Wednesday, November 16, 2016

Time To Call Judyth Out

After a brief, but very informative talk with Wim Dankbaar, Wim decided to go crying to Judyth, Queen of the Weaver Clan.

See Wim dodge the question here:

I can only guess that Wim is clueless when it comes to people and events outside of his bubble.

His bubble consists of a lot of attorneys:

But enough about Wim.

He went whining to Judyth Very Faker and this was her response...

Pay attention Judyth:

I have a blog, and a Facecrook page. I post at two Facecrook groups, one of which was created to discuss people like you. You have never been trolled by me, anywhere on the net. My blog accepts comments by anyone, including you, but you have decided to remain silent.

I took advantage of an opportunity, to ask a simple question of one of your supporters. He refused to answer the question.

I have challenged your conclusions of your "pixel analysis" of the Altgen's photo. I have shown clearly, that your initials are not on pay records from Riley Coffee. I have shown where your claims about keys on windowsills are fantasy.

You have taken the better part of your early life planning your moment of fame. It has taken you years to weave a tapestry of lies, embellishments and fabrications. You've spent as much time ripping out months of work and reweaving your creation as you have expanding your world of influence and fantasy.

I challenge you to produce one piece of irrefutable evidence of you being in a romantic relationship with Lee Harvey Oswald. Just one.

The only "witnesses" to your relationship, or any aspect of your interaction with Lee Harvey Oswald are people who you claim are witnesses and only became "witnesses" because you convinced them that they were. That's how con-artists work.

Dead people can't refute your claims.

I will take every opportunity to denounce you, your efforts and the "half brained", wignuts that inhabit your narcissistic world.


  1. ……. and then there's the stuff that he didn't get caught at. the dutch just LOVE their gossip.

    Thanks, B. !

    Liars' Convention in a few days….. I wonder how that's going to work out? All those speakers !!!

  2. “Judyth Baker Presents JFK Conference”

    The so-called Judyth Baker JFK Assassination Conference took place in Dallas from November 18-20. One of the speakers, Vince Palamara, provided a wrap-up on the Education Forum. Vince identified a short list of speakers (himself, Roger Stone, Cyril Wecht, Shane O’Sullivan, and Sean Stone) as the main attractions of the conference. The talks of Judyth Baker and Larry Rivera did not make Vince’s list.

    As apparent in her conference appearances, Baker is not an effective speaker, relying on impromptu, stream-of-consciousness thinking, as opposed to careful preparation. The emphasis on her “relationship” with Lee Oswald tends to obfuscate any of the main points she attempts to make about the assassination. As an eyewitness to history, Judyth Baker is untrustworthy, in my opinion. That was also the apparent conclusion of the CBS “60 Minutes” team, who rejected her as a candidate for a television interview.

    Rivera is a good speaker, and he has done some excellent work in transcribing interviews with the motorcycle officers riding in back of the presidential limousine in Dallas. But Rivera’s methodology for studying photographs is flawed and unpersuasive. In his presentation, he casually asserts that multiple alterations to the Altgens6 photo occurred on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, yet he offers no explanation of how those sophisticated changes could have been achieved using the photographic technology of 1963. Rivera's own research has demonstrated that the Altgens' film was delivered to the AP processing department on the third floor of the Dallas Morning News sometime between 12:50-12:55PM on November 22. Within the next ten minutes, the photo was being submitted over the news wires. Quite simply, there was not sufficient time to alter the Altgens6 photo, a fact that he and Ralph Cinque conveniently ignore.

    Another flaw of Rivera’s study is the use of the "flipped" image of Oswald wherein Rivera is reversing the sides of the face of Oswald from a photo in the Dallas police headquarters in order to match the face of the man in the doorway in the Altgens photo. Rivera’s assumption that human faces are symmetrical is not borne out by human anatomy. Our faces are NOT symmetrical, and for him to switch the sides of the Oswald’s face as the basis for his conclusion underscores the unscientific nature of his computer experiment.

    During the conference, a “poll” was taken on whether the people in attendance believed that it was Oswald or Lovelady in the doorway. Any time one has to rely on a straw vote for matters of historical truth is a sign of lack of confidence in one's findings. Perhaps Jim Marrs put it best when speaking on Saturday at the conference. While addressing the computer studies of the Zapruder film, Marrs admonished the audience as follows: “Don’t trust any of these computer simulations.” His advice is equally applicable to Rivera’s computer work with the Altgens6 photo.

    The conference presentations aired live on youtube and have been archived at this site: