Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[Jack White]

Jim...I should have said ARMSTRONG IS NO LONGER A RESEARCHER in response to Pamela.

He is a builder of custom homes in Hawaii. For 12 years he devoted himself ENTIRELY to

research, far more intensely and FULL TIME than any researcher I know of. When finished

with his LHO research, he returned to a normal life. Now, at present, he no longer does

JFK research. To say that he did not understand or misinterpreted what he found shows

a lack of understanding of his book. Also misunderstood is that not all of John's research

is intelligence documents. John conducted hundreds of interviews of people mentioned

in documents, videotaping many. John relied on civil records, court documents, city

directories, phone books, etc. from many years back, which could not be fabricated.

These documentations do not rely on interpretation; all that is necessary is to see whether

they are in agreement or disagreement. You need to read the book.

Jack

If Armstrong is not a researcher, then he may very well have misunderstood or misinterpreted what he accumulated in the way of supposed "documents". Jack likes to say that there are documents who show Oswald at one location at one time and also at another location at another time, which is certainly true of physical, unique, human beings. But DOCUMENTS can show the same person at two different locations at the same time. In post #326, for example, I observed that Bill Simpich is doing a great job of discussing the manner in which the agency creates false identities using variations on names all that: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14604 This has given me the feeling that Judyth didn't know everything about Lee, even if she knew a lot. What interests me is whether John Armstrong was aware of these kinds of considerations about building false identities, using variations on names, and all the rest. From what you say, I have to infer that he did not. As Simpich remarks, with or without his knowledge, it looks like Oswald was used for counter-espionage purposes as part of a CIA molehunt for Soviet spies within the agency. This casts the significance of Armstrong's research into doubt.

I have previously posted four commentaries from a psy ops experts about this case. Before Jack went back to John Armstrong to discuss this, he displayed a more open mind that Judyth might be being harassed and stalked because of knowledge derived from her cancer research and work on bio-weapons, as the posts from my psy ops expert suggest. I think he is right, but I also believe her personal story humanizes the alleged assassin, who has been demonized for decades by the government and the mass media. A guy who had relationships, a sense of humor, who socialized and shared his life with someone else is a real human being--an implausible candidate for "lone, demented gunman". Her story makes it clear that he was working undercover for the government, knew he was being impersonated, and was attempting to save the president's life, not take it. For all of her imperfections, I believe in her and regard her story as extremely important and worth bringing to the public, even at the cost of antagonizing some very old friends. I cannot understand for the life of me when I have explained this point to Jack several times on two different fora--yet he continues to assert that he doesn't see the point. How many times do I have to explain it?

But some, such as Judyth, are first and foremost WITNESSES, even though she has proven to be very adept at RESEARCH. Her beliefs about Lee Oswald are based upon her (presumptive) personal experience and there is no reason to dismiss her on the grounds that YOU BELIEVE that there were "two Oswalds".

Good point. In addition, since Judyth is a witness and Armstrong a researcher, it might be valuable for Armstrong to actually acknowledge what Judyth is saying and perhaps rethink and/or tweak his hypotheses at least about LHO in NOLA.

Armstrong is NOT a researcher. He builds custom homes in Hawaii.

Armstrong has NO hypotheses about LHO in NOLA.

Armstrong presents conflicting documentations. Documentation cannot be "rethought".

Read the book.

As for me, I care not at all whether JVB's tales are 100 percent true or 100 percent

false. Whichever it is, nothing she says, whether true or false, adds one iota to our

knowledge of the JFK assassination. I believe everyone should be free to form

individual opinions about this instead of being ridiculed for being in one camp or the

other. My only interest is in truth. If her every statement could be shown to be true,

nobody yet has explained why it matters. Everything she says is more National Enquirer

material than important information. My main concern is that JVB is divisive and

disruptive. I suggest a moratorium till her book comes out, to see exactly what she

claims.

[John Dolva]

Yes, it seems to me a proper document. (where's that link again) I've yet to read through all of Glenns contributions, but on the matters I have, I defer to him.

Has it been mentioned that she was a Socialist who didn't like Castro and that she worked for the CIA in the Mormon Church, that she had met Osama Bin Laden and was involved in (which war) the anti-war movement and after Hungary went to Greece?

Anyway the findings were clear to the individuals making the decicion that she did not fulfill the claimed status of an asylum seeker. She got of proper leeway and representation and pushed it to what seems near the the limit. I'm not sure, but perhaps another document deals with the findind of, what seems to me, an order regarding costs? Glenn?

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Judyth has already proven coordination between Viklund, Junkkarinen, and McAdams,

who appear to be collaborating in a systematic effort to discredit her, which Junkkarinen

has not denied. Under the circumstances, I find it offensive that she continues to put up

one attack after another, frequently recycling old claims that have already been refuted.

Her relentless, virtually mechanical, efforts offer a variety of hints that she is on a mission.

I would observe that Judyth had posted many photographs and documents that support

her story, where there is an noticeable dearth of contrary evidence from the other side.

On balance, I would suggest that any objective assessment of this thread would conclude

that there is more support for Judyth than there is against her and that some of those who

want to discredit her, sad to say, seem to have more than a search for truth motiving them.

[Jack White]

Reading back through some old JVB postings on this forum, I noted that

for all the CHRONOLOGY in her "book" she relied on someone named David

Blackburst to provide all the research. Yet we are told repeatedly that her

story is told WITHOUT consulting JFK research materials. Is "Blackburst" a

paid researcher?

I find this interesting.

Jack

PS...I decided to google David Blackburst, and discovered that he is AKA

(also known as) STEVEN ROY.

Edited March 14, 2010 by Jack White

[John Dolva]

Judy's side of the story is in the document, as part of it. It's not stated as fact. It's a detailing of her claims. The findings and the rulings by this Government body are clearly spelt out as are directions on how to take the matter further. This is my reading of it. Glenn? It's a public court document not a verbatum record of a case.

[Jack White]

Reading back through some old JVB postings on this forum, I noted that

for all the CHRONOLOGY in her "book" she relied on someone named David

Blackburst to provide all the research. Yet we are told repeatedly that her

story is told WITHOUT consulting JFK research materials. Is "Blackburst" a

paid researcher?

I find this interesting.

Jack

PS...I decided to google David Blackburst, and discovered that he is AKA

(also known as) STEVEN ROY.

ATTENTION STEVEN ROY, Forum Member:

Did you provide research for Judyth Baker? Are you also known as David Blackburst?

Thanks.

Jack

[John Dolva]

Here it is. click on 20081212153010595.pdf

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ngarchive/

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Judy's side of the story is in the document, as part of it. It's not stated as fact. It's a detailing of her claims. The findings and the rulings by this Government body are clearly spelt out as are directions on how to take the matter further. This is my reading of it. Glenn? It's a public court document not a verbatum record of a case.

Thank you, John, for reading the document and posting your take on it.

Much appreciated,

Barb :-)

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Reading back through some old JVB postings on this forum, I noted that

for all the CHRONOLOGY in her "book" she relied on someone named David

Blackburst to provide all the research. Yet we are told repeatedly that her

story is told WITHOUT consulting JFK research materials. Is "Blackburst" a

paid researcher?

I find this interesting.

Jack

PS...I decided to google David Blackburst, and discovered that he is AKA

(also known as) STEVEN ROY.

ATTENTION STEVEN ROY, Forum Member:

Did you provide research for Judyth Baker? Are you also known as David Blackburst?

Thanks.

Jack

Yes, Jack, Stephen is known as Blackburst on the usenet groups .... he prefers not to have his real name out on those groups due to an incident some years ago. I hope he will come and talk about his dealings with Judyth. Blackburst knows more about David Ferrie that anyone else I know of. He is not a "paid" researcher as far as I know.

Barb :-)

Edited March 14, 2010 by Barb Junkkarinen

[Dean Hagerman]

Reading back through some old JVB postings on this forum, I noted that

for all the CHRONOLOGY in her "book" she relied on someone named David

Blackburst to provide all the research. Yet we are told repeatedly that her

story is told WITHOUT consulting JFK research materials. Is "Blackburst" a

paid researcher?

I find this interesting.

Jack

PS...I decided to google David Blackburst, and discovered that he is AKA

(also known as) STEVEN ROY.

ATTENTION STEVEN ROY, Forum Member:

Did you provide research for Judyth Baker? Are you also known as David Blackburst?

Thanks.

Jack

Jack

The Stephen Roy on this forum is writing a book on David Ferrie, and I believe that most of his research centers around Ferrie/Shaw and N.O.

This is a very interesting observation Jack, could Roy be the person feeding Judyth all of his research which she in turn is using as facts?

[Dean Hagerman]

Wow me and Barb posted the same thing at the same exact time (Roy/Blackburst research on Ferrie)

[Glenn Viklund]

John

All costs were taken care of by the authorities.

And I agree with your description of this document. This should eliminate any more of these accusations of violation of privacy, breach of confidentiality and so forth. I've said it many times before, also in McAdams forum 15 months ago - JVB and friends haven't understood what the document contain and this is the reason for all these accusations. All this stuff of me being a spy, an insider, government agent and all the rest of it, in order to get this information looks a bit silly, wouldn't you agree?

I raised a few simple questions for Judyth and I still see no answers.

I do see professor Fetzer continuing spending his energy on the wrong things:

"Judyth has already proven coordination between Viklund, Junkkarinen, and McAdams,

who appear to be collaborating in a systematic effort to discredit her,"

Nobody have asked me to write anything, to find any information or to take any particular standpoint. I contacted McAdams, the same way I contacted you, btw, and whatever I've written in these forum is entirely my responsibility, on my initiative. I've sent John Simkin info that meets all requirements to become a member in this forum. I've several times explained how I got this info and why.

As to me being part of "team McAdams". If this refers to me not believing a word of what JVB says, yes then I'm part of it. Which by this definition should be quite a large one, thousands certainly. By any other definition than that, I'm part of no"team". Is that clear enough? This is not a playground for kids or soccer games, is it? I can guarantee that I'm enough of a man to form and stand by my own opinions.

It would therefore be nice to see an end to the filibustering effort to stay away from the issues I've raised.

I would have thought that you Mr Fetzer, as a scholar, had an interest in getting these facts straight, but what I've seen so far, don't support that notion at all. In fact, quite the opposite.

That's not only a huge surprise to me, it's also deeply disappointing.

Well, there's always something new to learn, every day.

Edited March 14, 2010 by Glenn Viklund

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Good post. Pamela. Judyth has sent a response to Junkkarinen and you:

JUDYTH COMMENTS ON BARB AND PAMEL:

Barb has provided an excellent example of the fact that Pamela had an

objective attitude toward me, as a new witness, in 2000. She commented

that I did not seem to have anything new to present. Note Pamela said:

"Some of the statements attributed to Judyth seem to be almost silly; so

it is difficult to attach any value to them."

Pamela had only seen excerpts and crude misrepresentations of my words.

Note that she said "attributed to Judyth" rather than saying "Judyth said."

That critical ability to apply discernment, rather than blindly swallow alleged

quotes, caused her to correspond wit me through hundreds of emals over

the years. And yes, she asked for clarifications.

During that same time period of a decade, Barb J. never asked a single

question of me. Her 'research" never included a single interview. She

has had ten years to do so. So much for Barb J's "objectivity."

Pamela and Monk were among the very the first people to speak up in my

defense when attacks aganst my character were first raised on this forum.

I find it ironic that Pamela's objectivity in 2000 has been pointed out to you

by Barb.

Ten years on, Pamela, far better informed than Barb of who I really am,

knows how complex the matter is, and how easily my statements might be

misrepresented, largely through oversimplification and misquotes.

Edward T. Haslam spoke before COPA and stated that he thought he knew

who I was and the 'whole story' through literally hundreds of hours of research

and face-to-face interviews. But even he admitted he had some misunderstandings

after all of that, until he read my (authorized) book and accompanying private notes.

He also took extraordinary pains to clarify issues and inspect the smallest technical details.

In fact, I consider Haslam's research abilities to be phenomenal. I can even state that he's

been mean to me--sometimes heartless and even ruthless--all for the sake of vetting the

witness. He took that responsibility serously.

You do not want this man delving into your life if you have done anything wrong. He will

find your electric bill from 1970 that didn't get paid.

Thank you, Edward T. Haslam, though you put me through the wringer.

And thank you, Pamela, and Monk.

Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk

From: pame...@primenet.com (pamela mcelwain-brown)

Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 03:24:59 GMT

Local: Thurs, Nov 2 2000 7:24 pm

Subject: Re: Judyth and Jack Ruby

David,

It seems as though you have no alternative but to invest a considerable

amount of time and energy attempting to objectively verify the statements

of this person. Coming from my research on the Weldon "Man from the

Rouge", I can sympathize, in that when even a part of the research

community is hyped about a *new witness* that momentum can have a tendency

to move more quickly than actual facts might warrant.

As I follow these threads, a bit belatedly, I must ask the question --

what difference does it make? If Judyth had continued to maintain her

anonymity, what would we not know about LHO that we do *know* now? It

seems that she provides LHO-Ruby connections, but that has been done by

other less new witnesses, such as Beverly Oliver, so that is not *new*

information. In addition, some of the statements attributed to Judyth

seem to be almost silly; so it is difficult to attach any value to them.

It had been my thinking that once a *witness* had at least a name, a job

description, a voice, and was willing to communicate with the research

community (things the MFTR was unable to do) that vetting such a witness

in terms of their relevance to the assassination would be a relatively

simple thing.

Not so, I am discovering.

Pamela

And while the campaign continues, they consistently refuse to answer one simple question -- namely, why can't this one documented witness be allowed to speak in an open forum?

Hasn't she been speaking? We have pages and pages of it.

How disdainful that sounds, Kathy.

Let me try again. How many words has Judyth been allowed to speak in an open forum, without 'researchers' who embrace and kowtow to every other witness, documented or not and yet speak libelously against Judyth, refusing to allow those who are interested to weigh and evaluate Judyth's statements on their own. They also consider themselves to be at the same level as a witness, having no perspective to the fact that a researcher can only operate with second-hand information from which they can develop an hypothesis. Trying to libel a documented witness simply convolutes the process of getting information from them.

How many witnesses have you worked with?

Edited March 14, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[John Dolva]

Yep, that's for you get for being a free thinker, Glenn. As I understand it, you like me has no vested interest in this. People plonk things in ones lap. That doesn't mean it has to stay there. I'm glad my memory of swedish is suffcient to be affirmed by you. I was really looking forward to a response for that reason, as well.

edit:format

edit add : oh, another point I wanted to make is how transparent this document is, just how verifiable it is. It follows the proper format as laid out by law with names and signatures. To falsify it is ridiculous.

Edited March 14, 2010 by John Dolva

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

JUDYTH COMMENTS ON MONK'S POST:

Look how Monk thinks I have noting to add... That is relevent....It has been years

since we spoke....

There seems to be a desperation to turn the conversation AWAY from New Orleans..

Here's what is relevant:

Despite all the hoopla about TEXAS, NEW ORLEANS IS WHERE THE PLOT WAS HATCHED.

Lee said meetings were held in Baton Rouge.

Can somebody look into US MILITARY PRESENCE IN BATON ROUGE?

I WILL IF I EVER GET THE TIME.

LEE SAID HE WAS INSPECTED BY A MILITARY OFFICER in baton rouge before the officer

went into a meeting where representatives from New Orleans met with dalas plotters.

Lee was posted as a 'guard' but they discussed him in some way. This was in early

September just after he had seen David Atlee Phillips (Mr. B--Bishop) in, I think it

was Houston, in the presence of Antonio Veciana, who reported that to Gaeton Fonzi.

Everybody got to view lee and see his face as Lee was the 'guard." Everyone. The

military guy acted as if he was memorizing Lee's face. He was a Navy man.

Lee aid they came out and informed him that a fund had been set up to care for his wife

and child so that if he wanted to transfer to Mexico (he had requsted this) it culd be done

after his mission to Mexico City.

That mission, btw, lured Lee to Mexico City and into all kinds of exposure so he could

later be framed...

They LATER ordered him to return to DALLAS and broke their promise, telling him he

would be reassigned to Mexico and could even enroll as college student there, be an

informant for the CIA with funding, etc.--BUT IT WOULD BE AFTER CHRISTMAS.

DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THIS PIECE OF INFORMATION, WHICH MY INNER RESEARCH

CIRCLE KNOWS ABOUT AND MY EDITORS, HAS NO VALUE WHATSOEVER TO THE JFK

RESEARCH COMMUNITY IN UNRAVELING HOW LEE OSWALD WAS MANIPULATED INTO

GOING TO MEXICO CITY, WHY HE RETURNED TO DALLAS WHEN HE EXPECTED, AS SEEN

IN THE BOOK MARINA AND LEE, NEVER TO SEE MARINA AND THE BABY AGAIN FOR YEARS

AND YEARS?

LEE IS ON RECORD AS WEEPING, AND MARINA, TOO.

OH, HOW I WISH I HAD THAT BOOK AGAIN! GET THAT AND READ IT!

NOW, I 'HAVE NOTHING OF IMPORTANCE TO SAY ABOUT THE ASSASSINATION...'

THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE TELLING YOU.

UNDERSTAND, IF I HAD SPOKEN TO THE 'BARB CROWD' ABOUT THIS, THE EVIDENCE

MIGHT HAVE BEEN HUNTED DOWN AND HAVE DISAPPEARED.

I ASK YOU TO FIND STUDENTS OR SOMEBODY TO SEARCH FOR IT.

THE MEETING IN BATON ROUGE WAS ONE OF SEVERAL.

JVB

As for me, I care not at all whether JVB's tales are 100 percent true or 100 percent

false. Whichever it is, nothing she says, whether true or false, adds one iota to our

knowledge of the JFK assassination.

Jack,

While I feel confident that this is not a "black and white" issue and I don't think it is all or nothing, I too have my doubts about what value or relevance her evidence has to our inquiry about JFK's murder. So, I finally agree with part of what you are saying.

I believe everyone should be free to form individual opinions about this instead

of being ridiculed for being in one camp or the other. My only interest is in truth. If her

every statement could be shown to be true, nobody yet has explained why it matters.

Up until now, many have been less than open minded toward the possibility that her statements were even worth considering. So this might be a break through. Her claims may still turn out to be irrelevant, but at least they might be given a fair shake here.

Everything she says is more National Enquirer material than important information. My main

concern is that JVB is divisive and disruptive. I suggest a moratorium till her book comes out,

to see exactly what she claims.

Again, I object to the use of the term "everything she says" -- as it is an inappropriate generalization. Moreover, you haven't reviewed "everything she has said" as that would be impossible. As for her being divisive and disruptive, I beg your pardon, but I vigorously disagree. On the JFKresearch forum, it was not she who was disruptive! Not even a little bit, Jack. Quite the contrary. I was there and witnessed what I consider to be one of the most vile attacks on any member by those who are normally not inclined to such behavior. The disruption was not caused by Judyth's behavior AT ALL. It was caused because THE SUBJECT of her and her story was even brought up.

That said, it seems as though your current position is at least more reasonable than your previous one.

Edited March 15, 2010 by James H. Fetzer