The-Ochelli-Effect-JFK-Myths-Part-3-Judyth-Vary-Baker-4-25-2015

Puts down South Sunny Gan touch down Sideway Gas. So don't just lasts, try tutors, typing tests, typing us using Trader SkySat Onsta Stock in the Black Star, tapscot Side Leoche April. It's twenty fifth, twenty fifteen, the Ochile effect. As the bumper tells you, I'm your host, Chuck o'helly. So we are live, and tonight we are going to dismantle an interesting JFK myth. We're gonna actually do part three of the JFK Mythology series

on my show. And yes I am continuing with this, but tonight we're going to focus on a singular myth that seems to encompass a whole lot of other sub myths, if you will. So it's like dismantling, debunking, or demolishing the master myth. And I'm gonna tell you a little bit of history as to why I give a crap about this, and why it is that I'm not spending all my time just focusing on the Warren Commission, which I could do, and I could sit here just demolishing all of the official

explanations regarding this situation. I could do that that would be advantageous to me. But you know what, unfortunately, I feel as though I have to clean up my own house, okay, regarding the conspiracy theorist side of things, and I have to debunk a lot of the garbage out there, because every single time that I am engaged in a conversation off the air regarding the JFK assassination, it continues to be thrown at me all of this misdirection and

nonsense that is out there. So we waited for the third episode to begin to deconstruct for you live on the air what we do refer to kind of privately as the Master Myth. Why because as I said before, it completely rolls into it all whole plethora of nonsense, easily debunked garbage that is out there. And of course I have the return assistance of my wonderful panel. Plus we're going to have another interesting guy join us in just a little bit.

But that panel, of course includes Carmine Sabastano from Minneapolis Media Group, also the guy who was working on the book too. It is called Two Princes and A And of course there is a website for that and everything else. And if you went to the Facebook events page. You would know all about that because we provided plenty of links and plenty of articles. So Carmine is on with me. How you doing tonight, Carmine? Pretty good? How you doing, Chuck? Ah sounding a hell of a lot better this

time too. Thanks. Actually it's only because he got a headset and everything else. So I think that you're going to come across a whole lot better like that, brother, good, I hope. So. Also, by the way, uh an administrator at the Ocelli Effect Facebook page and also at the Ocelli Effect radio page for discussion on Facebook as well, Thank you and

chagrin of some yes sir, yes sir. And in addition, of course, we have Trish Fleming and Zach Jendro from They work at the Debunked Blog, but they do a lot of other things and a lot of interesting articles. And these guys actually dig into real and information, real evidence, real documentation on occasion, unlike those who buy into the Judith very Baker story. Zach, Trish, how are you guys tonight? Good? How you doing? Bit Chuck? Always a pleasure to have you guys on so And at

some point Glenn Weichland will join us as well. I hope, I pronounced that correctly. So interesting guy, very interesting guy, very reasonable guy who happened to study one of the pieces the evolution of the Judith Fary Baker myth. You know, her whole thing of having to seek political asylum in other countries in order to avoid what the oppressive US government that was now to silence her and all of the death threats and things that were against her. She

came back to sell the book. Look, I tried to say it with a straight face. I just stood bake. I couldn't make it. I couldn't really going to try not to laugh tonight. But it's going to be really hard, Oh, yes it is, Yes it is. And look, I'm going to mention a particular individual that absolutely motivated this particular episode, and I'm going to mention him once and then that's going to be the end

of the discussion on this guy. But you know a particularly nasty little alternative radio person out there who calls himself, you know, names himself with a cartoon character's name Popeye. Is strangely appropriate, which is strangely appropriate, Yes, Popeye. This guy got extremely nasty with me personally. A few years ago, decided to tell me that pretty much I was an idiot, and I needed to do five minutes worth of research to understand exactly how valid Judath's

entire story was and how much you know, he knew. And of course, this is the guy who I previously mentioned but didn't mention him by name, had told me that I needed to check with people like Kim Fetzer and Haslam and James Douglas because these people all back Judith's story. Now, what Popeye was not aware of is that at the time, in my cell phone

I did have Jim Douglas's home number. Because guess what, ladies and gentlemen, the whole reason why you have a JFK and the Unspeakable audiobook is because I complained to Jim Douglas that I was having trouble reading his book. Okay, I'm actually one of the inspirations for the creation of that, and Jim

did it himself. It wasn't Simon and Schuster noticed. It's under the original copyright which Jim owned, and he was the one who actually created it with Tantor, which was a media group that you know, handled the distribution of it to Audible and all that other stuff. And he sent me a copy of it on CD with a little note saying thanks for inspiring the creation of this just so you know. So Popeye who was giving me this name, James Douglas, also supports that. I figured, you know what, I'm

going to give James Douglas a call and see if that's true. So I called James Douglas and guess what, Yeah, I said, Look, Jim Fetzer is Jim Fetser. Yeah, ED has them. I can't explain, but Jim Douglas I happen to know. So let me go see if that's correct. Because you know, in all the conversations I ever had with Jim, he never really pointed to her having any sort of validity or anything.

And we discussed Oswald in New Orleans, uh, personally, just over the phone, and Jim, I think to this day, still only has a landline in his house somewhere down in the South. I don't even want to tell you where Jim lives because it's not information that he shares with everybody. Kind of an interesting guy, somebody who I don't necessarily agree with on everything, but wrote one of the seminal books in the case JFK and the unspeakable.

It's an excellent book. You know, when it comes to literature, that thing is awesome compared to you know, ninety nine percent of what's floating. Okay, so this was a guy I actually, an author I have respect for. I decided to contact and this is what happened. No, I never had that. She one time sent me a letter and I, you know, said some kind words to her and I think sent her as

signed book back or something like that. But that was about it. So I went back and told him this, and of course again he just decided to go private on me and call me all kinds of names. And then immediately following I was also called names by other Judas supporters and picked on for

my eyesight and given all kinds of crap. And some evidence of that still exists publicly on YouTube, which is funny because Glenn Wicklen saw that when when we were having a recent conversation and actually commented on it on Facebook and decided to show people. Gee, isn't it strange? I feel bad for Chuck having to be left all alone to contend with Judy and her supporters. So

that is actually how that exists. And there you go. That's my partial proof because you know, YouTube no longer has that private email system set up anymore. So if they want to check, they can also go to Facebook their insults and idiotic claims dot many pages right so, and and hopefully I have a friend that possibly posted and add for this show on the down the rabbit Hole Facebook page and hopefully that happened, so that who knows we can

reach out and touch someone. Listen, we can. And by the way, if either Judith or Popeye want to call in, the phone number is seven one, seven eight two nine six. There is no screener. You will be added onto the air immediately. Just no block numbers, is the rule. Yes, that's true, no block numbers, and I will add you onto the air. So use one of those burner cell phones that you're using for your safety, Judy, and call me if you'd like, and

I'll tell you what. I'll ask the rest of the panel to be quiet, and I will have a conversation with you where I might ask you a total of five questions, okay, and you can defend yourself and do whatever it is you like open lines. Okay. So now that all that is out of the way, and I run my mouth. Now, I don't want to run my mouth for this one, and I want to get Glenn on because Glenn's stuff is superb, you know. And Glenn, by the way, let let's let's make a statement here. Glenn is not exactly a

guy who would agree with me on a lot of things. No, no, we don't agree in a lot of things either, but he's reasonable, and he's respectful, reasonable, respectful. And then when he had a curiosity about a question in his own home country of Sweden regarding her political asylum claims, he decided to check it out for himself, you know, and gee, interesting what he comes up with. Yeah, the facts don't exactly match

the story, which seems to be a constant theme. And for more on that, I want to now turn it over to Zach and Trish and let's see if that's a good enough segue to get to where they're gonna go. And no more need to mention cartoon characters and people who don't actually do research that just buy stories. Well, with the exception of Judith yourself, Okay,

because let's keep the focus where it belongs. Chris quotes, I'm just letting you know for later on, Okay, if we get to them, we might need comic relief because I'm telling you trying to listen to And I gave each of these people a link to a five hour interview with Judy, just just to give them the total flavor in audio form, not to sit there and have to torturously read that Me and Lee book, but to actually listen to what it sounds like when she is given a friendly form to speak.

Now you tell us after two of us have already read it. Yeah, Well, and what it does is it is a perfect snapshot in five hours. That way you don't have to waste all the time. I mean, unless you can read her book in five hours. I mean you know I can. I salute you if you can, but without having to go through that torture, if you just sit through this five hours. But that made each of our head spin. Also, And I've heard all this before

for sure. I don't know if these guys had, but I heard it all before, and I still had to keep stopping walking away and just going clearing your head. Oh, oh, you know, because it does seem to be like an mk ultra exercise. It's like psychic driving on acid. Baby, Okay, now, again, I'm sorry. I did say I was going to turn it over to Zach and Trish, and that's exactly what I want to do. So me and Carmine are going to mute, and the floor is both of yours. Well, I think there's a lot that

can be said justin if you read her daily post that she puts. I'll give you an example. On March twenty third of this year, she actually wrote a post on her own Facebook wall admitting that she lied over her dog Cindy versus Sperky and the Men Who Killed Kennedy documentary. And I thought that was just so unusual, such a petty thing to lie about and then actually admit it. Just you know, why, why would she live at something

that insignificant? And again it makes you wonder what else has been brought up. Another thing that's kind of really stuck in my time, in my mind is the timeframe that she gives. There's a lot of controversy on where Oswald was staying between April twenty sixth and the twenty nine Some people say he was at the Moret's place, which by all accounts looking at the testimony by the Morets and such, it does appear that he showed up at that time once

he got to New Orleans. Other things you read say he didn't move in until at twenty ninth, which was the Monday, and that he was staying at the YMCA in New Orleans. One thing that really jumps out at me is Lilyan Morrett testifies that Lee was a creature of Habit would come home, he'd eat dinner, and he'd stand for the rest of the night. He went to bed early. But on two separate occasions, Judy's got him out staying David Ferry's house all night. So one of them is on the twenty

eighth, which is a Sunday night. They had a big roaring party there, and of course Lewis was there, and Martin was there and Oswald apparently we're playing chess all night. But again depending on whose version you believe of when Oswald was actually the Marets, that is up her discrepancy there. And then she also has them going out on the thirtieth, which was a Tuesday night, which, of course worst case scenario if he did move in on

the twenty ninth, it still contradicts what's in testimony. So that's always kind of stuck out to me that, you know, how could she be that off with that information. Yeah, that's something that's really important to consider, is that her book is so far off removed from, you know, the recorded testimonies of actual people that were verified to be there. For instance, she goes on in her book you Know, Me and Lee about how Oswald

was arrested because of a green glass that he stole for Judith. But if you read em at Barbie's statement, he was the guy that worked with Oswald, he basically states, and others, including LeBlanc, who was also his boss, who gave testimony to the Warm Commission, said that he was let go because he was losing interest in wandering off on the job and it had

nothing to do with the green glass. It's just almost like these incidents are completely made up, and it's really kind of hard to understand where that stuff is coming from. Well, and this is an interesting point to bring out. I'm just giving you guys a rest. I'm still going to turn it back over to you. But the thing is that over and over again we

do find that in the official explanation. Although I personally disagree with the official conclusions, we do find that they did a rather bang up job accounting for Oswald's whereabouts in certain timelines rather completely. You know, there is no lack of interesting information tying him to certain plate, people, places, and things that don't allow for her timeline to even exist regarding a lot of stuff, you know, that's right. I mean, oh, I'm sorry, I

just wanted to quickly interject. It's also a problem with the commission later on. They wasted a lot of time finding Oswald and unimportant events, and they neglected things like, oh, in the sniper's nest timeline. Well yeah, and these are all valid points. But what I'm saying is when they were peripherally looking into his life, definitely, yeah, they did an excellent job tracking down you know, like certain records, of placing him in different places,

things like that. And that's despite the chicanery that went on in my estimation regarding Hoover's investigation of the man. You know that there was all sorts of well, g if he wasn't on this bus going to Mexico City, he must have been on this one, you know. I mean, stuff

like that happens in the record, and I understand it. But what I was saying is well, after a while, if you tie him down to the official record and even think that that's remotely reliable, there's a whole bunch of pieces of her story that can't possibly have happened unless we're talking about more than one individual. So there you go. You can't you can't have two people in in uh you know, you can't have one person in three places

at once. It doesn't work. So there you go. That's that's a spot where I mean, you know, I hate to give anything to the Commission personally, but you know, credit where credits do, Like I always say, so go ahead, guys, what what else do you do you see? Because I mean, I know that going through that interview was was a bit painful, and I only had you guys go through parts of it, each of you. But you know, but but what, Yeah, I told you, if you watch the whole thing, you buy your book

at the end, it is like mk ultra exactly. That's why. That's why I likened it to psychic driving. That's what it's like because after a while, your hill is spinning so much. Yeah, good, go ahead, guys. Well, one thing on the interview that I noticed is she does have quite a remarkable memory, and she was spouting off a lot of facts, you know, rather quickly, with a fair amount of detail. But then on the other hand, she spends a lot of time nitpicking,

you know, towards other researchers. I remember in the first hour she spent you know, complaining about Max Holland for a good amount of the time, and I didn't quite understand what it was she was even trying to say. And I'm not trying to knock her, and you know her her speaking abilities, but it's it just sometimes comes at you in a roundabout fashion and it's rather hard to understand what she's even trying to, you know, get across

the people some of the times. Another good example of that is when she's discussing Dave Fairies rebuild car. She says that he had a new car, then he had an old car, and then it was that was repossessed, but then it was somebody else's car. And I still haven't got those lines straight. I've been reading that all afternoon today and I still don't know exactly what her point is and whose car it was. But one thing that I

was perfectly clear on was she stated that he had a motorcycle. However, she didn't put it in her book because she never wrote it, So little food for thought there. M well, yeah, it's interesting to see what else she didn't put in her book, And at various times during the interview, she states that there was a bunch of things that she couldn't put in

her book because she would be afraid for her life. I find that counterintuitive, because, after all, if you're somebody that is out there saying that you know, first of all, I was involved in a conspiracy to utilize medical testing on uns expecting prisoners illegally and causing the death of other human beings, which has no statute of limitations. I also had fore knowledge of the plot to kill the president, which also has no statute of limitations, and

all of these other wonderful things. What is it that you would be afraid to put in this book exactly that would get you killed, in prisoned, et cetera. I wonder, wonder, wonder, because how much more extreme could you go than that? I mean, I was involved in the agency, I knew CIA people, I knew mafia people. But there are things I couldn't put in the book. Well, it might have a little something to do with that most of those people are dead and they can't contradict her

claims. That might be the case. So anything else you guys want to add, Zach and Trish before we move forward. I wanted to say something, you know, I've you know, I've been into some disputes with folks online about Judith. I've I've spoken to her online a couple of times myself, and I've been accused of trist also, and I'm sure all of us have, in one way or another, accused of disliking her as a person,

and it automatically comes to character assassinations. And I just wanted, you know, if there's any time for me to put this on the record, that I don't have anything against Judith as a person, and every time I've interacted with her, she's actually rather gracious to people that ask her questions.

My main concern is that she has been, you know, not able to substantiate her claims, and that to me, I find it personally offensive that people, you know, take this without a grain of salt and are trying to interject it into his historical record, and you know, without giving it the amount of attention and gravity that it should it should deserve, and you

know, I don't. It's not that anybody has any personal problem with her, it's just that, you know, it's it's just that people need to be responsible when they're when they're looking these accounts, and and if there isn't direct evidence, then you know, perhaps we should take a step back and

wonder why so many people are willing to accept this. Well, right, and even though I believe that that just like much of her accounts, the whole accounts of her being threatened by others and being approached and you know, having a conspiracy of now you know, radicalized Muslims after her, and god knows whatever else, you know, all of these other things, although I believe it's all fictitious, I made this statement online that you know, Look,

I in no way support the threatening or harming of anybody, no matter what it is they're saying out there. You know that the problem I have

is with it, just as you do. Her trying to interject herself into the historical record, trying to make claims that you know, that she was part of the historical record that has been since redacted, you know, and and things like this, because it's very misleading and I think is counterproductive to anybody who believes that this was a significant event in history and that Oswald, because he is obviously a player in the event in one way or another.

You know, misdirection about him is no good. Whether you want to make him the you know, the kooky malcontent you know that you know that was just absolutely insane, as some people do, or if you want to make him mister innocent and clean. Either way, I think that honesty at this point, especially because the man is long since dead and has been convicted in the public's mind for so long, I think that some care ought to be

taken to actually straighten out the historical record, you know. So that that's why I can say this, well right as far as that concerned, Big claims require big evidence, indeed, and substantial, very substantial. You can't just step up and say that you know everything, because that's you're either diluted or you're a myth maker if you say that no one knows everything. There

are over ten million files. We've got the Warrant Commission, we've got the House Select Committee, we've got the Church Committee, we've got the Rockefeller Commission, we've got the ar RB we've got all of the classified files that were hidden away until the nineties. No one has seen everything, right, and

if they say they have, they're lying to you. Well, right, And you know, but this is part of the presentation of the mythology, and why it's so attractive to the uninitiated especially, is because she presents herself as the key to all of these interesting little claims, you know, and all of these interesting little factoids that have emerged, you know, in the research community over the years. He is actually the Rosetta Stone, according to her, you know. And and this is what the problem is. Now,

this is what I believe about her story. And then I'll move on to Carmine, and then I'm really looking forward to moving on to Glenn Blicklin, who has joined us on the conversation. By the way, how are you doing tonight, Glenn? Thank you, Chuck. I'm fine. Yeah, I'm gonna put you after Carmine. But but I know that what you're gonna say is going to spawn a lot of discussion. So how's that?

Am I that controversial of you? Mean? Well, you may be, sir, you may be, but I'm telling you right now, a reasonable and intelligent man you are, though I may disagree with you on some issues. You know, from what I can tell, I do. And I also appreciate your characterization of me, like being left all alone on the battlefield with the with Judas minions. By the way, earlier today, I appreciate

that. Yeah, well, you know, when I saw I hadn't actually seen that before, but when I did see it yesterday, I was thinking, you know, I should have been there when it happened. Oh, I would have appreciated support there, because as you can see, it was just, you know, let's go at them every which way, and we'll get into the post Kennedy assassination claims and things like that. That's the section that you're coming in on, because, of course, well we'll get to

that. I want to turn it over to Carmine after I give this little caveat about this situation. Here's what I think is the truth regarding Judith and her real connection to the case. Ready, she may or may not have run into Oswald while working at the same facility in New Orleans. This seems

likely, not absolute, but likely that she could have. She could have realized afterwards that she had run into a person of historical significance, and like many other people throughout the years, we used to call it the brush with History genre of books in the Kennedy assassination literature. That was used to be a private joke. But I think she literally did have a brush with Oswald at some point, probably ignored him like most people did, because he was

a rather odd guy. Anybody that I've ever spoken to who actually verifiably knew him describes a lot of interesting idiosyncrasies in this man's character and person. Okay, so interesting guy, but a turn off to a lot of people. I think that Judith probably was turned off by him, probably had no time to bother with him and whatever it was she was engaged in. Despite the greater embellishments that have been produced by her in later years, I think that

she actually did run into him. Anything after that becomes the embellishment, becomes the introduction and interjection of things which have been learned over the years, things which have been dispelled over the years, everything from Billy Celestis is an honest guy, to you know, dear Lord, the abort team. Okay,

to you know the abort team. Oswald was going to make sure that at least one shot was not fired to Kennedy, and that was his purpose, and that's how he was trying to save Kennedy's life as he was trying to turn the plot away. Well that became well since I learned about Abraham Bolden later on. You know, even though it was out in public hands from the nineteen seventies on, you know that the possibility of the informant in Chicago

being named Lee. Now she says he tried to save Kennedy's life in Chicago, therefore he had knowledge of the Chicago plot, which is really interesting given the sort of networking capabilities of individuals in nineteen sixty three. But you know, let's keep going with the unrealistic. I think that all of this stuff, together, along with other mythologies that have been sort of foisted upon those who were interested in the subject over the years, sort of came together in

a conglomeration and the evolution of her story was born. And of course, those that really paid attention to the literature know that there was an earlier version of her story that existed that didn't contain a whole lot of this information. But she blames the fact that that was vacant of so many of these interesting little factoids and things. She blames that on the publisher, the people handling

the book, etc. The co author, whatever. There is always someone else to blame in Judith's case as opposed to herself, regarding the evolution of her story and why it's changed over the years. But if you don't believe me, go ahead and get yourself a copy of one of those early books.

Go ahead and get yourself some of the earlier statements. You know, things about Jack Ruby that are interesting, like during the portion of the interview I listened to where she bluntly says that Jack Ruby was a bisexual and things like that, and she knew that so well, and Jack Ruby characterized this

way in that way. And of course, again, if you ever spoke to people that knew Ruby, you would never hear half of the characterizations that she brings up, just like in the case of David Ferry, just like in the case of Lee Harvey Oswald. It's either an alternate universe. Okay, I'll last star Trek, or it's made up. That's my opinion. That's why you drop it. But yes, Zach, I think it's important

to interject. And there also the appearance of Haslam's book Mary Ferry and the Monkey Virus in the mid nineties that seemed to have maybe I don't know, sparked some sort of creative memories in Judith's mind or whatever, but a lot of it seems to be based on you know, some of the topics he covered in that were, yeah, which was written completely vacant again, completely void of Judith's existence for the second version until the second version which is now

you know, called what doctor Mary's Monkey or something like this. Right, I don't know because I won't read the second version. Yeah, I've read one of her books. I'm done, thank you. Enough is enough, So now I'm going to turn it over to Carmine. Okay. Uh. The first thing I'd like to say is we're going to quickly dispel a myth since you all heard Glenn Vickland, unlike Judith and some of her supporters,

said we are not the same person. Oh, I was not aware that there was a controversy regarding Glenn Vikeland and Carmin Sabistano being the same person. Yeah, that was early on. Now there's this uh genius named Helen that's dotting the JFK Ventor group trying to say that I don't exist, that I'm an amalgamation apparently of people. Well right, And I answered that directly too.

I answered that quite directly, and she, like, you know, gave me an appreciate, an appreciative, sort of polite response, and then continued to go on with her crap. Anyway. That's why I think she's judas. I was just gonna say, doesn't that sound like somebody else we witness online sometimes where it's like here, here's the proof that you're wrong. Oh okay, I'm gonna be quiet for a day, and then tomorrow I'm gonna come back and say the same thing anyway exactly. Yeah, yeah,

okay, sorry, Carmine. Okay, you know, I just wanted to get that out of the way so I angle I don't have to deal with that one anymore. Oh yeah. I can attest to the fact that we had to actually get Glenn to uh download Skype and everything late last night for us, but early morning for him to get this working so you could have him on the show. That actually happened last night when I was on the phone with Carmine at like I don't know, three or four in the morning

something like that. Yeah, okay, so one down here we go, right where to begin? Yeah, and my portion of the Baker cast, as I like to call it, I heard quite a few things that don't really add up. Some of the stranger ones include that she claims credit for discovering that Oswald was shaved all over his body, including his pubic area, completely after her death, is what she's stating. And she stayed in at the CIA or the police did it, and it had something to do with

covering up her allegations. How it does I cannot fathom, No, totally see. And that's the other thing is that quite often with her story, if you notice, a whole lot of interesting little tidbits are thrown out there with seemingly no purpose, that have no particular trail to anything else exact just the uh. It's very much like the James H. Fetzer style of debate, where you throw eighty things at somebody, give them two minutes to respond,

and you can't possibly cover all of these little tidbits of nonsense. Yeah, just muddy the waters as much as possible. Yeah, just here here's all the muddy, now clear it. It's not gonna happen. And and what did I do when when you were discussing that with me, is I showed you the the post mortem photographs of Oswald and I said, okay, where Yeah, but exactly. Yeah, So she's wrong again according to the evidence. She's just you know, this is just it's created. There's no

other way to say it. Yeah, somebody created this, maybe she didn't, maybe somebody wrote it for her, but this didn't happen. And she's trying to blame the CIA for shaving his pubic area like it matters, like like it's of some consequence, and it's not. And she wasn't even in contact with him in any of the days before the assassination, So how what

did he bring it up? By the way, that is a weird question right there is what relevance would his pubic hair have to her claims, considering the fact that she had left New Orleans months before, right and wasn't in Dallas or in contact with him physically, although she claims to have been in

contact with him by phone, which I still don't buy. But records, yeah, well, they don't exist because they were utilizing an illegal you know, phone line that the that they pop utilized, you know, so which if you actually know the nature of what it is she's making a reference to, you know how ludicrous that is? Yeah, okay, next if I may, Yeah, I'm sorry. Oh it's okay. No, You're gonna

have stuff to say about all this, and I welcome it. I just there's just so much I want to try to cover it all by all means. I don't want to have time a bigger What else does she say? She says that everyone who doesn't agree with her story usually tries to make up lies to discredit her. She claims to all the proof needed, but never offers it. She declared the story is not for sale, however her evolving

books are. She asserts the book was only offered to one publisher, Trying Day and Chris Milligan, Yet her prior claims on her blog refute that if you go to her blog. In her biography, she said, if any publisher showed interest in this incomplete story, which omitted some key names and activities, I then bring out the full six hundred pages I'd written for protection from lawsuits. So any publisher, yeah, well, can I just chip in

their core mine? Well, you know what you're saying is is correct, of course, And this goes on a lot of subjects, lots of them, you know, many many subjects. She said one thing one day and then a completely different saying the next day, and this goes on and on, and I think the best way to check that and to see that are actually what David Reids's has done, because he's really been very meticulous in showing how she said one thing at one point and then a completely different story.

You know, next time the same subject is up for discussion. So this is really this goes in a lot of areas. Basically, oh yeah, yeah, no her. I've always tried to tell people that the undoing of any myth is within its own claims. They always give us the rope to hang them with. Yeah, digging right, right. I'd like to state that Karmaen and you said that she never presents the proof, but I flat out asked her, I said, where is your proof? And she said,

quote, it's all in the book and we've read it. It's not right. Yeah, And that brings up another interesting point is that anytime anyone questions her stories, she claims that you merely haven't read the book. And then if we have read the book. Then the next claim is that you're a liar. If that doesn't work your CIA. If that doesn't work, you work for McAdams. If that doesn't work, you know, just on and on with personal attacks without a stitch of evidence. Ever. Yeahs are

terrible in that book too. Yeah, the pictures. Half the time, she was right. She was called out quite clearly on the citations, and she claimed that her editor at Trion Day wouldn't publish them because they felt like they weren't part of her story, and she was upset about this, but evidently this was a publication decision and they witheld her citations and against her will.

That's what she said. Yeah, which I doubt I truly do, No matter how I might feel about the various claims mister Milligan is made about me, I still doubt that his company would just rip out a bunch of citations because those are kind of important to the verifiability of the book. Well, not only that, but it leaves it perfectly wide open. I'm sorry, it leaves it perfectly wide open for her to publish said citations on her

blog site as an addendum to her own book. She is fully capable and allowed to do so, you know, as an author, and I'm sure she retained in some of the copyright therefore, good. Well that's exactly right, Chuck, I asked her. I said, well, you obviously have these all prepared. Will you please present them to us? And she said, okay, I'll post them tomorrow, and then the next day she offered some excuse in and didn't put them up. It's the only history book I

know that gives a citation for Bullwinkle. You're being nice, let's not lie, tonybody. Okay. It's the only alleged non picture, nonfiction historical record about people that gives a citation for Bulllinkle. Yeah that I know. I could be wrong, but I think the problem Watch me, Rockie, will I pull some evidence out of my all right? Anyway? Okay? So where was I? Yes? After the uh that there was that, And I'll try to just because I know we have a Do you want me to

wrap up with one more? Or do you want me to do a couple more? Oh? Go ahead and do a couple okay, Uh okay, uh. Yes. This is one of the funny Baker Popeye exchanges. Baker says that she claims that in nineteen ninety nine, she spoke out about the Chicago UH plot and that the informat was named Lee before Abraham Bolden did. But we know that's not true because all of that was covered in the sixties

and the seventies. But it was covered in I believe nineteen seventy five and Edwin's Black's article in the Chicago Independent, which you can still find online, which is exactly the source that was misquoted in Lamar Waldron's book Ultimate Sacrifice, which is not on my suggested reading list, ladies and gentlemen. But either

way, I tortured myself with it. The thing is that he has it incorrectly noted to a different author, but it's actually Edwin Black who wrote about it when he did an investigative reporting piece regarding the Chicago plot in nineteen seventy five. Now, okay, to also debunk her claims about the Lee name, she demands the Chicago informat was called Lee, but how many informants could

be called Lee? Because she said it has to be him. So what I did is I went to a census statistical analysis site and there are currently three hundred and forty one thousand, fifty three people named Lee male and female in the United States, So right off the top, it's very unlikely. Now let's add that Lee is likely a fake name, because confidential informants don't use their real names right generally, either given a code name or a number,

they were unlikely a number or a cryptonym of some type exactly. But even if it is a numeral, and you know, if it's an alphanumeric combination, it's still it's usually something that is not easily decodable, not easily traced back to a real person's identity. This is the way this is done.

So the fact that the informant is allegedly named Lee based on you know, the lie detector test which was issued to Abraham Bolden in the seventies, Okay, who was the unnamed Secret Service informant in Edwin Black's article, which we learned about much much later. But the fact is that's where it actually came from. Okay. And look, you want to challenge the validity of Abraham Boulden's story, that's fine and dandy, but that becomes a separate issue.

The fact is that this was something that had been bandied about for a long time and was even reissued to me sometime in the nineties through a research

service called Prevailing Wins. Okay, so this was available, and it's not the only time she does it. She's also in you know, on her blog in James Fetzer's articles said that Fetzer said many researchers have taken her information and used it and not credited her, and he includes Joan Mellon, which I find ridiculous, right, because Joan Mellon is a respected researcher who presents evidence. So I don't think that she or anyone else Judith has ever claimed

have used her research with outproof. Has presents evidence. Not only that, but very carefully footnotes, everything creates attributions. Make sure when any publisher publishes anything, and she's been published by various publishers, okay, make sure that they're you know, even the footnotes are correct. Everything is correct in her book as best she can, you know, And and you know, you give her a fair shot at being able to do that, considering that she's

an English professor. You know, this is why she is so meticulous about these kinds of things, because she sort of insists on these sort of standards from her students. Temple University professor Joan Mellon. And again you want to dispute her work, fine, but think about the nature of that work, especially when we're talking about New Orleans, as was revealed on my show. You know, if you talk about investigating the entire New Orleans asset, you

know, aspect of the case. Excuse me for miss speaking. You know, she interviewed one tho I was in two hundred people for her book on Garrison and the New Orleans aspect of the investigation. Tell me who else has done that? And yeah, yeah, look at her results and see who isn't mentioned. Well, and that's the funny thing is in twelve hundred interviews, guess whose name does not appear? Okay, go ahead, zach Yeah,

I just want to interject to him. I flat on asked her about this, and I asked her what type of research or what type of work are you doing? And she said, well, no, this isn't research, therefore it doesn't require footnotes. It's a personal memoir. So take that how you will. Yeah, well, I think yeah. Wait. One of the reasons for this, Zachary, is that she's always said, you know, I'm not a researcher, but I'm a witness, and she's been

very sort of diligent about the difference. Of course, she want to be the witness, not the researcher. And I mean it's not those of us who've seen her in action for a number of years, all right, not only that, but claiming, yes, yeah, claiming also to be the only living witness that actually knew Lee Harvey Oswald aside from Marina. Well, all you have to do is listen to my radio show to know that that's bull because who did I have on but Ernst Titowitz, who was Oswald's friend

in Russia and kind of knew the guy. Okay, So there are and there's actually a bunch of them. A lot of them don't want their names released, will not come out and speak publicly, won't do interviews. But if you very carefully and gingerly approach them, you can find individuals who actually knew Lee at various points in his life. Although we only lived to be the age of twenty four. And then there are those who say they knew

him and that's true as well. Yeah, and these people better be careful, you know, they better write their life story down on paper because when they die, she's gonna include them in something. Well, yeah, that's true, and she's already included. And I want to get to this because I know Carmine is probably gonna cross over on this, because I think the portion of the interview that you listened to might have covered this as well.

Her views on Marina Oswald did was that, no, she didn't really talk to the I can if you want, we can go right to that. I'll finish up with just this last one. This I think is another you know, it shows exactly who we're dealing with. So it started out with I've never seen this because I wasn't really looking for but have you guys seen a Masonic obelisk near Daily Plaza or in Daily Plaza? I've heard about this claim before. Okay, well, there are certain structural you know what that

is. That that is the aggregation of a belief in the King Kill thirty three concept, which is all about Masonic ritual and things like that. And there are some interesting things that go on there that do pop up and seem as though it might have been but it's one of those things where you're grasping its straws. And of course, why not incorporate that into her consolidated myth

exactly the master myth incorporating more peripheral conspiracy. So Popeye claimed the local Masonic oblast marker is a vengeful reminder of the widespread dark forces that he and Baker claim are responsible for JFK's debt. Now, of course, then Baker, of course parrots has unproven and highly improbable claim with and of course, she then launches into a diet tribe about world government, big bankers, and other vague ideas without any proof. Of course, she claims the most symbolic organizations

with such markers are signs of their dominance. And she says it's a large plot, yet each person ascribed as one job, so no one can be blamed in her estimation. This is also unproven and improbable. So then Popeye ends with a mishmash of ideas and offers a listener that will take a picture of JVB's book next to Oswald's grave. He will give them a free Federal Jack dot Com T shirt, but it has to be a real picture of a copy of her book next to Oswald's grave. And what is her reply?

Fantastic is her reply? Of course, then he asks for them to send the photo for the T shirt. The word shameless does not cover this bit of blasphemy. And I'm an atheist and I'm saying blasphemy. Well. Even worse, of course, is the grave party that she Yeah, well, and she also said she collects these pictures. Well isn't that nice, right? A loving a loving tribute to how she loved and lost and everything else. Uh yeah, well okay, yeah, and and there you have

it, and there you have it. And what that is, in all honesty, is an attempt to appeal to people like myself who do believe that there is a worldwide cabal of individuals that are mainly uh interconnected by corporate interests uh, and that do have an agenda uh that is counterproductive to humanity in general. That is, it's it's a way to try and link herself to those that believe in the new World Order concept. So it is trying to

get closer to the the the Alex Jones uh. Uh, you know, devotees really and uh and and people that swear everything has to do with one singular worldwide cabal. Now do I believe that there is a singular mindset here when it comes to those that are among the elite. Absolutely, I think that it's you know, it's completely plausible based on the fact that there is an interconnectivity with all of these large corporate interests acting in concert with one another

to do things that are poor for humanity in general. But all that is is a way of pandering to people like myself who see broader conspiracies. Okay, that's all that is. It's not even that she believes this stuff. I mean, you know, at one point, at one point in this whole thing, she's even talking about, you know, how you can go to her for tips on how to deal with cancer because of the GMO foods. I'm telling you, every single thing that she can possibly pull from the

conspiracy realm into herself. She is doing this, is what this is. And again it's just pandering to those that want to hear this. And unfortunately our friend named after the cartoon character who I'd like to stop mentioning is uh Is, is part of that. Okay, So she's pandering to him, his audience, and the residual people that might actually just pass across this allegedly

groundbreaking piece of tripe that he is pushing. Okay, And and by the way, why not interact with you know, some grave pictures and let's have a party by somebody's headstone, because that's not morbid or strange or you know, slightly disrespectful to somebody's memory or anything. Let's literally dance and party on somebody's grave that we loved so so much. Exactly. I don't think any of us talking now or anyone listening, has ever gone to a grave and

thought, hey, let's get streamers and balloons. Yeah. I don't know. Let let's let's take ahead. Count Glenn, have you ever decided to go to someone's grave and throw like a cake and ice cream party or what? I can't say. No, Zach and Trish maybe you have. Have you guys ever done that? No? And I certainly haven't asked for donations for three hundred dollars worth of balloons and a cake. Oh oh yeah, the donations too. Let's not forget. Oh we have a phone call?

Shall we take it? Yeah? Yeah, I'm ready. If you are all right, let's do this. Okay, phone caller, you are on the air. Hello, Yes, Hello, Hey, I just calling because uh I was wondering about Jim Mars. Jim Mars, Judy Baker's story. And you know, Jim Mars is the one that woke me up after the JFK movie, you know, in the whole cross Fire book. And I would just wander why Jim Mars and you know, guys like Jesse Ventura, you know, believe Judy Very Baker's story. I'm just curious to what you

guys think. Well, I've got a lot to say about that, But would anybody else like to take a crack at it first? I'm more than happy to let you go. I know that I've often wondered that question myself. Well what do you think? Are I? Okay? Well, here I go makeing enemies again. Would you like my opinion? Well, I mean, I'm just a guy that I'm a researcher, you know, and I don't believe. I don't believe duty Very Baker story, but I you know, I really believe you know, Jim Mars and Jesse Ventura, you

know, to a point. You know, Well, that's you know what I think that that's a very reasonable position to take a grain of salt with, no matter who it is. You know, I've said before, whether it's me or Judith or anyone that's written a book, go to the sources and go to the primary evidence, and that'll show you who's accurate or not. And yeah, my problem with people that support her like Mars and Jesse Ventura is to me, it is more likely a press and money issue than

it is a they actually believe her issue. And the longer it seems that some people are involved in the conspiracy realm, the more things they start to believe. Yeah. Absolutely, and I'll give you my point of view on this, Okay. All you have to do is understand that, yes, Jim Mahers makes some interesting points in some of his presentations, some very valid points, but unfortunately a lot of the other stuff that the guy pushes is

again pandering to the conspiracy sort of genre of media. At this point, it's a matter of let me say the most crap and put out the most you know, stuff so that I'll appeal to the wider audience. Jim Mars has been a master at that for many years, and unfortunately he's sort of been deified among people that do believe honestly, legitimately that there is a you

know, that there is a clear conspiracy here. Unfortunately, you know, you don't have to look very much further than to say, you know, take a look at his explanation about the silver certificates, and you know the executive order number one one one, one zero. This is one of the

earliest guys really pushing that that whole thing in print. But if you read the executive order for yourself and understand it based on what was released and what actually happened, and the fact that I proved myself on YouTube by pulling out of the money supply older notes that were still in circulation that were dated long before Kennedy's time, that this was not a significant mechanism for Kennedy to have

done anything. Uh. You know, if you put these things together and take a look at a guy like g Edward Griffin, guess what you have an explanation that you know, with very little research tells you that a lot of the things that Mars pushes falls apart very easily. But he appeals to everything from those who believe in the alien agendas, to the New World Order, to so on and so forth. And I'm not saying that I necessarily disbelieve in all of that, but poor evidence is poor evidence, regardless of

what it's supporting. And Mars in my estimation, is not a guy that you can go to for you know, for primary sourcing. He makes a lot of interesting points, and he does make some good points. Ventura, same thing, the fact that the Kennedy assassination, you know, is likely a conspiracy, and there were many documents that were withheld and all of these things. He's dead on right. But all you got to do is take a look at that god awful conspiracy theory episode he did where he pushes up,

you know, the nonsense poward Hunt. You know, I forget the guy who wrote Family of Secrets, but I mean the poorly sourced end of his book which tries to involve George H. W. Bush in the plot, you know, the the that was the Russ Baker. Russ Baker, thank you, Glenn. That's exactly and his stuff. Again, he did a bang up job when it came to unmasking George W. Bush in that

book Family of Secrets, but a god awful job. All sort of mistakes regarding HW and just literal historical facts, you know, as for where w HW was, as for who he was at particular times, as for what he was involved in everything, you know what I mean, And you put that together with you know, like I said, I Howard Hunt and some guy who allegedly gives him documents on a bridge somewhere, which is clearly a fictional thing that you know, is meant to represent something else. I mean,

Ventura did an awful job with the Kennedy fascination. And though he may know a lot about certain things like maybe being the governor of Minnesota for a short time, and he may know a lot about being a professional wrestler and how Hollywood doesn't represent itself properly to the people and things like that, he doesn't know jack about the Kennedy assassination. That's what it really comes down to,

because he's never really studied the primary evidence. And even regarding primary stuff, I mean, look at who he utilizes as a co author, Dick Russell, you know, and Dick Russell. You can argue with his stuff or not, but Dick Russell at the very least attempted to get primary evidence, attempted to conduct interviews of real people that may have been involved, actually talked to, you know, witnesses in reality, things like that stuff that

Ventura never did. Despite his position as a media guy who is accepted by the unfortunately the conspiracy minded audience, you know. And that's really what I've got to say about all that. And I don't know if anybody disagrees with me, but that's where I stand on it. Well, Chuck, I'd like to note that this seems to be kind of a pattern with people who

support Judith. Even if you look at Jim Fetzer, some of his work back in the day, like in the nineties and stuff like that that isn't even necessarily candy related, but as critical thinking type of work that he did. He was actually an award winning professor, you know, studying analysis and people's thinking, critical thinking, And all of a sudden, he's supporting all these you know, I'm not gonna say crazy, but any conspiracy theory that

comes down the canal, he's jumping on board. Pretty much. It boggles my mind, you know. The caller mentioned Jim Mars. It seems to be the same way. Jim Crossfire is one of the most well respected books in the community, I think, and all of a sudden, I see Jim Mars writing about UFOs and mind controls. It's how does this happen? How did they leap from respectability to you know those conspiracy theory you know pot pourrie. Yeah, eight oh five area code. You're on the air.

Hey, guys, this is Steve bro How you doing. Hey, I tricked you. I didn't call my block number, so that it means that we actually have two individuals on the air who who are not exactly on my side regarding the fact that there is a conspiracy that John F. Kennedy Carmine. I think we need to, uh to let Steve and Glenn both speak now. Yeah, well, no, be honest with you. Uh, letn't take that one up later. But uh, good conversation with with Judy

baby there. And uh, I'd like to hear more of Glenn there if it could go daring his Swedish study on that on that and he's got a lot of gradient when he's been in there for a long long time. Absolutely, I was saving what I feel is the best for last actually because I love I looked at Glenn's stuff and I love what he did, so uh and and again this is not a guy. I mean, let let's let's just be very clear about this, both Glenn and Steve. But you guys

basically believe that Oswald acted alone. Well, I don't consider it Oswald innocent. No, that's correct, But you know, if there was more to it, well, you know, I haven't studied enough to be honest to conclude that, but I don't regard Oswald innocent. No, Okay, Oswald is not innocent, Steve, though you believe that basically Oswald acted alone? Or are you kind of of the same mindset to Glenn is Well, Chuck, I believe he took the shots. He did it. He that alone,

but there's a lot more of that story to be told. But he was up on that rifle only six floor pull in that career, no doubt in my mind. Okay. So I just wanted to make it very clear to the listener that I've got two guys on that don't necessarily agree with me. I feel as though, just to clarify my position that although this is not an innocent guy, I don't think that he is the assassin. I simply don't after a study of the evidence. But this is not the issue

today, is it? Go right ahead, Garma and I want to say that to everyone listening, and we're going to be respectful to each other, and that's what we're hoping will spread to the rest of the community that just because we don't agree on things doesn't mean we need to attack each other. That we can discuss things and may get greater enlightenment through discussion. I very

much agree to that. Karmai absolutely right, exactly the point here, So Glenn, with deeps prodding, Yeah, I think it is time we get to you. And the reason is, of course that the ever after with Judith is that everybody is after her. She had to go to Greece and then Hungary, and then she went to Sweden seeking political asylum because she was so much in danger to come to the United States until it was time to

do her book tours. But she had to avoid coming to the United States and sought political asylum in Sweden, and according to her blogs and things like that, she was granted political asylum in Sweden because her life was in danger. I think you could probably pick up the story from there. Yeah, that's right, That's what she had been saying for quite some time, as

I understand it. You know, it was by coincidence actually that I've been following sort of from a distance, quite a few of the JFK forums at the time. This was back in two thousand and eight, and all of a sudden, someone in mcadam's forum, the AAJ said that she had been granted asylum in Sweden. And you know, I found this very peculiar because, as I'm sure you guys, get political asylum in another Western country. Now a little bit simplified, you can say that there are basically two reasons

to get asylum. Either you come from a war zone basically, or where there's been you know, like an earthquake or something like that. Or the other situation would be that your country where you're a citizen can't protect you for some reason, you know, either that you threaten the state somehow or well,

you know, something along these lines. And I mean, to prove any of this is very difficult, right You would have to be a political dissident of some type, or to prove that it would be too high hostile for your own well being to remain in the country of your origin, things like this, and it is especially difficult. And I want to make sure we make this extremely clear that to go to another Western type country and seek political asylum is much more difficult than to say, come from the Middle East

and seek political asylum. Oh yeah, absolutely, you know, and you have to bring proof, you know, when making this, you petition a court, you know. And this applies across the planet, although every single country has its own sort of system by which they do this. Now, why would this be a particular interest to you is because why Glenn, Well, you know, I've been following the jfk assassination ever since I was a

child, basically, And you know, I do remember very clearly. I was nine years old when it happened, and my mother had a very very strange look in her face, told me that the American president had been had been killed, and this was not like her at all. So that made an impression on me. And you know, I did figure out, even though I was very young at the time, that what's this, you know, and why is my mother reacting this way? And so that's that's basically

where my interests started. And you know, like ten eleven years later, I was an exchange student living in California. This was in the mid seventies, and it happened to be the time when heraudu showed that the Supruder film for the first time, and that really ignited the debate. So when I was an exchange student in California. You know, I followed this and all these claims of starting a new investigation and all of that, and eventually we got the HSCA. Of course, so I have a long interest in the

in the assassination, and I've been fascinated like many others. And to start with, of course, I was also convinced, you know, that there's got this gout has been a conspiracy. So that's where I started a long long time ago, and these forums. When after the Internet came and all

that, you know, I started the following the debate more closely. And that's why I sort of noticed this that she was supposed to be in Sweden, and like I said, I I could not believe that, you know, had she really proven that that she had the correct reasons to be granted

asylum. I found that very peculiar. So I decided to to have a look at this, and and it took me about I believe two or three weeks, three weeks perhaps, you know, to to do the research and to get the court decisions and to talked to a few officials about it, and also to learn the fine print of course about the asylum procedures. And once I've done that. I decided to forward these decisions to John mccadams because I told him, you know, I followed the debate in your forum,

and these guys are wrong in so much that they're saying. So I think this would take away a lot of the uncertainties and give them some knowledge about this. And I can tell you that she has not been granted asylum in

Sweden. In fact, she's been denied twice. And that's the bottom line, and that's where it started, right and the court decisions that you got your hands on, I mean, what did they say as to why she was denied her political asylum because she was under threat from her own government allegedly. What did it say about that procedure? Well, basically it said that, you know, she told them that she had evidence of harassment, of threats and a lot of things, and she never provided anything. And they

stated this. But you know, when you read between the lines, you can also, I mean, beyond this the dry sort of judicial lingo, you can see that these guys didn't believe her. It's as simple as that. You know, that's my interpretation. And I've spoken to a lot of friends. I've got a couple of friends who are are far more knowledgeable than judicial stuff than I am, and you know they say the same thing basically, right, So what it is? I have a question for you.

I'm sorry, No, go ahead, y, go ahead, Jack. Yeah. I was wondering, you know, in your okay, I was wondering if you, in your perusal of the documents relating to her asylum claims, did they all get into whether they believed true story of Lee Oswald or not. No, not specifically, I'd say, you know, they looking at her reasons to be granted asylum if she sort of fulfills those requirements,

and so there was no extensive discussion about leos Wold. No, they're looking, you know, hardcore, does she have the reason to be granted asylum or not? And that's what they discussed. But it was not even though I'd say, you know, these these decisions were perfectly or right, you know, they were perfectly they motivated their findings and all that, But they didn't specify anything about Leoswell, I'd say, but they did. Of course.

Her deposition to them is in those decisions, as you might have seen if you if you've downloaded the document that I provided on the Facebook site, so you can see that there both of these, both the migration board, which is the lower instance, and then the migration court, which is where you do your appeal, said basically the same thing about this. Yeah, basically, to put it in a nutshell, what they found is that her

claims had no basis. She presented no evidence, which vaguely sounds familiar because it sounds very much like the way we were just describing her book. A lot of claims without any evidence to support it. Isn't that fascinating that that pattern prevails all the way into two thousand and seven and eight. Yeah, this is true, and she wanted, actually she petitioned to be to get a verbal hearing, but they flatly denied it, so, you know,

and that tells me. And I've discussed that with a couple of friends of mine and they agree, you know, they did not believe her story. There were too many holes in it. She had no evidence, no witnesses, and that's why they deny this. And there was nothing that pointed to her not being able to return to the United States, for instance, nothing that she had proven to them or even slightly proven, you know, in

any way indicated right. So, the continuous story about not being able to appear in public or to be able to take interviews or discuss things with people or directly interface with people, based on the fact that she is under a constant threat and therefore is you know, requires a whole lot of security and things in order to be able to do stuff, because they really want her dead, because she has the great truth to unveil to the public. All

of these things. When challenged in a court to seek political asylum in another country, you know, turn up with just about the same out of evidence regarding her alleged relationship with Oswald, her alleged relationship with the CIA, and all of these other interesting characters, no evidence, lots of claims, but no evidence to verify it, to bolster said claims in any way, shape or form. That's what comes up. And that's what I take away from

mclenn. Yeah, and you're correct, that's a good description. Actually, yeah, And not only that basically, but what she said is more interesting, you know, because this was at mcadam's side. But a year and a half later, in the spring of twenty ten, there was this infamous exile bed and that's where she said, you know that she had been escorted to Sweden by Swedish agents from Hungary when she first arrived in Sweden for her

protection. Now, I discussed this with a couple of officials and they, you know, if I remember corrected, that's when one of them specifically ask me what's wrong with it? To women? I'm sorry to laugh, it's just that. Do you know how many times do you know how many times that Exton has come up to people that discuss her with me privately effectively they you know where they say what's wrong? And I, you know, and I say always I'm not I'm not a psychiatrist, so I can't tell you.

But but the thing is, you know, it does beg the question right to make a spectacle of yourself, to make all these claims where you have no sort of evidence, in order to bolster them, to back them in any way, shape or form, To essentially say that my story is my story and therefore needs to be believed on the basis of it itself.

Well, what does that sound like to any discerning listener? Faith? Yeah, yeah, yeah, no, And I can tell you that that time back in twenty ten at the Education Forum, that's the only thing time when she's actually sort of answered a few questions that I had and in a somewhat polite way. Uh, that's the only time since then she's only described me and lied. She's she's one lie after another. There's always a new one.

She's posting this this stuff on her own Facebook sites, and there are lots of lives, you know, she's she's now telling them that I've been following her, that I've been visiting at her at that migration center where she lived and all that, and poked to her handlers live, which did not happen. You know. I did all the research from my home, from my computer and through the phone, and that was it. And so she wants the discussion to be about me as a researcher, not about her and

her life. Because what do you what do you do when you're when you're losing in the debate, is to turn against the individual you're debating so that you don't have to deal with the actual subject matter. Uh. This is a typical kind of way of doing a dishonest debate, isn't it. Uh? And this is exactly what happens. I'm far from the only one, you know, I was thinking what what the Sachery said when you know,

about an hour ago, Vick was very kind words to her. You know that My thoughts when you said that, Sackery was that you just wait, if you continue to sort of insist on your position versus her, you will find out, you know, the nasty version of Judi Baker. Yeah. Oh yeah, we've We've gotten it. I'd just like to give her the I was just trying to give her the benefit of the doubt. Really, I just wanted to be clear that there's no hard doings, at least I

don't. That's not that's not our point. This isn't a personal attack. It's a professional attack. We're criticizing her professional stance on this topic. Yeah, yeah, a that that's excellent. You know, I do respect that, and I tried that for a long time to no avail. She was attacking, attacking, attacking and lying, lying, lying. Well, that comes to point. Well, I decided, actually before all this this turbulence, back in January February, you know, when you guys did all the

research and presented it and all that. Before then, I decided, you know, enough, it's enough. Now I'm going to go after you know, I've had enough of this. Friends of mine here in Sweden, you know, told me what they'd read on the internet, and I checked it up and it was correct. You know, she goes on lying about me on the internet, and I warned her, you know, you've got to stop this stuff because now I'm going to follow through, you know, and

we'll see what happens. But you know, I won't take that no longer. You know, I don't want her people to mischaracterize what you're saying. And in my opinion, I don't think any of us. You know, it can be called an attack, but it's a debunking, is what's going

on here. We're not attacking any person. We're attacking anyone that tries to make up myths and interject it into history because they're wasting our time, they're wasting everyone's time, and they're making false leads that are going to put people off for years. Maybe that's why we haven't solved the case yet, because there's so many people like her putting out false leads. Yeah well, you know, yeah, but she's one of a kind, and I think what

she's doing is so outlandish that it's beyond comprehension. You know, people can't I remember, you know, after that first encounter on the AAJ side December of two thousand and eight. I do remember when I was. I participated basically for a month or so, and then I quit. You know, I had enough of these guys. There were two or three of them that

were attacking me quite viciously actually, and so I had enough. But when I sat down and thought about this, you know, had I would have expected them to appreciate the fact that I've gotten documents that told them with the fact for it. But you know, her support did not appreciate that they attacked me, right, and I need to point out that Martin chack and Ford was the exception, but there were a couple of others. They attacked

me pretty viciously. And when thought about it, I couldn't believe this, you know, because all I did really was to provide documentation. Now, how can how can they want to be this vicious because of this? And yet and yet at that point in time, you know, back in December of two thousand and eight, that was nothing as compared to what was coming, you know in twenty ten, in March and April, you know, when when Judith herself was there. Now, that's when the real fun began.

You know, Oh my god, I was a spy, I was an asset and blah blah blah all that, you know. And she yeah, and she tried constantly to get the discussion to be about me instead of her. Well, yes, Steve, Yeah, that's why say something real quick. What Glenn's telling me is absolutely true. I mean, he's been battling it a long time before you guys jumped in, and he's got a

lot of experience with Barbara Jay and everybody there. And that's why I just kind of want to prod it along and get it get it up there. Because Glenn, what Glenn says is absolutely true, I'll just shut up and listen. Okay. Well, no, Steeve, I appreciate that. But I'm telling you now that I was trying to tell people in the early part of this century, okay, like in two and three, that this was going to be a problem. Okay. I told them that they did not

take it seriously. And I mean conspiracy authors whose names you would know, Steve, that I sat down with and said, guys, you need to address this because you have the gravitas to nick this in the bud. Now, if you don't, it's going to grow because this nonsense is going to

sound attractive, okay, and nobody would take me seriously. I mean, I have I have a lot of emails and stuff saved, and I don't disseminate my emails, but one day I just might to show that I was trying to tell all kinds of people who thought that it wasn't even worthy of response because it was so you know, so fictitious and ridiculous that listen,

I'm not going to take my time to respond to that crap. I mean, it took me, like I think, three or four years to convince Walt Brown to co write that article with me that we put in JFKD Politics Quarterly, okay, which was titled, by the way, Judy Baker, you know, fraud or fiction. All right. It took me three or four years to convince him to do that, Okay. But before that, I was complaining about this, and I said, this is counterproductive to us.

No, no, no, we need to just continue to Chucky good. No, no, I'm sorry, just good to know and Chuck and I flawed that and yeah, I think it's but go ahead, Glen, No, no, I think I think what she's doing is counter productive no matter what side of this issue you happen to be on. You know, she wants to be she wants to ride herself into US history, and in my opinion, she has no place there. No, she doesn't. You're totally correct, very good. The whole problem is that precisely that if she

I've told people before, she could have been the JK. Rowling of historical fiction. If she would have done all this and just put fiction on her book instead of nonfiction, she could be rich, rich and famous and well beyond all of us. But I need, I need to say one thing another thing here. You know one person that of late has written quite a

lot of good stuff. That's Pamela Brown. You know, Pamela Brown used to be a quite ardent supporter of Judas Baker for a long time, for seven years, at least seven years, and she took a lot of beating because of that from a lot of researchers around. And of course, as you may know, she is now an enemy of Baker. Now, yeah, so as Baker said, I mean, she's a pointer, an enemy.

But what she's and I think she is basically spot on you should go to her blog and finding Judith. It's a very good blog and she has some really interesting thoughts there about Judit and she is an insider sort of anyway. And what she says is that, you know, everything now is about This is about Judy. This is not a JFK or Leofmoon or anybody.

This is about Judu Baker. She's trying to make and you know, if you look at her from a distance, if you look at what she's doing now, being in book, seventy Facebook groups and all that, everything is about her. She's so controlling, she wants to control everything. She's banning people who doesn't believe her, she's sensoring those who doesn't listen to her, and all of this behavior, you know, points exactly in the direction that

Pamela has written quite a lot about. And I think she's correct about this, you know. I'd like to add that also, people can go to the Lone Gunman podcast with Rob Clark, the Punching Judy episode, which is a play on Punching Judy, the old play, the TV show and all that stuff, the old presentation exactly, and I highly recommend it as well. Rob Clark is a good guy who would have joined us if we could

have tonight. But yes, absolutely the Lone Gunman. And that name threw me at first because I thought he was just going to talk about how Oswald did it, but you know, he explained that to me, and of course he's been our guest on the show before, but definitely I recommend him as well. So hey, Chuck, Yeah, let me just say one little last statement here. And I fought everybody here. I think we're all in agreement here, right, Yep, he's a she's a she's a fraud.

And I just wanted to get Glenn's story in there real quick. And I'm sorry for interrupting there, but but then my hat's off to you, Chuck and your efforts and Zach and Trish those are good, great people. See remember this step. I'm interested in the facts, the reality. I believe that it has been hidden from us. But it has not only been hidden, I believe by the government, but even more so, it has been diluted and absolutely dirtied up by all of this poorly founded nonsense which has

been spread on my side of the fence. And that's why I'm attacking that stuff, because people keep complaining to me, why aren't you attacking the Warren Commission in your mythology show. Well, here's the problem. You may disagree with the Warren Commission's conclusions, you may disagree with their methodology in certain places, and that is all right for debate, but it is not wholesale fiction being created and then distributed to the public as if it were the alternate reality

that you should be looking at. So there you go. We can have an honest debate about the historical record, we can have a debate about the methodologies. We can have a debate about these things, but we're going to have to come correct with the science, with the actual documentation, with the

discussion of the individuals involved, what they're a gal like that. But when it comes to a story like hers and many others that have been launched out there into the universe of JFK mythology, okay, it is mostly a bunch of hearsay and nonsense that causes people to go down the wrong trail. I would much sooner believe that Oswald alone did this than I would believe any of the universe of stuff that she just put out. Okay, shut, May I say something? Sure? Yeah, I'm not just speaking that at all,

and I think that you you know, are her. Her battle was with the lone numbers before all this. But these people here today are carrying the torch and they're doing a great job, like yourself, Zach and Trish and Combine Land and everybody's carrying the tors exactly right. So, uh, we just got to move forward here and uh expose this fraud. But anyway you can Uh, I lost my training part here, But anyway you can carry on with this conversation to until fifty years from now. Actually, chuck,

because her, her supporters will always believe the story. Oh yeah, and everybody agree with that, Oh definitely. Yeah. We're only gonna be able to convince reasonable people, right right, Yeah. Unfortunately the reality of it. Yeah, unfortunately. I think you're probably correct about that scene. And it is a shame. I really wish, I really wish they would listen to opposing viewpoints. I see, you know a lot of people think that if you argue with them, it's a bad thing. It's not.

It's a good thing, because no one's gonna know everything, and hearing an opposing viewpoint might actually make you think about something you wouldn't have thought of it in the first place. M M. Well, let's just let's get this straight right off the bat. Okay, there's low nutters the battle to her way before and and Chuck, Chuck did it for his credit. But this not this not a low nutterer or or conspiracy thing. Yeah, this is

a false story. And there when we're just bowling down the simple little country fact, right, I'll shut up and go ahead. That was great. No, that's that's fine, brother, Believe me. I'm and and again I am interested in the historical reality. You know, the old the old adage about letting the chips fall where they may, and other people have have utilized that for book titles and things like that. I'm telling you right now, that's what I want to see. But I want the real chips to

fall, not the bull chips. Looks like we got another caller. What are your six six to one seven area code? You are now on the air. It's the hit man. Guys. Hey man, what's going on? Man? How are y'all doing? I have to admit I haven't heard the show tonight because I've been with a family obligation, you know. But I was just calling in to see how things are going. Pretty good. Glen's here, Steve's here, Zach's here, Chuck's here, I'm here,

Trish is here. Everybody's here, Yes, Steve Roge, Glenn Vickland, Carmine Sabistano, Trish Fleming, excuse me, Zachary Jendro and myself all on the line, hit man. What do you think of that? I'm uh, I'm just honored to be uh, to be able to talk to you all, tremendous people who care about using actual primary sources to uh really search

for the truth. And and I think that's what's challenging right now is there's there's people weaving stories out there that are half truths with just enough truth that the average person who doesn't dig deep enough is going to buy into. Yeah, matth No, very good man. I Y, we want to congratsate you, thank you. I'm that one I've been sitting on for a while, but it's dot It's felt good to get it out there finally. Yeah, well exposed the hell out of it. Man. Yea again, that's

big. That's deep, that's digging deep, that's that's that's looking at multiple sources and it doesn't add up. The toy that's being woven does not add up to what the primary sources demonstrate. Yeah, Matthew, Matthew, I think that we should expect now is a couple of days, two or three days of silence from Judith Baker, and after that you will see a mega rants on all of our sites about what you have written. That's what That's

what happened with Thornley. That's what happened with thorn the article. It was it was quieter for a few days and then all of a sudden baboom. You know, the nice part about the Thornley article was there. You know, Thornley is an interesting character that has a biographer who is willing to come out and take a stand. You know. The thing with the Eric Rodgers article that I put out today, Eric Rodgers is not somebody who's going to have a biographer. So it's just, uh, it's it's it's really uh,

it's really challenging when you've got people who are dead and gone. I'm actually right now I started it today. I'm looking through ancestry dot com to see if I can track down any Eric Rodgers relatives to see if they would weigh in on this, but I think I think a few of my friends that are on the radio right now know I've done that before us dancestry dot com to try and help chase down some leads. So it's always fun, but so the world sometimes gets in the way of my ability to really chase

down things. So that's the way it goes. Absolutely. But one other person on the line that I did not mention is Dylan Wade. Dylan, how are you doing tonight? Are you listening to all this? And what do you think? Yeah, I'm listening and it's really funny. Actually, well, you know, and you were somebody who was among the uninitiated regarding the JFK case. You had sort of just a cursory now it's based on things you had sought on the internet, et cetera. Right, and you

were introduced to the Judith very Baker story. What are your thoughts at this point in time concerning concerning Judith and all the stuff that we're saying. I mean, are we just are we just terrible people that don't want to believe this poor old woman? Or what the ad experience I really have with them with her is through her supporters. That's usually the case, then they're nuts.

There you go. I didn't take very long. I also remind the audience that Dylan is sixteen, so some of her supporters had some catching up to do. Yes, there you go. I barely questioned their story and they already started attacking me. Yeah, there you go. There you go. You're a good company just for knowing you guys. You know, we could actually start a club of people who have been attacked by you, the very Baker supporters. Did you did my name to to them? Dylan?

Did you ever mention my name? No? Oh, you were. You were on with them with me, remember, Oh you mean those those people that run that station. Yeah, those guys, they went after me bad when they interrupted my show to do an ad for her. Yeah, that was pretty funny. He was doing a radio show and they didn't. And there are more ads on their radio station for her than there are for them. Uh, and it's pretty funny. They they heard me, which is

kind of hysterical because they had no idea who I was. They heard me, you know, going through different aspects of the case, realized that I was somebody was valuable in that way, and uh and and wanted to uh wanted to somehow interject the Judith Barry Baker thing into it. And what happened. I dropped off your show. Well I did shortly after because they took

over. Yes, that's the reaction. He's shut down. You know, somebody who might actually be knowledgeable in the case, you know things like that. Yes, anyway, just another Saturday night. Yes, just another Saturday night. Believe this or not. We're down to the last twenty minutes, Steve, you wanted to say something, Oh wow, Yeah, I would like to let the hit man talk a little bit about his reach an article, you know what, so would I I wanted to get because you mentioned

it. I wanted you to give everybody the name of the article where they can find it and kind of a quick explanation of sort of what it's about as a teaser. If you could hit man, that would be great. Basically, what what I started doing is I started a few months ago looking chapter by chapter at the book me and Lee, looking to see if the

historical primary sources backed up what was being said. And in the midst of my thorny work, Judith on one of the Facebook groups started posting about Eric Rodgers, which is indeed in her sinner book, but she posted as I cited in my article today basically her to summarize that she's saying that Eric Rodgers was a front person for Lee, that Lee was paying Leaf for the rent for for nine oh seven magazine Street and he used him so that he could

do his leaf with distribution and protect his family. And what I found in my research is that Lee Lee had no need for an Eric Rodgers. He had leaf with stamped with the correct address. He had leaf with stamped with four, nine oh five, he had leaf with stamp with four and I know seven. He had begun his leaflet distribution a month prior to Eric Rodgers arriving. He was using the name Alec Haidel on some of them, so they're really and then and then the best part was the post office boxes.

He had the wrong post office box on the leaflet, so there was really no way to trace it to the place where he was residing. He had

no need for Eric Rodgers. And when you look at the amount of evidence, it just doesn't support you know that this this uh, this this man Eric Rodgers was anything other than a man collecting a pension, renting an apartment that happened to be used by Lee used the mailbox originally because nobody resided there, and when you look at four nine you know, that whole complex of the magazine street that it's really interesting there there there was one FBI report that

I found that indicated there was a fourth apartment that used the address for four nine oh five. So it made very well have been very logical that we didn't want any male going to four nine five because the middle box was shared. Yeah, that's that's it. It's it's you know, even doctor her claims the power, the best part was the she claimed that the power was

on and that she had defrosted the refrigerator, the freezer. Do you know, do you know what the root of that problem is why she has to give all these wild explanations to that is because she made a claim about a particular part of her timeline some years ago, relating to Lee utilizing this other apartment as a fictitious address to avoid male get in the hands of Marina.

Okay, now, when she said that the problem was that somebody decided to go and get themselves records of the you know, the utility bills, and because it did not comport with her explanation. Okay, she has now had to create this whole sub universe of explanations for what went on there because it didn't work with her story when somebody actually checked, you know, documentation, and it still doesn't work. And still her new explanation is still no good.

That's the funny part here. But that's what she's doing all the time. You know. She she's caught with one lie, and she never backs down. Instead, she goes the other way. You know, there comes another lie, and a third one on the fourth one to the ridiculous, you know. And Matthew, when I read you, I read your paper

this afternoon, and you know, very good solid research there. And what struck me again was that she's using you know, actual details like the street numbers and the apartment and all that, and she's twisting the facts with existing things basically thinks that are verifiably there that you can check and yeah, those are there, but she's fristling them, you know, so that you have

to dig deep to find this. And one thing, I'm just going to mention a little detail, well, she said, and she's still saying sometimes, you know that when she first came to Sweden, she was she was grownted asylum for ten months, and she's I don't think she's using the word granted, but she's now calling it, you know, being in the asylum

system. And what she did a long time ago. I believe that the first time was on the Education Forum, she provided a picture of herself on an ID card and she said, well, I came to Sweden and I was I was grown to the asylum for for ten months. And look at this ID card. You can see when when it's issued, and you know so and normally you don't get ten ten months. And but but you know, when I check this up, it turns out that those ID cards are

issued only for a duration of three, four or six months. So what happened in real other people was that she was issued one, probably for three months, and then during that time she got a negative decision, and then she appealed and then she got a second one. So what she was showing on that picture was one out of two. But she's not telling anybody because she wanted to look more sort of trustworthy in conjuncture with what she said previously.

But but Glenn, you're letting situational reality get in the way of her story of what you're letting the reality of the situation getting away. Yeah, I'm sorry, I'm sorry this time. No, but that, but that struck me when I read Matthew's paper this afternoon. You know, it's exactly you can you can see the patterns, they're all there. But time and again, there's just enough truth. I'm sorry, it's just it's just enough

truth that if you don't dig deep, you're gonna miss thing. Like Evans, the woman who was with Oswald that day, she explained in her testimony that she had Lee give missus Gardner the money to turn on the power well because there was no power on, there was no refrigerator to defrost. But if you don't sit down and read the testimonies, you're not gonna catch the little white the little you know, the details. It's in the details that you know. If you if you just cursorly read, you're gonna go,

oh, yeah, there's enough fact here. It sounds credible. But when you really dig, when you really look at what people are saying in the testimony and the historical records, it just doesn't add up right. And no matter what the position of the author is, I'm telling the listener right now, don't necessarily take every characterization we've made about this or any other subject to heart and just accept it. Look for your self. Always examine the extraordinary

complaints. The extraordinary claims require extraordinary research, and yes, Trish, go ahead. I actually have two examples that I'd like to point out on this topic. One of them was a statement from John Russell Rochelle, who is part of the Department of Labor, who actually interviewed Oswald on April twenty six, and according to his affiday that he testifies or excuse me, states that Lee was wearing a suit and tie that day and was very presentable, etc.

Etc. This is the same day that she apparently met him at the post office and in Look she describes him wearing a khaki shirt. Now for someone who doesn't drive, and according to her story again his stuff is in storage at the bus depot and so on and so forth. That's a lot of commuting to go around and change out fit's living out of a locker at the bus depot, and to be able to switch clothes so quickly between the

two appointments. I'm using an appointment obviously as a very loose term Another thing that's really interesting is, like Steve was saying, if you read the testimony, Lourene, excuse me, Lillian Rhett had testified that Oswald had sat at the table and was going through the phone book looking for Oswald's relatives, anybody with the name Oswald. But in her book, on two separate pages one six and one sixty three, she actually states that Duttz is the one that

gave him the list of the relatives for him to go see. And if you read Duts's testimony, it really sounds like he, for lack of a better word, really didn't care for Lee very much and wasn't really eager to help him out. And this goes full circle to a two hundred dollars loan that Lee had mentioned in Warren Commission Exhibits sixty nine dash A. But he's saying she's saying that it was a payment for him doing illegal runs to mobsters.

So again, there's just so much conflicting evidence. When you're reading the actual testimony from firsthand sources to what she's claiming, it's just it clashes, right. That's basically where her you know, where a lot of this falls apart is, you know, bet when you compare what the historical record states compared to what she's saying, and what it boils down to is who do

you believe? Is there's a matter of credibility. Do you believe the people that were there and saw this stuff with their own eyes and as Trisha said, testified under oh, or do you believe someone that evidently has a profit motive involved? Yeah? Yeah, and who he is a proven liar.

I won't go that. Yeah, that's exactly Yeah. Well, I mean, and as David writes, this is pointed out to us on his website, there's over one hundred and fifty times where she's been inconsistent with her not just the story of her and Lee, but just all of the stories that have come up since her trying to patch up all these holes. And I mean, if she's telling the true and was being consistent with their story,

there wouldn't be whole one two patch. Yeah. Yeah, And all you have to do is have a look at the list of people, because it's reaches. It's all of us, that's seven, it's Chuck that's eight. There are dozens and dozens of credible researchers who use primary evidence, who are saying no, it doesn't work. None of it works. It's it's small

injections of fact into a largely mythical tale, like all mints. I just want to say thank you, Trish, very good thing you did this afternoon by providing Barb's excellent little piece there on, which is another good account. Definitely absolutely deserves to be looked at. That's a very important article, and I really do people take the time to look at that, because Barb definitely needs a tip of the hat for that article. Yes, and there's no

way around it there. You know, it's not a question of a mistake. It's not a question of wrong year or something. She was making the story up period, right, you know, that's where all the facts point to. So what else can we do but follow all the evidence and what it says. I mean, that's that's what needs to happen. Like I said, across the community. I would also be remiss if I didn't mention that another researcher, Chris Simodent, sent me a little fact on what the

type of argument Fetzer and Baker use. It's called the Gish gallop technique. That's it, the Gish gallop. I want to copy of that iss Well, well, yeah, in a way, but the gish gallop is used to basically, like like Chuck was saying, you throw so much mud at them that there's no way to counter it. You just overwhelmed them with my mythical eye ideas so that there's no way they'll have the time to come back at you, and then you criticize them for not being able to do it

because no humans could. So like Jim eu Genial, there's a lot of people I would say that fall under use of the gift gallop on both sides. Yes, so now we know what to call it, at least, thank you, the gallop, dish gallop yep. Yeah, and yeah, once it gets into like just so many things you can't do, you're just okay, you're using the gift gallop. I'll see. Yeah, it would save a lot of time, no kidding. Yeah, I'm trying to trying

to relate these arts. I'm being requested, like where's the links to the articles and all this other stuff. I'm trying to get them for people. Uh, and we are down to the last six seven minutes here, So I just want to let you guys know that believe it or not that was only two hours. We could probably do this all night. It feels like twenty minutes. Yeah, yeah it does. But this could be done, I'm telling you all night, you know. And in fact, let's give

people a feel for that real quick. And I think everybody on the line will appreciate this. I want to play a little game. It is called the select a page game for the Judithbury Baker myth. It works like this, Pick a number anywhere between fifty and five hundred and forty nine, and what will happen is Carmine will select a page out of the Judith Very Baker book me and Lee and we will debunk it. No what page you pick, there will be something unproven on it. I contend, yes, absolutely,

How about this? Why don't we let either Steve or Steve? I would like Steve to pick a number because I'm guessing that he would have less familiar aric with the script. Whoop, I think some of her minions are trying to cut in. Yeah, could big Steve? Would you like, I don't know, would you like to select a page and and see what happened? Yeah? Go to that page, Okay, fifty and five page age two forty nine. What magic are we going to find here? Hmm

to forty nine. Well, right off the bat, she refers to the Jack Ruby as Sparky, and that's been kind of de bunk that he didn't go by Sparky during that time. No, it made him mad, so mad that he'd get into a fight about it, she says. The other people in my life quick, she says, Doctor Sherman had not bothered a compact that awkward incident at Dave's party. Well, the party in which she states that Jack Martin, David Ferry, le Oswald, none of that has

ever proven to have happened. Not a single one of those men ever mentioned that occurring. Mary Sherman never mentioned Meetia in him there. And why would Mary Sherman, a respected doctor, ever go to a flophouse, which when people say there were Serman's done there, it's totally hilarious because you need a secure and sterile environment that you can't have with a bunch of rack ages around. Sorry, no problem, was my pleasure. We can play this game

at least another four hundred and ninety nine times. Yeah, well i'll sixty seven, sure you want, Oh you want three sixty seven? Dylan. Oh, we're gonna go fast. We only got so much time left through sixty seven, only got a few minutes. But go ahead, go ahead, let's try it three sixty seven. Zach determined too, man, I'm determined to find one that Carmin can debunk. Just listen. I don't have that much time on the air, brother, please okay? Uh table content

nice? Uh yeah, it's the passport. It's it's actually one of the one of her Yeah. Oh well, no, you know what, I'll use one of her sources and I'll debunk with that by purchasing fruit and selling it to ships along the docks, lease set up a temporary reputation of the fruit seller that has no proof that that ever happened. Where did he get the money to do this side fruit business that no one ever saw, including Marina? Does she say what doc it was on? No, of course,

no specific. Why would be specific. That's how sheally got bananas at lunchtime every day though, according to Juds Baker, Yeah, why is this relevant? Oh no, we're just selecting a page at random, and now why did she include it? Listen? If you want one of us to climb into her mind, if on this call to climb into her mind and

explain her thought process regarding all this stuff. I might have to listen to Harry Chapin later thirty Pounds of Bananas or some other psychic driving tape besides the five hour interview that we punished itself endured, endured even a better word, listen. I want to before we run out of time. I want to

thank Hi Man, I want to thank Stephen Rowe. I definitely want to thank Glenn Bickland, who I really appreciate the work you did, Sir, I'm telling you I love it. Uh you know, Trish, Uh yes, Tris you guys, Trish Fleming, Zach Jendro, Carmeline Salvastano, Dylan Wade, everybody who decided to join in, Everybody who's listening, I do appreciate it all. You have been listening to the third episode, and there's going to be more of JFK Assassination Myths exos. This was the Judith very

Baker Special. And if you're talking further on down the line, I join And I'd like to say one thing to those who after all of this, after all of our articles and all the verified dozens of pieces of verifiable evidence after the me and League game we just played. If you still believe her, you deserve her. Nice. Wow, I didn't mean to silence everybody. I was speakers went dead. I think we're letting this set We're letting that set in in a few Oh, I don't know a dozen people's minds.

I couldn't put it any better than you just did it. It was a good it was a good ending. Yeah, absolutely, And the bumper is gonna again and we're gonna go off the air and then it'll be time for the Jaded Show, which I want everybody to stay tuned for on ucy dot tv. And also, if you are finding this further run down the line, you can get the archives and everything else. Make a donation to me if you'd like, at ucy dot tv slash t oe for the ocell

effect. There is YouTube links there. There's all kinds of stuff there, and if you look hard enough, you can still find the chat room somewhere on the thing, although it's been kind of segregating. I tried, I tried to get on it. It wasn't there. Yeah, I know, it's been kind of segregated, and uh, that's the way that is anyway Again, though, I want to thank all of you guys who joined in, and I think we may have to do a A part three A because

we haven't. We haven't beaten her enough, heytime, just my just the mythology and the universe of myths which has evolved from her, not her personally. I do not support the issues us the grand text ushers gajus doot sound usher haydn tax by t du gas dot usn tas ta ta ta ta ta ta n sounds any pass a bad time non text back