Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[Kathleen Collins]

JIM RESPONDS TO LEE FARLEY

There are a number of other studies by Judyth that undermine, but do not disprove, the "two Oswalds" account. One of mine is the apparently studied indifference to Robert, who was Lee H. Oswald's virtual twin, who in my opinion is by far the most obvious candidate to have impersonated his brother.

Robert and Harvey do not look alike at all. There was a photo published where they were in a kitchen, standing next to each other. IMO, that photo was faked. And as homely as Harvey was, Robert Oswald is uglier. Please don't say they were twins. They weren't even brothers. I wish, Jim, you would interview Robert Oswald (and get his DNA). That would solve everything about Lee H. Oswald, who came from Russia.

Kathy C

[Dean Hagerman]

JVB sympathy? Lost the love of her life (knew him 4 months). In self imposed exile, a woman without a country

who is harassed to move around the world to escape from those who are out to get her. Is victim of endless

mysterious assaults, accidents and attacks. Has lost her family because of her LHO stand. Is so blind she has

a seeing eye dog and can only see her computer screen from an inch away. Has been harassed all over the

internet forums, from McAdams on the right to JFK Lancer on the left. Was ditched by Mary Ferrell, whom she

thought loved her. Had a husband who left her after one night of marriage, yet had five children by him. Was

blocked from her chosen medical profession by the CIA, which was afraid of her secret knowledge. Has been

double-crossed by JFK Lancer, Mary Ferrell, Bob Vernon, Wim Dankbaar, Harry Livingstone, Martin Shackleford,

Allan Eaglesham, etc etc etc and who knows who else? And to top it off, she has to type on a Hungarian keyboard!

That is the saddest story I have ever heard.

Jack

[Kathleen Collins]

Wow, you have GOT to be kidding. I would not have thought of you as a fan of Ruth Paine of all people. Her statements are convoluted and mysterious, and I do not think she told the WC much of what she knew. How well did she know LHO? She certainly was directly involved in his life those last months. But was she in his court or setting him up? She comes across as cagey and someone who thinks they are quite clever. Frankly, she gives me the creeps.

I wish someone could bug Ruth Paine's house. She's a lying, scheming, CIA asset. I'd like to know what she says in private. I'm sure a day doesn't pass that she doesn't think of the assassination.

Kathy C

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Is JVB claiming that ALLAN EAGLESHAM of New York is one of her supporters?

Hi Jack,

I don't know if Judyth is claiming that or not .... in her very long reply to you going on about Allan Eaglesham and his work on Marvin and Pitzer, she never did answer your very short straightforward question.

But I can tell you that Allan Eaglesham is a friend of mine and, no, he did not send her that quote of something I posted on the mod group ... and no, he is not a supporter of hers and has not been in contact with her for a very long time.

Bests,

Barb :-)

[Glenn Viklund]

mr. fetzer-

i very much enjoyed the post where you suggested i was in some sort of a conspiracy against judyth, apparently plotting alongside several people i have never met or communicated with in any way. it gave me a good laugh and i thank you for that.

what isn't so funny is that you and Judyth have set up a situation where in order to believe her we must believe the worst of people like David Lifton and Jack white. i don't think you will find many people here who would choose her over either of those two men and i am frankly mystified that you have apparently done so yourself (especially when one considers your long personal association with those gentlemen). the day will come, sir, when you realize what your allegiance to this woman and her fairy tales has truly cost you and my awareness of that makes me feel genuinely sorry for you.

i am also puzzled by your comments about John Simkin. you seem to be saying that since he founded this forum and graciously hosts us all he should therefore have less rights of expression than the rest of us, that he should not state his opinion on the topics under discussion. why on earth should he not be permitted to speak as freely as anyone else? is it simply because he- like most sensible people- disagrees with your assessment of Judyth?

Mr Greenlee

Thanks for your posting - and thanks also for your brilliantly worded responses to Pam in the mod forum.

I wouldn't expect Mr Fetzer to answer your questions though. He never does that to those who fits into the "little twit" category - where yourself and I surely both qualify.

Best regards,

Glenn Viklund

[Michael Hogan]

Mr Hogan,

Thank you for sharing this with us. This all happened in Bradenton, FL?

Glenn, I met Ed Haslam in Tampa, Florida (About one hour north of Bradenton) at

a meeting sponsored by the South Florida Research Group. They are based in Miami.

Mr. Haslam was discussing his research and his book that had just been published.

The Judyth Baker story was a very small part of his presentation.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Michael,

My understanding is that Ed Haslam gave a presenation at COPA just this past

year that those present found to be very detailed and convincing. Perhaps we

might even be able to obtain a copy of the talk if it was video or tape-recorded.

Jim

Mr Hogan,

Thank you for sharing this with us. This all happened in Bradenton, FL?

Glenn, I met Ed Haslam in Tampa, Florida (About one hour north of Bradenton) at

a meeting sponsored by the South Florida Research Group. They are based in Miami.

Mr. Haslam was discussing his research and his book that had just been published.

The Judyth Baker story was a very small part of his presentation.

[Bernice Moore]

Is JVB claiming that ALLAN EAGLESHAM of New York is one of her supporters?

Hi Jack,

I don't know if Judyth is claiming that or not .... in her very long reply to you going on about Allan Eaglesham and his work on Marvin and Pitzer, she never did answer your very short straightforward question.

But I can tell you that Allan Eaglesham is a friend of mine and, no, he did not send her that quote of something I posted on the mod group ... and no, he is not a supporter of hers and has not been in contact with her for a very long time.

Bests,

Barb :-)

correct barb....b

[Stephen Roy]

I ask once again not to be dragged into the discussion at this time. I'm going to ignore this one because it came from Howard Platzman who I respect, despite differences of opinion.

[Pamela Brown]

The polarising effect that JVB has on people's minds is something approaching pathological in nature.

You are stating your opinion and then trying to claim it as fact. You are also trying to make an issue out of my position, which has remained unchanged.

The fact that you believe Judyth has a 'polarising effect' does not mean that it is fact, or that it is something that seems immutable to me. I do agree that Judyth statements have a powerful effect on people, one way or another. And it may be that the truest test of who is maintaining the WC apologist mindset are those who simply froth at Judyth and play dirty tricks on her v those who are able to maintain an open mind.

You seem to be keeping your blinders firmly in place. Why do you object to my asking why you don't just step aside rather than continuing to pop in offering up the same thing you have said before? How can that be at odds with moving forward together and agreeing to disagree? If you are so sure of your position, why are you compelled to repeat it?

[Dean Hartwell]

Lee Farley said:

Do we all have to make a decision here to believe Judyth and take the "side" of Jim Fetzer or alternatively disbelieve her and take the "side" of David Lifton?

Absolutely not; that is a strawman. The issue is that nobody knows how to reason about the assassination. The govt isn't going to help us, it wants passive sheeple. When the WCR came cout, the govt wanted everyone to 'believe' it and 'disbelieve' everything else. This set up a false criterion. The govt used no research process in writing the WCR and in fact the person they were accusing of everything was dead and not even allowed to have his interests represented.

So why not try a different process that actually works? First, determine if a witness has some sort of objective documentation connecting them to the events they say they have witnessed. These things may be direct, such as Judyth's pay stubs from Reily Coffee, or indirect, such as unusual knowledge of places and people. If the person cannot be placed in the environment they are talking about, that raises a red flag. If they can, allow them an open forum to share their experiences. It is up to the witness to persuade or not persuade others that what they have to say is valuable. We can then weigh and evaluate what they have to say, comparing and contrasting the statements to other available information and witness statements, and then decide for ourselves what to think.

We can also comfortably agree-to-disagree about witnesses, areas of research, theories, etc, and still be colleagues, moving research forward. We can take the high road and not stoop to fallacies of logic or personal invective. We can choose to be a team of CTs moving forward shoulder-to-shoulder against the inevitable onslaughts of the Ongoing Coverup as we move closer and closer to 2013.

May I refer you to post #2 in this thread please? That just about sums the whole sorry saga up. I doubt Peter McGuire is an astrologist or fortune teller but his comments were certainly a great precursor as to what has followed.

The polarising effect that JVB has on people's minds is something approaching pathological in nature.

It's a shame you left your call for CT harmony until post #1137 (that's one-thousand-one-hundred-and-thirty-seven)! If it had of been in post #3 (where it belonged) I would have a little more respect for your message. Instead, you acted as a cheerleader for one side of the argument over the other. As they stand, your comments smack of some sort of intellectual bi-polar disorder after previously asking me (and others) to stand aside if we weren't getting anything from the thread.

To claim that I have made a fallacy of "logic" by creating a "straw-man" and to claim it with a straight face does your own argument (of moving forward shoulder to shoulder) little good. This "community" is currently polarised on this issue. Friendships are falling apart. The invective is abundently clear in both public and private messages.

This is the second time you have misrepresented the context of my messages. If this is how you extrapolate meaning from the things you see, hear and feel then it's no wonder you have offered little in the overall progression of the JVB story. I can only assume that you believe the best way to exstinguish a fire in a burning house is to throw gasoline on it. You used the same method, of what you must consider to be an axiom of logic, with Jack White's comments about Ruth Paine.

And for the record - I neither "believe" nor "disbelieve" JVB. I will come to a conclusion as to what I think about all this at a later date. Once someone goes and gets a bucket of water...

Lee,

You have made some good points in this thread. But your use of the phrase "intellectual bi-polar disorder" is misplaced.

From the context, it appears you mean to say that another's argument was inconsistent. But bi-polar disorder is more complicated. The two poles refer to mania, or a speeded-up mind, and depression, a slowed-down mind.

I know this because I suffer from this problem. Some days my mind is slow and I am contemplative, while other days I speed things up and get many things done. It is a difference in pace but not an inconsistency. Other people with this problem suffer mania and depression at the same time or go back in forth in quick cycles.

It is clear to me that you mean no harm by what you write. This disorder is misunderstood in society and was used by some to blame a man who attempted to kill guards recently at the Pentagon. If we understood mental illness better, we would distinguish it from hopelessness and insanity, which are completely different issues.

Dean

[Pamela Brown]

Lee Foley also said:

This is the second time you have misrepresented the context of my messages.

I apologize. You do seem a bit defensive, though. Are your posts so clearly-written that they are only open to one interpretation? Or are we as readers supposed to also be mind-readers?

Apparently, the idea of speaking one's mind, letting go, moving forward, agreeing-to-disagree is not acceptable to you? It seems more advantageous to try to kill the messenger?

[Pamela Brown]

I'm not wasting my time "arguing" with you Pamela. I had a lot more to say but what's the point. It could go on for weeks. Use your own methodology on what I have to say, i.e. if you don't like it, then stand aside...your hypocrisy in what you say as opposed to what you do is becoming more and more pronounced...

You seem determined to take issue with anything I say. I was attempting to communicate with you on a level ground without resorting to ad homs, such as calling you a hypocrite for misreading my posts. Why not simply agree-to-disagree about Judyth and move on?

[Glenn Viklund]

Mr Hogan,

Thank you for sharing this with us. This all happened in Bradenton, FL?

Glenn, I met Ed Haslam in Tampa, Florida (About one hour north of Bradenton) at

a meeting sponsored by the South Florida Research Group. They are based in Miami.

Mr. Haslam was discussing his research and his book that had just been published.

The Judyth Baker story was a very small part of his presentation.

Thank you, Michael.

[John Simkin]

Mr Hogan,

Thank you for sharing this with us. This all happened in Bradenton, FL?

Glenn, I met Ed Haslam in Tampa, Florida (About one hour north of Bradenton) at

a meeting sponsored by the South Florida Research Group. They are based in Miami.

Mr. Haslam was discussing his research and his book that had just been published.

The Judyth Baker story was a very small part of his presentation.

Ed Haslam is a member of this forum but was unhappy about discussing Judyth Baker.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=10653