Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[David Guyatt]

I don't hold with Eustace Mullins either. He was far too much on the right, the extreme right even, for my personal tastes.

However, over the years I have come across a number of people who were able to provide clarity and detailed insights in areas I was researching, simply because they were experts, or at least very knowledgeable, in their field - and many of them also shared politically right views. Some even admired Mullins.

In my experience a great many individuals who operate in the intelligence field seem to naturally lean to the political right. Many are on the far right. One might be forgiven for thinking that this political attitude is almost mandatory for employment in these areas, and when we consider the cold war era, it was a requirement.

The fact is that political correctness is no measure of a person's skill or expertise - it is rather a judgement one makes about their political leanings. You don't have to like them, or get teary together, to acknowledge their professional skills.

Sorry David, but I prefer to think that the enemy of my enemy is not my friend. I'd also submit that people in the intelligence field who contribute to the type of research discussed here don't necessarily do it out of largesse or the egalitarian desire to liberate secret knowledge. Not all of them anyway. Very few, in my view.

If you're trying to persuade the general public that the Kennedy assassination was a deep state sanctioned hit, then you're going to have avoid associating your research with crypto-fascists, period. Cause you lose everyone at that point, aside from the other crypto-fascists. But that's your choice to make.

The larger issue in relation to this thread, however, is this:

Dr. Jim has managed to associate Judyth Baker with chemtrails, moon-landing hoaxes, exotic mega-double-top-secret-super-soldiers, and now a jew hating nutcase.

Way to make your case.

All this while sowing doubt about Armstrong's work. Which he hasn't read.

Adrian. It is my opinion and experience that if you wish to understand the beast that we both agree is on the loose, it is necessary to know it. This can only usually be achieved by developing lines of communication necessary for research etc. It is not possible to write investigative stories from the uncontaminated safety of the library.

A story: for many years I was in regular contact with a gentleman who killed people for a living. A merc, yes, an assassin, yes. All over the world, and for a variety of domestic and foreign alphabet agencies. But his main stomping ground was Africa. Not my sort of person in the least. But curiously, I learned to understand and even respect him because he had a quite strong ethic. This, obviously sounds very skewed, and I suppose it is. Non-the-less that was the case. And I learned many things from him.

Lots of individuals who work, or used to work, in those fields have been screwed by their employers, or in other ways, and wish for revenge. A few, as they grow older become tired, and even sickened, of their life and decide to change. Motives vary.

These are the facts of life for investigative journalism.

To clarify: I have no stake in the JFK matter per se. It is not a field I have ever investigated, nor am I even remotely knowledgeable - a statement I must make once a year I should think. But it is important to caveat whenever possible. So, I'm not trying to persuade anyone about JFK.

Concerning your other point. The conspiracy field is deep and wide, and more often than not, interconnected. Few conspiracy subjects can be discussed in isolation. Because they are not isolated. Jim has every right to introduce different angles. I often do so myself in those areas I have more knowledge on. Mea culpa.

I have made clear my view on NASA moon landing images. They are faked. The evidence is in.

The body of evidence on Chemtrails is out there to be read and analyzed. I remain undecided about it. However, one question I usually ask myself in assessing the possibility of any matter is "could it be true?" On the Chemtrails subject it could be true, so I can't discount it quite so easily as you. Again mea culpa.

Exotic soldier technology is an undeniable fact. It exists.

But I think the point you are making, and have made before, is that you consider some of the subjects to be so exotic that they contaminate the JFK assassination thread - and that this "cross contamination" diminishes the impact of Kennedy's assassination in the collective mind.

I understand.

If you'll forgive me for saying so, and with no disrespect to you personally, I think it is you who are struggling with the apparent conflict that interconnectedness is the reality of the world in which we live.

Compartmenting subjects is completely understandable.

In the last analysis none of us really wishes or wants to digest the indigestible.

But this is exactly what we must do if we are to have any meaningful impact on our world as it is currently configured.

I'm as sorry about this as you are.