Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[John Dolva]

I think the last paragraph of the last posted book page should be explored.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THE OBSERVATIONS OF MY PSY OPS EXPERT:

You have done some very good work bringing out the key issues surrounding Judyth Vary and her story. I believe that she is the real deal, but probably was so stressed out at times that she confabulated and mixed up facts which really helps folks discredit her even though her basic story seems to be valid and very important even in today's world. Why else would she be harassed, why else would you have received a death threat, and why have some folks like that junk lady gotten so vitriolic in their attacks on Judyth and worked so hard to discredit her and her story? Where there is smoke there is fire.

Jack White is a very distinguished researcher of government-based elite-deviance. His photo work over over the last 30 years has stood the test of time and he has contributed a great deal. He has stated in so many words that it is difficult to accept that intel would bring in a young girl like Judyth to do cancer research and he believes that there have been details of Judyth's story that didn't hold water. Yes, anyone could see that the way Judyth's story has been presented in segments over the years does breed an air of unbelievability which itself is useful to creating a "plausible deniability".

It has been well established that Ferrie was a pilot who ran the Civil Air Patrol for youth and recruited young men to later be inducted as intel operatives. That was the origin of the notorius NSA drug trafficker Barry Seal (of Mena, Ark fame--the company flew the cocaine into Mena Ark according to Bill Duncan IRS Investigator), and also the origin of a number of other intel assets and operators. See Daniel Hopsicker's work for good evidence of this.

Selecting young kids and even very young children to be inducted as intel assets and operatives has a very long history in US intel. It really dates back to operation paperclip and the importation of Gehlen, Mengele, Mueller and other Nazi intel and "mind control" scientists who ran these recruitment/induction programs and appeared to be outright psychopaths, torturers and murderers. (Does this make it easier to understand why intel wanted to use torture against captured muslims in the wars in the middle east? Our intel still carries the traits of those who set it up after WW2 and it was these nazis, unfortunately.) Now due to the many recent government records releases and foia releases, undeniable proof exists about MKUltra, Monarch, Bluebird and many others which used torture and mind kontrol behavioral conditioning methods so severe that they cannot be mentioned here. And of course we have the hearing records of Senator Church from 1973.

There were many different types and ages of children selected. Some were to be used as MKUltra operatives, some as intel operatives or assets later, and some as very special children to be placed and groomed in academic paths to high positions later on where they could function as assets which had been specially groomed and trained. At least two of our very, very, very top politicians the last 20 years was selected from this plan. These very special children were selected from all over the country based on their intelligence and mental capabilities which had to be very exceptional. Then they were educated and plugged in where needed.

Knowing that the company used secret programs like this (and still does) makes Judith's story of being selected as a young lady for use use in secret cancer research much more plausible. A young puppy rarely turns on its mama who provides the milk. Young kids stories are easily deniable should they ever go off of the reservation. I know of some cases that fit the same profile for Judyth, cases where very gifted children were selected, groomed, trained, placed in special positions and academic programs, to become top officials later.

The cancer research Judyth was working on would have to have been covert, thus it would have been done using folks who could easily be deniable. Who would ever believe Ferrie would be used to run weapons to Cuba either? But why was he doing cancer research in his home? Creating cover stories and later institution cover up ops by the use of psyops is sophisticated "tradecraft" and only those who have worked with these matters or victims of them are able to understand these apparent contradictions, contradictions which are built in and planned into any operation beforehand.

And even if many details provided by Judyth in the past are shown to be incorrect, that in and of itself does not necessarily impact certain more basic parts of her story, many of which have already been well documented.

Now anyone that doubts the existence of MKUltra, Monarch or Bluebird, or the Presidential Model operations can research this now thanks to the power of the internet. Look up "Franklin Scandal", Spence page-boy scandal, Finders, MKUltra, Monarch, Bluebird, MKSlammer, etc.

Once a researcher becomes informed of these programs it is much easier to fathom the special kids programs which are much less abusive--these are the programs where the brightest, most talented children are selected out for grooming and use (the age selected depends on the project that needs to be filled). Intel has means to scan newspapers and media to find good candidates.

Judyth's story at its basic facts seems very similar to some special kids selections from the past that I know the details of, so it is plausible to me. Her association with Oswald is not even necessary to explain the harassment that could be targeted at her for her knowledge of the research to weaponize cancer. I think there is even more there that she is probably not directly aware of, some key facts that lie just below the surface and intel doesn't want someone digging into this too far.

If I was going to investigate this matter I would be more concerned with why Judyth was selected (what special gifts or capabilities did she have, and more concerned with Judyth's knowledge about the weaponizing of the cancer work and all the names involved than with Oswald, but that is just the way I see it).

Bottom line is Judyth has been harassed, and major psyops efforts have been brought against her to discredit her and create an environment where others are motivated to discredit her anytime she discloses some alleged important information. Some of the folks who have worked hard to discredit her are known to be dirty, some may just be mistaken, and some who have been unaccepting of many details of her story are themselves clean and are respected researchers but just feel they have found too many discrepancies and improbabilities.

I have worked with victims of intel harassment and psyops which did at times make misstatements and self-serving biased comments, largely due to the stress of the harassment and their own humanness and human limitations. Some had periods of outright anxiety and depressive disorders and their mental functioning deteriorated temporarily from the stress of the harassment.

So basically it is important for anyone investigating their story not to "throw the baby out with the bathwater", just because the water gets a little dirty.

Since WW2, why would intel spend so much money obtaining the best psyops money can buy? Why would they import and adopt the nazi mindkontrol techniques and use them 100%? Why would they hire Mueller, Gehlen and Mengele to set up these intel operations after WW2???

Intel has been long committed to using very sophisticated mind control and psyops technology that has been field tested and developed over many years dating back to the early 1950's and it is typically very effective. Unfortunately it is criminally misused against innocent citizens and whistleblowers far too much of the time, as in the case of Judyth.

[John Dolva]

ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THE OBSERVATIONS OF MY PSY OPS EXPERT:

''that junk lady'' - who's that?

''Jack White is a very distinguished researcher of government-based elite-deviance.'' No I think the CIA call him a valuable resource of some photographic description. Jack?

...digging into this too far.

''If I was going to investigate this matter'' I would consider the issue of miscegination (sic?). The issue of ''bad blood''.

''Intel has been long committed to using ''very sophisticated'' mind control and psyops technology that has been field tested and developed over many years dating back to the early 1950's and it is typically very effective. Unfortunately it is criminally misused against innocent citizens and whistleblowers far too much of the time'' - yeah.

edit:typos

edit add: and then at some time a scrutiny of the Alabama Clippings and incidents (*there might even be a report from Guy Banister there, the dates might match, the code desiganation, no idea) (and Georgia and Alaska) folders in the MSC archives.

edit:add*

http://mdah.state.ms.us/arrec/digital_archives/sovcom/

Edited March 21, 2010 by John Dolva

[Greg Burnham]

Jim's expert said:

Judyth's story at its basic facts seems very similar to some special kids selections from the past that I know the details of, so it is plausible to me. Her association with Oswald is not even necessary to explain the harassment that could be targeted at her for her knowledge of the research to weaponize cancer. I think there is even more there that she is probably not directly aware of, some key facts that lie just below the surface and intel doesn't want someone digging into this too far.

[emphasis mine]

Previously I asked you to put questions to him that were related to this subject. This post answers one of my questions, albeit indirectly. Thanks for the confirmation.

If I was going to investigate this matter I would be more concerned with why Judyth was selected (what special gifts or capabilities did she have, and more concerned with Judyth's knowledge about the weaponizing of the cancer work and all the names involved than with Oswald, but that is just the way I see it).

[emphasis mine]

FWIW, that's the way I see it, too.

GO_SECURE

monk

Edited March 22, 2010 by Greg Burnham

[Mike Williams]

I never heard of Mike Williams, but he has committed an elementary fallacy of equivocation. There is a set of "general orders" of the kind he sets forth, but what I was talking about is the standing policy that every Marine, from the highest ranking general to the lowest private, must qualify with a rifle every year, without exception! If that is something of which he is unaware, then he did not serve in the U.S. Marine Corps. I take it this fellow was never a Series Commander, either, so who knows what else may have passed him by.

My guess would be that this guy did not wander into this forum on his own to attack me on a thread about Judyth Vary Baker! No, I would bet that this guy was encouraged to make this post and to use a word like "blather", which is not a common Marine Corps expression but the kind of word Josiah would have wanted him to use. His suggestion that I am "so often off the mark" suggests that he has vast familiarity with my work, which would be rather surprising. But he is a better marksman than was I! Well done, Mike Williams!

"In 1957, Oswald shot a 212, which qualified him as a "Sharpshooter". That is reasonably good shooting, a score in the range that I myself attained (where one year, but only one, as I recall, I quaified as "Expert"). But in 1958 he did not qualify at all, which is very odd. And in 1959, he barely qualified with a 191. Those working the pits are keeping track of a shooter's score, of course, and it has been known to happen that, if the last shot made the difference between qualifying and not, they might give the shooter the benefit of the doubt. But there can be no doubt that, with a 191 in 1959, he was a poor shot, which his fellow Marines would all have known.

But that does not meant that he would have told a prospective girlfriend as much, where it is more likely that he might have said that, when he was in recruit training, he had shot 212 and qualified as a "Sharpshooter". That is hardly the only exaggeration that young Marines have been know to tell young women who interested them. So I think Judyth's report needs to be understood in context. What is actually far more fascinating to me as a former Marine is that in 1958 he did not qualify at all, which is in violation of a general order that applies to all Marines, from the highest ranking general to the lowest private--even including the Commandant of the Corps."-ALA Fetzer

First off they are not called the "pits" they are called the "butz" Second of all anyone who fires a 191 maybe a poor shot by Marine standards, but this score is far above average for the civilian world.

Third, could you show me just which General Order that it would violate by not qualifying with a rifle?

A Marines General Orders are as follows...

1. To take charge of this post and all government property in view.

2. To walk my post in a military manner, keeping always on the alert, and observing everything that takes place within sight or hearing.

3. To report all violations of orders I am instructed to enforce.

4. To repeat all calls from posts more distant from the guardhouse than my own.

5. To quit my post only when properly relieved.

6. To receive, obey, and pass on to the sentry who relieves me, all orders from the Commanding Officer, Officer Of the Day, and officers, and non-commissioned officers of the guard only.

7. To talk to no one except in the line of duty.

8. To give the alarm in case of fire or disorder.

9. To call the corporal of the guard in any case not covered by instructions.

10. To salute all officers, and all colors and standards not cased.

11. To be especially watchful at night and, during the time for challenging, to challenge all persons on or near my post, and to allow no one to pass without proper authority.

About the only thing Fetzer posts in that blathering dialog that even remotely smacks of truth is that he qualified only once as "Expert". This to me comes as no surprise as he is so often off the mark.

24 years, 24 expert ratings, I am rather proud of that accomplishment...

So you were discussing Marine Policy, I see. I have never heard Marine Policy referred to as General Orders. I suggest before you make such statements you know the subject matter. Try reading : Marine Corps Order (MCO) 3574.2J - ENTRY LEVEL AND SUSTAINMENT LEVEL MARKSMANSHIP TRAINING WITH THE M16A2 SERVICE RIFLE AND M9 SERVICE PISTOL.

Never heard of Mike Williams, did you bother to look at my profile here, or do you prefer to work off of assumptions. You know you don't have too answer that, the correct reply is readily apparent. I have to say Bill O'Reilly hit the nail on the head.

How in the world would you expect anyone to take you seriously? How could you expect anyone to take your word as anything but contemptible?

You Sir are a joke, and any opinions you have on Judith Baker, or anything else for that matter, should be closely scrutinized, as Barb and many others of good sense have so readily done.

************************************************

Fetzer IS a veteran of the Marine Corps, Williams.

Semper Fi, Fetz.

Im happy for him Terry. You supporting him and his nonsense is completely expected. I would have expected nothing less from you. IF Fetzer was a Marine Office, he discredits himself and the Marine Corp with his ridiculous nonsense.

Mike

[Greg Burnham]

ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THE OBSERVATIONS OF MY PSY OPS EXPERT:

[snip]...

So basically it is important for anyone investigating their story not to "throw the baby out with the bathwater", just because the water gets a little dirty.

Indeed...Moreover, don't throw the "bathwater [evidence] out with the baby" simply becuse the "baby" may have made human errors! Evidence is evidence irresective of the "baby" responsible for supplying it.

[Pamela Brown]

ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THE OBSERVATIONS OF MY PSY OPS EXPERT:

[snip]...

So basically it is important for anyone investigating their story not to "throw the baby out with the bathwater", just because the water gets a little dirty.

Indeed...Moreover, don't throw the "bathwater [evidence] out with the baby" simply becuse the "baby" may have made human errors! Evidence is evidence irresective of the "baby" responsible for supplying it.

Judyth has been subjected to threats and libel, even though she is a documented witness to LHO in NOLA in the summer of 1963. Yes, her situation is complex; the 'research community' that did everything to discredit and destroy her while then blaming her for the fact that she had no choice but to leave the US to survive, and was hounded even while in asylum definitely plays a part in this. It seems that you too may be comfortable blaming the victim of the attacks rather than acknowledging the reason for them in the first place, which was most likely protection at all costs of Marina's testimony to the WCR and, thus, the WCR itself, not to mention keeping the doors shut to the underbelly of the assassination in NOLA that summer.

You could, if you wished, take Judyth's statements and compare them with those of Adele Edison who was allowed to come forward and give her testimony. If you are objective, you may see eery coincidences and other eye-opening leads that may help underline the significance of what each of them has to say.

[William Kelly]

ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THE OBSERVATIONS OF MY PSY OPS EXPERT:

[snip]...

So basically it is important for anyone investigating their story not to "throw the baby out with the bathwater", just because the water gets a little dirty.

Indeed...Moreover, don't throw the "bathwater [evidence] out with the baby" simply becuse the "baby" may have made human errors! Evidence is evidence irresective of the "baby" responsible for supplying it.

Judyth has been subjected to threats and libel, even though she is a documented witness to LHO in NOLA in the summer of 1963. Yes, her situation is complex; the 'research community' that did everything to discredit and destroy her while then blaming her for the fact that she had no choice but to leave the US to survive, and was hounded even while in asylum definitely plays a part in this. It seems that you too may be comfortable blaming the victim of the attacks rather than acknowledging the reason for them in the first place, which was most likely protection at all costs of Marina's testimony to the WCR and, thus, the WCR itself, not to mention keeping the doors shut to the underbelly of the assassination in NOLA that summer.

You could, if you wished, take Judyth's statements and compare them with those of Adele Edison who was allowed to come forward and give her testimony. If you are objective, you may see eery coincidences and other eye-opening leads that may help underline the significance of what each of them has to say.

Except that if Judyth really was a victim of crimes and being pursued to the ends of the earth and the source of libel cases being filed there would be additional official records and suspects, but there isn't.

While some independent researchers I trust are getting new information, documents and new witnesses from information they say JVB has provided, and it is panning out, I still haven't seen it, other than the previously published but uncited book that refers to the Koon Kreek Klub, one nugget that I had never heard of before.

And there is no comparison betwen the two, despite their apparently similar medical research background. Dr. Edisen just spent a week in Washington D.C. at her own expense, not to call attention to her story, promote a book, sell her movie rights or increase the references to her on the internet, but rather she lobbied Congressmen to fullfill their responsibilities and oversee the JFK Act, release the JFK assassination records and determine what became of the records that were destroyed and are missing.

Over the years she has quietly given us everything she knows and has led us to dozens of records, witnesses and suspects, including SAIC NO SS John W. Rice, FBI liason to SS Orrin Bartlett, Dr./Col. Jose Rivera, Dr. Lamana and others we are still researching and will be for many more years. And she now has nothing to fear in that she has told us, and testified before the ARRB, and we now have the additional records obtained by the ARRB, so we've taken her information beyond even what she knew, so she's no longer vulnerable.

And I insist that this thread not intermingle JVB's story with any other unconnected witness, as I think that if JVB is tangled up with psych-warriors then one purpose would be to pollute what we know to be the truth.

BK

[Greg Burnham]

Pamela, I am a Judyth supporter, in case you were unaware. I stood literally alone on JFKresearch Forum in defense of her being allowed to present her testimony without harassment. I caught a lot of flak from two of my best researcher friends, Jack White and Rich DellaRosa, among others, for my efforts. Understand, I stood by her even under considerable fire--and I would do so again.

However, there is a difference between my:

1) standing up for a "fair an unbiased" evaluation of her evidence no matter where that evidence leads --

and my

2) unequivocal conclusion that everything she says is 100% accurate and relevant for the reasons that she believes it is so

I will continue to argue (with Jack, for example) that the evidence is worthy of fair evaluation and need not be dismissed out of hand.

But, I will also argue that my evaluation of the evidence will not be unduly influenced by those who buy her story "hook, line, sinker, rod, reel, boat, trailer, and trailer hitch..." thank you very much, but I have my own mind and thoughts.

You are entitled to yours and I to mine.

PS: What do you mean: (I) might be "comfortable blaming the victim"? -- Where did you get that fantasy? Totally off topic. Moreover, your conclusion that the attacks were/are due to an OSWALD related matter is subjective, and GOOD FOR YOU! At least you have an opinion. But, I don't agree--I don't know the truth, but I don't agree with that evaluation. I believe the likelihood is that the harassment is due to non-LHO related activity.

ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THE OBSERVATIONS OF MY PSY OPS EXPERT:

[snip]...

So basically it is important for anyone investigating their story not to "throw the baby out with the bathwater", just because the water gets a little dirty.

Indeed...Moreover, don't throw the "bathwater [evidence] out with the baby" simply becuse the "baby" may have made human errors! Evidence is evidence irresective of the "baby" responsible for supplying it.

Judyth has been subjected to threats and libel, even though she is a documented witness to LHO in NOLA in the summer of 1963. Yes, her situation is complex; the 'research community' that did everything to discredit and destroy her while then blaming her for the fact that she had no choice but to leave the US to survive, and was hounded even while in asylum definitely plays a part in this. It seems that you too may be comfortable blaming the victim of the attacks rather than acknowledging the reason for them in the first place, which was most likely protection at all costs of Marina's testimony to the WCR and, thus, the WCR itself, not to mention keeping the doors shut to the underbelly of the assassination in NOLA that summer.

You could, if you wished, take Judyth's statements and compare them with those of Adele Edison who was allowed to come forward and give her testimony. If you are objective, you may see eery coincidences and other eye-opening leads that may help underline the significance of what each of them has to say.

Edited March 22, 2010 by Greg Burnham

[Jack White]

Monk...I agree with all that you say EXCEPT that you think "Jack White does not believe that the evidence

is worthy of fair evaluation and needs to be dismissed out of hand." That does not express my position.

If you want, I will email you personally some of my exchanges with Jim regarding my position. However,

I do not want to post these, since that gives excuse for continuation of this thread, which I believe has

outlived its useful life.

Thanks.

Jack

Pamela, I am a Judyth supporter, in case you were unaware. I stood literally alone on JFKresearch Forum in defense of her being allowed to present her testimony without harassment. I caught a lot of flak from two of my best researcher friends, Jack White and Rich DellaRosa, among others, for my efforts. Understand, I stood by her even under considerable fire--and I would do so again.

However, there is a difference between my:

1) standing up for a "fair an unbiased" evaluation of her evidence no matter where that evidence leads --

and my

2) unequivocal conclusion that everything she says is 100% accurate and relevant for the reasons that she believes it is so

I will continue to argue (with Jack, for example) that the evidence is worthy of fair evaluation and need not be dismissed out of hand.

But, I will also argue that my evaluation of the evidence will not be unduly influenced by those who buy her story "hook, line, sinker, rod, reel, boat, trailer, and trailer hitch..." thank you very much, but I have my own mind and thoughts.

You are entitled to yours and I to mine.

PS: What do you mean: (I) might be "comfortable blaming the victim"? -- Where did you get that fantasy? Totally off topic. Moreover, your conclusion that the attacks were/are due to an OSWALD related matter is subjective, and GOOD FOR YOU! At least you have an opinion. But, I don't agree--I don't know the truth, but I don't agree with that evaluation. I believe the likelihood is that the harassment is due to non-LHO related activity.

ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THE OBSERVATIONS OF MY PSY OPS EXPERT:

[snip]...

So basically it is important for anyone investigating their story not to "throw the baby out with the bathwater", just because the water gets a little dirty.

Indeed...Moreover, don't throw the "bathwater [evidence] out with the baby" simply becuse the "baby" may have made human errors! Evidence is evidence irresective of the "baby" responsible for supplying it.

Judyth has been subjected to threats and libel, even though she is a documented witness to LHO in NOLA in the summer of 1963. Yes, her situation is complex; the 'research community' that did everything to discredit and destroy her while then blaming her for the fact that she had no choice but to leave the US to survive, and was hounded even while in asylum definitely plays a part in this. It seems that you too may be comfortable blaming the victim of the attacks rather than acknowledging the reason for them in the first place, which was most likely protection at all costs of Marina's testimony to the WCR and, thus, the WCR itself, not to mention keeping the doors shut to the underbelly of the assassination in NOLA that summer.

You could, if you wished, take Judyth's statements and compare them with those of Adele Edison who was allowed to come forward and give her testimony. If you are objective, you may see eery coincidences and other eye-opening leads that may help underline the significance of what each of them has to say.

[Greg Burnham]

Monk...I agree with all that you say EXCEPT that you think "Jack White does not believe that the evidence

is worthy of fair evaluation and needs to be dismissed out of hand." That does not express my position.

If you want, I will email you personally some of my exchanges with Jim regarding my position. However,

I do not want to post these, since that gives excuse for continuation of this thread, which I believe has

outlived its useful life.

Thanks.

Jack

Sorry Jack. I didn't intend to characterize your position that way, but was attempting to demonstrate an example only. For clarity, let me re-phrase: "I will argue (with anyone, for example) that the evidence should not be dismissed out of hand."

I have thought that the arguments invoked to dismiss this evidence in the past have been less than fair. If acted on, they would have "short circuited" the process, IMO.

But, my point to Pamela is unchanged...

GO_SECURE

monk

Edited March 22, 2010 by Greg Burnham

[David Andrews]

''If I was going to investigate this matter'' I would consider the issue of miscegination (sic?). The issue of ''bad blood''.

Where does miscegenation enter into this? Cancer as the cure for race-mixing? To beat the social odds would involve genocide.

Edited March 22, 2010 by David Andrews

[John Dolva]

David, it was (is) a great concern for various rabid segregationists making statements like the civil rights issue being the main opening for communist influence. Patriotic americans of the KKK anti mongerlisation of the white race mindet were (are) very concerned about mixing ''bad blood'', eg ''sickle anemia'' which ALL negoroes suffer from and is a white-child killer and the fight against equal rights is in fact a communist sponsored mongrelisation of aryans leading to a soviet take over of the US aided by Bobby and John bla bla bla, and yes, genocide.

Tulane was one of the last educational institutions to desegragate and to prevent doing so resorted to extremist acts.

[David Andrews]

David, it was (is) a great concern for various rabid segregationists making statements like the civil rights issue being the main opening for communist influence. Patriotic americans of the KKK anti mongerlisation of the white race mindet were (are) very concerned about mixing ''bad blood'', eg ''sickle anemia'' which ALL negoroes suffer from and is a white-child killer and the fight against equal rights is in fact a communist sponsored mongrelisation of aryans leading to a soviet take over of the US aided by Bobby and John bla bla bla, and yes, genocide.

Tulane was one of the last educational institutions to desegragate and to prevent doing so resorted to extremist acts.

Sure - consistent with the times, and with the importing of HIV to Africa.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

It would be good if posts to this thread would focus on what Judyth has to tell us. It bothers

me, however, to insinuate that, just because Judyth is publishing a book, she must be off on

a self-serving gig! She has a fascinating story to tell, important information about events in

New Orleans, including about Oswald, David Ferrie, and an assortment of mysterious figures

in a shadowy environment, which deserves to be very widely disseminated. Many of those of

us who have had the most extensive contacts with Judyth--including Ed Haslam, Jim Marrs,

Nigel Turner, and Wim Dankbaar--have concluded that she is "the real deal". We all know

that you and Jack and others hold differing opinions, but what she has to tell us is obviously

important enough to warrant publication. So why don't you wait until it comes out and we

can benefit from another review of a book from you, like the one you did about MURDER?

ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THE OBSERVATIONS OF MY PSY OPS EXPERT:

[snip]...

So basically it is important for anyone investigating their story not to "throw the baby out with the bathwater", just because the water gets a little dirty.

Indeed...Moreover, don't throw the "bathwater [evidence] out with the baby" simply becuse the "baby" may have made human errors! Evidence is evidence irresective of the "baby" responsible for supplying it.

Judyth has been subjected to threats and libel, even though she is a documented witness to LHO in NOLA in the summer of 1963. Yes, her situation is complex; the 'research community' that did everything to discredit and destroy her while then blaming her for the fact that she had no choice but to leave the US to survive, and was hounded even while in asylum definitely plays a part in this. It seems that you too may be comfortable blaming the victim of the attacks rather than acknowledging the reason for them in the first place, which was most likely protection at all costs of Marina's testimony to the WCR and, thus, the WCR itself, not to mention keeping the doors shut to the underbelly of the assassination in NOLA that summer.

You could, if you wished, take Judyth's statements and compare them with those of Adele Edison who was allowed to come forward and give her testimony. If you are objective, you may see eery coincidences and other eye-opening leads that may help underline the significance of what each of them has to say.

Except that if Judyth really was a victim of crimes and being pursued to the ends of the earth and the source of libel cases being filed there would be additional official records and suspects, but there isn't.

While some independent researchers I trust are getting new information, documents and new witnesses from information they say JVB has provided, and it is panning out, I still haven't seen it, other than the previously published but uncited book that refers to the Koon Kreek Klub, one nugget that I had never heard of before.

And there is no comparison betwen the two, despite their apparently similar medical research background. Dr. Edisen just spent a week in Washington D.C. at her own expense, not to call attention to her story, promote a book, sell her movie rights or increase the references to her on the internet, but rather she lobbied Congressmen to fullfill their responsibilities and oversee the JFK Act, release the JFK assassination records and determine what became of the records that were destroyed and are missing.

Over the years she has quietly given us everything she knows and has led us to dozens of records, witnesses and suspects, including SAIC NO SS John W. Rice, FBI liason to SS Orrin Bartlett, Dr./Col. Jose Rivera, Dr. Lamana and others we are still researching and will be for many more years. And she now has nothing to fear in that she has told us, and testified before the ARRB, and we now have the additional records obtained by the ARRB, so we've taken her information beyond even what she knew, so she's no longer vulnerable.

And I insist that this thread not intermingle JVB's story with any other unconnected witness, as I think that if JVB is tangled up with psych-warriors then one purpose would be to pollute what we know to be the truth.

BK

Edited March 22, 2010 by James H. Fetzer