Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

Judyth & Google Blindness

33 views

Skip to first unread message

Dave Reitzes

unread,

May 14, 2010, 9:11:37 AM5/14/10

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/e483560dd65ee0cd?hl=en

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

Dave

William Yates

unread,

May 14, 2010, 1:17:09 PM5/14/10

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.

Dave Reitzes

unread,

May 15, 2010, 12:33:35 PM5/15/10

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

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 <gary...@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 <gary...@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: gary n <gary...@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 <gary...@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.

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 <gary...@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: gary n <gary...@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,
Dreitzes writes:

> Judyth,
>
> I would not object to receiving e-mail from you, and any such correspondence
> would be kept strictly confidential.
>
> Please be advised that I am trying to abstain from the current newsgroup
> brouhaha, as I don't think such exchanges are especially productive.
>
> Dave
==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 and a half, plus another half
hour asking about the book, etc.
i am not interested in maing any money or peddling a book. I got an
agent hoping to get the book i wrote--which put everything down in
detail before i talked to anybody, and then had a professor keep a
truncated version of it in caseanything happened to me--that shows i
have never deviated from my account from the first. however, if people
ask me something, i will add information. For exakple, Debra Conway
asked me intimate questions about Lee, since she knew information from
things i never knew existed. Example: was lee circumcized? (no). The
pointnis that whatever i might not have thought to put down, if
somebody asked, i emailed them, usually with a witness (John, kelly,
Sarah, cassie, etc.) present, so that there was proof i wasn;t
'looking it up.' i have NO books, Dave.
i don;t need any books.
I've got it all in my head.
I mixed some things up. i remembered Sam Termine as Sam Terminator and
knew it wasn;t right, finally somebody mentioned termine and bingo, i
recognized it. usually, though, I am asked something and respond at
once in reply to somebody asking more details.
For example, litrtle things like when lee and i walked together, our
wedding bands clicked, which embarrassed me, and him, so he moved the
band to his other hand, or, more often, we walked with his left hand
holding my right hand instead of his right hand holding my left hand.
little things like that in my memory.
I had been trained to speak some Russian, all is verified, and i have
photos proving i looked like marina. i often passed as her. lee and i
hit it off: i was marina's exact height, figure, and same eyes,
eybrows, even hairline. of course, we were not the same women. I am
not nearly so moody.
There is no possible way that mr. Lifton could get a smidgen of the
details. martin said he has a stack of email messages four feet high.
Martin does not have ALL the messages. Howard has the most. Thousands
of answers to questions, chronologies, yes, new names, new faces,
where they fit in, and atop this, David, i have witnesses on tape,
half a dozen mag=fia people here where i live who will testify who I
was, for they all knew about me at least by rumor, and a witness also
on film as well as tape. And that witness doesn't just say they knew
me. this person talks for almost fifteen minutes about the things we
all did together .
There is much more.
private investigators for almost three months now have looked into
every aspect of my life, into every nook and cranny, and especially
into the leads i gave them. The evidence is rolling in. Because there
are people lwho will make fun, lie, and distort, no doubt I will never
be believed by some percentage of the people. lookmwhat they've said
about the ex-lax thing. they twisted it all around. we were trying to
save JFK, you don;t have to believe me.
i wouldn;t believe me, Dave, if i hadn;t gone through it.
You wouldn;t believe the life i have led. I and husband joined Mormon
churcvh. i wanted my sins washed away. Sins of having cheated on this
man whose name protected me from death. they would have killed me if i
had so much as lifted my head.
By becoming a Mormon, i subsumed myself into a society that was
totally isolated from my old world.
And there I stayed.
In 1986, i got a degree at last, after 25 long years--here i had been
the smartest, highest IQ in state of Florida, and didn;t get my degree
for 25 years! but i was terrified to do so.
Anyway, i had learned in 13 yrs. time to translate Egyptian, found out
documents of the Mormon church "translated from ancient Egyptian" were
hoax translations, confronted the chuch, and asked for
excommunication.
my former husband divorced me a year later, because he believes I'm
going to hell. it was an ethical matter, a matter of integrity. My
former husband is a miollionaire lving in Houston who, in bitterness,
fought hard to pry the children away. he did not get them, i am a
tiger when it coms to them.
So only one of the children ended up, ultimately, Mormon. But i went
into poverty. i did not dare risk background checks, and had no way to
use my mormon friends as reference because had been excommunicated. I
dared to tell news media my story and a subsoifdiary of BBC made a
film in England about me, and I also had a film made in israel onthe
mount of Olives, and appeared all over by satellite, live, besides.
Received death threats from mormon fanatics (I'm dead meat if you are
a Mormon, aren't I?--yet Joseph Smith faked the translation of the ook
of Abraham, and i proved it!). mark Hoffman and the mormon bombings
will give you an idea, if you look on internet, of what i risked.
I did it under name of J.J. Michael and other fake names becauseof the
danger that they'd find my maiden name.
If i would roisk all to uncover the mormon hoax like that, and lose a
24 year marriage, do you think i would destroy the reputation I have
as a woman of honor and integrity to pretend i had been lee's
mistress? Do you have any idea how distressful it has been to bring
this up, especially to my super-conservative family? Several of my
children are so offended. one son refuses to speak to me.
So i could go on and on.
I have documents, proof of residence, some of Lee's handwriting, proof
of reily's, but most important, proof of special training, and that i
looked like marina, and indeed, i am the 'woman" that was in jackson
with lee, on and on, there's much, much more.
I thought to take it to my grave because thought they would never open
up the files. I knew nothing except that Lee had been blamed, and
knowing all along what would happen if he didn;t get out of there in
time, I knew he would be lied aout, etc. and could not stomach looking
into any of it. i am not morbid like that. All i hadto do was mention
his name and i could see the reactions of disgust or anger or
puzzlement, so i needed nothing else to test the waters.
Anyway, if you would meet me (others have done so--i realize it is
expensive, but if you spend two days, you get a good batch of
information, and you also see all the evidence). i have asked people
to do this. if they come, they believe. Why? You know i am not lying
when you talk to me.
You see what i have. You learn details that do not vary, that's why
Lifton;s stuff looks so bad right now. There's a quote there about ex-
lax *(besides, i think it was feen-a-mint!) but to not sound absurd,
the problem is that this is one of the most important quotes, burned
into my brain, and it makes me cry when i think of it, yet Lifton made
fun of me for sarting to cry, and he also MISQUOTED the quote, causing
some people to think that lee wanted to kill JFK and inspiring some to
think i was glad to see it and put out chairs to see it at the lab,
and all of that, how gross.
Davoid Blackburst politely declined to get information forsthand from
me: i aslked him to come look. People have done so: about thirty-five,
altoegther, twenty-five taking enough time to do it right. Major
persons in news media have also spent days with me, interrogating me.
these expert interviewers know when people are lying. Further, they
recognize truth, their whole journalistic reputation, etc. depends
upon it.
please forgive my typos, i have a rebuilt back and some nerve damage
in my left arms and both hands.
If you come, you will become like a brother to me, because I will pour
out my heart, and you will see what i have been through, which is an
awful lot, and you will sense, and learn, and then make up your mind
about if i could tell you such massive untruths. i am not perfect and
make mistakes, those, too, i bring up freely.
For example, I thought Lee told me about a Sawtooth Mountain that
somebody asked me about, and i said, yes, that was the mountain. well,
it was not.....I went into a box and looked at the postcard he had
given me, and it was BEARtooth Mountain. So it did not match with this
rumor, convcenient as that might have been for what I owned. It had to
be just exactly right.....This is an example of my correcting
something I reported wrong. And i will do that again rather than
report anything erroneously.
strangely, Debra Conway got to see about half the stuff and visited me
perhaps half a day and a couple hours that night as we lay talking in
the dark, talking about Lee. Anyway, she believes everything up to
where i stopped talking to her and stopped showing her lots of
evidence. She doesn't believe Lee would contact me. I reminded her
that hurricane Flora had devastated Cuba, and it was a greatdisaster
that Castro still remembered years after. But when i first brought up
how hurricane Flora wrecked the penetration plan into Cuba, everybody
said, HUH? What hurricane?
And so on....
There is much more. Again, i ask for confidentiality (mainly against
fools, look what they do with it on internet!) . God bless you,Dave.
Judyth V. Baker

I hope you are above some of the ways of some critters on the net.
it's 3 am, i am tired, and have 170 papers to grade. i teach English
at UL, am not merely a student, though getting a degree in literature,
a doctorate.....and in linguistics.....got disgusted at how you were
attacked. I hope your m---pooey, i just fell asleeep at the
keyboard...later, then, if you are game.... j

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

Dave

------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [deleted]
To: gary n <gary...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thu, May 13, 2010 3:48:36 PM
Subject: Re: hi judyth

AM STILL UP, BECAUSE IT IS ALMOST MY BIRTHDAY AND [deleted] IS STAYING
UP FOR ME (EMAILS GO THROUGH HIM, HE IS IN SWEDEN AN HOUR LATER)...MY
EYES ARE GOING, THOUGH, WHICH IS WHY IT IS IN CAPS...

GARY, I AM BLOCKED FROM SEEING EVERYTHING ON EDUCATION FORUM, THEY SAY
I AM A MEMBER, BUT I CAN ONLY SEE WHAT IS POSTED IF SOMEBODY SENDS IT
TO ME....NOR HAVE I BEEN ALLOWED TO REGISTER...THEY WLL CLAIM
OHERWISE...SO I CANNOT POSSIBLY RESPOND UNLESS I SEE WHAT THE EMAIL
LOOKS LIKE...HOWEVER, I HAVE WRITTEN SO MANY EMAILS THAT IT IS EASY TO
'FAKE' THEM, GARY. JUST CUT AND PASTE.

JUST REMEMBER, YOU WILL NOT SEE ANY 'AMERICAN WEBWORKS' EMAIL FROM ME
ANYWHERE, UNLESS YOU BRING IT UP OR TELL SOMEBODY ON THE SIDE. THEN I
EXPECT SOME MIGHT SHOW UP. I HAVE NOW SENT EMAILS TO OTHERS, APPRISING
THEM OF THE FACT THAT I DID NOT USE THAT EMAIL ADDRESS, AND THAT ONLY
AFTER THIS DATE MIGHT SOME SHOW UP. I HAVE DONE A SEARCH, MYSELF, AND
THERE ARE NO 'AMERICAN WEBWORKS' EMAILS ANYWHERE. IF ANY SHOW UP AFTER
THIS DATE, DO NOT TRUST THEM AS AUTHENTIC.

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 <gary...@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: gary n <gary...@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: hi judyth
To: [deleted]
Date: Friday, May 14, 2010, 12:42 AM

I do indeed remember the electlady63 email address and later others
but not americanweb. The email in question sounds so much like you
that it is difficult to believe it was invented. Altered, perhaps, but
then there should be an original, very much like this one but with
small differences. Do you remember sending that email? Reitzes has
posted the entire email now and I would encourage you to read it
carefully. And I hope that you don't see this till morning.

Gary

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [deleted]
To: gary n <gary...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thu, May 13, 2010 3:11:44 PM
Subject: Re: hi judyth

well, Gary, all I can say--and i have to get ioff this computer in jus
a minute-- as my friend [deleted] has to go to bed, and it is 1:00 AM
in ISTANBUL, that several things could have happened:

1) He received an altered email. Before you discard this idea,
undersand that I always wrote using ELECTLADY63. Though I owned the
email address "American webworks" this was to use to create websites
and IT WAS NEVER USED FOR EMAILS TO PEOPLE. yOU WILL NOT FIND ANY
EMAILS TO ANYBODY ELSE USING 'AMERICAN WEBWORKS.' T
2. I defy you to find anybody such as Shackelford, Platzman, Mary
Ferrell, or anybody anywhere else on the pkanet with an email from me
using AMERICAN WEBWORKS. Gary, i never, ever used that email address.
It was always "elect lady." I haven;t brought this up before now
because McAdams or somebody else might alter an email address and use
it. I'm just telling you that you can look high and low and NEVER SEE
THAT EMAIL ADDRESS. BUT GIVE IT AWAY -- BRING IT UP, AND I'M SURE
ANOTHER ONE WILL MAGICALLY APPEAR, BUT YOU GO LOOK FOR THA EMAIL
ADDRESS YOURSELF--I POSTED ALL THROUGH THIS PERIOD USING ELECLADY63,
GARY--AND YOU WLL NOT FIND A SINGLE ONE.
JUST REITZES HAVING IT!
BUT BECAUSE ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS CHANGE THE EMAIL ADDRESS, I HAVE NOT
BROUGHT THIS UP UNTIL NOW. BUT I'M TELLING YOU THAT YOU NEVER GOT ONE
FROM ME WITH THAT EMAIL ADDRESS, AND NOBODY ELSE EVER DID.

Again, as I broke wih Conway, why would I bring up her name in October
2000? At this time she withheld the Anna Lewis tapes.

I already had the autopsy report, remember, I repeat, this email is 20
months after I first spoke out. Common sense should tell you that I
would not bring up THART as an "example." It is too peersonal and
private for me. Think how personal, how private. I just would not do
it..

And finally, of course, I expressed my anger and concerns about this
very matter IN JANUARY 2000 -- NINE MONTHS EARLIER--TO EVERYBODY RIGHT
AFTER CHAPMAN CALLED ME. If I expressed anger and concern in January,
why would I 'backtrack' in october and bring it up, having been aware
that Chapman actually stated Debra said I said this 'WAY BACK IN
JANUARY?

out of ime (sorry, [deleted], thanks for staying up---)
Wonder if i have to blind cc all emails to prove they are from me?

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 Thu, 5/13/10, gary n <gary...@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: gary n <gary...@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: hi judyth
To: [deleted]
Date: Thursday, May 13, 2010, 11:11 PM

Judyth, Let me respond briefly as you have mischaracterized my
position.

On Sodium Morphate, I never decided that you got the information from
the Gemstone documents. I decided only that you did not hear David
Ferrie use the name "sodium morphate." I have a vague recollection
myself of reading somewhere that Ferrie had claimed knowledge of how
to kill someone and make it look like natural causes. Perhaps
Blackburst could pin that down for me.

As to the circumcision issue I am only trying to clear up an apparent
discrepancy. The 2000 email certainly appears to say that you answered
"no" to the cirucumcision question. And again I do not believe that
Dave Reitzes invented this email, and indeed I see that he has now
posted the email in it's entirety.

It certainly makes sense that 60 Minutes would have asked you this
question. I would certainly be interested in anything that would
indicate the answer you gave to them. If you told them prior to 2000
that LHO was circumcised then I would be inclined to believe that the
2000 email somehow mischaracterizes either the question or the answer,
although in what way I am not sure.

You are right, I am evaluating this from my armchair, but with a cold
intellect, not a cold heart, I hope.

Warm Regards,

Gary Buell

-------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [deleted]
To: gary n <gary...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thu, May 13, 2010 1:26:15 PM
Subject: Re: hi judyth

Gary, On the sodium morphate thing, I repeat that Dave Ferrie did tell
me about such a chemical. I believed the name I found on the Internet
was its name, as its description fit what Ferrie had told me.
Others know that I spoke of such a chenical, but had no name for it,
until I found the name on the Inernet. That does not mean the chenical
described to me never existed. It only means that the name I found onm
the Internet was not correct for it.
I stand firm that he told me a chemical existed that could cause death
by ingestion without being detected. You decided I got the information
from those documents and THEN spoke about it. But others heard me talk
about it long before I ever wrote to you -- though I could not name it
and still don't know its name.
As for the Debra Conway matter, I believe you misunderstand me.
1) SHE told me she had a photo, but NEVER described it in detail
2) I NEVER told her any detail about Lee's anatomy, except for ther
satement that he was 'well endowed." Period. I had never said more
than that until forced to. It was a subject I have always tried to
avoid. However, people have always asked.
CONSIDER THE FACT THAT I HAD BEEN ASKED ABOUT THIS DETAIL WELL BEFORE
OCTOBER, 2000. THINK ABOUT IT. I HAD BEEN GRILLED BY SIXTY MINUTES
INVESTIGATORS BEGINNING IN APRIL, 1999. DO YOU THINK THEY WOULD HAVE
LEFT THAT QUESTION OUT? IT WAS ONE OF THE FIRST DETAILS I WAS ASKED,
AND I RESPONDED. LONG BEFORE OCTOBER, 2000, I HAD THE AUTOPSY REPORT.
ONLY. DUE TO MY CONCERN FOR DEBRA CONWAY'S REPUTATION, DID I TRY TO
SKIRT THE MATTER WHEN CHAPMAN SAID HE HAD BEEN TOLD THAT I "HAD AGREED
WITH DEBRA CONWAY THAT OSWALD WAS NOT CIRCUMCISED."
The bottom line, despite all the suffering I have endured because of
it, is that I spoke out because I loved --and in fact will always love
--Lee Oswald.
I'm fighting for his exoneration even though it has destroyed my life
and my reputation. YOU ARE IN YOUR ARMCHAIR, LOOKING ON, WITH A COLD
HEART. Say what you will, my love is stronger than all the hatre and
lies thrown against me.

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 Thu, 5/13/10, gary n <gary...@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: gary n <gary...@yahoo.com>
Subject: hi judyth
To: [deleted]
Date: Thursday, May 13, 2010, 9:50 PM

Sorry for not getting back to you sooner but I was busy yesterday. I
remember when you joined Rich's group. You posted a good deal of
information but I must admit I only skimmed some of it leaving it to
the others to sort out. Nor did I save any of your posts. I was on
your mailing list for a time but only quickly skimmed most of those as
well, except for a few that were directed to me personally, as in the
sodium morphate matter. Which also involved Dave Reites. I did read
your book, which you quickly disavowed, and was led to believe that
you were probably telling the truth as you knew it. I watched the Men
Who Killed Kennedy video but not another one that I purchased from Wim
but have not yet gotten around to. I go over this only to explain why
I have not made a final conclusion regarding the Judyth Baker affair.
There were also some points that rang true to me, as in the matter of
Charles Thomas, if I have the name right.

Now onto your email to me. As to Dave Reitzes, I do not agree with him
on the assassination but I see no reason to question his honesty at
this point, and so I am very skeptical of any claim that he invented
or even altered your email to him. The fact that it contains typos in
no way leads me to question it's authenticity, as I have seen numerous
emails of yours with substantial numbers of typos. Although you are
intelligent and educated, it seems to me that yours emails are
sometimes hastily jotted off and, as you have said, you have had
vision and health problems that could affect your typing.

Your point that if you were inventing your story you would be unlikely
to simply guess as to this matter is well taken and it is in the
autopsy report. Still it is possible that you might not have seen that
in 2000 when the first email was written. And, although this is
speculative, if Debra Conway did receive a bogus photo showing Lee was
not circumcised you might have felt safe in confirming this.

Professor Fetzer seems to be trying to split the difference, as it
were, by speculating that Lee was "partially cirucumcised." Perhaps,
but I do not find this persuasive. If you were his lover then you
would either think he was or he was not, it seems to me, and would not
answer the question in different ways at different times. I know how
my girlfriend would answer that question.

I look forward to reading you new book when it's out.

Regards,

Gary Buell

End of exchange. My comments:

Judyth initially suggests that the 2001 email was perhaps invented.
She maintains that she never used the americanwebworks address and
later she questios the header. However, eventually she acknowledges
writing the email while mantaining that the circumcision paragraph was
added or altered. But if there was an original email then why alter
the web address or header? As Stephen Roy said earlier, Howard
Platzman could perhaps settle this as he was copied on the email.
Judyth says that "60 Minutes" had asked her the same question in
1999,which makes sense, and if she has any evidence as to her answer
to them I would be most interested in seeing it. Professor Fetzer has
said that the matter is moot as LHO was "partially circumcised." I do
not find this argument persuasive. It seems to me that Judyth, if her
claims are true, would answer "yes" or "no" on the question and not
both at different times.

In our exchange, we comment several times on an earlier exchange on
"sodium morphate." If there is interest perhaps I could post that
exchange as well, athough it would take a bit of digging. Briefly,
Judyth had said (to David Reitzes again) that Ferrie had mentioned
sodium morphate to her. As no such substance exists, and there is no
mention of "sodium morphate" prior to the publication of the Skeleton
Key to the Gemstone File in 1975, I naturally found this of interest.

Some months ago I concluded that Judyth was probably telling the
truth. I am much less certain of that now. Yet there are matters that
puzzle me. Parts of her story ring true, such as the part concerning
Charles Thomas, and I would like to see more research done. Then there
is the matter of the second Judyth Vary Baker, as Haslam related. I am
not ready to call Judyth a liar, however extraordinary claims require
extraordinary evidence. Judyth has supplied some evidence but not such
as to be sufficient to prove her claims, and there are certainly some
problems with her story.

This post has been edited by Gary Buell: Today, 12:25 PM

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

Biography: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1631

http://coverthistory.blogspot.com

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

Dave

Dave Reitzes

unread,

May 16, 2010, 8:45:19 PM5/16/10

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 emaild...@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 why not simply say so.

Doug Weldon

Well put, Doug. The fact remains that Judyth, in her own writings, said
two opposing things about whether or not LHO was circumcised. In the
first, written in 2000, she not only writes "no" to the question Debra
Conway asked ... but notes that Debra knew lots of things that Judyth
didn't even know were out there. Fast forward 9 years, and there is no
doubt Judyth now knows things too .... and not only gives the correct
answer, but tries to fob it off on Conway. Had Judyth not told Debra LHO
was not circumcised, there would be no reason for Debra to have mentioned
it to Chapman ... and for Chapman to call Judyth and essentially challenge
her on that point.

Whether or not LHO was circumcised has not become a "moot point" just
because Fetzer deems it so. He *has* to deem it so or deal with Judyth's
contradictory comments on it. That contradiction .... no he wasn't in
2000, then yes, of course he was in 2009 ... still exist no matter whether
he was circumcised or not! And the autopsy report gives us all the answer
to the question, it says, and the report has been posted as well as linked
to, that "the penis is circumcised."

As for being intimate only in the dark ... Judyth relates their escapades
as having taken place in the afternoons ... as well as in a van in Alba's
garage ... but bottomline, a woman who is intimate with a male can be
blindfolded and still tell if her man is circumcised or not. If anything,
any error would be made in the opposite direction, but even that is a
stretch, especially given multiple intimate encounters. Geesh.

Bests,
Barb :-)

This post has been edited by Barb Junkkarinen: May 13 2010, 07:51 PM

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

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

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

James H. Fetzer
May 13 2010, 08:14 PM Post #2577

Super Member

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

Since I addressed this question in post #2516 and several since, I do not
understand this mindless repetition of a question "asked and answered".
Or, to be more precise, I do not understand this mindless repetition of a
question "asked and answered" UNLESS THAT'S ALL YOU'VE GOT, as appears to
be the case here. Why don't you find some other trick to entertain us,
Barb, because this one has long since become stale, tedious and boring?

Super Member

Group: Members
Posts: 1432
Joined: 23-August 04
Member No.: 1135

Doug,

Partial circumcision is apparently rather common. Enter "circumcision,
partial", and get
http://www.askmen.com/dating/dzimmer_100/1...ve_answers.html I appreciate
your agreement that there appears to be a difference between the color and
the black-and-whites. I have asked Jack to do a comparative study.

I also agree that sometimes Judyth muddles her own credibility, and that
this is one of those occasions. It doesn't mean her story is false, but it
has that effect. I think their sexual relationship may have been conducted
more in the dark than many couples today. I also think the question, as
usually asked, has no answer.

I think she wasn't sure based on her own experience because he was only
partially circumcised. If even you don't know that, she might now have
known what to say. Under those conditions, she may have used the autopsy
report to settle a question about which she was uncertain how to answer,
lest she be rejected on that account.

Jim

QUOTE (Doug Weldon @ May 13 2010, 05:40 AM)

Doug,

Why don't you agree that the question of circumcision is moot? If you ask,
"Was he (completely) circumcised?", the answer is "No". I you ask, "Was he
(partially) circumcised?", the answer is "Yes". So the question, "Was he
circumcised?" has no definite answer. I therefore consider the question to
be irrelevant to this investigation from this point forward. My concern is
not with the black-and-whites, Doug, but only with the color photo, which
Dean Hagerman agrees shows a much smaller member than the others.

Jim

[quote name='Barb Junkkarinen' date='May 13 2010, 08:02 PM'
post='192681']
A response from Dave Reitzes to Judyth's accusation he altered an e-
mail.
Please note that the entire e-mail in question is included below, as
well as a couple other e-mails showing what led into her e-mailing
him. I have bolded the paragraph where she mentions Debra asking her
if O was circumcised and her parenthetical "no" ... and I have also
bolded a sentence later down where she notes that Martin is NOT copied
on all her emails because I see where she has used Martin not being
copied on this email as some sort of proof it is fake. - Barb :-)

All of the following is from Dave, who has also posted this on the mod
group:

Some background:

As I posted about a couple days ago at this newsgroup (although these
posts never showed up on Google Groups, for some reason), Barb Junkkarinen
recently noticed that Judyth has contradicted herself on the issue of
whether Lee Harvey Oswald, supposedly her lover, was circumcised.

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

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

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

Barb Junkkarinen

May 13 2010, 09:01 PM Post #2579

Advanced Member

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

What the heck are you yabbering about .... and why have you seemingly
replied to a post I put up on behalf of Dave Reitzes this morning, but
that post is incomplete/cut off in your post ...and some exchange you had
with Weldon is included instead.

I realize you are desperate to shift things away from Judyth having given
2 different answers to the question of whether or not O was circumcised
.... but now she has accused Reitzes of fabricating or altering an e-mail
.... and Dave has responded to that accusation....and Gary made a call for
the entire e-mail to be posted, and it is included in my post.

Mindless repetition? It's not me who is known for that here.

The other question as to whether or not O was circumcised has also
been addressed ... by the autopsy report. He was. But whether or not
he was is not the central issue when it comes to Judyth's
credibility .... that issue is that she gave two different answers to
that question 9 years apart. Oops.

You don't seem all that bored with that issue. Frantic is a better
word, imo. Since truth is the objective, one might wonder why.

QUOTE (James H. Fetzer @ May 13 2010, 08:14 PM)

Since I addressed this question in post #2516 and several since, I do not
understand this mindless repetition of a question "asked and answered".
Or, to be more precise, I do not understand this mindless repetition of a
question "asked and answered" unless that's all you've got, as appears to
be the case here. Why don't you find some other trick to entertain us,
Barb, because this one has long since become stale, tedious and boring?

[...]

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

The Education Forum makes it possible for posters to use different
colors to differentiate their comments from text they are quoting.
Since this is not possible in Usenet groups, I have designated the
author of each statement below by name in brackets.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15559&st=2580

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

Barb Junkkarinen

May 14 2010, 01:32 AM Post #2582

Advanced Member

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

Gary, thank you for posting this. I will respond to Judyth and to
your comments as well. My comments are in blue.-Barb :-)

QUOTE (Gary Buell @ May 12 2010, 07:36 PM)
Judyth responds

[JUDYTH] 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.

[BARB] You were complaining and being snide about Conway in the
October 2000 e-mail. Doesn't matter if you were friends or not.

[JUDYTH] I am not in the habit of bringing up private matters as
"examples."

[BARB] In an e-mail to Rich DellaRosa, already posted here, you said
that that O was "well endowed" .... similar comment to Fetzer, who has
posted your comment to him that O was well equipped or that his
equipment was impressive several times now. Those are "private
matters."

[JUDYTH] 2) Note that only Howard Platzman is cc'd. However, I always
cc'd Martin Shackelford as well.

[BARB] Not according to what you wrote in the e-mail I posted in full
this morning. You wrote, martin said he has a stack of email messages

four feet high. Martin does not have ALL the messages. Howard has the

most. As you note, Howard was cc'd on this e-mail ... how stupid it
would be for someone to fake or alter an email someone else was copied
on.

[JUDYTH] 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?

[BARB] Looks and sounds exactly like you, Judyth! Pam has made
constant allegations that Dave's website is full of errors and
misquotes, etc ... though asked several times by several different
people to post examples, Pam has yet to come up with even one.

[JUDYTH] 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?

[BARB] Because he hadn't noticed it ... as he himself commented on the
mod group after I posted excerpts from both e-mails. He may not have
realized your "no" was incorrect back in 2000, and 9 yrs later when
you wrote DellaRosa, he may have forgotten about it. You probably
forgot about that "no" response 9 yrs ago too or, more likely, not
seeing it pointed out anywhere on Dave's site, figured he didn't still
have that email or had never posted it. :-) It is included in a series
Dave put together called Judyth: From the beginning which has like 18
parts. The email in question appears in Part 10, and Dave posted it on
6-3-08. I don't know if he had it posted anywhere before that or not.

[JUDYTH] Answer: it has been altered, oh-so-conveniently, Gary. I
NEVER bring up private matters such as this about Lee.

[BARB] You clearly do, Judyth, as noted above. And it makes no sense
that it would have been altered. If you had not told Debra "no" when
she asked you the question, there would have been no reason for
Chapman to call you and challenge you on it. As you yourself said in
your email to Dave, Debra knew things that you didn't even know were
available. That was in 2000. What year was it when you discovered the
autopsy report and maybe
the photo as well? :-)

[JUDYTH] 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?

[BARB] Chapman's statement to you was not that you had "agreed" with
Debra ... even by your own telling in your 2009 e-mail to DellaRosa.
In it, you stated, Chapman called me shortly after Debra Conway and i
had met, and said, "Debra tells me you said Oswald was not
circumcized."

[BARB] In 2000, you had not yet seen the autopsy report and did not
know that it contained such information. But by 2009, when you wrote
your missive to Rich DellaRosa, you were falling all over yourself
trying to wriggle all around making it Debra's fault ....and
apparently not even remembering at that time, your comment to Reitzes
9 years earlier. And "10 months earlier" than *what*? As cited above,
in your 2009 letter you said, "Chapman called me shortly after Debra
Conway and i had met, and said, "Debra tells me you said Oswald was
not circumcized." 10 months is not a "shortly."

[BARB] I have no response to Judyth's 'I was only looking out for poor
plotting Debra' and victim impact statement about Dave ... so have
deleted that portion here. Now, on your thoughts, Gary:

[GARY] My first thoughts on this:

[GARY]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.

[BARB] The e-mail in question was posted in full, by me, earlier
today ... along with some e-mails that led up to it, as a response
from Dave. Dave is an LN now, but he used to be quite an avid CT. I do
not recall when he fell over to the other side of the grassy knoll,
but it was after 2000 and his dealing with Judyth, as far as I know.
I've known Dave online for many years. And no one who has known him
and read his posts and collections over the years, either as a CT or
LN, would ever cast aspersions on his character and would never
believe he would ever ever alter evidence. Never. And for what
reason?

[BARB] He received the letter in 2000, he posted it as just one more
thing as part of his Judyth series TWO TEARS ago in 2008 ... not even
realizing what it contained! Is he supposed to have posted an altered
email 2 years ago ... not said a word about Judyth saying LHO was not
circumcised, what, just hoping and waiting Judyth would send an email
to Rich a year later ... and that after another year, someone like me
would stumble upon it and see the error in one and the contradiction
in another? Yeah, that makes sense ....NOT.

[GARY]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.

[BARB] Exactly. It is quintessential Judyth for anyone who has seen
even a few of her emails or posts (that she has written herself).

[GARY] 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.

[BARB] Unless she didn't know that information was in the autopsy
report ... that the autopsy report was even available ...and had never
seen it herself. And when asked the question by Debra ... when they
had met and were speaking to one another ... she could hardly hem and
haw right there on the spot, now could she?

[BARB] There are 2 emails, written 9 yrs apart. One says "no" ... the
other wriggles and squirms and blames Debra and purports to be trying
to protect Debra and states of course she couldn't get it wrong
because it was in the autopsy report. Now she claims the 9yr old email
was altered.....posted 2 yrs ago without this "gem" being mentioned,
just waiting for Judyth to write a conflicting email to Rich DellaRosa
1 yr later in 2009 ...and then for someone like me to find it and note
the problem another 1 yr after that in 2010. Some of us were born at
night, but not last night.

Bests,
Barb :-)

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

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15559&st=2580

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

Stephen Roy
May 14 2010, 02:26 PM Post #2594

Advanced Member

Group: Members
Posts: 387
Joined: 7-January 05
Member No.: 2230

1) The black and white photos, and more importantly the autopsy
report (done by a physician who actually examined him) establish that
Oswald was fully circumcised.

2) Baker did communicate in 2000 with Conway and Reitzes that Oswald
was not circumcised.

3) Once it became clear that Oswald was circumcised, Baker changed her
story and began giving unbelievable excuses for the change.

In 2000, she had a 50-50 chance of guessing correctly, but she guessed
wrong. Taken alone, that error is telling; taken in conjunction with
her change of story and excuses, it is even more telling. A woman in
an intimate relationship with a man could NOT make such an error. This
suggests very strongly that she never had an intimate relationship
with Oswald, calling her entire story into question.

For this reason, it is imperative for her chief apologist to find some way
to spin this. The suggestion that Oswald was "partially circumcised" is
crazy and in conflict with the evidence. The suggestion that Reitzes would
fake the email is also crazy, as even those who vehemently disagree with
him on other issues have indicated. (Perhaps Howard Platzman, who was
copied on the email, would let us know if it is identical to what he
received.) The suggestion that the autopsy and photos were faked some 30
years ago for the sole purpose of tripping up Baker is patently absurd.
And the suggestion that this is a "moot point" is nothing more than a
desperate attempt to get away from an indefensible error.

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

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15559&st=2595

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

James H. Fetzer
May 14 2010, 03:39 PM Post #2598

Super Member

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

Let's see. Jack looked at the photographs and reported that, in his
judgment, the decedent was uncircumcised, even while he acknowledged
Earl Rose had stated that he was "circumcised". The foreskin clearly
overlaps the glans, which supports Jack's judgment. After reviewing
the nature of circumcision, it turns out that "partial
circumcision" (enter: circumcision, partial) is a common practice,
even though most of us are unfamiliar with the concept. Why Stephen
Roy thinks he can dictate facts is beyond me, but that is what he
pretends to be doing here. Since Oswald appears to have had a partial
circumcision, the answer to the question, "Was he circumcised?",
appears to have no definite answer. If it is meant in the sense, "Was
he (completely) circumcised?", the answer is, "No". if it is meant in
the sense, "Was he (partially) circumcised?", the answer is, "Yes".
The question of circumcision therefore appears to be moot. Even if
Judyth may have given different answers on different occasions, it
simply doesn't matter. If Jack, who is no fan of Judyth, can look at
these photos and concluded that, contrary to the autopsy report, he
was uncircumcised, then what possible difference can if make? Far more
important are her observations that he had "impressive equipment",
which I can confirm based on the photo in my possession (that I am now
going to have to find) and that he did not shave his pubic area (which
appears to be shaven in these photographs). If anyone is making
"inexcusable errors", it is Mr. Roy, who is attempting to impose
(clearly unwarranted) opinions upon the rest of us. Why am I not
surprised?

QUOTE (Stephen Roy @ May 14 2010, 03:26 PM)
1) The black and white photos, and more importantly the autopsy report
(done by a physician who actually examined him) establish that Oswald
was fully circumcised.

2) Baker did communicate in 2000 with Conway and Reitzes that Oswald
was not circumcised.

3) Once it became clear that Oswald was circumcised, Baker changed her
story and began giving unbelievable excuses for the change.

For this reason, it is imperative for her chief apologist to find some
way to spin this. The suggestion that Oswald was "partially
circumcised" is crazy and in conflict with the evidence. The
suggestion that Reitzes would fake the email is also crazy, as even
those who vehemently disagree with him on other issues have indicated.
(Perhaps Howard Platzman, who was copied on the email, would let us
know if it is identical to what he received.) The suggestion that the
autopsy and photos were faked some 30 years ago for the sole purpose
of tripping up Baker is patently absurd. And the suggestion that this
is a "moot point" is nothing more than a desperate attempt to get away
from an indefensible error.

This post has been edited by James H. Fetzer: May 14 2010, 03:59 PM

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

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15559&st=2595

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

Stephen Roy

May 14 2010, 04:03 PM Post #2601

Advanced Member

Group: Members
Posts: 387
Joined: 7-January 05
Member No.: 2230

QUOTE (James H. Fetzer @ May 14 2010, 04:39 PM) Let's see. Jack looked at
the photographs and reported that, in his judgment, the decedent was
uncircumcised, even while he acknowledged Earl Rose had stated that he was
"circumcised". The foreskin clearly overlaps the glans, which supports
Jack's judgment. After reviewing the nature of circumcision, it turns out
that "partial circumcision" (enter: circumcision, partial) is a common
practice, even though most of us are unfamiliar with the concept. Why
Stephen Roy thinks he can dictate facts is beyond me, but that is what he
pretends to be doing here. Since Oswald appears to have had a partial
circumcision, the answer to the question, "Was he circumcised?", appears
to have no definite answer. If it is meant in the sense, "Was he
(completely) circumcised?", the answer is, "No". if it is meant in the
sense, "Was he (partially) circumcised?", the answer is, "Yes". The
question of circumcision therefore appears to be moot. Even if Judyth may
have given different answers on different occasions, it simply doesn't
matter. If Jack, who is no fan of Judyth, can look at these photos and
concluded that, contrary to the autopsy report, he was uncircumcised, then
what possible difference can if make? Far more important are her
observations that he had "impressive equipment", which I can confirm based
on the photo in my possession (that I am now going to have to find) and
that he did not shave his pubic area (which appears to be shaven in these
photographs). If anyone is making "inexcusable errors", it is Mr. Roy, who
is attempting to impost (clearly unwarranted) opinions upon the rest of
us. Why am I not surprised?

Irrelevant and illogical apologetics. Oswald was circumcised; Baker said
he wasn't. She was wrong. No amount of spin can obscure this.

With all due respect to Jack, Oswald was examined by a physician. "Even if
Judyth may have given different answers on different occasions, it simply
doesn't matter." Only to those whose goal is neither objective nor
scholarly; only to those whose sole goal for such contorted "logic" is to
apologize for such errors, at all costs. Who is trying to "impost" things
on who?

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

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

Jack White

May 14 2010, 05:37 PM Post #2606

Super Member

Group: Members
Posts: 7567
Joined: 26-April 04
Member No.: 667

QUOTE (Stephen Roy @ May 14 2010, 03:03 PM)
QUOTE (James H. Fetzer @ May 14 2010, 04:39 PM)
Let's see. Jack looked at the photographs and reported that, in his
judgment, the decedent was uncircumcised, even while he acknowledged
Earl Rose had stated that he was "circumcised". The foreskin clearly
overlaps the glans, which supports Jack's judgment. After reviewing
the nature of circumcision, it turns out that "partial
circumcision" (enter: circumcision, partial) is a common practice,
even though most of us are unfamiliar with the concept. Why Stephen
Roy thinks he can dictate facts is beyond me, but that is what he
pretends to be doing here. Since Oswald appears to have had a partial
circumcision, the answer to the question, "Was he circumcised?",
appears to have no definite answer. If it is meant in the sense, "Was
he (completely) circumcised?", the answer is, "No". if it is meant in
the sense, "Was he (partially) circumcised?", the answer is, "Yes".
The question of circumcision therefore appears to be moot. Even if
Judyth may have given different answers on different occasions, it
simply doesn't matter. If Jack, who is no fan of Judyth, can look at
these photos and concluded that, contrary to the autopsy report, he
was uncircumcised, then what possible difference can if make? Far more
important are her observations that he had "impressive equipment",
which I can confirm based on the photo in my possession (that I am now
going to have to find) and that he did not shave his pubic area (which
appears to be shaven in these photographs). If anyone is making
"inexcusable errors", it is Mr. Roy, who is attempting to impost
(clearly unwarranted) opinions upon the rest of us. Why am I not
surprised?

Irrelevant and illogical apologetics. Oswald was circumcised; Baker
said he wasn't. She was wrong. No amount of spin can obscure this.

With all due respect to Jack, Oswald was examined by a physician.
"Even if Judyth may have given different answers on different
occasions, it simply doesn't matter." Only to those whose goal is
neither objective nor scholarly; only to those whose sole goal for
such contorted "logic" is to apologize for such errors, at all costs.
Who is trying to "impost" things on who?

[JACK WHITE RESPONDS]

I did not say that LHO was uncircumcised. I said the autopsy report took
precedence over unclear photos. I merely had stated an offhand opinion
about the photo. I have just posted a reply to Jim saying:

quote

Jim...you misquote me.

I said I looked at the photo and said that in the small image it appeared
that it showed that LHO was uncircumcised. I included the statement that
THE LHO AUTOPSY BY DR. ROSE SAID THAT HE WAS CIRCUMCISED, and that that
takes precedence over whatever the polaroid may seem to show. I even
posted page one of the autopsy showing the statement. You cannot be
selective in quoting me. Perhaps I should have used better wording and
said "the photo does not clearly show circumcision, etc..." I doubt that
you intentionally misquoted me, but leaving out part of my opinion has
that effect.

Jack

unquote

Further, I do not endorse in any way Jim's grasping speculation about
a PARTIAL CIRCUMCISION. I believe
Dr. Rose would have noted that.

Also, I do not endorse in any way that the question about circumcision is
"moot", since JVB made statements both pro and con. Her credibility is at
stake.

Jack

This post has been edited by Jack White: May 14 2010, 05:44 PM

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

Gary Buell's complete post is already quoted in this thread. In this
excerpt he comments on Fetzer's response.

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

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

End of exchange. My comments:

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

Fetzer hasn't responded.

Dave

0 new messages