Jump to content
The Education Forum

Judyth Baker presents JFK Conference Live


Douglas Caddy
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 69
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

To me, there are just enough facts regarding Judith Vary Baker's tale to not totally dismiss it.

We all know she was in New Orleans at that time. We all know she was hired by that weird cover job providing company Reilly Coffee on the same day ( May 10th, 1963 )  as Oswald.  Both given jobs that they had no experience or specific qualifications for.

She was let go the day after Oswald was seen doing his Fair Play For Cuba thing on the streets of downtown New Orleans.

Baker was close to Mary Sherman who was slaughtered in a horrendous murder. Dr. Oshner was not nationally known as the arrogantly mean and obsessed rabid right wing zealot he truly was until Baker made note of this in her book. And if he did okay the cancer inoculations of unwitting inmates which brought upon them torturous deaths ..he was truly a sinister monster. One could easily see him threatening Baker as she said he did with the worst kind of implied violence.

I could actually see her story being true in regards to meeting, liking and doing things with Lee Harvey Oswald.

To her a straight Marine posture, polite and clean cut looking fellow of 24 who was different from her typical nerdy medical social circle acquaintances could draw her kind of geeky and naively curious attraction. I could see that.  And on Oswald's side, I could see him finally enjoying the attention of an innocently nice, very smart and intelligent broader subject conversation young lady (and who was not unattractive) besides Marina, who was less communicative and more jaded and obviously unhappy and not in adoring love with him during her time here in the states.

If Judyth Vary Baker did know and interact with Lee Harvey Oswald. it would have been a breath of needed fresh and much softer American female companionship air and attention and affection which he probably never ever had and would have surely been craving versus his life with the much harder and unhappy Marina.

Baker also tells us things about the medical field world she was involved with in N.O. ( and the characters involved such as Oshner and Mary Sherman who did know Ferry ) which I believe checks out and I don't believe was reported by other writers before her.  Was the cancer inoculated prisoner story first exposed by someone else?

Baker does tell us facts about this world nobody else has and were not made up.

Baker truly was considered a teen age prodigy in science, hence her scholarships and immediate placement with noted researchers at Tulane.

I can't accept that her remarkable accomplishments in this field at such a young age mean nothing in evaluating her credibility as an adult at least beyond that of complete money making desperate kook. She gives details about locations, people, Oswald's quirky personal habits and even his clothing that appear to ring true.

 

A Mrs. Lewis, wife of Oswald N.O. friend David Lewis did give a taped interview verifying Vary's relationship with Oswald, at least to the point of their spending some time with each other.  Even though she ( Lewis ) comes off sounding quite illiterate, this also tells me she would not be good at making up stories that sounded true if they weren't

 

And Oswald constantly lied to Marina in NO about many things including his whereabouts and doings. He never told her he was fired from his job at Reilly's.  This is a person who could easily have had some relationship with another woman and not tell Marina about this.

 

I am not an authority on this subject, but I trust my lifelong experience instincts and general knowledge of it just enough to make a more believing judgment call as to Baker's story being at least half-way true. I cannot dismiss her totally, even though I know she is often described as impossible to work with and less than honest in her personal interactions with many other writers and researchers, many right here on this forum.

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You will. Suggest you listen to her. I was open at first, and read the book you got your info from. I think you have good intuition. I've read and appreciated a lot of your posts. Haslam wrote an interesting book which he amended for his second addition after Baker interjected her personal story. The differences between the two made me think she had seen an opening and found a sucker. That's my intuition. Now she is supported by a publisher and organizes and speaks at conferences. She makes a living doing this. I am sure others with personal knowledge will post here soon, like Pamela Brown. I think she is a disaster for the research community, and if it weren't for financial ties to the same publisher I believe all of the writers would jump off her ship. 

Edited by Paul Brancato
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

You will. Suggest you listen to her. I was open at first, and read the book you got your info from. I think you have good intuition. I've read and appreciated a lot of your posts. Haslam wrote an interesting book which he amended for his second addition after Baker interjected her personal story. The differences between the two made me think she had seen an opening and found a sucker. That's my intuition. Now she is supported by a publisher and organizes and speaks at conferences. She makes a living doing this. I am sure others with personal knowledge will post here soon, like Pamela Brown. I think she is a disaster for the research community, and if it weren't for financial ties to the same publisher I believe all of the writers would jump off her ship. 

Well this is refreshing. I made a facebook post two days ago about her and it started a real fire.  She has a lot of support there and her publisher jumped in accusing me of having an agenda for calling her a fraud.  I stated that no serious researcher takes her seriously.  And I also made the James Files analogy.  I am stunned at how many are speaking at her conferences, lending credibility to her ever changing and ever growing tall tales.

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Douglas Caddy said:

Judyth Baker presents JFK Conference Live

The event starts Friday. Viewing is free.

 

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCY3zHbtOHfX28G4_IifT_3A/live

It is my position that Judyth Baker, along with Ed Haslam and Jim Fetzer, are deliberately creating a false history of the JFK assassination.  Therefore, in my book, anyone who willingly involves themselves in this event loses credibility, and I will not be using any of their conclusions in anything I publish or present.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

You will. Suggest you listen to her. I was open at first, and read the book you got your info from. I think you have good intuition. I've read and appreciated a lot of your posts. Haslam wrote an interesting book which he amended for his second addition after Baker interjected her personal story. The differences between the two made me think she had seen an opening and found a sucker. That's my intuition. Now she is supported by a publisher and organizes and speaks at conferences. She makes a living doing this. I am sure others with personal knowledge will post here soon, like Pamela Brown. I think she is a disaster for the research community, and if it weren't for financial ties to the same publisher I believe all of the writers would jump off her ship. 

Paul, I loved MF+TMV when it first came out. It was my fringe favorite.  I considered it supposition, suggestion, what-if.  There were certainly a lot of very odd coincidences, such as Haslam's just happening to be at the right place, or in the right town, at the right time.  He brought up some excellent questions about what happened to Dr. Sherman.  However, I am now opening the door to a more sinister scenario.  Both Haslam and Judyth are from Bradenton, FL.  Who knows when they first met?  Haslam claimed to have met a 'false' JVB in his first book.  Then, lo-and-behold he meets the 'real' one.  Haslam and Judyth could have cooked this all up on their own even before he published his first edition.  

Let's not forget that it was Haslam who somehow got Judyth to 60 Minutes.  Everything was moving forward in her segment until someone decided to ask her to take a psych eval.  Then, fortunately, Judyth claimed Hewitt, the producer said, "the door was slammed in our faces."  

Another factor that I find telling is that when I was involved with Judyth she frequently referenced telling her sister Debbee all about 'her affair with Lee Oswald."  However, in all those discussions, which took place over the seven years I was a part of her camp, she never once mentioned telling Debbee anything about the 'bioweapon' she claims he was carrying in a 'Dewars bottle', nor did she reference Debbee's ever having reacted to such a claim.  Why not, since the 'bioweapon' is central to her story?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if it's permissible to say thanks without bashing someone, Doug, thanks for this. i shall watch with what seems to be a uniquely objective perspective. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joe Bauer,

Nineteen ninety nine.  1999. Really, Joe?  One of the major events of American history and we don't hear anything from Judy Baker until 1999, over 30 years after the fact?

I mean, come on, have a little sense of perspective here.  If you believe Judy Baker then you might as well believe that the moon landing was staged.

http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKbakerJ.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

I don't know why you find the thirty-year delay so unbelievable.

Would you have expected someone in JVB's (alleged) position to talk right after the assassination? I wouldn't.

What about later, during HSCA hearings when witnesses were "committing suicide" and disappearing, only to be found dismembered and stuffed into a fifty gallon drum?

All the time remembering that you had vowed never to reveal the secrets to which you'd been exposed?

While being busy raising a family, followed by watching grand kids grow.

I don't know whether or not there is any truth to JVB's claims (which I personally tend to find suspicious), but I just can't see the delay factor being of much relevance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I do.  It wasn't an "eating dinner at 7" kind of event in one's life that happens thousands and thousands of times.  If someone ran into John Lennon when he was on tour in the U.S. you can bet that the person meeting him would wait 34 years to talk about it.

I think, too, that based on what I've read on this EF, you do tend to believe just about anything and everything there is that even has a tiny sniff or puff of conspiracy.

As the argument went on the ridiculous "67% Solution," not everything and anything you read is true in this case.  And you, yourself, are saying that you are suspicious - why not just use a little common sense and plausibility and accept that she's a money-grubbing flake?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Michael,

I don't know why you find the thirty-year delay so unbelievable.

Would you have expected someone in JVB's (alleged) position to talk right after the assassination? 

What about later, during HSCA hearings when witnesses were "committing suicide" and disappearing, only to be found dismembered and stuffed into a fifty gallon drum?

All the time remembering that you had vowed never to reveal the secrets to which you'd been exposed?

While being busy raising a family, followed by watching grand kids grow.

I don't know whether or not there is any truth to JVB's claims (which I personally tend to find suspicious), but I just can't see the delay factor being of much relevance.

I agree with S.Larsen's reasons why someone who may have had any close relationships with Oswald, Ferry, Oshner,Sherman, etc and been privy to their secrets might wait that long to reveal this   Sandy's points about fear, raising a family are logical,  Many witnesses to people directly involved with Roswell waited decades before coming forward for the same reasons.

Excuse the U.F.O.interjection, but it and it's cover-up and witness intimidation are similar to the JFK event in that way.

They knew the story was accompanied by strong government cover up concern and JVB for sure knew this about LHO, and she was threatened by Ferry according to her.

Maybe I'm very naive myself and I am for sure not as informed as others here.

But, I would ask a few questions. Was David Lewis's wife in on the scam by Haslam & JVB?

How about JVB's sister Debbee? Has she been interviewed and asked how long ago her sister Judyth began telling of her relationship with Oswald? 

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

Yes, I do.  It wasn't an "eating dinner at 7" kind of event in one's life that happens thousands and thousands of times.

 If someone ran into John Lennon when he was on tour in the U.S. you can bet that the person meeting him would [not] wait 34 years to talk about it.

That person who met John Lennon would not have had a top secret security clearance and a vow to keep the meeting secret, subject to criminal prosecution. That person would not have been afraid of being violently retaliated against.

Your example is a false equivalency.

I think, too, that based on what I've read on this EF, you do tend to believe just about anything and everything there is that even has a tiny sniff or puff of conspiracy.

Your assessment of me is wrong. You apparently haven't paid attention to the times I have argued against conspiracy. Like the epic argument I had with Jim Hargrove's regarding one of John Armstrong theses.

What I do say is that it is wrong to demonize researchers (something you are prone to doing), because doing so shuts down dialog. And because some of that person's points may have some validity.

As the argument went on the ridiculous "67% Solution," not everything and anything you read is true in this case.  And you, yourself, are saying that you are suspicious - why not just use a little common sense and plausibility and accept that she's a money-grubbing flake?

Because I haven't yet spent the time to evaluate JVB's story thoroughly and fairly. And I refuse to cave in to peer pressure like yours.

 

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

it didn't copy here...

 

well said, Sandy. Amen.

"...why not just use a little common sense and plausibility and accept that she's a money-grubbing flake? "

um, damn, Michael - you mean just believe what we read here in EF without evaluating the material ourselves?

i notice that presupposition and assumption is prevalent in some of these threads - well, in many of them. i wonder why that is... it's almost like when someone doesn't have something bad to say about someone else or presents an objective but unpopular alternative possibility, or even hasn't yet offered a, um, "comment," then their integrity is questioned.

what fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...