as well as her 'drinking buddy' lawyer.

She was also a bit concerned and apologetic about her suitcase still being there and she had not felt like

unpacking it and felt it might be in our way. we also wanted to know where Oso was, which is Mary's dog.

Oso has been kenneled while she was gone for the conference and Mary said she would get him later this

week, that she was not able to take care of him at this time, because we had offered to get him for her.

While Judy was rubbing Mary's back, Mary fell asleep. we then decided to leave, and it woke Mary, and she

said she wanted us to come back again, and she then double-checked our phone numbers. She repeated

them to us and told us "I don't have Alzheimer's." And we told her we would come back to see her. From

the reaction of Mary about the posting, she was horrified that this posting was put out with her name

attached and she had not known about it because she had not read anything on the news group for months,

and had not been checking her email. She also said that she offered Chapman the computer to use when

he was there. He had been there the entire week and had just left.

If you have any questions, email or phone me at ------------.

Debbee

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

I see your point.

SR

Link to post
Share on other sites

This debate about Judyth is similar to a union dispute I had at work last year. After months of people expressing their opinions about the subject, nothing really changed.

I work for a city as a public employee and served as an alternate representative for the existing union. A faction of the union wanted to bring in an outside union to replace the existing one and made motions at an official meeting to that effect.

Displeased with the manner in which the existing union management attempted to stop the motions by declaring them illegal, I voted with the faction (and on behalf of my regular representative, who bolted from the meeting with several others to try to stop the quorum).

Early on, I felt as though the battle lines were clearly drawn. Even though I contended from the beginning that I simply wanted a vote to be held among all employees in my class to allow choice between the two unions, I was “typecast” by those siding with the existing union as one of “those people.”

How did we communicate? It was mostly on email messages, similar to the postings we do on this thread.

I wrote out and sent messages to all voting members of the union explaining my point of view, discussing ways the two sides could compromise and responding to various bits of what I believed to be misinformation by the other side. (Not that anyone was an angel in this mess).

What did the other side typically say? They would correct me and insult me if I forgot to identify myself as an alternate. Neither side trusted one another and no one gave an inch.

Also, if I directed my responses only to those who asked me questions, I would be prompted as to why I did not hit “Reply All” to tell everyone what I had to say. People seemed to want to put their perceptions of others’ errors out in the open.

Throughout this time, each side sent assertions of fact back and forth on the emails and also posted messages on bulletin boards in break rooms. It was not a whole lot different than the exchanges here on our thread. But what was it all for?

Once the lines are drawn and “shots” are fired, is anyone really going to be persuaded that the other side is right? Does anyone really change sides? Who is the greater villain in United States history – Jefferson Davis or Benedict Arnold?

I could have pounded away at those who opposed a vote with sound arguments on many grounds. In fact, I did. I sent messages of my arguments to the union president, vice president and counsel. In the end, the union management got its way, I left the union and I hear things are back to normal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Precisely, Jack. This is an opportunity for Judyth to give straightforward answers to straightforward questions. If she is the "real deal" one

would expect it to be an opportunity that would be embraced. That she is unwilling, should be as troubling for those who are

her ardent supporters as it is for those who doubt her claims, imo.

Bests,

Barb :-)

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

Hi Dean,

I googled Burnham + McAdams + debate and had a few sites come up with links, but none of the

ones I tried worked, and two seemed to be sites that are no longer there. You might have better luck poking around in what comes up.

Bests,

Barb :-)

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

Well stated, Doug. Exceptionally well. And you are not alone.

Bests,

Barb :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

These people have no idea what a gracious Southern lady Mary was...polite and

gracious to a fault. That is why she was liked by so many! These intruders were very

impolite to arrive unannounced and impose themselves on a sick lady. Reading between

the lines, it is clear that Mary was wishing they would leave.

Jack

HOWARD PROVIDES DEBBEE'S ACCOUNT OF JUDYTH'S VISIT WITH MARY

NOTE: As Monk has observed, Judyth's claims are not always subject to verification,

which has been compounded by the theft of much of her supporting documentation.

As he also observes, that does not mean what she is saying is not true. What I am

finding fascinating is that, when new documents emerge, as in this case, they tend

to support Judyth and not her detractors. She is traveling and will not be available

for a while, but this seems important enough to post here and now. If she changes

her mind about doing an interview on Black Op Radio, for example, I will report it.

HOWARD'S NOTE:

NOTHING COMES EASY. WHILE LOOKING FOR MARTIN'S TRANSCRIPT,

WHICH I KNOW I READ RECENTLY, I FOUND DEBBEE'S ACCOUNT:

DEBBEE'S ACCOUNT:

Subject: Debbee's message...dictated 12:20-12:48 am April 9,2002

Sunday, April 7, 02, about 4:30 P to 6P:

Judy, Lynda and i visited Mary Ferrell unannounced. We chose to visit

unannounced due to the fact that any time we've tried to reach her it has

been unsuccessful. Upon arriving at Mary's, we found the door to be locked

and there was no answer to our knocking. We checked at the nurse's station,

no one there, we went to the main entrance, checked there to see if Mary was

home, the receptionist stated that she was possibly in the dining room and we

should go upstairs because that would be where all the nurses would be at this time.

We checked upstairs, Mary was not there, we talked to head nurse, she stated

that she would let us in. We met with her back downstairs at Mary's, and she let us in.

Upon entering Mary's home, the nurse checked to see where Mary was at and found

her asleep in the bedroom. We told the nurse to let her sleep, she insisted upon

waking Mary to let her know that she had visitors. Lynda and I went into the bedroom,

Mary was very happy to see us, we told her Judy was in the other room, the living room,

waiting to see if it would be all right for her to come in.

Mary looked concerned about why she was in the other room and stated yes,

of course, have her come in. When she came into the room, Mary stated that

she had been very ill and was still ill at this time, but she was concerned

why Judy had lingered behind in the living room.

Judy stated that it was posted on the newsgroup that Mary did not want to see her,

or any of us. Mary stated she knew nothing of this, and was brought to tears by the

information. She told us that it was totally untrue.

She asked about each and every one of us and what had been going on with

us: jobs, health, family, and then wanted to know more about what was on the newsgroup.

Judy told her that it was posted by John McAdams with Mary's permission, that we were

dangerous people and that Judy was dangerous even to herself, according to the statement

supposedly made by Mary. Lynda mentioned in the posting that Mary had Judy basically

thrown out of the house, and Mary became very stiff at that even being mentioned. "You

were there, you know that didn't happen," she said to Judy. "You tell them, it didn't happen."

She said she had never thrown Judy out, but if she wanted to, she would throw the devil himself out!

We explained why we had not been around, that we were nervous about seeing her, we were

afraid of being rebuffed. She was so incensed over that. She then wanted to know about where

and when this posting had come about, and if it had her name on it. She asked more than once,

in disbelief, when we told her it had her name on it. We told her it was on the newsgroup, she stated

she had not given McAdams permission at any time to use her name or anything of that nature,

and she also stated that she had nothing whatsoever to do with McAdams at any time whatsoever.

Lynda read a portion, the beginning portion of the posting to her. She stated that different parts

were told to different people, but not everything that was posted, that there were discrepancies

in the posting. She also said these had come from early on, mostly when she had first met Judy.

She stated to us that the three people were Chapman, Lifton, and Conway. In my opinion, these

three will be called on the carpet when Mary gets better.

Judy asked Mary in front of us if Mary believed in her and what she had told her. Mary said that

she did. But while Lynda was reading the posting, the part about the free travel on American,

Mary became incensed over this, stating that saying something like that could cost me my job.

She inquired if my job was OK, and I told her it was. She said that she would never write or say

anything about anyone that could cost them their job, because Carol Annonce worked for American

and the company had supplied her with an apartment in White Plains, New York. Carol Ann let a

friend stay there when she wasn't there, which caused many problems for Carol Ann, and she was

called on the carpet about it.

Mary is in the know on airline travel because Carol Ann has worked for American, Braniff, and many

other major carriers. Free travel with my company is only given to the employees after five years,

and their spouse or companion traveler that is listed with the company. This is only good for coach

travel on domestic flights. Lynda is my designated companion traveler, and has been since October

of last year. Judy has a D3 or a 'friend to travel' that puts her lower on the list than anybody.

I'm worried about Mary's health. We had asked what is wrong and the doctor stated that she had

congestive heart failure and emphysema. Any time Mary would move to turn over, she would moan

in pain. Her body was wracked with pain. Mary also stated that she was afraid she was going to die,

and thinks it would be soon, and began to tear and to cry. She told us that she had not eaten for

about twenty-four hours and that she has lost considerable weight.

Mary had also mentioned during our conversation that Peter Dale Scott had been there a little earlier.

Later she got back from her conference. I'm not sure how long the conference lasted, how many days

it was, but in attendance I believe she said were Conway, and Chapman and a millionaire, the gentleman

who had purchased her books and things , as well as her 'drinking buddy' lawyer.

She was also a bit concerned and apologetic about her suitcase still being there and she had not felt like

unpacking it and felt it might be in our way. we also wanted to know where Oso was, which is Mary's dog.

Oso has been kenneled while she was gone for the conference and Mary said she would get him later this

week, that she was not able to take care of him at this time, because we had offered to get him for her.

While Judy was rubbing Mary's back, Mary fell asleep. we then decided to leave, and it woke Mary, and she

said she wanted us to come back again, and she then double-checked our phone numbers. She repeated

them to us and told us "I don't have Alzheimer's." And we told her we would come back to see her. From

the reaction of Mary about the posting, she was horrified that this posting was put out with her name

attached and she had not known about it because she had not read anything on the news group for months,

and had not been checking her email. She also said that she offered Chapman the computer to use when

he was there. He had been there the entire week and had just left.

If you have any questions, email or phone me at ------------.

Debbee

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...

No problem, I would have loved to hear you go toe to toe with McAdams

Link to post
Share on other sites
These people have no idea what a gracious Southern lady Mary was...polite and

gracious to a fault. That is why she was liked by so many! These intruders were very

impolite to arrive unannounced and impose themselves on a sick lady. Reading between

the lines, it is clear that Mary was wishing they would leave.

Jack

You knew Mary, Jack ... and it shows.

Debbee does relate that they purposely arrived unannounced because they feared she would not see them.

Justifiable fear given that on the heels of Howard's letter (Dec 8, previously posted), Mary wrote her email and

attached her document to it, denouncing and severing ties with Judyth.

How do we know Mary was aware of exactly what had been said in that attachment? We know, because the very next day, Dec 13, 2001,

Judyth wrote the first of at least 3 known e-mails to Mary whining about it. I believe Howard wrote one as well.

They got no response. In March, Judyth wrote another email to Mary, making it quite clear the kinds of things that

were said in the document attached to Mary's e-mail, and telling Mary it was not too late to retract. (I believe all these emails

have already been posted, if anyone needs one, I can post it again.)

How could Mary NOT have known exactly what was in that e-mail and attachment?! And had ANYone taken the liberty of writing

anything in Mary's name ...you know, Jack ... it would be woe to them as Mary would have fired a shot heard round the world,

regardless of who had done such a thing!

Debbee's comment about going unannounced is, I have no doubt, the truth. And I have a couple of solid

reasons for that ... aside from the obvious, that Mary had sent out the e-mail and attachment.

1. When this whole tape recording incident on April 7, 2002 came out, Judyth first floated that Mary had called her and asked

her to come over ... and that they took a tape recorder with them because they were concerned that Mary was being abused

and neglected in the "nursing home." Martin maintained both doggedly for quite a while. The claim was that once they were assured

that Mary was fine, Judyth turned off the tape recorder and put it in her purse ... and that somehow, it accidentally got turned back

on and recorded part of the conversation they were having with Mary.

Here is a post in which Martin floats that one:

Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk

From: "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>

Date: 19 May 2008 15:29:29 -0400

Local: Mon, May 19 2008 12:29 pm

Subject: Re: Green glass coupon

Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

"Judyth brought the recorder, turned it off, and put it in her purse. They

had

brought it because they had heard concerns expressed about the way Mary

was being treated at the nursing home. When she allayed these concerns,

Judyth turned it off. When she set her purse down, something hit the button

and started it again--one reason things are a bit indistinct in spots, as

the

recorder remained inside her purse and no one seems aware it is on again.

Martin"

2. The other reason I have no doubt that Debbee's version of them arriving unannounced for fear

Mary would not see them is true, is because of something Mary said to me, in person, within ear shot of a

couple others, the night before ... Saturday evening, April 6, 2002. Debbee mentions a "conference" that Mary and

Peter Dale Scott had been at that weekend. She also mentions that Mary let Robert Chapman use her computer

when she was not home, and that Robert Chapman had been in town that week. Heck yeah, Chapman was in town,

so was Peter Dale Scott ... and so was I and several others. And we were all staying at the same hotel and together

starting Thursday evening the 4th for dinner after we had all arrived, all day on Friday through another long and late

dinner Friday evening, and again all day on Saturday the 6th ... through a dinner party given for is at Carol Ann's house. I only mention

Chapman and Peter because their two names have already been mentioned ... it was a private meeting.

Here is something I posted about the circumstances and part of what Mary said to me that evening.

Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk

From: Barb Junkkarinen <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net>

Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 01:34:59 -0700

Local: Mon, Jul 21 2008 1:34 am

Subject: Re: Mary Ferrell denounces Judyth Baker

" .....................I have posted before about how Mary told me herself that she

thought Judyth was a" nut" one evening when there was a bunch of us

waiting in a hotel lobby for everyone to gather as we were going to a

dinner party.

Not too long ago, in the midst of the tape recorder raid stuff, I did

some checking on exactly which weekend I was in Dallas for

a little private meeting in April of 2002, and spent a Thursday

evening, all day Friday and Friday evening and all day and evening

Saturday with these people...one of whom was Mary Ferrell. I found my

boarding pass thingies ... Thursday when we arrived was April 4th. I

flew home on Sunday the 7th. That was the day of the "accidental

taping" at Mary's house by Judyth and crew. What a bummer for Mary

after such a wonderful weekend.

And on that Saturday night, the 6th, when we were gathering in the

lobby, is when Mary told me her one word opinion of Judyth. That was

not the only time Judyth was brought up that night.... not by Mary,

but by others.

The dinner party was being held at Carol Ann's house ... which had

been Mary's house for eons until she moved into her new assisted

living apartment.

.

In addition to us (I think we were 16 including Mary), and members of

Mary's family, there were several very close and very dear long time

friends of Mary's there. Not just your typical "research community"

crowd ... friends of Mary who knew her and Carol Ann ... and knew them

very very well. .............."

We were assembling in the lobby to leave for the dinner party at Carol Ann's. People were just

sitting or standing around chit-chatting here and there. Someone mentioned Judyth's name. Mary heard it, reared

her head back, shook her head, waved her hands and looked upset. Mary said something about "that woman"

and that she was a "nut." Someone else standing nearby nodded and said that it had taken Mary a long time to wash

her hands of the whole thing. And I said something to Mary like tonight being a night for just fun and happiness.

She agreed. And we did all have a wonderful time at Carol Ann's.

As I have posted here before, I do not know if Mary went home that night (our meeting was over) or, since it was late when

we got back to the hotel, if she spent that night in the hotel as well. It had been quite a weekend, we were all tired ...and Mary

had every reason to be exhausted. Debbee mentions that Mary was ill. I don't know how she was feeling by Sunday evening,

but I can say that the entire weekend we were all together, Mary was her usual plucky self, and at the dinner party on Saturday night,

she was having a ball and in high spirits. Perhaps she said she was ill hoping that unannounced company

might not stay an hour and a half (as Debbee's time frame shows).

I agree, Jack, Mary was a southern lady, even under the worst of circumstances. As I have said before, I wouldn't be surprised if she

told them whatever they wanted to hear just to get rid of them. She was 80 for heaven's sake, frail of body but not of mind or spirit,

she was home alone. I can only surmise that she chose not to make a scene with the nurse and the 3 of them standing there. But

based on my personal experience with Mary the evening before, I do not believe for one second that Mary was genuinely happy to

see any of them. And, as I later learned, and I do not recall how long after the incident that was, Mary had been very rattled and upset

by it all ... and the next day as well when different people, one an old old friend, arrived not with a tape recorder, but with a video camera, and she, from what I was told, gave them a firm "no" and they left.

Here is a post Deb Conway put up in response to some of this being rehashed just a few months after it occurred:

Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk

From: Debra Conway <de...@jfklancer.com>

Date: 2 Nov 2002 09:44:03 -0500

Local: Sat, Nov 2 2002 7:44 am

Subject: Re: Judyth & Hemming (corrected)

Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

"Martin,

I just got off the phone with Mary Ferrell and she'd like to know when she

denied writing the message that was attached to the email? You say you

heard it straight from Mary herself? Really? Not according to Mary.

Or do you mean when Judyth's "friends" broke into her assisted living home

TWICE after lying to the staff, then shoving a tape recorder under her

nose? Oh yes, I can imagine she denied anything they demanded she answer,

not to mention the fact that she was scared out of her wits.

Martin, she called me crying afterwards. How much abuse can an 80 year old

sick woman take? What did she do except try to be nice to Judyth, even to

the point of being concerned Judyth would hurt herself! Don't you think

Mary Ferrell has had her share of witnesses' claims over the years yet she

was kind to Judyth until she just couldn't take it anymore.

It is not the end of the world that Mary, or anyone else for that matter,

doesn't believe Judyth's claims. Many people have published books on their

claims in relation to the Kennedy assassination. It has gotten to the

point that you all pretend you are being thwarted at every move when

actually nothing is stopping her from going public with her entire story.

There are many inexpensive ways to self publish these days. She could burn

her own CDroms with all her "documentation." Fish or cut bait and stop the

blame game.

Now get it through your head that Mary wrote the letter. She sent it to

about six people. They all got it from her email account on her computer.

The same email with the same attachment. Please stop. Show some integrity.

Debra"

Amen.

And, this is an interesting commentary in Debbee's statement as well, imo:

"Mary looked concerned about why she was in the other room and stated yes,

of course, have her come in. ....but she was concerned

why Judy had lingered behind in the living room."

Note to all: Robert Chapman passed away, last Sunday, May 30, 2010.

RIP, Robert.

Barb :-)

HOWARD PROVIDES DEBBEE'S ACCOUNT OF JUDYTH'S VISIT WITH MARY

NOTE: As Monk has observed, Judyth's claims are not always subject to verification,

which has been compounded by the theft of much of her supporting documentation.

As he also observes, that does not mean what she is saying is not true. What I am

finding fascinating is that, when new documents emerge, as in this case, they tend

to support Judyth and not her detractors. She is traveling and will not be available

for a while, but this seems important enough to post here and now. If she changes

her mind about doing an interview on Black Op Radio, for example, I will report it.

HOWARD'S NOTE:

NOTHING COMES EASY. WHILE LOOKING FOR MARTIN'S TRANSCRIPT,

WHICH I KNOW I READ RECENTLY, I FOUND DEBBEE'S ACCOUNT:

DEBBEE'S ACCOUNT:

Subject: Debbee's message...dictated 12:20-12:48 am April 9,2002

Sunday, April 7, 02, about 4:30 P to 6P:

Judy, Lynda and i visited Mary Ferrell unannounced. We chose to visit

unannounced due to the fact that any time we've tried to reach her it has

been unsuccessful. Upon arriving at Mary's, we found the door to be locked

and there was no answer to our knocking. We checked at the nurse's station,

no one there, we went to the main entrance, checked there to see if Mary was

home, the receptionist stated that she was possibly in the dining room and we

should go upstairs because that would be where all the nurses would be at this time.

We checked upstairs, Mary was not there, we talked to head nurse, she stated

that she would let us in. We met with her back downstairs at Mary's, and she let us in.

Upon entering Mary's home, the nurse checked to see where Mary was at and found

her asleep in the bedroom. We told the nurse to let her sleep, she insisted upon

waking Mary to let her know that she had visitors. Lynda and I went into the bedroom,

Mary was very happy to see us, we told her Judy was in the other room, the living room,

waiting to see if it would be all right for her to come in.

Mary looked concerned about why she was in the other room and stated yes,

of course, have her come in. When she came into the room, Mary stated that

she had been very ill and was still ill at this time, but she was concerned

why Judy had lingered behind in the living room.

Judy stated that it was posted on the newsgroup that Mary did not want to see her,

or any of us. Mary stated she knew nothing of this, and was brought to tears by the

information. She told us that it was totally untrue.

She asked about each and every one of us and what had been going on with

us: jobs, health, family, and then wanted to know more about what was on the newsgroup.

Judy told her that it was posted by John McAdams with Mary's permission, that we were

dangerous people and that Judy was dangerous even to herself, according to the statement

supposedly made by Mary. Lynda mentioned in the posting that Mary had Judy basically

thrown out of the house, and Mary became very stiff at that even being mentioned. "You

were there, you know that didn't happen," she said to Judy. "You tell them, it didn't happen."

She said she had never thrown Judy out, but if she wanted to, she would throw the devil himself out!

We explained why we had not been around, that we were nervous about seeing her, we were

afraid of being rebuffed. She was so incensed over that. She then wanted to know about where

and when this posting had come about, and if it had her name on it. She asked more than once,

in disbelief, when we told her it had her name on it. We told her it was on the newsgroup, she stated

she had not given McAdams permission at any time to use her name or anything of that nature,

and she also stated that she had nothing whatsoever to do with McAdams at any time whatsoever.

Lynda read a portion, the beginning portion of the posting to her. She stated that different parts

were told to different people, but not everything that was posted, that there were discrepancies

in the posting. She also said these had come from early on, mostly when she had first met Judy.

She stated to us that the three people were Chapman, Lifton, and Conway. In my opinion, these

three will be called on the carpet when Mary gets better.

Judy asked Mary in front of us if Mary believed in her and what she had told her. Mary said that

she did. But while Lynda was reading the posting, the part about the free travel on American,

Mary became incensed over this, stating that saying something like that could cost me my job.

She inquired if my job was OK, and I told her it was. She said that she would never write or say

anything about anyone that could cost them their job, because Carol Annonce worked for American

and the company had supplied her with an apartment in White Plains, New York. Carol Ann let a

friend stay there when she wasn't there, which caused many problems for Carol Ann, and she was

called on the carpet about it.

Mary is in the know on airline travel because Carol Ann has worked for American, Braniff, and many

other major carriers. Free travel with my company is only given to the employees after five years,

and their spouse or companion traveler that is listed with the company. This is only good for coach

travel on domestic flights. Lynda is my designated companion traveler, and has been since October

of last year. Judy has a D3 or a 'friend to travel' that puts her lower on the list than anybody.

I'm worried about Mary's health. We had asked what is wrong and the doctor stated that she had

congestive heart failure and emphysema. Any time Mary would move to turn over, she would moan

in pain. Her body was wracked with pain. Mary also stated that she was afraid she was going to die,

and thinks it would be soon, and began to tear and to cry. She told us that she had not eaten for

about twenty-four hours and that she has lost considerable weight.

Mary had also mentioned during our conversation that Peter Dale Scott had been there a little earlier.

Later she got back from her conference. I'm not sure how long the conference lasted, how many days

it was, but in attendance I believe she said were Conway, and Chapman and a millionaire, the gentleman

who had purchased her books and things , as well as her 'drinking buddy' lawyer.

She was also a bit concerned and apologetic about her suitcase still being there and she had not felt like

unpacking it and felt it might be in our way. we also wanted to know where Oso was, which is Mary's dog.

Oso has been kenneled while she was gone for the conference and Mary said she would get him later this

week, that she was not able to take care of him at this time, because we had offered to get him for her.

While Judy was rubbing Mary's back, Mary fell asleep. we then decided to leave, and it woke Mary, and she

said she wanted us to come back again, and she then double-checked our phone numbers. She repeated

them to us and told us "I don't have Alzheimer's." And we told her we would come back to see her. From

the reaction of Mary about the posting, she was horrified that this posting was put out with her name

attached and she had not known about it because she had not read anything on the news group for months,

and had not been checking her email. She also said that she offered Chapman the computer to use when

he was there. He had been there the entire week and had just left.

If you have any questions, email or phone me at ------------.

Debbee

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

Well stated, Doug. Exceptionally well. And you are not alone.

Bests,

Barb :-)

Barb:

Thank you. I actually shortened the quote about Nixon. The journalist's total statement was "Have you ever had a dream where you dreamed the whole world was having a party and you were not invited? Richard Nixon lived that dream every day of his life. Like me. hate me, feel whatever emotion you want towards me, but please do not pity me. I pity Richard Nixon."

I pity Judyth. Her life is stuck in a dream. I think she has to create new stories to keep the dream interesting, sometimes forgetting that those new stories contradict things she has said in the past.

Doug Weldon

Edited by Doug Weldon
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...