Jump to content
The Education Forum

Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile


Guest James H. Fetzer

Recommended Posts

MY PSY OPS EXPERT REPLIES TO DEAN HAGERMAN AND GREG BURNHAM

Have you ever wondered why David Ferrie was selected by the company as an adolescent and later treated to lose all his hair, sort of pushed over the edge into absurdity (i.e. "dirtied up" to create his deviation amplification)? Things were likely done to him to make him angry, sexually confused and dysfunctional and easily discreditable. This smacks of mindkontrol. Can you say intel's "special little child" mind kontrol program?

Gotcha. This is complete and utter horsecrap. It NEVER HAPPENED.

Selected by WHAT company as an adolescent? Between 1918, when he was born, and 1938, when he turned 20? Which company existed during those years?

Treated to lose all his hair? So that Alopecia Areata he was diagnosed with by the Cleveland Clinic in the 1930s was ALL JUST A RUSE? And the reports of the people at the seminary who said his hair was falling out are ALL JUST A RUSE? And those early pictures of him with little bald spots are ALL JUST A RUSE?

Keep going. Tell us more about David Ferrie, from a "psyops perspective."

Stephen,

You're killing me! LOL -- "The Company" is a euphemism for the CIA.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I too weigh more heavily the statements of those who allow a door to remain open for Judyth as opposed to those determined to keep it shut.

The doors ... and windows ... have been wide open for 10 years now in multiple forums where Judyth has participated, on multiple websites and blogs of hers, in a book, etc ... but when it comes to objective verifiable documentation, not much has blown in. And therein lays a major problem for Judyth.

Perhaps you can work with Fetzer and Judyth in getting her Pocket Aristotle evaluated appropriately ... based on her claim that it contains LHO's handwriting, that little book can establish that she did know him ... so far, nothing else has established that.

Edited by Barb Junkkarinen
Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, what I am trying to determine is what value such evidence would really have for a skeptic? Jim asked you if you would concede that she was "the real deal" if the analysis panned out. And you, rightly IMO, replied that such confirmation would not make a believer out of you.

Greg, What I said was that confirmation of LHO's writing in her book would establish that she knew him ... but it would not confirm any of her claims beyond that. And you have agreed.

So, my question is not directed at why Judyth (and/or Jim) should agree to this study, but why you have found it so important to suggest? It really seems, by your own admission, to have little value beyond supporting the least important of her claims!

The "least important" of her claims?? Helloooo? That she knew Oswald is the **base** ... the springboard ... for all of her claims about her adventures in New Orleans that summer and beyond! According to Judyth, Oswald introduced her to Ferrie and Ochsner and Mary Sherman .... lets not forget "Sparky" and Marcello and Thornley and most any other alleged assassination player you care to name. Oswald worked with her in Ferrie's kitchen, she trained him to handle the "bioweapon" for transport. He took her to the mental hospital in Jackson to make sure the "patient" there who had been injected with their little cocktail would die.

She supposedly learned all about the assassination that was coming down from Oswald .... then throw in the love affair, plans to disappear together after the assassination, etc .... and you think her claim of LHO's handwriting in her book, which would establish that she even knew him, is the "least important"?

It is her other claims that are potentially important.

Her other claims regarding New Orleans and the assassination *all* rely on her having known Oswald. Thus far, there has been no verifiable evidence that she even knew him. Having this handwriting confirmed could do that for her.

However, you have already stated that the confirmation would not satisfy your burden of proof of those items. So, I don't think there is a point to it...at least not for your purposes. Unless you're trying to help Jim prove Judyth's case, I don't see your point--especially since, according to you, even a confirmation would prove very little, if anything.

I didn't say it would prove very little. :-) It potentially can prove she at least knew him. Given she has no verifiable proof of that to date, yeah, I think that is important. And it is impossible to see why anyone who supports Judyth, who believes in her, wouldn't want to run right out and get this evidence verified.

Now, maybe you believe it would help prove her "wrong" or a xxxx if it did not pan out. Is that the point?

That is not my point. I believe I have made my point clear several times now. She has made a claim. This claim is the bedrock of her claims about her life and involvement in New Orleans and the assassination. There is a way to get this claim confirmed or denied (though it is possible that an examiner would not be able to confirm or deny, the results could be inconclusive).

This is research. There is a claim. It is a claim that can be confirmed or denied by a professional. One wouldn't expect that concept to be like pulling teeth. :-)

Barb :-)

Barb,

It is the least important of her claims if it does NOT establish anything beyond itself! Them having known each other, in and of itself, means nothing. It is unbelievable to me that you are acting this "clever". Let's assume for the sake of conversation that the handwriting expert confirmed it was Oswald's writing. At this point you would concede what exactly? Anything? Perhaps you'd concede "the least important" claim? I can hear you now: "Based on this analysis, yes, they probably knew each other, but so what? That still doesn't prove anything else!" IMO: Since Jim doesn't need that confirmation in order to believe her, he isn't compelled to pursue it. And, since her detractors still wouldn't be convinced even with the confirmation, he's again not compelled to pursue it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, what I am trying to determine is what value such evidence would really have for a skeptic? Jim asked you if you would concede that she was "the real deal" if the analysis panned out. And you, rightly IMO, replied that such confirmation would not make a believer out of you.

Greg, What I said was that confirmation of LHO's writing in her book would establish that she knew him ... but it would not confirm any of her claims beyond that. And you have agreed.

So, my question is not directed at why Judyth (and/or Jim) should agree to this study, but why you have found it so important to suggest? It really seems, by your own admission, to have little value beyond supporting the least important of her claims!

The "least important" of her claims?? Helloooo? That she knew Oswald is the **base** ... the springboard ... for all of her claims about her adventures in New Orleans that summer and beyond! According to Judyth, Oswald introduced her to Ferrie and Ochsner and Mary Sherman .... lets not forget "Sparky" and Marcello and Thornley and most any other alleged assassination player you care to name. Oswald worked with her in Ferrie's kitchen, she trained him to handle the "bioweapon" for transport. He took her to the mental hospital in Jackson to make sure the "patient" there who had been injected with their little cocktail would die.

She supposedly learned all about the assassination that was coming down from Oswald .... then throw in the love affair, plans to disappear together after the assassination, etc .... and you think her claim of LHO's handwriting in her book, which would establish that she even knew him, is the "least important"?

It is her other claims that are potentially important.

Her other claims regarding New Orleans and the assassination *all* rely on her having known Oswald. Thus far, there has been no verifiable evidence that she even knew him. Having this handwriting confirmed could do that for her.

However, you have already stated that the confirmation would not satisfy your burden of proof of those items. So, I don't think there is a point to it...at least not for your purposes. Unless you're trying to help Jim prove Judyth's case, I don't see your point--especially since, according to you, even a confirmation would prove very little, if anything.

I didn't say it would prove very little. :-) It potentially can prove she at least knew him. Given she has no verifiable proof of that to date, yeah, I think that is important. And it is impossible to see why anyone who supports Judyth, who believes in her, wouldn't want to run right out and get this evidence verified.

Now, maybe you believe it would help prove her "wrong" or a xxxx if it did not pan out. Is that the point?

That is not my point. I believe I have made my point clear several times now. She has made a claim. This claim is the bedrock of her claims about her life and involvement in New Orleans and the assassination. There is a way to get this claim confirmed or denied (though it is possible that an examiner would not be able to confirm or deny, the results could be inconclusive).

This is research. There is a claim. It is a claim that can be confirmed or denied by a professional. One wouldn't expect that concept to be like pulling teeth. :-)

Barb :-)

Barb,

It is the least important of her claims if it does NOT establish anything beyond itself! Them having known each other, in and of itself, means nothing. It is unbelievable to me that you are acting this "clever". Let's assume for the sake of conversation that the handwriting expert confirmed it was Oswald's writing. At this point you would concede what exactly? Anything? Perhaps you'd concede "the least important" claim? I can hear you now: "Based on this analysis, yes, they probably knew each other, but so what? That still doesn't prove anything else!" IMO: Since Jim doesn't need that confirmation in order to believe her, he isn't compelled to pursue it. And, since her detractors still wouldn't be convinced even with the confirmation, he's again not compelled to pursue it.

Monk:

Jim may not need that confirmation to believe anything about her but others do to have some substantial evidence she knew Oswald. It is not dispositive of all her claims but it is important. Judyth is the one who proffers that it is Oswald's writing. Why not get it examined? She has had the ability to do this for years. What's the big deal? Her failure to do so only raises suspicion.

Doug Weldon

Link to post
Share on other sites
Monk:

Jim may not need that confirmation to believe anything about her but others do to have some substantial evidence she knew Oswald. It is not dispositive of all her claims but it is important. Judyth is the one who proffers that it is Oswald's writing. Why not get it examined? She has had the ability to do this for years. What's the big deal? Her failure to do so only raises suspicion.

Doug Weldon

Doug,

I'm not against getting it examined at all. But, let's be clear:

Her "failure" to get it examined does not disprove any of her claims any more than confirmation of the writing would prove any of her claims beyond their having known each other.

However, if the writing is shown to be inconsistent, that would seriously damage Judyth's credibility. I asked Barb if that was her aim--which is her prerogative, but she denied it. Given the above, could it possibly be anything else?

Link to post
Share on other sites
MY PSY OPS EXPERT REPLIES TO DEAN HAGERMAN AND GREG BURNHAM

I'll respond to a couple of questions and clarify some issues. First, to respond to Dean Hagerman, who says I am a lame psyops expert. He wants to know why I can't post myself, and am I afraid. First, I read the background posts and looked at some materials to give my opinion on what the issues are from a psyops perspective as a favor to Jim Fetzer because he asked me if I would do that. I have no desire to join the forum.

My goal is to help Jim by bringing clarity to any psyop related issues of the Judyth Vary story. I am not afraid of Dean Hagerman or anyone else on the forum and I could care less what anyone thinks of me. Nor do I have anything to prove to anyone at this stage in my life. I suggest that Dean settles down and relaxes. I have not made any personal attacks on him. If he doesn't agree with my impressions, that is fine, so what, he is entitled to his beliefs, and so am I. I have attained all the success in life I wanted to and have nothing to prove. I suggested to Jim that my name be withheld so as to not draw attention away from the important issues at hand since I would appear to some who try to fully research my background as a shadowy figure and it would quickly become a rabbit hole and a waste of time. This is not the issue at hand and would detract from the Judyth Vary story and the discussion about it on this forum. But if you or anyone else can make a good argument that I am incorrect in my assertions from a psyop perspective, then email it to Jim and he will send it on to me, or post it here, but also include a suggestion for a better, more reasonable and plausible explanation. I think most posters on this forum would like to see truth distilled out of any such issue as this, especially with the possible serious long term effects these issues may have for American Society. All good truth junkies need a fix of plausibility every so often.

Jim Fetzer has known me for many years, knows my bona fides including educational and professional credentials for certain and knows personally at least one very experienced individual that I have associated with. Jim knows that I have extensive knowledge of psyops and that is why he asked me for my impression on this. I suggest that as with any other information or arguments posted that they be evaluated point by point for their reasonableness and plausibility, rather than fixating on the person stating those points. My impression from a psyops perspective are best evaluated on their own terms, point by point and each person can choose to agree, disagree and state what evidence they have for doing so if they want to. If folks think my input is worthless, then just don't read it.

As I stated before I do not know all the details of Judyth Vary's story and am not competent to evaluate it as to whether it is factual at any point, since that would require a long term detailed examination of the available evidence. What I do know is when something looks like a duck, walks like a duck, it is a duck. This whole controversy around Judyth Vary's story appears to me as the footprints of a very sophisticated psyop associated with an illegal domestic deep cover black op, with several interwoven side ops. I have explained how these ops are typically constructed to incorporate means to discredit important witnesses and aspects of the op later. Have you ever wondered why David Ferrie was selected by the company as an adolescent and later treated to lose all his hair, sort of pushed over the edge into absurdity (i.e. "dirtied up" to create his deviation amplification)? Things were likely done to him to make him angry, sexually confused and dysfunctional and easily discreditable. This smacks of mindkontrol. Can you say intel's "special little child" mind kontrol program?

Maybe many things were done to create false tracks and leads to later create a rich cover-up for this op. Whatever the overall goals were, it sure seems reasonable that there was a deep cover black op going on involving professional intel agents such as LHO, David Ferrie and others involved with intel such as Ochsner and Inca. In any of these deep cover domestic ops, considerable planning goes into creating false leads, side ops and ways to generate deniability, massive discrediting of actual players and any witnesses who later talk. Intel had become very specialized even during the late 1950's and 1960's and was easily capable of setting up and running an op that would later generate a massive web of confusion and discrediting of any witnesses or players involved. And look at the web of confusion that was constructed around Lee Harvey Oswald long before the JFK Assassination.

And Mary Sherman's strange death smacks of intel cover-up and so far Ed Haslam's suggested explanation of how it occurred seems the most reasonable and plausible. Is it a fair assumption to make that Judyth Vary was drawn into a very sophisticated deep cover cover op that was at least peripherally involved with the JFK Assassination? Yes this is a reasonable conclusion.

And to answer Greg Burnham's question about disassociation as a gift that allows survival [in a victim of psyops].

This is a very astute, very important question and shows sophisticated insight into how psyop victims respond to stress and also how mind kontrol victims also can respond to stress. Yes, Greg is correct with this assertion and this has always formed the basis of psyops and Mengelian/Nazi mind kontrol imported after WW2 and still used extensively to this very day by intel all over the world. And it may explain how much of the confusion has arisen in all the disputes and contoversy about the specifics of Judyth Vary's story. Some continuing psyops are designed to freeze dry a person while creating enough stress to force certain mental compartmentalizations, and this is especially so if a TI has been subjected to any prior sophisticated mind kontrol or psyops before. Another interesting thing related to this point is that it is not uncommon to find some rapid WCAs and LNutters cover-up op or assets to have themselves been mind kontrolled to varying degrees, as I have found in the past.

It is reasonable to believe that Judyth Vary was brought into a very sophisticated and serious deep cover covert op at least peripherally associated with the JFK Assassination due to her association with Ochsner and likley association with trained deep cover intel op LHO and intelligence asset Ferrie. Jim Fetzer knows for sure that I am well informed about this because he has seen documentation on this from me.

I think it is a fair assumption that Judyth Vary was brought into a sophisticated deep cover intel op and used for several functions which so far may not be altogether clear. It is even possible she could have been brought in to set up a false cover or to function as a discrediting agents to protect the op. Who would ever believe her anyway. Even if some, much or all of her story was true, it is just too incredible for most to accept any of it without very thorough and complete documentation. And of course there could have been certain disconnects built in with what she was led to believe and what is documentable for or against. The fact that there is so much disagreement about her story on the forum suggests that she was and still is the byproduct of a very sophisticated deep cover black op, and this result smacks of the success of those that constructed and carried out this op and maintained it's cover-up over the years. And maintaining a cover-up can involve a controlled leak, depending on the overall goals of the op.

One more thing. LHO was a trained intel op with a history of using sex in his work and being treated for an STD he obtained in the process. It isn't much of a jump to believe that he seduced Judyth Vary and had a fling with her. Ops specialize on eliciting confidence in their marks. But that being said, that in and of itself doesn't mean that LHO didn't fall in love with Judyth Vary and didn't start developing "role distance" with his professional intel role, or starting relizing he was set up. And consider this, LHO may have been a mind Kontrol victim himself, MK Ultra style. Many deep cover professional intel ops are. A substantial amount of research on what MKUltra ops were exists on the internet and in declassified documents and records from Congressional Hearings, especially the Sec. of Energy Leary Hearings. It is a well known fact that almost every deep cover black op done domestically since the mid 1950's has at least to some degree involved Mengelian MK Ultra Mind Kontrol in some of the players. The possibility of mind kontol in some of the players may be something in this whole Judyth Vary story issue that needs to be further investigated. This of course if true only makes her story even more important.

my psy ops expert

Jim

Who is this stupid lame Psy Ops expert you are posting for?

Why cant he create his own account with his own name and post his thoughts under it instead of you doing it for him?

Is he scared?

Why dont you post his name?

Until you post his name or until he posts his lame "Psy Ops" reports on members of this forum himself then how do you expect anyone to care about what he has to say?

Ask your friend to do a Psy Ops report on my lemming like research :lol:

Weak

Link to post
Share on other sites
Monk:

Jim may not need that confirmation to believe anything about her but others do to have some substantial evidence she knew Oswald. It is not dispositive of all her claims but it is important. Judyth is the one who proffers that it is Oswald's writing. Why not get it examined? She has had the ability to do this for years. What's the big deal? Her failure to do so only raises suspicion.

Doug Weldon

Doug,

I'm not against getting it examined at all. But, let's be clear:

Her "failure" to get it examined does not disprove any of her claims any more than confirmation of the writing would prove any of her claims beyond their having known each other.

However, if the writing is shown to be inconsistent, that would seriously damage Judyth's credibility. I asked Barb if that was her aim--which is her prerogative, but she denied it. Given the above, could it possibly be anything else?

Monk:

I would agree with Barb. If it is not Oswald's signature it would and should damage Judyth's credibility. It is Judyth who is asserting that it is Oswald's writing. How would you explain it if the handwriting is not Oswald's? Yes, she has a lot to lose, but she has a lot to gain. You are correct, it is an issue of credibility. If Judyth was in court and testifying and the writing turns out not to be Oswald's then she would be confronted with it and it would weigh on her credibility about everything she states.

She is in the court of public opinion. If it is not his writing Judyth would be far better served by saying it's not. It's simple. If it's legitimate let's prove it. If not, explain why she claimed it was. It's difficult to accept her legitimacy on anything if she cannot jump such a simple hurdle. Barb is absolutely correct. It would be proof that she knew him. I cannot fathom any other way that she could have obtained the writing. This is not smearing Judyth. It is giving her an opportunity to present solid evidence.

Doug Weldon

Link to post
Share on other sites
Not to put too fine a point on it, but there is ample exposure to lines of argument AGAINST Judyth and her

story. My point is that, unless you are also considering the lines of argument SUPPORTING Judyth and her

story, you are not satisfying the requirement of total evidence, which insists that, in the search for truth,

you must base your reasoning on all the available relevant evidence. That means you are not entitled to

pick and choose by selecting the evidence that agrees with a predetermined conclusion and eleminating the

rest.

So, you considered the 3 annual reports from the National Science Foundation I posted that do not show grants and scholarships or any funds given to Judyth in 1961, 1962 or 1963 as she claims? You made no comment on it. Yet have posted several times that no one has produced anything that "laid a glove" on her claims.

So, you considered the correspondence I posted from the American Cancer Society wherein they state that after a thorough search, they have no records for funds, grants, equipment (as Judyth claims) to Judyth? You made no comment on it. Yet have posted several times that no one has produced anything that "laid a glove" on her claims.

So, you considered the letter I posted from Reily Coffee saying they did have a "one time" green glass give away .... in 1959-1960, not in 1963 as Judyth claims.

You made no comment on it. Yet have posted several times that no one has produced anything that "laid a glove" on her claims.

And more, of course ... at the most you fob things off as if they were kryptonite ... attacking the messangers regularly, telling everyone how superior you are ...and best of all .... running with everything Judyth tells you as fact. Yeah, that's logic and reasoning.

So, you considered the actual Swedish migration court documents that Glenn Viklund posted ... and translated, and John Dolva also translated and stated that Glenn was exactly correct? But, hey, at least you commented on those ... by alleging all sorts of nasty things about Glenn and his motives and his character ... but still ignored the information .... even though you were given the name of the person at the migration board, their phone number, email address and snail mail address ... responding that Judyth has friends to vouch for her spin on it all.

You have not considered anything that counters your "predetermined conclusion" despite you acknowledging that you do not know her whole story, you have not read her first book, and Lord knows you haven't read all her posts and blogs and web content over the last 10 years .... yet you denigrate and arrogantly strut what you think is your superiority over those who have been watching, reading and even participating in the Judyth issue for much of the last decade.

Read your speeches to yourself. There is a difference between talking the talk ... and walking the walk.

Link to post
Share on other sites
INDEPENDENT DOCUMENTATION is needed to verify claims. Self-serving claims are not evidence nor

documentation. An impartial independent source is needed.

Exactly, Jack. Some claims are not able to be verified ... all the more important that anything that can be verified, is verified ... for if the one making the claims is shown to have been credible on things that can be verified, it builds up confidence in their veracity for evaluating things they say that cannot be verified.

Barb :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
MY PSY OPS EXPERT REPLIES TO DEAN HAGERMAN AND GREG BURNHAM

Have you ever wondered why David Ferrie was selected by the company as an adolescent and later treated to lose all his hair, sort of pushed over the edge into absurdity (i.e. "dirtied up" to create his deviation amplification)? Things were likely done to him to make him angry, sexually confused and dysfunctional and easily discreditable. This smacks of mindkontrol. Can you say intel's "special little child" mind kontrol program?

Gotcha. This is complete and utter horsecrap. It NEVER HAPPENED.

Selected by WHAT company as an adolescent? Between 1918, when he was born, and 1938, when he turned 20? Which company existed during those years?

Treated to lose all his hair? So that Alopecia Areata he was diagnosed with by the Cleveland Clinic in the 1930s was ALL JUST A RUSE? And the reports of the people at the seminary who said his hair was falling out are ALL JUST A RUSE? And those early pictures of him with little bald spots are ALL JUST A RUSE?

Keep going. Tell us more about David Ferrie, from a "psyops perspective."

Stephen,

You're killing me! LOL -- "The Company" is a euphemism for the CIA.

Ya *think*? LOL And the CIA was born *when* ... relative to the date of Ferrie's birth and his

turning 20? One would think that at least Fetzer's unnamed comic psy ops "expert" would know that! :lol:

Barb :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Trying to revived dead issues is Glenn Viklund, who has been in collusion with

Barb Junkkarinen and John McAdams to discredit Judyth, which, of course, has

been documented previously on this thread. We know that he is mistaken, since

she was allowed to live in Sweden and not deported, which would have happened

if Viklund's "song and dance" had any merit. So please cease this endless quest

to have everyone chasing their tails, when we already know the score. Thanks!

After all the posts about what Sweden gives to people in their "asylum process" ... like staying in the country and being cared for during the process, you post this lame old thing. Which tells us one thing for certain, imo ... you never even went to the Swedish migration website and read about what does and does not happen to asylum seekers who land on their porch. And, you certainly never contacted the actual migration court to verify the information, despite having been given all of the contact info.

You don't anything about Glenn being "mistaken" ... all you know is what Judyth tells you. But, hey, it's your girl, so why chase your tail around the actual court documents or the actual asylum seeker info available to all. And you preach to others about research, evidence and reasoning. ROTFL.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Barb,

Sheesh--this is getting tedious, no? Going in circles isn't useful at all, except to get dizzy--and that's no fun. So, no that's not my purpose. However, sometimes folks "talk at each other" and don't make a connection for whatever reason. That doesn't necessarily mean that either side (of the debate) is disingenuous, cognitively impaired, ill informed, stupid... etc. Sometimes they just aren't "on the same page" so to speak. I'm trying to find out which "pages" everyone agrees to and which ones seem at odds--and go from there. So far, just finding that out is like pulling teeth! :lol:

Hmmm. Let's see...below, you asked me:

"Barb, do you reject the authenticity of the documents Jim referenced above? If so, why?"

And I replied, "The time cards and the credit report are authentic documents ... easily found in the volumes. It is not their authenticity that anyone has questioned, as far as I know." (Those are the documents he referenced.)

No teeth pulling there. I replied directly to your question ... as I did to your previous question as well.

Bests,

Barb :-)

This is ridiculous, Monk. Judyth and Lee were hired on the same day. She maintained his work and payroll records, which even have her initials on them. Doubting this is beyond the realm of reason.

Try not to speak, my friend--it's not ridiculous--not yet. I'm still questioning this "witness" -- I would prefer to hear the witness answer the question. Barb seems to reject any evidence that you or Judyth provide. So that won't work by itself. But, perhaps she has an answer consistent with the evidence that she herself has discovered?

But, now that Jim has "opened the door" to this subject... Barb, do you reject the authenticity of the documents Jim referenced above? If so, why?

Greg,

I am not a "witness." But then you know that. I just replied to Fetzer's comment in his reply to you a few minutes ago. I commented on the time cards there. I don't know what he means by "work records" ... the credit report, perhaps? The time cards and the credit report are authentic documents ... easily found in the volumes. It is not their authenticity that anyone has questioned, as far as I know.

I reject "evidence" that is really not evidence at all. Posting cyber reams of the claimant's excuses, explanations and additional claims does not substantiate the claim it's all being offered up for as "evidence" in the first place. But then I expect you realize that as well. :-)

But it does look like perhaps you enjoy going in circles.

Barb :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
MY PSY OPS EXPERT REPLIES TO DEAN HAGERMAN AND GREG BURNHAM

Have you ever wondered why David Ferrie was selected by the company as an adolescent and later treated to lose all his hair, sort of pushed over the edge into absurdity (i.e. "dirtied up" to create his deviation amplification)? Things were likely done to him to make him angry, sexually confused and dysfunctional and easily discreditable. This smacks of mindkontrol. Can you say intel's "special little child" mind kontrol program?

Gotcha. This is complete and utter horsecrap. It NEVER HAPPENED.

Selected by WHAT company as an adolescent? Between 1918, when he was born, and 1938, when he turned 20? Which company existed during those years?

Treated to lose all his hair? So that Alopecia Areata he was diagnosed with by the Cleveland Clinic in the 1930s was ALL JUST A RUSE? And the reports of the people at the seminary who said his hair was falling out are ALL JUST A RUSE? And those early pictures of him with little bald spots are ALL JUST A RUSE?

Keep going. Tell us more about David Ferrie, from a "psyops perspective."

Stephen,

You're killing me! LOL -- "The Company" is a euphemism for the CIA.

Jeez, Monk- Give me more credit than that! I didn't just fall off the turnip truck!

The "psyops expert" claimed Ferrie was recruited by CIA as an adolescent, which would have been between 1918 and 1938. "The Company" didn't exist then, nor did its predecessor, the OSS. In fact, Ferrie's first contact with the CIA occurred much later.

And he also goofed in claiming that CIA somhow "treated" Ferrie to make him lose his hair. I have medical records, seminary records, letters between Ferrie and his dad and pictures which establish that Ferrie developed Alopecia Areata in the early 1930s, long before "the Company" was formed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...