I read and post via Google Groups. Although I'm informed that the
a.a.jfk moderators approved them, Google has not posted my recent
messages on Judyth's complete turnaround re: an intimate part of
Oswald's anatomy, and Judyth's subsequent claim that I forged one of
the e-mails in which she mentions the matter.

I've posted the relevant e-mail before, such as in this thread from
June 2008:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/e483560dd65e...

If anyone has any replies on the matter, please repost them in this
thread or feel free to e-mail them to me.

Dave

On 5/14/10 8:11 AM, Dave Reitzes wrote:

So, Judyth makes a claim that turns out to be false. Judyth, or her
supporters, then claim that Judyth wasn't responsible for the false
claim, someone else was. There seems to be a pattern here.

On May 14, 9:11 am, Dave Reitzes <dreit...@aol.com> wrote:

Continued from the thread, "Judyth accuses Reitzes of forgery," which
I am unable to access:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15559&st=2610

<QUOTE ON>-----------------------------------------------------------

 Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile, A YouTube interview and a
blog . . .

Gary Buell

Today, 12:16 PM Post #2611

Advanced Member

Group: Members
Posts: 237
Joined: 13-September 04
Member No.: 1486

 I have decided to put my entire email exchange with Judyth Baker on
this matter on record, deleting only her email address, as she had
requested it not be made public and the name of a friend of hers. I
will follow it up with some comments of my own. To read it in
chronological order start at the bottom. I never promised Judyth
confidentiality although she at one point trys to claim it after the
fact.

Begin exchange:

Thu, May 13, 2010 5:23:58 PMRe: hi judyth
From: [deleted]
To: gary n <garyn2...@yahoo.com>

------------------------------------------------------------------------

ok, I could only see the one page i was sent, Gary. i cannot reply
again for a long time, used up all my dimes here!

Thanks to [deleted] for providing an interface between me and all of
you!...."Fight evil with beauty. Defy darkness with infinite light."
Tzvi Freeman

--- On Fri, 5/14/10, gary n <garyn2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: gary n <garyn2...@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: hi judyth
To: [deleted]
Date: Friday, May 14, 2010, 2:11 AM

Judyth,

The only thing I posted on the forum was the comment you left on my
blog. Comments left on blogs are public obviously as any visitor to my
blog can read them. Since you asked me to keep the email address
private I deleted the comment and copied and pasted your reply on my
blog and later on the forum, but without the email address. In any
event, Professor Fetzer indicated that he had a copy of your reply but
had not yet posted it. I have not posted any of our subsequent email
exchanges.

Gary

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [deleted]
To: gary n <garyn2...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thu, May 13, 2010 4:57:21 PM
Subject: Re: hi judyth

GARY,
i WAS SENT THE INFO FROM ANOTHER PERSON A FEW MINUTES AGO AND SAW FOR
THE FIRST TIME THAT WHAT I HAVE BEEN WRITING TO YOU, YOU HAVE POSTED
ON THE FORUM WITHOUT TELLING ME THAT YOU WERE DOING THAT.

I HAD NEVER INTENDED TO START YET ANOHER FIRESTORM. I THOUGHT YOU KNEW
THIS WAS A PERSONAL EMAIL. I WAS WRONG.

I DO NOT HAVE TIME TO ARGUE WITH THE FORUM MEMBERS AND DO NOT HAVE
ACCESS TO THE FORUM. I HAVE TO PAY FOR TIME ON THIS COMPUTER AND NOW I
SEE THAT YOU WENT AHEAD AND POSTED WHAT I THOUGHT YOU KNEW WERE JUST
PRIVATE EMAILS TO YOU.

WITHOUT SAYING A WORD TO ME ABOUT IT. LEAVIG ME UNABLE TO DEFEND
MYSELF AGAINS EIR REMARKS, OF WHICH YOU TOLD ME NOTHING.

YES, I WROTE THAT MATERIAL. BELIEVE AS YOU WISH THAT THE MATERIAL
THERE THAT I QUESTION WAS N-O-T INSERTED. OR THAT I USED THAT EMAIL
ADDRESS. I INDEED WROTE A LONG EMAIL TO REITZES. BUT PERHAPS YOU DID
NOT NOTICE THAT I SAID I SENT HIM A TEST EMAIL AND THEN SAID I WOULD
WRITE TO HIM IF HE RESPONDED, USING MY OTHER EMAIL ADDRESS.

MR. REITZES ALSO PROMISED TO KEEP MY EMAILS CONFIDENTIAL. YOU CAN READ
THAT FOR YOURSELF.
WAS HE A MAN OF HIS WORD? WOULD YOU TRUST MR. REITZES TO KEEP EMAILS
CONFIDENTIAL AFTER SEEING WHAT HE DID WITH MINE, TO HIM?
AFTER RECEIVING THEM, HE BROKE HIS PROMISE AND PUBLISHED THEM. DO YOU
CHOOSE TO BELIEVE THIS MAN, WHO BROKE HIS PROMISE? IS HE A MAN OF
HONOR? .

AS FOR THE CIRCUMCISION MATER, I SAID THAT WHEN LEE WAS FLACCID, THERE
COULD BE A FOLD. I HAVE NOT SEEN MANY MALE ORGANS IN MY LIFE. I NEVER,
EVER DESCRIBED HIM AS UNCIRCUMCISED.

I NOTE THAT REITZES (TYPICALLY) DOES NOT SHOW THE TRUE AND COMPLETE
HEADER FOR THIS EMAIL. HE KNOWS WHAT A COMPLETE HEADER LOOKS LIKE.
THEY USED TO BE ON ALL EMAILS: THESE DAYS, THEY ARE LESS COMMON AND
GMAIL NEVER HAS THEM.

I SAVED MARY FERRELL'S HEADER ON THE 'DENUNCIATION' EMAIL AND
ATACHMENT THE INSANT IT WAS PUBLISHED. GUESS WHAT, GARY? IT WAS MR.
REITZES WHO ALTERED THAT HEADER. I ATACH HE ORIGINAL HEADER THAT HE
RERPLACED WITH A AND-TYPED ONE HE CLAIMED WAS THE 'REAL' HEADER. IT
WAS MUCH TRUNCATED AND DID NOT RESEMBLE THE REAL ONE.

IF YOU BELUIEVE REITZES IS AN HONEST, HONORABLE MAN, WHY DID HE CHANGE
THE HEADER TO THE MARY FERRELL EMAIL? I AQM VERY DISAPPOINED THAT YOU
HAVE POSED THE EMAILS I WROTE TO YOU WITHOUT TELING ME, AND WITHOUT
EVEN MENTIONING THE RESPONSES. PERHAPS YOU BELIEVED I COULD READ THEM?
I AM BLOCKED FROM DOING SO.

IF YOU PREFER TO TRUST MR. REITZES, WHO BROKE HIS PROMISE TO ME, AND
WHO ALSO RE-CREATED A FAKE HEADER FOR THE EMAIL THAT MCADAMS
PUBLISHED, THAT IS UP TO YOU. ATTACHED IS THE HEADER THAT MR. REITZES
ERASED. THAT IS THE KIND OF MAN THAT YOU CHOOSE TO BELIEVE?

IF SO, ADIEU.

J

Thanks to [deleted] for providing an interface between me and all of
you!...."Fight evil with beauty. Defy darkness with infinite light."
Tzvi Freeman

--- On Fri, 5/14/10, gary n <garyn2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: gary n <garyn2...@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: hi judyth
To: [deleted]
Date: Friday, May 14, 2010, 1:37 AM

Here is the email as posted on the forum. The bolding was added. It
certainly sounds like you.

Subj: Re: test
Date: 10/6/00 3:49:50 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Americanwebworks
To: Dreitzes
CC: Howpl

In a message dated 10/06/2000 12:20:44 AM Central Daylight Time,

==you're not the only one...I am just heartsick that i am not going to
be given a chance to just say what happened in a simple way....OK,
Dave, i believe you, because Howard has told me you're trsutworthy
(oh, Debra conway told me David Lifton was trustworthy, too. She told
me he had been working on a book . i know the name of the title of his
book, even 9or at leats, what it was Jan.. 2000). Debra told me how
many years he had worked on it, and how it would support much of what
i had been talking about, in her opinion. She contacted robert
Chapman, they talked about it, then told Lifton to contact me. i never
initiated anything, but everything gets twisted on the newsgroup.
I did not know where to turn when i decided, after my last child left
home, to write everything down.
i do not need books, and read nothing, just marina and lee because she
was the other woman.
it was so outrageous, some of what i read in there, that all the old
feelings came rushing back. i knew everything that had been going on,
she knew almost nothing, and much was misrepresented. especially
9laughable) his being home all the time).
Anyway, i had avoided looking at everything. it literally made me
sick. i had seen him shot on TV and had a blackout. When i tried to
think about him, I had flashbacks to his murder. So i jusy blocked it
out. Sometimes when i talk about it, which am doing for the first
time, it is as if it happened to somebody else. And then suddenly i
smell something, or hear a word or a name, if they ask me something,
and suddenly, i can;t keep it far away any more, and then i start to
cry. for this, mr. Lifton made fun of me.
I had no idea where to go at first.
my children? They were raised by me, four of them., as a single
parent. three became valedictorians. i swore they would all have their
chance to succeed, i was not going to impede them by blighting their
names and lives with what had happened to me.
I was trained to become a research scientist. i attracted national
attention when only sixteen by inventing a new metod to get magnesium
out of seawater, and i was also doing cancer research with doctors
trained at Oak Ridge. To make a long story short, being located in
Florida, I dated Tony Lopex-Fresquet (son of Rufo L-F, finance
minister in Fidel's cabinet) who had fled with his American mother
along with his brother, Vincent, and i learned about the Ruston
coalition against Castro. i became interested in canceling Castro out
after more experiences, not the leats was having castro aim missiles
at me and my parents in Florida, if you see what I mean.
I knew important people, and in indianapolis got conscripted into the
CIA though was just a minor. i was trained in cancer research
techniques, and I have tousands of detials from 1960 through January
of 1964.
My life was destroyed when i was asked to go to New Orleans from
gainesville, FL spring of 1963. I met lee, but in rebellion eloped
with a man i thought I loved. they fixed that--sent him offshore
almost entire summer, and out of the way, and continued to us eme. i
was used, used, and so was Lee.
It is impossible to go into the kind of details that you would wish to
hear. it takes hours to get it all to somebody. Plus, i have proof of
my special training, and links to New orleans. as a cover, i was put
on at Reily's--me, a trained research technologist, working with
Monagahn as his finance and credit adssistant! but i warped up lee's
records for them there, and many other things, worked with INCA
people, and Ochsner was the common link there.
David Lifton gave me less than an hour ...

read more »

Some responses to, and evasions of, Judyth's statements, including
Fetzer's conclusion that the entire issue of circumcision and what
Judyth might have stated about it is "moot."

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15559&st=2505

<QUOTE ON>------------------------------------

Doug Weldon

May 13 2010, 03:51 AM Post #2508

Advanced Member

Group: Members
Posts: 240
Joined: 7-January 10
Member No.: 6294

 QUOTE (Gary Buell @ May 12 2010, 08:36 PM)
Judyth responds

Dear Gary:
Thank you for giving me an opportunity to respond to this.
1) In October, 2000, Conway and I were not friends. I would not have
used Conway as an example to Mr. Reitzes. I am not in the habit of
bringing up private matters as "examples."
2) Note that only Howard Platzman is cc'd. However, I always cc'd
Martin Shackelford as well.
3) Reitzes has written large, complex website attacks against me,
employing stolen emails, emails with quotes taken out of contex
entirely, and so on. We have seen "quotes" where he has posted
"emails" supposedly from me but replete with so many typos that they
were hardly legible. The email he cites is poorly written--does it
really sound like me, Gary?
4) with all he above, you might still wonder if the email could be a
legitimate one in its entirety--it is true that I did write Reitzes
several times, after all--but ask yourself why this 'gem' is NOT
MENTIONED IN ANY OF HIS WEBSIES ATTACKING ME? It might be added to one
of his atack sites NOW, but until now, it wasn't to be seen anywhere?
WHY?
Answer: it has been altered, oh-so-conveniently, Gary. I NEVER bring
up private matters such as this about Lee. To Mr. Chapman, in response
to his statement that I had AGREED WITH DEBRA CONWAY--this was ten
months earlier, mind you--that Lee had not been circumcized (and of
course, I'd read the autopsy, so how could I have made such an 'error'
even if I were not telling the truth? The subject is too important!)--
was worried about Debra AT THAT TIME, -- for she had told me how
important Lancer was to her--she had formerly been a merchandising
agent (1994) and Lancer at this time was only 5 years old--she was
building her reputation, she old me. Was going to move from California
and "take Mary ferrell's place." She confided to me that she helped
David Lifton for two years writing his biography on Oswald. I did not
know who Chapman was. I had to worry that he might be trying to
destroy her reputation, for she had told me she had received autopsy
photos of Lee and had shown them recently, with a black patch over the
private area. What if she had received fakes??? I have always stated
such, Gary. Yes, that was my thought, and to protect her, I refused to
tell Chapman a single detail except what I had said to Debra--that he
was 'well-endowed.' Even THAT --'his' very size--seems now to be
altered in photos from the original. Dr. Fetzer agreed with me when I
did recently decribe Lee in the very same terms--"well endowed." He
expressed his concern because he'd seen an altered full-body autopsy
photo of Lee recently.

Now, Gary, you will not find any such statement as Mr. Reitzes
pretends I made residing with Dr. Platzman, Martin Shackelford, or
anyone else who is reputable. However, if you believe Mr. Reitzes to
be reputable -- he once wrote some good stuff, yes--but then 'turned'--
interestingly, in an email to ME he said McAdams was paying for his
website. Just think to yourself: Reitzes threw everything at me but
the kitchen sink on his websites. For years.
Except for this.
I do hope you will consider that.
If you read his "Judyth saniizes her story" you wll see some of the
malice Mr. Reitzes has. He faults me for removing some information
from my high school website. But understand -- I had used up ALL the
room there, and to update it, had to remove some things. I removed
items rather at random to make room for an update. THIS he called
'sanitizing' my story! He took great pains to try to 'prove' how
terrible that was, when I did it without much thought. After all, this
was to my high school friends.
Please write to me at emaildele...@yahoo.com and I will answer all
questions. I would prefer that you erase my email address, though,
from common view.
I urge you to consider that it took ten years for Mr. Reitzes to come
up with this one.

best regards always--JVB

[GARY BUELL COMMENTS]

My first thoughts on this:

Judyth Baker maintains that the email in question was either invented
or altered by Dave Reitzes. I would certainly urge Mr. Reitzes to
release the entire unedited email. It is true that Dave Reitzes is a
Lone Nutter affiliated with John McAdams. I do find it difficult to
believe that he would simply invent an email from Judyth, who admits
to having sent him emails in the past.

Judyth writes, "We have seen "quotes" where he has posted "emails"
supposedly from me but replete with so many typos that they were
hardly legible. The email he cites is poorly written--does it really
sound like me, Gary?" Yes, I am afraid it does. Judyth Baker is an
intelligent and educated woman but most of her emails appear to be
hurriedly written and contain numerous typos. She has also suffered
from eye and other health problems.

Her strongest point is that even if she were faking it would not make
sense for her to simply guess as to whether LHO was circumsized or not,
especially since that information was in the autopsy record.

[DOUG WELDON RESPONDS]

A very simple response to your last point is that Judyth may have
viewed the autopsy photos where it appears that Oswald may have been
circumsized and used that as a basis for her response. She is
admitting here that she had read the autopsy report but she may just
be remembering the photo(s). Judyth is essentially admitting that she
has read everything about Oswald. Who is more likely to create an
elaborate story inserting themselves in the story, an intelligent and
educated woman who has read everything about the subject or an average
person who has read nothing? To me, Judyth's response is odd. I woud
expect one to say Of course, I am right, I SAW and was intimate with
that person. Instead she says, how could I be wrong, it's in the
autopsy report. Reitzes would not have made an isssue of this likely
because he had not seen seen the autopsy photos or read the autopsy
report to even know it was an issue. I am not a fan of Reitzes and
communicated with him years ago but I have no reason to believe he
would alter the e-mail. Why? Did he anticipate this would become an
issue 10 years later?

It also makes no sense with the circumcision issue where Judyth says
"I NEVER bring up private matters such as this about Lee." She would
be too private and lady-like to say whether he was circumsized but
would have no hesitation about telling people he was well endowed?

Because someone declares something moot it doesn't make it moot. It's
like the Wizard of Oz saying "Pay no attention to the man behind the
curtain." In 31 years I had not read the autopsy report and had only
seen a couple of photographs. IMHO the black and white photos appear
to be the same and none seem unusual.If I can think of a tactful way
to approach it I will ask Marina. I thought Armstrong had asked Marina
some questions of a sexual nature about Oswald. I cannot think of a
person I would rather cross examine more than Judyth, in person, where
she cannot ignore questions, refuse to produce proofs, or reflect and
twist and dodge and give a thought- out response in an e-mail.

Doug Weldon

<QUOTE OFF>-----------------------------------

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15559&st=2535

<QUOTE ON>------------------------------------

James H. Fetzer
May 13 2010, 12:45 PM Post #2536

Super Member

Group: Members
Posts: 1455
Joined: 23-August 04
Member No.: 1135

 Jack,

In post #2458, you made the following observation as a postscript and
I reposted it in #2461 QUOTE (Jack White @ May 12 2010, 02:05 AM):

Edit: On close inspection, IMO the penis appears uncircumcised. (foreskin
appears to overlap glans.) However, autopsy report says otherwise. The
letter mentions 2 photos; however, they were virtually identical, with
only the persons in the background having moved.

You were describing your own observations based upon the photo you had
just posted--and you were correct. The foreskin does overlap the glans,
but only partially. I therefore believe he was only partially circumcised,
which is why the question, "Was he circumcised?", has no definite answer.

If it is intended in the sense, "Was he (completely) circumcised?", then
the answer appears to be, "No!" But if the question is intended in the
sense, "Was he (partially) circumcised?", then the answer appears to be,
"Yes!" For this reason, I consider the question to be moot (no longer
relevant).

Jim

QUOTE (Jack White @ May 13 2010, 07:47 AM)

I do not remember ever saying LHO was UNcircumcised. I have the autopsy
report, which I read many years ago saying he was. If I said such, it was
a mistake of some sort.

Jack

<QUOTE OFF>-----------------------------------

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15559&st=2565

<QUOTE ON>------------------------------------

Barb Junkkarinen
May 13 2010, 07:30 PM Post #2575

Advanced Member

Group: Members
Posts: 499
Joined: 13-September 04
From: Oregon
Member No.: 1480

 QUOTE (Doug Weldon @ May 13 2010, 05:31 AM)
Jim:

Your points are well taken but this is why a witness, to be credible,
should only describe what they saw or knew. If they do not know. they
should say they do not know or describe what they saw, not reference their
research and what they discovered there. It diminishes the credibility of
the witness and calls into question, what they saw, if anything. Judyth
goes the step further and correlates her research with her memories. You
can't conjecture and respond for her. If the situation was they were
always in the dark when they were intimate then ...

read more »