Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[Adrian Mack]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.