Jump to content
The Education Forum

Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile


Guest James H. Fetzer

Recommended Posts

You have discounted all the evidence that shows that LHO was trying to send Marina back to USSR.

I'll try again.

...and he'd lose his kids?

And just in case it's lost on you I'll ask you one more time to be sure.

...and he'd lose his kids?

Nevertheless, this was the path LHO was pursuing. Why not accept that?

Accept what? That he was prepared to lose the one thing he actually unconditionally loved in his life? His daughters!

I can accept that letters were sent to the Russian Embassy (by both Marina and Lee - or persons unknown) but I also accept that we'll never know why they were sent? But you perhaps think your guess is better than other guesses?

Can you accept that Lee said to consider his request separately? Did it occur to you to take that seriously?

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

Top Posters In This Topic

Barb, I was going to post almost that same thing...so I do agree with you. Also, in Judyth's book she made the claim that Lee was going to go pick up his kids and they were going to get a crooked (I am not sure if she used that exact word or not) Priest to marry them, in Mexico. Sure, Marina was going to willingly turn over a toddler and a baby to him...yeau right!

In addition, there has been a whole lot of past discussion regarding the CanCun story, as David Lifton has mentioned...you may have as well. Hard to remember everything in this thread. But, after she learned there was no CanCun Resort at that time, she denied ever saying that. Then later she claimed it was her past agent that added it and she had only meant the CanCun area, since she didn't feel anyone would know where nearby Chichen Itza was. (It is not all that nearby though). So, then a woman on the discussion group posted some info that the Village of KanKun had been there for many, many years and she even had a link to an old map, showing it. In addition, that same woman mentioned there had been a nice hotel in Chichen Itza for years....the Mayaland Hotel. Up until that point, Judyth was still denying she ever said it was a fine hotel in CanCun. But suddenly with that new info and after mentrining various places they intended to visit, she ran with it....and later appeared in her book, as her own claim. Now she insists that she had always known about the old Village of KanKun. If so, it never came up until that woman appeared with that info....then sudenly she had always known it and what she meant when speaking to David L. I just do not buy that, at that point in time, when she spoke to him.

She also made the claim that George DeMohrenchildt had told Lee about a Lush, Tropical Paradise, where they were also filming The Night of the Iguana, which was in the area, so they wanted to go there too. Of course, this was at Bandaras Bay, at Puerto Villarto. Nearby???? At the time, I was surprised she had not looked at a Mexico Map....unless she felt no one would know any better. Well, I have been to all those places and I did know!

Much more of course!

Dixie

Edited by Dixie Dea
Link to post
Share on other sites
Judyth and I have discussed this and I don't know why you think you can discredit her on this basis. QUOTE 1 is the basic story: she had told her agent at the time, Peter Cox, that they were going to meet in the Yucatan in the vicinity of Chichen Itz. Lee had not used the name "Cancun", which, as you have observed, did not exist other than in the form of the village of Kankun.

Can you post a pre-1963 map showing this "village" of "kankun" you have referenced more than once? <_<

She put her finger on a map at his request and he said, "Oh, Cancun!", and ran with it.

Chichen Itza is in the state of Yucatan. Cancun ... and the old kankun territory ... are in the state (once territory) of Quintana Roo.....where Judyth wrote, as I posted and quoted earlier in this thread, that she longed to be in Quintana Roo. There was no "village" of kankun. Chichen Itza, Merida, Cayman Islands, the Mayaland Hotel ... none of them are in Quintana Roo.

The new finger on a map thing is amusing, at least. The original excuse was that Judyth had typed "kankun" and her agent had thought he was correcting her spelling ... and from there it became a Mr. Toad's Wild Ride as a parade of different destinations and excuses were handed down. None of it made any sense, of course, especially since there is a draft with a note from Judyth on the top that Judyth sent out to her group as an attachment to an email that explained she had made it through this next section .... which included the last phone call where she had LHO telling her she would go to Cancun. She would stay in a fine hotel, etc ... I believe I posted that early on in this thread ... as well as the e-mail Judyth wrote to Mary Ferrell clearly stating "Cancun" ... as I posted once again just hours ago.

The old, what a tangled web we weave thing comes to mind. It was a real farce, worthy of a Saturday Night Live routine. It only became a big deal because Judyth and her then team turned it into a big deal with all the nonsensical excuses and explanations.

Mexico is a predominantly Catholic country, of course, so they would expect to be married by a priest. There is nothing here that impugns the integrity of Judyth.

This was another knee slapper as Judyth claimed Ferrie (or someone) had told them of an "unscrupulous" priest who would give them "quickie" divorces and then marry them. As one raised in the Catholic Church ...and who claims she once intended to become a nun ... Judyth should have known that no priest (nor any clergy of any faith) can grant divorces. That is a civil legal proceeding.

On the other hand, this appears to me to be a nice example of TRYING TO CREATE A CONFLICT rather than TRYING TO SORT THINGS OUT.

Oh, there was a conflict all right .... and it was downright silly. And it was all sorted out ... many many years ago ... it's just one more thing about Judyth's story that you are way below the curve on. Those who were in it at the time know what happened. You are now privileged, it seems, to a newer version. Which, of course, you run with as the whole truth and lecture everyone else ... some of whom were there for the "real deal" and all of whom can read.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Barb, I was going to post almost that same thing...so I do agree with you. Also, in Judyth's book she made the claim that Lee was going to go pick up his kids and they were going to get a crooked (I am not sure if she used that exact word or not) Priest to marry them, in Mexico. Sure, Marina was going to willingly turn over a toddler and a baby to him...yeau right!

In addition, there has been a whole lot of past discussion regarding the CanCun story, as David Lifton has mentioned...you may have as well. Hard to remember everything in this thread. But, after she learned there was no CanCun Resort at that time, she denied ever saying that. Then later she claimed it was her past agent that added it and she had only meant the CanCun area, since she didn't feel anyone would know where nearby Chichen Itza was. (It is not all that nearby though). So, then a woman on the discussion group posted some info that the Village of KanKun had been there for many, many years and she even had a link to an old map, showing it. In addition, that same woman mentioned there had been a nice hotel in Chichen Itza for years....the Mayaland Hotel. Up until that point, Judyth was still denying she ever said it was a fine hotel in CanCun. But suddenly with that new info and after mentrining various places they intended to visit, she ran with it....and later appeared in her book, as her own claim. Now she insists that she had always known about the old Village of KanKun. If so, it never came up until that woman appeared with that info....then sudenly she had always known it and what she meant when speaking to David L. I just do not buy that, at that point in time, when she spoke to him.

She also made the claim that George DeMohrenchildt had told Lee about a Lush, Tropical Paradise, where they were also filming The Night of the Iguana, which was in the area, so they wanted to go there too. Of course, this was at Bandaras Bay, at Puerto Villarto. Nearby???? At the time, I was surprised she had not looked at a Mexico Map....unless she felt no one would know any better. Well, I have been to all those places and I did know!

Much more of course!

Dixide

Exactly right, Dixie. Cracks me up because I just launched a reply I had been working on for awhile but kept getting interrupted .... and then saw this post of yours. Seems we are on the same wavelength. We were also in the mix at the time and know what all went down...

Nice to see you here on this thread!

Barb :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

How can you contradict the evidence that LHO was sending Marina back to USSR and, oh, by the way, left his wedding ring on the bureau on 11.22.63?

Pamela

I'm not disputing that Oswald left his wedding ring at the Paine residence on the morning of the assassination and also know that there are letters to the Soviet embassy from both Marina and Lee requesting to go back to the Soviet Union.

What I would dispute is that Lee was sending her back alone. I don't believe for a second that Lee would give his kids up in this manner. Marina would quite obviously get custody.

What are others thoughts?

Lee

Hi Lee ... okay, here's my two cents ...

What we know Oswald was doing on the evening of Thursday, November 21, 1963, was trying to get his family together ... wanting to get an apartment so they could all live together, him going out of his way to make up to her, help her with chores and playing with his babies that evening. And he promised her a washing machine. Marina, by her own telling, treated him badly that night ... she was in a snit and was not responsive to his pleas.

That doesn't sound to me like a man planning to ship his wife and kids off to Russia ... and/or run off with another woman. He may have left his wedding ring behind as a message of sorts to Marina because he was hurt by the way she treated him the night before.

Bests,

Barb :-)

Barb,

One also has to ask Does this sound like a man who was planning on being killed and or imprisoned the next day? Interesting thought.

Mike

Link to post
Share on other sites
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".

It looks like we just disagree, Greg. Them having known one another is the base of virtually all her claims re New Orleans and the assassination. Thus, it is vital to her entire story that she can establish that she even knew Oswald. Everything else flows from that. I stand by what I said before ...

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"?

I am not "acting" "clever" ... it is how I see it and I stated why. Are you trying to be "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!"

I think I've answered this about 3 times now. If the handwriting is certified by an appropriate professional to be Oswald's handwriting, I would acknowledge that they knew one another. As noted above, I do not think that is the "least important" claim. And, of course, it would prove nothing about her other claims beyond that. How could it? And, as I recall, you agreed it would not.

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.

What Fetzer personally needs is not my problem. All he seems to need on anything is her sayso. What Judyth's claims need are verification. And this is one claim that could be confirmed or denied by having a professional, court approved documents examiner confirm or deny that the writing in her book is that of Lee Harvey Oswald. As I already noted before as well ...This is research. There is a claim. It is a claim that can be confirmed or denied by a professional.

I believe you have stated more than once that you are on the fence regarding Judyth ... you just don't know, haven't had time to do research, verification, etc. Yet you don't seem to think verifying whether or not her claim that LHO wrote these notes in the margins of her book is true is important. Go figure.

Bests to you, Greg

Barb :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest James H. Fetzer

JUDYTH REPLIES TO JACK ABOUT MARMOSETS

Judyth writes that the project used relatively few marmosets--which editors of her book have known for a long time prior to the issue being raised...She asks, Where did Jack White gets the idea of many marmosets, when it was explained that they quickly moved on to green monkeys (and even some rhesus monkeys)? He ignored the other monkeys. The marmosets were in cages that were quite small, but of course they were only baby marmosets, and were soon sacrificed --the technical term, their fast-growing tumors harvested to be used to proceed to the next stage--using many, much larger monkeys. White continues to ignore the fact that this transit stage was brief and involved relatively few marmosets--perhaps 50.

They were using tiny marmosets,...

Ahh, that explains it ... they were *tiny* marmosets ... no wonder she forgot about

them and they weren't part of her original story ...

Tiny marmosets die quickly without their parents. Marmosets live in FAMILIES and require large cages.

Marmosets were not used for medical research in 1963.

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest James H. Fetzer

JUDYTH TALKS ABOUT LEE'S EXPECTATIONS FOR THE FUTURE

NOTE: Thanks for your intelligent comments, Pamela. They are much appreciated in the context of this thread.

Lee Oswald was involved in The Project before I was. He had been ordered to conduct a pro-Castro campaign in Dallas, to commence right after Gen. Walker had been fired upon. Lee complied and it is on record that he conducted his first pro-Cuba demonstration, handing out leaflets, in Dallas prior to his move to New Orleans (skeptics, go look it up!). He confided in me that he realized that he was placed in that dangerous position to 'test' his loyalty. He was very concerned because of the hypersensitivity of the Dallas police after the Walker incident-- he realized they might arrest him, beat him up, jail him, or maybe kill him. He told me he advised Marina of the potential dangers to him and how it might affect her. A note he is said to have written to Marina, about what to do if these bad things happened to him, has been used to link him to the Walker shooting, though it was undated. His leafletting was only days after the incident, and he complained afterwards that he wished to be transferred to New Orleans, where he had been apprised that he could be useful.

Lee arrived in New Orleans within the week that I had. He met with David Ferrie the evening before I met him. He agreed to become involved in The Project before I met him, and he spoke to Dr. Ochsner for forty-five minutes before I was able to speak to Ochsner. Near the end, when so much had gone wrong, Lee told me, "It wasn't your fault (that he had gotten involved)." He said that he had been assigned by the CIA to snoop on Ochnser's project and had accepted the assignment. CIA wanted to know the progress and prognosis in reference to the success (or not) of The Project. CIA wanted control of it and feared Ochsner might lose control. Lee was willing to learn so much about certain lab procedures, he told me, originally so he would be able to transfer information to CIA.

He became essential to the Mexico City handoff where he would orally transmit the information. But in the process of that assignment, Lee was set up. Ochsner certainly had expressed his displeasure about my anger at using a prisoner who did NOT have terminal cancer--as I had been told at first -- a prisoner who I discovered was not even informed about the nature of the experiment. I was outraged and protested by note. As for Lee, after he had his mission aborted in Mexico City--but not before he was framed there--he was ordered to Dallas. As Lee explained to me, however, he had volunteered for this, it was not my fault simply because I'd protested, because well before this, Lee had been treated badly --such as when he was shown to Veciana in the presence of his handler, and other incidents. Lee had confided to me that he was "better off dead" to both sides, neither of which felt they could trust him.

Lee's belief was that he had been set up to be framed in Mexico City well before I made my protest, because he had been told to do leafletting RIGHT AFTER THE RAID at the camp near Lake Pontchartrain.. Anti-Castro Cubans in New Orleans were up in arms, angry at the FBI raid, etc. And here Lee is told to do the leafletting anyway. No respect for him, his safety, Lee realized. Lee got it put off a week. He was ordered to Dallas after the failed Mexico City endeavor. He did stop at the US Public Health Service border unit at the Mexican border where he left some kind of message about having left the bioweapon behind. He also inquired regarding 'quickie divorces' at the border towns before crossing over, according to records minimized as to importance by the FBI.

Lee Oswald had been assigned by the CIA to penetrate The Project. He did an excellent job. But he believed as early as July that he was a dead man, as I reported in 1999.

JVB

You have discounted all the evidence that shows that LHO was trying to send Marina back to USSR.

I'll try again.

...and he'd lose his kids?

And just in case it's lost on you I'll ask you one more time to be sure.

...and he'd lose his kids?

Nevertheless, this was the path LHO was pursuing. Why not accept that?

Accept what? That he was prepared to lose the one thing he actually unconditionally loved in his life? His daughters!

I can accept that letters were sent to the Russian Embassy (by both Marina and Lee - or persons unknown) but I also accept that we'll never know why they were sent? But you perhaps think your guess is better than other guesses?

Can you accept that Lee said to consider his request separately? Did it occur to you to take that seriously?

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest James H. Fetzer

ADDITIONAL YOUTUBE INTERVIEWS WITH JUDYTH VARY BAKER

63vxqa.jpg

155t0fk.jpg

2qkjj8p.jpg

abs745.jpg

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to post
Share on other sites
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".

It looks like we just disagree, Greg. Them having known one another is the base of virtually all her claims re New Orleans and the assassination. Thus, it is vital to her entire story that she can establish that she even knew Oswald. Everything else flows from that. I stand by what I said before ...

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"?

I am not "acting" "clever" ... it is how I see it and I stated why. Are you trying to be "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!"

I think I've answered this about 3 times now. If the handwriting is certified by an appropriate professional to be Oswald's handwriting, I would acknowledge that they knew one another. As noted above, I do not think that is the "least important" claim. And, of course, it would prove nothing about her other claims beyond that. How could it? And, as I recall, you agreed it would not.

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.

What Fetzer personally needs is not my problem. All he seems to need on anything is her sayso. What Judyth's claims need are verification. And this is one claim that could be confirmed or denied by having a professional, court approved documents examiner confirm or deny that the writing in her book is that of Lee Harvey Oswald. As I already noted before as well ...This is research. There is a claim. It is a claim that can be confirmed or denied by a professional.

I believe you have stated more than once that you are on the fence regarding Judyth ... you just don't know, haven't had time to do research, verification, etc. Yet you don't seem to think verifying whether or not her claim that LHO wrote these notes in the margins of her book is true is important. Go figure.

Bests to you, Greg

Barb :-)

Monk:

I totally agree with Barb for the same reasons I explained before. What is the big deal? It appears that this should have been done long ago. This is not about Barb or anyone being clever.I read on the web that there had been preliminary studies that "looked good." This is nonsense.What preliminary studies could be done? What would it mean to you if it was not Oswald's writing? This would establish to me and should to anyone that she knew him. If she has lied then it also says a lot. People could still choose to believe other parts of her story but it would be damaging. I would think she would urgently want to get this analyzed. It is an independent document brought forth by Judyth. It would go a long way in establishing her credibility. If she cannot do this simple verification then she is truly just wasting everyone's time. I am open but it either is or isn't. I cannot understand the resistence. This should be step one. It is a concrete piece of information that has been authenticated by Judyth. It is not an account that cannot be verified or an item that could be researched. In a real court this would be subpoened and analyzed. In any court of public opinion no less should be expected. How can anyone demand to hear Lifton's tape when this hard piece of evidence is available?

Doug Weldon

Doug Weldon

Doug Weldon

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest James H. Fetzer

MORE YOU TUBE INTERVIEWS WITH JUDYTH VARY BAKER

abs745.jpg

2h654so.jpg

BONUS INTERVIEW

2h7qas3.jpg

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to post
Share on other sites

Barb,

If, in order for conclusion "A" (they did all that) to be true

premise "B" (they knew each other) must necessarily be true

and if evidence "C" (handwriting analysis) supports premise "B" (which is now accepted as true as a result of "C")

...logically, it still MEANS NOTHING ABOUT CONCLUSION "A" beyond "a maybe" -- You have said the same from the beginning and I agree. So why not drop it already? Sheesh. It doesn't mean anything!

Unless you are pretty darn sure that the analysis would be negative thus disproving THAT claim and damaging her credibility?

Why not just admit that's why you're pushing so hard? It's obvious anyway--and it's OK to say so.

Maybe I'm out of line. Perhaps you really make a good point that I'm just missing. Let's just disagree.

Edited by Greg Burnham
Link to post
Share on other sites
Barb,

You might want to revisit logic 101 because your reasoning is flawed in a major way BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION.

If, in order for conclusion "A" (they did all that) to be true, premise "B" (they knew each other) necessarily must be true, then if evidence "C" (handwriting analysis) supports premise "B" -- which is now proved to be true as a result...logically, it still MEANS NOTHING ABOUT CONCLUSION "A" beyond "a maybe" -- You have said the same from the beginning and I agree. So drop it already! Sheesh. It doesn't mean anything!

Unless you are pretty darn sure that the analysis would be negative thus disproving her claim and damaging her credibility?

Why not just admit that's why you're pushing so hard? It's obvious anyway--and it's OK to say so.

MonK:

See my prior post. How can anyone suspect what the results would be? Judyth made the assertion. I would suspect she would not be so foolish to make a false assertion about something that can be proved or disproved so easily? What's to hide. Just do it. It can shut up a lot of people about this issue, including me. I cannot understand why this is so difficult or why there would be any resistance. Are we simply to believe her when it's something that can be independently addressed so easily? It's like saying I can tell if someone is guilty or not guilty just by looking at them. You are correct that it is not dispositive of everything but why not verify issues that can be addressed so concretely?

Doug Weldon

Link to post
Share on other sites

Doug,

You quoted me before I had revised my post. Wow--you're really quick. Sorry Barb, I edited that post to remove the venom before anyone read it and make it clearer--but Doug grabbed it first. It was within a few minutes. Wow--vigilant you are counselor.

You guys are attempting to prove a negative. I get it now. That's OK. Like I said from the beginning, I have no objection to the analysis--NONE. I just found the approach interesting, that's all.

I will refrain from addressing this subject in the future. I see your point Doug. Apprently you can't see mine. A pity I haven't been clearer.

Edited by Greg Burnham
Link to post
Share on other sites

WHERE DO YOU CLICK ON THE INTERVIEWS DR.JIM I CANNOT GET ANY TO WORK, THEY ARE LIKE JUST PHOTOS..NO LINKS...THANKS B I BELIEVE THIS LINK WILL TAKE YOU TO THE VIDEOS FYI

Edited by Bernice Moore
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...