Judyth: The Plot Thickens!
Dave Reitzes
<QUOTE ON>----------------------------------------
Rich DellaRosa
Judyth Vary Baker
« on: April 10, 2009, 02:43 PM »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Folks,
Today I received this bizarre email purportedly from Judyth Vary
Baker.
I had not had any communication with her in over 6 years. I am
as bewildered by this as anyone could be. Here it is verbatim:
[QUOTE ON]
Dear Sir:
I wish to commend you and everyone involved with JFK Research for
the work you have done. While you have had issues with me, I
believe I was given poor information about you, Armstrong, and
others with whom this organization is associated.
I am not a 'researcher' about the JFK assassination and
associated matters. I believe i was fed information by Mary
Ferrel that led me to distrust almost everything John Armstrong
has brough to the table. I am especially upset that she gave me
the impression that "the other Lee" was selected AT BIRTH.
I have just been sent information that Mr. Armstrong posited that
the deceptions he writes of began when Lee Oswald was 13, in New
York. This crrelates well with information I have about Charles
Thomas and others I knew were linked with Lee in New York.
While I still seem some problems with what I have been told are
still some major inconsistencies, without access to Armstrong's
book, I cannot make any judgments.
I believe I was deliberately misinformed, maiciously, in fact.
I was teaching in Hungary when Ed Haslam's book, Dr. Mary's
Monkey, was reviewed in Budapest newspapers. That same day, i
was approached by a Hungarian agent and warned that my life was
in danger. Hungary is very closely allied with agencies from the
US. In fact, there was an FBI office only a block from my hotel
where I had stayed in bedapest before going on to eastern Hungary
to live. My grandmother was born in Hungary, and her amily is
linked to a former popular primiere. For these reasons, I was
told I had been warned.
My teaching job, at the same time, vanished. I had just barely
got on my feet after having been assaulted in the US (was
hospitalized 6 days, then had 11 days in rehab...after that, 4
months of physical therapy). As I prepared to return to the US,
upon leaving an Internet Cafe, where i purchased return tickets
to the US online, another agent seated herself next to me on the
tram and stated that I must not return to the US, as i would be
picked up at the Newark airport, and that I should seek political
asylum to save my life. I know I was easy to spot because I have
to use a Service Dog, due to short term memory problems after two
concussions caused by 'accidents' in Dallas (I realized i could
not stay alive in Dallas and moved to Florida).
This time I did not believe the agent, because my airline ticket
was set to go through the JFK airport, not Newark's.But when I
returned to my hotel, I found the doorknob and lock literally
torn out of the door, and inside, most of my belongings had been
stolen. The hotel's guests were very alarmed and the door was
fixed almost at once, because of the idea of lack of security. I
went to the hotel lobby and used their computer there to download
photos I made into my computer at once, then went to my email and
sent photos to my son and daughter. I noticed a new email from
experdia.com and opened it. To my horror, i saw that my route
into the US--I was going from new york to Alabama-- had been
diverted to the Newark airport. This was about an hour before
the agent had warned me (I had gone shopping for souvenirs for my
family in the interim). I went to other websites and ordered
(very expensive, but i was frightened) several tickets to various
destinations which would be leaving at approximately the same
time from the F. airport outside Budapest. When I arrived at
the airport, though, I purchased a one-way ticket to Sweden. The
agent had advised me to choose a Scandinavian country to flee to.
I arrived at Stockholm and surrendered my self to the police
there. They were shocked, as they had never had an American
civilian ask for political asylum in decades. they assured me i
would deported within 24 hours to the US. I broke down and wept,
and they began investigating. The entire matter s complex, but
in the end, I received provisional asylum for 10.4 months, after
all that I had told them was investigated. However, the US was
not on the list -- I could not stay permanently because of the
profound embarrassment to my country. I was asked how much
time I needed to find safe haven, with the understanding that I
would have to eventually leave--they would judge aainst permanent
residency. i never applied for permanent resiency, therefore, but
placed an appeal so that the deportation order was in abeyance.
By early July, my desperate family managed to purchase a house
in Sweden and another residence in Turkey, both in remote areas.
I had made friends, meanwhile, with numerous swedes, and they
receive emails and then send them on, from sweden, to the outside
world. I live very humbly, have not even seen a movie for two
years, and eat some unsual food sometimes, but I am safe and no
longer am harrassed, stalked, etc. as I was in the US. i have no
books, though, and have had to ask for someone to send me a
Bible.
But in this isolation, i reviewed all that your organization
has done. You are spot-on. I am angry that I was given a great
deal of misinformation about your organization. I was told that
Fetzer was a fool, Della Rosa was pushing a religious theory
created by Armstrong, and other nonsense.
I have been advised that I may have to remain in exile a long
time for my safety -- this by officials in the know. However,
those advisements were in regard to the prior administration. I
love my country and at nearly age 66, am heartbroken that I could
not even attend my mother's funeral: they would not give me my
passport, saying if I left, I could not return and expect
protection. They did persuade me to stay out of the US Dec.
2007. I have photos of the incidents that occurred in Budapest.
On McAams' newsgroup, they erased 250,000 posts that had been
written against me. Recently, they tried to hunt me down in
Sweden, but I was in Turkey. istanbl itself has a population
greater than all of Sweden. M\But the newsgroup people at Mcadams
then tried to make readers believe there was no such thing as
provisional asylum, and that I had lied (say that word often
enough, and people will beleve it). I sent several articles
proving that provisional asylum is the designation for a
political asylum refugee who has been identified as having a
legitimate cause, for whom the final judgment has not yet been
made as to permanent residency. When a person comes to Stockholm
seeking political asylum, about 25% are immediately turned away
and deported. At the reception center, awaiting more
investigations, more are returned. of those then accepted into
provisional asylum, 45% will be turned down. Turndowns are often
desperate and flee, hide, and are hunted down and deported
anyway. One woman was turned down, but just efore she was
returned to Iraq, two of her children were assassinated in Iraq
deliberately--so then they let her stay. The Swedish people
simply cannot absorb many more people from iraq and are now
turning many more of them away, despite the fact that many who
cooperated with the US will return to death squads for doig so.
I wish to apologize to your group. In Dallas,the wrong people
had influenced me, then, when they had me in the right place,
they denounced me. Fortunately for me, I made a tape recording at
mary ferrell's bedside, which proves either she lied when she
said she did not compose the email "Mary Ferrell denounces Judyth
Vary Baker" or, as we believe, because the email was sent on to
David Lifton first, where it resided over six hours before being
forwsrded to others, that others created the "Judyth.doc"
attachment which is a mishmash of earlier Ferrell emails to me
and others, but radically changed.
Ferrell on the auditape clearly states she didn't any of that.
She also says she was pressured by everyone except Peter Dale
Scott to derogate me. Robert Chapman told Debra Conway many lies
about me. He posted at McAdams' newsgroup that my friends had
burst into Mary's assisted living apartment, yelling and waving
the email in her face. Debra then posted this was a 'stunt" that
"Baker pulled." Chapman said that to stop any such attacks on
Ferrell in the future, they had decided to lock Mary's door.
But the truth is on the tape, which Shackelford posted at MA (and
which has vanished--I am told you can't find it there anymore).
Mary never told Chapman, et al, that I was with that group, so he
simply says 'Judyth's gang," etc. came, that i wasn;t there. But
Mary did protect me--for indeed i was there, and taped
everthing. She gave me permission to tape--it's on the
recording. Later, i put the recorder away, but I have numb
fingers from peripheral nueropathy, and the recorder didn't turn
off or accidentally got pushed back on--I do not know. It
doesn;t mater, because the important stuff was already recorded.
That importan stuff sows that Mary ferrell's room was locked.
That I was on the visitor's list. Further, we could not have
entered the facility at all because it was gated. Mary had given
me the gate code so I could enter. Thererfore, this was hardly an
'invasion' from us! We found Mary's room locked. the nurse
said she wasn't home, but when she knocked, Mary answered. the
nurse said she didn;t nderstand why nobody told them Mary was in
there and locked the door, as Mary was thought to be gone for the
weekend!
Mary was groggy and there were lots of pills at her bedside. She
complained of being hungry. I was anxious to find her locked in
like that. The tape recording makes Mary's situation quite clear,
and Robert chapman's statement that now they had to 'lock' Mary's
room to keep us out is specious and untruthful. they were locking
her in there anyway. I am mentioning this because I feel i was
being manipulated in Dallas, and I know Debra Conway was
convinced by both Chapman and David Lifton that I was not who I
am. Lifton mis-reported our only conversation, and it turned
out he had illegally taped it. god knows how he edited that
auditape that he illegally recorded. He misreported what i said.
Chapman called me shortly after Debra Conway and i had met, and
said, "Debra tells me you said Oswald was not circumcized."
Debra Conway had told me she had received a photo of Lee entirely
nide, and that she and Chapman had decided to show it at the
Lancer conference, with that area covered. We did not discuss
circumcision-- I did make a cmment that Lee was 'well endowed.'
Debra said her reputation would be made by being David Lifton's
co-author of lee's new biography. But Lifton didn't publish,
because I had spoken out. I offered to help him update it, but
he said he would mention my existence in a footnote. I tried t
tell him all that transpured in New Orleans, but he had
immediately decided what i said was 'impossible.' Now Debra
Conway, who told me she never got a college degree, had lost this
cance to prove her research abilities, and I think she was
secretly angry at me. But before I knew this, she had
confessed to me in Jan. 2000, when I spent the night at her
parents' home with her, after a conference in New Orleans, that
Lancer was fulfilling her big dream, and that photo of oswald,
and other evidence she was gathering, would make her respected as
a researcher in the case.
It's important to know that when Chapman called me and said Debra
had told him that I said Lee was not circumcized, AND THAT THE
PHOTO SHE HAD SHOWN AT LANCER CONFIRMED THIS, that many things
ran through my mind. Someone had sent her a bogus or altered
photo, then, because Lee WAS circumcized! Fortnately, her
reputation was still OK because she had told me that area had
been covered with a black square when shown publically. Poor
Debra! She had been given a bogus photo! And accepted it as
genuine, even though the autopsy report said clearly that Lee was
circumcized! Not a very good researcher, I thought to myself,
but was not about to betray her to Chapman. Her heart would be
broken. So I only told Chapman exactly what i had commented
to Debra--that lee certainly was 'well-endowed." Unfortunately,
I soon learned that Debra and Chapman and Lifton tgether were
telling people I was a fraud and had no evidence. pressure was
placed on Anna Lewis, one of my witnesses, to recant, and she
complained aout that to Shackelford. Mac McCullough as witness
was ignored as unreliable because he was mafia. The Charles
thomas family escaped criticism because they did not know their
location. They did not dare assail Edward Haslam, either.
But a great deal of whispering behind my back ensued. My
apartment was ransacked, I was harrassed by nag-up calls, and
received threats by phone. I was hot twice in Dallas, moved to
Florida, and then, immediately after being filmed by Nigel Turner
and then by Wim Dankbaar, in dallas, i returned from Dallas to
find I had been fired--the son of an FBI employee had filed a
comlaint against me. I was harrassed and became ill, fell, and
was hospitalized for yet another concussion. When I returned
from the hospital after five days, I found my landlady wanted me
to leave because she had received threats. And my phone began
ringing again, including one threat so particular that I fled
overseas to Holland. On the 35th anniversary there, I opened the
Lee Harvey Oswald Gallery and Museum under an artists's permit.
It was open for six months, and did much good. I was forced to
go to Hungary after that, though, due to being scammed by a Dutch
person wo claimed he was a literary agent. There. problems began
immediately, and eventually, i was forced to leave after my
landlady there said my telephone was bugged -- and because her
husband had a job with the Ministry of Culture, she feared for
his future and i would have to go. I returned to the US and
found job after job closed down just after i was hired-- McAdams
and his friends by now had many websites denouncing me. By
now, too, NIgel Turner's TMWKK --the final chapter--was
removed--all three pieces-- and deep-sixed after LBJ and Co.
denounced them.
I can go on, but you get the picture. I worked on two Indian
reservations, but was fingerprinted numerous times and hounded
there, too. Then I was assaulted by a native American known to
have a drug habit, and almost crippled.
I know that my name has been turned to mud in your
organization, but I ask you to review who my enemies are, and the
fact that they still ceaselessly campaign against me. They hired
somebody to hunt me down in Sweden--a translator--and they posted
even the numer of my case file on their newsgroup, plus plenty of
lies about me while in under the protection of the EU political
asylum program. They then reported that I was last known as
planning to move to Ireland (true -- but I ended up in Turkey).
they recently erased 45,000 files and only about 5,000
remain--mostly the worst of them, fll of the usual invective and
name-calling--while effrective responses from my defenders have
been mostly wiped out.
I also respect the work Mr. Eaglesham has done, though I believe
more work needs to be done in the Pitzer case, as i know Dan
Marvin to be an honorable man. I believe that Mr. Eaglesham
should continue to mention what Marvin has reported as to being
asked to assassinate Pitzer, instead of trying to destroy
Marvin's reputation. There is room for both men in that case,
IMHO.
Emails are not good ways to communicate, but i do not
even have a telephone. It's expensive to use Internet cafes, when
i worry about how to pay for heat and food. i have given up
everything for the sake of one person--Lee Oswald-- and I seek
his exoneration and vindication. I ask your group to careflly
reassess everything about me. The swedish goverment's
investigators are seasoned professionals. They have connections
with agencies everywhere. They have experience in determining if
a person is telling the truth or not. They knew i wasn;t lying,
but they also correctly assessed the fact that the threat I had
faced was for a particlar time and place and might not occur
again if i took adwquate precautions and did not return to the
US. I have taken their advice and remained on the other side of
the planet. but that doesn;t mean i have to like it. My
granddaughter is getting married. Because she fears having aytig
to do with me, she didn't even tell me about her upcming
wedding--others have. My youngest son married without my
knowledge. He refuses to speak to me over this. can you just
imagine for a moment what i am going through, how my heart has
been ripped apart, by this? Some of my children, and my
stepfather, who is a former Army intelligence officer, have
helped me stay alive and in safe locations, but I can't even hear
their voices-- when i called on a cell phone to my dad because my
mother was dying, soon after, I was followed and filmed. Luckily,
others observed this. The Swedish authorities then moved me to a
different city. They also gave me a fake name to use so I could
still get mail.
I have been through hell, and worst of all, your fine
organization, that is assemblig so much of the truth, may still
--or does--think ill of me. Consider my enemies and what i have
lived through, what I have lost. Consider that Edward Haslam has
been doing ceaseless research into my case, along with others,
and that now that I understand more of what Armstrong wrote--God
knows i wish i had his book!--- I find myself open to receive
more of what he has to say, and trust his research more. i was
deliberately, I believe, misinformed concerning him.
I believe that if you honestly treat my history, and do not
rely on McAdams and his lackeys for what you know about me,
you'll find i have been misquoted, my emails altered, and quotes
attributed to me never existed as such, etc. I urge you to
reconsider what you believe about me. bove all, i wish you all
well, and support your efforts.
I am cc'ing Terry [Mauro]. She likes you, I know, and has often
stood
up for you to me, explaining you were sick at the time we had our
disagreements. I hope you will rethink everything i have so
laboriously writren here (I have bad vision, double vision, and
it's hard to write). I love my country. I loved Lee oswald. I
believe I can fill in some blanks. Please tell mr. Burnham
'hello' --he is a good man, a fine researcher. You would't know
it from the way he was dissed at McAdams' newsgroup. Please
visit my website judythvarybaker.com.
Right now, you wll notice a 'donate' button--that's so my
service dog and i can get sme medical help. As soon as enough
donations are made so that we can get medical care, and i can get
help for my eyes --which I think will be by the end of June --
the 'donate' button wll be removed. I am not allowed to work in
either country, or other countries i also visit, and I don;t know
how much longer I will be able to sell an occasional painting
because of my deteriorating eyesight. But while I can still see,
I will fight on for justice for Lee Harvey Oswald, and i urge all
of you to do the same.
God bless you and keep you strong in the truth.
Judyth Vary Baker
[QUOTE OFF]
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF THIS FORUM, NO PORTION OF
THE ABOVE POST IS TO BE CROSS-POSTED ON ANY OTHER NEWSGROUP
OR FORUM.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2009, 03:45 PM by Rich DellaRosa » Logged
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
Rich DellaRosa
Forum Admin
<QUOTE OFF>----------------------------------------
Dave
David Von Pein
>>> "IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF THIS FORUM, NO PORTION OF THE ABOVE POST IS TO BE CROSS-POSTED ON ANY OTHER NEWSGROUP OR FORUM." <<<
Dave R.,
Did you get specific permission from Rich DellaRosa to cross-post that
JFKResearch.com message on this forum?
I'm just curious, because cross-posting is the reason I was booted off
Rich's forum.
Oddly, Rich won't even allow non-members to read any posts at his
forum, which is something I've never understood at all. A most curious
restriction.
Barb Junkkarinen
thinks she can slide this stuff past Rich DellaRosa and his forum is
beyond bizare. Rich knows better ... as do some others up there ...
and probably most. It all comes down to a bit of a commercial for
donations, doesn't it?
Barb :-)
Rich DellaRosa
<f70b70e0-b6b2-458d...@r34g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF THIS FORUM, NO PORTION OF THE ABOVE POST
> >>> IS TO BE CROSS-POSTED ON ANY OTHER NEWSGROUP OR FORUM." <<<
>
> Dave R.,
>
>
> Did you get specific permission from Rich DellaRosa to cross-post that
> JFKResearch.com message on this forum?
No, he did not. He should not have had access to the post at all since
he is not a member.
>
> I'm just curious, because cross-posting is the reason I was booted off
> Rich's forum.
>
> Oddly, Rich won't even allow non-members to read any posts at his
> forum, which is something I've never understood at all. A most curious
> restriction.
My forum is not intended for people who need to hide behind aliases or
those who cannot abide by the rules. My members are entitled to know
who their audience is when they post and feel confident that they know
who can and cannot read their submissions.
Rich
--
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
http://www.jfkresearch.com
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/38ed58130bab3249
"I have given up everything for the sake of one person--Lee
Oswald--and I seek his exoneration and vindication." -- Judyth Vary
Baker; 04/10/2009
The above quote is a truly sad one indeed.
Judyth Vary Baker has some serious problems it would seem. I often
wonder if Judyth has ever even studied ANY of the many, many pieces of
hard evidence that easily would have convicted her "lover" (Lee Harvey
Oswald) in a court of law, had he lived to stand trial, such as the
stuff discussed in the articles below?
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4a6b3390021d657c
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/8845d85a86407d31
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/beb8390c3526124d
My guess is that Judyth probably has not seriously studied and
evaluated the hard evidence that exists against Lee Oswald in the TWO
murders that he was charged with in 1963.
Nor has Judyth focused very heavily on another very important aspect
of the JFK murder case -- the ACTIONS and the PROVABLE LIES of her
"lover", both before and after the assassination of President Kennedy.
Judyth even admits (as recently as her April 10, 2009, e-mail to Rich
DellaRosa linked at the top of this post) that "I am not a
'researcher' about the JFK assassination".
In short, Judyth Vary Baker either has been inflicted with a terminal
case of "denial" regarding the obvious guilt of Lee Oswald, or
(perhaps) she can be defined as author Vincent Bugliosi defines her in
VB's 2007 JFK book "Reclaiming History" -- "a sick puppy".
========================
"The story Judyth [Vary Baker] came up with was so fraudulent on
its face that even most conspiracy theorists have ganged up on her to
debunk it. .... Judyth's story started when she saw Oliver Stone's
fantasy film 'JFK' in 1998 and decided she had an even bigger fantasy
story to tell, partially through the technique of "recovered" memory.
"And as with so many of the fantastic tales told by nuts in the
assassination saga, there's some small kernel of truth on which she
built her fable: the fact that for a short period in the late spring
and summer of 1963, she may have worked for the same company in New
Orleans that Oswald did, William B. Reily and Company, Inc. ....
"Before she got her job there, Judyth...was on the fast track to
a bright and promising future flipping hamburgers at a small White
Castle chain restaurant in New Orleans. But because Judyth had shown
promise [in high school]...for her amateur work on cancer
research...she says she was recruited...into a clandestine project
funded by the CIA and Mafia: developing a bioweapon with which to kill
Fidel Castro. ....
"It was around this time that she met and fell hopelessly in
love with Lee Harvey Oswald, who became a part of the project and with
whom she had a torrid sexual affair.
"In an amusing footnote to the affair, Judyth said that their
feelings for each other got "out of control," and they "were so
desperate we even slept together in a red van that was being
overhauled in Adrian Alba's garage." .... But she said that when Clay
Shaw learned about their lack of money forcing them to make love in
such places, he felt sorry for them and started paying for their
trysts at nice hotels in the city." ....
"Just how does Judyth say she came by her knowledge? She claims
she either personally met conspiracy icons like Jack Ruby, David
Ferrie, Carlos Marcello, Clay Shaw, Guy Banister, et cetera, or Lee
told her about them during pillow talk. So the remarkable 20-year-old,
in just a few months, had more contact in New Orleans with the leading
figures of conspiracy lore than perhaps any other known figure in the
conspiracy community. I, for one, find this to be perfectly
reasonable. ....
"Judyth claims the National Enquirer offered her $600,000 for
her story (an amount the publisher might offer if Jesus returned and
his agent promised an exclusive), but Judyth apparently wasn't
interested. Only British producer Nigel Turner, who has made a fortune
peddling phony stories, gave Judyth national exposure, devoting a full
segment to her on his television show 'The Men Who Killed
Kennedy'. ....
"It is an established fact that the CIA did do research...to
develop some medical concoction to kill Castro. But what we didn't
know until Judyth told us was that the CIA decided to also fund the
motley group in New Orleans [consisting of Judyth, Oswald, and David
Ferrie]. ....
"Judyth Baker has been called a "pathological liar." Although
her story is a lie, this might be too harsh an indictment. From what I
have read, she sounds more like a sick puppy to me. ....
"If anyone even had the smallest doubt that Judyth is a gold-
plated phony, all he or she has to do to remove that doubt is to read
(if you can withstand the pain) Baker's book ["Lee Harvey Oswald: The
True Story Of The Accused Assassin Of President John F. Kennedy By His
Lover"; Volumes 1 and 2]. ....
"Baker's book is a total, embarrassing failure. Is there any way
to stop Judyth from continuing to propagate her fantasy? Two volumes
of nonsense, at this late date, show that the answer to this question
is no."
-- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Pages 539-541 and 543-544 of Endnotes in
"Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of President John F.
Kennedy" (c.2007)
========================
Rich DellaRosa
Barb Junkkarinen <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Holy cow ... she has a lot of free time on her hands .. and why she
> thinks she can slide this stuff past Rich DellaRosa and his forum is
> beyond bizare. Rich knows better ... as do some others up there ...
> and probably most. It all comes down to a bit of a commercial for
> donations, doesn't it?
>
> Barb :-)
I certainly wouldn't rule that out Barb. But I found the whole thing
quite bizarre.
Rich
http://www.jfkresearch.com
--
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
http://www.jfkresearch.com
David Von Pein
>>> "My [JFKResearch.com] forum is not intended for people who need to hide behind aliases or those who cannot abide by the rules. My members are entitled to know who their audience is when they post and feel confident that they know who can and cannot read their submissions." <<<
As I said before, it's a very odd stance to take when it comes to
"Internet Forums" (IMO).
I would think that if people are proud of what they post and they think
it's worthy of being posted on a JFK forum (and why would anyone post
stuff that they DON'T feel is worthy of posting?)....then why on Earth
would any such person object to his or her messages being seen by the
Internet world at-large?
~shrug of bewilderment~
I truly wish Mr. DellaRosa would remove his "Only Members Can Read Posts"
restriction at www.JFKResearch.com, because I'd enjoy reading some of the
stuff that is posted at that forum.
pamela
Interesting that you are comfortable pushing the fairy tale of the
WCR, not to mention Bug's fiasco, and yet complain at Judyth speaking
out on behalf of Lee's innocence.
curtjester1
> In article
> <f70b70e0-b6b2-458d-af6d-8c084b539...@r34g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
I am not one smidgen on the LNT side, but I do have to agree that people
who run forums shouldn't ask people to use their real names. It's an
invasion of privacy and there is no reason to know, and all posting should
be based on the merits of the post and not the person's identity. Knowing
that could only be described as interesting, and nothing more. Who in
their right mind would give their real name out for any potential gov't
goon to monitor or tail them is beyond me.
CJ
curtjester1
> http://jfkresearch.com/forum3/index.php?topic=8550.0
>
> <QUOTE ON>----------------------------------------
>
> Rich DellaRosa
>
> Judyth Vary Baker
> « on: April 10, 2009, 02:43 PM »
>
> Folks,
>
> Today I received this bizarre email purportedly from Judyth Vary
> Baker.
> I had not had any communication with her in over 6 years. I am
> as bewildered by this as anyone could be. Here it is verbatim:
>
> [QUOTE ON]
>
> Dear Sir:
>
> I wish to commend you and everyone involved with JFK Research for
> the work you have done. While you have had issues with me, I
> believe I was given poor information about you, Armstrong, and
> others with whom this organization is associated.
>
Poor Judyth. Probably got the impression Reitzes wasn't a mole that
infiltrated Armstrong for getting information covertly. If your reading,
Judyth, you should do a background check on who your spilling the beans
to.
CJ
WhiskyJoe
This story has gotten too big. We need to
see it on the big screen. A story spread
out over decades with intrigue, betrayal,
heartbreak, inter continental flight and
pursuit with high school chemistry thrown in.
I can see having Angelina Jolie playing
Judyth, Brad Pitt playing Oswald and
Jennifer Aniston as Marina. If their
schedules work out, I think all three
would leap at a project like this.
The on screen chemistry would be
phenomenal. Pitt and Jolie can play
sort of an inept version of Mr. and
Mrs. Smith.
What starts out as an innocent chemistry
project to poison Castro somehow spins
out of control with the murderers in hot
pursuit of all loose ends, eliminating
them one by one until there is only
Judyth left.
Jolie may get an Oscar for portraying a
character that goes from mildly unbalanced
to completely off her rocker. This would be
her Gothika could be worth an Oscar.
Rich DellaRosa
<a1faeb83-236f-4f6f...@r34g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
curtjester1 <curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 4, 4:32?pm, Rich DellaRosa <richd...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <f70b70e0-b6b2-458d-af6d-8c084b539...@r34g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
> > ?David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > > >>> "IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF THIS FORUM, NO PORTION OF THE ABOVE
> > > >>> POST
> > > >>> IS TO BE CROSS-POSTED ON ANY OTHER NEWSGROUP OR FORUM." <<<
> >
> > > Dave R.,
> >
> > > Did you get specific permission from Rich DellaRosa to cross-post that
> > > JFKResearch.com message on this forum?
> >
> > No, he did not. ?He should not have had access to the post at all since
> > he is not a member.
> >
> >
> >
> > > I'm just curious, because cross-posting is the reason I was booted off
> > > Rich's forum.
> >
> > > Oddly, Rich won't even allow non-members to read any posts at his
> > > forum, which is something I've never understood at all. A most curious
> > > restriction.
> >
> > My forum is not intended for people who need to hide behind aliases or
> > those who cannot abide by the rules. ?My members are entitled to know
> > who their audience is when they post and feel confident that they know
> > who can and cannot read their submissions.
> >
> > Rich
> >
> > --
> > _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/http://www.jfkresearch.com
>
> I am not one smidgen on the LNT side, but I do have to agree that people
> who run forums shouldn't ask people to use their real names. It's an
> invasion of privacy and there is no reason to know, and all posting should
> be based on the merits of the post and not the person's identity. Knowing
> that could only be described as interesting, and nothing more. Who in
> their right mind would give their real name out for any potential gov't
> goon to monitor or tail them is beyond me.
>
> CJ
Some researchers possess a certain pride of authorship. Some do not wish
to deal with agents provocateur. In many cases, requiring the use of real
names is effective in keeping the flames low to non-existent.
The use of aliases and screen names does not avert government monitoring.
They employ much more sophisticated methods.
Rich DellaRosa
<5198e9d6-9e8e-46a5...@h23g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
curtjester1 <curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote:
FWIW Armstrong couldn't care less about Judyth, in whom he places no
credibility.
dreitzes@aol.com (Dave Reitzes)
I let my membership lapse some years back when they started demanding
a donation.
Someone was clearly willing to risk their membership in order to
forward me this breaking news about Judyth.
Dave
David Von Pein
>>> "Interesting that you are comfortable pushing the fairy tale of the
WCR, not to mention Bug's fiasco, and yet complain at Judyth speaking out
on behalf of Lee's innocence." <<<
Yeah, imagine the gall of me complaining about a proven liar (Judyth)
telling lies. Who'd ever thunk it?!
Two words that can never be placed together are these words:
1.) Lee's.
2.) Innocence.
John McAdams
<rich...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
Why?
If somebody is telling the truth, should they not be willing to shout
it to the whole wide world?
Are your posters only willing to address posts to just a certain small
group of people?
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Rich DellaRosa
John McAdams <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote:
Not having certain provocateurs turn submissions into strawmen and
fanning the flames of dissent causes many members to post freely and
confidently. There's no one there to call them "kooks" or "retards."
Further, there's no need for moderators to review submissions prior to
allowing them to be posted. All that is required is that members
conduct themselves with civility.
tims...@gmail.com
> Holy cow ... she has a lot of free time on her hands .. and why she
> thinks she can slide this stuff past Rich DellaRosa and his forum is
> beyond bizare. Rich knows better ... as do some others up there ...
> and probably most. It all comes down to a bit of a commercial for
> donations, doesn't it?
>
> Barb :-)
>
>
> read more »
LOL! I think you've nailed it there, Barb. Another panhandle for donations
from Baker. The portents for her new book aren't good, reading this
nonsense. No doubt Pamela will be able to rationalise it all though, LOL!
Oh dear...
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
pamela
> On 4 May 2009 16:32:21 -0400, Rich DellaRosa
>
>
>
> >In article
> ><f70b70e0-b6b2-458d-af6d-8c084b539...@r34g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
>
> >> >>> "IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF THIS FORUM, NO PORTION OF THE ABOVE POST
> >> >>> IS TO BE CROSS-POSTED ON ANY OTHER NEWSGROUP OR FORUM." <<<
>
> >> Dave R.,
>
> >> Did you get specific permission from Rich DellaRosa to cross-post that
> >> JFKResearch.com message on this forum?
>
> >No, he did not. He should not have had access to the post at all since
> >he is not a member.
>
> >> I'm just curious, because cross-posting is the reason I was booted off
> >> Rich's forum.
>
> >> Oddly, Rich won't even allow non-members to read any posts at his
> >> forum, which is something I've never understood at all. A most curious
> >> restriction.
>
> >My forum is not intended for people who need to hide behind aliases or
> >those who cannot abide by the rules. My members are entitled to know
> >who their audience is when they post and feel confident that they know
> >who can and cannot read their submissions.
>
> Why?
>
> If somebody is telling the truth, should they not be willing to shout
> it to the whole wide world?
>
> Are your posters only willing to address posts to just a certain small
> group of people?
>
> .John
> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
McAdams objects to Judyth's doing just that.
Anthony Marsh
The pot calling the kettle black. He who killfiles anyone who disagrees
with him.
> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
>
>
>>>> "Interesting that you are comfortable pushing the fairy tale of the
> WCR, not to mention Bug's fiasco, and yet complain at Judyth speaking out
> on behalf of Lee's innocence."<<<
>
> Yeah, imagine the gall of me complaining about a proven liar (Judyth)
> telling lies. Who'd ever thunk it?!
>
That's the easy way to avoid discussing tough issues. Just call everyone
a liar.
> Two words that can never be placed together are these words:
>
> 1.) Lee's.
>
> 2.) Innocence.
>
Did Judyth ever say Lee was innocent?
Anthony Marsh
John, if you think the government is not already capable of monitoring
your every movement and conversation then you really are naive and have
not been reading the newspapers. Every time you go online and no matter
which of your 25 aliases you use, your ISP tracks your every keystroke and
sends it directly to the NSA. The problem is not collection. They collect
every bit of data that exists. The problem is filtering, analyzing and
interpreting. They are at least 10 years behind and they lack the
qualified personnel to properly interpret the data. So far all their
personnel is interested in is eavesdropping on celebrity gossip. No one is
actively looking for terrorists to stop the next terrorist attack. Just
yesterday they finally translated bin Laden's authorization for 9/11.
> CJ
>
curtjester1
Authors can still have their pride because they can use their name. People
who have aliases for their poster names also do and can have pride. They
stay with one alias for the most part. Flaming has nothing to do with a
name, it's an attitude or a ploy.
> The use of aliases and screen names does not avert government monitoring.
> They employ much more sophisticated methods.
>
They of course can invade ala newsgroup very easy. They actually can make
up a name and you wouldn't know if it's a real name or not, would you?
If they have any more technical means of finding out a specific exact
location where one is posting from, can you give us some insight on that?
CJ
curtjester1
Which is sad because there isn't much solidarity in the CT side. Between
those two, there could have been some major new finds coming out. Judyth
is important because of Ferrie alone and what was done covert-wise with
those high powered cancer concoctions, that just had to happen to have
many JFK wannabee players that could be considered in on the plot and
assassination.
CJ
Anthony Marsh
>
>
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/38ed58130bab3249
>
>
> "I have given up everything for the sake of one person--Lee
> Oswald--and I seek his exoneration and vindication." -- Judyth Vary
> Baker; 04/10/2009
>
>
> The above quote is a truly sad one indeed.
>
> Judyth Vary Baker has some serious problems it would seem. I often
> wonder if Judyth has ever even studied ANY of the many, many pieces of
> hard evidence that easily would have convicted her "lover" (Lee Harvey
> Oswald) in a court of law, had he lived to stand trial, such as the
> stuff discussed in the articles below?
>
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4a6b3390021d657c
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/8845d85a86407d31
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/beb8390c3526124d
>
You are talking about a trial in Dallas. They could convict a blind man
of being a peeping Tom. Look at Wade's record. 25 convictions out of 26
trials. Now look at how many have been overturned due to his misconduct
and convicting innocent men.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25917791/
DALLAS - As district attorney of Dallas for an unprecedented 36 years,
Henry Wade was the embodiment of Texas justice.
A strapping 6-footer with a square jaw and a half-chewed cigar clamped
between his teeth, The Chief, as he was known, prosecuted Jack Ruby. He
was the Wade in Roe v. Wade. And he compiled a conviction rate so
impressive that defense attorneys ruefully called themselves the 7
Percent Club.
But now, seven years after Wade's death, The Chief's legacy is taking a
beating.
Nineteen convictions � three for murder and the rest involving rape or
burglary � won by Wade and two successors who trained under him have
been overturned after DNA evidence exonerated the defendants. About 250
more cases are under review.
No other county in America � and almost no state, for that matter � has
freed more innocent people from prison in recent years than Dallas
County, where Wade was DA from 1951 through 1986.
Current District Attorney Craig Watkins, who in 2006 became the first
black elected chief prosecutor in any Texas county, said that more
wrongly convicted people will go free.
"There was a cowboy kind of mentality and the reality is that kind of
approach is archaic, racist, elitist and arrogant," said Watkins, who is
40 and never worked for Wade or met him.
Steve Thomas
> In article
> <5198e9d6-9e8e-46a5-8045-c0536ce5b...@h23g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
Don't tell that to some people, they'll have a conniption fit.
>
> Rich
>
> --
> _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/http://www.jfkresearch.com
Steve Thomas
> In article <c4ivv4lmq8qghvele5uat5vk8q4mdf8...@4ax.com>,
> John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 4 May 2009 16:32:21 -0400, Rich DellaRosa
>
> > >In article
> > ><f70b70e0-b6b2-458d-af6d-8c084b539...@r34g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
Trust me Dude, we cant call people "kooks" or "retards" here
either. Unless you're Marsh and it just slips by on accident.
David Von Pein
>>> "Not having certain provocateurs turn submissions into strawmen and
fanning the flames of dissent causes many members to post freely and
confident ly. There's no one there to call them "kooks" or "retards."
Further, there's no need for moderators to review submissions prior to
allowing them to be posted. All that is required is that members conduct
themselves with civility." <<<
What has that got to do with allowing people to simply READ your forum's
content?
I'd very much like to read the posts at JFKResearch.com, but Rich just
won't permit it.
You might as well just make it a forum accessible only by private e-
mails. Your current set-up is practically the same as that.
pamela
> In article <c4ivv4lmq8qghvele5uat5vk8q4mdf8...@4ax.com>,
>
>
>
> > On 4 May 2009 16:32:21 -0400, Rich DellaRosa
>
> > >In article
> > ><f70b70e0-b6b2-458d-af6d-8c084b539...@r34g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
Translation: Rich feels he has everything under control.
pamela
And just why does Reitzes think someone would do that? Maybe they are
planning to let their membership lapse too.
pamela
Lee Oswald has never been proven guilty, nor can he, now that he is
dead. He was not even allowed to live to stand trial, was he?
pamela
Since Judyth is documented to have been in NOLA in the summer of 63
and to have worked with LHO at Reily, her credentials are established,
at least to the extent that we can listen objectively to what she has
to say.
What, we should then ask, are Armstrong's credentials, and how much
weight should we put in them?
pamela
You seem to be comfortable calling people names who don't agree with
you. You claim Judyth is a liar for believing in Lee's innocence?
Guess that's an easy way to debate when you don't have any evidence.
Rich DellaRosa
<a54f7a45-53f2-4190...@j12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "Not having certain provocateurs turn submissions into strawmen and
> fanning the flames of dissent causes many members to post freely and
> confident?y. There's no one there to call them "kooks" or "retards."
> Further, there's no need for moderators to review submissions prior to
> allowing them to be posted. All that is required is that members conduct
> themselves with civility." <<<
>
>
> What has that got to do with allowing people to simply READ your forum's
> content?
>
> I'd very much like to read the posts at JFKResearch.com, but Rich just
> won't permit it.
>
> You might as well just make it a forum accessible only by private e-
> mails. Your current set-up is practically the same as that.
That is how we evolved. In the late 90s, we had various email groups but
at the time not everyone was capable of attaching or viewing photos. So we
moved to a web based forum.
The folks who abide by the simple rules of civility can read and post to
their heart's delight. And it is not necessary to agree with me or any
other member. There is considerable debate, but the debaters don't us the
"sharp stick in the eye" technique to get their points across.
Rich
http://www.jfkresearch.com
--
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
http://www.jfkresearch.com
Rich DellaRosa
<6c2a50fa-b2f2-41cf...@d7g2000prl.googlegroups.com>,
pamela <jfk...@gmail.com> wrote:
I speak very plainly. I don't need to be translated.
--
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
http://www.jfkresearch.com
David Von Pein
>>> "That's the easy way to avoid discussing tough issues. Just call
everyone a liar." <<<
I've called very few people outright "liars". Very, very few, in fact.
By my rough count, I think I've only called three people who are
"connected" in some way with the JFK case "liars" in any of my forum posts
over the years:
1.) Roger Craig
2.) Jean Hill
3.) Judyth Vary Baker
It's possible (and probable) that a few more people could/should be added
to the above list as proven "liars" (such as Paul O'Connor, Ed Hoffman,
and Gordon Arnold, to name just three more); but I think I've used the
word "liar" only when speaking of the three individuals named above. (Not
counting members of JFK newsgroups and forums, of course.)
>>> "Did Judyth ever say Lee was innocent?" <<<
Good gosh, Tony....READ!!
What do you think these words from Judyth's own mouth mean?:
"I have given up everything for the sake of one person--Lee
Oswald--and I seek his exoneration and vindication." -- Judyth Vary Baker;
April 10, 2009
Tony,
Do you think that Judyth is seeking to "exonerate" and "vindicate" a
person whom she believes to be GUILTY of killing President Kennedy and
Officer Tippit? That would be a rather strange (not to mention evil) thing
to do, wouldn't it (even if she DID have a love affair with Lee Harvey)?
Marsh Addendum---
I've come to the conclusion that Anthony Marsh just simply loves to be
confrontational--regardless of the subject matter or assassination sub-
topic. He just flat-out craves an argument...no matter what.
A curious hobby indeed. But it's one that Anthony has apparently
devoted his life to.
blackburst
which I won't relate here.
I don't understand how a few here, who doggedly defend Baker's
account, can fail to realize that the tendency to paranoia and
grandiosity seen in this message has a direct bearing on the
believability of her account. If a person tends to imagine things...
pamela
"DVP" seems to think his credentials allow him to designate people as
liars.
But just what does he say his credentials are?
David Von Pein
>>> "[John] McAdams claims Judyth [Vary Baker] "must have" studied the
literature extensively. You take the opposite position to argue the same
conclusion." <<<
Judyth no doubt "studied" a lot of the details regarding Oswald and his
whereabouts on certain days prior to 11/22/63, etc., yes. She would have
HAD to study those kind of pre-Nov. 22 details in order for her lies to
have any chance whatsoever of being believed (by anyone).
The chronology of Judyth's fairy tale, though, ends in mid-November of
1963 (prior to the assassination itself, of course), so she doesn't need
to memorize any of the details pertaining to LHO or the assassination
AFTER the point in time when she says she last saw him or talked to him.
Which makes me continue to wonder if Judyth ever studied (in some depth)
the details of THE ASSASSINATION ITSELF, which includes Lee Oswald's own
actions and lies AFTER the murders that LHO so obviously committed in
Dallas.
So, I was referring mainly to the evidence against Oswald AFTER 12:30 PM
on 11/22/63 when I said this in an earlier post:
"My guess is that Judyth probably has not seriously studied and
evaluated the hard evidence that exists against Lee Oswald in the TWO
murders that he was charged with in 1963. Nor has Judyth focused very
heavily on another very important aspect of the JFK murder case -- the
ACTIONS and the PROVABLE LIES of her "lover", both before and after the
assassination of President Kennedy." -- DVP; 05/04/09
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/56be210b37e1b137
pamela
Blackburst doesn't seem to understand the difference between 'doggedly
defending an acocunt' and 'doggedly defending Judyth's right to speak'.
Very simple, really. Maybe too simple for Blackburst.
Steve Thomas
> On 5/5/2009 1:04 AM, John McAdams wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 4 May 2009 16:32:21 -0400, Rich DellaRosa
>
> >> In article
> >> <f70b70e0-b6b2-458d-af6d-8c084b539...@r34g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
>
> >>>>>> "IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF THIS FORUM, NO PORTION OF THE ABOVE POST
> >>>>>> IS TO BE CROSS-POSTED ON ANY OTHER NEWSGROUP OR FORUM."<<<
>
> >>> Dave R.,
>
> >>> Did you get specific permission from Rich DellaRosa to cross-post that
> >>> JFKResearch.com message on this forum?
>
> >> No, he did not. He should not have had access to the post at all since
> >> he is not a member.
>
> >>> I'm just curious, because cross-posting is the reason I was booted off
> >>> Rich's forum.
>
> >>> Oddly, Rich won't even allow non-members to read any posts at his
> >>> forum, which is something I've never understood at all. A most curious
> >>> restriction.
>
> >> My forum is not intended for people who need to hide behind aliases or
> >> those who cannot abide by the rules. My members are entitled to know
> >> who their audience is when they post and feel confident that they know
> >> who can and cannot read their submissions.
>
> > Why?
>
> > If somebody is telling the truth, should they not be willing to shout
> > it to the whole wide world?
>
> > Are your posters only willing to address posts to just a certain small
> > group of people?
>
> The pot calling the kettle black. He who killfiles anyone who disagrees
> with him.
This from someone who throws around the term Nazi at anyone who
disagrees with him? Talk about pot calling the kettle black!
>
> > .John
> > --------------
> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Steve Thomas
But we voted for hope in change!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And a world
without Gitmo or Military Tribunals!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Steve Thomas
Judyth knew Ferrie? LOL
alone and what was done covert-wise with
> those high powered cancer concoctions
The ones cooked up in a blender?
, that just had to happen to have
> many JFK wannabee players that could be considered in on the plot and
> assassination
>
> CJ
Steve Thomas
We have, and she is downright nutty!
Anthony Marsh
>
>
>>>> "That's the easy way to avoid discussing tough issues. Just call
> everyone a liar."<<<
>
> I've called very few people outright "liars". Very, very few, in fact.
>
>
> By my rough count, I think I've only called three people who are
> "connected" in some way with the JFK case "liars" in any of my forum posts
> over the years:
>
> 1.) Roger Craig
> 2.) Jean Hill
> 3.) Judyth Vary Baker
>
>
> It's possible (and probable) that a few more people could/should be added
> to the above list as proven "liars" (such as Paul O'Connor, Ed Hoffman,
> and Gordon Arnold, to name just three more); but I think I've used the
> word "liar" only when speaking of the three individuals named above. (Not
> counting members of JFK newsgroups and forums, of course.)
>
>
>
>>>> "Did Judyth ever say Lee was innocent?"<<<
>
>
> Good gosh, Tony....READ!!
>
> What do you think these words from Judyth's own mouth mean?:
>
> "I have given up everything for the sake of one person--Lee
> Oswald--and I seek his exoneration and vindication." -- Judyth Vary Baker;
> April 10, 2009
>
Maybe it means just like Oswald's mother she thinks that Lee participated
in the assassination, but under orders of the CIA.
>
> Tony,
>
> Do you think that Judyth is seeking to "exonerate" and "vindicate" a
> person whom she believes to be GUILTY of killing President Kennedy and
> Officer Tippit? That would be a rather strange (not to mention evil) thing
> to do, wouldn't it (even if she DID have a love affair with Lee Harvey)?
>
Yes, lovers of murderers in prison do it all the time.
You live a sheltered life and do not realize how many delusional people
there are out there.
Bud
> In article <c4ivv4lmq8qghvele5uat5vk8q4mdf8...@4ax.com>,
>
>
>
> > On 4 May 2009 16:32:21 -0400, Rich DellaRosa
> > <richd...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > >In article
> > ><f70b70e0-b6b2-458d-af6d-8c084b539...@r34g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
> > > David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >> >>> "IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF THIS FORUM, NO PORTION OF THE ABOVE
> > >> >>> POST
> > >> >>> IS TO BE CROSS-POSTED ON ANY OTHER NEWSGROUP OR FORUM." <<<
>
> > >> Dave R.,
>
> > >> Did you get specific permission from Rich DellaRosa to cross-post that
> > >> JFKResearch.com message on this forum?
>
> > >No, he did not. He should not have had access to the post at all since
> > >he is not a member.
>
> > >> I'm just curious, because cross-posting is the reason I was booted off
> > >> Rich's forum.
>
> > >> Oddly, Rich won't even allow non-members to read any posts at his
> > >> forum, which is something I've never understood at all. A most curious
> > >> restriction.
>
> > >My forum is not intended for people who need to hide behind aliases or
> > >those who cannot abide by the rules. My members are entitled to know
> > >who their audience is when they post and feel confident that they know
> > >who can and cannot read their submissions.
>
>
> > If somebody is telling the truth, should they not be willing to shout
> > it to the whole wide world?
>
> > Are your posters only willing to address posts to just a certain small
> > group of people?
>
> > --------------
> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
> Not having certain provocateurs turn submissions into strawmen and
> fanning the flames of dissent causes many members to post freely and
> confidently. There's no one there to call them "kooks" or "retards."
How will they know if there is no one there to tell them?
> Further, there's no need for moderators to review submissions prior to
> allowing them to be posted. All that is required is that members
> conduct themselves with civility.
I, for one, applaud your efforts to keep the opinions of kooks and
retards from my attention.
> Rich
>
> --
> _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/http://www.jfkresearch.com
pamela
There is no hard evidence against LHO that would stand up in a court of
law. Why do you think he was not allowed to live to stand trial?
pamela
That is your opinion. Based on my experience with you and your group,
it is incorrect.
Barb Junkkarinen
<rich...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>In article <r4duv49ebrn29ohca...@4ax.com>,
> Barb Junkkarinen <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Holy cow ... she has a lot of free time on her hands .. and why she
>> thinks she can slide this stuff past Rich DellaRosa and his forum is
>> beyond bizare. Rich knows better ... as do some others up there ...
>> and probably most. It all comes down to a bit of a commercial for
>> donations, doesn't it?
>>
>> Barb :-)
>
>I certainly wouldn't rule that out Barb. But I found the whole thing
>quite bizarre.
>
>Rich
Bizarre is a good word for it, Rich. I wish her family could get her
home ... and take care of her.
Barb :-)
>
>>
>> On 4 May 2009 09:08:20 -0400, Dave Reitzes <drei...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >http://jfkresearch.com/forum3/index.php?topic=8550.0
>> >
>> >
>> ><QUOTE ON>----------------------------------------
>> >
>> >Rich DellaRosa
>> >
>> > Judyth Vary Baker
>> >� on: April 10, 2009, 02:43 PM �
>> >
>> >-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >---
>> >Folks,
>> >
>> >Today I received this bizarre email purportedly from Judyth Vary
>> >Baker.
>> >I had not had any communication with her in over 6 years. I am
>> >as bewildered by this as anyone could be. Here it is verbatim:
>> >
>> >[QUOTE ON]
>> >
>> >Dear Sir:
>> >
>> >I wish to commend you and everyone involved with JFK Research for
>> >the work you have done. While you have had issues with me, I
>> >believe I was given poor information about you, Armstrong, and
>> >others with whom this organization is associated.
>> >
>> >I am not a 'researcher' about the JFK assassination and
>> >associated matters. I believe i was fed information by Mary
>> >Ferrel that led me to distrust almost everything John Armstrong
>> >has brough to the table. I am especially upset that she gave me
>> >the impression that "the other Lee" was selected AT BIRTH.
>> >
>> >I have just been sent information that Mr. Armstrong posited that
>> >the deceptions he writes of began when Lee Oswald was 13, in New
>> >York. This crrelates well with information I have about Charles
>> >Thomas and others I knew were linked with Lee in New York.
>> >While I still seem some problems with what I have been told are
>> >still some major inconsistencies, without access to Armstrong's
>> >book, I cannot make any judgments.
>> >
>> >I believe I was deliberately misinformed, maiciously, in fact.
>> >
>> >I was teaching in Hungary when Ed Haslam's book, Dr. Mary's
>> >Monkey, was reviewed in Budapest newspapers. That same day, i
>> >was approached by a Hungarian agent and warned that my life was
>> >in danger. Hungary is very closely allied with agencies from the
>> >US. In fact, there was an FBI office only a block from my hotel
>> >where I had stayed in bedapest before going on to eastern Hungary
>> >to live. My grandmother was born in Hungary, and her amily is
>> >linked to a former popular primiere. For these reasons, I was
>> >told I had been warned.
>> >
>> >My teaching job, at the same time, vanished. I had just barely
>> >got on my feet after having been assaulted in the US (was
>> >hospitalized 6 days, then had 11 days in rehab...after that, 4
>> >months of physical therapy). As I prepared to return to the US,
>> >upon leaving an Internet Cafe, where i purchased return tickets
>> >to the US online, another agent seated herself next to me on the
>> >tram and stated that I must not return to the US, as i would be
>> >picked up at the Newark airport, and that I should seek political
>> >asylum to save my life. I know I was easy to spot because I have
>> >to use a Service Dog, due to short term memory problems after two
>> >concussions caused by 'accidents' in Dallas (I realized i could
>> >not stay alive in Dallas and moved to Florida).
>> >
>> >This time I did not believe the agent, because my airline ticket
>> >was set to go through the JFK airport, not Newark's.But when I
>> >returned to my hotel, I found the doorknob and lock literally
>> >torn out of the door, and inside, most of my belongings had been
>> >stolen. The hotel's guests were very alarmed and the door was
>> >fixed almost at once, because of the idea of lack of security. I
>> >went to the hotel lobby and used their computer there to download
>> >photos I made into my computer at once, then went to my email and
>> >sent photos to my son and daughter. I noticed a new email from
>> >experdia.com and opened it. To my horror, i saw that my route
>> >into the US--I was going from new york to Alabama-- had been
>> >diverted to the Newark airport. This was about an hour before
>> >the agent had warned me (I had gone shopping for souvenirs for my
>> >family in the interim). I went to other websites and ordered
>> >(very expensive, but i was frightened) several tickets to various
>> >destinations which would be leaving at approximately the same
>> >time from the F. airport outside Budapest. When I arrived at
>> >the airport, though, I purchased a one-way ticket to Sweden. The
>> >agent had advised me to choose a Scandinavian country to flee to.
>> >
>> > I arrived at Stockholm and surrendered my self to the police
>> >there. They were shocked, as they had never had an American
>> >civilian ask for political asylum in decades. they assured me i
>> >would deported within 24 hours to the US. I broke down and wept,
>> >and they began investigating. The entire matter s complex, but
>> >in the end, I received provisional asylum for 10.4 months, after
>> >all that I had told them was investigated. However, the US was
>> >not on the list -- I could not stay permanently because of the
>> >profound embarrassment to my country. I was asked how much
>> >time I needed to find safe haven, with the understanding that I
>> >would have to eventually leave--they would judge aainst permanent
>> >residency. i never applied for permanent resiency, therefore, but
>> >placed an appeal so that the deportation order was in abeyance.
>> >
>> > By early July, my desperate family managed to purchase a house
>> >in Sweden and another residence in Turkey, both in remote areas.
>> >I had made friends, meanwhile, with numerous swedes, and they
>> >receive emails and then send them on, from sweden, to the outside
>> >world. I live very humbly, have not even seen a movie for two
>> >years, and eat some unsual food sometimes, but I am safe and no
>> >longer am harrassed, stalked, etc. as I was in the US. i have no
>> >books, though, and have had to ask for someone to send me a
>> >Bible.
>> >
>> > But in this isolation, i reviewed all that your organization
>> >has done. You are spot-on. I am angry that I was given a great
>> >deal of misinformation about your organization. I was told that
>> >Fetzer was a fool, Della Rosa was pushing a religious theory
>> >created by Armstrong, and other nonsense.
>> >
>> > I have been advised that I may have to remain in exile a long
>> >time for my safety -- this by officials in the know. However,
>> >those advisements were in regard to the prior administration. I
>> >love my country and at nearly age 66, am heartbroken that I could
>> >not even attend my mother's funeral: they would not give me my
>> >passport, saying if I left, I could not return and expect
>> >protection. They did persuade me to stay out of the US Dec.
>> >2007. I have photos of the incidents that occurred in Budapest.
>> >
>> >On McAams' newsgroup, they erased 250,000 posts that had been
>> >written against me. Recently, they tried to hunt me down in
>> >Sweden, but I was in Turkey. istanbl itself has a population
>> >greater than all of Sweden. M\But the newsgroup people at Mcadams
>> >then tried to make readers believe there was no such thing as
>> >provisional asylum, and that I had lied (say that word often
>> >enough, and people will beleve it). I sent several articles
>> >proving that provisional asylum is the designation for a
>> >political asylum refugee who has been identified as having a
>> >legitimate cause, for whom the final judgment has not yet been
>> >made as to permanent residency. When a person comes to Stockholm
>> >seeking political asylum, about 25% are immediately turned away
>> >and deported. At the reception center, awaiting more
>> >investigations, more are returned. of those then accepted into
>> >provisional asylum, 45% will be turned down. Turndowns are often
>> >desperate and flee, hide, and are hunted down and deported
>> >anyway. One woman was turned down, but just efore she was
>> >returned to Iraq, two of her children were assassinated in Iraq
>> >deliberately--so then they let her stay. The Swedish people
>> >simply cannot absorb many more people from iraq and are now
>> >turning many more of them away, despite the fact that many who
>> >cooperated with the US will return to death squads for doig so.
>> >
>> > I wish to apologize to your group. In Dallas,the wrong people
>> >had influenced me, then, when they had me in the right place,
>> >they denounced me. Fortunately for me, I made a tape recording at
>> >mary ferrell's bedside, which proves either she lied when she
>> >said she did not compose the email "Mary Ferrell denounces Judyth
>> >Vary Baker" or, as we believe, because the email was sent on to
>> >David Lifton first, where it resided over six hours before being
>> >forwsrded to others, that others created the "Judyth.doc"
>> >attachment which is a mishmash of earlier Ferrell emails to me
>> >and others, but radically changed.
>> >
>> >Ferrell on the auditape clearly states she didn't any of that.
>> >She also says she was pressured by everyone except Peter Dale
>> >Scott to derogate me. Robert Chapman told Debra Conway many lies
>> >about me. He posted at McAdams' newsgroup that my friends had
>> >burst into Mary's assisted living apartment, yelling and waving
>> >the email in her face. Debra then posted this was a 'stunt" that
>> >"Baker pulled." Chapman said that to stop any such attacks on
>> >Ferrell in the future, they had decided to lock Mary's door.
>> >But the truth is on the tape, which Shackelford posted at MA (and
>> >which has vanished--I am told you can't find it there anymore).
>> >Mary never told Chapman, et al, that I was with that group, so he
>> >simply says 'Judyth's gang," etc. came, that i wasn;t there. But
>> >Mary did protect me--for indeed i was there, and taped
>> >everthing. She gave me permission to tape--it's on the
>> >recording. Later, i put the recorder away, but I have numb
>> >fingers from peripheral nueropathy, and the recorder didn't turn
>> >off or accidentally got pushed back on--I do not know. It
>> >doesn;t mater, because the important stuff was already recorded.
>> >
>> > That importan stuff sows that Mary ferrell's room was locked.
>> >That I was on the visitor's list. Further, we could not have
>> >entered the facility at all because it was gated. Mary had given
>> >me the gate code so I could enter. Thererfore, this was hardly an
>> >'invasion' from us! We found Mary's room locked. the nurse
>> >said she wasn't home, but when she knocked, Mary answered. the
>> >nurse said she didn;t nderstand why nobody told them Mary was in
>> >there and locked the door, as Mary was thought to be gone for the
>> >weekend!
>> >
>> >Mary was groggy and there were lots of pills at her bedside. She
>> >complained of being hungry. I was anxious to find her locked in
>> >like that. The tape recording makes Mary's situation quite clear,
>> >and Robert chapman's statement that now they had to 'lock' Mary's
>> >room to keep us out is specious and untruthful. they were locking
>> >her in there anyway. I am mentioning this because I feel i was
>> >being manipulated in Dallas, and I know Debra Conway was
>> >convinced by both Chapman and David Lifton that I was not who I
>> >am. Lifton mis-reported our only conversation, and it turned
>> >out he had illegally taped it. god knows how he edited that
>> >auditape that he illegally recorded. He misreported what i said.
>> >Chapman called me shortly after Debra Conway and i had met, and
>> >said, "Debra tells me you said Oswald was not circumcized."
>> >Debra Conway had told me she had received a photo of Lee entirely
>> >nide, and that she and Chapman had decided to show it at the
>> >Lancer conference, with that area covered. We did not discuss
>> >circumcision-- I did make a cmment that Lee was 'well endowed.'
>> >Debra said her reputation would be made by being David Lifton's
>> >co-author of lee's new biography. But Lifton didn't publish,
>> >because I had spoken out. I offered to help him update it, but
>> >he said he would mention my existence in a footnote. I tried t
>> >tell him all that transpured in New Orleans, but he had
>> >immediately decided what i said was 'impossible.' Now Debra
>> >Conway, who told me she never got a college degree, had lost this
>> >cance to prove her research abilities, and I think she was
>> >secretly angry at me. But before I knew this, she had
>> >confessed to me in Jan. 2000, when I spent the night at her
>> >parents' home with her, after a conference in New Orleans, that
>> >Lancer was fulfilling her big dream, and that photo of oswald,
>> >and other evidence she was gathering, would make her respected as
>> >a researcher in the case.
>> >
>> >It's important to know that when Chapman called me and said Debra
>> >had told him that I said Lee was not circumcized, AND THAT THE
>> >PHOTO SHE HAD SHOWN AT LANCER CONFIRMED THIS, that many things
>> >ran through my mind. Someone had sent her a bogus or altered
>> >photo, then, because Lee WAS circumcized! Fortnately, her
>> >reputation was still OK because she had told me that area had
>> >been covered with a black square when shown publically. Poor
>> >Debra! She had been given a bogus photo! And accepted it as
>> >genuine, even though the autopsy report said clearly that Lee was
>> >circumcized! Not a very good researcher, I thought to myself,
>> >but was not about to betray her to Chapman. Her heart would be
>> >broken. So I only told Chapman exactly what i had commented
>> >to Debra--that lee certainly was 'well-endowed." Unfortunately,
>> >I soon learned that Debra and Chapman and Lifton tgether were
>> >telling people I was a fraud and had no evidence. pressure was
>> >placed on Anna Lewis, one of my witnesses, to recant, and she
>> >complained aout that to Shackelford. Mac McCullough as witness
>> >was ignored as unreliable because he was mafia. The Charles
>> >thomas family escaped criticism because they did not know their
>> >location. They did not dare assail Edward Haslam, either.
>> >
>> >But a great deal of whispering behind my back ensued. My
>> >apartment was ransacked, I was harrassed by nag-up calls, and
>> >received threats by phone. I was hot twice in Dallas, moved to
>> >Florida, and then, immediately after being filmed by Nigel Turner
>> >and then by Wim Dankbaar, in dallas, i returned from Dallas to
>> >find I had been fired--the son of an FBI employee had filed a
>> >comlaint against me. I was harrassed and became ill, fell, and
>> >was hospitalized for yet another concussion. When I returned
>> >from the hospital after five days, I found my landlady wanted me
>> >to leave because she had received threats. And my phone began
>> >ringing again, including one threat so particular that I fled
>> >overseas to Holland. On the 35th anniversary there, I opened the
>> >Lee Harvey Oswald Gallery and Museum under an artists's permit.
>> >It was open for six months, and did much good. I was forced to
>> >go to Hungary after that, though, due to being scammed by a Dutch
>> >person wo claimed he was a literary agent. There. problems began
>> >immediately, and eventually, i was forced to leave after my
>> >landlady there said my telephone was bugged -- and because her
>> >husband had a job with the Ministry of Culture, she feared for
>> >his future and i would have to go. I returned to the US and
>> >found job after job closed down just after i was hired-- McAdams
>> >and his friends by now had many websites denouncing me. By
>> >now, too, NIgel Turner's TMWKK --the final chapter--was
>> >removed--all three pieces-- and deep-sixed after LBJ and Co.
>> >denounced them.
>> >
>> > I can go on, but you get the picture. I worked on two Indian
>> >reservations, but was fingerprinted numerous times and hounded
>> >there, too. Then I was assaulted by a native American known to
>> >have a drug habit, and almost crippled.
>> >
>> > I know that my name has been turned to mud in your
>> >organization, but I ask you to review who my enemies are, and the
>> >fact that they still ceaselessly campaign against me. They hired
>> >somebody to hunt me down in Sweden--a translator--and they posted
>> >even the numer of my case file on their newsgroup, plus plenty of
>> >lies about me while in under the protection of the EU political
>> >asylum program. They then reported that I was last known as
>> >planning to move to Ireland (true -- but I ended up in Turkey).
>> >they recently erased 45,000 files and only about 5,000
>> >remain--mostly the worst of them, fll of the usual invective and
>> >name-calling--while effrective responses from my defenders have
>> >been mostly wiped out.
>> >
>> >I also respect the work Mr. Eaglesham has done, though I believe
>> >more work needs to be done in the Pitzer case, as i know Dan
>> >Marvin to be an honorable man. I believe that Mr. Eaglesham
>> >should continue to mention what Marvin has reported as to being
>> >asked to assassinate Pitzer, instead of trying to destroy
>> >Marvin's reputation. There is room for both men in that case,
>> >IMHO.
>> >
>> >Emails are not good ways to communicate, but i do not
>> >even have a telephone. It's expensive to use Internet cafes, when
>> >i worry about how to pay for heat and food. i have given up
>> >everything for the sake of one person--Lee Oswald-- and I seek
>> >his exoneration and vindication. I ask your group to careflly
>> >reassess everything about me. The swedish goverment's
>> >investigators are seasoned professionals. They have connections
>> >with agencies everywhere. They have experience in determining if
>> >a person is telling the truth or not. They knew i wasn;t lying,
>> >but they also correctly assessed the fact that the threat I had
>> >faced was for a particlar time and place and might not occur
>> >again if i took adwquate precautions and did not return to the
>> >US. I have taken their advice and remained on the other side of
>> >the planet. but that doesn;t mean i have to like it. My
>> >granddaughter is getting married. Because she fears having aytig
>> >to do with me, she didn't even tell me about her upcming
>> >wedding--others have. My youngest son married without my
>> >knowledge. He refuses to speak to me over this. can you just
>> >imagine for a moment what i am going through, how my heart has
>> >been ripped apart, by this? Some of my children, and my
>> >stepfather, who is a former Army intelligence officer, have
>> >helped me stay alive and in safe locations, but I can't even hear
>> >their voices-- when i called on a cell phone to my dad because my
>> >mother was dying, soon after, I was followed and filmed. Luckily,
>> >others observed this. The Swedish authorities then moved me to a
>> >different city. They also gave me a fake name to use so I could
>> >still get mail.
>> >
>> > I have been through hell, and worst of all, your fine
>> >organization, that is assemblig so much of the truth, may still
>> >--or does--think ill of me. Consider my enemies and what i have
>> >lived through, what I have lost. Consider that Edward Haslam has
>> >been doing ceaseless research into my case, along with others,
>> >and that now that I understand more of what Armstrong wrote--God
>> >knows i wish i had his book!--- I find myself open to receive
>> >more of what he has to say, and trust his research more. i was
>> >deliberately, I believe, misinformed concerning him.
>> >
>> > I believe that if you honestly treat my history, and do not
>> >rely on McAdams and his lackeys for what you know about me,
>> >you'll find i have been misquoted, my emails altered, and quotes
>> >attributed to me never existed as such, etc. I urge you to
>> >reconsider what you believe about me. bove all, i wish you all
>> >well, and support your efforts.
>> >
>> > I am cc'ing Terry [Mauro]. She likes you, I know, and has often
>> >stood
>> >up for you to me, explaining you were sick at the time we had our
>> >disagreements. I hope you will rethink everything i have so
>> >laboriously writren here (I have bad vision, double vision, and
>> >it's hard to write). I love my country. I loved Lee oswald. I
>> >believe I can fill in some blanks. Please tell mr. Burnham
>> >'hello' --he is a good man, a fine researcher. You would't know
>> >it from the way he was dissed at McAdams' newsgroup. Please
>> >visit my website judythvarybaker.com.
>> >
>> > Right now, you wll notice a 'donate' button--that's so my
>> >service dog and i can get sme medical help. As soon as enough
>> >donations are made so that we can get medical care, and i can get
>> >help for my eyes --which I think will be by the end of June --
>> >the 'donate' button wll be removed. I am not allowed to work in
>> >either country, or other countries i also visit, and I don;t know
>> >how much longer I will be able to sell an occasional painting
>> >because of my deteriorating eyesight. But while I can still see,
>> >I will fight on for justice for Lee Harvey Oswald, and i urge all
>> >of you to do the same.
>> >
>> >God bless you and keep you strong in the truth.
>> >
>> >Judyth Vary Baker
>> >
>> >[QUOTE OFF]
>> >
>> >IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF THIS FORUM, NO PORTION OF
>> >THE ABOVE POST IS TO BE CROSS-POSTED ON ANY OTHER NEWSGROUP
>> >OR FORUM.
>> >
>> >� Last Edit: April 10, 2009, 03:45 PM by Rich DellaRosa � Logged
>> >
>> >-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >---
>> >_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
>> >
>> >Rich DellaRosa
>> >Forum Admin
>> >
>> ><QUOTE OFF>----------------------------------------
>> >
>> >
>> >Dave
Anthony Marsh
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> curtjester1<curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On May 4, 4:32?pm, Rich DellaRosa<richd...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>>> In article
>>>> <f70b70e0-b6b2-458d-af6d-8c084b539...@r34g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>>>>>>>> "IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF THIS FORUM, NO PORTION OF THE ABOVE
>>>>>>>> POST
>>>>>>>> IS TO BE CROSS-POSTED ON ANY OTHER NEWSGROUP OR FORUM."<<<
>>
>>
>>>>> Did you get specific permission from Rich DellaRosa to cross-post that
>>>>> JFKResearch.com message on this forum?
>>
>>>> he is not a member.
>>
>>>>> I'm just curious, because cross-posting is the reason I was booted off
>>>>> Rich's forum.
>>
>>>>> Oddly, Rich won't even allow non-members to read any posts at his
>>>>> forum, which is something I've never understood at all. A most curious
>>>>> restriction.
>>
>>>> My forum is not intended for people who need to hide behind aliases or
>>>> who their audience is when they post and feel confident that they know
>>>> who can and cannot read their submissions.
>>
>>
>>>> --
>>>> _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/http://www.jfkresearch.com
>>
>>> I am not one smidgen on the LNT side, but I do have to agree that people
>>> who run forums shouldn't ask people to use their real names. It's an
>>> invasion of privacy and there is no reason to know, and all posting should
>>> be based on the merits of the post and not the person's identity. Knowing
>>> that could only be described as interesting, and nothing more. Who in
>>> their right mind would give their real name out for any potential gov't
>>> goon to monitor or tail them is beyond me.
>>
>>
>> Some researchers possess a certain pride of authorship. Some do not wish
>> to deal with agents provocateur. In many cases, requiring the use of real
>> names is effective in keeping the flames low to non-existent.
>>
>
> Authors can still have their pride because they can use their name. People
> who have aliases for their poster names also do and can have pride. They
> stay with one alias for the most part. Flaming has nothing to do with a
> name, it's an attitude or a ploy.
>
>
>> The use of aliases and screen names does not avert government monitoring.
>> They employ much more sophisticated methods.
>>
>
> They of course can invade ala newsgroup very easy. They actually can make
> up a name and you wouldn't know if it's a real name or not, would you?
> If they have any more technical means of finding out a specific exact
> location where one is posting from, can you give us some insight on that?
>
> CJ
IP address, Traceroute, Finger, Whois.
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/a7cef7da9b10e330
>>> "Maybe it means[,] just like Oswald's mother[,] she [Judyth Vary
Baker] thinks that Lee participated in the assassination, but under orders
of the CIA." <<<
Nope. Judyth thinks Lee Harvey Oswald was totally innocent of
"participating" in the assassination (i.e., taking a gun and firing it at
JFK). At least that was Judyth's position as of May 13, 2004.
Take a listen to Judyth's make-believe fantasies (in some detail) in the
following 2-part Black Op Radio program (from 5/13/04). It's a real howl:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/weberman/black171a.ram
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/weberman/black171b.ram
----------------------
BTW, Marguerite Oswald thought her son was totally innocent of
shooting anyone too. She tells us so, point-blank, at the very
beginning of this LP record album that she made in 1964:
www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=AE750A588C55616C
David Von Pein
>>> "There is no hard evidence against LHO that would stand up in a court
of law." <<<
Oh, come now my good woman! You cannot possibly believe what you just
said. If you truly do believe what you just stated, I feel sorry for
you--because your many years (?) of JFK research was all for naught,
because it obviously did you no good at all.
REPLAY:
>>> "There is no hard evidence against LHO that would stand up in a court
of law." <<<
It already has (sort of):
www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6FiTHZutGw
www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=1993B641DFC1CB06
>>> "Why do you think he [St. Oswald The Great] was not allowed to live to
stand trial?" <<<
Because a guy named Ruby had impeccable timing on 11/24/63 and managed
to get into that basement and put a bullet in Lee's belly.
That's why. No other reason whatsoever.
~Mark VII~
pamela
You are entitled to your opinion. I think you are wrong.
The myth of the WCR has been exposed. Nothing about it has stood up
to scrutiny, much less time, except for those sheeple who would rather
not think for themselves, or those few knowingly involved in the
ongoing cover-up.
LHO should have been allowed to stand trial. He could have been
protected. It is no accident that he was not.
blackburst
1) Where and by whom is she being denied the right to speak?
2) You don't detect anything in her writings suggesting a tendency to
exaggerate?
Anthony Marsh
>
>
>
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/a7cef7da9b10e330
>
>
>>>> "Maybe it means[,] just like Oswald's mother[,] she [Judyth Vary
> Baker] thinks that Lee participated in the assassination, but under orders
> of the CIA."<<<
>
> Nope. Judyth thinks Lee Harvey Oswald was totally innocent of
> "participating" in the assassination (i.e., taking a gun and firing it at
> JFK). At least that was Judyth's position as of May 13, 2004.
>
Huh? Judyth knows that on 11/22/63 Lee is off to participate in the
planned assassination and he will afterwards meet her in Mexico. Did she
think he was just going to a picnic?
> Take a listen to Judyth's make-believe fantasies (in some detail) in the
> following 2-part Black Op Radio program (from 5/13/04). It's a real howl:
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/weberman/black171a.ram
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/weberman/black171b.ram
>
>
> ----------------------
>
>
> BTW, Marguerite Oswald thought her son was totally innocent of
> shooting anyone too. She tells us so, point-blank, at the very
> beginning of this LP record album that she made in 1964:
>
No. Her theory was that Lee assassinated Kennedy as part of a CIA plan
to remove Kennedy before he would die of Addison's Disease.
> www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=AE750A588C55616C
>
>
curtjester1
all over besides New Orleans. Maybe you won't admit the picture yet
of Oswald and Ferrie together at Lake Ponchartrain?
> alone and what was done covert-wise with
>
> > those high powered cancer concoctions
>
> The ones cooked up in a blender?
>
You sound like a medical expert. Jack Ruby said he thought he was
injected to get cancer. Some have even postulated that Ferrie's trip
to Haiti was right when the first AIDS virus was spotted. Try reading
up. Recommended, Dr. Mary's Monkey. I am sure there is more Ferrie
sightings in there that won't make you feel that having someone
residing in the same city in close proximity wouldn't have the
possiblity of never meeting.
CJ
> , that just had to happen to have
>
>
>
> > many JFK wannabee players that could be considered in on the plot and
> > assassination
>
> > CJ- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Steve Thomas
Its not credentials Pam, its common sense.
Rich DellaRosa
Barb Junkkarinen <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 4 May 2009 21:26:57 -0400, Rich DellaRosa
> <rich...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <r4duv49ebrn29ohca...@4ax.com>,
> > Barb Junkkarinen <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Holy cow ... she has a lot of free time on her hands .. and why she
> >> thinks she can slide this stuff past Rich DellaRosa and his forum is
> >> beyond bizare. Rich knows better ... as do some others up there ...
> >> and probably most. It all comes down to a bit of a commercial for
> >> donations, doesn't it?
> >>
> >> Barb :-)
> >
> >I certainly wouldn't rule that out Barb. But I found the whole thing
> >quite bizarre.
> >
> >Rich
>
> Bizarre is a good word for it, Rich. I wish her family could get her
> home ... and take care of her.
>
> Barb :-)
I totally agree.
Rich
--
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
http://www.jfkresearch.com
Steve Thomas
No one said she couldn't speak Pam. We love it when Judyth talks
because it just shows how tired her crap has become. It also helps single
out people who are just not credible. How could anyone take what this wack
job says seriously?
Anthony Marsh
Again, you'd be hard pressed to quote any actual messages where I called
someone a Nazi.
>
>
>
>>
>>> .John
>>> --------------
>>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
>
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>
>
>
>www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/a7cef7da9b10e330
>
>
>>>> "Maybe it means[,] just like Oswald's mother[,] she [Judyth Vary
>Baker] thinks that Lee participated in the assassination, but under orders
>of the CIA." <<<
>
>Nope. Judyth thinks Lee Harvey Oswald was totally innocent of
>"participating" in the assassination (i.e., taking a gun and firing it at
>JFK). At least that was Judyth's position as of May 13, 2004.
>
>Take a listen to Judyth's make-believe fantasies (in some detail) in the
>following 2-part Black Op Radio program (from 5/13/04). It's a real howl:
>
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/weberman/black171a.ram
>
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/weberman/black171b.ram
Ahhh...this would be the one where she says she's reading
apportionment of grants and the like from a "shaef" of documents.
Martin, who says he has seen all of her evidence, was asked ...
several times ... about that "sheaf .... and mever replied. All the
alleged sources of these monies I checked with show no such grants,
scholarships or whatever given to Judyth. If Martin has ever seen this
"sheaf" of documentation, I have no doubt he would hvae been
broadcasting it to the world for a very long time now.
Barb :-)
Anthony Marsh
> On May 5, 9:51 am, Rich DellaRosa<richd...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>> In article<c4ivv4lmq8qghvele5uat5vk8q4mdf8...@4ax.com>,
>>> --------------
>>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>>
>> Not having certain provocateurs turn submissions into strawmen and
>> fanning the flames of dissent causes many members to post freely and
>> confidently. There's no one there to call them "kooks" or "retards."
>
>
> either. Unless you're Marsh and it just slips by on accident.
>
Seems you don't know how the rules work here. We are not allowed to call
fellow posters here names like that. Anyone else is fair game. And of
course I am not allowed to call anyone here a liar, but the WC defenders
have been allowed to call me a liar.
Anthony Marsh
>
>
>>>> "Not having certain provocateurs turn submissions into strawmen and
> fanning the flames of dissent causes many members to post freely and
> Further, there's no need for moderators to review submissions prior to
> allowing them to be posted. All that is required is that members conduct
> themselves with civility."<<<
>
>
> content?
>
> I'd very much like to read the posts at JFKResearch.com, but Rich just
> won't permit it.
>
He needs to do that to protect his buddies from any criticism. Imagine if
the LNers had access to his messages and every day they would quote them
here for all to see just how kooky his buddies are?
> You might as well just make it a forum accessible only by private e-
> mails. Your current set-up is practically the same as that.
>
Rich DellaRosa
Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 5/5/2009 7:18 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>> "Not having certain provocateurs turn submissions into strawmen and
> > fanning the flames of dissent causes many members to post freely and
> > confident=y. There's no one there to call them "kooks" or "retards."
> > Further, there's no need for moderators to review submissions prior to
> > allowing them to be posted. All that is required is that members conduct
> > themselves with civility."<<<
> >
> >
> > What has that got to do with allowing people to simply READ your forum's
> > content?
> >
> > I'd very much like to read the posts at JFKResearch.com, but Rich just
> > won't permit it.
> >
>
> He needs to do that to protect his buddies from any criticism. Imagine if
> the LNers had access to his messages and every day they would quote them
> here for all to see just how kooky his buddies are?
I don't have any buddies, kooky or otherwise.
Why do you think we have no LNers on the forum?? Jean Davison, Todd
Vaughn, Gary Mack to name a few. you are very tenacious --> you don't
let facts get in your way.
>
> > You might as well just make it a forum accessible only by private e-
> > mails. Your current set-up is practically the same as that.
> >
--
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
http://www.jfkresearch.com
Martin Shackelford
have lucky
timing, and shot Oswald on impulse.
Martin
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:0f3011d8-10f0-407f...@v17g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
Martin Shackelford
Martin
"Rich DellaRosa" <rich...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:richdell-862F7E...@isp5.newshosting.com...
curtjester1
> In article <avn405t2situlcmrcjs6lonjndni4ke...@4ax.com>,
> Barb Junkkarinen <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 4 May 2009 21:26:57 -0400, Rich DellaRosa
>
> > >In article <r4duv49ebrn29ohcaiq7ad296pi5hr6...@4ax.com>,
> > > Barb Junkkarinen <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > >> Holy cow ... she has a lot of free time on her hands .. and why she
> > >> thinks she can slide this stuff past Rich DellaRosa and his forum is
> > >> beyond bizare. Rich knows better ... as do some others up there ...
> > >> and probably most. It all comes down to a bit of a commercial for
> > >> donations, doesn't it?
>
> > >> Barb :-)
>
> > >I certainly wouldn't rule that out Barb. But I found the whole thing
> > >quite bizarre.
>
> > >Rich
>
> > Bizarre is a good word for it, Rich. I wish her family could get her
> > home ... and take care of her.
>
> > Barb :-)
>
their country to begin with. Judyth also mentions in letter to me
others who are in the same boat, even ones who post in these forums.
I don't think it normal that people can only live in certain countries
for so many months and must move on. Judyth is still as happy-go-
lucky as one can deem possible, and does rely on her family to help
her and hopefully her son who has residence in one of her countries
can further her cause.
CJ
> I totally agree.
>
> Rich
>
>
>
>
>
> > >http://www.jfkresearch.com
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Steve Thomas
April 5th 2:02PM
>> Yeah, and Obama's illegal alien aunt is not getting any special treatment
>> either, but she has not been granted asylum and they have yet to deport
>> her. So, what do you call that?
> Inefficient enforcement of our immigration laws by the liberals who
> run the country.
Gee, I wonder why you evaded my question. Too tough for you to just say
provisional asylum. Your ------------------------------------->Neo-Nazi
<---------------------------------------------orientation is obvious
without having to tell us.
pamela
Rich likes to protect goofy theories from scrutiny too. If anyone refuses
to be bullied into submission his thugs make up about them and have them
banished. Kind of like a cult.
Anthony Marsh
But if you want to remain a good little cover-up specialist you need to
claim that she lied about EVERYTHING. Don't even admit the simplest facts.
Rich DellaRosa
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@charter.net> wrote:
> Gary Mack believes there was a conspiracy, Rich.
>
> Martin
Yeah, right. He did once upon a time.
Rich
--
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
http://www.jfkresearch.com
Bud
Yah, this mega-conspiracy is handed off from one generation to the
next, with the people involved growing and growing. Tens of thousands now
how inside knowledge of this plot. Either that, or Oswald took his rifle
to work and short some people. Tough call.
> LHO should have been allowed to stand trial.
Also on the list of "shouldn`t have happened" is Kennedy riding in an
open automobile.
> He could have been
> protected.
Yes, and Ruby could have missed. But that didn`t happen either.
> It is no accident that he was not.
Unfortunately for you, you will never be able to produce anything more
substantial than your dissatisfaction of how things played out to support
this amazing claim.
If the Dallas police wanted him dead, they could have justifiably killed
him when they arrested him. Ruby`s shot could have easily resulted in a
non-fatal wound. It wasn`t an accident, it was happenstance.
Bud
> You have to ignore a LOT of evidence to believe that Ruby just happened to
> have lucky
> timing, and shot Oswald on impulse.
>
> Martin
And you can`t produce enough evidence to get even a hearing against
anyone putting Ruby up to killing Oswald.
> "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:0f3011d8-10f0-407f...@v17g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
>>> "You have to ignore a LOT of evidence to believe that Ruby just
happened to have lucky timing, and shot Oswald on impulse." <<<
And conspiracy theorists have no (reasonable) choice but to call Karen
Carlin one of the prime conspirators in a plot to murder Lee Harvey
Oswald.
Because without Carlin being nearly penniless and having her rent due very
soon (as of 11/23/63), then she's not going to make that call to Jack Ruby
on Sunday morning, which is a call that enabled Ruby to be at the right
place at the perfect time to slay LHO.
And the fact that Ruby closed his clubs on 11/22 and 11/23 is a key factor
in Ruby being where he was on 11/24/63 too.
I.E.,
If Ruby hadn't closed his nightclubs on those two nights, then Karen
Carlin could have (and undoubtedly would have) gotten her $25 advance AT
ONE OF THE NIGHTCLUBS THEMSELVES, instead of having to bother Jack at home
for the money.
Any way a CTer slices it, they need Karen Carlin to be a key "plotter" in
November 1963 if the CTers want to actually believe that Ruby killed
Oswald due to anything except an "impulse" (and being in the right place
at just the right time to pull off the murder).
Or do CTers want to believe that the "Carlin Asks For Money" part of the
scenario was merely PURE LUCK for plotter Jack Ruby?
IOW -- Carlin just HAPPENS to need some cash (and can't get into Ruby's
clubs to get the money because they're closed for the weekend)....and she
just HAPPENS to call Ruby prior to 11:00 AM on Sunday morning....and Jack
then suddenly realizes he has the perfect "non-conspiratorial" reason for
going downtown to the Western Union office (even though, per this silly
scenario, Jack knows in advance he's going to pop Oswald on Sunday, but he
decides to wait until about 11:00 to go downtown, even though the transfer
of Oswald was supposed to have occurred at 10:00 AM)?
In the final (and most reasonable) analysis.....
Every last thing connected to Jack Ruby and his killing of Lee Harvey
Oswald spells -- SPUR OF THE MOMENT. Right down to "Sheba" going downtown
with Jack.
~Mark VII~
pamela
> You have to ignore a LOT of evidence to believe that Ruby just happened to
> have lucky
> timing, and shot Oswald on impulse.
>
> Martin
>
>
>
>
> >>>> "There is no hard evidence against LHO that would stand up in a court
> > of law." <<<
>
> > Oh, come now my good woman! You cannot possibly believe what you just
> > said. If you truly do believe what you just stated, I feel sorry for
> > you--because your many years (?) of JFK research was all for naught,
> > because it obviously did you no good at all.
>
> > REPLAY:
>
> >>>> "There is no hard evidence against LHO that would stand up in a court
> > of law." <<<
>
> > It already has (sort of):
>
> >www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6FiTHZutGw
>
> >www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=1993B641DFC1CB06
>
> >>>> "Why do you think he [St. Oswald The Great] was not allowed to live to
> > stand trial?" <<<
>
> > Because a guy named Ruby had impeccable timing on 11/24/63 and managed
> > to get into that basement and put a bullet in Lee's belly.
>
> > That's why. No other reason whatsoever.
>
> > ~Mark VII~
>
> >www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com
"DVP" seems to have no trouble ignoring anything that doesn't fit in
with his narrow focus that LHO acted alone.
pamela
>
> Martin
>
>
> news:richdell-862F7E...@isp5.newshosting.com...
>
> > In article <4a0344c...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
No, Martin; Gary Mack hems and haws, but when the chips are down he claims
there is 'no hard evidence' that there was a conspiracy. His role is
little more than that of a govt shill.
pamela
> In article <4a0344c...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
Well, that's really convenient. The CT bullies on your group insist that
everyone buy into kooky theories or be banished, and when people have had
enough, you trot out a couple of WC apologists to help them 'see the
light'. How considerate.
Rich DellaRosa
<b169f9e4-3ff7-4543...@y6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
pamela <jfk...@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't have any thugs. The closest thing to a cult that I've seen are
those that believe Judyth. Talk about goofy theories.
--
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
http://www.jfkresearch.com
Steve Thomas
Well that leaves pretty much everyone out, we all admit she worked
at Reily but thats the only thing she has proof for. The science stuff
means nothing.
Steve Thomas
Just like everyone who you disagree with, huh Pam?
pamela
Are you speaking of yourself? Are you earning a living saying what
the govt tells you to? Do you pretend to be a CT when you are
actually not? Do you like to lead CTs to 'see the light' of the WCR?
Rich DellaRosa
<faac8c5d-b902-41ff...@v1g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
pamela <jfk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 7, 11:07?pm, Rich DellaRosa <richd...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> > In article <4a0344c...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> > ?Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On 5/5/2009 7:18 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> >
> > > >>>> "Not having certain provocateurs turn submissions into strawmen and
> > > > fanning the flames of dissent causes many members to post freely and
> > > > confident=y. There's no one there to call them "kooks" or "retards."
> > > > Further, there's no need for moderators to review submissions prior to
> > > > allowing them to be posted. ?All that is required is that members
> > > > conduct
> > > > themselves with civility."<<<
> >
> > > > What has that got to do with allowing people to simply READ your
> > > > forum's
> > > > content?
> >
> > > > I'd very much like to read the posts at JFKResearch.com, but Rich just
> > > > won't permit it.
> >
> > > He needs to do that to protect his buddies from any criticism. Imagine if
> > > the LNers had access to his messages and every day they would quote them
> > > here for all to see just how kooky his buddies are?
> >
> > I don't have any buddies, kooky or otherwise.
> >
> > Why do you think we have no LNers on the forum?? ?Jean Davison, Todd
> > Vaughn, Gary Mack to name a few. ?you are very tenacious --> you don't
> > let facts get in your way.
> >
> >
> >
> > > > You might as well just make it a forum accessible only by private e-
> > > > mails. Your current set-up is practically the same as that.
> >
> > --
> > _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/http://www.jfkresearch.com
>
> Well, that's really convenient. The CT bullies on your group insist that
> everyone buy into kooky theories or be banished, and when people have had
> enough, you trot out a couple of WC apologists to help them 'see the
> light'. How considerate.
Wow. Really? The only ones who were banished were rude, inconsiderate,
provocateurs who engaged in endless ad hominem attacks.
--
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
http://www.jfkresearch.com
Bud
How does Ruby shooting Oswald not fit in with Oswald acting alone in
shooting Kennedy?
pamela
Nonsense. They just refused to be bullied and asked that some of the
wacky theories be held up to scrutiny. You and your buddies then went
ahead and threatened them and made things up to try to justify banishing
them. Not very professional, do you think?
David Von Pein
>>> "The only ones who were banished were rude, inconsiderate,
provocateurs who engaged in endless ad hominem attacks." <<<
And at least one person (me) who broke the rules of Rich's forum and
copied material to another forum. :)
BTW, I just love the words "ad hominem". Don't you?
Have you ever in your life heard that term used by more people than those
within the "JFK research community"? I sure haven't.
Conspiracists just love the words "ad hominem".
Martin Shackelford
Martin
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:60973cf6-13cd-4eb3...@t10g2000vbg.googlegroups.com...
Steve Thomas
You prove my point there Pam.
Do you pretend to be a CT when you are
> actually not?
Dont think i have ever claimed to be a CT Pam. I say there is a
"possibility" that there was a conspiracy, and if there was a
conspiracy Judyth Baker sure as hell doesn't know a damn thing about
it.
Do you like to lead CTs to 'see the light' of the WCR?
I dont urge anyone to "see the light" Pam, my name is Steve
Thomas, not David Koresh! If you paid attention you would know i'v
said the WCR sucked because they didnt have all the info. That doesnt
mean there was a huge conspiracy. It means maybe the people who
monitored Oswald didnt want to say anything after he shot the Prez,
because it might look bad on them.
Martin Shackelford
organized crime figures of the era. This is detailed in the bio of Will
Fritz.
Martin
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:87a442cd-0950-43fe...@z5g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
Rich DellaRosa
<a42ec646-6495-4427...@z23g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
pamela <jfk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Well, that's really convenient. ?The CT bullies on your group insist that
> > > everyone buy into kooky theories or be banished, and when people have had
> > > enough, you trot out a couple of WC apologists to help them 'see the
> > > light'. ?How considerate.
> >
> > Wow. Really? The only ones who were banished were rude, inconsiderate,
> > provocateurs who engaged in endless ad hominem attacks.
> >
> > --
> > _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/http://www.jfkresearch.com
>
> Nonsense. They just refused to be bullied and asked that some of the
> wacky theories be held up to scrutiny. You and your buddies then went
> ahead and threatened them and made things up to try to justify banishing
> them. Not very professional, do you think?
Didn't happen Pam. Want to talk about bullying?? Nick Principe.
Remember him? He told me about a week before he died that he was
disappointed that you found it necessary to bully him.
Professional Pam?? You should talk.
I have no buddies and you were the only bully. Do you really believe that
400 researchers agree on everything?? How unusual would that be?? I never
knew 4 researchers ever to agree with one another, let alone 400.
Always a victim aren't you Pam??
--
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
http://www.jfkresearch.com
Rudy Lasparri
<8ba776fa-e803-472d...@h23g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
Too many syllables Dave?? LNs like the word "bloviate" when applied to
others.
Martin Shackelford
Martin
"Rich DellaRosa" <rich...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:richdell-5CB72C...@isp5.newshosting.com...
curtjester1
>
> - Show quoted text -
Someday I am going to form a site where theory and evidence are the
only things allowed. There will be no criteria for names/identities.
No insults between the posters will be allowed. I wonder if anyone
would show up?
CJ
pamela
Lighten up, Steve, and check out a definition of irony.
pamela
Wrong. We have the WCR and its false axiom that LHO acted alone to
support the assertion that LHO was not allowed to live to stand trial
because the govt case was too weak.
>
> If the Dallas police wanted him dead, they could have justifiably killed
> him when they arrested him.
That was probably what was supposed to happen. But then LHO yelled
that he was not resisting arrest.
>Ruby`s shot could have easily resulted in a
> non-fatal wound. It wasn`t an accident, it was happenstance.
"Happenstance" doesn't require an ongoing coverup. Why are many LHO
NARA docs still suppressed?
Bud
> Read Legacy of Silence.
What legal proceedings did the contents of that book precipitate?
> Martin
>
> "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote in message
Anthony Marsh
> And those who questioned Jack White's credibility.
>
Or sanity.
Anthony Marsh
How would you know? You are not even part of the research community. I was
at the conference in Chicago where almost every researcher agreed on some
general points. Out of over 500 people only one person disagreed that at
least one shot was fired from behind.
Lifton said that absolutely no shots were fired from behind. When I
finally cornered him and showed him the dent of the chrome topping and
asked how that could have happened if there were no shots from behind, he
refused to discuss it.
curtjester1
> On 5/10/2009 2:40 PM, Rich DellaRosa wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > pamela<jfk2...@gmail.com> wrote:
How can you say he's not part of the research community when he has seen
one if not the earliest rendering of the Zapruder Film? Oh I get it, you
have an agenda against people who don't think it's a clean film, so you
exile him.
CJ
curtjester1
>
> - Show quoted text -
I didn't know Judyth was in on the shooting or the planning.
CJ
dreitzes@aol.com (Dave Reitzes)
> On May 10, 11:33 am, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> > Read Legacy of Silence.
>
> � �What legal proceedings did the contents of that book precipitate?
Mel Gibson's divorce?