JVB vs Scott Kaiser

[Albert Doyle]

Too many mainstream researchers quit too early on persons of controversy. There's an either/or, total discrediting syndrome where once a person gets tarred with lack of credibility they get dumped. Baker is probably begging for it but she has too many positive hits, like Anna Lewis, to completely dismiss her.

I think the reason good researchers get sucked in is because of those positive aspects. These kind of cases really require a brain surgery level approach because they get down to the delicate level. It is possible JVB was originally assigned from the covert side and not from any innocent whistleblower side. If true then she was monitoring Oswald rather than the other way around and this kind of flooding the situation with bizarre garbage claims that have some basis in truth is typical of spook ops designed to muddy the waters and draw contempt on conspiracy claims. To completely throw out JVB's story is to risk ignoring Mrs Lewis's claim that she first met Oswald in Feb-Apr 1962, which would be months before the false defector Oswald returned from Russia. This would be very good evidence of there being two Oswalds.


While espionage was a man's game back then, the use of women for important spy work is as old as history. Mata Hari was one example going back to WWI when Allen Dulles got his start.


By the way, there are sand beaches not too far from New Orleans.

The idea that if you get one person to vouch for you, then somehow that gives you ballast, that simply does not wash. Because Slatzer did this with his phony Marilyn MOnroe story and Summers fell for it. Turned out that he gave someone three hundred bucks to back up his fairy tale.

Anna Lewis seems to have a New Orleans background that can't be dismissed that easily. She also doesn't appear to be lying to me.



.

[Scott Kaiser]

Too many mainstream researchers quit too early on persons of controversy. There's an either/or, total discrediting syndrome where once a person gets tarred with lack of credibility they get dumped. Baker is probably begging for it but she has too many positive hits, like Anna Lewis, to completely dismiss her.

I think the reason good researchers get sucked in is because of these positive aspects. These kind of cases really require a brain surgery level approach because they get down to the delicate level. It is possible JVB was originally assigned from the covert side and not from any innocent whistleblower side. If true then she was monitoring Oswald rather than the other way around and this kind of flooding the situation with bizarre garbage claims that have some basis in truth is typical of spook ops designed to muddy the waters and draw contempt on conspiracy claims. To completely throw out JVB's story is to risk ignoring Mrs Lewis's claim that she first met Oswald in Feb-Apr 1962, which would be months before the false defector Oswald returned from Russia. This would be very good evidence of there being two Oswalds.


While espionage was a man's game back then, the use of women for important spy work is as old as history. Mata Hari was one example going back to WWI when Allen Dulles got his start.


By the way, there are sand beaches not too far from New Orleans.

The idea that if you get one person to vouch for you, then somehow that gives you ballast, that simply does not wash. Because Slatzer did this with his phony Marilyn MOnroe story and Summers fell for it. Turned out that he gave someone three hundred bucks to back up his fairy tale.

Anna Lewis seems to have a New Orleans background that can't be dismissed that easily. She also doesn't appear to be lying to me.

Please believe when I say, I'm not judging her, I do my very best to not judge people, and I'm not going to get into that. But, I would like to met her, scratch my head, adsorb the information, digest it and hopefully, I'll be persuaded to see things in a different light.

I'll tell you one thing, even after interviewing my own mother, I felt a bit skeptical, but there are too many coincidences and I know for a fact my mother hasn't been talking to any of the Cuban people in Miami.

So we'll see, I have been invited by JVB to the conference to speak, I accepted. I'll take it from there without judging or being judged.

Scott

[Albert Doyle]

So we'll see, I have been invited by JVB to the conference to speak, I accepted. I'll take it from there without judging or being judged.

Scott

Cool. Maybe it will lead to something.

[Jim DiEugenio]

Scott:

The whole idea behind the critical studies of the JFK case is to try and unearth what really happened to President Kennedy. In all of its circumstances.

Because of the horrid mess that the Warren Commission created, that is not an easy thing to do today. Which is an understatement.

But people who try must apply to their work some kind of standards, so we don't have Brennans in reverse.

Baker has all the indications of being another Madeleine Brown. A witness who is nothing but a huge question mark. And that is being kind to her.

If you don't recall, there was a time she complained about being a political prisoner in the USA and seeking asylum in Scandinavia. That turned out to be well, not really accurate. She did the same thing in relation to Canada--and that was, well, not the case. Today, miraculously, persecution free, she does tours from Minnesota to Texas.

When a witness is not forthcoming about certain aspects of her life e.g. her college career, her marriages, her occupation, and these black holes occur at certain points in the narrative that are key to her book (actually books), then this should raise certain warnings about her work and credibility. As noted previously, this is the problem Carol Hewett had with Baker. She could never get a straight answer on these topics from her. Which, in reality, should have been as easy as drinking a glass of water.

Now, people who accept Baker in the community have not had the reputation for doing field investigation work. That is, actually going to the scene of certain places, tracking down on site records, finding witnesses, getting new leads etc. The kind of thing Gaeton Fonzi was so good at and make his book so indispensable. I have never seen anything like that from Jim Fetzer or Martin Shackleford. But that is precisely what is needed in a case like this. When Carol tried to do this with Baker, she could not get a straight answer to even the simplest question like: Did you graduate from UF? Now what is so hard about answering that question?

Except that if she did not graduate, then maybe it undermines the tenet that she was a scientific prodigy? And if she was not another Mary Sherman in her academic faculties, then what use would Ochsner have for her? See, this is something a lawyer like Carol would find curious. Why? Because when Carol was working with CBS, if you can believe it, CBS was predisposed to buy Baker's story. And they wanted Carol to find verification for it so they could run it. It would have helped Carol if she could have. But the problem is when the witness will not even cooperate in piecing her own life together so one can answer questions like, What have you been doing for 30 years? Have you been married before? Did you graduate from UF and if not, why not? If you cannot get straight answers to those kinds of simple questions, then this reflects on how candid someone is about other more complex and material points.

There is much evidence that Baker and her backers ignore that indicates they have pieced together what amounts to a mythology. So much that it is stunning. But it shows just how careless, and how, in another way, they are so willing to fall for someone who simply would be destroyed on the witness stand. And make no mistake, Baker and her backers are good at what they do. They do not just borrow from books. They have been through things like Garrison's ARRB files, which is something that only a very few people have been willing to read. For instance, at one point, she and her backers, like Fetzer, claimed that Oswald and her were in Jackson and they parked the car down the street from Edwin MacGhee's barber shop with a bassinet in the back. The problem here was, they didn't get all the way through the file. Because it later turned out that, when Garrison completed the inquiry, it was Clay Shaw who picked up Oswald almost right in front of the barber shop. The car down the street was unrelated to Oswald since there was a laundromat a few doors down from there. I can vouch for this since I have been there and there is a small corner mini mall still there with a laundromat right down from MacGhee's. At least that was the case when I was there in 1994. But this is how they put together a crazy quilt blanket that, like with the WR, when you press it, it gives way.

But the point is, one can only expose these things if one has done the hard field investigative work necessary. People like Fetzer and Schackleford have not, and never have. And never will. Its time consuming and expensive. But it needs to be done in a case like this. As per the horseback riding on a beach in New Orleans, when I was there, the people in the Big Easy went to Biloxi for that kind of stuff. Which is in a different state.

By all means attend her conference if you think Ruby, Shaw, Oswald and Ferrie dined out in New Orleans, and Oswald invited Baker to meet with them for dinner in the summer of 1963. And Ferrie did not say anything about Oswald being seen in public with two staunch anti communists while he was working for the FPCC. And somehow Baker didn't put the pieces together for 30 years. That is she didn't call Garrison, Sprague or Blakey.

Fine, its your choice.

[Casey McClelland]

Hello Scott,

I can't wait for your book to come out, your father's life sounds quite fascinating. I really hope you plan to reconsider your association with JVB's conference. Jim is correct, your reputation as a researcher and author are more valuable than a few extra books you might sell. Associating with her on any level will jeaporize the hard work you have done.

[Scott Kaiser]

I have absolutely no problem sitting down with her and picking her brain. If folks are going to judge me for attending a conference then so be it, to you, it may be about the selling of a few extra books, to me it's about telling my father's story.

[Casey McClelland]

Scott,

I didn't realize it was a big conference, I thought it was a book launching type of event for her book on Ferrie. I totally understand your passion to share your father's story and I have a lot of respect for that. It's also very hard to share any bad information you found, I commend you for doing so. Next time I will ask for some clarification. I apologize if you found my post offensive in any manner.

[Scott Kaiser]

Scott,

I didn't realize it was a big conference, I thought it was a book launching type of event for her book on Ferrie. I totally understand your passion to share your father's story and I have a lot of respect for that. It's also very hard to share any bad information you found, I commend you for doing so. Next time I will ask for some clarification. I apologize if you found my post offensive in any manner.

No apology needed, I only want to tell what I have learned about my father, and his associates. I have been digesting this for six going on seven years now, and I still find it difficult to understand how my father got himself involved in all this.

[Scott Kaiser]

Folks, I have been critical and unfair to JVB. I will, sit down with JVB as I do believe that what she has to offer is and can be valuable to the research in the assassination of President Kennedy.


Now, there is no doubt that Judyth Baker knew and worked with Oswald, and there is no doubt of her working on developing a cancer agent for something, perhaps, it was meant for Fidel Castro.


Nevertheless, I will get her book and read it, I want everyone to know that I was NOT attacking JVB. I was merely stating my opinion. And, remembering what my father use to say, "opinions are like assholes, everybody's got one", some here may also remember that my opinion may not be worth "two cents". But, JVB cannot be ruled out.


I am looking forward to having some alone time with JVB and picking her brain as we talk.

Scott Kaiser

[Albert Doyle]

I'm on the fence. I back a lot of notable conspiracy witnesses whom other well known researchers reject, but JVB has real issues and her story gives me vibes those other contested witnesses don't. It could be she's for real but then spoiled her true witnessing with nuttery and fabrications. All said, I find it fascinating some of the problems with her story could be explained by there being two Oswalds.