There is a reason why it is necessary to expose Judyth Baker as a false priestess. It's because we know that the official story of the JFK assassination is false, but, if we replace it with another story about Oswald that is also false, but false in a different way, then it's not going to be hard for the other side to expose it as false. And then, credibility is going to default back to their original false story. And therefore, they win, and they benefit from Judyth Baker. 

So, that's why I say that Judyth Baker is the best friend the official story of the JFK assassination ever had. 

And she tells a lot of falsehoods. Oswald most certainly did not send that telex. And Oswald did not go to Mexico City. He said he didn't. He said that he had only been to Tijuana in Mexico. 

Look, if he was doing the bidding of the CIA to deliver a poison to Mexico City to be used to kill Castro, why wouldn't he admit it? But, he never went to Mexico City. Oswald said he didn't. Mark Lane says he didn't. And according to Mark Lane, even David Atlee Phillips admitted to him that Oswald never went to Mexico City. Mary Ferrell referred to the idea as "spurious." James Richards rejects it, and so do James Douglass and John Armstrong. Many other researchers do as well. There are multiple images of Oswald in Mexico City, and all of them are false. You know none of these men were Oswald, so come on:  

   
So, where was Oswald during this period? I don't know. Some say he was in Houston looking for a job. But, he definitely was not in Mexico City. 

And the whole idea of Oswald as undercover agent and informant is false. It's true that he was depicted that way in the movie JFK by Oliver Stone, but that was a mistake, and we shouldn't compound it.  Oswald was just a patsy.

And he said so himself. Just listen to him, as he says, 

"I really don't know what this situation is about. Nobody has told me anything except that I am accused of murdering a policeman. I know nothing more than that. And I do request that someone come forward to give me legal assistance."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaS-UV-BsdY

So, who are you going to believe, Lee Harvey Oswald or Judyth Vary Baker? You can't believe both because they can't both be telling the truth. I believe Oswald. 



  

A friend sent me this. It's the marriage certificate of Robert Baker and Judyth Vary Baker. Note the date: May 2, 1963. 

That was after Judyth supposedly met and fell in love with Oswald, whom she met in late April. So, she married Baker AFTER meeting Oswald. And, right after the wedding, she supposedly went right back to her romance with Oswald in their Summer of Love. 

But, what about her honeymoon with Baker? And if there was no honeymoon, what about the honeymoon period? 

I know that people can cheat on their spouses, but how likely are they to do it in the immediate context of their wedding? Aren't emotions and commitments riding high for the person that you're marrying?   

I am reminded of the movie The Heartbreak Kid, and I am referring to the original starring Charles Grodin, not the remake starring Ben Stiller. In it, Charles Groden gets married to his longtime girlfriend, but they really didn't know each other that well. And when they drive down to Florida from New York for their honeymoon, he discovers that he really doesn't like her; that she irritates him; that she gets on his nerves. And then when they get to Florida, she incurs a severe sunburn right away, which he warned her about, and that only makes him more upset. And so he goes to the beach by himself, and there he meets Cybill Shepherd, and he falls madly in love.  

Now, that is fiction, and it's also comedy, but it actually has more credibility than Judyth's story. What if they made it that Grodin's character meets and falls in love with Shepherd but then goes through with marrying his irritating girlfriend anyway? Who would believe that? Even in the context of fiction and comedy you wouldn't believe it, never mind in real life. 

Why would Judyth marry Baker if she had just fallen madly in love with Oswald?

I said: Why would Judyth marry Baker if she had just fallen madly, passionately in love with Oswald? 

So, Judyth has begun this passionate romance with Oswald in late April, but she marries Robert Baker anyway in early May. And Robert Baker has no clue about it, not before and not after their wedding. She was never the least bit distant or aloof or emotionally unavailable to him, in person or on the phone. She hid her true feelings perfectly. It was like she was an Academy Award winning actress.  

And likewise, Oswald was in the throes of passion with Judyth but going home to Marina every evening, and he too was perfect at hiding his feelings and fooling his spouse.  Marina had no clue. He too was a great actor. 

If a story is too incredible to believe, you don't believe it. It's not hard to do. You just say: "I don't buy it." And anybody who buys Judyth's yarns is really gullible. We are talking about the outer limits of gullibility.  

   

Tim Brennan:

Hey Ralph, re your blog piece and the mention of Thomas Edward Beckham, 
you have him down as a guy on the right of the photo near the Trade Mart 
doorway. 

You need to know that Beckham has previously claimed in print in Joan 
Mellen's Garrison book that he is the fellow on the left of the photograph 
in the black suit with his hands behind his neck. 

Beckham is just another fantasist with a peripheral connection to Oswald, 
like Judyth Vary Baker. 

Corrective Regards, 

Tim Brennan 
Sydney, Australia 
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

Ralph Cinque:

You're wrong, Brennan. And I was wrong about it too for a while, and I have admitted it. Taking a cue from David Josephs, I thought the figure with the Pompadour hair was Bill Shelley, but it's Beckham.

The guy on the left is a dark-skinned Hispanic guy. Can't you see that? The guy I pointed to is Beckham. 

 That's him. That is Thomas Edward Beckham. There is no doubt about it. 

This article on John McAdam's site by Professor Megan Knuth is, admittedly, very well placed on the search engines concerning the Doorman issue. 

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/oswald_doorway.htm 

But, I refuted it, point by point, back in June, which can be found here:

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2014/06/now-we-are-going-to-look-at-lies-of.html


And I hope that you'll read it again because I did some editing and enhancing of it. I consider it important precisely because Dr. Knuth's article is so prominent. Prominent but false. 

Read this. It's incredible, and I mean that it's incredible that anybody can believe it. 

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/endofline.pdf

It's Judyth Baker's account of her last phone call with Oswald, in which he tells her that after it's over, he is going to flee to Laredo in route to Cancun, where they'll be together.  She claims he planned to participate in the assassination as a shooter- because he had to- but that he was deliberately going to miss. And presumably, he expected, or at least hoped, to get away. 

Judyth tells him to just go beforehand, to just run away, that it was too late to save Kennedy. But, Lee tells her that they would kill his wife and children as well as her if he did that.

But, why would they do that? Do you really think they were going to kill a toddler and a baby? What for? These people were bad, but they weren't insane.

When has that EVER been done in retribution for anything? You would probably have to go back to Attila the Hun to find retribution like that.

Then, I have to laugh: Judyth tells Oswald to tell them that he's sick, and that he should swallow a bunch of laxatives. But why take the laxatives? Did he have to demonstrate to them that he was sick and how he was sick? Did he actually have to show them the results of it?

That's when Lee tells her that instead of killing Kennedy, he's going to fire a warning shot. A warning shot? But, how was that supposed to save Kennedy? The first shot missed by itself, so you might say that it was a warning shot. What good did it do? Did it save Kennedy?

Then Lee says that the driver's habits had been studied and that a shot going off would cause him to brake. Studied? You mean there were other times that shots went off when this driver was known to have braked? You know that's not true.  

Judyth makes stuff up. I'm not even sure she realizes that she makes stuff up, but she does.  

Then she says that the cabal was in fear of Aristotle Onassis because he would go after anyone who hurt or killed Jackie, and even this cabal were terrified of him. Then, why would they put a loaded rifle in Oswald's hands? With his lack of experience and ineptitude, he'd be the one most likely to hit Jackie by mistake. Don't you think the conspirators knew that? There was no way they were going to let Oswald shoot at Kennedy. He was no sniper.

And how did this phone call even take place? Supposedly, Judyth called the TSBD and spoke to the operator. It was Wednesday, November 20.  She asked if Lee Oswald worked there, but the operator said she did not know. Then Judyth said that he was the    "janitor" and to just tell the "janitor" that "somebody" called. 

And apparently, on that basis, Oswald got the message and called her back. But how? It was 1963, and long distance phone calls were very expensive. Did he use the pay phone? Did he get a pile of quarters and keep pumping them into the machine as they talked? And it was around the same time that he supposedly called her to tell her that he sent the telex (which, for several reasons, he could not possibly have sent). But again, how did he make the call, where and when did he make the call, and what evidence is there that he did other than her saying it?

Oh, and by the way, do you remember the ending of Titanic? Where DiCaprio is in the cold water, about ready to succumb, and he tells Kate Winslet, who is perched on some floating debris, that she's got to have babies, lots of babies? Well, Lee tells the very same thing to Judyth.  Titanic came out in 1997, so when did Judyth Baker burst on the scene?  

And now I see where Hooke got the whole Redbird Airport thing- it was from Judyth! It's right here! 

Judyth's account of the last phone call is terrible. It's awful. You'd have to be 8 years old to believe it. I am flabbergasted. What the heck is wrong with people? Why is anyone buying this? 

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/endofline.pdf

Here is a new collage, and there is good information from this. I deliberately chose an image of Oswald that has the same perspective as Doorman so that we can do an up-close facial comparison. 

Obviously, there is excellent correlation of the right ears and the right jawlines, which are on our left. But on the other side, it is a complete washout since Doorman's left jawline (on our right) has a deep crescent concavity, which is impossible unless he had some kind of cancer that eroded his face. Just look at the shape of it. And likewise, Doorman's left ear is an utter monstrosity; it's like a cauliflower. 

But, when he look above the eyes, On Oswald we see how his cranium is expanded, widened; it's like he had a big brain. It's massive.  

This is really uncanny, and I want you look at it again below with this thought in mind: that from the eyebrows down, there is excellent correlation where Doorman is all Oswald (except for the distortion of his face on his left side which was done by the alterers when they placed Black Tie Man into the photo). But from some point on the forehead on up, there is complete divergence between them, where Doorman lacks the ever-widening capacity of Oswald's cranium, and he has a different hairline with shorter hair, more recession, and an usual central recession. 

Let's try it another way:

Wow, what an excellent correlation. It's perfect except for the distortion in Doorman's face on his left side, but realize that it doesn't correlate to ANY human being. Lovelady wasn't built like that, and nobody is. Doorman is a freak on that side. But, putting that side, we've got a zinger. 

And now we have complete divergence with different hairlines, and because Doorman was more receded, his forehead appears longer. Oswald's hair is longer, fuller, and has more body. 

And that gets back to my original hypothesis that they moved Lovelady's cap (from when he was much younger) over to Doorman. 

Those who cling stubbornly and hopelessly to the Lovelady fraud really have a problem because how could Lovelady's hair remain that constant and identical over 6 years time? Exact same degree of recession in a rapidly balding young man? Exact same length when the hair grows every day and haircuts are intermittent and quite random for most people? Plus, people often change their minds about how long to wear their hair. Plus, it's the exact same lay where the hair was laying and behaving the same way. You know that hair behaves differently. People speak of having good hair days and bad hair days. Of course, that is usually said in reference to women, but it applies to men as well. What if we compared a picture of you from today to one from six years ago? Would your hair look exactly the same? In every respect? The problem is that this is too close a match, too good a match, even for one guy. 

I'll end on a funny note. What if we tried to do the same thing for these two? How far do you think we'd get?

Well, at least we'd get done quickly. All we'd have to say is: "Nothing matches." 

This is the 3rd Extra edition of The Atlanta Journal from 11/22/63 which presumably was their latest of the late editions. And yet, they feature Altgens7 and not Altgens6 on the front page. 

Why would they put a picture of a guy riding on the back of a limo with his back to you when they could have put an image of JFK being shot and reaching for his throat, his wife going to his aid, and Secret Service Agents staring ominously back at the Depository? 

In Altgens7, even Jackie is turned away, so there are no faces in it at all. None! How is it "possible" for anyone to think that Altgens7 was journalistically superior to Altgens6?

No one did think that, and no one could think that. They didn't have Altgens6, and they had to settle for Altgens7.  That's what happened. Altgens6 was being worked on. And they had a lot to do to it. It is likely that the Altgens6 photograph is the most highly altered political photograph of all time.