JUDYTH VARY BAKER - IN HER OWN WORDS: Edited, With Commentary by Walt Brown, Ph.D

[Peter Lemkin]

"Why would ex Nazis from Hitler's Army want to assassinate Jack if Jack had nothing to do with World War II that makes no sense?" as asked by Mr. Kaiser.

The leftover WWII Nazis did not leave all their problems behind as of April and May, 1945. You might remember that in 1960 to 1961, Adolf Eichmann was kidnapped in Argentina and taken to Israel for trial.

As far as I have ever heard, nobody knows whether JFK had to sign off on this kidnapping, trial, or whether JFK was o.k. with more and more Nazis being kidnapped and taken back to Germany and/or Israel to stand trial. Although the kidnapping of Eichmann took place under Ike, many people like Konrad Adenauer, Chancellor of Germany were already looking with concern at the likelihood of a JFK Presidency and what it would bring. That probably included the influential ex-Nazis.

The election in the US in 1958 was a liberal Democratic wave. And with that wave came increased influence in the US of traditional Democratic supporters such as Jewish and Zionist voters and contributors. And we had Operation Paperclip ex-Nazis living in the US, probably numbering in the thousands.

And don't forget, the manager of the Saturn Five moon-shot rocket was Arthur Rudolph, an ex-Nazi scientist who was sent back to Germany to face possible prosecution in 1979 or shortly after. As thanks for managing the moonshot, Rudolph was stripped of his US citizenship and sent running, basically for his life or his freedom from 1979 to 1993.

So no, the leftover Nazis from World War II did not instantly become "good old boys" as the comment by Mr. Kaiser might suggest. On top of that, you had major military leaders from Hitler's Wehrmacht serving in the top posts in NATO as of 11-22-63. Some suggest that the US Joint Chiefs of Staff were meeting with ex-Hitler general Adolf Heusinger, (of Nato) at the moment JFK was shot.

One thing is certain--- after 1960, things had gotten a lot hotter worldwide for the former Nazis. Wernher von Braun had to go to court to defend himself against a War Crimes lawsuit brought by the East German Government in the mid-1960's. Von Braun used the facilities and the cover of Clay Shaw's International Trade Mart in that case for his secretive deposition.

Also, the above comment suggesting that since WWII was over, the Nazis would have forgiven and forgotten the bad effects of World War II seems (sorry) superficial. In actuality, Mr. Kaiser and other Americans were fooled into believing that the Nazis in Germany had all been eliminated, neutralized, re-educated and were again good citizens after 1945. NOT!!!!!!!!

But thanks for raising this very important issue on these pages. It really does matter.

James Lateer

James, We have been here before, and no doubt will be here again now that you are on the Forum..... As I have said before on this Forum in answer to others and in answer to your posts [and I have read your book, which I think has a lot of merit], I agree there were multiple Nazis [I think that term is fine for the Germans who took part] plus neo-Nazis [fine for the US and other fascist participants] in the JFK Assassination and related, BUT [and it is a very LARGE B-U-T!], I can NOT see any case that the Nazis were the impetus, the planners, the funders, the main actors, nor the persons engaged in the cover-up. I'm really not interested in trying to make a complete list, but was Dulles a Nazi [no - only a Nazi symp]; was Le May and those around him in the military and MI who participated Nazis [no - although they rubbed elbows with them at the end of the war]; was Hoover a Nazi [no - again just an all-American fascist type]; were the N.O. 'crowd' Nazis [no - again rightwing neo-fascist types or had friends who were Fascists during the War]; were the CIA personnel who helped plan and execute and then cover-up the events of Dallas Nazis [no - just not adverse to working with some, 'hiring' some, using some]. Were those in Mexico City at Hotel Luma or in the CIA station Nazis [no - but some players among them were or knew others who were]....and one can go on and on and on......I do NOT deny that some WWII Nazis were involved - but to assign the event as 'their baby from conception to delivery' I think is to mislead and just plain wrong. I know this is your thesis and you will continue to promote it....but I ask you and others to look objectively at this....many 'groups' were involved - but it was, IMO, an American plot using many outside groups - German Nazis, Cuban anti-Castro exiles, stateless Mafia, stateless soldiers of fortune, Mexican agents of many flags, religious agents who's allegiances were to their religious beliefs over country, freelance intell/soldier of fortune types, but there were also US Military and MI, US CIA, US SS, US FBI, US JCOS, US DOS, some US ultra-right/ultra-rich, US oil barons, US MIC - and the USA 'folks' dominated in number, in power, in direction/control, in planning, in carry it all out, in the deceptions, and in the cover up....which continues.
Mae Brussell's original article 'Nazi Connections to the JFK Assassination' was the first good exposure of the Nazi connections. We know much more now.....and about more Nazis who were involved or US friends of Nazis or were themselves neo-fascists who were....but it doesn't add up to a German Nazi assassination plot. It was a coup d'etat born and given birth and then buried in and primarily by US Citizen-traitors. I am myself working on yet another Nazi connection and know of at least two others not known to more than one or two JFK researchers - but this doesn't change my opinion, outlined above. A complete rebuttal of your 'it was the Nazis who done it' would take hours to write up. I'm not interested at this point to spend my time on that. Yes, they were part of the mix, some even in important positions. Yes, some I call 'USA citizens involved' were actually born in Germany....but it was an American Coup and led by US Citizens using a host of others - but dominated and predominated by US actors....... in sum: fascism, yes; Nazi, no.

[Peter Lemkin]

"Why would ex Nazis from Hitler's Army want to assassinate Jack if Jack had nothing to do with World War II that makes no sense?" as asked by Mr. Kaiser.

The leftover WWII Nazis did not leave all their problems behind as of April and May, 1945. You might remember that in 1960 to 1961, Adolf Eichmann was kidnapped in Argentina and taken to Israel for trial.

As far as I have ever heard, nobody knows whether JFK had to sign off on this kidnapping, trial, or whether JFK was o.k. with more and more Nazis being kidnapped and taken back to Germany and/or Israel to stand trial. Although the kidnapping of Eichmann took place under Ike, many people like Konrad Adenauer, Chancellor of Germany were already looking with concern at the likelihood of a JFK Presidency and what it would bring. That probably included the influential ex-Nazis.

The election in the US in 1958 was a liberal Democratic wave. And with that wave came increased influence in the US of traditional Democratic supporters such as Jewish and Zionist voters and contributors. And we had Operation Paperclip ex-Nazis living in the US, probably numbering in the thousands.

And don't forget, the manager of the Saturn Five moon-shot rocket was Arthur Rudolph, an ex-Nazi scientist who was sent back to Germany to face possible prosecution in 1979 or shortly after. As thanks for managing the moonshot, Rudolph was stripped of his US citizenship and sent running, basically for his life or his freedom from 1979 to 1993.

So no, the leftover Nazis from World War II did not instantly become "good old boys" as the comment by Mr. Kaiser might suggest. On top of that, you had major military leaders from Hitler's Wehrmacht serving in the top posts in NATO as of 11-22-63. Some suggest that the US Joint Chiefs of Staff were meeting with ex-Hitler general Adolf Heusinger, (of Nato) at the moment JFK was shot.

One thing is certain--- after 1960, things had gotten a lot hotter worldwide for the former Nazis. Wernher von Braun had to go to court to defend himself against a War Crimes lawsuit brought by the East German Government in the mid-1960's. Von Braun used the facilities and the cover of Clay Shaw's International Trade Mart in that case for his secretive deposition.

Also, the above comment suggesting that since WWII was over, the Nazis would have forgiven and forgotten the bad effects of World War II seems (sorry) superficial. In actuality, Mr. Kaiser and other Americans were fooled into believing that the Nazis in Germany had all been eliminated, neutralized, re-educated and were again good citizens after 1945. NOT!!!!!!!!

But thanks for raising this very important issue on these pages. It really does matter.

James Lateer

James, We have been here before, and no doubt will be here again now that you are on the Forum..... As I have said before on this Forum in answer to others and in answer to your posts [and I have read your book, which I think has a lot of merit], I agree there were multiple Nazis [I think that term is fine for the Germans who took part] plus neo-Nazis [fine for the US and other fascist participants] in the JFK Assassination and related, BUT [and it is a very LARGE B-U-T!], I can NOT see any case that the Nazis were the impetus, the planners, the funders, the main actors, nor the persons engaged in the cover-up. I'm really not interested in trying to make a complete list, but was Dulles a Nazi [no - only a Nazi symp]; was Le May and those around him in the military and MI who participated Nazis [no - although they rubbed elbows with them at the end of the war]; was Hoover a Nazi [no - again just an all-American fascist type]; were the N.O. 'crowd' Nazis [no - again rightwing neo-fascist types or had friends who were Fascists during the War]; were the CIA personnel who helped plan and execute and then cover-up the events of Dallas Nazis [no - just not adverse to working with some, 'hiring' some, using some]. Were those in Mexico City at Hotel Luma or in the CIA station Nazis [no - but some players among them were or knew others who were]....and one can go on and on and on......I do NOT deny that some WWII Nazis were involved - but to assign the event as 'their baby from conception to delivery' I think is to mislead and just plain wrong. I know this is your thesis and you will continue to promote it....but I ask you and others to look objectively at this....many 'groups' were involved - but it was, IMO, an American plot using many outside groups - German Nazis, Cuban anti-Castro exiles, stateless Mafia, stateless soldiers of fortune, Mexican agents of many flags, religious agents who's allegiances were to their religious beliefs over country, freelance intell/soldier of fortune types, but there were also US Military and MI, US CIA, US SS, US FBI, US JCOS, US DOS, some US ultra-right/ultra-rich, US oil barons, US MIC - and the USA 'folks' dominated in number, in power, in direction/control, in planning, in carry it all out, in the deceptions, and in the cover up....which continues.
Mae Brussell's original article 'Nazi Connections to the JFK Assassination' was the first good exposure of the Nazi connections. We know much more now.....and about more Nazis who were involved or US friends of Nazis or were themselves neo-fascists who were....but it doesn't add up to a German Nazi assassination plot. It was a coup d'etat born and given birth and then buried in and primarily by US Citizen-traitors. I am myself working on yet another Nazi connection and know of at least two others not known to more than one or two JFK researchers - but this doesn't change my opinion, outlined above. A complete rebuttal of your 'it was the Nazis who done it' would take hours to write up. I'm not interested at this point to spend my time on that. Yes, they were part of the mix, some even in important positions. Yes, some I call 'USA citizens involved' were actually born in Germany....but it was an American Coup and led by US Citizens using a host of others - but dominated and predominated by US actors....... in sum: fascism, yes; Nazi, no.

This shouldn't even be on this thread - which is about something completely different, and I might move them later when I have the chance.

[James Lateer]

Judy Vary Baker belongs in the Nazi discussion because of Operation Paperclip, Clay Shaw and germ warfare.

I have been troubled by this question all day: if Wernher Von Braun were involved in the JFK Assassination, would he have been involved (1) due to his past Nazi ideology, (2) as a long-time German citizen and German chauvinist (3) as an ultra-rightist based on his father's high position in the (pre-Hitler) Weimar Republic, (4) as a mainstay of the US "military-industrial complex" or (5) as an ally and sympathizer of and with Senator James O Eastland, in essence as a "Goldwater Republican" as of 1963?

In the world of JFK research, to me (right now) this would be one of the biggest unanswered questions, especially after the publication of the Skorzeny Papers. As many have observed, author Ralph Ganis (to an amazing extent) pins the JFK assassination primarily on ex-Nazi and Hitler loyalist Skorzeny in his fabulous book. But Ganis fails to present a plausible motive for the actions of Skorzeny in the JFK murder case. Would it be enough to state that Skorzeny did it because of his Nazi experience? If that sufficient in itself? Would that satisfy the above bloggers?

The answer to the above general question would take us well beyond the JFK assassination as a topic.

Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands was a former SS Officer. Was he doing what he was doing in founding the Bilderberg Society and was he acting (1) because of his Nazi indoctrination and world-view? Or was he (2) acting as the Prince of the Netherlands? Or was it (3) because he was involved with globalists? Or (4) was he a "Pan-European"?

The EEU was conceived at the infamous Strassbourg Meeting in August, 1944 in France. At the meeting, Nazi bigwigs met with German Industrialists from I G Farben, Deutsche-bank, Siemens, Krupp and others. That meeting was apparently overseen by the Nazis (who controlled Strassbourg at the time). But to what extent does that make the EEU a Nazi concept or a Nazi creation? A "yes" or "no" won't really answer that question IMO.

If Skorzeny were, as Ganis contends, the perpetrator of the JFK assassination, does that make it, (1) necessarily, a Nazi crime? Or (2) was Skorzeny, as of 1963, more of a Franco Falangist? Or (3) merely a run-of-the-mill mercenary?

Dag Hammarskjold became U N Secretary-General. During World War II, he had worked face to face with the Hitler government on the German national finances. As Secretary-General, was his role as top leader of the United Nations War Crimes Commission influenced by his close working relations with Nazis (in his past)? Did he have a conflict of interest?

Pope Benedict had been a member of the Hitler Youth. Was his job performance as Pope influenced by this fact and this history? Even a little bit? But how much? By contrast, Pope John XXIII made his reputation by saving Jews from the Nazis. Were those two Popes different in their job performance? If so, how much was influenced by the WWII experience?

If former Nazis were to any extent in control of the West German Government in 1963, then would their actions be called "Nazi actions" or would it merely be "actions of West Germans"?

Despite my extensive research into this problem, I don't think I can "shoot from the hip" and rattle off a glib answer to that. Virtually everyone to whom I explain my belief that Nazis killed JFK comes back to me with their own opinion as to the credibility of that theory. But how can they give a simple, off-the-cuff "yes" or "no" answer to that puzzling question? In fact, almost nobody really is qualified to give that an answer. But everyone thinks that they are!!!! I don't really get it.

If numerous former Nazis were involved in the murder of JFK, does that make it a Nazi crime?

My own opinion is that:

1. The worldwide Nazis had a ready-made network.
2. They had endless blood on their hands, more than any group in history, by far.
3. They were, by definition, capable of any crime, no matter how heinous, risky and outrageous.
4. Many of them (maybe most) lived outside the US and were beyond the reach of US law enforcement, outslde the grasp of Jim Garrison, the FBI, etc. etc. etc.
5. If ex-Nazis murdered JFK, that would automatically require a 56 year cover-up (and counting) due to their continuing connection to our ally West Germany and Adenauer.
6. Hitler, to this day, is officially the most reviled person in World History, at least in America. By assocation, that makes ex-Nazis hot potatoes, unlike (say) J Edgar Hoover or James O Eastland.
7 The war (and pre-War) experience of the top ex-Nazis like von Braun, Gehlen, Dornberger and others was WAY BEYOND anything experienced by Americans, even by Ike. Think in terms of Operation Valkyrie, the Russian front, the Holocaust, etc. We're talking about living under the pressure of instant death at the hands of an insane, maniac absolute dictator. Maybe Stalin's friends were comparable, but not LBJ, J E Hoover, George H W Bush etc etc. etc. We're talking about people who were plotting every day just to keep alive, for years and years and years.
8. They had their own "dark" funding apparatus.
9. They were the proverbial "cornered animals" and doubly dangerous compared to Hoover, LBJ, Nixon, GHW Bush, etc.

In fact, if either myself or Skorzeny author Ralph Ganis are correct in our assignment of the blame for the JFK murder to ex-Nazis, then it's almost ridiculous IMO to compare, say, an escaped and exiled Hitler, or even Bormann, Skorzeny, Gestapo Muller and their friends to Americans like J Edgar Hoover, James O Eastland, Allen Dulles, etc.

On my JFK organizational chart, I have 70 persons (including small entities and committees). Of those, 19 were either former-Nazis or people who had worked side by side with ex-Nazis over an extended and face-to-face basis (such as Adenauer).

And yes, I will count Allen Dulles, General Lemnitzer, General Edwin Walker and Senator Thomas J. Dodd in the latter category.

So IMHO, the web of Nazis was the backbone of the JFK plot, pure and simple.

And Judyth Vary Baker fits into this topic completely. That's because she was the bearer of the news about the weaponized-cancer project. And that project was apparently the partial brain-child of Operation Paperclip German scientists and probably German and American "industrialists" such as I G Farben scientists and, of course, Dr. Alton Ochsner of NOLA. Clay Shaw was allegedly the paymaster of the cancer project and he was also involved with I G Farben AND IN OPERATION PAPERCLIP. HE MAY ACTUALLY HAVE BEEN OPERATION PAPERCLIP PERSONIFIED.

I think Americans should wake up to the above--at least that should be required of American historians. Maybe someday that will happen.

James Lateer

[Scott Kaiser]

James, please don't take this the wrong way, but your obsession over the Nazis involved with Kennedy's assassination is behind mind-boggling.

I can guarantee you no Nazis I'm aware of was involved in any way with Kennedy's assassination, however, some folks had German in their genealogy, does that make them Nazis? No!

[Scott Kaiser]

However, as pointed out that if your theory of Nazis involved in the assassination of Kennedy is your thesis based on a book you've written and you depend on that book to pay the bills then I get it, I understand your argument, truly I do.

But, I thought this is where we are suppose to be honest, with everything we know, is that not the sole objective here?

[Anthony Thorne]

If any of you guys want to add some commentary about the thread subject - Brown's book - at some point, perhaps when the ebook comes out, that would be just dandy.

[James Lateer]

I checked into this JV Baker book on Amazon. It looks like it is only available on Kindle. I have never used Kindle and don't plan to. Does anybody know any way to get this book other than getting hooked into some sort of "subscription" deal with Amazon or somebody?

I guess that hooking people into subscription arrangements is the new way for big corporations to "print money" (i.e. increase their profits by providing only the same old stuff.)

If Judyth Vary Baker is involved with this sort of ersatz publisher, this doesn't increase her credibility IMHO.

By the way, the above suggestion that my theories about Nazis and JFK is paying my rent or buying my food through book sales, think again.

Despite selling over 700 books, my financial take would only pay for two weeks of my mortage payment. It might pay for one month grocery bills.

My only solace is that my book is in 21 libraries in 7 different countries. I will be able to go to my grave having contributed to 700 people (plus or minus) finding out who really murdered JFK and why.

But my research is not over. Just yesterday, I came across major new JFK information. This involves the Italian National Oil Company, CEO Enrico Mattei and a proposed oil pipeline from Italy into Bavaria during the period 1958 to 1962. Mattei was apparently murdered in 1962.

Since General Edwin Walker was heavily involved in Bavaria in that period, you have to wonder about big oil, Dallas, Southern Germany, Bavaria and the bizarre politics of Italy in that period. And of course, Permindex which was born in 1958 and died in 1962. Perfect timing!

And no, I'm not motivated by money (except in my day-trading) and no, I don't ever expect to make out financially by blaming Nazis for killing JFK (or blaming anybody else). My theories are honest theories, at least as honest as I can come up with. And they can get better. I'm open minded about that.

James Lateer

[James Lateer]

Just listened to the YouTube interview of author Walt Brown by Mike Swanson, an interviewer.

I don't think I will spend the money on this book. Mr. Brown said you can send $19.95 to P O Box 174, Hillsdale, NJ 07642 and get a print copy of the book.

Brown spent an hour presenting his arguments against JVB's credibility. But the problems he points out in her story are just "run-of-the-mill" type of minor criticisms that are often made regarding any JFK narrative, be it Warren Commission, Jim Garrison quotes, interviews, etc.

Brown picks on tiny details like a claim that whether JVB was wearing the clothes of Marina Oswald on a single day. He ridicules the idea the Oswald could have carried weaponized cancer in a jug to Mexico City because it would have spoiled (says Brown). How would Mr. Brown know anything about weaponized cancer to make this criticism?
How soon does weaponized cancer spoil? If anybody reading this knows the answer, I would be interested.

Mr. Brown claims that if Oswald wanted to expedite the killing of Castro, he wouldn't have taken a bus to Mexico City but would have taken an airplane. That seems to me to be a totally imaginary criticism, since how would Mr. Brown know anything about airplane flights to Mexico City from Texas in September, 1963? Could LHO have taken an airplane instead of a bus? WHO KNOWS????

Even if the cited criticisms by Brown cast some minor doubt about the integrity of JVB's narrative, the criticisms by Mr. Brown show a complete lack of analytical skills of any quality or sophistication whatever. And he is listed as a PhD. I'm not sure how he could ever have presented or defended a PhD thesis, not even possible with his lack of analytical skills which he displayed in that interview.

Strangely, he describes his own analysis as an attempt "at God's own truth." I'll take him at his word on that. But his criticisms of Baker lack any sophistication whatever and, really, seem kind of sad. Since he is my own age, I know that when you approach age seventy, your mental sharpness can decline. Maybe that's the problem.

Another simplistic criticism is that JVB's husband was an encyclopedia salesman, yet she claimed that her husband was working until 10:30 pm on a Saturday night. Mr. Brown seems to know that JVB's husband couldn't be selling enclyclopedias at that late hour. OK. Maybe he was doing paperwork. Maybe he was unboxing enclyclopedias late into the night. The point is that Mr. Brown doesn't have a clue about analyzing or criticizing the complicated and challenging work of JVB. Just like Mr. Brown doesn't know whether LHO could have taken a plane to Mexico City (instead of a bus). Or about the work schedule of encyclopedia salesmen.

And to make the worst inference of all, Mr. Brown claims to have spent 50 years researching the JFK case, but offers not the slightest suggestion as to the guilty parties.

In place of the claims and theories of JVB, Mr. Brown offers literally nothing. All he can state that he knows and believes for sure is that LHO was set up as a patsy. REALLY? LHO WAS SET UP AS A PATSY!! AND THAT'S ALL YOU HAVE DISCOVERED WORTH REPEATING AFTER 50 YEARS? If true, that's more than sad. It would be pathetic.

I'm sorry to have to be this harsh, but Mr. Brown's analysis and presentation in this interview is not the stuff of a PhD. Not in that interview. Maybe he is saving his best stuff for other occasions. But this interview was not even up to the standards of a smart high-schooler. IMHO.

James Lateer

Interview is at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jgw0bL32wi4

[Scott Kaiser]

Just listened to the YouTube interview of author Walt Brown by Mike Swanson, an interviewer.

I don't think I will spend the money on this book. Mr. Brown said you can send $19.95 to P O Box 174, Hillsdale, NJ 07642 and get a print copy of the book.

Brown spent an hour presenting his arguments against JVB's credibility. But the problems he points out in her story are just "run-of-the-mill" type of minor criticisms that are often made regarding any JFK narrative, be it Warren Commission, Jim Garrison quotes, interviews, etc.

Brown picks on tiny details like a claim that whether JVB was wearing the clothes of Marina Oswald on a single day. He ridicules the idea the Oswald could have carried weaponized cancer in a jug to Mexico City because it would have spoiled (says Brown). How would Mr. Brown know anything about weaponized cancer to make this criticism?
How soon does weaponized cancer spoil? If anybody reading this knows the answer, I would be interested.

Mr. Brown claims that if Oswald wanted to expedite the killing of Castro, he wouldn't have taken a bus to Mexico City but would have taken an airplane. That seems to me to be a totally imaginary criticism, since how would Mr. Brown know anything about airplane flights to Mexico City from Texas in September, 1963? Could LHO have taken an airplane instead of a bus? WHO KNOWS????

Even if the cited criticisms by Brown cast some minor doubt about the integrity of JVB's narrative, the criticisms by Mr. Brown show a complete lack of analytical skills of any quality or sophistication whatever. And he is listed as a PhD. I'm not sure how he could ever have presented or defended a PhD thesis, not even possible with his lack of analytical skills which he displayed in that interview.

Strangely, he describes his own analysis as an attempt "at God's own truth." I'll take him at his word on that. But his criticisms of Baker lack any sophistication whatever and, really, seem kind of sad. Since he is my own age, I know that when you approach age seventy, your mental sharpness can decline. Maybe that's the problem.

Another simplistic criticism is that JVB's husband was an encyclopedia salesman, yet she claimed that her husband was working until 10:30 pm on a Saturday night. Mr. Brown seems to know that JVB's husband couldn't be selling enclyclopedias at that late hour. OK. Maybe he was doing paperwork. Maybe he was unboxing enclyclopedias late into the night. The point is that Mr. Brown doesn't have a clue about analyzing or criticizing the complicated and challenging work of JVB. Just like Mr. Brown doesn't know whether LHO could have taken a plane to Mexico City (instead of a bus). Or about the work schedule of encyclopedia salesmen.

And to make the worst inference of all, Mr. Brown claims to have spent 50 years researching the JFK case, but offers not the slightest suggestion as to the guilty parties.

In place of the claims and theories of JVB, Mr. Brown offers literally nothing. All he can state that he knows and believes for sure is that LHO was set up as a patsy. REALLY? LHO WAS SET UP AS A PATSY!! AND THAT'S ALL YOU HAVE DISCOVERED WORTH REPEATING AFTER 50 YEARS? If true, that's more than sad. It would be pathetic.

I'm sorry to have to be this harsh, but Mr. Brown's analysis and presentation in this interview is not the stuff of a PhD. Not in that interview. Maybe he is saving his best stuff for other occasions. But this interview was not even up to the standards of a smart high-schooler. IMHO.

James Lateer

Interview is at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jgw0bL32wi4

James, I'm no professor, journalist or researcher, I am not an historian, writer, nor do I give speeches, now that we have that out of the way. I have read much criticism about Miss Baker as well as much praise. In my own case I have heard her say many times "Lee told me this", or "Lee told me that", she has also said that aside from meeting Lee, she had met Carlos Marcello, Guy Banister, David Ferrie and many others through Lee, her memory is remarkably detailed in every aspect, when I think back to when I was a kid I can remember having conversations with my father, I try to remember our conversations as if we had them yesterday, some words I can remember while others are a blur, I do my very best in trying to piece together things we said to one another. On one particular occasion we had a serious conversation, it was unlike your everyday run-of-the-mill conversations you have with your parents, this was on the day my father was killed, I admit that I cannot remember every exact word that was said, perhaps, it's because of the trauma I experienced of just losing my father, or maybe it's age, but one thing I do know is that Miss Baker says she can remember everything that Lee told her, that's not only improbable, but impossible. You're an author, so you know that if information were to be plugged into your book you would want to verify the facts otherwise the book is fiction right? Well, that's what happened to me, someone other than me plugged in Me & Lee with a short paragraph discussing Alex Rourke and Lee Oswald, that information found it's way into my book because my father had Rourke's phone number in my father's address book. When any changes are made to an authors book the author should always be notified before the book is published, I would say that is the right thing to do, so, as a nobody, you can take my information for what it's worth.

[Mark A. O'Blazney]

Just listened to the YouTube interview of author Walt Brown by Mike Swanson, an interviewer.

I don't think I will spend the money on this book. Mr. Brown said you can send $19.95 to P O Box 174, Hillsdale, NJ 07642 and get a print copy of the book.

Brown spent an hour presenting his arguments against JVB's credibility. But the problems he points out in her story are just "run-of-the-mill" type of minor criticisms that are often made regarding any JFK narrative, be it Warren Commission, Jim Garrison quotes, interviews, etc.

Brown picks on tiny details like a claim that whether JVB was wearing the clothes of Marina Oswald on a single day. He ridicules the idea the Oswald could have carried weaponized cancer in a jug to Mexico City because it would have spoiled (says Brown). How would Mr. Brown know anything about weaponized cancer to make this criticism?
How soon does weaponized cancer spoil? If anybody reading this knows the answer, I would be interested.

Mr. Brown claims that if Oswald wanted to expedite the killing of Castro, he wouldn't have taken a bus to Mexico City but would have taken an airplane. That seems to me to be a totally imaginary criticism, since how would Mr. Brown know anything about airplane flights to Mexico City from Texas in September, 1963? Could LHO have taken an airplane instead of a bus? WHO KNOWS????

Even if the cited criticisms by Brown cast some minor doubt about the integrity of JVB's narrative, the criticisms by Mr. Brown show a complete lack of analytical skills of any quality or sophistication whatever. And he is listed as a PhD. I'm not sure how he could ever have presented or defended a PhD thesis, not even possible with his lack of analytical skills which he displayed in that interview.

Strangely, he describes his own analysis as an attempt "at God's own truth." I'll take him at his word on that. But his criticisms of Baker lack any sophistication whatever and, really, seem kind of sad. Since he is my own age, I know that when you approach age seventy, your mental sharpness can decline. Maybe that's the problem.

Another simplistic criticism is that JVB's husband was an encyclopedia salesman, yet she claimed that her husband was working until 10:30 pm on a Saturday night. Mr. Brown seems to know that JVB's husband couldn't be selling enclyclopedias at that late hour. OK. Maybe he was doing paperwork. Maybe he was unboxing enclyclopedias late into the night. The point is that Mr. Brown doesn't have a clue about analyzing or criticizing the complicated and challenging work of JVB. Just like Mr. Brown doesn't know whether LHO could have taken a plane to Mexico City (instead of a bus). Or about the work schedule of encyclopedia salesmen.

And to make the worst inference of all, Mr. Brown claims to have spent 50 years researching the JFK case, but offers not the slightest suggestion as to the guilty parties.

In place of the claims and theories of JVB, Mr. Brown offers literally nothing. All he can state that he knows and believes for sure is that LHO was set up as a patsy. REALLY? LHO WAS SET UP AS A PATSY!! AND THAT'S ALL YOU HAVE DISCOVERED WORTH REPEATING AFTER 50 YEARS? If true, that's more than sad. It would be pathetic.

I'm sorry to have to be this harsh, but Mr. Brown's analysis and presentation in this interview is not the stuff of a PhD. Not in that interview. Maybe he is saving his best stuff for other occasions. But this interview was not even up to the standards of a smart high-schooler. IMHO.

James Lateer

Interview is at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jgw0bL32wi4

James, I'm no professor, journalist or researcher, I am not an historian, writer, nor do I give speeches, now that we have that out of the way. I have read much criticism about Miss Baker as well as much praise. In my own case I have heard her say many times "Lee told me this", or "Lee told me that", she has also said that aside from meeting Lee, she had met Carlos Marcello, Guy Banister, David Ferrie and many others through Lee, her memory is remarkably detailed in every aspect, when I think back to when I was a kid I can remember having conversations with my father, I try to remember our conversations as if we had them yesterday, some words I can remember while others are a blur, I do my very best in trying to piece together things we said to one another. On one particular occasion we had a serious conversation, it was unlike your everyday run-of-the-mill conversations you have with your parents, this was on the day my father was killed, I admit that I cannot remember every exact word that was said, perhaps, it's because of the trauma I experienced of just losing my father, or maybe it's age, but one thing I do know is that Miss Baker says she can remember everything that Lee told her, that's not only improbable, but impossible. You're an author, so you know that if information were to be plugged into your book you would want to verify the facts otherwise the book is fiction right? Well, that's what happened to me, someone other than me plugged in Me & Lee with a short paragraph discussing Alex Rourke and Lee Oswald, that information found it's way into my book because my father had Rourke's phone number in my father's address book. When any changes are made to an authors book the author should always be notified before the book is published, I would say that is the right thing to do, so, as a nobody, you can take my information for what it's worth.

Judyth Baker: The Story So Far - JFK Online