Greg Burnham

Thanks for your remembrances. My only comment is that I do not recall Rich ever having MODERATORS.

Rich did have moderators. I was one of them. One night I screwed up by losing my temper -- in the category I was supposed to be moderating. My second expulsion from there. People thought I was an "agent provocateur." He called me the Manchurian Candidate. I'll always miss Rich.

Kathy C

Rich only had moderators for a very brief time. He decided to start that on a "trial" basis...and later decided against it. It wasn't just you, Kathy--he discontinued a moderated forum in general, as he thought it had been running fine (even better) before he had moderators.

I was never technically a "moderator" --and didn't want to be. But, without citing details, you were banned for an accumulation of reasons. Actually, that's an over-statement. There was "Judyth bashing" reasons (to which Rich uncharacteristically turned a blind eye at first) and losing your temper as you stated on a different topic that you were moderating.

Hey, it's ancient history now. I'm glad you're here. Thanks for identifying yourself--I really wasn't talking about Barb. )

I miss Rich, too.

GO_SECURE

monk

...At any rate, so much for this not - so - veiled woman being referred to ... and having a totally incorrect circumstance recalled and applied to her by Greg. Dixie was correct, it was an entirely different issue that resulted in me being banished ... and that took place before any of us had the pleasure of hearing Judyth's story.

Bests,

Barb :-)

FWIW: I was NOT referring to you. Not even a little bit. You were long gone before Judyth appeared on the forum. I won't even respond to the rest, as it is off topic, too.

Hi Dixie,

I'm relatively certain that I met with Judyth in early 2001. This was BEFORE she came on the forum for the first time. I could be wrong about the year without checking my notes, but I am certain that I met with her prior to her joining the forum. I agree that she was not banned, but rather chose to disengage from the xxxx storm. You are correct about Martin, as well as Vernon.

I agree with your assessment that "she wasn't abusive" but was abused. I found it quite uncharacteristic of the JFKresearch Forum, but it happened.

I don't think that the three of us (you, me and Jack) are referring to the same person who was banned. I refer to someone who is not as well known, and hasn't been suspected of disinfo. This person crossed WAY over the line regarding Judyth, but was actually banned regarding something else, although it was a cumulative effect...

GO_SECURE

monk

I recall things somewhat different too Jack. First of all, this was in year 2000. I don't believe that Judyth was banned at all. I think she quit that forum on her own because she got frustrated with all of us critics. But then who could blame her really? Also, Martin Shakleford was not a member there at that time. He had been a member long before I even joined that forum...a few years before and was long gone. As for Bob Vernon, I don't really recall him saying much about Judyth and he also just waked away from forums completely.

I don't recall Judyth ever being abusive...other things, but not abusive. It was more like we were abusive to her!

When she joined, some of us...especially you anddI hit at her right away. Then others joined in. So Rich ask us to withhold all our comments until she had a chance to tell her story...and we did keep quiet (for awhile). Rich and Terry M. was also going to help her with a Timeline. But after quite some

time, Rich decided ir just was not going to work out, so he dropped the project. That was when we then .started our criticisms again. ...and she finally just gave up and left there.

I am unable to recall any specifics in regard to the phone calls. I have much Judyth material, but it is on a different computer,stashed someplace. I just vaguely recall there was such a discussoon and controvery about it though. You may have that part correct though..just unsure.

As for the woman that Greg said was abusive and got banned, I can figure who it was, but thought she got banned over a different reason then about Judyth.

Dixie

Hi Jack,

I have a slightly different recollection. As I recall, there were multilple posts made by an individual (who is also a member here) who shall remain nameless, unless she chooses to identify herself, that were EXTREMELY hostile--to put it mildly. That individual was also banned from the forum. Now, who drew first blood and who drew it deepest? IMO, it wasn't Judyth.

As for the alleged phone call, I found it--ummmm-- "a WHO GIVES A DAMN" issue...I don't care about it at all. He wept? So what! So she says...yada yada yada-- I have no interest in sentimental bullxxxx. Sorry, but that's just how I feel about it. This is no longer a "love story" Judyth (if it ever was) to anyone but YOU! -- But, if it's HISTORY -- then I'm interested. That is its only value to researchers. When it becomes a soap opera instead...--WHO CARES?

In my above post, I didn't claim that the phone call was something I believed--I merely pointed out that her current account of that event is consistent with what she originally told me in 2001. On the other hand, people talk on the phone--and even in '63, sometimes at great expense because it was the only way. If we assume they did talk (which I have no problem accepting) still: WHO CARES? Not me. Not even a little bit. "He wept" -- So what!

However, I think that my personal revulsion to the details of her (love) story (be it a real or contrived story) should not prejudice me or anyone else to a point that dismisses the remainder of her EVIDENCE out of hand.

IMO, her story has a lot of relevance to things OTHER THAN the JFK assassination. If there is JFK related relevance, I am still having a lot of difficulty finding it.

GO_SECURE

monk

Addendum: Jack, I don't remember the part about LHO telling JVB that JFK was going to be killed on the phone. Perhaps Jim can verify what she NOW says, in light of that. I will go back to archives and see if I have it there, you might be right.

I had vowed not to waste more time on the JVB story, but I cannot let this go unchallenged. It covers the

same ground which was disputed years ago on the DellaRosa forum.

With due respect to Greg and Jim...the latest is not the way I remember it...from about 8 years ago on Rich's forum.

Her story at that time...and my memory from that far back may be faulty, and Rich is no longer available to

confirm, here is how I remember it, and arguments about it led to JVB eventually being banished from the

forum for abusive behavior:

JVB's story then (as I recall) was that LHO and JVB conversed EVERY night by phone. He would go across Beckley

Street from his rooming house to a 24-hour laundromat and call her on a pay phone there, and they would talk for

hours. This was countered on several counts, as I recall. Some researcher found no such nearby laundromat existed.

At that time, pay phone calls were timed by the minute, and were very expensive, especially long distance, and

JVB had LHO spending huge sums on pay phone calls. Then she told of a very long call the night of November 21,

lasting past midnight. This was countered with the fact that LHO was in Irving and not at the rooming house,

and his pre-assassination night was well documented. When reminded that LHO could not call from the all-night

laundromat, JVB was adamant that the long midnight call was made, and that he found another pay phone in

Irving. For this to have happened, LHO would have had to get out of bed without waking Marina, leave the

Paine house secretly, walk to find a pay phone in the residential neighborhood, talk a long time, return

to the Paine house, and sneak back into bed without awakening Marina or children. This is how I remember

the forum exchanges from years ago. JVB became very abusive to Rich and some other researchers after

about nine months, and Rich finally banished JVB and her supporters (at that time mostly Martin Shackleford,

Bob Vernon, Wim Dankbaar and several others). My details may not be totally accurate, but this is the gist

that I remember from those long ago arguments. In the aftermath of the banishments, someone with an ISP

in Amsterdam hacked Rich's forum twice, each time causing it to go down for several days, and losing earlier

messages, including the JVB exchanges.

The phone call story seemed preposterous to some on the forum then, and I still find it difficult to swallow. I feel I

must speak up again, because this same argument I thought was settled years ago, and now it surfaces again.

Jack

Thanks Jim,

Just as a point of interest to those who claim Judyth's story constantly changes, in this case, they're wrong. That's the exact timeframe [for the telephone call] that she told me nearly a decade ago. She told me that the call started before midnight (about 11:00 - 11:30pm) on Wednesday (the night of the 20th) and ended at about 1:00am on Thursday (the morning of the 21st).

GO_SECURE

monk

Good catch, Monk! It should have read, "37 1/2 hours before the assassination". Thanks for letting me know. Best wishes! Jim

...

We talked about an hour and a half his last call, which ended about 3 1/2 hours before the assassination, ending very early Thursday AM... He wanted to spend Thursday night with his babies and Marina... He wept, and said he would be there to tell them goodbye.

JVB

Jim,

I think there's a typo in the above (in BOLD) --

Thanks for posting all of this material, Jim. I do think it is relevant enough to be studied. Very complex, but fascinating too. I look forward to reading the book.

GO_SECURE

monk

...

We talked about an hour and a half his last call, which ended about 3 1/2 hours before the assassination, ending very early Thursday AM... He wanted to spend Thursday night with his babies and Marina... He wept, and said he would be there to tell them goodbye.

JVB

Jim,

I think there's a typo in the above (in BOLD) --

Thanks for posting all of this material, Jim. I do think it is relevant enough to be studied. Very complex, but fascinating too. I look forward to reading the book.

GO_SECURE

monk

Monk...I agree with all that you say EXCEPT that you think "Jack White does not believe that the evidence

is worthy of fair evaluation and needs to be dismissed out of hand." That does not express my position.

If you want, I will email you personally some of my exchanges with Jim regarding my position. However,

I do not want to post these, since that gives excuse for continuation of this thread, which I believe has

outlived its useful life.

Thanks.

Jack

Sorry Jack. I didn't intend to characterize your position that way, but was attempting to demonstrate an example only. For clarity, let me re-phrase: "I will argue (with anyone, for example) that the evidence should not be dismissed out of hand."

I have thought that the arguments invoked to dismiss this evidence in the past have been less than fair. If acted on, they would have "short circuited" the process, IMO.

But, my point to Pamela is unchanged...

GO_SECURE

monk

Pamela, I am a Judyth supporter, in case you were unaware. I stood literally alone on JFKresearch Forum in defense of her being allowed to present her testimony without harassment. I caught a lot of flak from two of my best researcher friends, Jack White and Rich DellaRosa, among others, for my efforts. Understand, I stood by her even under considerable fire--and I would do so again.

However, there is a difference between my:

1) standing up for a "fair an unbiased" evaluation of her evidence no matter where that evidence leads --

and my

2) unequivocal conclusion that everything she says is 100% accurate and relevant for the reasons that she believes it is so

I will continue to argue (with Jack, for example) that the evidence is worthy of fair evaluation and need not be dismissed out of hand.

But, I will also argue that my evaluation of the evidence will not be unduly influenced by those who buy her story "hook, line, sinker, rod, reel, boat, trailer, and trailer hitch..." thank you very much, but I have my own mind and thoughts.

You are entitled to yours and I to mine.

PS: What do you mean: (I) might be "comfortable blaming the victim"? -- Where did you get that fantasy? Totally off topic. Moreover, your conclusion that the attacks were/are due to an OSWALD related matter is subjective, and GOOD FOR YOU! At least you have an opinion. But, I don't agree--I don't know the truth, but I don't agree with that evaluation. I believe the likelihood is that the harassment is due to non-LHO related activity.

ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THE OBSERVATIONS OF MY PSY OPS EXPERT:

[snip]...

So basically it is important for anyone investigating their story not to "throw the baby out with the bathwater", just because the water gets a little dirty.

Indeed...Moreover, don't throw the "bathwater [evidence] out with the baby" simply becuse the "baby" may have made human errors! Evidence is evidence irresective of the "baby" responsible for supplying it.

Judyth has been subjected to threats and libel, even though she is a documented witness to LHO in NOLA in the summer of 1963. Yes, her situation is complex; the 'research community' that did everything to discredit and destroy her while then blaming her for the fact that she had no choice but to leave the US to survive, and was hounded even while in asylum definitely plays a part in this. It seems that you too may be comfortable blaming the victim of the attacks rather than acknowledging the reason for them in the first place, which was most likely protection at all costs of Marina's testimony to the WCR and, thus, the WCR itself, not to mention keeping the doors shut to the underbelly of the assassination in NOLA that summer.

You could, if you wished, take Judyth's statements and compare them with those of Adele Edison who was allowed to come forward and give her testimony. If you are objective, you may see eery coincidences and other eye-opening leads that may help underline the significance of what each of them has to say.

ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THE OBSERVATIONS OF MY PSY OPS EXPERT:

[snip]...

So basically it is important for anyone investigating their story not to "throw the baby out with the bathwater", just because the water gets a little dirty.

Indeed...Moreover, don't throw the "bathwater [evidence] out with the baby" simply becuse the "baby" may have made human errors! Evidence is evidence irresective of the "baby" responsible for supplying it.

Jim's expert said:

Judyth's story at its basic facts seems very similar to some special kids selections from the past that I know the details of, so it is plausible to me. Her association with Oswald is not even necessary to explain the harassment that could be targeted at her for her knowledge of the research to weaponize cancer. I think there is even more there that she is probably not directly aware of, some key facts that lie just below the surface and intel doesn't want someone digging into this too far.

Previously I asked you to put questions to him that were related to this subject. This post answers one of my questions, albeit indirectly. Thanks for the confirmation.

If I was going to investigate this matter I would be more concerned with why Judyth was selected (what special gifts or capabilities did she have, and more concerned with Judyth's knowledge about the weaponizing of the cancer work and all the names involved than with Oswald, but that is just the way I see it).

FWIW, that's the way I see it, too.

GO_SECURE

monk

Indeed, Cliff. Unfortunately for Tink, he invested the proverbial "whole ball of wax" into some of his theories that, while I believe were sincere in the 60's, have lost credibility in the 21st century. This is not his fault. He did the best he could with what he had to work with almost a half century ago. (At least that's what I want to believe--even though his attitude strains that belief). Refusing to acknowledge the best evidence provided by the latest technology and the best experts currently available is not necessarily indicative of a nefarious agenda. Rather, it is understandable that as some age they fear to be "less than memorable" if they admit profound error in their earliest hypotheses. They believe they lack the time to rectify the record sufficiently to render their life long work "worth it" --as if that was the point!

True research seeks truth--not ego justification.

GO_SECURE

monk

So once again we've used up a fair amount of energy and time debunking something that apparently grew still-born from Fetzer's imagination. It won't be the first time... and probably not the last... that this kind of effort has proved necessary.

Josiah Thompson

Question: how much energy and time do we need to debunk something

that apparently grew still-born from Tink Thompson's imagination: that JFK's

throat wound was caused by an exiting fragment from the head wound(s)?

Answer: hardly any time and energy at all...

It's not shutting down, Jack. His legacy will be preserved by his eldest daughter, Angela, and by his wife, Shelby. I would think that any of us "charter/founding members" would be compelled to offer assistance, as beginnings can be challenging. I, for one, intend to do just that and I hope others will too.

As a charter member who was among the few invited to his forum when Rich founded it,

I am devastated. For many years his forum was my home page, which opened whenever

the computer was turned on. He did more to further research of JFK than any other entity.

He was strict and did not tolerate foolishness which detracted from the search for truth.

I hope fervently that someone on the internet (perhaps the Mary Ferrell website) will

offer to archive all the pages of research that Rich gathered. It deserves to be saved

after the forum shuts down.

Rich was a rarity, and a friend.

Fare well, friend.

Jack

THANKS MIKE GOOD POST I DID NOT MEAN TO MUCK UP YOURS IN ANYWAY , NOW BOTH ARE THERE...FWTAW...TAKE CARE..B

Hey Bernice,

Thanks for the clips above.

GO_SECURE

monk

Jim,

I'm really not trying to be argumentative. I've already replied to the points in your above post. However, the specific part what your psyops friend said above [emphasis added to pertinent parts]:

"...The initial decision maker would probably have to have been central to the JFK Assassination coverup and carry a great deal of absolute caesarian power and "with prejudice" authority. This key person or decision maker would perhaps have something personal to lose if this certain part of Judyth's story ever comes out and is exposed to international public scrutiny and thousands of researchers who have great resources and extensive investigative skills. One possibility is that perhaps a major investment this person or group was involved in and is still involved in would be directly jeapardized if that certain part of Judyth's story received too much attention. The key would be to find what this investment is in.

Would you put the following questions to him?

If you are saying that it is your belief that the "initial or key decision maker or group" possibly has something to "personally lose" if that certain (yet to be identified) part of Judyth's story comes out that could jeopardize current investments (for example), then is it important to identify which part of her story (since there is really so much) could pose such a threat? Do you believe it possible that Judyth's claims regarding LHO and the JFK assassination may actually play into their hands as it serves as a distraction from the actual, current threatening information? Does her threat level (on the real issues of which they are possibly concerned, ie AIDS, cancer, etc) decrease as a function of her losing credibility through the LHO aspect? In other words, why don't they target her "other claims"? Could it be because she herself is providing a much easier target for them to hit (LHO relationship) in turn diverting attention from that which they fear will be revealed if scrutinized?

Thanks, Jim.

SNIP:

I can state without reservation that the way this matter has played out has all the fingerprints of a long term intel intercept op and a very sophisticated psyop. Where there is smoke there is fire, so what part of Judyth's history is intel working so hard to keep buried? And what part might they be working to embellish that would lead researchers away from what they want to stay hidden?

Jim,

What he calls "fingerprints" I call "a signature of sorts" (see my earlier misinterpreted post) -- both are, of course, euphemisms for the same thing.

Usually this kind of op must be ordered and tracked by a single person at a very high level who was responsible for this operation right from the very start and maybe still is. In rare occasions a matter may be so important it is signed off or reassigned to another high level decision maker or small team once the original decision maker retires or dies. The initial decision maker would probably have to have been central to the JFK Assassination coverup and carry a great deal of absolute caesarian power and "with prejudice" authority. This key person or decision maker would perhaps have something personal to lose if this certain part of Judyth's story ever comes out and is exposed to international public scrutiny and thousands of researchers who have great resources and extensive investigative skills. One possibility is that perhaps a major investment this person or group was involved in and is still involved in would be directly jeapardized if that certain part of Judyth's story received too much attention. The key would be to find what this investment is in.

For Judyth's sake, I am somewhat reluctant to post this publicly, but then again, sometimes there is "safety in sunshine" so to speak. IMO, this "initial decision maker" (or his/her successor) is at once both well known/close to Judyth and also beyond her suspicion, for whatever reasons. However, I am mystified that your friend said that this initial decision maker was probably central to the JFK assassination coverup. Upon what evidence does he base that assertion? I am "with him" all the way--save for that part. It might be true, but I wonder how and why he reached that conclusion. There seems to be no "investment value" for the initial decision maker nor for any group or team or corporation, at least as far as I can tell, in the continued JFK assassination coverup. That part "lost me" -- I just don't get the connection. I get the pharmaceutical, FDA, HIV/AIDS, cancer, etc. possibilities--just not the JVB/OSWALD/JFK/Wall Street part.

GO_SECURE

monk

PS: I did get the part about me being a "very intelligent man" though.

Nope... [snip] I don't recall anything like that in Oswald's medical records, but I have not looked at them in years, and he may not have gone to medical anyway.

Bests,

Barb :-)

[above edit of original post mine]

That's what I thought.

...I agree with you that "I AM HAVING A HARD TIME KEEPING ALL OF THIS STRAIGHT". It is difficult

to hit a moving target.

Warm regards.

Jack

I agree, Jack. That is exactly the main reason I couldn't thoroughly investigate everything Judyth claims. Here is a major part of my conflict, in a nutshell: Unlike most of her detractors, I cross-examined her in person, and as a result, I believe she is telling the truth as she knows it to be, and therefore, I am not a detractor.

Given that I am not inclined to be duped by her either, I find it both difficult to accept her story at face value or reject it without good cause. Because it is too large for me to get my head around completely, as it would take hundreds of hours, cost millions of dollars and take thousands of lives (just being a little facetious)--I am uncomfortably stuck in a position of limbo.

I have not been this torn about a "witness" in this case--ever. That is why I will not commit one way or the other--I simply can't tell from where I sit. I hope Jim fares better than I did.

GO_SECURE

monk

(3) JUDYTH TALKS ABOUT JAMES FILES

IT GETS SO TOUGH, BEING A WITNESS. YOU MAKE ENEMIES BECAUSE YOUR TESTIMONY DOESN'T FIT

JIMMY SAID ONE THING CORRECT, SO I BELIEVE HE MET LEE OSWALD BUT IS NOT TELLING

EVERYTHING AS IT HAPPENED, OR HE HEARD IT FROM SOMEBODY WHO MET LEE. LEE HAD

A TINY SCAR NOBODY NOTICES ON HIS LIP. WIM ASKED ME HOW LEE GOT THE SCAR AND

I TOLD HIM, IN THE MARINES DURING BOOT CAMP, AND EXPLAINED THE INCIDENT.

NOW, FILES KNEW IT, TOO, AND I CANNOT EXPLAIN HOW HE DID.

It is no mystery how anyone would know that information. It is in Oswald's autopsy report.

Midline, upper lip, terminating at the vermillion margin is a 1/4 inch pale scar.

NOTE: The vermillion is where the pink lip tissue and the skin meet.

Barb :-)

Barb,

Not so fast. The scar might be in the report, but does the report state HOW the scar got there?

Pat,

I just doubled checked my facts and I probably stand corrected! I might be confused because I may have inadvertantly combined the "audio" of his interview about his changing the WR wording with the images they were showing simultaneously of the artist's rendering.

Thanks.

In my opinion, the more we stay at it--the more we learn. And I think that what we learn--although it might not be what we were seeking to learn--is very important information. Unfortunately, many people will give up because they conclude that we will never know the "names" of those responsible so that "they don't get way with it" -- Even though I agree we probably won't know many, if not most, of those names, I have news: THEY GOT AWAY WITH IT already! But, what we learn about the tactics employed by those who obstructed (and continue to obstruct) justice by the ongoing cover up is perhaps more important than "catching" the original bad guys.

It is ironic that Gerald Ford admitted in a TV interview that he was responsible for (incorrect: directing the artist to change the actual location of the wound) changing the WR's wording to move JFK's back wound from the 3rd thoracic vertebrae to the base of the neck. It is perhaps even more ironic that he did so with impunity. His reasoning for doing this [paraphrased]: "...wasn't to alter history, but to make the evidence more understandable (precise to the Americn people)".

Where I come from that is called: obstruction of justice and conspiracy to obstruct (AT THE VERY LEAST) in a capital crime, which, if I'm not mistaken, has no statute of limitations. (Doug, am I right?) In any event, not only did Ford "get away with it" -- he got away with it after confessing to it on National TV and it never even made the front page of the New York Times.

So, I agree with John that we will not know everything--probably ever. But, what we will discover from our undaunted tenacity is well worth the pursuit...even if it leads us back to ourselves.

(Thanks to Pat, I edited some errors from my earlier post) --

Jim,

I enjoy "going at it" with you more than I can express. In my opinion, in an honest debate the only real victor is the truth. I always feel that I'm closer to the truth after having my positions critically challenged by you. Even when we don't end up seeing 100% eye-to-eye on some issues, I become clearer about my own thought process from the exchange. It is something that I cherish.

An observation: I have no wish to become engaged in a pissing match with skunks here or anywhere else. I've been there and done that. That's why I will refrain, to the best of my ability, from arguing with those whose past behavior indicated that their intentions were less than honorable and their current tactics still appear to be disingenuous to me.

GO_SECURE

monk

Monk,

No one in the world would expect Judyth's story to prove that Lee was not "the lone gunman". If I was not sufficiently explicit about that point, what I meant was that the depicition of him as "a lone, demented gunman" is undermined by her reports.

Devil's advocate: Yes, but that counter depiction must be believed to make a difference (be relevant). As someone who was his lover why would she report anything to the contrary? Love is blind. (remember, I am not necessarily espousing this position personally)

We know from many other sources--including hundreds of articles and books, from RUSH TO JUDGMENT to BEST EVIDENCE to BLOODY TREASON to MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA to INSIDE THE ARRB--that there was no "lone gunman", that the weapon he is alleged to have used cannot have fired the bullets that killed JFK, that he was not even on the 6th floor at the time, ...(snip)

I think that is relevant info, but:

...and that, as Marina observed, he admired JFK...

Maybe relevant, but certainly less credible if, like Judyth, Marina had been singing his praises, claiming his innocence, and never turned on him. However, since Marina was not an Oswald champion, possibly for fear of being deported, coming from her, it might have more credibility with those who tend to disbelieve, IMO.

The kinds of secrets that the agency is most concerned to protect involved its methods and techniques.

Actually, its "sources and methods"

Perhaps you have not had the opportunity to scroll through the thread and read posts #25, #27, #41, and #47. You are in no position to make the kind of judgment you are offering here--about the irrelevance of her research in 1963--without knowing what has been going on since them.

What? Too funny. I never meant to imply anything about the relevance of Judyth's 1963 research. I am speaking only about her relationship with Oswald as he relates to JFK's murder. Perhaps, I was not sufficiently clear either! Sorry about that.

There are many possibilities related to AIDS, the bird-flu threat, and many others, some of which could have very well been incubating ever since. I would encourage you to read these posts and share with us your further considerations. I am not saying you are wrong, but his observations strongly suggest that something more is going on here with regard to Judyth.

Jim

I don't disagree with you, Jim. Indeed, it is my belief that her 1963 research might be the ONLY relevant issue to me, but extremely relevant! I would need to put a lot more into the research to have a better handle on it. I'll make sure I've read all those posts.

GO_SECURE

monk

PS: I couldn't extend the thread replies so I had to delete them to post a reply.

Thanks Jim,

I'm glad to be here, too. As to point number one (1) -- the importance of her "humanization" of the accused assassin is limited, IMO. Just as the official story was designed to de-humanize him, it wasn't relevant as it was manipulation of popular perception and had no evidenciary value in and of itself (other than a further exemplification of an inadequate investigative procedure and evidence of a conspiracy to obstruct justice). But it had no evidenciary value to prove the guilt of the accused. This, of course, is a primary criticism we have with the official story as it was more concerned with perception than it was with proof. If her story is true, as I presume it is, will it be compelling enough to convince lone nutters that Oswald did not act alone? I hardly think so. Again, this is not meant disresectfully toward Judyth, but it is my opinion. Another way of looking at it is to ask the question, "What specific theory do we intend to promote by introducing this evidence?" -- And then decide whether or not that theory is worth promoting. For instance, I understand Judyth's wanting to promote a more accurate and human image of the one she loved because for one thing, she loved him. But I did not. I don't really care if he was or was not a nice guy. The reason I don't believe he acted alone (and probably didn't act at all) is because the hard evidence doesn't support his guilt nor even his involvement. Again, her testimony is "tainted" because her opinion is necessarily biased even if fundamentally true. Unfair to her (and to Oswald's legacy) as it might be, her story is easily discounted for that reason. (2) I mentioned to you on the phone, prior to your posts from your friend, that I believe that her story is important, but for reasons other than its relevance to the JFK case. There is a "signature" of sorts all over the type of discrediting tactics that have been leveled against her and on so many layers. IMO, only CURRENT threatening information would cause such a reaction. I don't think that the JFK case by itself falls into such a "drastic reaction" category any longer.

GO_SECURE

monk

Monk,

This bothers me. I have explained in several posts that Judyth's story is highly relevant because (1) she humanizes the alleged "lone, demented assassin" and makes it very implausible that someone with his personality, social inclinations, sense of humor and other attributes--including working undercover for our intelligence agencies--would be disposed to kill the president rather than protect him and (2) as my psy ops expert has explained in four earlier posts--which you might want to read--he suspects that she is being hounded and harassed because of what she knows about cancer research and bio-weapons development, even things she may not realize are important. So while I am glad that you are reaffirming that you believe her, it might be a good idea if you were to take a little more time and read those posts to which I have referred.

I'm glad you have you here, my friend!

Jim

Judyth,

As I hope you remember, I long ago expressed to you that I lack the time and resources to thoroughly research every lead in this case and am therefore forced to prioritize. That necessitates that much of what is worth researching, given the rather large quantity of evidence, I have unfortunately been forced to leave out--including a lot of information related to you and to your story. Beyond my initial research of your story I have done very little. For that inability, I am truly sorry, but it is what it is. However, because of those limitations I am forced to say that I have "reasonable doubt" about the direct relevance to this subject. That is not to say that I believe it is irrelevant. I could be wrong, but I don't know to a certainty that it has relevance--that's all. My inability to firmly state that I know it is or is not relevant is a function of my lack of having done sufficient homework to make such a judgment call. My indecisiveness is not a reflection on your credibility or on my opinion of your sincerity. Judyth, it would be equally misleading for me to claim I am convinced that this is or is not relevant.

On the other hand, I do believe you. I believe you are reporting the truth as you know it to the best of your ability. I will continue to urge others to either thoroughly fact check your story for themselves before attempting to endorse or discredit it. Or at the very least, if they are unwilling to conduct the research themselves, I urge them to stop attempting to silence those who are in the process of doing that very thing.

GO_SECURE

monk

JUDYTH COMMENTS ON MONK'S POST:

Look how Monk thinks I have noting to add... That is relevent....It has been years

since we spoke....

There seems to be a desperation to turn the conversation AWAY from New Orleans..

Here's what is relevant:

Despite all the hoopla about TEXAS, NEW ORLEANS IS WHERE THE PLOT WAS HATCHED.

Lee said meetings were held in Baton Rouge.

Can smebody look into US MILITARY PRESENCE IN BATON ROUGE?

I WLL IF I EVER GET THE TIME.

LEE SAID HE WAS INSPECTED BY A MILITARY OFFICER in baton rouge before the officer

went into a meeting where representatives from New Orleans met with dalas plotters.

Lee was posted as a 'guard' but they discussed him in some way. This was in early

September just after he had seen David Atlee Phillips (Mr. B--Bishop) in, I think it

was Houston, in the presence of Antonio Veciana, who reported that to Gaeton Fonzi.

Everbody got to view lee and see his face as Lee was the 'guard." Everyone. The

military guy acted asif he was memorizing Lee's face. He was a Navy man.

Lee aid they came out and informed him that a fund had been set up to care for his wife

and child so that if he wanted to transfer to Mexico (he had requsted this) it culd be done

after his mission to Mexico City.

That mission, btw, lured Lee to Mexico City and into all kinds of exposure so he could

later be framed...

They LATER ordered him to return to DALLAS and broke their promsie, telling him he

would eb reassigned to Mexico and could even enroll as college student there, be an

informant for the CIA with funding, etc.--BUT IT WOULD BE AFTER CHRISTMAS.

DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THIS PIECE OF INFORMATION, WHICH MY INNER RESEARCH

CIRCLE KNOWS ABOUT AND MY EDITORS, HAS NO VALUE WHATSOEVER TO THE JFK

RESEARCH COMMUNITY IN UNRAVELING HIOW LEE OSWALD WAS MANIPULATED INTO

GOING TO MEXICO CITY, WHY HE RETURNED TO DALLAS WHEN HE EXPECTED, AS SEEN

IN THE BOOK MARINA AND LEE, NEVER TO SEE MARINA AND THE BABY AGAIN FOR YEARS

AND YEARS?

LEE IS ON RECORD AS WEEPING, AND MARINA, TOO.

OH, HOW I WISH I HAD THAT BOOK AGAIN! GET THAT AND READ IT!

NOW, I 'HAVE NOTHING OF IMPORTANCE TO SAY ABOUT THE ASSASSINATION...'

THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE TELLING YOU.

UNDERSTAND, IF I HAD SPOKEN TO THE 'BARB CROWD' ABOUIT THIS, THE EVIDENCE

MIGHT HAVE BEEN HUNTED DOWN AND HAVE DISAPPEARED.

I ASK YOU TO FIND STUDENTS OR SOMEBODY TO SEARCH FOR IT.

THE MEETING IN BATON ROUGE WAS ONE OF SEVERAL.

JVB

As for me, I care not at all whether JVB's tales are 100 percent true or 100 percent

false. Whichever it is, nothing she says, whether true or false, adds one iota to our

knowledge of the JFK assassination.

Jack,

While I feel confident that this is not a "black and white" issue and I don't think it is all or nothing, I too have my doubts about what value or relevance her evidence has to our inquiry about JFK's murder. So, I finally agree with part of what you are saying.

I believe everyone should be free to form individual opinions about this instead

of being ridiculed for being in one camp or the other. My only interest is in truth. If her

every statement could be shown to be true, nobody yet has explained why it matters.

Up until now, many have been less than open minded toward the possibility that her statements were even worth considering. So this might be a break through. Her claims may still turn out to be irrelevant, but at least they might be given a fair shake here.

Everything she says is more National Enquirer material than important information. My main

concern is that JVB is divisive and disruptive. I suggest a moratorium till her book comes out,

to see exactly what she claims.

Again, I object to the use of the term "everything she says" -- as it is an inappropriate generalization. Moreover, you haven't reviewed "everything she has said" as that would be impossible. As for her being divisive and disruptive, I beg your pardon, but I vigorously disagree. On the JFKresearch forum, it was not she who was disruptive! Not even a little bit, Jack. Quite the contrary. I was there and witnessed what I consider to be one of the most vile attacks on any member by those who are normally not inclined to such behavior. The disruption was not caused by Judyth's behavior AT ALL. It was caused because THE SUBJECT of her and her story was even brought up.

That said, it seems as though your current position is at least more reasonable than your previous one.

Judyth,

As I hope you remember, I long ago expressed to you that I lack the time and resources to thoroughly research every lead in this case and am therefore forced to prioritize. That necessitates that much of what is worth researching, given the rather large quantity of evidence, I have unfortunately been forced to leave out--including a lot of information related to you and to your story. Beyond my initial research of your story I have done very little. For that inability, I am truly sorry, but it is what it is. However, because of those limitations I am forced to say that I have "reasonable doubt" about the direct relevance to this subject. That is not to say that I believe it is irrelevant. I could be wrong, but I don't know to a certainty that it has relevance--that's all. My inability to firmly state that I know it is or is not relevant is a function of my lack of having done sufficient homework to make such a judgment call. My indecisiveness is not a reflection on your credibility or on my opinion of your sincerity. Judyth, it would be equally misleading for me to claim I am convinced that this is or is not relevant.

On the other hand, I do believe you. I believe you are reporting the truth as you know it to the best of your ability. I will continue to urge others to either thoroughly fact check your story for themselves before attempting to endorse or discredit it. Or at the very least, if they are unwilling to conduct the research themselves, I urge them to stop attempting to silence those who are in the process of doing that very thing.

GO_SECURE

monk

JUDYTH COMMENTS ON MONK'S POST:

Look how Monk thinks I have noting to add... That is relevent....It has been years

since we spoke....

There seems to be a desperation to turn the conversation AWAY from New Orleans..

Here's what is relevant:

Despite all the hoopla about TEXAS, NEW ORLEANS IS WHERE THE PLOT WAS HATCHED.

Lee said meetings were held in Baton Rouge.

Can smebody look into US MILITARY PRESENCE IN BATON ROUGE?

I WLL IF I EVER GET THE TIME.

LEE SAID HE WAS INSPECTED BY A MILITARY OFFICER in baton rouge before the officer

went into a meeting where representatives from New Orleans met with dalas plotters.

Lee was posted as a 'guard' but they discussed him in some way. This was in early

September just after he had seen David Atlee Phillips (Mr. B--Bishop) in, I think it

was Houston, in the presence of Antonio Veciana, who reported that to Gaeton Fonzi.

Everbody got to view lee and see his face as Lee was the 'guard." Everyone. The

military guy acted asif he was memorizing Lee's face. He was a Navy man.

Lee aid they came out and informed him that a fund had been set up to care for his wife

and child so that if he wanted to transfer to Mexico (he had requsted this) it culd be done

after his mission to Mexico City.

That mission, btw, lured Lee to Mexico City and into all kinds of exposure so he could

later be framed...

They LATER ordered him to return to DALLAS and broke their promsie, telling him he

would eb reassigned to Mexico and could even enroll as college student there, be an

informant for the CIA with funding, etc.--BUT IT WOULD BE AFTER CHRISTMAS.

DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THIS PIECE OF INFORMATION, WHICH MY INNER RESEARCH

CIRCLE KNOWS ABOUT AND MY EDITORS, HAS NO VALUE WHATSOEVER TO THE JFK

RESEARCH COMMUNITY IN UNRAVELING HIOW LEE OSWALD WAS MANIPULATED INTO

GOING TO MEXICO CITY, WHY HE RETURNED TO DALLAS WHEN HE EXPECTED, AS SEEN

IN THE BOOK MARINA AND LEE, NEVER TO SEE MARINA AND THE BABY AGAIN FOR YEARS

AND YEARS?

LEE IS ON RECORD AS WEEPING, AND MARINA, TOO.

OH, HOW I WISH I HAD THAT BOOK AGAIN! GET THAT AND READ IT!

NOW, I 'HAVE NOTHING OF IMPORTANCE TO SAY ABOUT THE ASSASSINATION...'

THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE TELLING YOU.

UNDERSTAND, IF I HAD SPOKEN TO THE 'BARB CROWD' ABOUIT THIS, THE EVIDENCE

MIGHT HAVE BEEN HUNTED DOWN AND HAVE DISAPPEARED.

I ASK YOU TO FIND STUDENTS OR SOMEBODY TO SEARCH FOR IT.

THE MEETING IN BATON ROUGE WAS ONE OF SEVERAL.

JVB

As for me, I care not at all whether JVB's tales are 100 percent true or 100 percent

false. Whichever it is, nothing she says, whether true or false, adds one iota to our

knowledge of the JFK assassination.

Jack,

While I feel confident that this is not a "black and white" issue and I don't think it is all or nothing, I too have my doubts about what value or relevance her evidence has to our inquiry about JFK's murder. So, I finally agree with part of what you are saying.

I believe everyone should be free to form individual opinions about this instead

of being ridiculed for being in one camp or the other. My only interest is in truth. If her

every statement could be shown to be true, nobody yet has explained why it matters.

Up until now, many have been less than open minded toward the possibility that her statements were even worth considering. So this might be a break through. Her claims may still turn out to be irrelevant, but at least they might be given a fair shake here.

Everything she says is more National Enquirer material than important information. My main

concern is that JVB is divisive and disruptive. I suggest a moratorium till her book comes out,

to see exactly what she claims.

Again, I object to the use of the term "everything she says" -- as it is an inappropriate generalization. Moreover, you haven't reviewed "everything she has said" as that would be impossible. As for her being divisive and disruptive, I beg your pardon, but I vigorously disagree. On the JFKresearch forum, it was not she who was disruptive! Not even a little bit, Jack. Quite the contrary. I was there and witnessed what I consider to be one of the most vile attacks on any member by those who are normally not inclined to such behavior. The disruption was not caused by Judyth's behavior AT ALL. It was caused because THE SUBJECT of her and her story was even brought up.

That said, it seems as though your current position is at least more reasonable than your previous one.

As for me, I care not at all whether JVB's tales are 100 percent true or 100 percent

false. Whichever it is, nothing she says, whether true or false, adds one iota to our

knowledge of the JFK assassination.

Jack,

While I feel confident that this is not a "black and white" issue and I don't think it is all or nothing, I too have my doubts about what value or relevance her evidence has to our inquiry about JFK's murder. So, I finally agree with part of what you are saying.

I believe everyone should be free to form individual opinions about this instead

of being ridiculed for being in one camp or the other. My only interest is in truth. If her

every statement could be shown to be true, nobody yet has explained why it matters.

Up until now, many have been less than open minded toward the possibility that her statements were even worth considering. So this might be a break through. Her claims may still turn out to be irrelevant, but at least they might be given a fair shake here.

Everything she says is more National Enquirer material than important information. My main

concern is that JVB is divisive and disruptive. I suggest a moratorium till her book comes out,

to see exactly what she claims.

Again, I object to the use of the term "everything she says" -- as it is an inappropriate generalization. Moreover, you haven't reviewed "everything she has said" as that would be impossible. As for her being divisive and disruptive, I beg your pardon, but I vigorously disagree. On the JFKresearch forum, it was not she who was disruptive! Not even a little bit, Jack. Quite the contrary. I was there and witnessed what I consider to be one of the most vile attacks on any member by those who are normally not inclined to such behavior. The disruption was not caused by Judyth's behavior AT ALL. It was caused because THE SUBJECT of her and her story was even brought up.

That said, it seems as though your current position is at least more reasonable than your previous one.