David Reitzes

[Judyth Baker]

To each his own, Dixie. I am not happy to make Stephen Roy angry at me. I appreciate the research he does on Dave Ferrie.

But I believe the time is long past for people to stop hiding behind fake names. We need to know who is who.

How about you, Dixie? Is 'Dixie Dea"your real name? Wpuld you be upset if we placed your real name and information about you on the internet? Would you like to see lies written about you as 'facts'by somebody hiding behind a fake name?

Some of us have experienced that.

It's time for 100% honesty in this research field. No professional uses a fake name when writing in a medical journal or a paper for a professional conference. We are dealing here with research, and it is time the authors were identified just as they are expected to be identified in any other research field. We need the same standards that any other area of research has.

Sorry you think it's just fine to hide behind a fake name if you feel like it.

Standards need to be raised. Researchers must be accountable and their identities known to all. No more spin doctors, propagandists, disinfo artists. I've suffered at their hands and they are going to be unveiled. Want to help? Is "Dixie Dea" YOUR real name?

Can we believe you if you say it is?

Just a thought.

Best Regards,

Judyth Vary Baker

[Dixie Dea]

Deleted by personal choice!

DMD

Edited January 7, 2005 by Dixie Dea

[Dawn Meredith]

Judyth, Dave, Dixie PLEASE let's stop this. Lighten up everyone. Judyth, don't take it all so personally, I am sure Dixie was nto attacking you. As for the use of alias', it's a RULE here that we be forthright!! Period, right John??

John I also thought you put a stop to personal attacks.

You kicked off Tim and Wim, but others break the rules left and right and it's cool???

Then, you say to the effect, that JFK was an "ineffectual president", I cannot quote you verbadim, long hard court days, but coming to the forum is now very distressing.

Same old in fighting crap, plus the damn anti- JFK comment you made on the "how did you get into this" thread. . Blue me away.

I guess I just don't "get" forums, everyone has an agenda and the AGENDA is supposed to be to share information, solve the case. That was your stated purpose, and you argued quite effectively FOR it. For a president who was not even "effectual"???

I am sorry I cannot write as elequently as some others here, no time to put the necessary thought, have a busy law practice, too busy at the moment, but have to weign in at times. Justice demands it.

Dawn

[Dixie Dea]

Deleted by personal choice!

DMD

Edited January 7, 2005 by Dixie Dea

[Dave Weaver]

Judyth, Dave, Dixie PLEASE let's stop this. Lighten up everyone.  Judyth, don't take it all so personally, I am sure Dixie was nto attacking you. As for the use of alias', it's a RULE here that we be forthright!! Period, right John??

John I also thought you put a stop to personal attacks.

You kicked off Tim and Wim, but others break the rules left and right and it's cool???

Then, you say to the effect,  that JFK was an "ineffectual president", I cannot quote you verbadim, long hard court days, but coming to the forum is now very distressing.

Same old in fighting crap, plus the damn anti- JFK comment you made on the "how did you get into this" thread.  . Blue me away.

I guess I just don't "get" forums, everyone has an agenda and the AGENDA is supposed to be to share information, solve the case. That was your stated purpose, and you argued quite effectively FOR it. For a president who was not even "effectual"???

I am sorry I cannot write as elequently as some others here, no time to put the necessary thought, have a busy law practice, too busy at the moment,  but have to weign in at times.  Justice demands it.

  Dawn

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dawn maybe you're right,

sure you're right, but let's look at what we have here.

First of all, I was not attacking Judyth in this thread, I was asking,

and based on her answers or none answers stating what I conclude from that.

Also I was saying that she is dancing aroung answering my quetions, by

using things that have no relevance to what I've asked her.

Dawn, am I alone in thinking, wait a minute, I would be realy

interrested in what Judyth Baker has to backup her claims (claims not ment

in a negative way), cause this has been going on since 1999,

and don't forget dear members she had her innitial book ready then,

so the proof for everything was already there 1999, yet we only

have claims about the 2 centerpoints of her story, with one

additional claim, namely the foreknowledge of the assasination, unprovable by her ,according to Judyth herself, and she showed us, in my mind,

believable proof about things I will mention later.

Furthermore,I only followed Judyth Baker's invitatation, because Judyth Baker said come to the Educationforum, ask me questions I am a living witness,

I was Lee Harvey Oswald's girlfriend and he told me about the assasination 2 days prior to the event.

And I, Judyth Baker was involved in a "Get-Castro" project in NO, together

with David Ferrie, Mary Sherman , that project also involved Jack Ruby, whom I knew also.

I have the proof to verify what I claim.

I will answer fair and honest questions.

The above is a summary of different statements over the years packed

and simplyfied, but in essence correct.

Replace Educationforum by Usenet or other places , or by mail contact.

So please let's find someone here on this forum , who will be regarded by Judyth

Baker as fair and honest, so that she finaly, after many many years, can answer

and show her proof.

And no, I never doubted that she worked at Reily's or did, and later got

promoted for, her highschool cancer research work/project.

She has produced proof in form of newspaperarticles,letters and

paychecks from Reily's, so I had no reason to question that part

of her testimony, but that leaves me somehow standing in the rain,

because what about the other things she claims, why haven't we seen

any proof since 1999,although she repeatetly said, she has and will

show the proof to those who are honest and fair.

Anyone out there, who has seen the proof yet, I mean proof like

proof, not so called circumstancial evidence like:

There was a young girl seen around Ferrie and Sherman in 1963

I had a dress and shoes the same like the person in a certain film

I looked like a twin of Marina Oswald (Did you realy ?) and spoke Russian (do you still ? )

Well Judyth, I have a russian friend, maybe you want to talk to him some, but that doesn't proof anything anyway.

Maybe there are those honest and fair members here, who think that

one can start and ask Judyth Baker 2 of the most important unanswered

questions (well the names and testimonies of some of her witnesses are

known to some here already) she has chosen to not answer up until know,

at least in places where she offered to answer fair and honest questions

to the best of her knowledge.

1) What proof do you have that you were Lee Harvey Oswald's girlfriend/lover,

are your witnesses you say you have credible, have they been tested in any way, did they tell anyone else about what they did say in their testimony before, what evidence do you have otherwise.

2) What proof do you have that you were involved in a "Get-Castro " project

in NO 1963, together with David Ferrie, Mary Sherman and Lee Harvey Oswald

and of course also Jack Ruby.

are your witnesses you may have credible, have they been tested in any way, did

they tell anyone else about what they did say in their testimony before, what evidence do you have otherwise.

Dear members of this forum, the issue is not, who i am, the issue is that we

have a witness to the case, right here on this forum, who, since 1999 has made offers to show proof about what the witness claims, but since 1999 has not done so about the 2 most important claims she makes.

Either you are honest and fair, and if you qualify, you get the answers,

else read the book, she says.

Did I understand that right Judyth Baker ?

Too bad no one seems to have qualified here yet.

Instead, and you can read that all over the internet, Judyth is in constant

fight with those she says are treating her unfair and only wanting to either

prevent the book, make her look crazy and/or like a hoaxter or have some

other agenda .

Who those persons are, and what their agenda is, you will learn from Judyth,

cause she does decide it, but watch out, once she declared someone a not

friendly party, you better stay away from that person, else the same could

happen to you.

I don't say she should not defend herself and her name, that is not my issue,

my problem is that she writes trillions of lines about who the evildoers are,who are against her and what their rhetorical tricks are, but is not answering to fair and honest questions that do ask for the proof to her 2 centerclaims.

Well, i am wrong, she anwers sometimes, saying, you can read it in the book.

Well Judyth, is that PR or what is it, if it is PR, i'll advice you to fire your

PR person(s) immediately.

But, I see, there's no way for me to get an answer from you, I am not

worth it.

So, I hereby donate those questions so that a fair and honest person can take them

and ask Judyth Baker to ask her those, maybe she will then answer.

Maybe John Simkin can ask them in a post, so that members (but only those honest and fair ones please) can start evaluating at least some of the evidence.

Finaly let me say this:

I have, both here and on jfklancerforum, told my name to those I had personal

contact with,I have done that immediately and without hesitation, from John Simkin to Gary Mack, from Judyth Baker to Bill Miller and Richard Smith, from Robert Vernon to Wim Dankbaar and Nancy Eldreth, everyone knows who I am.

All they have to do is to type in my name into google and you can find even

my telephone number and address here in germany (last digit of phonenumber could be 8 instead of 7 as I switch lines sometimes) and give me a call, or simply

ask me for the number in a mail.

Wim and Nancy did already do this, and guess what Judyth, it did work, I was

on the line (well actualy I have a lot of little gadgets, but that is another story ... )

So, in my case Judyth, you once again try to use things that are long known to

you and others, namely my real name and verified to you by both Wim and Nancy, as a tool to avoid the issue, namely an honest answer to my questions,

you base that decission of yours not to answer me, with the allegation that i am

not honest and fair towards you, something you came up quickly with, once

you realized that I am not willing to rely solely on your words and so called

circumstancial evidence.

I mean, dear researchers, are you looking for answers here, or are we

a book club all in happy anticipation for the release of

Enid Blyton's next book "Five friends and the laughing coffee bean " ?

Judyth Baker is serving the plates since 1999,at one point you're gonna

have to realy find out if the meal is real or if the cook is a crook.

Edited January 6, 2005 by Dave Weaver

[Judyth Baker]

To all: "David Weaver" calling me names and objecting that he can go ahead and use a fake name on this forum doesn't impress me.

Let's get back to the subject thjat I hope will help scholars and students understand why rhetorical devices are being used by Warren Commission apologists to hide the truth about the Kennedy Assassination, and why their arguments are still being listened to after all this time.

Basically, people need a coherent STORY that makes sense about the JFK assassination. The Warrren Commission materials do not, when examined closely, make much sense. For example, there is no real motive for the young father of two little girls he adored, who was only 24 and NOT the loneer OR the total failure he was puirported to be, who stated he admired Kennedy, to shoot the President.

It doesn't make sense and I, as a living witness, remain to tell you it's simply not true.

Therefore every possible means must be taken to discredit the living witness.

This is done by reminding people that any "story"given by an eyewitness "must"be based on "evidence"or it cannot be believed. Of course we know that many people have gone to prison based on eyewitness testimony, where nothing but the testimony was involved. Witnesses rarely can produce "all"the evidence needed to back up their story. However, if a witness can prove proximity to Oswald, as I can, it is important to at least listen to the report.

Then comes the rhetoric.

A report by a witness is always a 'story"compared to the 'facts.'

What people do not realize at times is that The Warren Commission has also presented 'a story"-- and the facts it uses to uphold its story have been discovered in many cases to be flawed.

The Warren Commission apologists can attack a witness such as me as often as they please, but they, themselves are wide open to criticism for: (1) witholdng thousands of files still classified secret or, if released, filled with blacked out sections, often covgering the entire document. (2) sending Joannides to represent the CIA to the HSCA is an example of deliberately hampering even official government inquiries into the truth (3) a stubborn refusal to adjust to reality after the public has been made aware of a cover-up, even if the cover-up was for national security forty-some years ago -- it's time the truth came out.

Most witnesses still alive try to keep low. I did. I knew what was ahead if I opened my mouth. I'm presently jobless and have lost all my possessions and even my health after four years of harrassment and character assassination. Living witnesses are a big pain to the Official Version.

Rhetorical devices against witnesses are easy to use. "PROVE IT" is easy to say. Ten years from now a survivor of the Tsunami, living in Sweden, who has lost passports and all remnants of 'evidence" might mention his or her experiences and not be believed. People involved with major figures in the Kennedy assassination rarely kept incriminating evidence. Evcen today I am threatened with arrest by some people for 'failing to contact the authorities' when of course my interference would have increased the danger of the informants and only put off Kennedy's execution to another spot. I do not think that anybody who knew of Kennedy's assassination in advance ever told anybody, except for such lost souls as Rose Cherami-- who wasn't believed.

I was twenty years old, living in Florida, under the watchful eye of Santo Trafficante, who would have stomped me out had I said a word.

The only way to discredit a witness-- who after all provides a framework, a narrative-- is to destroy the reputation of the witness or to say he or she simply is mistaken. Conally was WRONG about not being shot at the same time as JFK. His wife was WRONG, too. End of story. Historian Michael Kurtz was WRONG reporting he was in the same room with Lee Oswald and former FBI chief Guy Banister, who were working together. Orest Pena was WRONG when he reported Lee oswald and FBI agent Warren Debrueys meeting and speaking togetheron several occasions. I am WRONG that I met Guy Banister and was introduced to him by Lee Oswald, even though two secretaries there reported a "Mrs. Oswald"who was "lovelÿ"had been introduced to them by Lee Oswald in the presence of Guy Banister. "Mrs. Oswald"-- Marina-- said she had never been there. "Mrs. Oswald"Lee's mother was not 'lovely.' When I stand forth and explain that this was me-- that I am the missing link -- I am "LYING." Where is the evidence that I'm lying?

If this were all that I could say, it would be different. But I have proven Lee and I were hired by the same small sub company of a small company , ON THE SAME DAY, then transferred together one week later to the larger Reily organization, and that my last day of work was Aug. 9, the day Lee was arrested. I was terminated because a Reily employee saw me speaking to Lee just before his demonstration. I kept many records proving other contacts with Lee that a number of researchers have seen.

Tellingly, Reitzes, Weaver, McAdams, and others who attack me have not seen these documents. Nor, with the exception of one person, have they ever met me more than a moment.

BELOW, FOR THE USE OF STUDENTS AND SCHOLARS, I PRESENT THE PROBLEM THAT FACES THOSE TRYING TO GET TO THE TRUTH AS IT IS SEEN BY AN ACADEMIC WHO UNDERSTANDS THAT RHETORIC IS JUST A TOOL. WITNESSES CAN BE BATTERED AND HARMED BY RHETORIC.

I remain steadfast in my testimony, and as time passes and more repuutable and honest researchers contact me and investigate me, the dishonest attackers must rely more and more on name calling and invective. With patience and consistency, I will present not only the facts, but the true story, of Lee Harvey Oswald. People need to know the truth-- and the framework. I can give them that, and in my book-- which people have desperately tried to stop from getting published--the entire framework of facts and the true story-- will be presented.

There will ALWAYS be rhetorical objections to my story. But the only objections that critics can make of me as a witness will be attempts to defame my character-- because there is no doubt, for those who have investigated me thoroughly, that I was Lee Oswald's lover.

There will always be those who will deny it. But the logic and the way I can show how all the loose ends really come together will make sense. Documents can always be forged. But I, as a witness, cannot be duplicated. Nor can they intimidate me to change my story. Hence, the name calling, the rudeness, and the lack of evidence against me being what it is, the character assassination that must take its place.

Below--for scholars and thoughtful readers-- a goopd analysis of rhetoric as used in the kennedy assassination chronicles. I hope this will help the more intelligent readers to assess the nature of the problem.

Best regards,

Judyth Vary Baker

Seeking the Exoneration of Lee Harvey Oswald

=================== reference material for students below========

from:

Sophistic Synthesis in JFK Assassination Rhetoric

Roger Gilles, Grand Valley State University

1994

Presented at CCCC San Diego, 1993 (ED 400 532)

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/higher_critic..._Synthesis.html

WHAT WE "KNOW" ABOUT THE KENNEDY ASSASSINATION

Why are people still writing about the Kennedy assassination? We might reasonably assume that professional historians have by now sifted through the evidence and established beyond a reasonable doubt who killed Kennedy-and how and why. But this is not the case; indeed, as several historians have themselves pointed out, academic historians have been nearly silent on the Kennedy assassination (Kurtz, "Assassination" 1; Kurtz, Crime ix; Lesar 469; Wrone 332).

One historian who has written extensively on the assassination, Michael L. Kurtz, has received little support from his peers. Critics-even those who share his belief in a conspiracy- question everything from his accuracy and his use of sources to the degree of his speculation and his overall conclusions. David R. Wrone, for example, points out that Kurtz relies too much on Warren Commission documents. According to Wrone, Kurtz "accepts many key documents with little question" (332). Wrone also accuses Kurtz of breaking "the cardinal rule of history never to speculate but to remain faithful to evidence even if it leaves perpetual blanks in the narrative" (333). These and other criticisms point to two key dilemmas facing all assassination researchers in their quest for "knowledge" about the case: they are attempting to construct a credible reality based on a vast yet clearly incomplete world of evidence, so any reconstruction that remains "faithful to evidence" will surely include unsatisfying "blanks" that may threaten the overall plausibility of the whole; and they are basing their reconstructions on official documents, eyewitness testimonies, and photographic records that have in one way or another been filtered through the government and questioned by one critic or another over the course of three decades, so virtually any "theory" that draws on some records while ignoring or discounting others stands subject to a wide range of questions and criticisms.

The first dilemma may explain the lack of academic theorizing about the assassination. There are plenty of records about the assassination, but the amount of "admissable evidence" is open to debate. In academic terms, nothing in the twenty-six Warren Commission volumes and 360 cubic feet of related records or the twelve House volumes and 400 cubic feet of related records can be accepted uncritically. And because of well-publicized hints of government involvement in the assassination or in some kind of post-assassination cover-up, many critical readers find it difficult to accept any assassination records that have passed through government filters. Indeed, Wrone insists very plainly in The Journal of Southern History that even the most basic facts of the case remain elusive to those looking for legal or academic certainty: "No credible evidence connects any group or individual, including Oswald, to the murder" (333). Without a body of generally accepted evidence to draw upon, historians find it difficult to put together anything but a patchy picture indeed of the assassination.

The second dilemma is equally silencing. Everyone involved in moving beyond the paucity of generally accepted evidence and theorizing about the Kennedy assassination must accept some data while discounting other data; this is necessarily the case, just as it is necessarily the case in all theorizing, all historicizing, all arguing. Yet academic reviewers criticize Kurtz for being selective about accepting and omitting certain evidence from the Warren Commission and House Select Committee investigations (Garrow 304; Lesar 469). Both inside and outside of academia, most theories about the assassination are met with charges of faulty selection of evidence. As I've mentioned, almost no evidence in the case can be viewed with any degree of certainty. Those who argue against a conspiracy select a certain subset of evidence and interpret it in a particular way; those who argue for a conspiracy select a different subset of evidence and interpret it in a particular way. Both sides are, in their way, dealing with "probable truth," but the probability of their truths is dependent on that very unscientific process of selection. Because every theorist is by necessity selecting only a very small subset of possible records on which to base his or her theory, every theorist is open to easy criticism: "Your theory merely matches the evidence you've deliberately chosen to consider. Now, if you consider this document...." The reasoning almost inevitably becomes circular.

Not too surprisingly, the majority of conspiracy theories are in fact not positive theories at all-arguments drawing on specific records to build a full and coherent theory-but criticisms of the official theory put forth by the Warren Commission in 1964. Some of the major, best-selling conspiracy books-Mark Lane's Rush to Judgment, Sylvia Meagher's Accessories After the Fact, and Anthony Summers' Conspiracy, for example-are little more than critiques of the official version. The writers admit quite openly that there isn't enough evidence to put together any kind of positive theory; their argument is simply that the one positive theory put forth by the government is wrong. Most such conspiracists end their volumes by calling on the government to declassify the records and even to reopen the investigation so that an alternative theory might be constructed. When writers do put forth a positive theory-as Kurtz the historian does, as David Lifton does in Best Evidence, and as Jim Garrison does in On the Trail of the Assassins-critics on all sides leap to question and refute evidence and conclusions alike.

Perhaps more historical research would overcome these problems. But to conduct primary research on leads suggested by the Warren Commission and subsequent investigations, including Jim Garrison's, is now next to impossible given the dwindling number of eyewitnesses, the continuing passage of time, and the continuing inaccessibility of certain records related to the assassination (as late as April 1992, 2% of the archived Warren Commission records and all 400 cubic feet of the archived House records remained classified [McReynolds 384, 387-88]; since then, a good number of selected records have been released, but literally millions of pages remain unavailable [Kurtz, Crime lvi]). Plenty of independent information-much of it wildly conflicting-has been uncovered by a variety of private researchers and public agencies in the thirty years since the assassination, but this has simply added to the vast database from which any theory must be constructed. In any event, taking on a project of these proportions would be, as James H. Lesar notes in connection to Kurtz's effort, a "gargantuan task" (469).

These are serious, and silencing, dilemmas for researchers tied in general to what Kathleen E. Welch calls the Heritage School of rhetoric-and in particular to the Aristotelian, "logic-dominant" framework for valid argumentation as presented by rhetoricians in the Heritage School (Welch 53). Despite thirty years' time and an overwhelming amount of potential evidence in the case, academic historians still "know" nothing about who killed Kennedy. Their own logic, cautious and even admirable as it is, prevents them from drawing conclusions. As long as assassination theorists and critics subscribe to what Welch calls "exaggerated reason, hyperrationalism, and a procedural way of thinking that not only excludes emotion but in fact looks down on it" (37), no JFK assassination theory is likely to generate consensus. Ironically, Kurtz himself offers little hope that historians will ever agree, "even if all the evidence currently withheld by the government were released" ("Assassination" 19). This is why I am convinced that the Kennedy assassination must be treated as a rhetorical, rather than a historical, entity. If any public consensus is to be reached, it will be reached through rhetoric in all its guises, not merely through the Aristotelian version of Heritage School rhetoric.

<snip>

The fact that conspiracists seek to turn the Kennedy assassination into "story" by positioning it in terms of larger forces is at once the key to their rhetorical success and the main reason for their critical failure in a culture still dominated by an Aristotelian analytical lens. Early assassination accounts-the Warren Report, Jim Bishop's The Day Kennedy Was Shot, and Manchester's The Death of a President-all recount an essentially nonsensical assassination, a random event which disrupted the altogether different, Arthurian narrative of Kennedy's presidency. Then, as conspiracists such as Mark Lane, Sylvia Meagher, and Jim Garrison began to "make sense" of the assassination, media pundits and politicians attacked them for using evidence selectively, for speculating, for seeing more in the assassination than there actually was, and so on. It wasn't right to make sense, or story, where officially there was none. "Framing" the assassination was, to those subscribing to the official version of events, either delusional or irresponsible-certainly irrational, and irrationality is one quality a traditional Aristotelian worldview cannot accept.

The criticisms have gone the other way, too. Conspiracists themselves seek to "explain away" the Warren Commission Report as a deliberate political attempt to manipulate the American public. In Rush to Judgment, conspiracist Mark Lane states flatly that "[t]he Commission's responsibility to maintain public confidence in the American institutions overshadowed its mandate to secure and report the facts" (368-69). At least two academic historians agree that the Warren Commission had such motives. Michael Kurtz states that "the evidence makes it clear that [the Commission's] primary purpose was to put an end to the rumors and speculations and to convince the American public that no conspiracy existed" ("Assassination" 4). Marcus Raskin claims that the Commission was primarily concerned with "using the language and structure of conservative authority to move the nation from dis-ease to ease about the events of the Kennedy assassination" (487). In general, conspiracists view the Commission's findings as protective of its own particular worldview.

The theories--and criticisms--of conspiracists and nonconspiracists suggest the contrasting worldviews that guide their thinking. Conspiracists tend to offer up "structural" analyses of the assassination, suggesting in broad terms that history is the result of deliberate attempts by competing forces to gain or maintain control. Nonconspiracists tend to offer up "instrumental" analyses of the assassination that suggest that history is dominated by individuals-some acting with the force of legitimate power and some seizing power for brief, often terrifying, moments. At stake is more than just the factual "truth" about who killed John F. Kennedy. At stake is a larger, less fact-based cultural and even mythical "truth" about politics and government. Ultimately, then, perhaps the most successful assassination theories will be the ones that can not only argue for an Aristotelian "probable truth," but also appeal to or construct a larger cultural mythology that helps a majority of Americans understand the world they live in. This is the sort of rhetorical feat Susan Jarratt ascribes to sophists Protagoras and Gorgias, and indeed both Protagoras and Gorgias have suffered the kinds of criticisms that modern-day sophists Jim Garrison and Oliver Stone have received. Then as now, critics demanding Aristotelian or "rational" arguments are not pleased when they witness the popular success of sophistic forms of rhetoric.

for the entire article, see the website indicated at top=======jvb====please fiorgive typos, I have eye problems

[Judyth Baker]

Dawn and Dixie wrote:

If we disagree that does not indicate one of us has an agenda. It does not mean we are necessarily attacking each other. It also doesn't mean I am right and you are wrong. It is all human nature and the the nature of the beast.This is a most difficult study and it is bound to create conflict from time to time.

We tend to be passionate about our own beliefs and sometime it is hard to let go of a theory we have had for long time. In every forum I am involved in, there are sometime super conflicts, but then they just die down and then calmness before another storm.

Yes, I do realize that most all the forums requires a true full name. I find no fault with that rule. But do you believe everyone actually adheres to that rule? I know for a fact they don't. But then what we don't know isn't going to actually hurt us. That is mainly what I was expressing to Judyth, which she regarded as an attack on her.

However, I feel she has been attacking (actually trashing) some guy ]\

DEAR DAWN AND DIXIE:

I have to agree that I've been oversensitive about this. I am not trying to 'trash" Mr. Roy/Blackburst, though, and certainly not because his book might disagree with mine. I was talking about a person who sat on a panel about Oswald in New Orleans who had known a lot about me for a whole year, who, along with three other panelists who also knew about me, some a great deal, said almost nothing about this new witness. People had paid a lot of money to get the newest information as well as all the old. They did not get it.

Mr. Roy-- the person sitting there on the panel ---did not reveal that he was also Mr. David Blackburst ---a name that he used online. He obviously uses that name in public, but here in public he is using the name of Roy, so it can be seen that it is not fear that is involved.

Then what is it? Should he be angry at me for telling people he is the same person and should use his real name, when failing to let people at the Lancer Conference know he was Blackburst, the Ferrie expert, meant that many internet newsgroup readers were in the dark about his expertise on Dave Ferrie, which was never mentoned in his panel description. He was merely called an expert on New Orelans, not on Dave Ferrie. That was a shame, and I considered it an example of the game playing that should not be going on.

Well, he is angry. But I am trying to expose the fact that we have unnecessary secrecy and hiding of names, and people cannot trace people, their motives, their actions. That is not right.

Blackburst online had commented about me on the newsgroups extensively. but ROY on the panel did not mention me by name, or go into anything that would make anybody realize that he knew so much.

IF the same name was used both places, people would have asked Mr. Roy/Blackburst about me. They wpuld have asked deep questions about Dave ferrie. Instead, people did not know, and in 2000-- now four years ago-- people who had paid good money to hear the latest evidence were denied that opportunity, and were denied the knowledge they would need to ask effectual questions of Mr. Roy/Mr. Blackburst.

I do agree I've been testy with you, Dixie, and I do apologize. I believe you are sincere in seeking the truth, and I hope we can work together. Same to you, Dawn. I am certain you care about the truth.

The thread here is about Dave Reitzes because he has a great deal of presence on the Internet-- and has written material of a sophist and rhetorical nature which I wish to expose, because he is trying to discredit me and i am a living witness willing to defend myself. He also uses his rhetorical skills to sway in other areas. These tactics must be exposed so students and scholars unfamiliar with the case will not be fooled into making conclusions that will lead them astray.

I encourage, above all, honesty, and therefore also included in this thread how hiding one's name can impede inquiry. It has to stop, IMHO.

I do look forward to your comments and hope you will find this thread interesting.

Believe me, I do not like making an enemy of Mr. Blackburst/Mr. Roy, who has done a lot of good research. I am grateful that almost singlehandedly he has collected together most of the documents about Dave ferrie in this case. My problem is with the contamination of his witneesses, and his interviewing methods, and, most lately, with hiding his identity and so making it impossible to question "Mr. Blackburst"when appearing as "Mr. Roy."

It is hiding the name and therefore making it impossible for internet readers to know these men were one and the same-- possibly impeding inquiries about the new witness--myself-- and about Dave Ferrie-- that was of concern.

If you can provide examples of rhetoric used to obscure the truth in this case, it would be helpful. Mr. Roy's rhetorical device was simply using a fake name. And no connection could be made, then, with the man on the Internet who was seeing all the info about "Judyth"with Oswald in New Orleans, AND WHO HAD CORRESPONDED WITH HER-- none of this was known to anyone at Lancer 2000 except for himself and Debra Conway. this is why I asked if Debra Conway had instructed these panelists not to mention my name. Mr. Roy said not so, he made this decision all by himself because he thought I did not want it mentioned.

But that is not true. In fact, I was so concerned when I found out that there was gojng to be an "Oswald in New Orleans" panel-- and that Debra Conway had not told me so, but had actually only mentioned a different panel, (no, I did not know Lancer was online! I have been accused of using the internet to get research materials, but actualoy, I didn't even know Lancer was online to check the agenda, nor did I know that google existed until that month... etc.I did know about the newsgroups only because somebody showed me how to get to that web address)....

Concerned that I had not been informed about the Oswald in New Orleans panel by debra Conway, I realized that people would not be learning of a new witness (and indeed, none of the four panelists mentioned me by name). So, I even arranged with Mary Ferrell to get a suite (she would pay for it!) there so I could speak out. I was dissuaded from doing this, as it would only compete with the Lancer meetings and I really would not have had enough time to present my case in full to so many people in so short a time. Also, Mary Ferrell said I should use a fake name to protect myself (I have her email). That I would not do, so I did agree not to go to Lancer 2000's hotel and tell people I existed.

But Mr. Roy knew from newsgroup commotion about this at the time that I wanted to be there to tell people that I was a witness wishing to exonerate Lee Oswald, and willing to testify as to his innocence, since he told me personally he hoped to save Kennedy's life. What a man -- Lee---to quiet with a bullet to the thorax! So Mr. Roy/Mr. Blackburst had an excuse that did not match what he saw for days on the internet--that I wanted to speak out there. He should have told people my name, and some of my claims, if only to dismiss them. He did not do so.

Thanks again for your comments and I apologize, once more, for being overly sensitive. I've been kicked around a bit, so there are a few sore spots, hope you understand. I think we are on the same side.

This thread is to discuss Dave retizes and his rhetorical machinations that distory the truth. If people want to ask me questions, threy should start a new thread.

God bless!

And my best regards to both of you,

Judyth Vary Baker

Edited January 6, 2005 by Judyth Baker

[Nancy Eldreth]

Judyth I did respect your wishes and posted a thread just for you.

I do hope you answer my questions.

And Judyth I bet if we matched each other I would top you in being kicked around in life. I would more than top you.

Uwe can destroy the private email I gave you or not that is entirely up to you.

I will respect your opinion in getting facts out.

Thanks,

[Dixie Dea]

Deleted by personal choice!

DMD

Edited January 7, 2005 by Dixie Dea

[Nancy Eldreth]

Thank you Dixie for what you wrote to me privately.

Looks that way.

I have another thread and keep adding to it which even you saw and Judyth avoids the thread.

Maybe added to both threads she will answer and maybe not.

I am afraid if she avoids those questions then Judyth has exposed herself as a fraud and I will always know this. I was one to totally believe her SO MUCH.

Losing my faith in that now. Maybe it is me but everyone tells me NO IT ISN"T YOU IT IS JUDYTH BAKER.

I even told Judyth that someone told me privately that is also on this forum and won't give the name out for confidentaly that they too knew that Mary Farrell was big trouble and about somethings not right about Lancer and Debra. I won't tell who it was that told me this. However I stated to Judyth this fact alone COULD BACK YOUR STORY.

What did Judyth DO

WISH ME WELL.

OK

Fine Judyth take it or leave it but some people do read some of my posts.

I know for a fact as soon as I posted the thread that Gary Mack was online on Simkins and was into that posts of which you refuse to answer.

It was fast too. Now, Judyth it is hopeful that you do answer me.

GOOD LUCK NOW and I wish you well.

[Judyth Baker]

Well, Dixie, now you have written Nancy and she has mentioned it immediately.

You wrote all of that about Lancer 2000 ---and at the bottom apologized, for it was Lancer 1999 that you were really talking about. I would appreciate your going back and editing your post to say 1999, and I hope, as you do so, to remove statements about my situqation. By the eway, I have emails from Mary offering me to stay in her suite with her in 2000. She was going to pay all my bills, including transportation. She wanted me to use a fake name. that is why I turned down her offer and rented a suite on my own nickel. I canceled it after realizing that people would not have time to make decnet/lengthed interviews. More on that is below, for it is important that a witness be interviewed properly. I do hope you will edit your post for the reasons I´ve stated. Thanks very much.

I hope you will enjoy your correspondence with Nancy Eldreth.

She demands things now, or else, even when repreatedly told that the book is coming out this year. She also will eventually show your emails to everybody, so be careful what you write.

meanwhile, back to the topic.

°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°° INTERVIEWS AND RHETORIC BY RESEARCHERS, WITH SPECIAL ATTENTION TO MR. DAVY´S COMMENTS ABOUT MR. DAVE REITZES°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°

We are discussinG Dave Reitzes' rhetoric and research methods, since he puiblishes a great deal on the Internet which affects those scholars and students who read it.

The websites look professional, AND there are many citations, and Mr. reitzes seems to be presenting information correctly. But he does He?

Mr. Reitzes is not known as a man who seeks to interview witnesses. He usually relies, as do most researchers in this case, on quotes from others.

SECONDARY SOURCES: "48 Chromosome Knowledge"

I am reminded how for many years people thought the human nucleus had 48 chromosomes --because the male chromosome XY type was shown in the first photo of the elicted chromosomal materials, ALONG with the female XX type. Everybody quoted it that way for some two decades, as I recall, until somebody noticed that the first quote stating humans had 48 chromosomes was wrong. Somebody should have asked the scientist who posted the photo how many chromosomes were in the typical human cell's nucleus. Nobody interviewed HIM. They relied on the photo that was published, they counted the chromosomes, and came up with 48.

Personal interviews CAN often bring out the truth-- sometimes even if the person interviewed lies, for their statements might contrast with what they said previously. Now, I am talking about live interviews, depositions, audio and video tapes, and statements made in the presence of an additional witness who can vouch that the statement was not coerced and is accurately transcribed (even then transcribed statements are occasionally redacted).

The quality of the interview of course rests on knowing the situation at the time of the interview. People tended to lie about Lee Oswald right after the assassination. The same people, years later, often moderated their statements or even said they had not been quoted correctly. orest Pena told The warren Commission nothing about the relationship between Warren DeBrueys and Lee Oswald. Later, several sources confirmed that Pena had been threatened. Eventually, Pena told everything, and his progress toward telling the truth is understandable and he is to be admired for finally telling the truth. Such a witness should not be discredited since there is proof that the witness was afraid to begin with.

These matters must be taken into consideration.

In the case of WILLIAM DAVY AND DAVE REITZES, an example of how failing to interview subjects can turn even Mr. Reitzes' "good" research awry is presented here (remember, I am not trying to say that Mr. Reitzes is a poor investigator. He digs into things. But I am trying to say that he is selective, and reports as it suits him to support his personal beliefs, often using rhetorical devices, and rarely conducting live interviews. That means he is not really a researcher. He is, instead, a spokesman.).

William Davy realized that Mr. Reitzes had a propensity for making statements without getting interviews from living witnesses. A good example is what happened to me. Mr. Reitzes never spoke to me one moment 'live.' He never visited me. Mr. Davy wrote `Let Justice Be done`, which is filled with the results of many live witness interviews, and he is sensitive when Mr. Reitzes ´corrects´him based on " 48 chromosome" knowledge:

Concerning Mr. Reitzes'methodology, Davy wrote this (among many other complaints, after Reitzes attacked his book):

"Reitzes’ ...claims I "attempt to rehabilitate nutball witness Charles Spiesel (Davy 173-4)." In fact, I do no such thing. On the very pages Reitzes cites I list all of Spiesel’s wild, paranoid claims. I criticize his story as being too pat and describe his testimony as "lunatic." Is this Reitzes’ idea of rehabilitation? It was Judge Haggerty himself who thought Spiesel may have been dismissed too easily and I note that in the book.

Reitzes then writes "Davy also presents a dubious new theory of his own when he attempts to link the mental hospital in Jackson, where Oswald allegedly was seeking a job, to the CIA’s infamous MK/ULTRA mind control experiments." No, this was recalled to us by Dr. Alfred Butterworth, one of the East Louisiana State Hospital’s physicians and corroborated by other hospital employees. Tell us Mr. Reitzes, how many of the Jackson hospital employees did you interview?`

Of course I also report on secret goings-on at Jackson. In my book, I include the supporting statement of a living witness who himself was a subject of medical testing at Jackson almost at the same time of the experiences i recount at Jackson. Davy complains, justifiably, that he interviewed a witness to support his statement, knowing that Reitzes interviewed nobody, and that reitzes relies on secondary materials. Wrote Davy next:

`But less commendable, according to Reitzes, is my "acceptance of Daniel Campbell’s assertions that Banister was a "bagman for the CIA" and "was running guns to Alpha 66 in Miami (There is no evidence to support either claim)." I guess Reitzes naively expects a CIA document to appear affirming something like that. While he’s waiting, he may be interested to know that this was confirmed by Dan Campbell’s brother, Allen as well as close Banister associate, Joe Newbrough. Tell us Mr. Reitzes, how many of Banister’s operatives did you interview?"

In fact, Mr. Reitzes rarely interviews anyone, but will refute the claims of writers such as Davy who can back up their statements with live interviews, relying himself on secondary sources.

So, we now point out that living witness statements are preferable to secondary sources, especially where the conditions of the interviews are known. Such statements can be lies. I have seen interviews by the FBI and Secret Service where the person being interviewed stated the interviews were not correctly reported. Therefore direct quotes should be part of the report of an interview. The direct quote must also be IN CONTEXT. If a person said in a live interview, `I have always believed Lee Harvey Oswald shot Kennedy until I Mr. X told me his side of the story.` If this is reported as `I have always believed Lee Harvey Oswald shot Kennedy...`then the ´live+´interview has been distorted.

needless to say, I have seen my own quotes similarly distorted from their original context.

All these factors must be taken into account.

In the end, judging the quality of a researcher´s work includes these considerations:

1) live interviews reported in context whenever possible

2) quotations not taken out of context

3) balanced presentation where conflicts exist (cannot ignore important arguments `on the other side´)

4) willingness to post corrections when shown to be in error

5) avoidance of use of pejorative or prejudicial statements (I removed, for example, a statement made by Davy against Reitzes that was overly prejudiced against Reitzes, where the three dots are located in the quote).

6) the use of footnotes or end notes to back up statemenhts... and when checked, that these notes actually exist and are accurate (errors may happen, but they should not be chronic) ... and avoiding using ONESELF as the `source`of a statement (I was astonished to find one researcher quoting his earlier works over and over again as his ´source´of information)

7) if a ´researcher´ constantly publishes material only supporting one side of a theory, unless that person is a WITNESS, he or she is displaying an AGENDA. A witness has the right to seek supporting evidence, though every witness should know what is out there against him or her in matters of controversy such as the Kennedy assasssination, especailly since lying occurs (sadly, by officials, too).

A researcher has to seek evidence for and against his or her thesis. If only one side is presented, the person is not a researcher. A witness can legitimately defend only his or her side, because that witness is speaking from experience. researchers must decide if what the witness says is true, distorted, or false. Honest researchers take care and time to do live interviews and to present both sides of the picture in witness testimony sitruations.

Otherwise, they are said to have an AGENDA and are being SELECTIVE in presenting their evidence.

°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°

Final comment: There is so much evidence ---and there are so many conflicting statements in the Kennedy assassination materials---- that most people are overwhelmed. I´ve been more fortunate, because, as a witness, I know what Lee Oswald, for example, really was doing on certain days. I knew him as a living, breathing person.

This helps me to quickly sort through conflicting stories. Therefore, I am also in a position to know who has been lying.

It is a distressing position to be in, but one I take with humility and dedication. I also know whom to respect among present `researchers´in the JFK research community. And who should be rebuked for muddying the waters fore their own purposes.

Best regards,

Judyth Vary Baker

Seeking the Exoneration of Lee Harvey Oswald

[Dixie Dea]

Deleted by personal choice!

DMD

Edited January 7, 2005 by Dixie Dea

[Judyth Baker]

Dixie... I am sorry if I upset you.

==j==

[Bernice Moore]

Dixie... I am sorry if I upset you.

==j==

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

IMO....

It's none of your business whom Dixie emails.....and you wish you had

upset her, instead of just cheesing off another person..your not that

good.....get over yourself..

It does not matter whom replies to you, or what question they

ask, you turn the tables with glee, and attack...and then and if you

find out how wrong you are, you try to come back all sweetness and light.

Forget it......you always go too far...have watched this

for many years, on many forums, you are worse now than you have

ever been..and don't whine back about how you have been attacked

we have all heard it a million times, and heck girlie many have been,

get over it...and look to yourself for the reason why..the difference is

they don't make a production out of it....

Wonder why most people do not respond to your posts....

take your pick....but one of the bottom reasons being..

their opinions and differences are always regarded as a

personal attack against you....you only discuss the evidence

with those whom agree with you, therefore nothing is

accomplished...

How about answering some questions from Uwe or Nancy instead of

whining about why you can't ,won't and do not want to....or refusing to

reply....

I know this thread is suppose to be about another subject....but it has

changed....you changed it....

This is my opinion Judyth, to which I am entitled, like it

or lump it...

You and your no discussions are simply not worth the time nor effort

to correspond with you on any matter...and boy does this thread prove

that point.....Dix tried to relate some information to you...and you xxxxe

on her.....

Now go hollar for John again, as you have in the past about who this woman

is who is " attacking" you , the words you seem to always use,

who cares...

you have worn it all out....you give nothing...it is all about you....

You and your story simply aren't worth bothering with any longer....Nancy and Uwe are right..

IMO....

[Judyth Baker]

RESPONSE FROM JUDYTH TO BERNICE:

Well, Bernice, you have said the same elsewhere about me, and you are welcome to your opinion.

==============================================

RETURNING TO THE THREAD ABOUT MR. REITZES' RHETORICAL DEVICES, ETC:

Meanwhile, back to the matter of Dave Reitzes. This will be the last material I intend to publish in this thread.

I will be happy to respond to persons who begin a different thread instead of derailing this one, as I have already said several times now.

Tthread, I repeat, is dedicated to understanding how the rhetorical tactics of Mr. Reitzes might affect the opinions and understandings of scholars and students who come across his elaborate and very nice looking websites. In fact, his websites are full of a lot of important information. It is what he says about his information, and, sometimes, the highly selective nature of the information presented, that is of concern.

It is to be understood that Mr. Reitzes is actually a SPOKESMAN, not a RESEARCHER.

There are some facts in research that must not be forgotten. Some concern late witness testimony:

1) Earliest witness testimony is usually the most accurate EXCEPT IF IT WAS COERCED OR INFLUENCED.

2) If a witness radically changes his or her testimony many years later, care must be taken to determine WHY.

3) If the witness does not radically change his or her testimony, but much later adds new information, care must be taken to learn why the new information was not released earlier. Sometimes, one learns that it was, but selective reportage obscured the fact. Sometimes, a person simply forgot. Other times, the person wanted to wait until the other person died so that they would not have to worry about a lawsuit (this was my reason for waiting).

4) If the witness did not speak out for many years, and is a new witness, care must be taken to learn why the information was not released earlier, and why the new witness did not stand forth.

In most cases, fear of not being believed, of losing one's job, of being accused of supporting an unpopular cause or position, of losing security or approval from employers, family members, and so on, influence the timing of the release of new information. Rarely, a person was never asked a certain question and/or refused to volunteer information unless confronted.

Now, let's look at an example of late testimony, and how Mr. Reitzes treats it. The following is an example of late testimony that Mr. Reitzes stated he rejected. He also stated here that he rejects all late testimony:

The exchange below concerns Dave Reitzes' attitude toward late information elicited from a credible witness, Lou Ivon, by a credible researcher, Bill Davy (whose writings and research, however, had been previously attacked by Dave Reitzes):

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"In 1995, Lou Ivon, an investigator for Garrison, told Davy that in

February 1967 he had met with a frightened David Ferrie, who admitted

doing contract work for the CIA and who knew Oswald and Shaw."

REITZES: Even granting the hearsay is true, where's it say that Garrison got any

leads from Ferrie? It doesn't. You expect everyone to just assume

that's what is meant?

[...]

And had you ever bothered to interview Ivon yourself, slacker? No? Then appreciate the fact that Davy did your legwork for you.

Davy's interview of anyone, nearly 3 decades after the event, is

meaningless. It proves zilch, which is just one of the reasons I found

the citation meaningless.

I really don't care what Ivon says today about the case.

Nor do I care what Peterson says Davy says Ivon says. What is pertinent is what Ivon and Garrison were saying back then about the case. Do you have anything along those lines?"

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reitzes says he will not accept information given so late: "Davy's interview of anyone, nearly 3 decades after the event, is meaningless."

But in February, 2001, Mr. Reitzes has to explain why he was going to accept late testimony from Patricia Lambert, who supports his theories. Now he says something very interesting about Davy's new material from Ivon that he formerly rejected:

"Regarding Patricia Lambert's "False Witness"...We can argue about the theme of her book, but until I see some reason to doubt the accuracy of the factual material, I will accept her citations of documents and interviews as accurate. So in this matter, I accept that Alcock said what she related that he said.

Before you go comparing this to my feelings about Bill Davy's book, I did the

same comparison with primary sources.

Davy was likewise careful to present factual material substantially accurately, although I quibble with some of his interpretations.

For the same reason, I am willing to accept that Lou Ivon did say the things Davy quotes him as saying."

=================================================

A spokesman will say one thing and later say another as it suits him to promote his viewpoint. A researcher will present the facts and, if mistaken, will make a point of making a retraction that is not buried deep within another message somewhere.

In just this one example (there are more) I have shown that Mr. Reitzes says he will not accept late testimony from Mr. Davy given him by Mr. Ivon, but later he WILL accept late testimony (that he agrees with) from Patricia Lambert, and oh, by the way, now he DOES accept the testimony of Ivon as reported by Davy.

Students and scholars relying on Reitzes' former opinion would hardly be expected to have to search for his change of mind (a change of mind necessary to be able to accept new testimony from Patricia Lambert).

Finally, (and perhaps we can now end this thread now on Mr. Reitzes'being a SPOKESMAN rather than a researcher), we should look at a theory that Mr. Reitzes presented on his website about the Clinton, LA witnesses who say they saw Lee Oswald, Dave Ferrie, and Clay Shaw together.

The witnesses were very different from each other, composed of KKK members, for example, and CORE members (blacks who were trying to get blacks in Clinton to register to vote.). These were odd bedfellows, and they would not be expected to be in collusion about anything, since the KKK people were putting the CORE people in jail that same year.

Now let's look at the argument Mr. Reitzes, in his attempts to discredit the Clinton witnesses, offers to explain why they might have been in conspiracy with each other. Researcher Robert Harris speaks to Mr. Reitzes about a theory Reitzes proposed to 'prove' the Clinton witnesses were lying:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

"David,

In your article, *impeaching clinton* you suggest that CORE members Corrie

Collins and William Dunn conspired with the KKK to falsely place Oswald

and his friends in Clinton La.

In order to make them go along with their scheme, you suggest that the

Klan threatened to connect Oswald to CORE, and that such a connection might destroy the organization."

Mr. Reitzes replied:

"You're making all this up, Bob. Nowhere do I say that Collins or Dunn

conspired with the KKK, and nowhere do I say that they were threatened in

the manner you suggest."

HARRIS: ...Lets go directly to your article (some of this appeared in my original

post, but David snipped it), and perhaps you will tell us what you

*really* meant to say:

>******************************************************

The question that keeps arising, however, is how the Ku Klux Klan could

benefit from the claim that Lee Oswald merely stood in line at a CORE

voter registration drive. Since Jim Garrison's death in 1992, a number of

previously unknown documents have turned up amidst his private papers, and

one such document may well be the "smoking gun" that answers that

question. In a memorandum of January 22, 1968, Andrew Sciambra writes,

"Mr. Palmer informed me that John Manchester has recently told him that

right around the time the black Cadillac was in Clinton, he remembers

seeing a boy who fit Oswald's description coming out of a CORE meeting in

Clinton and when he left the CORE meeting, Manchester followed him and the

car went in the direction of Jackson, Louisiana."(56)

Recall how quickly the Fair Play for Cuba Committee folded -- in only a

matter of weeks -- once it had been linked, however superficially, with

the alleged assassin of President Kennedy.

>******************************************************

David, your claim or implication, or whatever you wish to now call it, is

patently absurd, which I presume you have known all along, and is the

reason you are now denying you even said it.

If the Klan really thought they could destroy CORE by connecting it with

Oswald, they certainly would not have used that to blackmail the

organization. They would have gone ahead and tried to publicize their

claim."

Mr. Reitzes then replied: "I agree with you, Mr. Harris. Of course, I don't make any such claim, so I'm not sure what your point is. My question remains: Why not deal with the facts, hmm?"

HARRIS: "David, I have cited the actual words from your article. What other "facts"

are at issue here?"

Mr. Reitzes then dodges the question, saying:

"Do you have any credible evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald, alone or

otherwise, was in East Feliciana Parish, Mr. Harris? If so, now would be a

good time to present it. Lurkers, find out why Mr. Harris dwells solely upon the unverifiable issue of motive and refuses to discuss the documented facts that the Clinton story is a fraud."

Mr. Harris then returns the reader to the matter in question:

"Of course you didn't (make such a claim) David. So when can we expect you to correct your article by inserting some kind of statement which makes it clear, how idiotic it would be to believe such a thing?

(When will you)...make it clear that there is not even a shred of evidence to support the notion that these men lied??

I have an even better idea, David.

Just in case some other poor soul misunderstands you the way I did, why

don't you put all these recent denials you are now posting, right into the

article?!

Why don't you make it crystal clear to your readers, how preposterous it

would be for them to think that the Klan intimidated Collins and/or Dunn

to make them perjure themselves?

Are you going to do that David?

Robert Harris

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A scholar or a student who goes to Dave Reitzes'website and reads about the Clinton Witnesses will find that Mr. Reitzes did not change his article, even though he admitted, here, that

"I agree with you, Mr. Harris. Of course, I don't make any such claim..."

I do not take pleasure in pointing out these problems with Mr. Reitzes'writings. My concern is that students and scholars will believe that his statements are that of a Researcher, when in fact, Mr. Reitzes places information in the light that best supports what he stands for as a Spokesman.

How does one identity a Spokesman? Usually, it's hard, unkless one is a witness who knows the truth. Also, if one has been misquoted, or is a researcher who realizes, as Mr, Harris did, what is going on.

Hence, to understand what is going on, distinctions must be made among the sets of people most active in the Kennedy Assassination information network:

(1) Spokesmen -- such as Mr. Reitzes and Dr. John McAdams, who may present information in the same style as researchers, but guide students and readers, inevitably, to preconceived conclusions. A common characteristic, as shown above: will not retract or change misleading statements unless forced or shamed into doing so. May present hearsay as fact. May include judgmental terms such as "claims to be" and "wants us to believe" and "tries to convince..."etc. as if the reader has a different opinion which is now being challenged by an untruth.

(2) Researchers, such as Peter Dale Scott, Harrison Livingstone, Edward Haslam, Jerry Rose, Greg Parker, James Olmstead, Martin Shackelford, and Clark Wilkins.

Present facts. Attempt to present both sides of an argument fairly. When presenting theories, clearly indicate same. Try to obtain all possible material. Try not to select only material supporting the theories they present. Will retract and change statements when errors are discovered.

(3) Information gatherers-- include such persons as Jerry P. Shinley, and Stephen Roy (AKA Blackburst) who provide important information to the research community and who function best when they present all, not a portion, of what is available to them.

(4) Witnesses -- of every sort, honest and dishonest, important or obscure, whose statements are selected by members of the other groups according to their functions, and whose statements are sometimes gathered independently by reporters-- such as Marina Oswald Porter, Dave Ferrie, Robert Oswald, Al Maddox, Mrs. Garner, Lou Ivon, William Livesay, and myself.

(5) reporters -- who hap (or are ordered) upon information, witnesses, researchers, and spokesmen, bringing out stories, and sometimes conclusions based on their interviews and records made available to them (unless they are, in secret, a Spokesman... note the recent scandal of government ads posing as "news"-- a prime example of the function of a "spokesman"posing as a "researcher"or, in that case, as a "reporter").

(6) Recruits: who will join any of the above groups according to their desire or premeditated function. they may or may not be ignorant. They may or may not be honest, independent, or real people. Recruits may turn into any of the above, but typically drop out after a short time. They often provide temporary support to a Spokesman.

(7) NayDisJokers: Naysayers, Disrupters, and Jokers: Those who, in forums and newsgroups, and in chatrooms, etc. insert jokes, attacks, disrupt threads, derail arguments, and in other ways stop the arguments from progressing by deflecting to another subject.

NayDisJokers generally support Spokemen. They may be recruits or they may simply want to support their favorite Spokesmen. Such persons rarely supply new facts. They can usually be identified as NayDisJokers because the thread or argument gets derailed or turns into a bunch of jokes. Siometimes personal attacks are used, and if the person being attacked does not respond, the NayDisJoker will say that they are avoiding the attacker and must, therefore have a reason for doing so. In fact, many very prodcutive research threads end with the comments of NayDisJokers, and the work is then lost.

This is the last material I wish to publish at this time concerning Mr. Reitzes and his function as a Spokesman.

My intention is not to harm him, but only to point out the inconsistencies, position, rhetorical devices, and agenda promulgated by Mr. Reitzes, particularly since he has misrepresented my statements and my testimony in what seems to be several attempts to seem to be presenting "research"-- though he has never interviewed me.

I have presented this material not only to point out the problems Mr. Reitzes has in presenting himself as a researcher, but also to provide a guide and a warning to students and scholars in their search for the truth regarding the Kennedy Assasssination.

An understanding of the above categories will help, I hope, to clear the smoke and fumes so that students and scholars might find their way through the disaster zone of disinformation and false leads to the true smoking guns.

Anyone who wishes to talk to me about my status as witness is welcome to do so, as I have stated several times now, by starting a new thread. Demanding me to post evidence in this thread, especially when I have stated my book will soon be coming out (-- and these are very general and broad demands-- ) will not be answered. I consider them to be NayDisJoker interferences.

Any particular question, such as some aspect of my relationship to Lee Oswald, I will be happy to answer and may also provide evidence for same, in a different thread.

I repeat again that I have provided evidence in private to well known investigators who are satisfied with my status as a witness who intimately knew Lee Harvey Oswald. I wish to protect my own living witnesses, as well as some evidence we are still trying to find. Some of my living witnesses have already experienced intimidation and threats. In private, much is being accomplished.

I wish to thank the many people who are sending me private emails of encouragement. God bless you all!

Best regards,

Judyth Vary Baker

Seeking the Exoneration of Lee Harvey Oswald