Jump to content
The Education Forum

Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile


Guest James H. Fetzer

Recommended Posts

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.

2jbpl4.jpg

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

Top Posters In This Topic

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

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 by Jack White
Link to post
Share on other sites
[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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
[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

Link to post
Share on other sites
[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

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Non-responsive, professor. The only thing convoluted is your trying to put lipstick on this latest pig of yours.

You had an "impression" that I "implied" something ... so that means you flat out state that I have a penchant

for altering evidence and that I am not a reliable source?

The reason you now say it is convoluted and that you need to check with Judyth (what?) is that you know dang good and well that I have *never* posted a quote inaccurately, nor have I ever posted one I could not back up. This was just one more attack that has been a consistent theme of your posts throughout this thread ... not only on me, but on anyone who believes other than you do on Judyth ... especially those who post information that conflicts with her story.

Not to mention I had already posted the document with the line I had quoted highlighted in yellow. Some have it in them to, on their own, say sorry, my bad, I can't cite you any examples because I know of none.

And some don't.

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Excellent, Greg. And you are as spot on about a "neutral venue" as Doug is in his response that this needs to be Judyth, on her own, speaking spontaneously, for herself.

Many of us have questions we have asked ... and would like to ask ... Judyth. Doug could certainly handle that. Pre-recording because of time differences is a fine idea ... as long as the recording is not edited in any way.

Kudos to you for thinking of this.

Barb :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Excellent, Greg. And you are as spot on about a "neutral venue" as Doug is in his response that this needs to be Judyth, on her own, speaking spontaneously, for herself.

Many of us have questions we have asked ... and would like to ask ... Judyth. Doug could certainly handle that. Pre-recording because of time differences is a fine idea ... as long as the recording is not edited in any way.

Kudos to you for thinking of this.

Barb :-)

I can assure you that there will be no editing at all.

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...