Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[Evan Burton]

JUDYTH RESPONDS TO JUNKKARINEN (WITH MORE TO COME)

NOTE: This seems to be a nice example of how Junkkarinen likes to make slight

alterations to the evidence in order to create a false target to attack.

Professor,

Do you mean to say Barb has altered quotes from members and/or external sources? If so, could you highlight an example please? Thank you.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Evan,

This has become unbelievably convoluted, but my impression is that Barb

implied that JUDYTH had put pressure on McGeehee to alter his testimony

when he was talking about OTHERS who had pressured him. I will ask for

more clarification from Judyth about this and, if I am mistaken, then I will

acknowledge that and apologize to Barb. But that is the basis of my claim,

which I thought was clear from the post to which the remark was prefaced.

Jim

JUDYTH RESPONDS TO JUNKKARINEN (WITH MORE TO COME)

NOTE: This seems to be a nice example of how Junkkarinen likes to make slight

alterations to the evidence in order to create a false target to attack.

Professor,

Do you mean to say Barb has altered quotes from members and/or external sources? If so, could you highlight an example please? Thank you.

[Doug Weldon]

JUDYTH RESPONDS TO JUNKKARINEN (WITH MORE TO COME)

NOTE: This seems to be a nice example of how Junkkarinen likes to make slight

alterations to the evidence in order to create a false target to attack. Judyth has

more to say about her latest posts, which I think will explain to Jack why I take

nothing from Junkkarinen at face value. She is very devious and misleading in

her posts, as I read them, which means that she is an untrustworthy source. I

believe that Doug Weldon has been misled from time to time by relying upon

posts from Barb. They are not reliable and should never be taken for granted.

Actually, what this is a nice example of is you popping off a shot at me prematurely and managing only to shoot yourself in the bee-hind. For the second time today, no less. The first time you leaped to the keyboard before you read everything I had said in my post. This time you go in for the kill without knowing whether or not Judyth's sayso was accurate, but go full throttle ahead and pile accusations of playing fast and loose with evidence upon my character anyway.

If you are going to *ever* accuse me of altering evidence or being an unreliable source, I suggest you engage a little of that critical thinking you preach to everyone about and make sure you've got the goods and can pony up the proof for your allegations. Don't hold your breath though, because it will never happen, that is not the way I roll .. *ever*. It is not me who has a reputation for being an unreliable source. :-) One would think you would have learned by now about running on nothing but Judyth's sayso ... LOL!

JUDYTH REPLIES:

]BJ has again made a misrepresentation. This is getting tiresome:

BJ WROTE:

"She reports one suggestion she made to this witness in her introductory remarks

to those she was sending these "highlights" to. That is very troubling as well. It

was when she was relating that McGehee told her he had the impression that

Oswald was in a big black car with Ferrie and Shaw, and she writes,

"I suggested that perhaps others had tried to influence him about that incident

prompting a false memory, but he said no, he had not been influenced by anyone."

==WHERE DO YOU GET THIS QUOTE FROM, BJ? WHAT OCCURRED IS THAT A

RESEARCHER SAID HE HAD A FALSE IMPRESSION ABOUT OSWALD IN THE OLD

CAR, AND THAT ACTUALLY HE HAD SEEN OSWALD IN A BLACK CADILLAC, AND

MCGEHEE SAID HE WAS PRESSURED TO SAY THAT, WHEN THAT WAS NOT HIS

IMPRESSION AT ALL, THAT I SHOULD LOOK AT HIS FIRST STATEMENTS, NOT

HIS LATER ONES, BECAUSE HE FELT HE HAD BEEN PRESSURED TO CHANGE

HIS STORY.

THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HE COMPLAINED OF.

IN FACT, THE SAME PEOPLE WHO 'REMOVED ' THE 'WOMAN' FROM THE CAR

ARE THE ONES WHO ALSO REPORTED THE CHANGED DETAILS IN MCGEHEE'S

STORY.

I REPEAT, MCGEHEE SAID OTHERS TRIED TO INFLUENCE HIM. I DID NOT SAY

THAT TO HIM, HE SAID IT TO ME.

GET IT STRAIGHT.

SHOW US THE ENTIRE SOURCE AND QUOTATION YOU GOT THIS FROM, BJ.

My pleasure. It's an 8 page email. Here is the first page.

And you are correct ... it is tiresome. But according to the document *you* wrote, it is not me who is misrepresenting anything. :-)

Now that I have responded to your request by posting this document, it's your turn. Turn about is fair play and all that, right?

Please have Jim post a couple of the documents from the "sheaf" you claim to have, and that you quoted from in a BlackOp radio interview, that you said showed the apportionment of assorted grants and funds for your research while at the U Fl Gainesville.

And since you are already questioning things posted about your "highlights" email about your McGehee interview ... get that tape out here so we can all hear exactly what was said and how it was said.

I know you want to get all your proofs out, you have stated many times in the past that you know how important proof and documentation is. So, what better time than here and now to tend to some things, like the two I mentioned above ... as well as the other questions that have been asked in this thread.

Barb

This is absolutely worthless! Judyth is taking her own testimony and is repeatedly tainting the witness, It sounds like she had prepped him also, otherwise why would he say:

Baker: I don't know what you were able to see in the car.

McGehee: Just saw the back of your head. That was all I saw.

"your head?" She's even telling him it was a two toned car!

If this is an example of how she prepped and approached Lewis and other witnesses it is far worse than I thought. Her paper on cancer could have been taken from an encyclopedia at the time. I look for evidence and there is nothing. Again, I would be happy to interview Lewis and tape it.

Doug Weldon

Exactly. And I agree ... if this is her approach to interviewing a witness ... none of their statements can be used for much of anything. And we do know that Judyth found and spoke with Lewis before the New Orleans meeting with other researches when Debra Conway made the videotape of Lewis.

Bests,

Barb :-)

Barb is correct. I think Judyth needs to respond to ALL of this in addition to other questions she has refused to answer and proofs, i.e. the Mary ferrell tape and LHO writing analysis, that have not been presented.

Doug Weldon

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

JUDYTH REPLIES ABOUT JACK'S MULTIPLE MISUNDERSTANDINGS

NOTE: Come on, Jack! This (about the Nobel prize winners) is old hat. It is among the

earliest documented aspects of Judyth's stellar performance as a student of science. I

am appalled that you are so ignorant of the basics of her life story, yet persist in making

one post after another based upon it. In the post to which Judyth responds, you commit

mistake after mistake. I am sorry, my friend, but you really are unqualified to be taking

a prominent role as one of Judyth's leading critics. You know almost nothing about her.

JACK WHITE WROTE (and I respond in bold face ==like this==):

Am I the only person who finds it extremely strange that this otherwise highly intelligent

woman has devoted more than 10 years of her life to a brief period of about 4 months

==SEVEN MONTHS, NOT FOUR-==

nearly 50 years ago,

==36 YEARS AGO WHEN I FIRST SPOKE OUT==

promoting entirely unverifiable information

==ENTIRELY UNVERIFIABLE INFORMATION? ==

for some unknown personal satisfaction?

==TO EXONERATE AN INNOCENT MAN WHO LOVED ME AND WHOM I LOVED,

AS HAS BEEN STATED ON THIS FORUM MANY TIMES==

This seems so abnormal to most of us as to appear irrational.

=="THERE YOU GO AGAIN." (R. REAGAN)==

Even if her various claims were true, which

seems unlikely since she appears in not a single document regarding Oswald,

==SINCE SHE POSED AS MARINA OSWALD==

her tales are so

peripheral to the assassination as to be meaningless.

==MR. WHITE HAS NOT READ THE BOOK.

HE SAYS 'HER TALES (DERISIVELY) ARE SO PERIPHERAL TO THE ASSASSINATION

AS TO BE MEANINGLESS...." REALLY?

1) LEE CALLS ME AND SAYS HE IS GOING TO BE BLAMED AS THE PATSY, 37 1/2

HOURS BEFORE THE ASSASSINATION...THAT'S MEANINGLESS?

2) HE TELLS ME THAT LYNDON JOHNSON'S SCANDALS ARE ONE REASON FOR THE

VICE PRESIDENT WANTING THE ASSASSINATION TO YAKE PLACE--IS THIS ALSO

MEANINGLESS?

3) HE IDENTIFIED HIMSELF TO ME AS AN AGENT BORROWED BY THE CIA AND ALSO

USED BY THE FBI--IS THIS MEANINGLESS, TOO?

4) I REPORTED THAT HE TOLD ME HOW HE TRIED TO SAVE KENNEDY--AND HE

REPORTED THAT HE WAS SUCCESSFUL ONCE (WE NOW HAVE ABRAHAM BOLDEN

TO VERIFY THAT) -- HIS REPORTED ATTEMPTS TO SAVE KENNEDY ARE MEANINGLESS?

5) LEE TOLD ME HE PENETRATED THE ASSASSINATION RING AT RISK OF HIS LIFE--

THAT IS MEANINGLESS, TOO?

6) MEANINGLESS, THAT HE WAS INVOLVED IN A GET-CASTRO PROJECT WITH ME, AND

THAT THE PROJECT MAY HAVE BEEN USED TO LURE HIM INTO POSITION IN MEXICO CITY

SO HE COULD THEN BE LINKED TO A FAKE SOVIET ASSASSINATON PLAN AGAINST KENNEDY?

7) MEANINGLESS, THAT I HAVE DEMONSTRATED THAT REILY WAS A COVER JOB FOR

LEE OSWALD, SHOWING HE WAS DELIBERATELY PLACED THERE? THAT I INSIST THE

TSBD JOB WAS ALSO A COVER JOB, AS LEE TOLD ME? WHO PLACED HIM AT THE TSBD?

ON PURPOSE. LEE TOLD ME THE TSBD JOB WAS ANOTHER COVER JOB. THAT IS NOT

MEANINGLESS WHEN WE REALIZE HE WAS PLACED IN POSITION TO BE ABLE TO BE

BLAMED AS THE ASSASSIN.

NOTE: I HAVE OFFERED LEE'S WORK RECORD FOR NOV. 22 SHOWING A FULL EIGHT HOURS

OF WORK ON THE WORKSHEET, EVEN THOUGH LEE WAS ARRESTED BEFORE 1:30 PM. THIS

INDICATES THAT LEE COULD COME AND GO AND WAS STILL BEING GIVEN 8 HOURS OF WORK

CREDIT, SO ALL THE ARGUMENTS THAT LEE WAS 'ON THE JOB' WHEN CERTAIN SGHTINGS

WERE MADE MUST BE RE-EXAMINED.

BUT GO AHEAD, KEEP ON SAYING I HAVE NOTHING TO OFFER TO ENLIGHTEN US ABOUT

LEE'S ROLE IN THE ASSASSINATION, AS A WITNESS TO WHOM HE CONFIDED, UP TO 37

1/2 HOURS BEFORE THE ASSASSINATION.==

So what is her motive? To be noticed?

==IS THAT ALL YOU CAN THINK OF? I HAVE TURNED DOWN MORE INTERVIEWS THAN

YOU CAN IMAGINE. I WOULD NOT BE LIVING OVERSEAS IN THE MOST COLD AND REMOTE

PLACE YOU CAN IMAGINE, EITHER, IN ORDER TO BE NOTICED. SWEDISH AUTHORITIES

KNOW I HAD TO FLEE FOR MY LIFE. THEY ASSISTED ME UNTIL MY FAMILY WAS ABLE TO

PROVIDE SAFE HAVENS FOR ME. I DID NOT POST AT THE EDUCATION FORUM FOR FIVE

YEARS. ONLY AT THE BEHEST OF DR. FETZER DID I COMMUNICATE HERE AGAIN. I HAVE

TURNED DOWN TV AND RADIO INTERVIEWS FOR YEARS, TIRED OF ATTACKS LIKE YOURS.==

To sell her story?

==I TURNED DOWN A BIG OFFER FROM NATIONAL ENQUIRER AND CUT THE LEGS OFF THE

PHOTO THAT THEY WANTED TO PUBLISH. I WENT TO "60 MINUTES", KNOWING THEY PAID

NOTHING. MY MOTIVES ARE PURE.==

To become famous?

==TO EXONERATE AN INNOCENT MAN. MY EMAIL ADDRESS IS "VOICE4VINDICATION." BUT

AS DR. FETZER OBSERVED. YOU HAD MADE UP YOUR MIND, AND ARGUING WITH YOU MAKES

YOU TWICE THE ENEMY YOU WERE BEFORE, BECAUSE YOUR HEART IS COLD STONE ABOUT ME

AND CANNOT CHANGE, EVER. FOREVER.==

To sell her tales to a movie maker?

==I 'SOLD MY TAKE' FREE TO NIGEL TURNER. AND THE PERSON WHO HAS THE FILM RIGHTS

KNOWS MY TERMS--I WANT NOTHING FOR ME!==

To most of us, what

she has been doing for a good portion of her life makes no sense to a normal person.

==USE 'NORMAL' AND AGAIN IMPLY THAT I AM NOT. HOWEVER, THE GREATEST PORTION OF MY

LIFE WAS SPENT

1) TEACHING (15 YEARS);

2) RAISING FIVE GOOD CITIZENS (21 YEARS);

3) BEING A NEWSPAPER REPORTER (6 YEARS), WHOSE CIVIC EFFORTS PLACED MY NAME ON A

MONUMENT IN THE CITY OF STAFFORD, TEXAS IN 1976 (BICENTENNIAL);

4) WORKING AS A MENTAL HEALTH COUNSELOR, AS A SOCIAL WORKER AND AS A CHILD ABUSE

INVESTIGATOR FOR ALMOST TEN YEARS;

5) ON THE SIDE, I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN AN ARTIST AND POET, WITH ART WORKS SOLD WORLDWIDE,

SINCE MY FORMER HUSBAND TRAVELED VERY WIDELY AS A GEOLOGIST;

6) I OBTAINED THREE UNIVERSIY DEGREES, ONE IN ANTHROPOLOGY, AND HAVE LED SEVERAL

ARCHEOLOGICAL DIGS;

7) RAISED OVER 150 SERVICE DOG AND/OR TRAINED THEM FOR THE BLIND AND HANDICAPPED;

8) WAS A VOLUNTEER AT THE RICHMOND STATE SCHOOL FOR THE BLIND, IN RICHMOND, TEXAS,

FOR NINE YEARS; AND,

9) I SPENT 17 YEARS IN THE MORMON CHURCH TEACHING WOMEN, TEACHING CHILDREN, HELPING

THE POOR, WORKING HARD IN ECOLOGY MATTERS.

THIS PAST DECADE OF MY LIFE HAS BEEN A SAD ONE. I DARED SPEAK OUT ABOUT MY PAST AND

THE ROLE OF LEE IN MY LIFE. MY REPUTATION WAS THEN SYSTEMATICALLY DESTROYED BY PEOPLE

SUCH AS YOU.

ALL THE GOOD WORKS I DID HAVE BEEN FORGOTTEN AS PEOPLE SUCH AS YOU, WHO NEVER MET ME,

CONTINUE TO CLAIM THAT I AM SOME KIND OF ATTENTION-SEEKING NUT CASE. IT IS HUMAN NATURE

FOR PEOPLE TO ASSUME THAT WHERE THERE ARE ACCUSATIONS, THERE MUST BE GOOD REASONS

FOR THE ACCUSATIONS, BUT YOU HAVE HATED ME WITHOUT A CAUSE.

YOU WILL NEVER CHANGE, AS WE WELL KNOW. YOUR MIND WAS MADE UP FROM THE MOMENT YOU

TOLD EVERYBODY HERE THAT I WAS A MENTAL CASE, ACCORDING TO THE 'ANALYSIS' OF A FRIEND

OF YOURS. YOUR HEART IS STONE AND WILL NEVER, EVER CHANGE.==

That she is unable to lead a normal life seems a path of her own choice.

==TELL ME WHERE I CAN LIVE SAFELY IN AMERICA, JACK WHITE?

DID YOU HAVE THE HISTORY CHANNEL DECLARE (THIS YEAR) CLAIM THAT YOU HAD INVENTED AIDS?

DO YOU HAVE ANY CONCEPT OF WHAT KIND OF HATE EMAIL I RECEIVED FROM THAT?

DID DAVID LIFTON EVER PUT YOUR NAME OUT THERE AS A FRIEND OF OSAMA? NOT SO LONG AFTER

NINE ELEVEN?

DID YOU EVER HAVE HUNGARIAN AGENTS APPROACH YOU AND TELL YOU TO LEAVE THE COUNTRY?

HAVE YOU EVER RECEIVED DEATH THREATS ON THE PHONE? HAD YOUR DOG SHOT?

HAD YOUR CAR'S BRAKE LINE CUT?

YOUR HEART IS STONE AND WILL NEVER CHANGE. YOU ONLY SEE WHAT YOU DECIDE TO SEE.==

Jack

Judyth is being advised by Nobel Prize Winners? Please tell us more. Which ones?

At the same time, please clarify her statement that Judyth's IQ test showed that she

had the highest IQ of anyone in the state of Florida.

These unsupported claims weaken her credibility.

Jack

Edited May 30, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Glenn Viklund]

THIS PAST DECADE OF MY LIFE HAS BEEN A SAD ONE. I DARED SPEAK OUT ABOUT MY PAST AND

THE ROLE OF LEE IN MY LIFE. MY REPUTATION WAS THEN SYSTEMATICALLY DESTROYED BY PEOPLE

SUCH AS YOU.

ALL THE GOOD WORKS I DID HAVE BEEN FORGOTTEN AS PEOPLE SUCH AS YOU, WHO NEVER MET ME,

CONTINUE TO CLAIM THAT I AM SOME KIND OF ATTENTION-SEEKING NUT CASE. IT IS HUMAN NATURE

FOR PEOPLE TO ASSUME THAT WHERE THERE ARE ACCUSATIONS, THERE MUST BE GOOD REASONS

FOR THE ACCUSATIONS, BUT YOU HAVE HATED ME WITHOUT A CAUSE.

Here she goes again - Judyth, the victim. All those who have asked highly relevant questions - to which no relevant answers have ever been produced - are the ones to blame. Not only is it utterly wrong. It is downright offensive of JVB to make statements like this about researchers like Jack.

Give people answers instead of these ridiculous victim stories - and you would not have to worry about your reputation. When I asked you about your asylum stories, all you can come up with is an assorted line of accusations towards me.

And you think others are damaging your reputation?

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

JUDYTH RESPONDS TO SOME QUESTIONS POSED BY LOLA ABOUT SOME OF HER EXPERIENCES

NOTE: Reading about TI's (targeted individuals), Lola asked Judyth about some of her experiences to

see if they seemed to fit the pattern, which is described (in part) at the end of this post. I appears to

me that there is a pattern here and that Judyth has indeed long since become a "targeted individual".

QUESTIONS FROM LOLA:

Judy, can you tell me how many times you have been robbed, where and was it after you spoke up?

Also regarding the accidents you suffered while you were in Dallas. You had to go to hospital so there

are records, how many accidents have you had, and again did they happen after you spoke up? And

what about your sister?

ANSWERS FROM JUDYTH:

DON'T KNOW WHERE TO BEGIN. LET ME TELL YOU THE INCIDENTS IN ORDER, AS THEY HAPPENED.

EARLY 1999:

AFTER I FIRST SPOKE OUT AND SIXTY MINUTES BEGAN INVESTIGATING, THE FOLLOWING HAPPENED AT

MY UNIVERSITY (THERE WERE NEWSPAPER ARTICLES---I GUESS MARTIN AND HOWARD HAVE LOST

EVERYTHING, BUT MY FAMILY REMEMBERS, AND WE CAN STILL LOOK UP THE POLICE REPORT IN

STACKS AT THE UNIVERSITY.)

1) BOMB THREAT IN THE ENGLISH BUILDING

2) IN THE ENGLISH BUILDING, WHERE I TAUGHT AND WAS WORKING IN THE COMPUTER LAB AS A

TUTOR, 20 COMPUTERS WERE STOLEN.

3) I HAD THE KEY THAT NIGHT! THEY THEN TRANSFERRED ME TO WORK ON A SINGLE COMPUTER

IN THE GRAD SCHOOL OFFICE ---AND IT WAS STOLEN JUST TWO DAYS LATER. I WAS THEN ACCUSED

OF STEALING ALL THE COMPUTERS AND HAD TO APPEAL NOT TO LOSE MY JOB TUTORING ...THEN

THE POLICE SAID I WAS PHYSICALLY INCAPABLE OF STEALING THEM THROUGH THE ROOF, WHICH

THEY DISCOVERED WAS THE METHOD THE COMPUTERS WERE STOLEN.

4) RIGHT AFTER THAT, A HALF GALLON OF HYDROCHLORIC ACID WAS THROWN AT ME BUT DID NOT

EXPLODE, THANK GOD. THE PERSON WHO THREW IT WAS NOT A STUDENT AND AN ADULT WAS SEEN

RUNNING AWAY.

5) THE HEAD OF DEPARTMENT REMOVED ME AS EDITOR OF THE SOUTHWESTERN REVIEW. SHE SAID

MY GRADES WERE NO GOOD. I HAD A 4.0 AND APPEALED.

FOR APPEALING, SHE PUNISHED ME FOR HER GETTING IN TROUBLE BY DENYING ME FUNDS TO GO TO

CONFERENCES. I HAD BEEN PRESENTING PAPERS AT CONFERENCES. NOW I WAS FORBIDDEN TO DO SO.

FOR THE FIRST TIME, I RECEIVED TWO B'S, THE ONLY B'S I EVER GOT IN GRAD COURSES THERE.

6) I WAS NOT GIVEN TEACHING LOADS SUFFICIENT TO STAY AT THE UNIVERSITY AND WAS FORCED

TO LEAVE AFER SIX YEARS TEACHING THERE!

7) ALL OF THIS HAPPENED THE FIRST THREE MONTHS AFTER I SPOKE OUT, WHEN I HAD BEEN THERE

SUCCESSFULLY FOR SIX YEARS WITH NO PROBLEMS. I ENDED UP WIH A 3.9 GPA ANYWAY.

8) BAD THINGS BEGAN HAPPENING WITH MY MAIL. I RECEIVED ALL MY MAIL OPENED. ALL OF IT. I GOT IT

IN BUNDLES ON FRIDAYS. WHEN I COMPLAINED TO THE POSTMISTRESS, SHE SAID, "SOMETIMES I'M ASHAMED

TO WEAR THIS UNIFORM."

8) I MET A BOYFRIEND, JOHN LEBEAU, THROUGH A HARROWING EXPERIENCE ABOUT SIX MONTHS BEFORE

LEAVING FOR DALLAS, EARLY 2000: A MAFIA GUY, ELDERLY, STOOD ON MY PATIO AND HAD A GUN. HE SHOT

OUT MY PORCH LIGHT, BUT DID NOT GET CAUGHT.

THE PROPERY MANAGER, CASSIE, INSTALLED FLOODLIGHTS, SHE WAS SO FRIGHTENED, FOR SHE SAW HIM

STAKING OUT MY PATIO SEVERAL TIMES. I CALLED THE POLICE AND THEY FOUND OUT WHERE THE MAN LIVED.

HE WAS VISITING FROM SICILY!

HIS FAMILY SAID THEY WERE MOVING HIM TO A NURSING HOME BECAUSE THEY SAID HE HAD ALZHEIMERS.

HE HAD RECOGNIZED ME AND SAID I WOULD SNITCH ON HIM AND EVERYBODY UNLESS HE KILLED ME!

HOWEVER, THIS MAN SEEMED TO BE PERFECTLY OK. HE'D SIMPLY BEEN CAUGHT TERRORIZING ME AND HIS

FAMILY ASSURED ME HE WOULD NEVER BOTHER ME AGAIN.

I WENT DOWN TO MARCELLO'S LIQUOR STORE AFTER THE INCIDENT AND FUND OUT THAT ALL THE MAFIA

PEOPLE IN TOWN KNEW WHO I WAS, BUT NONE WOULD GO ON TAPE OR FILM.

ABOUT THE SAME TIME, I ACCIDENTALLY RAN INTO MAC MCCULLOUGH AS WE BOTH STOOD WAITING FOR

RAIN TO SLOW DOWN, TRYING TO LEAVE A LOCAL RESTAURANT. WE RECOGNIZED EACH OTHER! "NEW

ORLEANS!" I SAID. "1963!" HE SAID.

"YES!' I SAID. WE WERE JUST TRILLED TO MEET AGAIN, TOUGH WE'D NEVER REALLY BEEN FRIENDS, JUST

'KEPT RUNNING INTO EACH OHER IN NEW ORLEANS, AS HE WAS A SINGER IN THE HOTELS, PLAYED PIANO,

WAS A STUDENT DURING THE DAY AND VISITED HIS MOM AND LEE'S COFFEE SHOP, WHERE LEE TOOK ME

FOR LUNCHES SEVERAL TIMES.

MEANWHILE, JOHN LEBEAU SAW HOW FRIGHTENED I WAS WHEN THE INCIDENT OCCURRED, AND BECAME

LIKE A BODYGUARD FOR ME. I FELT QUITE SAFE WITH HIM, AND WE HAD A LOT OF FUN.

THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED IN LAFAYETTE AFTER SPEAKING OUT.

NEXT, I WILL WRITE ABOUT DALLAS.

9) I WAS FORCED TO MOVE TO DALLAS, TEXAS IN LATE 2000, WHERE MY SISTER LIVED, AND AT MARY FERRELL'S

INVITATION. MARY SAID SHE WOULD HELP ME WITH SPREADING THE NEWS, WHICH TURNED OUT TO BE TO ALL

THE BAD GUYS, EXCEPT PETER DALE SCOTT.

THIS IS ALL THAT HAPPENED IN 1999 OF IMPORTANCE IN THIS AREA. AT THIS TIME, I BEGAN DOCUMENTING

THINGS OR AT LEAST GETTING WITNESSES.

PLEASE REMIND ME TO CONTINUE DUE TO MY SHORT TERM MEMORY PROBLEMS.

I FOUND A VARIETY OF THINGS HAPPENING TO ME, NOT JUST PHYSICAL, BUT MIND GAME STUFF, SUCH AS

PEOPLE FOLLOWING ME AND MAKING SURE I KNEW THEY WERE FLLOWING ME, WHICH IS WORSE THAN BEING

SHADOWED, WHICH I HAVE ALSO HAD OCCUR.

JVB.

--------------------

http://www.targetedindividuals.com/FAQ.html

Q: How do I know if I am a Targeted Individual?

A: Being a Targeted Individual usually involves:

• Deliberate slander and rumour campaigns.

• Targeted social exclusion.

• Harassment is usually perpetrated by more than one person or entity.

• Has the desired goal of ruining and discrediting the target.

Q: What are some of the methods used on Target Individuals?

A: Targeted Individuals should look for a targeted campaign which seems to do one if not all of the following:

• Driving the target to suicide.

• Financially ruining the target.

• Breaking down the targets social relationships, and excluding them from all sources of support.

• Slander and rumour campaigns

• Efforts to make you seem none credible, a criminal, or unstable.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

http://www.targetedindividuals.com/FAQ.html

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What is a Targeted Individual?

A: A Targeted Individual is someone who is targeted by extreme forms of harassment such as Mobbing, Bullying, Cointelpro, Gang Stalking, etc. The target is specifically singled out for deliberate psychological, social, targeting which has the ability to destroy their lives and livelihoods over time.

Q: How do I know if I am a Targeted Individual?

# A: Being a Targeted Individual usually involves: Deliberate slander and rumour campaigns.

# Targeted social exclusion.

# Harassment is usually perpetrated by more than one person or entity.

# Has the desired goal of ruining and discrediting the target.

Q: What are some of the methods used on Target Individuals?

A: Targeted Individuals should look for a targeted campaign which seems to do one if not all of the following:

# Driving the target to suicide.

# Financially ruining the target.

# Breaking down the targets social relationships, and excluding them from all sources of support.

# Slander and rumour campaigns

# Efforts to make you seem none credible, a criminal, or unstable.

Q: Do all Targeted Individuals experience the same things?

A: Methods might vary or over lap depending on the targeting used. Eg. Rumour campaigns are often seen across the board in much of the targeting. However not every Targeted Individual will be electronically harassed.

Q: I am being bullied at work. Does that make me a Targeted Individual?

A: It depends on the situation. Being bullying in and of itself does not necessarily make someone a Targeted Individual.

However if you find that as you seek help for the bullying you are sabotaged at every turn, and you recognise a deliberate effort of collusion to stop you from getting help, filing a lawsuit, getting a lawyer, going to a tribunal, making your situation public, then you might be a Targeted Individual.

Q: Who can become a Targeted Individual?

A: Anyone can become a Targeted Individual. The perception is that Targeted Individuals are Activists, Dissidents, Whistle-Blowers, however that is not the case. Many Targeted Individuals are just average citizens who for whatever reason realised that there is a deliberate effort of targeting. These efforts often involved:

# Extreame slander campaigns. Making the target seem morally contemptible and worthy of their targeting.

# Deliberate social exclusion.

# Psychological targeting, meant to break down the target over time. Giving them anything from a nervous breakdown, to thinking of committing suicide, or even acts of violence.

# Financial targeting. Trying to make the target so financially stressed that they can not continue to fight and so they must therefore give up their efforts for justice.

Q: What can be done to stop this?

A: At this stage, awareness has been the key to helping Targeted Individuals. Awareness and Acknowledgement that this is in fact happening and that there is deliberate targeting ongoing.

Q: Can't Amnesty International or the ACLU help?

A: Many targets have tried these avenues to seek assistance. Only to realise that these organisations are not willing or able to assist them. Many targets have found support from each other, or on forums directed to helping with their causes.

Edited May 30, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Jack White]

Jim...I am asking for additional information about claims presented in this thread on this forum,

not something JVB may have said during the past 20 years.

1. JVB claimed in this thread to have the highest IQ of any person in the state of Florida. I think

readers of this thread are entitled to know the documentation for this claim. This is not hate mail.

2. JVB claimed in this thread to have worked with "Nobel" scientists. I think readers of this thread are

entitled to know the documentation for this claim. This is not hate mail.

Forget claims made elsewhere in previous years. I am asking about claims made here and now.

This is not hate mail.

No answers have been forthcoming. I have asked twice.

The time of day is 5:52 p.m.

Jack

Edited May 30, 2010 by Jack White

[Greg Burnham]

[snip...]

Even if her various claims were true, which seems unlikely since she appears in not a single document regarding Oswald,

==SINCE SHE POSED AS MARINA OSWALD==

her tales are so peripheral to the assassination as to be meaningless.

[snip]

========

Jim, I am probably way behind here, but is there anything besides Judyth's own statements that would tend to substantiate her claims about "posing as Marina"? For instance, was Marina documented as having been seen with Lee (or Harvey--whatever!) in New Orleans at a time when she [Marina] was supposedly still in Dallas? Such conflicting documentation would be very relevant in light of Judyth's claim. On the other side of the coin, if there is nothing indicating Marina was "in two places at the same time" (one location being New Orleans) there is no way for researchers to know if Judyth is telling the truth about impersonating Marina. She "might be" telling the truth, but you can't go to the bank with that...

2) HE TELLS ME THAT LYNDON JOHNSON'S SCANDALS ARE ONE REASON FOR THE VICE PRESIDENT WANTING THE ASSASSINATION TO YAKE(sic) PLACE--IS THIS ALSO MEANINGLESS?

Jim & Judyth,

How would Oswald know this? C'mon? How? Did he get it from Madeleine Brown? How, why, and for what reason would Oswald know anything about LBJ's legal problems? Ok, Ok, --let's ASSUME he did... But, even if he did know it and said it to Judyth... still: "that he said it to Judyth" is meaningless TODAY. It wouldn't be meaningless if Judyth had reported this to authorities before the fact, then her heroism would be well appreciated. As it is, JFK is dead.

3) HE IDENTIFIED HIMSELF TO ME AS AN AGENT BORROWED BY THE CIA AND ALSO USED BY THE FBI--IS THIS MEANINGLESS, TOO?

This is old news, Judyth! We already knew this information before you came along. That he worked for both agencies is meaningful, historically. However, it is personally meaningless to me that he told you this. If you had revealed this BEFORE we already knew it, perhaps I'd feel differently. If you had reported this to researchers BEFORE the documents proving same had emerged, then it would have a lot more meaning. And, I might add, it still would have been vigorously challenged by skeptics, unless and until documentation was forthcoming in support of the claim. In this case it would have panned out. Problem is, it "panned out" before the fact--before you even mentioned it. "That dog don't hunt."

4) I REPORTED THAT HE TOLD ME HOW HE TRIED TO SAVE KENNEDY--AND HE REPORTED THAT HE WAS SUCCESSFUL ONCE (WE NOW HAVE ABRAHAM BOLDEN TO VERIFY THAT) -- HIS REPORTED ATTEMPTS TO SAVE KENNEDY ARE MEANINGLESS?

It is a claim. Nothing more. You've provided no proof, Judyth! If you're "the real deal" then to you it is proved because you remember it! But that doesn't constitute proof for anyone else. Understand, I'm not challenging your story, I'm attempting to help you comprehend why others don't find it compelling. You need to understand that there are reasons for skepticism beyond "my skeptics all have nefarious motives and intentions". -- Did Abraham Bolden say that Oswald successfully "saved Kennedy's life" once? Or did he report a generic event without mentioning Oswald's name? See what I mean?

5) LEE TOLD ME HE PENETRATED THE ASSASSINATION RING AT RISK OF HIS LIFE--THAT IS MEANINGLESS, TOO?

Well, if true, he penetrated it, and screwed up!!! I assume he was supposed to prevent it from succeeding? If so, he no doubt worked for the CIA, who taught him to be INCOMPETENT, which is their trademark.

[Doug Weldon]

[snip...]

Even if her various claims were true, which seems unlikely since she appears in not a single document regarding Oswald,

==SINCE SHE POSED AS MARINA OSWALD==

her tales are so peripheral to the assassination as to be meaningless.

[snip]

========

Jim, I am probably way behind here, but is there anything besides Judyth's own statements that would tend to substantiate her claims about "posing as Marina"? For instance, was Marina documented as having been seen with Lee (or Harvey--whatever!) in New Orleans at a time when she [Marina] was supposedly still in Dallas? Such conflicting documentation would be very relevant in light of Judyth's claim. On the other side of the coin, if there is nothing indicating Marina was "in two places at the same time" (one location being New Orleans) there is no way for researchers to know if Judyth is telling the truth about impersonating Marina. She "might be" telling the truth, but you can't go to the bank with that...

2) HE TELLS ME THAT LYNDON JOHNSON'S SCANDALS ARE ONE REASON FOR THE VICE PRESIDENT WANTING THE ASSASSINATION TO YAKE(sic) PLACE--IS THIS ALSO MEANINGLESS?

Jim & Judyth,

How would Oswald know this? C'mon? How? Did he get it from Madeleine Brown? How, why, and for what reason would Oswald know anything about LBJ's legal problems? Ok, Ok, --let's ASSUME he did... But, even if he did know it and said it to Judyth... still: "that he said it to Judyth" is meaningless TODAY. It wouldn't be meaningless if Judyth had reported this to authorities before the fact, then her heroism would be well appreciated. As it is, JFK is dead.

3) HE IDENTIFIED HIMSELF TO ME AS AN AGENT BORROWED BY THE CIA AND ALSO USED BY THE FBI--IS THIS MEANINGLESS, TOO?

This is old news, Judyth! We already knew this information before you came along. That he worked for both agencies is meaningful, historically. However, it is personally meaningless to me that he told you this. If you had revealed this BEFORE we already knew it, perhaps I'd feel differently. If you had reported this to researchers BEFORE the documents proving same had emerged, then it would have a lot more meaning. And, I might add, it still would have been vigorously challenged by skeptics, unless and until documentation was forthcoming in support of the claim. In this case it would have panned out. Problem is, it "panned out" before the fact--before you even mentioned it. "That dog don't hunt."

4) I REPORTED THAT HE TOLD ME HOW HE TRIED TO SAVE KENNEDY--AND HE REPORTED THAT HE WAS SUCCESSFUL ONCE (WE NOW HAVE ABRAHAM BOLDEN TO VERIFY THAT) -- HIS REPORTED ATTEMPTS TO SAVE KENNEDY ARE MEANINGLESS?

It is a claim. Nothing more. You've provided no proof, Judyth! If you're "the real deal" then to you it is proved because you remember it! But that doesn't constitute proof for anyone else. Understand, I'm not challenging your story, I'm attempting to help you comprehend why others don't find it compelling. You need to understand that there are reasons for skepticism beyond "my skeptics all have nefarious motives and intentions". -- Did Abraham Bolden say that Oswald successfully "saved Kennedy's life" once? Or did he report a generic event without mentioning Oswald's name? See what I mean?

5) LEE TOLD ME HE PENETRATED THE ASSASSINATION RING AT RISK OF HIS LIFE--THAT IS MEANINGLESS, TOO?

Well, if true, he penetrated it, and screwed up!!! I assume he was supposed to prevent it from succeeding? If so, he no doubt worked for the CIA, who taught him to be INCOMPETENT, which is their trademark.

Monk:

These are excellent observations. The point that stood out the most was "Jim & Judyth,

How would Oswald know this? C'mon? How? Did he get it from Madeleine Brown? How, why, and for what reason would Oswald know anything about LBJ's legal problems? Ok,

THe answer is Oswald could not have known and there is no way he did know. Like the other points anyone could obtain some of this information years later. I know it has to bother you that Judyth's responses continue to be filtered, soi many questions left unanswered , and no concrete proofs that she claims to possess forthcoming. I am not aware of documents of Marina being in New Orleans.

Doug Weldon

[Doug Weldon]

[snip...]

Even if her various claims were true, which seems unlikely since she appears in not a single document regarding Oswald,

==SINCE SHE POSED AS MARINA OSWALD==

her tales are so peripheral to the assassination as to be meaningless.

[snip]

========

Jim, I am probably way behind here, but is there anything besides Judyth's own statements that would tend to substantiate her claims about "posing as Marina"? For instance, was Marina documented as having been seen with Lee (or Harvey--whatever!) in New Orleans at a time when she [Marina] was supposedly still in Dallas? Such conflicting documentation would be very relevant in light of Judyth's claim. On the other side of the coin, if there is nothing indicating Marina was "in two places at the same time" (one location being New Orleans) there is no way for researchers to know if Judyth is telling the truth about impersonating Marina. She "might be" telling the truth, but you can't go to the bank with that...

2) HE TELLS ME THAT LYNDON JOHNSON'S SCANDALS ARE ONE REASON FOR THE VICE PRESIDENT WANTING THE ASSASSINATION TO YAKE(sic) PLACE--IS THIS ALSO MEANINGLESS?

Jim & Judyth,

How would Oswald know this? C'mon? How? Did he get it from Madeleine Brown? How, why, and for what reason would Oswald know anything about LBJ's legal problems? Ok, Ok, --let's ASSUME he did... But, even if he did know it and said it to Judyth... still: "that he said it to Judyth" is meaningless TODAY. It wouldn't be meaningless if Judyth had reported this to authorities before the fact, then her heroism would be well appreciated. As it is, JFK is dead.

3) HE IDENTIFIED HIMSELF TO ME AS AN AGENT BORROWED BY THE CIA AND ALSO USED BY THE FBI--IS THIS MEANINGLESS, TOO?

This is old news, Judyth! We already knew this information before you came along. That he worked for both agencies is meaningful, historically. However, it is personally meaningless to me that he told you this. If you had revealed this BEFORE we already knew it, perhaps I'd feel differently. If you had reported this to researchers BEFORE the documents proving same had emerged, then it would have a lot more meaning. And, I might add, it still would have been vigorously challenged by skeptics, unless and until documentation was forthcoming in support of the claim. In this case it would have panned out. Problem is, it "panned out" before the fact--before you even mentioned it. "That dog don't hunt."

4) I REPORTED THAT HE TOLD ME HOW HE TRIED TO SAVE KENNEDY--AND HE REPORTED THAT HE WAS SUCCESSFUL ONCE (WE NOW HAVE ABRAHAM BOLDEN TO VERIFY THAT) -- HIS REPORTED ATTEMPTS TO SAVE KENNEDY ARE MEANINGLESS?

It is a claim. Nothing more. You've provided no proof, Judyth! If you're "the real deal" then to you it is proved because you remember it! But that doesn't constitute proof for anyone else. Understand, I'm not challenging your story, I'm attempting to help you comprehend why others don't find it compelling. You need to understand that there are reasons for skepticism beyond "my skeptics all have nefarious motives and intentions". -- Did Abraham Bolden say that Oswald successfully "saved Kennedy's life" once? Or did he report a generic event without mentioning Oswald's name? See what I mean?

5) LEE TOLD ME HE PENETRATED THE ASSASSINATION RING AT RISK OF HIS LIFE--THAT IS MEANINGLESS, TOO?

Well, if true, he penetrated it, and screwed up!!! I assume he was supposed to prevent it from succeeding? If so, he no doubt worked for the CIA, who taught him to be INCOMPETENT, which is their trademark.

Monk:

These are excellent observations. The point that stood out the most was "Jim & Judyth,

How would Oswald know this? C'mon? How? Did he get it from Madeleine Brown? How, why, and for what reason would Oswald know anything about LBJ's legal problems? Ok,

THe answer is Oswald could not have known and there is no way he did know. Like the other points anyone could obtain some of this information years later. I know it has to bother you that Judyth's responses continue to be filtered, soi many questions left unanswered , and no concrete proofs that she claims to possess forthcoming. I am not aware of documents of Marina being in New Orleans.

Doug Weldon

Monk:

I hope Judyth does not point to Life Magazine which detailed many of LBJ's legal problems the week befeore the assassination. This is research, not memory. Is Judyth suggesting that Oswald was specially briefed about these problems? If so, by whom and for what reason? If you catch up with the thread you will see that virtually every good question is left unanswered. Judyth will not or has not produced the tape that allegedly contradicts the account of the Mary Ferrell incident and will not subject the alleged writing of Oswald for expert analysis. I just recently found out that Judyth is a member of this forum and sees everything. Why do all of her responses have to get filtered through a third party? I will gladly interview and tape Anna Lewis myself. I hope you get a chance to review the threads.

Doug Weldon

[Greg Burnham]

Monk:

I hope Judyth does not point to Life Magazine which detailed many of LBJ's legal problems the week befeore the assassination. This is research, not memory.

Well, in any event, the Life Magazine article's headline (or content) didn't say:

"Vice President Wants JFK Dead Within a Week or So Due to Involvement with Billie Sol Estes and Other Sordid Scandals"

So, that dog don't hunt, anyway.

Is Judyth suggesting that Oswald was specially briefed about these problems? If so, by whom and for what reason? If you catch up with the thread you will see that virtually every good question is left unanswered.

I'm very much "caught up" Doug! Thanks. The mere implication that Oswald was somehow "privy" to this information is inescapably absurd. If he said this to Judyth, it was nothing more than a fluke. But, in light of the aftermath, to believe that such a statistically implausible fluke actually occured, is beyond the pale.

Judyth will not or has not produced the tape that allegedly contradicts the account of the Mary Ferrell incident and will not subject the alleged writing of Oswald for expert analysis. I just recently found out that Judyth is a member of this forum and sees everything. Why do all of her responses have to get filtered through a third party? I will gladly interview and tape Anna Lewis myself. I hope you get a chance to review the threads.

Doug Weldon

Perhaps Judyth will agree to be questioned by you "on the air" so that there are no "problems with tape recordings" and such? She held up quite well to my "in person" interview, so it's not like she's too fragile, IMO. Of course, that was over 10 years ago.

[Doug Weldon]

Monk:

I hope Judyth does not point to Life Magazine which detailed many of LBJ's legal problems the week befeore the assassination. This is research, not memory.

Well, in any event, the Life Magazine article's headline (or content) didn't say:

"Vice President Wants JFK Dead Within a Week or So Due to Involvement with Billie Sol Estes and Other Sordid Scandals"

So, that dog don't hunt, anyway.

Is Judyth suggesting that Oswald was specially briefed about these problems? If so, by whom and for what reason? If you catch up with the thread you will see that virtually every good question is left unanswered.

I'm very much "caught up" Doug! Thanks. The mere implication that Oswald was somehow "privy" to this information is inescapably absurd. If he said this to Judyth, it was nothing more than a fluke. But, in light of the aftermath, to believe that such a statistically implausible fluke actually occured, is beyond the pale.

Judyth will not or has not produced the tape that allegedly contradicts the account of the Mary Ferrell incident and will not subject the alleged writing of Oswald for expert analysis. I just recently found out that Judyth is a member of this forum and sees everything. Why do all of her responses have to get filtered through a third party? I will gladly interview and tape Anna Lewis myself. I hope you get a chance to review the threads.

Doug Weldon

Perhaps Judyth will agree to be questioned by you "on the air" so that there are no "problems with tape recordings" and such? She held up quite well to my "in person" interview, so it's not like she's too fragile, IMO. Of course, that was over 10 years ago.

Monk:

In regards to:

"Perhaps Judyth will agree to be questioned by you "on the air" so that there are no "problems with tape recordings" and such? She held up quite well to my "in person" interview, so it's not like she's too fragile, IMO. Of course, that was over 10 years ago."

There is truly no opportunity I would welcome more than this. I would like to question Judyth for a couple of hours, not "Team Judyth" and without third party intervention answering questions for her or offering reasons not to respond to the questions. It is a great idea.

Hopefully Judyth would view this as an opportunity to establish her legitimacy. The last time I viewed the poll 35 people did not view her as credible, six were unsure, and only seven found her credible. After this extensive thread and the effort to push her credibility this must be disappointing to those who support her. My guess is that considering those who did not participate in the poll would magnify these results.

There are assorted venues under which this could transpire. We all know of one person who could definitely make this happen. Again, it is a great idea. Let's hope for a positive response.

My best,

Doug Weldon

[Greg Burnham]

Doug,

At this juncture, I don't think that the proper venue would be Jim Fetzer's show. (No offense, Jim). In order for a public interview to be conducted properly I would think that a much more "neutral venue" is preferred.

I just spoke with Len Osanic. He agreed to have both Doug and Judyth on Black Op Radio. The purpose of the show will be to have a non-confrontational "question and answer" session.

Neither he nor I want a "knock down drag out" show! So, it needs to be cordial, but NOT restrained. Respectful adversity is acceptable.

Also, due to the "time difference" it might be preferable to pre-record the show so that Judyth is not forced to participate at 4:00am (her time) for a "live" show that will be on the air at 6:00 pst.

Well, any takers?

[Doug Weldon]

Doug,

At this juncture, I don't think that the proper venue would be Jim Fetzer's show. (No offense, Jim). In order for a public interview to be conducted properly I would think that a much more "neutral venue" is preferred.

I just spoke with Len Osanic. He agreed to have both Doug and Judyth on Black Op Radio. The purpose of the show will be to have a non-confrontational "question and answer" session.

Neither he nor I want a "knock down drag out" show! So, it needs to be cordial, but NOT restrained. Respectful adversity is acceptable.

Also, due to the "time difference" it might be preferable to pre-record the show so that Judyth is not forced to participate at 4:00am (her time) for a "live" show that will be on the air at 6:00 pst.

Well, any takers?

Monk:

I am absolutely game. In the words of Gary Gilmore "Let's do it." (So, it needs to be cordial, but NOT restrained. Respectful adversity is acceptable.)

My best,

Doug Weldon