Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[James H. Fetzer]

http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/03/...-vary.html

[Myra Bronstein]

I wish first to thank you for a forum where insults are not allowed.
Dr. James Fetzer is investigating my testimony. ... Sincerely, Judyth Vary Baker

Maggie,

Thank you for taking the time to communicate with JVB, and for posting her comments here.

[Phil Dragoo]

In the excellent long 14 Reasons to Believe Judyth Vary Baker by Professor Fetzer is the gem that Posner-linked Duffy of US News and World Report prevailed upon CBS Sixty Minutes to eschew the Baker story as having insufficient substantiation--

QED: Per Posner, Baker is proved valid

Again and again, one asks, if there is no there there, why the white-hot frenzy to put out this fire.

The folks at Cover-Ups-R-Us protest too much.

[Magda Hassan]

In the excellent long 14 Reasons to Believe Judyth Vary Baker by Professor Fetzer is the gem that Posner-linked Duffy of US News and World Report prevailed upon CBS Sixty Minutes to eschew the Baker story as having insufficient substantiation--

QED: Per Posner, Baker is proved valid

Again and again, one asks, if there is no there there, why the white-hot frenzy to put out this fire.

The folks at Cover-Ups-R-Us protest too much.

Exactly Phil! Isn't LHO supposed to be a lone nut, no friends at all. It's all been proven after all. What's their big deal?

[James H. Fetzer]

Judyth is so controversial that I thought I would invite an expert in the area of psychological operations and covert actions to review what I have posted about her, including my blogs and YouTubes. I sent him the following invitation, to which I received three responses, one before and one after reviewing this thread, plus a PS. He is a very candid guy and would tell me if he thought I were making a mistake here.

----- Original Message -----
From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
To:
Cc: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Sent: Tuesday, March 2, 2010 12:19:19 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
Subject: Invitation . . .

Jim,

I would like you to check out what I am finding out about Judyth Baker at http://www.youtube.com/user/JamesFetzerNews#p/a or showarchives at http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com or my blog, where I have just posted the second about her, http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com, or, of course, The Education Forum, where I have a thread about her at http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index....opic=15559 Some friends, Jack White, David Lifton and, Rich DellaRosa, do not take her seriously. Those who have found her credible include Jim Marrs, Nigel Turner, Ed Haslam, Wim Dankbarr, Howard Platzman, and now me.

Thanks.

Jim

RESPONSE (1):

Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 06:51:05 +0000 [12:51:05 AM CST]
From:
To: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Subject: Re: Invitation . . .

I believe that she is credible. And her claims about being harassed by intel make sense based on what has happened to other key witnesses. I forget the name of the lady at the curb who was taken upstairs in front of some generals and was told she only heard three shots, and then had an FBI car down the street outside her house for over a year (these FBI even sabotaged her car one time).

Often witnesses like her are so harassed that this takes a toll on them emotionally over the years causing them to act somewhat disturbed which affects their credibility to researchers who examine their story. The more folks doubt them and the more they get harassed and criticized, the more upset and irrational they often come across.

So Jim, unless proven otherwise, she comes off as credible to me.

RESPONSE (2):

Tue, 2 Mar 2010 07:15:48 +0000 [01:15:48 AM CST]
From:
To: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Subject: Re: Invitation . . .

Jim, I haven't read Judyth's book so I can't comment on her claims. But I do think it is well established that she worked at Riley Coffee and that was a spy nest which could cause her harassment based on that alone. She may have confabulated details about Oswald and created more than was there to put together a book.

Normally when someone like Judyth is harassed by intel they are being harassed for things different than what they think. She may know something that is more important than she realizes, some little detail could be behind all her harassment.

And Bill Kelly's and others claims that her story adds nothing may be true, but that may have nothing to do with her value to exposing the intel aspects of the case. And the last possibility is that some witnesses were clandestinely drugged with weird chemicals from Technical Services at the CIA, things like BZ which could damage one's white matter, hippocampus and cause some confabulations.

If she is a "hanger on" who has confabulated a story to write a book and get attention, that does not in and of itself mean that she doesn't know something that intel wants covered up. According experienced retired intel ops I have talked too many such witnesses are seriously harmed emotionally by the harassment process which are designed to destroy folk's credibility.

Now Jim, as one of the world's top experts on logic, if not the top one, you don't need to be reminded of the faulty logic which many appear to be using to attack Judyth with. Correlation isn't necessarily an indicator of causation, and non-correlation of aspects of a story does not mean both are false if one is false and vice versa. So part of her story could be confabulated or emotionally enhanced and that does not mean another part is not true and neither means that she might not be harassed for totally unknown reasons of some small detail she represents or could expose not directly related to her book or her story. This unrelated small detail issue is one which often gets folks harassed by intel according to experts I have consulted with. The first questions always should be, "what info or detail does this lady represent or is linked to that could be a loose end or a threat to intel?"

Jim, thanks for telling me about your new web site. . . .

Best regards form one truth junkie to another.

RESPONSE (3):

Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 17:51:33 +0000 [11:51:33 AM CST]
From:
To: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Subject: Re: Invitation . . .

Jim, I was referring to Jean Hill, who was needlessly harassed for years and wasn't talking to anyone then anyway. The harassment caused her to later talk.

[James H. Fetzer]

Judyth has made some very insightful observations about the opinions
of the expert on psy ops that I had consulted. I think her remarks on
"the golden mean" by splitting the difference between conflicting points
of view--as though there were a compromise when one is true and the
other is false--is highly pervasive. My confidence in Judyth has grown
stronger and stronger through the course of this discussion and debate.

------------------------------FIRST EMAIL --------------------------------

Well, the expert Jim asked to look into this assessed only what he read
on the blog and so on...

The 'golden mean' logical error comes into play.

I have explained it probably to you before.

Position a: Judyth tells the truth.

Position c: McAdams lies and says I am lying.

Position b: the erroneous 'golden mean' that people choose after
reading both sides, trying for 'fairness'--but it always hurts the truth-
teller, and hope you pass this on to Jim.

The truth teller's position in the golden mean is reduced to 'might be
telling the truth".

This is weighted against "she is lying" at position c.

The golden mean for the 'she is lying' statement is "maybe she is lying".

The outcome using this fallacy that is taught in our schools is that, for
example, there is no 'pure' good or 'pure' evil--not true.

In my case, the result are two statements:

Judyth might be lying.

McAdams' statement indicates Judyth might be lying.

Outcome: Judyth might be lying, not McAdams might be lying.

Because the subject is Judyth and goes through two cycles, whereas
McAdmas only goes through one cycle, of reasoning...

Thus whenever a witness statement is disputed, forever the witness is
then marked as 'maybe did not tell the truth'; whereas the one who
raised the objection gets no such judgment.

Note that the first impression of the 'expert'; was more positive.

Then he read the objections against me and moderated that to 'maybe
she is not telling the truth'.

Nobody can come to the conclusion "she is 100% telling the truth" after
reading a list of accusations and objections in our society, the way we
have been brainwashed to accept the golden mean, which is indeed
tarnishing our ability to accept anyone as a truth-teller once any
objection is raised.

This filters into the news where 'balance' always includes, no matter how
much truth is out there, 'the other side' so that after all this time they
are still arguing in the news about whether water-boarding, used by the
Spanish Inquisition, can be called 'torture.'

The redefinition of 'torture' has now come to mean no visible marks left
on the body and no permanent damage. Thus it is no longer torture to
pull out all the fingernails and toenails and then after they have grown
back, release the prisoner who says he was tortured but cannot 'prove'
it because no marks were left on his body.

Of course, electro-shocking people also is not torture?

The redefinition and skirting of the Geneva Accords on their subject
demonstrates the paucity of real logic that is allowed to exists = when
mind control of the public is paramount.

Therefore, Dr. Fetzer, to not look too bad, will eventually have to modify
his statement that I am telling the truth all the time, because of all the
objections raised by others. If he stands up for the Zapruder film 100%
as he does, and yet the press has failed to say a peep about it, how can
he defend me, a truth-teller whose statements have been altered on the
internet?

All I can do is cite the past, letters of recommendation, etc. And here
'students' I do not even know their names, have spoken out saying silly
and untrue things about me.

Character assassination of the Kennedy family has been going on at a
great clip ever since the government's complicity has become more and
more evident and obvious.

The government will never try itself for the death of JFK.

It was a coup.

Interestedly, Gerry Hemming told me that I was stating things about
covert operations of which I was unaware, which could get me killed. He
secretly cc'd his emails to his interpen organization and I have saved
them, showing me his confidence in my statements. It was he who
directed Nigel Turner to me, as well.

Attached are photos of Gery that I made, and one that he sent me, of
his family and him...his jacket was stolen--the one I photographed was
re-created by interpen for him.

Gerry had as much stolen from him as I had.

Judy

------------------------------SECOND EMAIL --------------------------------

The 'golden mean' concept has made it impossible for witnesses to stand
as truth-tellers against government and its biased media that uses "the
golden mean" as a ploy that 'fairness' is thus presented. Actually, as
repeated below, adding in the same story objections to it reduces every
truth teller to 'might be lying' status.

News stories are not being 'fair' by presenting news with 'both sides'.

Such news stories are often in debate format. Stories opposing the original
statements should be written referring to the original, which should always
be available for comparison.

Can you imagine if every scientific paper had to list all the objections to
its statement within its declaration of new findings in research? They
cite a history, but they do not break up the scientific paper's new
information and evidence with dissents from former researchers to
'be fair.'

Scientific method regarding witnesses should allow a full, unadulterated
original story to reach the public. Later stories should always show where
the original story can be accessed.

Then statements where they alter the information stated can be compared
easily to the original in every instance.

No forum that purports to be an education forum should make a statement
without citing a reference. Stating, for example, that our hotel bills were
paid by Carlos Marcello (added with a sneer) should have been backed up
with a citation.

I had to wade in and correct.

But then it gets buried.

McAdams would always put the original nasty statement at the end, as if
it had never been disproven.

The same tactic was used on the education forum when John Simkin kept
reposting the original message that I had joined the forum weeks later
and so could not make the claim that I had asked him to start the forum,
he also did not cite--failing to show the first post, which was about me,
perhaps because that strengthened my position.

Instead, he kept reposting, as does McAdams, as if the question had not
been resolved. I note that Dr. Fetzer would then repost the answer. Good
for him.

Thus the slanted playing field gets somewhat corrected.

[James H. Fetzer]

My expert expands on his previous reflections after reading the complete thread. He mentions a book, A TERRIBLE MISTAKE, whose author, H.P. Albarelli Jr., will be my featured guest on "The Real Deal" from 5-7 PM/CT, 15 March 2010, revereradio.net.
_________________________

Jim, I just read the last posts on the educational forum you directed me too. I have now read all of them related to Judyth Vary. I have come to a couple of conclusions:

Most posters do not understand how intel operations are conducted at a higher level. Low level operatives are kept isolated from most decision making which is compartmentalized and narrowly directed as orders and directives. Actual background knowledge of why various min-cointelpro type ops are instituted is usually not communicated to those who are directed to conduct the footwork on these ops.

If there are any posters on the site who DO understand how intel ops are conducted at a higher level, they are not helping to explain the possibilities surrounding Judyth Baker to the other posters, and may even be serving up misinformation to detract from her credibility on purpose.

A lot of harassment of those by intel (mini-cointelpro style, the modus operandi used now against individuals) involves the targeting of an individual for non-obvious reasons (some small detail or loose end that when pulled opens up a whole line of problems that the intel agency does not want uncovered).

Even the most discredited witnesses, even those discredited by their own attempts to create a story that isn't there may have knowledge that is judged to be a danger because of a loose end. So as you know, every bit of a witnesses story needs to be scrutinized in and of itself, even if most parts have been shown to be twisted, tainted or even confabulated. The more folks argue and pick, the more Judyth gets defensive and struggles to provide information to corroborate her claims, all which probably just confound and lead away from what she knows that is really a problem for the intel agency that is stalking her. And we know that at this time there are 37 US intel agencies so we don't know for sure which one has been detailed with her harassment. Since most of the JFK assassination intercept ops were done by the FBI that must be considered. We also know that the JCS ordered the termination of JFK with extreme prejudice and a "signed finding" (by the will of Hoover, LBJ, Nixon, Bush1, Dulles, etc.) and this was likely detailed to the CIA, who like the FBI harassed a lot of the important witnesses, although it is known that mob and cuban operatives were also detailed for some of the dirtiest jobs. Best guess is that her harassment was been detailed to the CIA who just happen to have operatives in France, some working as NOCS and some working as assets which are also completely deniable.

Jim, I agree with you that here has been some very high level influence used against Judyth Vary to harass her, make threats to you and to sidetrack he thread she carries. Where there is smoke there is fire. Why would so much effort be expended to sidetrack and confuse a witness when 90% + of her story doesn't add anything to the JFK murder? It's because of the small thread which probably has nothing to do with the JFK assassination or Oswald.

The more I think about it the more it seems to me that Judyth knows something that is a big problem for intel, and it probably is related to her work before she met Oswald.

In order to figure this out it can be helpful to evaluate what she was working on before she met Oswald and how that could be a loose end relating to current intel operations, which would establish that as a threat to the current operation (which intel works hard to protect at all costs>>>their number 1 goal is to always protect any important current operation and this is done by information control, use of misinformation or disinformation, setting up straw men issues to distract, use of mini-cointelpro type actions, sophisticated harassment which can include use of police, utility workers, psycho-electronic means, drugs, etc.). It is well understood that if a witness is so seriously harassed over time and and driven away from family and friends to be emotionally isolated, it becomes quite easy to elicit psychological and emotional dysfunction, which in and of itself reduces the target's credibility to near zero in most cases. This is called high tech, coordinated PSYOPS. Create isolation, deliver trauma or "blood shock" to create PTSD and then the target is much more suggestible to influence, such as manipulating them down a road making them even more dysfunctional.

So let us take this a bit further. What is the greatest secret that intel in now trying to protect which has a common connection or thread back to Judyth Vary? Where are billions of dollars going into research right now. What is the Pentagon and intel gearing up for in the future?

Jim, I have shared with you the last few months a great deal of information which answers these questions. It relates to high tech biotech, biowarfare and eugenics, the "triple helix"(self-healing super soldier), development of bio-bot war machines, etc. Mary Hartman knows much of the details and has been seriously harassed for walking into the middle of this big ongoing op.

As many know, almost all vaccines are grown in animal media. Polio vaccines have been shown to contain Simian SV-40 virus fragments which have been suspected of causing many different kinds of cancer in recipients later on. Was this a mistake or part of a large scale eugenics secret experiment? And as some medical researchers have suggested, the use of vaccines with servicemen in the Middle East theaters of war may be the largest bioweapon experiment ever devised and implemented. Certainly these vaccines which contained the highly toxic adjuvant squalene may have contributed to so many US soldiers coming back sick. And many suspect the use of depleted uranium in the projectiles was implemented as another experimental biotech/eugenics test. Most know about the Tuskeege experiments, but less know about the current chemtrail ops alleged by some to being run out of the University of Michigan via a DOD bioweapons contract. Samples have been recovered from the planes spraying and these show barium salts, and a mixture of blood cells, haemophilus, and other bugs. The cover story was three fold, allegedly to reflect sunlight to slow the supposed global warming, the bugs to immunize the public against a possible bio weapon attack by foreign terrorists, and the barium to serve as a test for blocking the radar and sensors of foreign governments satellites in orbit to disrupt their spying (to be used in a time of war).

The government was caught releasing bio agents in the NYC subways in the 60's and 70's and placing their own medical folks in nearby hospitals to monitor the effects. We know that the government has engaged in bio and chemical warfare test on the public almost continually since WW2. It was recently documented in newly declassified documents that the CIA drugged a whole town in France with LSD as a test. This was reported in Albarelli's new book, A Terrible Mistake, which is a must read for anyone that wants to know how things really work. The French government just got wind of this and has written a letter to the US Government demanding an explanation. It is rumored that since 5 French folks died because of this, lawsuits and settlements are now likely.

Some top experts have predicted that the wars of the future will be fought by cyber/information warfare, biowarfare, psycho-electronic warfare, satellite telemetried robotic warfare, and independent acting bio-cyber robotic warfare (the buzz word for this is TOTAL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE). There are now over 200 US Patents for stimulation of cortical phenomena from outside the skull at a distance using pulsed beam microwaves and quite a few that have been classified and can't be viewed. The predictions of these insiders are based upon where the government contracts are now being awarded and how the taxpayer funds awarded by Congress and black ops income is being spent.

In cases like Judyth Vary, the reasons for the harassment by intel are usually not what most observers or the target understand. Typically the reasons are to distract from the thread, or provide a complete cover-up of some small thread (even a very small thread) when pulled would or could threaten a current very important operation that the public would not stand for if they became aware. I believe that this thread is biowarfare related and pertains to current top secret DOD biowarfare research, some of which you have been informed of, Jim.

[Myra Bronstein]

Judyth is so controversial that I thought I would invite an expert in the area of psychological operations and covert actions to review what I have posted about her, including my blogs and YouTubes. I sent him the following invitation, to which I received three responses, one before and one after reviewing this thread, plus a PS. He is a very candid guy and would tell me if he thought I were making a mistake here.

----- Original Message -----
From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
To:
Cc: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Sent: Tuesday, March 2, 2010 12:19:19 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
Subject: Invitation . . .

Jim,

I would like you to check out what I am finding out about Judyth Baker at http://www.youtube.com/user/JamesFetzerNews#p/a or showarchives at http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com or my blog, where I have just posted the second about her, http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com, or, of course, The Education Forum, where I have a thread about her at http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index....opic=15559 Some friends, Jack White, David Lifton and, Rich DellaRosa, do not take her seriously. Those who have found her credible include Jim Marrs, Nigel Turner, Ed Haslam, Wim Dankbarr, Howard Platzman, and now me.

Thanks.

Jim

RESPONSE (1):

Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 06:51:05 +0000 [12:51:05 AM CST]
From:
To: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Subject: Re: Invitation . . .

I believe that she is credible. And her claims about being harassed by intel make sense based on what has happened to other key witnesses. I forget the name of the lady at the curb who was taken upstairs in front of some generals and was told she only heard three shots, and then had an FBI car down the street outside her house for over a year (these FBI even sabotaged her car one time).

Often witnesses like her are so harassed that this takes a toll on them emotionally over the years causing them to act somewhat disturbed which affects their credibility to researchers who examine their story. The more folks doubt them and the more they get harassed and criticized, the more upset and irrational they often come across.

So Jim, unless proven otherwise, she comes off as credible to me.

RESPONSE (2):

Tue, 2 Mar 2010 07:15:48 +0000 [01:15:48 AM CST]
From:
To: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Subject: Re: Invitation . . .

Jim, I haven't read Judyth's book so I can't comment on her claims. But I do think it is well established that she worked at Riley Coffee and that was a spy nest which could cause her harassment based on that alone. She may have confabulated details about Oswald and created more than was there to put together a book.

Normally when someone like Judyth is harassed by intel they are being harassed for things different than what they think. She may know something that is more important than she realizes, some little detail could be behind all her harassment.

And Bill Kelly's and others claims that her story adds nothing may be true, but that may have nothing to do with her value to exposing the intel aspects of the case. And the last possibility is that some witnesses were clandestinely drugged with weird chemicals from Technical Services at the CIA, things like BZ which could damage one's white matter, hippocampus and cause some confabulations.

If she is a "hanger on" who has confabulated a story to write a book and get attention, that does not in and of itself mean that she doesn't know something that intel wants covered up. According experienced retired intel ops I have talked too many such witnesses are seriously harmed emotionally by the harassment process which are designed to destroy folk's credibility.

Now Jim, as one of the world's top experts on logic, if not the top one, you don't need to be reminded of the faulty logic which many appear to be using to attack Judyth with. Correlation isn't necessarily an indicator of causation, and non-correlation of aspects of a story does not mean both are false if one is false and vice versa. So part of her story could be confabulated or emotionally enhanced and that does not mean another part is not true and neither means that she might not be harassed for totally unknown reasons of some small detail she represents or could expose not directly related to her book or her story. This unrelated small detail issue is one which often gets folks harassed by intel according to experts I have consulted with. The first questions always should be, "what info or detail does this lady represent or is linked to that could be a loose end or a threat to intel?"

Jim, thanks for telling me about your new web site. . . .

Best regards form one truth junkie to another.

RESPONSE (3):

Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 17:51:33 +0000 [11:51:33 AM CST]
From:
To: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Subject: Re: Invitation . . .

Jim, I was referring to Jean Hill, who was needlessly harassed for years and wasn't talking to anyone then anyway. The harassment caused her to later talk.

Thank you for sharing these notes with us Jim.

[Peter Lemkin]

In the excellent long 14 Reasons to Believe Judyth Vary Baker by Professor Fetzer is the gem that Posner-linked Duffy of US News and World Report prevailed upon CBS Sixty Minutes to eschew the Baker story as having insufficient substantiation--

QED: Per Posner, Baker is proved valid

Again and again, one asks, if there is no there there, why the white-hot frenzy to put out this fire.

The folks at Cover-Ups-R-Us protest too much.

It is interesting...and might have to do with just one part of her story - or be an attempt to create a false-flag - and everything in between. The nasty little boys [mostly men, sadly] who invent these psyops and counter-psyops and cover-ups and counter cover-ups and on and on and on are masters of their black arts. That said, one would think it most odd that someone apparently went so far as to try to do her bodily harm in one country in Europe. Her fear is real, I sense. That they would try to fool us, I could understand; but why to harm her if there is nothing to the story. Oh, I can invent reasons, but others have come up with now provably false stories about related matters who received no flack....while those who had some itty bitty bit of information [or more] all too often suffered some very strange and even deadly fates. It is a tangled web out there - hard to tease apart and easy for the tanglers to make it into a Gordian Knot.

[David Guyatt]

I don't wish to detract from the main thrust of this thread in he slightest, but I wonder if Jim would be prepared to open a new thread on the bio-cyber robotic warfare subject as discussed by his friend. It is a vital subject.