Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile - Printable Version

+- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora)
+-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: JFK Assassination (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-3.html)
+--- Thread: Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile (/thread-3232.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55

Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile - Jan Klimkowski - 20-03-2010

James H. Fetzer Wrote:RESPONSE FROM MY PSY OPS EXPERT:

(snip)

Now I am going to refer to the single most incredible event that was breached in recent history. This is so far out that no one would ever believe it unless the perps were caught red handed and their homebase in DC was searched, cataloged and photographed (they were and it was). This was a crash of another kind, but it was a crash indeed. The perps have never been brought to justice, the victims were released to the perps, and these types of intel function are still ongoing to this very day, probably even more frequently now.

This thread was never pulled and if it had it would have gone all the way to Congress, the White House and deep inside intel and the shadow government. This case just like the Hasenfus case in Iran Contra "arms for drugs" case is based on irrefutable evidence that is completely documented. There is no way to slither out of this one. I will now provide copies of original documents which have been validated seven different ways from Sunday. (The source was the Chief Investigator of a well known US Congressman who sent copies to me. He said there could be no secrecy law covering crimes this horrendous.) But this is the kind of thing that intel does every day:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/illuminatievilinamerica/sets/72157623361445230/

There's a DPF thread on the Finders case here:

http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1964

As stated there, I personally spoke with Special Agent Ramon J Martinez. I can confirm that he was furious at what had happened.

With regard to this Judyth Vary Baker thread, the important matter is to hear her story and evaluate the evidence substantiating it.

Eustace Mullins was an anti-semite and a McCarthyite, but his politics are not dissimilar from those of many intel operatives.

If Mullins' work provides evidence supporting or damaging Judyth's story, let's hear it. If not, Mullins is a complete distraction and there's no reason to discuss him here.

Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile - James H. Fetzer - 20-03-2010

OK. Those who have studied Armstrong's work could cite my own post here against me, since I have not studied his work. I have obtained his massive book, however, so that moves me a giant step forward. Judyth has more to say about the photographic record, which I shall post shortly. Dawn's point about two very different personalities and characters is rather fascinating, however, namely: that witness after witness who knew "Lee" described the same person: quick tempered, not given to talks of Marxism, never uttering a word of Russian, while witness after witness who knew "Harvey" describe a mild mannered man, not given to fights, very taken with the intellectual concepts of Marxism, perfect Russian, which would suggest that they were two distinct people. So I will bear that in mind. As Jack has remarked earlier, it would appear that the person Judyth knew, assuming there were two, was the one Armstrong refers to as "Harvey"; but of course there is no good reason she should have had any idea of the existence of a man living a parallel life. Even Jesse Ventura, AMERICAN CONSPIRACIES--which I recommend as a kind of refresher course about the commonplaceness of the occurrence of significant conspiracies in American history--talks about the prospect of there having been "two Oswalds". I would also observe that the importance and illumination of what Judyth has to tell us does not appear to hinge on Armstrong's work or upon any denial of the possible existence of another Oswald. Since the purpose of this thread continues to be to present and to archive major portions of her story, I shall pursue that objective, with a nod here and there to the question of the existence of two Oswalds, where, even if Armstrong is right, some of the evidence and arguments advanced for his thesis may be phony or wrong. Perhaps most worth emphasizing, whether or not Armstrong is right does not imply that Judyth was mistaken about the man she knew in New Orleans. She turns out to be a remarkable woman in many different ways, including having a knack for research, but her primary role is surely that of a WITNESS about her personal experiences with a man who became a crucial part of her life and related events rather than a STUDENT OF THE ASSASSINATION. As far as I can see, Judyth does not bear the burden of disproving the existence of "two Oswalds", but only that of clarifying, elucidating, and substantiating her knowledge of the man she knew as "Lee" in New Orleans.

James H. Fetzer Wrote:OK. Attacks from those who have not studied issues bother me a lot. But I appreciate it and will try to do better--and not overuse bold.

Magda Hassan Wrote:I would ask that all members refrain from personal attacks and keep the focus on the research and data only. Please count to 10 if you are feeling particularly pissed off and then let the moment pass. It is not worth having this interesting thread derailed just to have a swipe at some one.

Carry on gentlemen.

Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile - James H. Fetzer - 20-03-2010

MEASURING UP: THE 'LEE' AND 'HARVEY' PHOTO COMPARISON

NOTE: This is not intended as a dismissal of the massive documentary trail John Armstrong, HARVEY & LEE: HOW THE CIA FRAMED OSWALD (2003), but as a commentary on some of the evidence that has been adduced in support of Armstrong's thesis of "the two Oswalds". Even if some of the "evidence" is not well-founded, that does not mean his thesis is false. Because of her background in physical anthropology, however, Judyth is well-positioned to address the photographs.

JUDYTH EXPLAINS:

TIME TO TALK ABOUT THE TWO PHOTOS THAT SOME PEOPLE THINK MEANS TWO DIFFERENT SKULLS, RE 'LEE' AND 'HARVEY'. FIRST OF ALL, I HAVE A SLIGHT ADVANTAGE WITH A DEGREE IN PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY, WHICH IS A B.S., NOT A B.A.

I HAD TO LEARN TO MEASURE AND RECONSTRUCT ACTUAL HUMAN AND PRIMATE SKULLS AND SKELETONS OF ALL AGES AND FROM VARIOUS GEOLOGIC TIME PERIODS--FROM MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD TO MODERN TIMES.

THE TWO PHOTOS BELOW HAVE OFTEN BEEN USED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT 'HARVEY' AND 'LEE' ARE DIFFERENT PEOPLE. BUT THERE ARE GOOD REASONS TO DOUBT THAT THAT IS THE CASE:

[Image: 16bxzkz.jpg]

THEY LOOK DIFFERENT. IF IT'S THE SAME PERSON, THEN WHAT HAPPENED?

[Image: jfx30j.jpg]

DISTORTED PHOTOS OF LEE AS SHOWN ON THE EDUCATION FORUM AND ELSEWHERE REQUIRE DISTORTION CORRECTIONS.

MEASUREMENTS ARE NOW THE SAME--THE WIDTH BEWEEN THE EYEBROWS WHERE THEY MEET IN THE CENTER AND THE SIZE OF THE EYES ARE BOTH CORRECTED.

THE DISTORTION WAS 10%--SIGNIFICANT. THE PHOTO CALLED “HARVEY” WAS SHOWN AS ‘TOO FAT.’ WHEN THE DISTORTION IS CORRECTED, THE SKULL SHAPES MATCH ‘LEE’ EVEN THOUGH THE ‘LEE’ FIGURE IS YOUNGER, AND THE CHEEKBONES ARE NOT YET WELL-DEVELOPED.

STILL, THE RECEDING HAIRLINE ON THE RIGHT (LEE’S LEFT) HAS ALREADY BEGUN. THE UNIQUE EYEBROW LINES ARE ALSO THE SAME—E.G. LEE’S RIGHT EYEBROW—TO THE LEFT FOR US.

THE NOSE HAS SLIGHTLY MATURED, AS EXPECTED, AND BECOME SLIGHTLY MORE DOMINANT AS THE FACIAL BONES MATURED. EVEN THOUGH THE ARREST PHOTO SHOWS A SWOLLEN LEFT EYE, SLIGHTLY RAISING THE EYEBROW, THE SAME EYEBROW LINE IS PRESENT FOR ‘HARVEY’ AND ‘LEE.’

FURTHER, THE EARS--WHEN DISTORTION IS REMOVED--ARE EXACTLY THE SAME. THE ‘YOUNG’ LEE TO THE RIGHT IS THE SAME AS THE 24-YEAR-OLD LEE, CENTER.

HOWEVER, FOR SOME REASON, PHOTO TO THE LEFT WAS WIDENED, DISTORTING THE SKULL, SHORTENING THE JAWLINE, AND MAKING THE SPACE BEWEEN THE EYES TOO GREAT.

THE PHOTOS ABOVE THESE THREE ARE ALL SHOWN AT THE SAME EYE-WIDTHS. THE EAR WIDTHS ALSO FALL INTO PLACE A THE SAME TIME A IDENICAL DISTANCES APART FROM EACH OHER—SAME SKULL.

I HAVE VISION PROBLEMS, SO THIS SUDY CAN BE DUPLICATED WITH PRECISE MEASUREMENTS (10%, 12%, ETC.). WIDENING DISTORTIONS HAPPEN WITH LENSES. THAT’S WHY PEOPLE TENDED TO LOOK ‘FATTER’ WHEN TV’S HAD CURVED SCREENS.

AND WHEN A PHOTO IS TAKEN OF A PHOTO, INSTEAD OF A DIREC COPY BEING MADE, AND THEN IT’S COPIED AGAIN, SIMILAR DISTORTIONS CAN OCCUR.

[Image: 20t429e.jpg]

HERE IS A 10% DISTORTION OF CARLOS BRINGUIER’S PHOTO ON THE RIGHT. These are ‘THE SAME’ photos. But if we have different photos of Bringuier, notice what we can do:

[Image: jl2agh.jpg]

THESE ARE THE SAME PEOPLE…BUT THE PHOTO TO LEFT HAS 10% DISTORTION.

IS ONE ‘CARLOS’ AND THE OTHER AN IMPOSTOR--A ‘CARLITO’? OF COURSE NOT.

WE MUST RECOGNIZE HOW TO ANALYZE USING UNDISTORTED PHOTOS—MANY OF LEE H. OSWALD’S PHOTOS HAVE BEEN ALTERED, RETOUCHED…

WE AKE THE OUTER EAR MEASUREMENT, THE MEASUREMENTS AT THE OUTER EDGE OF THE EYES, THE WIDTH FROM PUPIL TO PUPIL, THE WIDTH BETWEEN EYEBROWS, THE SHAPE OF EARS AND EYEBROWS, AND BE AWARE OF MATURING BONE STRUCTURES.

SO MUCH CAN HAPPEN IN JUST A FEW YEARS…

[Image: 2a61f91.jpg]

OTHERS MAY WISH TO GO BEYOND THE ATTACHED INTRODUCTORY STUDY, TAKING MEASUREMENTS FOR YOURSELVES ON PHOTOS CORRECTED FOR DISTORTION.

BUT DO YOUR HOMEWORK AND LEARN ABOUT SKULL AND BONE STRUCTURE IN MATURING INDIVIDUALS BEFORE DECIDING ABOUT 'HARVEY' AND 'LEE'.

ALWAYS BE AWARE THAT PHOTO RETOUCHING WAS DONE, PHOTO FLIPPING, TOO, AND OCCASIONAL DELIBERATE DISTORTIONS....

A COUPLE OF COURSES IN FORENSIC ANTHROPOLOGY, WHERE YOU HAVE TO RECONSTRUCT FACES FROM SKULLS, CAN BE USEFUL, TOO.

JVB

Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile - James H. Fetzer - 20-03-2010

NOTE: My psy ops expert has sent me a note apologizing for referrring to Eustice Mullens. He explained that he had done so because Mullins had suggested the hypothesis of "a conspiracy between medicine, big pharma and the cancer society to keep cancer a profitable business. I never argued that his statement was correct or that he was a good person or anything else about him." I would post it but I do not want to distract attention from more important issues.

JUDYTH SPEAKS ABOUT ARMSTRONG, NEWMAN, and GARRISON

“The Three Musketeers”

I respect the hard work of John Armstrong, who spent years collecting information and files that might otherwise have been obscured forever. In particular, Armstrong has contributed immensely to our understanding that Lee Oswald was impersonated without his knowledge. (LHO was also aware of a number of [temporary or transient] impersonations.)

[Image: 53wa4x.jpg]

Two other warriors, who have helped bring down the Warren Commission’s house of cards, made similar extraordinary and sincere efforts to open our eyes and obtain information that otherwise might have been lost or misinterpreted: I mean John Newman and Jim Garrison. This trio saved some of the crown jewels of the case from obscurity and misinterpretation.

[Image: m7xt39.jpg]

I’ve come a long way since first being shown Robert Groden’s The Search for Lee Harvey Oswald. I had no knowledge of any of the books out here, for the most part, because I avoided ever looking. I had seen Lee shot on TV, and the shock of that made it impossible for me to even speak of it.

When I first spoke out, the first years—1999-2003—I would cry when talking about certain events. I had not confronted those memories for decades, except in the silent reaches of my mind, when about once a year, in the 1980s, I began going over everything I could remember, afraid I would forget. I also wrote a series of long letters to my son for him to publish after my death.

Upon finally getting the courage to see the film JFK—which I viewed alone at the end of 1998—the day after my daughter married and left home for her honeymoon—I was engulfed with shame and fury that (1) I had not spoken out and (2) that so much I thought would be known about Lee—had historians been honest—had been twisted almost beyond recognition. The truth about Lee was still buried, along with his body. How could I dare keep silent any longer?

[Image: k1837o.jpg]

For in that film, Oliver Stone had noted that silence was cowardice. Tha’s when I hung my head in shame. I got together the various pieces of evidence—some hidden behind pictures, others in a Bible, etc.—and laid it all out on the bed. These items needed reams of explanation to make sense. Would I be given a chance to explain it all? Would my good name be ruined? I had already moved to Louisiana, in hopes of running into some witnesses—I hoped they were not all dead. I later found a few who remembered me and Lee together.

I did not know about warriors such as “The Three Musketeers” who had already brought so much before the people—only to have the media ignore it or, in Garrison’s case—to pillory him. What I did know was that I was angry. My country was being ruined by the same people who had killed JFK.

I got on my knees and prayed. I was afraid. With shaking hands, I sent a FAX to a TV investigative program. The woman replied that she was simply overwhelmed and told me she was sending the story on to "60 Minutes".

After they interviewed me several times by telephone, they flew me to New York. It would be the first of many trips there and elsewhere, as "60 Minutes" valiantly tried to get a program filmed, against opposition that finally “slammed the door” in their faces.

A literary agent had a friend who was a producer at "60 Minutes", and we soon connected, but the agent edited the book I gave him severely. It wasn’t the ‘real’ book, anyway, so after flagging a lot of the changes with bold type, I let it go. Besides, I never even put a timeline in that book. The book was just to see who would bite. Then they’d get the letters written to my son. I just wanted to talk to editors face-to-face.

Only if I met with sincerity would I reveal the precious information I had. By no means was I going to simply release it all at once. I knew very well that evidence being released in batches at that time by the ARRB might be combed through and obscure mention of bioweapons, etc. could result in evidence destruction.

So when I was shown photos of Lee in Groden’s book, I knew by then that Lee had been demonized. I felt obliged to point out how many photos showed a smiling, sociable Lee. I also pointed out that there were many photos of Lee—this was no ‘loner’ who was friendless, whose life was at a dead end. He was a daddy of two brilliant little babies, had a pretty wife, had entered the USSR while still a teenager, had lived in such disparate places as Japan, California, and Moscow, was fluent in Russian, and yes, he had his romantic conquests. I was assuredly in that category. Lee Oswald had every reason to want to live. He was barely 24.

Yes, I’ve come a long way since seeing all those photos. I didn’t realize that the title of that volume might have implied that more than one Lee Oswald had been around as one or more distinct entities for some time.

I have no problem with multiple impersonation attempts or multiple files, since Lee told me about how ‘secretaries’ had changed his middle name to ‘Henry,’ etc. He could have observed these things without realizing what the name changes in those files were really about. Or maybe he did? Dr. Fetzer has kindly made me aware of an important discussion thread I hope to be able to read when I get new glasses(!). What I did see was that a CIA man could have a name change for work on a clandestine project, keeping his ‘original’ file clean of such escapades.

Lee said he had been ‘borrowed’ from another agency to work with the CIA.

Since I knew Lee had been impersonated—he told me of a number of instances—I have had no worry over photos. Speaking from my present short-term memory, still, as I recall, most photos in Groden’s book of “Lee” were of the same Lee I knew. With my training in anthropology, I had no problem ‘wondering’ about certain photos that might have concerned others. I could see the facial structure as it matured, and much more.

I had no problem about height differences, either, and intend to relay what I know about a comment Lee made about boot camp. Our discussion about heights came about because Lee, Dave Ferrie, and Jack Ruby all happened to be the same height. At least, that was our visual impression.

Lee said in boot camp they were lined up according to height. Lee was not the shortest in the line, but he was far from the tallest. One incident involved rope climbing, where, because he was ‘shorter,’ he said so many had already gone across the ropes that the ropes were wet with sweat, and he slipped back down the ropes and fell. The sergeant ran over and kicked him in the kidney for falling, and he urinated blood that night.

His boot camp photographs offer no indication of what he was going through:

[Image: jfcivc.jpg]

Lee said if he’d not been measured “about an inch taller” than he really was, he’d have been even further back in the line. Lee said they “let him stretch a little” because he was a barely17-year-old kid—surely “still growing.” But Lee said he went through so much stress and worked so hard to succeed as a Marine, given that he had a slighter build than almost all of the others—that he never grew much taller. He was 5’ 9” + a bit, barefoot, and 5’ 10” in shoes. He was average height, he same height as my dad, not a shrimp, but he wasn’t built for heavyweight wrestling. He got through by sheer guts and determination.

Yes, Lee made it. He was tough enough. When he was arrested, he was wearing a Marine ring—I had also seen it. Semper fi!—“Always faithful!”—was the Marine Corps’ motto. He believed he would die on Nov. 22—as he told me himself. But on his finger was his outcry: Lee Oswald was a patriot.

Slowly, people are learning the truth about Lee. People are daring to speak out. Here is one blog I wish to share, demonstrating the turn of the tide: “Fly Caught In Fed Gov Web From Which Escape Was Impossible”, with more at http://hubpages.com/hub/Patriot-Lee-Harvey-Oswald.

UNITED STATES PATRIOT LEE HARVEY OSWALD!
Lee Did Not Shoot Anybody

So Much For Loyalty Among Marines

Former United States Marine Lee Harvey Oswald was framed for the murder of a president and an on-duty Dallas policeman. His name and that of his entire family carries a stigma almost half a century later. In my estimation Lee never fired a gun at either the president or that policeman. No honor among thieves? How about honor among Marines? There was none for Lee!

Trained Him Well Enough To Kill Him

The intelligence training Lee received from the United States enabled him to keep his mouth shut following his set-up arrest in Dallas, Texas. The former Marine alerted superiors to the plot which he believed would be cut off. Unfortunately, his alerts reached Lucifer via a Hell portal. He realized this fact too late.

Silent Interrogation No Oversight

Do not believe for a second that no notes or recordings were made while Lee was interrogated by members of the Dallas Police Departnment and others. I fully believe Lee explained the situation in detail which is why those who heard remained silent. Conspiracies require silence. Plenty of it!

Lee Deserving Of Sympathy

I cannot help but feel an overwhelming sense of pity and sympathy whenever I see images of Lee being paraded around the Dallas Police Department like a prize turkey. Even child-molesting scumbags are granted legal advice. Lee was denied a legal representative despite numerous requests for one. Patsies about to be framed cannot have bothersome legal eagles representing them. That is a conspiracy requirement. It was met!

The Patsy Murdered No One

Lee never fired a rifle at the president nor did he gun down a Dallas policeman later. He proclaimed that during his confinement. It was easy to tell from his behavior that he was in serious trouble. Not from any alleged murders he did not commit but that his intelligence buddies had set him up, left him out to dry and rammed a Marine bayonet into his back. He was right!

Final Plea For Justice

Lee made one final attempt to reveal all during his interrogation. That is why the transparent lie of nothing being taken down was forced into place. Then it became a matter of thr memory of those present. The conspirators were firmly in charge.

The Aborted Transfer

Why was Lee held up by lawmen during his transfer until his assassin was in place? Well, but that is a whole new topic for another hub.
__________________________

John M. Newman spent 20 years with the U.S. Army Intelligence. This included serving in in Thailand, the Philippines, Japan, and China. He eventually became executive assistant to the director of the National Security Agency (NSA).

[Image: 8w9pcp.jpg]

After leaving the NSA Newman joined the University of Maryland where he taught courses in Soviet, Chinese Communist, East Asian, and Vietnam War history, as well as Sino-Soviet and U.S.-Soviet relations. (There's more at Spartacus).

We need the John Armstrongs, the John Newmans, the Jim Garrisons, to bring forth all the records that still exist. Especially all the military records. These three men have done their country a service. No doubt, Lee would be proud of them. I am.

JVB

Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile - Jan Klimkowski - 20-03-2010

James H. Fetzer Wrote:JUDYTH SPEAKS ABOUT ARMSTRONG, NEWMAN, and GARRISON

“The Three Musketeers”

I respect the hard work of John Armstrong, who spent years collecting information and files that might otherwise have been obscured forever. In particular, Armstrong has contributed immensely to our understanding that Lee Oswald was impersonated without his knowledge. (LHO was also aware of a number of [temporary or transient] impersonations.)

(snip)

We need the John Armstrongs, the John Newmans, the Jim Garrisons, to bring forth all the records that still exist. Especially all the military records. These three men have done their country a service. No doubt, Lee would be proud of them. I am.

JVB

Judyth - thank you for those considered thoughts.

Jim - thank you for posting Judyth's intriguing research throughout this thread.

All - in my judgement, this is how good, informed, intelligent research into complex and crucially important events should progress. In the dark, ruthless, world of deep political actions, new facts and new fabrications will continually appear. These must be evaluated, tested, investigated, and - as and when appropriate - integrated into our dynamic and evolving hypotheses of what really happened.

Including the cover ups of what really happened....

Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile - Adrian Mack - 21-03-2010

Quote:NOTE: My psy ops expert has sent me a note apologizing for referrring to Eustice Mullens. He explained that he had done so because Mullins had suggested the hypothesis of "a conspiracy between medicine, big pharma and the cancer society to keep cancer a profitable business. I never argued that his statement was correct or that he was a good person or anything else about him." I would post it but I do not want to distract attention from more important issues.

Dr. Fetzer, do you understand that your expert has precisely zero authority at this point?

Did he hope to float this little Trojan horse into mix unchallenged?

If he "never argued that his statement was correct or that he was a good person or anything else about him", then why in God's name even bring Eustace Mullens up? Really?

Also, correct me if I'm wrong (sincerely), but has Judyth Baker at any point claimed specifically that her harassment is due to "a conspiracy between medicine, big pharma and the cancer society to keep cancer a profitable business"...?

Because if she hasn't, then Baker's attempts to clarify her situation are now saddled with an unprovable hypothesis provided by an anonymous source who then associated his unprovable hypothesis with somebody well known for hate speech. Until he was called out for it, that is.

Judyth must be tickled pink.

Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile - James H. Fetzer - 21-03-2010

CONSIDER THE APPLICATION OF THESE PRINCIPLES TO THIS THREAD

Observations of my psy ops expert about "targeted individuals" from #154:

It works like this: Go over the targeted individual's story with a fine tooth comb and then do it again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again ad nauseum, maybe as a team, until you find some contradictions (and there always will be some because TI's are human). Then using these apparent inconsistencies and contradictions, take some very hard specific shots at the TI's story at its most vulnerable points and do it in a passive aggressive but still insulting, discrediting manner which makes them feel attacked and demeaned as a person, while ignoring any suffering they have gone through while they have been a TI.

Then keep it up for years, and years, regurgitating and recycling the same old stuff, even if it was undone before once or twice until two three goals are attained:

Goal #1: Wear the TI out (individuals who are long term TI's typically are survivors and long ago made the commitment to survive and defend their story at all costs. (That's why they never gave up their story in the first place for for so many years, they are strong willed and cannot be cowered or shut up no matter what.)

Goal #2: Distract and shift the attention of the TI and others as far away from what secret you are attempting to keep covered up as possible in order to prevent a certain thread from being pulled, a thread which could unravel a current op which is an extension of a past op and is also very, very important.

GOAL #3: Keep this game plan going by creating "conflict points" and recycling these over and over until goals #1 & #2 are well attained and the TI is distracted from getting her story out (in this case completing her book which will probably sell fairly well since the author has some very interesting base facts already well established which set an interesting plausibility for her story).

I understand that Judyth has a very interesting story to tell about Oswald and her relationship with him which is important history, even if it is told from her own personal perspective based on her contacts and knowledge of him. I for one am not really interested in the personal aspects of it, but much more interested in the basic background facts of her medical research, and why and how she was selected for help with a very interesting medical research program. But I am going to buy her book as soon as ity is out because I want to support her efforts to survive as a TI.

IN RESPONSE TO ADRIAN MACK:

Jim, sorry I referred to the statement by Mullins. I never read any of his works and only heard that he made this statement suggesting a conspiracy between medicine, big pharma and the cancer society to keep cancer a profitable business. I never argued that his statement was correct or that he was a good person or anything else about him.

But this idea of possible collusion to keep cancer a big business should be considered when evaluating how Judyth was treated by her professor when told to stay away from medicine. And even beyond that, some researchers (including a few M.D.s) have suggested that a certain government faction obtained funding and eugenics and biotech/bioweapons research to stimulate cancer in the populace over time in order to expand the cancer business and limit lifespans (e.g. inclusion of the simian SV-40 viral fragments in various vaccinations).

As crackpot an idea as this seems at first glance, it must not be discarded so easily, since there is some supporting evidence available, such as discovery of sv-40 fragment/contaminants presence in several visruses even to this day.

This Mullins statement turned out to be a hook, a sort of Rorschach plate, and it hooked one of the posters pretty well. He showed his true colors and laid bare his actual way of thinking IMO. Some folks do have a hidden agenda or an irrational orientation to incredulous matters, and some of these folks when presented with such a hook act provoked. Then they retaliate with sophistry and casuistry, in this case the person hooked used both very poorly. This argument of his about Mullins is "much ado about nothing" and does not relate to the post. Neither I nor you or anyone else argued that Mullins was a good man or even right in his assertion. I presented his statement as merely a hypothesis to consider, that is all.

I have heard some very creative ideas and hypotheses expressed by high school students who discussed government corruption that far surpassed many seasoned researchers because they had a fresh outlook. I wouldn't discount anyone's hypothesis because I didn't like them if the hypothesis seemed worth considering. This could be like throwing the baby out with the dirty bathwater.

But Jim, it is too bad that most high school and college educations do not include enough work on the science of logic and its perverted forms such as casuistry and sophistry, so that folks know what to be aware of. I am sure there is a reason for this since too much knowledge of this and Bernays work could perhaps reduce the major mass media's receipts for advertising. And of course one should also ask the question of why colleges and universities do not teach courses on fiat money and other debt based instruments ie how money is created and dispensed, the private federal reserve banking cartel, elite deviance in government, military, intel and corporations, drug trafficking, money laundering, political assassinations, business fraud, etc., etc. Why aren't there courses, majors, and graduate degrees in these very important subject areas. We need specialists available to help build a better society. When folks dig deep enough and become able to answer this question, then they will understand who really runs things and why.

It does seem however, that there is too much casuistry, sophistry and speciousness used on this forum from what I have seen, especially those who are using this forum as mouthpieces for intel or have some other issue, perhaps an oppositional orientation or just petty jealousy. That's why I have always appreciated your books so much Jim, because they are written by someone whose logic is impeccable. And if you do make a mistake you have no problem saying so once you discover that. You are much more concerned with truth seeking than anything else.

Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile - James H. Fetzer - 21-03-2010

DOES ADRIAN APPRECIATE THE POSITION THAT HE OCCUPIES HERE?

Not to paraphrase, but does Adrian Mack understand that he has precisely zero authority at this point? He has gone bananas trying to find some slender reed upon which he could attempt to undermine this thread and, by extension, the purpose of this forum. He has alleged that I have "managed to associate Judyth Baker with chemtrails, moon-landing hoaxes, exotic mega-double-top-secret-super-soldiers, and now a jew hating nutcase." But this appears to be his way of attempting to trash what Judyth has to say--since nothing he has focused upon has anything to do with her credibility.

He began by bashing some mention I had made of the moon-landing hoax and about 9/11, which were nice examples of THE BIG LIE. The source of his remarks about chemtrails eludes me, but anyone who has looked into them knows something very weird is going on there, too. But he found his ground in a remark about Eustice Mullins, which my expert has explained was only mentioned in passing because of his hypothesis that big medicine, big pharma, and the cancer society may share an interest in keeping cancer a profitable business--one that Judyth's research may have threatened.

His technique, of course, has been some form of character assassination or of guilt by association. When he tried to attack me about moon landings and Jack cited his research, he abandoned that line of attack. When he tried to make 9/11 into some kind of stretch, he backed down again, no doubt because, as the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, i know so much about it. He came into his own, however, with this Eustice Mullins remark and simply won't let it go, even when others have observed that it only matters if he can show how it undermines Judyth's story. But it appears to afford an explanation for why she was steered away from pursuing a promising career and therefore tends to confirm it.

I invited my psy ops expert because I know him very well and admire his perception in dealing with complex issues. Here is another example of his observations about the methodology of the attacks that Judyth and I have been receiving, primarily on The Education Forum, but which has become relevant and worth posting now because of the conspicuous involvement of a lone wolf who is attempting to sabotage this entire thread by tenaciously and repetitiously reiterating what most of us have long since concluded was a fallacious attack. Discrediting an hypothesis on the basis of its source, after all, is a classic example of an ad hominem of the kind I taught freshmen to avoid for 35 years of college teaching.

EARLY OBSERVATIONS FROM MY PSY OPS EXPERT ON WHAT'S AT STAKE:

Jim, I read your recent posts on the educational forum. You believe that the heavy muscle used against Judyth to harass her was also turned in your direction last night with tampering on your site (obviously you are correct on both assertions). You also believe that Judyth's knowledge of LHO as an ordinary person poses a threat and is responsible for all her harassment over the years, which both you and I believe really happened no matter what all her claims are and whether they are all accurate or not.

The harassment of Judyth is a mystery and certainly one can't expect clarification from the government agency that is responsible, since we don't know for sure who it is, but we know that secrecy protocols would prevent any honest answer from those at that agency who are responsible or have knowledge. Right now most cyber harassment is being done at either your local fusion center by an fbi agent detailed there under authority of homeland insecurity, or straight out of the pentagon. The highest tech work is likely out of the pentagon right now.

The question is, could her knowledge of LHO to be an ordinary human being and "NOT A LONE-NUT" as specified right from the start by Allen Dulles (the co-mastermind of the JFK murder with Lansdale and Angleton)? We know that this label was essential to selling the govt story of LHO as the sole shooter and was critical. So you may be right on that, too.

Yes, it is possible you are correct, but the govt has already admitted that LHO was an intel operative if I remember correctly. Maybe Judyth's prior biotech work had no relation to the harassment ops against her. Or maybe she was being harassed for that prior work and also for her personal knowledge of LHO as an ordinary man who was not a loner, or a weirdo and the like.

You may be correct, but I still think that her work before she met LHO was more important than it would seem. Here's why. Intel tends to institute harassment and psyops against individuals for knowledge of very specific facts, facts which when investigated are traceable to other facts in a chain. This chain of actual facts can constitute a thread to be pulled, a thread leading to the compromise of a critical highly compartmentalized top secret (umbra level, Q level, SCI level, or higher) operation. Her knowledge of LHO is a personal hearsay type claim that would typically mean very little without very good corroboration and that does not appear to exist. Hearsay based uncorroborated claims usually do not bring heavy muscle against a citizen/witness by intel.

There is other evidence to support that LHO was an ordinary person, such as his participation in the civil air patrol with others who ended up in intel like Barry Seal, both under David Ferries's tutelage (if I remember correctly, but I may be incorrect in this assertion). Was Judyth closely involved with David Ferrie and others doing strange biotech research?

Based on what I have learned about psyops and mini-cointelpro actions against a single individual such as Judyth, I believe that this has been instituted against her because of her specific knowledge of concrete, verifiable facts she knows that are linked to other concrete, verifiable facts, which when researched will lead to a current intel operation hat is being highly protected and has been for many years.

If on the other hand you are correct in your assertion that Judyth is being harassed because of her personal knowledge of LHO as an ordinary guy in almost every way rather than a lone-nut, then this is ironic, because the life experiences of Judyth after the JFK murder and her harassment by intel has in a sense appeared to have made her look like a lone-nut.

The reason I believe that a very powerful intel org is responsible for tracking, stalking and harassing Judyth and you (the same organization) is that what other entity could have sufficient power and connections to have done what was done against her for many years and the skill, power and connections to alter your web site last night in direct response to your defense of Judyth?

Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile - James H. Fetzer - 21-03-2010

ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THE OBSERVATIONS OF MY PSY OPS EXPERT:

You have done some very good work bringing out the key issues surrounding Judyth Vary and her story. I believe that she is the real deal, but probably was so stressed out at times that she confabulated and mixed up facts which really helps folks discredit her even though her basic story seems to be valid and very important even in today's world. Why else would she be harassed, why else would you have received a death threat, and why have some folks like that junk lady gotten so vitriolic in their attacks on Judyth and worked so hard to discredit her and her story? Where there is smoke there is fire.

Jack White is a very distinguished researcher of government-based elite-deviance. His photo work over over the last 30 years has stood the test of time and he has contributed a great deal. He has stated in so many words that it is difficult to accept that intel would bring in a young girl like Judyth to do cancer research and he believes that there have been details of Judyth's story that didn't hold water. Yes, anyone could see that the way Judyth's story has been presented in segments over the years does breed an air of unbelievability which itself is useful to creating a "plausible deniability".

It has been well established that Ferrie was a pilot who ran the Civil Air Patrol for youth and recruited young men to later be inducted as intel operatives. That was the origin of the notorius NSA drug trafficker Barry Seal (of Mena, Ark fame--the company flew the cocaine into Mena Ark according to Bill Duncan IRS Investigator), and also the origin of a number of other intel assets and operators. See Daniel Hopsicker's work for good evidence of this.

Selecting young kids and even very young children to be inducted as intel assets and operatives has a very long history in US intel. It really dates back to operation paperclip and the importation of Gehlen, Mengele, Mueller and other Nazi intel and "mind control" scientists who ran these recruitment/induction programs and appeared to be outright psychopaths, torturers and murderers. (Does this make it easier to understand why intel wanted to use torture against captured muslims in the wars in the middle east? Our intel still carries the traits of those who set it up after WW2 and it was these nazis, unfortunately.) Now due to the many recent government records releases and foia releases, undeniable proof exists about MKUltra, Monarch, Bluebird and many others which used torture and mind kontrol behavioral conditioning methods so severe that they cannot be mentioned here. And of course we have the hearing records of Senator Church from 1973.

There were many different types and ages of children selected. Some were to be used as MKUltra operatives, some as intel operatives or assets later, and some as very special children to be placed and groomed in academic paths to high positions later on where they could function as assets which had been specially groomed and trained. At least two of our very, very, very top politicians the last 20 years was selected from this plan. These very special children were selected from all over the country based on their intelligence and mental capabilities which had to be very exceptional. Then they were educated and plugged in where needed.

Knowing that the company used secret programs like this (and still does) makes Judith's story of being selected as a young lady for use use in secret cancer research much more plausible. A young puppy rarely turns on its mama who provides the milk. Young kids stories are easily deniable should they ever go off of the reservation. I know of some cases that fit the same profile for Judyth, cases where very gifted children were selected, groomed, trained, placed in special positions and academic programs, to become top officials later.

The cancer research Judyth was working on would have to have been covert, thus it would have been done using folks who could easily be deniable. Who would ever believe Ferrie would be used to run weapons to Cuba either? But why was he doing cancer research in his home? Creating cover stories and later institution cover up ops by the use of psyops is sophisticated "tradecraft" and only those who have worked with these matters or victims of them are able to understand these apparent contradictions, contradictions which are built in and planned into any operation beforehand.

And even if many details provided by Judyth in the past are shown to be incorrect, that in and of itself does not necessarily impact certain more basic parts of her story, many of which have already been well documented.

Now anyone that doubts the existence of MKUltra, Monarch or Bluebird, or the Presidential Model operations can research this now thanks to the power of the internet. Look up "Franklin Scandal", Spence page-boy scandal, Finders, MKUltra, Monarch, Bluebird, MKSlammer, etc.

Once a researcher becomes informed of these programs it is much easier to fathom the special kids programs which are much less abusive--these are the programs where the brightest, most talented children are selected out for grooming and use (the age selected depends on the project that needs to be filled). Intel has means to scan newspapers and media to find good candidates.

Judyth's story at its basic facts seems very similar to some special kids selections from the past that I know the details of, so it is plausible to me. Her association with Oswald is not even necessary to explain the harassment that could be targeted at her for her knowledge of the research to weaponize cancer. I think there is even more there that she is probably not directly aware of, some key facts that lie just below the surface and intel doesn't want someone digging into this too far.

If I was going to investigate this matter I would be more concerned with why Judyth was selected (what special gifts or capabilities did she have, and more concerned with Judyth's knowledge about the weaponizing of the cancer work and all the names involved than with Oswald, but that is just the way I see it).

Bottom line is Judyth has been harassed, and major psyops efforts have been brought against her to discredit her and create an environment where others are motivated to discredit her anytime she discloses some alleged important information. Some of the folks who have worked hard to discredit her are known to be dirty, some may just be mistaken, and some who have been unaccepting of many details of her story are themselves clean and are respected researchers but just feel they have found too many discrepancies and improbabilities.

I have worked with victims of intel harassment and psyops which did at times make misstatements and self-serving biased comments, largely due to the stress of the harassment and their own humanness and human limitations. Some had periods of outright anxiety and depressive disorders and their mental functioning deteriorated temporarily from the stress of the harassment.

So basically it is important for anyone investigating their story not to "throw the baby out with the bathwater", just because the water gets a little dirty.

Since WW2, why would intel spend so much money obtaining the best psyops money can buy? Why would they import and adopt the nazi mindkontrol techniques and use them 100%? Why would they hire Mueller, Gehlen and Mengele to set up these intel operations after WW2???

Intel has been long committed to using very sophisticated mind control and psyops technology that has been field tested and developed over many years dating back to the early 1950's and it is typically very effective. Unfortunately it is criminally misused against innocent citizens and whistleblowers far too much of the time, as in the case of Judyth.

Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile - Adrian Mack - 21-03-2010

Quote:DOES ADRIAN APPRECIATE THE POSITION THAT HE OCCUPIES HERE?

Not to paraphrase, but does Adrian Mack understand that he has precisely zero authority at this point? He has gone bananas trying to find some slender reed upon which he could attempt to undermine this thread and, by extension, the purpose of this forum. He has alleged that I have "managed to associate Judyth Baker with chemtrails, moon-landing hoaxes, exotic mega-double-top-secret-super-soldiers, and now a jew hating nutcase." But this appears to be his way of attempting to trash what Judyth has to say--since nothing he has focused upon has anything to do with her credibility.

Let me repeat something I wrote earlier in the thread –

“Dr. Fetzer has acted as a conduit for Baker’s material, which deserves to be assessed on its own merits.”

Also,

“Why bring in this anonymous, apparently anti-Semitic Jedi master of psy-ops when Baker's story can stand or fall on its own merits?”

Let me make myself clear: I believe you are badly effecting Baker’s credibilty by a) acting as her voice on this forum, and b) prejudicing her information with your own speculation and that of your dinner partner.

I’m explicitly concerned with her credibilty.

As in here:

“I think Judyth Vary Baker deserves sympathy and respect, and an honest inquiry into her story doesn't benefit from shaky, unsourced super-narratives that read like copypasta from Godlike Productions.”

You are controlling the information.

You either have no confidence in the strength of Baker’s own arguments, or you have an unseemly urge to interpret it for the rest of us, for reasons unknown. In either case, you appear to have no respect for Ms. Baker.

Quote: He began by bashing some mention I had made of the moon-landing hoax and about 9/11, which were nice examples of THE BIG LIE.

I don’t believe that THE BIG LIE should be or will be exposed by a million little ones.

Quote:The source of his remarks about chemtrails eludes me, but anyone who has looked into them knows something very weird is going on there, too.

Your psy ops expert brought that up at the beginning of this debacle.

And why you would take the opportunity here to once again urge anybody to jump into the endless rabbit hole of chemtrail BS is baffling to me.

Quote:But he found his ground in a remark about Eustice Mullins, which my expert has explained was only mentioned in passing because of his hypothesis that big medicine, big pharma, and the cancer society may share an interest in keeping cancer a profitable business--one that Judyth's research may have threatened.

Quote:His technique, of course, has been some form of character assassination or of guilt by association. When he tried to attack me about moon landings and Jack cited his research, he abandoned that line of attack.

No, I explained a) why I think the moon landing hoax is irrelevent to Baker and prejudices your presentation of her, and b) why I think the moon landing hoax isn’t important, period.

Quote:When he tried to make 9/11 into some kind of stretch, he backed down again, no doubt because, as the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, i know so much about it.

I know that you’ve discussed directed energy beams in relation to 9/11, and I only say that I take strong exception to it because I'm trying to be relatively polite.

Quote:He came into his own, however, with this Eustice Mullins remark and simply won't let it go, even when others have observed that it only matters if he can show how it undermines Judyth's story. But it appears to afford an explanation for why she was steered away from pursuing a promising career and therefore tends to confirm it

We don’t need to be afforded anything, thanks, least of all anybody's interpretations and hypotheses. It undermines Judyth's story by the very fact of its existence. To put it more bluntly: present her info, and quit the colour commentary.

Quote:I invited my psy ops expert because I know him very well and admire his perception in dealing with complex issues. Here is another example of his observations about the methodology of the attacks that Judyth and I have been receiving, primarily on The Education Forum, but which has become relevant and worth posting now because of the conspicuous involvement of a lone wolf who is attempting to sabotage this entire thread by tenaciously and repetitiously reiterating what most of us have long since concluded was a fallacious attack. Discrediting an hypothesis on the basis of its source, after all, is a classic example of an ad hominem of the kind I taught freshmen to avoid for 35 years of college teaching.

For the love of God, talk about injecting cancers.