20-11-2016, 02:04 AM
It's always seemed blindingly clear to me that Baker is a liar - and I'd be much more inclined to attribute her falsehoods to delusion, mental health issues and/or a desire to make a buck than being on a disinformation mission. Either way, she's obviously an opportunist of the most cynical kind - whenever something new emerges about the case, or a particular area/topic becomes researchers' flavor of the week, she posts about it, weaving it into her story and claiming she knew all along. Her entire narrative is a badly woven patchwork of existing, well-known information and bogusly specific claims which either have no evidentiary basis or directly contradict evidence. Moreover, even if true, it adds zilch to our understanding of the assassination. Why bother dwelling on this tedious charlatan?