Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[Glenn Viklund]

"People plonk things in ones lap." Amen, to that. No vested interest whatsoever.

Your Swedish is good, I told you so on day one...

"edit add : oh, another point I wanted to make is how transparent this document is, just how verifiable it is. It follows the proper format as laid out by law with names and signatures. To falsify it is ridiculous. "

Absolutely, John!

All of what you are now confirming, is what I've tried to explain many times, previously.

Thanks a lot for your effort here...

Edited March 14, 2010 by Glenn Viklund

[Jack White]

I am trying to understand the timelines of JVB and LHO, so have

been doing some reading, and found the following of interest:

4-20-63: JVB arrives in NOLA.

4-25-63: LHO arrives in NOLA.

4-26-63: JVB meets total stranger LHO in a line at post office.

4-27-63. LHO takes JVB on a NOLA tour to meet...

...Ferrie

...Bannister

...Ochsner

4-27-63: JVB and LHO instructed to watch for classified ad for

employment, 640 Magazine Street, by Alvin Prechter.

5-1-63: Robert Baker arrives in NOLA and demands immediate marriage.

5-2-63: JVB and Baker elope to Mobile Alabama

5-3-63: Baker leaves his bride of one day.

5-4-63: JVB is evicted from her rented room.

5-4-63: LHO arranges a new room for JVB.

5-9-63: LHO and JVB interviewed by Prechter at 640 Magazine.

5-10-63: LHO and JVB hired by Standard Coffee Company.

5-17-63: LHO and JVB transferred to Reily Coffee Company.

7-19-63: LHO fired by Reily.

8-9-63: JVB fired by Reily.

What I gather from these timelines:

1. LHO and JVB knew each other before they worked at Reily's.

2. Within two days of arriving in NOLA, LHO met total stranger JVB

and took her around NOLA introducing her to Ferrie, Bannister and

Ochsner.

3. JVB and LHO were co-employees only from 5-10 until 7-19...

20 days in May, 30 days in June, and 19 days in July...a total of

69 days.

Previously I had been under the impression that ALL of the claimed

association took place at Reily Coffee Company.

Jack

Edited March 14, 2010 by Jack White

[John Dolva]

That's a relief, my total senility is a way off still. Glory Be..

[Barb Junkkarinen]

The Stephen Roy on this forum is writing a book on David Ferrie, and I believe that most of his research centers around Ferrie/Shaw and N.O.

This is a very interesting observation Jack, could Roy be the person feeding Judyth all of his research which she in turn is using as facts?

Hi Dean,

No. Blackburst is a terrific researcher. I think the best person to explain his dealings with Judyth is himself. I can tell you that he has and knows everything there is to know about Ferrie, and his resources include people who knew Ferrie. He was able to offer Judyth a couple of opportunities to demonstrate that she had known Ferrie personally and had been in his home/kitchen. She failed both miserably. One involved a ring, one the floorplan of Ferrie's house she drew. Blackburst has photos of the inside of Ferrie's house at the time, and he was in the house in later years .... as was Judyth. There was some remodeling in the mid-9os. The floorplan she drew roughly matches the house *after* the remodeling, it does not match the photos taken at the time Ferrie lived there.

On the ring .... this was ingenious .... and remember Blackburst knows all about Ferrie and knows people who knew him. Blackburst offered a test of sorts to one of Judyth's supporters, and gave the guy a little info about a ring he said Ferrie had, with just enough info that he would know if the colleague gave Judyth more info than they had agreed to....Blackburst mentioned gargoyle to the colleague. Judyth game back with a detailed description of what she called Ferrie's "priestly ring" that he only wore on special occasions, when he said Mass, that Ferrie had shown it to her, etc.

The other shoe drops. There was never any such ring, Blackburst made it up.

If Blackburst sees this and want s to post about it, he would certainly be the best. There are many many posts about both of these issues from the mod group. If one does an advanced google groups searech with key words like Judyth, gargoyle, griffin, ring .... they should come up with plenty. Same on the floorplans.

Bests,

Barb :-)

[Barb Junkkarinen]

That's a relief, my total senility is a way off still. Glory Be..

LOL! Glad reading the document has helped you assess that. And thank you again for agreeing to do it!

Bests,

Barb :-)

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

MORE ON BATON ROUGE AND LEE'S INVOLVEMENT (where my 2-hour

interview with Abraham Bolden may be found in the archives for "The Real Deal",

http://nwopodcast.com/fetz/media/jim%20fet...am%20Bolden.mp3

and in the blog that I have about him and THE ECHO FROM DEALELY PLAZA at

http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/01/ec...rview-with.html

SHAW INDEED WAS A MONEY MAN IN SEVERAL OPERATIONS.

HE NOT ONLY DROVE THE BLACK CADILLAC (NOW BEING ERRONEOUSLY

DESCRIBED AS A LINCOLN CONTINENTAL ONLINE BY DISINFO PEOPLE)

IN CLINTON TO JACKSON. HE ALSO BROUGHT MONEY WITH HIM FOR

DOCTORS THERE. SILVA IS STILL ALIVE AND OF COURSE WILL DENY IT,

BUT HE IS ON RECORD AS WORKING WITH DR. HEALTH ON OTHER

HUMAN EXPERIMENTS AT THAT SAME EAST LOUISIANA MENTAL

HOSPITAL IN JACKSON.

SHAW PAID THEM MONEY.

HE GAVE LEE MONEY, YES. TWICE.

I HAVE BOTH CHRONICLED IN THE BOOK.

WHILE I USE A LOT OF DIALOGUE --TO PRESERVE THE REAL MAN AND THE WAY

HE SPOKE, ETC.--THESE FACTS ARE ALL THROUGH THE BOOK.

THERE'S MORE ON BATON ROUGE.

THESE PEOPLE WLL DO ANYTHING TO TURN THE SPOTLIGHT OFF NEW ORLEANS.

HURRAH FOR GARRISON. THEY WOULD HAVE BURIED IT ALL AND I WOULD HAVE

NO WAY TO SPEAK OUT THAT COULD BE FACT-CHECKED.

BARB ACCEPTS NOTHING I SAY, ON THESE TERMS:

1) IF I MENTION SOMETHING IN THE RECORD, SHE SAYS I LOOKED UP OR

FOUND THE RECORD, NO MATTER HOW REMOTE OR OBSCURE

2) IF I MENTION SOMETHING NOT IN THE RECORD, SHE SAYS "PROVE IT"!

THEREFORE, WE MUST WAIT FOR YEARS FOR NEW EVIDENCE TO EMERGE PROVING

I AM TELLING THE TRUTH, INSTEAD OF FOLLOWING MY LEADS?

ONE SUCH PIECE IS LEE'S INVOLVEMENT WITH CUSTOMS--A NEW WITNESS AND THE

EVENT WITH THE 24-HOUR PASSPORT.

I DISCLOSED THAT INFORMATION TO DR. JOHN WILLIAMS. HE ENDED UP WRITING AN

ENTIRE PAPER, JUDYTH AND LEE IN NEW ORLEANS, WHICH I THINK WOULD GO NICELY

ON THE BLOG IF THE DEALEY PLAZA ECHO WOULD ALLOW IT TO BE REPRINTED.

HE WROTE IT WITH KELLY THOMAS, CHARLES THOMAS' GRAND-DAUGHTER, AT HIS SIDE.

YOU CAN'T GET MUCH BETTER AN ENDORSEMENT FROM A WITNESS' FAMILY THAN THAT.

I FIND IT INCREDIBLE THAT MY STATEMENTS REGARDING CHARLES THOMAS KNOWING

LEE IN NEW YORK, THAT CHARLES THOMAS WAS IN CUSTOMS THEN, BUT IN 1963 WAS

IN THE ANTI-CASTRO MOVEMENT IN MIAMI IN 1963, HAS NO USE TO RESEARCHERS?

SURELY IT DOES.

I STAND FORTH AS A WITNESS WHO SPOKE TO LEE OSWALD ONLY 37 1/2 HOURS

BEFORE THE ASSASSINATION, WHEN HE TOLD ME HE MIGHT TRY TO FIRE A WARNING

SHOT, THAT HE WAS BEING SET UP AND EXPECTED TO DIE

BUT IF HE RAN, MORE WOULD DIE. THAT HE HAD MADE EFFORTS, SOME SUCCESSFUL,

TO SAVE KENNEDY. I HAVE WRITTEN OF THESE THINGS IN 1999 AND ABRAHAM BOLDEN

CONFIRMED THAT AN INFORMANT NAMED 'LEE' WARNED THE CHICAGO FBI AND IT SAVED

KENNEDY'S LIFE AT THAT TIME.

YET JACK AND OTHERS, EVEN MONK, SAY I HAVE NOTHING TO OFFER IN THE CASE.

IT SEEMS THAT ONLY WHEN INFORMATON I HAVE ALREADY GIVEN OUT TO A SELECT

FEW THEN COMES OUT BY OTHERS, AM I TO BE HEARD. I HAVE RISKED MY LIFE TO

BRING OUT NEW INFORMATION.

SURELY THESE TWO ITEMS ARE A STARTER AND SHOUID RECEIVE MENTION. THEY MAY

SAY THAT ABRAHAM BOLDEN IS NOT TELLING THE TRUTH ABOUT 'LEE' BUT I STAND

WITH HIM, AND MY STATEMENT IS OLDER THAN HIS. I BELIEVE YOU, DR. FETZER,

SAID YOU INTERVIEWED BOLDEN AND WOULD CONSIDER HIM A RELIABLE WITNESS.

THE PROBLEM I HAVE IS DETERMINING WHAT KNOWLEDGE I CAN IMPART SAFELY

SO THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT GET DESTROYED. THAT HAPPENS EVEN TODAY.

JVB

JUDYTH COMMENTS ON MONK'S POST:

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

since we spoke....

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

Here's what is relevant:

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

Lee said meetings were held in Baton Rouge.

Can smebody look into US MILITARY PRESENCE IN BATON ROUGE?

I WLL IF I EVER GET THE TIME.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

after his mission to Mexico City.

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

later be framed...

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

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

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

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

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

RESEARCH COMMUNITY IN UNRAVELING HIOW LEE OSWALD WAS MANIPULATED INTO

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

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

AND YEARS?

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

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

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

THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE TELLING YOU.

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

MIGHT HAVE BEEN HUNTED DOWN AND HAVE DISAPPEARED.

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

THE MEETING IN BATON ROUGE WAS ONE OF SEVERAL.

JVB

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

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

knowledge of the JFK assassination.

Jack,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

to see exactly what she claims.

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

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

Edited March 15, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Wow me and Barb posted the same thing at the same exact time (Roy/Blackburst research on Ferrie)

Careful, Dean, you'll get added to the "collusion" list .... haha. Yeah, I can see that happening .....LOL!

Barb :-)

[Glenn Viklund]

Interesting thread this.

A note to Jim Fetzer: I don't see how the actual number of supporters to Judyth is of any significant importance. In this thread there's been several references to some of the people who must be considered among the most informed, balanced and with impeccable reputations. That's far more important, as I'm sure most would agree. Many references have been done to people who have had first hand experiences with Judyth for years, how anyone can fail to see the obvious with this in mind, is stunning.

No matter what.

I don't expect to see any answers from Judyth on the questions I have. I'll wait a couple of days, after that, I'll just give my view on these issues myself in a little bit greater detail. Not that my views matters much, but for the record it is fair that they are there to be found, as I want to take responsibility for having brought these things forward.

That's all.

[Greg Burnham]

Judyth,

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

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

GO_SECURE

monk

JUDYTH COMMENTS ON MONK'S POST:

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

since we spoke....

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

Here's what is relevant:

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

Lee said meetings were held in Baton Rouge.

Can smebody look into US MILITARY PRESENCE IN BATON ROUGE?

I WLL IF I EVER GET THE TIME.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

after his mission to Mexico City.

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

later be framed...

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

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

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

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

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

RESEARCH COMMUNITY IN UNRAVELING HIOW LEE OSWALD WAS MANIPULATED INTO

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

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

AND YEARS?

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

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

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

THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE TELLING YOU.

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

MIGHT HAVE BEEN HUNTED DOWN AND HAVE DISAPPEARED.

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

THE MEETING IN BATON ROUGE WAS ONE OF SEVERAL.

JVB

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

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

knowledge of the JFK assassination.

Jack,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

to see exactly what she claims.

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

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

Edited March 14, 2010 by Greg Burnham

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Monk,

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

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

Jim

Judyth,

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

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

GO_SECURE

monk

JUDYTH COMMENTS ON MONK'S POST:

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

since we spoke....

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

Here's what is relevant:

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

Lee said meetings were held in Baton Rouge.

Can smebody look into US MILITARY PRESENCE IN BATON ROUGE?

I WLL IF I EVER GET THE TIME.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

after his mission to Mexico City.

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

later be framed...

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

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

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

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

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

RESEARCH COMMUNITY IN UNRAVELING HIOW LEE OSWALD WAS MANIPULATED INTO

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

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

AND YEARS?

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

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

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

THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE TELLING YOU.

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

MIGHT HAVE BEEN HUNTED DOWN AND HAVE DISAPPEARED.

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

THE MEETING IN BATON ROUGE WAS ONE OF SEVERAL.

JVB

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

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

knowledge of the JFK assassination.

Jack,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

to see exactly what she claims.

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

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

[John Dolva]

You're welcome. I'm just a bum really. Trailer trash I suppose who happens to have a computer and some education. I've seen many levels of society from the gutter to the stars. I'm a socialist btw, or more precicely a liberation theologian, I could be more precice but it's a story in itself. I'm by no means a role model. Who is, really? Che' perhaps. MLK, Ghandi, Jesus, Buddha... I don't really know, I do know it's not me. I just try.

[Greg Burnham]

Thanks Jim,

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

GO_SECURE

monk

Monk,

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

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

Jim

Judyth,

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

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

GO_SECURE

monk

JUDYTH COMMENTS ON MONK'S POST:

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

since we spoke....

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

Here's what is relevant:

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

Lee said meetings were held in Baton Rouge.

Can smebody look into US MILITARY PRESENCE IN BATON ROUGE?

I WLL IF I EVER GET THE TIME.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

after his mission to Mexico City.

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

later be framed...

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

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

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

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

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

RESEARCH COMMUNITY IN UNRAVELING HIOW LEE OSWALD WAS MANIPULATED INTO

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

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

AND YEARS?

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

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

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

THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE TELLING YOU.

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

MIGHT HAVE BEEN HUNTED DOWN AND HAVE DISAPPEARED.

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

THE MEETING IN BATON ROUGE WAS ONE OF SEVERAL.

JVB

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

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

knowledge of the JFK assassination.

Jack,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

to see exactly what she claims.

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

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

Edited March 14, 2010 by Greg Burnham

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

ANOTHER RESPONSE FROM JUDYTH TO JUNKKARNINEN:

BARB ACTS AS IF NOBODY HAD EVER OFFERED INFORMATION ABOUT ME

TO HER NEWSGROUP, THAT SHE HAD TO GO HUNTING FOR IT. THIS IS NOT

TRUE. OUTSIDERS WHO OFFERED INFORMATION ABOUT ME WERE TREATED

RUDELY OR IGNORED, SUCH AS THE PERSON WHOSE POSTS I OFFER BELOW.

AS FOR MCADAMS' NEWSGROUP AND HOW BARB AND THE OTHERS DO THEIR

'RESEARCH' I HAVE AN UNSOLICITED POST THAT A DUTCHMAN MADE TO THAT

NEWSGROUP. I BELIEVE THAT THE FORUM SHOULD SEE THIS LETTER AND THEN

DECIDE IF BARB, WHO ALWAYS CHIMED IN WITH MOCKERY THERE AT ME, CAN

HONESTLY DEPICT HERSELF AS A RESEARCHER WITHOUT AN AGENDA. I HAVE

PLACED IN BOLD FACE THE MORE INTERESTING COMMENTS THAT HE MADE.

BELOW THAT IS A SECOND POST MADE SEVERAL YEARS LATER BY THE SAME

PERSON. THERE HE MENTIONS THAT I HAD THREATS. BARB WANTED EVIDENCE

OF THREATS, ETC. THIS IS FROM A THIRD ARTY AND I OFFER THIS AS A SECOND

EXAMPLE. SHE CAN GO DO RESEARCH ON TO FIND OUT IF IT REALLY HAPPENED,

SINCE SHE ASKED FOR POLICE REPORTS, ETC. AND IMPLIED I MADE THINGS UP.

THANK YOU!

JVB

From: Boosh (boes-rizzo@zonnet.nl)

Subject: My connection with Judyth.

This is the only article in this thread

View: Original Format

Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk

Date: 2003-07-19 06:24:56 PST

After posting on this group once or twice I feel the need to explain who I

am and tell more about the way I met Judyth Vary Baker.

It seems like a lot of people on here do not believe I exist neither do

they believe Wim Dankbaar exist. After my first post I got some stupid

answers and questions (not all replies by the way). Also did I get emails of

people which had a virus attached.

First of all, who am I? :

My name is Boosh, this as an alias, not because I want to hide stuff. It's

simply the point of having a dutch name and lots of friends from the U.K.

and Australia. These people can't write my dutch name (they always misspell

it). That's why they all know me as Boosh (which is the phonetic version of

my name).

I am 32 years old and got married a few weeks ago. My wife is expecting her

first baby and is in her third month of pregnancy.

I am a professional chef in a huge kitchen. My job is to cook for

physically and mentally handicapped people. Also am I a sound engineer and

songwriter. Singer of a band and in my hometown most people who go to bars

and clubs know who I am 'cause my appearance is rather different from other

people.

I am born and raised in the Netherlands as were my forefathers. Our family

history goes back 400 years.

How did I meet Judyth?:

A few weeks ago I read an article about JVB in a newspaper and told my wife

I'd like to meet that woman sometimes 'cause the article peeked my interest.

At the moment we're celebrating a little honeymoon, we went to Belgium for a

few days and since the weather is great in the Netherlands (which doesn't

happen that much) we decided we'd spend the rest of our vacation in our

hometown.

On Tuesday the 15th of July we went over to a cheap little restaurant (main

course over there is $12). A friend of mine is working there as a bartender

and since he couldn't make it to my wedding I thought well hey let's have

dinner at his place and meet him.

During the meal I was having with my wife I saw Judyth walking in the

restaurant and I recognized her from a pic I saw in the newspaper.

After we were finished with our dinner I turned around and noticed her

sitting alone on the table behind us. I then asked her if she was the Lee

Harvey Oswald lady.

She right away asked me if we would join her on her table and asked me if I

was American because of my accent. I told her I was Dutch and she noticed I

spoke english with american, uk-english and australian accent. Which is not

strange cause I have loads of english and australian friends.

I had several Irish coffees and smokes while we were sitting on her table

and she told us her story. She also told me I smoke too much and drinking is

not healthy.

I was intrigued by her story and asked her if I could stop by at the museum

and hear more.

She told me to do that and me and my wife went home.

My first post here:

After I got home I started to browse the internet looking for information on

this subject and read numerous articles and saw dozens of websites.

I came across this newsgroup and noticed a discussion about Judyth.

My intention of letting people on here ask questions was merely because I

noticed that people are judging her without seeing her evidence or talking

directly to her. My silly thought was to gather the questions and ask them

to Judyth and tell her about this group. I wanted to ask her to give answers

and post them on this newsgroup.

The best example of stupid ass questions I got was: Ask her if she played

any part in the Lincoln assassination.

By then I already decided that it was of no use to participate in asking

her stuff for the sake of this group.

I made the people an offer and some responded by sending me emails with

attachments, some asked stupid questions and some didn't believe I was a real

person.

My second meeting with Judyth:

On Friday the 18th of July 2003 at aproxx. 3:30 pm me and my wife walked in

to her little museum. Judyth was sitting on a chair talking to a 42 (at least

that my guess) years old man. She got up right away and welcomed us to her

place. She introduced us to the man who was Wim Dankbaar. A very nice guy.

Allthough he discovered after a few minutes that we (the wife and me) were

not english. He kept talking english to us to be polite to Judyth.

Judyth started to give us a tour while he was watching some stuff on a

video.

After a while he said goodbye and left for home. Judyth gave us a full tour

and told us the exact same story she did earlier this week but this time she

went deeper in to things. She showed us loads of original material and proof

about who she was and what she had done in her life.

To me Judyth appears to be a very nice lady with very good manners and an

incredible story. She talks very fast but sometimes she has to stop when she

gets emotional or is in pain due to an accident she once had.

I enjoyed being with her and although she was worn out after one hour of

talking she just kept going on and on.

We came in at 3:30 and left at 6:15 PM. I asked Judyth if I could come back

again and she told me and my wife we're always welcome.

About the museum: The museum is also an art gallery. On the walls there's

loads of photos, original manuscripts, photocopies etc etc. Above all these

things hang paintings she did herself and which are for sale. She sells her

artwork to make a living and I must say they look great! She never asked

admission fee for entrance of her museum and she didn't ask donations. She

gave me some leaflets and a newspaper with her story in it.

Now to all people on here:

Judyth Vary Baker was very sincere to me. I got an answer to every question

I had and she showed me every piece of paper I asked her for.

She is a nice lady and she reminds me of my mother. When I first met her I

told her she looked a bit like Janis Joplin (the no dope version haha) she

laughed about that.

She is not sponging anyone of and tried to sell her artwork to make money. She

does not eat in fine hotels (like someone suggested). Instead of that she

eats at home and sometimes eats a salad (6$) in my friends restaurant.

I have no political interest and I haven't formed a point of view on the

whole JFK case. I do not know the truth and therefore I don't back anyone

up. I am not religious. I do not believe any conspiracy or the so-called

truth told by the U.S. Government.

I just think that Judyth Vary Baker has got a story to tell (whether it's the

truth or not). I cannot judge her by listening to her story for five hours

and seeing her stuff. She has so much prove and I don't know where to start.

The only thing she did is be very very nice and peek my interest.

To Judy: Dear Judy, I am glad I met you and thank you for sharing your time

and story with me and R. I will come back to your place regularly. Not only

because I'm interested but also because I think you're a great person. Like

I told you before: You've got two new friends.

To Wim: Nice to have met you this week and I'm glad with every piece of info

you can come up with,regards Boosh.

====================several years passed====

Introducing myself

by ArjanBoes on Sat May 06, 2006 9:56 pm

Hi there,

I'd like the opportunity to introduce myself. My name is Arjan Boes and I'm a music-

producer from the Netherlands. I got interested in the JFK assassination a few years

back after reading an article in a dutch newspaper about Judyth Vary Baker.

A week later I was having dinner in a little restaurant when Judyth came in

and sat next to me and my fiancee's table. I recognized her from the picture in

the newspaper and started talking to her. We had a few drinks together and

Judyth invited us to come and visit her at her little museum.

I visited her two or three times, 1 time with my fiancee. At one of these occasions

I had a long talk with Wim and we shared a bottle of wine that I got from a friend

of mine's bar that afternoon.

Due to personal reasons and the moving of Jude (as I call her) we lost contact but

occasionally I browsed the internet to see if there were further developments.

I focussed on producing music mainly and Wim kept searching for the truth.

Last week I saw a television program about the findings of Wim and I contacted

him again.

I like to state for the record that:

I am not a believer of a single gunman theory.

I am not a truely believer of any conspiracy theory whatsoever.

I am not religious.

I am not political active nor do I vote when there are elections in my country.

Alltough my name is Boes and some people know me by my artist name "Boosh" and

my band's name is Bushcollectors. I am not related or linked to the Bush family nor

do I have sympathies for them or connections with them.

I am not as some people a few years ago stated an American citizen or from American

descent. People came to that conclusion just because I used abbreviations commonly

used in english. I just know a bit of the english language. My family is from pure Dutch

descent and my family tree goes back as far as 11 generations. Our first known ancestor

was born in the Netherlands around 1580.

I am here to get information for a project I want to do and I'll ask lots of questions.

I am not affraid of consequences. I know Judyth was threatened and some weird things

happended to her when she was living in my hometown. I've had guns in my face a few

times in my life and it really doesn't matter to me if a weird junkie that robs me pulls a

gun on me or a CIA guy that wants to silence me. I know the truth is out there and that

there are people like Wim Dankbaar that will do anything to find the truth.

Currently I am reading Wim's book which I bought yesterday. I'll read and read and browse

everything on the net before I make my own conclusion. Untill then I am blank. In other

words : I don't know what to believe and have to put every piece of evidence and theory

in place. Maybe I take sides but for now I am a newcomer, totally unbiased.

If anyone on here has any questions just shoot them at me and I will answer them.

Arjan Boes ( aka Boosh) producer and founder of "the Bushcollectors"

Edited March 15, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Monk,

No one in the world would expect Judyth's story to prove that Lee was not "the lone gunman". If I was not sufficiently explicit about that point, what I meant was that the depicition of him as "a lone, demented gunman" is undermined by her reports. We know from many other sources--including hundreds of articles and books, from RUSH TO JUDGMENT to BEST EVIDENCE to BLOODY TREASON to MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA to INSIDE THE ARRB--that there was no "lone gunman", that the weapon he is alleged to have used cannot have fired the bullets that killed JFK, that he was not even on the 6th floor at the time, and that, as Marina observed, he admired JFK, which means the man fingered by the commission had neither means, motive, nor opportunity.

The kinds of secrets that the agency is most concerned to protect involved its methods and techniques. Perhaps you have not had the opportunity to scroll through the thread and read posts #25, #27, #41, and #47. You are in no position to make the kind of judgment you are offering here--about the irrelevance of her research in 1963--without knowing what has been going on since them. There are many possibilities related to AIDS, the bird-flu threat, and many others, some of which could have very well been incubating ever since. I would encourage you to read these posts and share with us your further considerations. I am not saying you are wrong, but his observations strongly suggest that something more is going on here with regard to Judyth.

Jim

Thanks Jim,

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

GO_SECURE

monk

Monk,

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

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

Jim

Judyth,

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

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

GO_SECURE

monk

JUDYTH COMMENTS ON MONK'S POST:

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

since we spoke....

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

Here's what is relevant:

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

Lee said meetings were held in Baton Rouge.

Can smebody look into US MILITARY PRESENCE IN BATON ROUGE?

I WLL IF I EVER GET THE TIME.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

after his mission to Mexico City.

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

later be framed...

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

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

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

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

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

RESEARCH COMMUNITY IN UNRAVELING HIOW LEE OSWALD WAS MANIPULATED INTO

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

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

AND YEARS?

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

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

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

THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE TELLING YOU.

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

MIGHT HAVE BEEN HUNTED DOWN AND HAVE DISAPPEARED.

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

THE MEETING IN BATON ROUGE WAS ONE OF SEVERAL.

JVB

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

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

knowledge of the JFK assassination.

Jack,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

to see exactly what she claims.

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

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

Edited March 14, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[John Dolva]

Sure, just let it be known what conclusions you reach.