Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[Greg Burnham]

...At any rate, so much for this not - so - veiled woman being referred to ... and having a totally incorrect circumstance recalled and applied to her by Greg. Dixie was correct, it was an entirely different issue that resulted in me being banished ... and that took place before any of us had the pleasure of hearing Judyth's story.

Bests,

Barb :-)

FWIW: I was NOT referring to you. Not even a little bit. You were long gone before Judyth appeared on the forum. I won't even respond to the rest, as it is off topic, too.

[Greg Burnham]

Thanks for your remembrances. My only comment is that I do not recall Rich ever having MODERATORS.

Rich did have moderators. I was one of them. One night I screwed up by losing my temper -- in the category I was supposed to be moderating. My second expulsion from there. People thought I was an "agent provocateur." He called me the Manchurian Candidate. I'll always miss Rich.

Kathy C

Rich only had moderators for a very brief time. He decided to start that on a "trial" basis...and later decided against it. It wasn't just you, Kathy--he discontinued a moderated forum in general, as he thought it had been running fine (even better) before he had moderators.

I was never technically a "moderator" --and didn't want to be. But, without citing details, you were banned for an accumulation of reasons. Actually, that's an over-statement. There was "Judyth bashing" reasons (to which Rich uncharacteristically turned a blind eye at first) and losing your temper as you stated on a different topic that you were moderating.

Hey, it's ancient history now. I'm glad you're here. Thanks for identifying yourself--I really wasn't talking about Barb. )

I miss Rich, too.

GO_SECURE

monk

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Some questions are much more interesting than others, including this extremely interesting question from Bill Kelly. Here I respond and then Judyth replies separately, where her capacity for complex thought is beautifully illustrated by this case. The document was published on prisonplanet.com and I was taken in by assuming it had been released by the ARRB. Some of my reasoning in drawing the inference was that John McCone, the new director of the CIA, does not appear to have been part of the assassination or of the cover up, but who, by being kept in the dark, was impenetrable even when Bobby confronted him in a fashion that he (RFK) believed would reveal the truth about CIA involvement, as David Talbot, BROTHERS, reports, but which was useless when he was dealing with a man who, even though he was its director, was still ignorant of the CIA's own involvement. I thought this looked like something that McCone had written to Rowley, but I now agree that is seems to be an ingenious fake. I wrote to Doug and to Judyth separately, where neither had access to the others views.

JIM RESPONDS TO BILL KELLY:

I added this document to Judyth's post after Lola, my webmaster, had discovered it, since it appeared to be the perfect complement to Judyth's description of Lee's activities and, in my judgment, appeared to be authentic:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/septe...swaldwascia.htm

Bill Kelly has observed that it appears to be fake, so I have consulted Doug Horne about its authenticity, especially since it was my inference that it had been released by the ARRB. Doug explained why he thinks it is a forgery:

I have never heard of this. On the surface it is explosive.

And on the surface, it has some problems:

(1) The information contained should have been classified Top Secret or above, not Confidential.

(2) There are no classification markings on each paragraph, as there should be.

(3) Where is the Record Identification Form (RIF)? It is incumbent on the persons producing this to explain exactly where it came from, and when. IF they can't explain its provenance, it should be treated as disinformation to make the research community begin chasing its own tail, like a mad dog in the summer heat.

(4) The document contains a Secret Service filing number (the CO-2 business), but that does not make sense to me because it is originated by the CIA. I smell a rat.

Doug also remarked that, since this forgery is of enormous interest, it was probably intended to be exposed as a fraud and thereby discredited, with was what I had written to Judyth. It appears to be one of those which, assuming that it is not authentic, presents true content in a fake document, very much as was done in the sting that took down Dan Rather, where he made a report about misconduct by George W. Bush during his service in the Texas Air National Guard, which Dan had verified to be a true verbatim document WITH REGARD TO ITS CONTENT by reviewing it with the secretary who had typed the original, but where it had been retyped using a typewriter that had not been manufactured AT THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL. Because the document turned out to be fake, the inference was drawn that its content must be false, which, of course, was not the case.

If this document, which came not from Judyth but from prisonplanet, is not authentic, as Bill suggests and as Doug tends to confirm, then it appears to be another example of this very kind, where true content is presented on a fake document in the expectation that the inference will be drawn that the content is also false. But of course the inference that Kelly draws--namely, that if the above bogus document is part of the JVB story, then she is most definitely part of a very complicated psychological warfare operation [like the one that has been] conducted by one Gregory Douglas, one which we are very familiar with and one that is meant to deceive and confuse--sounds rather plausible but is not quite right.

Bill's use of "if" was appropriate, since (1) strictly speaking, it is not "part of the JVB story" as a document, since I was the one who added it as a complement to her post, but (2) where it is "part of the JVB story" in the sense that its content appears to confirm it. But that does not make this document or the post in which it appears "part of a very complicated psychological warfare operation" like the one conducted by Gregory Douglas, which I reviewed on amazon.com and also addressed in assassinationresearch.com 1/2 (2002). It is a devilishly ingenious modus operandi for our consideration:

43 of 55 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars A fascinating work that appears to be a fraud, March 30, 2002

By James H. Fetzer (Duluth, MN USA) - See all my reviews

REGICIDE promises several new documents related to the death of JFK: (1) an English translation of an (undated) study by the Soviet Union; (2) a 20 April 1978 Defense Intelligence Agency study; (3) a summary of OPERATION ZIPPER dated 22 December 1963; and (4) Gregory Douglas' own critical comments and critique.

These items--(1) through (3)--allegedly came into his possession through a fortuitous encounter with Robert T. Crowley, a former Deputy Director for Operations for the CIA, an expert on Soviet intelligence. Douglas claims to have had extensive conversations with Crowley from 1993 to 1996, when his health took a bad turn. He died in 2000.

According to Douglas, Crowley had taken numerous documents with him upon his retirement from the CIA and occasionally shared them with various historians. As he came to trust Douglas, he became increasingly forthcoming, especially about the sequence of events that led to the death of John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

The Soviet assassination summary includes a three shot sequence with the driver slowing the limousine to a virtual stop, where JFK was hit in the throat from in front, John Connally was hit from above and behind, and JFK was hit in the head from behind.

According to the Soviet study, Lee Oswald was recruited by ONI and used his pseudo-defection as an occasion to convey valuable information about the U-2 program, which subsequently enabled the Soviets to shoot down a plane piloted by Gary Powers.

Oswald had an extensive history with the CIA and later the FBI, where, because of his defection and new persona as a pro-Castro communist sympthizer, he became a useful pawn as the designated patsy when the assassination went down.

Remarkably, the DIA study by Vedder B. Discoll, Colonel, US Army, arrives at many of the same conclusions. It also finds the driver having slowed the vehicle and endorses a three-shot scenario even while rejecting the notion that JFK was shot from above and behind.

The first shot (to the throat) came from the right front, the second (to Connally) from above and behind, and the third (to the right temple) from the right front again, using a .223 calibre weapon loaded with a murcury-filled bullet.

Neither the Soviet nor the DIA study have complete accounts of the shooting sequence, since JFK himself was hit at least four times, including a shot to the throat, a shot to the back, and two shots to the head, as ASSASSINATION SCIENCE and MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA reveal. But there were multiple additional shots.

They are incomparably more accurate than THE WARREN REPORT, but their similar three-shot scenarios raises troubling questions. If eight, nine, or ten shots were in fact fired, as appears to be the case, it is extraordinarily implausible that the Soviets and the DIA would converge on three, rather than more, shot accounts.

The author, ostensibly Chief, Soviet/Warsaw Pact Division of the Directorate for Intelligence Research, is unsparing of THE WARREN REPORT as political propaganda based upon false depictions of the shots and the shooters, especially the "magic bullet" theory as an obvious fabrication, which is certainly correct.

Both studies report that Oswald was homosexual, where the DIA concludes that his intimate relationship with George de Mohrenschild, a CIA operative, infuriated his wife, and that the CIA was willing to give him up to insure that his knowledge of CIA activities be contained.

The DIA study makes it clear that US officials never suspected the Soviet Union of any complicity, including James Jesus Angleton, the Chief of Counterintelligence for the CIA, who may well have personally played a key role in initiating the sequence of events that led to the assassination.

Angleton, who tended toward paranoia, discovered that JFK was sharing highly classified information with Nikita Krushchev, which he regarded as treason. I suspect that JFK was using Krushchev to verify or falsify what he was being told by the CIA, which he knew he could not trust.

Because the CIA and the Mafia both wanted JFK out, it was easy to draw in the mob, which eventually led to the recruitment of French assassins from Marseilles. The FBI was bought on board, then the Vice President, and finally the Joint Chiefs, who were enthusiastic about removing him from office.

The plan to take out JFK was called OPERATION ZIPPER because the target allegedly had trouble keeping his up. According to Douglas, the actual assassination weapons were two 7.65 surplus Argentine Mausers and a specially constructed .223 calibre rifle, which was supplied with mercury-filled bullets.

Serious students of this case will find much here that has the ring of truth. The reconstruction of the shooting falls short on all of these accounts, since we now know much more about what happened in Dealey Plaza and how it was covered up. But those familiar with BLOODY TREASON and BODY OF SECRETS will appreciate the extent to which the big picture fits.

One of the most disturbing aspects of ZIPPER, however, is a set of five appendices (not included) alleged to be photographs of JFK in sexual situations with various of his alleged paramours. These were supposed to have been given out as "momentos", but that defies credulity. What politician would run such a risk? Surely not JFK!

The very existence of the ZIPPER document is likely to generate the most controversy, since it is difficult to imagine that the principals to the assassination would record their meetings about it. This appears to be a case in which documents that appear to be too good to be true are indeed "too good to be true".

Douglas maintains that Crowley's willingness to assist him in these ways was largely motivated by a driving desire to attain a sense of exoneration by explaining why he and others who played crucial roles were convinced that JFK had to be removed. He offers a chilling scenario.

The skeleton of this account may well be true, but the documents on which it is based appear to have been fabricated. The corrupt objective, alas!, may be to present a largely accurate account based upon phoney records, whose exposure as forgeries is meant to discredit the account itself. I wish it were not so, but that is how things appear.

JUDYTH REPLIES TO ME ABOUT THE DOCUMENT:

I AGREE WITH YOUR ASSESSMENT, JIM. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT LEAKING A DOCUMENT THAT CONTAINS TRUE INFORMATION

-- A DOCUMENT WHICH CAN LATER BE ASSESSED TO BE FALSE -- THEN LEADS THE READER TO BELIEVE THAT ALL OF THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE DOCUMENT IS FALSE. WHATEVER IS INSERTED INTO THE DOCUMENT IS THEN CONSIDERED BOGUS.

BUT THIS METHOD ALLOWS TWO THINGS TO HAPPEN:

1) RESEARCHERS WHO BELIEVE THE DOCUMENT IS AUTHENTIC ARE THEREBY DISCREDITED WHEN ITS FALSITY IS PROVEN, THUS DIMINISHING THEIR REPUTATIONS;

2) IF THE TRUTH EVER DOES COME OUT, IT CAN BE SAID THAT A PORTION OF THE DOCUMENT WAS TRUE -- BUT SO WHAT?

MEANWHILE, ALL THE INFORMATION IS PLACED IN A 'SUSPICIOUS' CATEGORY. THIS TAKES EYES AWAY FROM CONSIDERATION OF TRUE FACTS THUS REVEALED, FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISCREDITING THEM, AS UNWORTHY OF FURTHER INVESTIGATION.

FRANKLY, IT DID NO HARM TO BE POSTED SINCE, AS A DISINFO PIECE, IT ACTUALLY POINTS OUT WHAT WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT.

SOPHISTICATED MEANS WERE USED TO CREATE THE FAKE DOCUMENT, SHOWING US THAT THE CREATOR(S) WELL KNEW WHAT ELEMENTS TO PLACE IN THE DOCUMENT TO MAKE IT APPEAR TRUE.

BUT THE DOCUMENT WAS CLEVERLY CREATED SO THAT ALSO, UPON CLOSE INSPECTION BY PERSONS WE MUST THEN CONSIDER AS EITHER BRILLIANT BUT INNOCENT OR SPECIALLY SELECTED TO 'OUT' THE DOCUMENT AS 'FAKE', IT WOULD FAIL 'AUTHENTICITY' TESTS.

BECAUSE IT WAS STAMPED CONFIDENTIAL' WHEN IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN STAMPED AT LEAST 'SECRET' TO ME IS A GIVEAWAY, BUT BILL KELLY WOULD KNOW MORE ABOUT THAT THAN I WOULD....

THE STATEMENTS ABOUT THE ONI I BELIEVE ARE TRUE. LEE SAID HE WAS 'BORROWED' FROM 'ANOTHER AGENCY' TO BE USED BY THE CIA.

SO I REPEAT:

MEANWHILE, ALL THE INFORMATION IN HE DOCUMENT IS NOW PLACED IN A 'SUSPICIOUS' CATEGORY BY RESEARCHERS. THIS REMINDS ME OF A MINK COAT THAT CAN'T BE ADVERTISED AS A MINK COAT BECAUSE 50% OF IT IS MUSKRAT, EVEN THOUGH IT'S 50% MINK -- IT'S STILL A FAKE.

CALLING ALL INFORMATION WITHIN THE FAKE DOCUMENT 'FAKE' TAKES EYES AWAY FROM CONSIDERATION OF TRUE FACTS WITHIN THE FAKE DOCUMENT, POSSIBLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF LEADING INVESTIGATORS AWAY FROM SENSITIVE AND REAL FACTS AS UNWORTHY OF FURTHER INVESTIGATION.

FOR THESE REASONS, I SAY, LET IT STAY, WITH QUALIFYING STATEMENTS:

(1) WHAT IS THE PROVENANCE OF THIS DOCUMENT?

(2) WHO FIRST SAID IT WAS A FAKE?

(3) WHO WAS MOST INTERESTED, AMONG THE WC DEFENDERS, IN PROVING THAT THE DOCUMENT WAS FALSE?

ALL THREE QUESTIONS ARE GREAT CLUES IN DETERMINING THE IMPORTANCE OF THE MATTER.

IT'S ALMOST AS GOOD AS A FAKE DOCUMENT AS IT IS AS AN AUTHENTIC ONE, AS IT CAN GIVE US LEADS AS TO LINKS TO DISINFO ARTISTS AND THEIR COMPATRIOTS IN THE MISCHIEF.

JUST MY HUMBLE OPINION...I DEFER TO THOSE WHO KNOW MORE...

JVB

ADDENDUM TO THE LAST POST FROM JUDYTH FOR JACK:

NOTE: Lola had asked Judyth for clarification about the final part of

this post, which has now arrived. So I am adding it for completeness.

Replace the original from the image of the document and continue with

the following:

You see, he was never fully trusted, he said, because he returned alive from the USSR.

And the USSR, perceiving that he was alive, might go through and double check all he had done. Once he risked his life to go to Moscow. He also spoke to Powers who was shot down (U2 incident) but I failed to ask if it was in person or by phone, darn it...

Lee and I became very close. I never could hear enough. He was not a talkative man, but eventually that changed as we grew closer. What impressed me the most was his appreciation of Kennedy and his loyalty to him. I had come from hostile anti-Kennedy territory in Florida, with anti-Castroites among my college friends, and he convinced me of JFK's courage and great capacity to make a difference in the country.

He despised LBJ and Nixon. He saw George Smathers, whom I had praised, as a traitor to Kennedy because Smathers was a segregationist who cow-towed constantly to LBJ. So imagine how I feel when I read lies that Oswald wanted to kill JFK. The very opposite was the case: he risked his life to try to save him.

I am grateful to Abraham Bolden for mentioning "Lee" as the informant to the FBI who saved Kennedy in Chicago. Lee told me he had worked hard to save Kennedy and had succeeded in one instance, which I reported to Shackelford and Platzman in 1999, as well as to "60 Minutes". Bolden confirmed that a "Lee" saved JFK from assassination in Chicago.

This makes sense to me, as Dr. Mary Sherman had many contacts in Chicago, coming originally from University of Chicago, and he said he relied on contacts to get the message through. He also dared to send some death threats as Dallas approached, hoping to get more security for JFK.

He was also present at the Stevenson UN Day event in Dallas when Stevenson was physically attacked by being spat upon and hit with a signboard during his speech. Lee had helped as one of the demonstrators and hoped the incident would increase security levels on JFK, for he knew if JFK made it to Dallas, he would have difficulty getting out alive unless extraordinary measures were taken.

He had penetrated (or was lured) into what he described as an assassination ring. The last meeting I knew of occurred on Sunday evening, the week before he assassination. He said he had never seen the individual he met a that time before. He wondered if they met so the character would be able to kill him on the 22nd...

We talked about an hour and a half his last call, which ended about 37 1/2 hours before the assassination, ending very early Thursday AM... He wanted to spend Thursday night with his babies and Marina... He wept, and said he would be there to tell them goodbye.

JVB

If the above bogus document is part of the JVB story, then she is most definately part of a very complicated psychological warfare operation that is being conducted by one Gregory Douglas, one which we are very familiar with and one that is meant to decieve and confuse.

BK

Edited March 23, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Greg Burnham]

Good stuff, Jim.

Even the MJ-12 (MAJESTIC) documents have the appearance of both authenticity and forgery--yet the content is discredited in its entirety due to the subterfuge. Result: "Toss the baby with the bathwater" -- It's an effective propaganda technique [read:truth killer formula].

GO_SECURE

monk

Some questions are much more interesting than others, including this extremely interesting question from Bill Kelly. Here I respond and then Judyth replies separately, where her capacity for complex thought is beautifully illustrated by this case. The document was published on prisonplanet.com and I was taken in by assuming it had been released by the ARRB. Some of my reasoning in drawing the inference was that John McCone, the new director of the CIA, does not appear to have been part of the assassination or of the cover up, but who, by being kept in the dark, was impenetrable even when Bobby confronted him in a fashion that he (RFK) believed would reveal the truth about CIA involvement, as David Talbot, BROTHERS, reports, but which was useless when he was dealing with a man who, even though he was its director, was still ignorant of the CIA's own involvement. I thought this looked like something that McCone had written to Rowley, but I now agree that is seems to be an ingenious fake. I wrote to Doug and to Judyth separately, where neither had access to the others views.

JIM RESPONDS TO BILL KELLY:

I added this document to Judyth's post after Lola, my webmaster, had discovered it, since it appeared to be the perfect complement to Judyth's description of Lee's activities and, in my judgment, appeared to be authentic:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/septe...swaldwascia.htm

Bill Kelly has observed that it appears to be fake, so I have consulted Doug Horne about its authenticity, especially since it was my inference that it had been released by the ARRB. Doug explained why he thinks it is a forgery:

I have never heard of this. On the surface it is explosive.

And on the surface, it has some problems:

(1) The information contained should have been classified Top Secret or above, not Confidential.

(2) There are no classification markings on each paragraph, as there should be.

(3) Where is the Record Identification Form (RIF)? It is incumbent on the persons producing this to explain exactly where it came from, and when. IF they can't explain its provenance, it should be treated as disinformation to make the research community begin chasing its own tail, like a mad dog in the summer heat.

(4) The document contains a Secret Service filing number (the CO-2 business), but that does not make sense to me because it is originated by the CIA. I smell a rat.

Doug also remarked that, since this forgery is of enormous interest, it was probably intended to be exposed as a fraud and thereby discredited, with was what I had written to Judyth. It appears to be one of those which, assuming that it is not authentic, presents true content in a fake document, very much as was done in the sting that took down Dan Rather, where he made a report about misconduct by George W. Bush during his service in the Texas Air National Guard, which Dan had verified to be a true verbatim document WITH REGARD TO ITS CONTENT by reviewing it with the secretary who had typed the original, but where it had been retyped using a typewriter that had not been manufactured AT THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL. Because the document turned out to be fake, the inference was drawn that its content must be false, which, of course, was not the case.

If this document, which came not from Judyth but from prisonplanet, is not authentic, as Bill suggests and as Doug tends to confirm, then it appears to be another example of this very kind, where true content is presented on a fake document in the expectation that the inference will be drawn that the content is also false. But of course the inference that Kelly draws--namely, that if the above bogus document is part of the JVB story, then she is most definitely part of a very complicated psychological warfare operation [like the one that has been] conducted by one Gregory Douglas, one which we are very familiar with and one that is meant to deceive and confuse--sounds rather plausible but is not quite right.

Bill's use of "if" was appropriate, since (1) strictly speaking, it is not "part of the JVB story" as a document, since I was the one who added it as a complement to her post, but (2) where it is "part of the JVB story" in the sense that its content appears to confirm it. But that does not make this document or the post in which it appears "part of a very complicated psychological warfare operation" like the one conducted by Gregory Douglas, which I reviewed on amazon.com and also addressed in assassinationresearch.com 1/2 (2002). It is a devilishly ingenious modus operandi for our consideration:

43 of 55 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars A fascinating work that appears to be a fraud, March 30, 2002

By James H. Fetzer (Duluth, MN USA) - See all my reviews

REGICIDE promises several new documents related to the death of JFK: (1) an English translation of an (undated) study by the Soviet Union; (2) a 20 April 1978 Defense Intelligence Agency study; (3) a summary of OPERATION ZIPPER dated 22 December 1963; and (4) Gregory Douglas' own critical comments and critique.

These items--(1) through (3)--allegedly came into his possession through a fortuitous encounter with Robert T. Crowley, a former Deputy Director for Operations for the CIA, an expert on Soviet intelligence. Douglas claims to have had extensive conversations with Crowley from 1993 to 1996, when his health took a bad turn. He died in 2000.

According to Douglas, Crowley had taken numerous documents with him upon his retirement from the CIA and occasionally shared them with various historians. As he came to trust Douglas, he became increasingly forthcoming, especially about the sequence of events that led to the death of John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

The Soviet assassination summary includes a three shot sequence with the driver slowing the limousine to a virtual stop, where JFK was hit in the throat from in front, John Connally was hit from above and behind, and JFK was hit in the head from behind.

According to the Soviet study, Lee Oswald was recruited by ONI and used his pseudo-defection as an occasion to convey valuable information about the U-2 program, which subsequently enabled the Soviets to shoot down a plane piloted by Gary Powers.

Oswald had an extensive history with the CIA and later the FBI, where, because of his defection and new persona as a pro-Castro communist sympthizer, he became a useful pawn as the designated patsy when the assassination went down.

Remarkably, the DIA study by Vedder B. Discoll, Colonel, US Army, arrives at many of the same conclusions. It also finds the driver having slowed the vehicle and endorses a three-shot scenario even while rejecting the notion that JFK was shot from above and behind.

The first shot (to the throat) came from the right front, the second (to Connally) from above and behind, and the third (to the right temple) from the right front again, using a .223 calibre weapon loaded with a murcury-filled bullet.

Neither the Soviet nor the DIA study have complete accounts of the shooting sequence, since JFK himself was hit at least four times, including a shot to the throat, a shot to the back, and two shots to the head, as ASSASSINATION SCIENCE and MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA reveal. But there were multiple additional shots.

They are incomparably more accurate than THE WARREN REPORT, but their similar three-shot scenarios raises troubling questions. If eight, nine, or ten shots were in fact fired, as appears to be the case, it is extraordinarily implausible that the Soviets and the DIA would converge on three, rather than more, shot accounts.

The author, ostensibly Chief, Soviet/Warsaw Pact Division of the Directorate for Intelligence Research, is unsparing of THE WARREN REPORT as political propaganda based upon false depictions of the shots and the shooters, especially the "magic bullet" theory as an obvious fabrication, which is certainly correct.

Both studies report that Oswald was homosexual, where the DIA concludes that his intimate relationship with George de Mohrenschild, a CIA operative, infuriated his wife, and that the CIA was willing to give him up to insure that his knowledge of CIA activities be contained.

The DIA study makes it clear that US officials never suspected the Soviet Union of any complicity, including James Jesus Angleton, the Chief of Counterintelligence for the CIA, who may well have personally played a key role in initiating the sequence of events that led to the assassination.

Angleton, who tended toward paranoia, discovered that JFK was sharing highly classified information with Nikita Krushchev, which he regarded as treason. I suspect that JFK was using Krushchev to verify or falsify what he was being told by the CIA, which he knew he could not trust.

Because the CIA and the Mafia both wanted JFK out, it was easy to draw in the mob, which eventually led to the recruitment of French assassins from Marseilles. The FBI was bought on board, then the Vice President, and finally the Joint Chiefs, who were enthusiastic about removing him from office.

The plan to take out JFK was called OPERATION ZIPPER because the target allegedly had trouble keeping his up. According to Douglas, the actual assassination weapons were two 7.65 surplus Argentine Mausers and a specially constructed .223 calibre rifle, which was supplied with mercury-filled bullets.

Serious students of this case will find much here that has the ring of truth. The reconstruction of the shooting falls short on all of these accounts, since we now know much more about what happened in Dealey Plaza and how it was covered up. But those familiar with BLOODY TREASON and BODY OF SECRETS will appreciate the extent to which the big picture fits.

One of the most disturbing aspects of ZIPPER, however, is a set of five appendices (not included) alleged to be photographs of JFK in sexual situations with various of his alleged paramours. These were supposed to have been given out as "momentos", but that defies credulity. What politician would run such a risk? Surely not JFK!

The very existence of the ZIPPER document is likely to generate the most controversy, since it is difficult to imagine that the principals to the assassination would record their meetings about it. This appears to be a case in which documents that appear to be too good to be true are indeed "too good to be true".

Douglas maintains that Crowley's willingness to assist him in these ways was largely motivated by a driving desire to attain a sense of exoneration by explaining why he and others who played crucial roles were convinced that JFK had to be removed. He offers a chilling scenario.

The skeleton of this account may well be true, but the documents on which it is based appear to have been fabricated. The corrupt objective, alas!, may be to present a largely accurate account based upon phoney records, whose exposure as forgeries is meant to discredit the account itself. I wish it were not so, but that is how things appear.

JUDYTH REPLIES TO ME ABOUT THE DOCUMENT:

I AGREE WITH YOUR ASSESSMENT, JIM. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT LEAKING A DOCUMENT THAT CONTAINS TRUE INFORMATION

-- A DOCUMENT WHICH CAN LATER BE ASSESSED TO BE FALSE -- THEN LEADS THE READER TO BELIEVE THAT ALL OF THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE DOCUMENT IS FALSE. WHATEVER IS INSERTED INTO THE DOCUMENT IS THEN CONSIDERED BOGUS.

BUT THIS METHOD ALLOWS TWO THINGS TO HAPPEN:

1) RESEARCHERS WHO BELIEVE THE DOCUMENT IS AUTHENTIC ARE THEREBY DISCREDITED WHEN ITS FALSITY IS PROVEN, THUS DIMINISHING THEIR REPUTATIONS;

2) IF THE TRUTH EVER DOES COME OUT, IT CAN BE SAID THAT A PORTION OF THE DOCUMENT WAS TRUE -- BUT SO WHAT?

MEANWHILE, ALL THE INFORMATION IS PLACED IN A 'SUSPICIOUS' CATEGORY. THIS TAKES EYES AWAY FROM CONSIDERATION OF TRUE FACTS THUS REVEALED, FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISCREDITING THEM, AS UNWORTHY OF FURTHER INVESTIGATION.

FRANKLY, IT DID NO HARM TO BE POSTED SINCE, AS A DISINFO PIECE, IT ACTUALLY POINTS OUT WHAT WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT.

SOPHISTICATED MEANS WERE USED TO CREATE THE FAKE DOCUMENT, SHOWING US THAT THE CREATOR(S) WELL KNEW WHAT ELEMENTS TO PLACE IN THE DOCUMENT TO MAKE IT APPEAR TRUE.

BUT THE DOCUMENT WAS CLEVERLY CREATED SO THAT ALSO, UPON CLOSE INSPECTION BY PERSONS WE MUST THEN CONSIDER AS EITHER BRILLIANT BUT INNOCENT OR SPECIALLY SELECTED TO 'OUT' THE DOCUMENT AS 'FAKE', IT WOULD FAIL 'AUTHENTICITY' TESTS.

BECAUSE IT WAS STAMPED CONFIDENTIAL' WHEN IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN STAMPED AT LEAST 'SECRET' TO ME IS A GIVEAWAY, BUT BILL KELLY WOULD KNOW MORE ABOUT THAT THAN I WOULD....

THE STATEMENTS ABOUT THE ONI I BELIEVE ARE TRUE. LEE SAID HE WAS 'BORROWED' FROM 'ANOTHER AGENCY' TO BE USED BY THE CIA.

SO I REPEAT:

MEANWHILE, ALL THE INFORMATION IN HE DOCUMENT IS NOW PLACED IN A 'SUSPICIOUS' CATEGORY BY RESEARCHERS. THIS REMINDS ME OF A MINK COAT THAT CAN'T BE ADVERTISED AS A MINK COAT BECAUSE 50% OF IT IS MUSKRAT, EVEN THOUGH IT'S 50% MINK -- IT'S STILL A FAKE.

CALLING ALL INFORMATION WITHIN THE FAKE DOCUMENT 'FAKE' TAKES EYES AWAY FROM CONSIDERATION OF TRUE FACTS WITHIN THE FAKE DOCUMENT, POSSIBLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF LEADING INVESTIGATORS AWAY FROM SENSITIVE AND REAL FACTS AS UNWORTHY OF FURTHER INVESTIGATION.

FOR THESE REASONS, I SAY, LET IT STAY, WITH QUALIFYING STATEMENTS:

(1) WHAT IS THE PROVENANCE OF THIS DOCUMENT?

(2) WHO FIRST SAID IT WAS A FAKE?

(3) WHO WAS MOST INTERESTED, AMONG THE WC DEFENDERS, IN PROVING THAT THE DOCUMENT WAS FALSE?

ALL THREE QUESTIONS ARE GREAT CLUES IN DETERMINING THE IMPORTANCE OF THE MATTER.

IT'S ALMOST AS GOOD AS A FAKE DOCUMENT AS IT IS AS AN AUTHENTIC ONE, AS IT CAN GIVE US LEADS AS TO LINKS TO DISINFO ARTISTS AND THEIR COMPATRIOTS IN THE MISCHIEF.

JUST MY HUMBLE OPINION...I DEFER TO THOSE WHO KNOW MORE...

JVB

ADDENDUM TO THE LAST POST FROM JUDYTH FOR JACK:

NOTE: Lola had asked Judyth for clarification about the final part of

this post, which has now arrived. So I am adding it for completeness.

Replace the original from the image of the document and continue with

the following:

You see, he was never fully trusted, he said, because he returned alive from the USSR.

And the USSR, perceiving that he was alive, might go through and double check all he had done. Once he risked his life to go to Moscow. He also spoke to Powers who was shot down (U2 incident) but I failed to ask if it was in person or by phone, darn it...

Lee and I became very close. I never could hear enough. He was not a talkative man, but eventually that changed as we grew closer. What impressed me the most was his appreciation of Kennedy and his loyalty to him. I had come from hostile anti-Kennedy territory in Florida, with anti-Castroites among my college friends, and he convinced me of JFK's courage and great capacity to make a difference in the country.

He despised LBJ and Nixon. He saw George Smathers, whom I had praised, as a traitor to Kennedy because Smathers was a segregationist who cow-towed constantly to LBJ. So imagine how I feel when I read lies that Oswald wanted to kill JFK. The very opposite was the case: he risked his life to try to save him.

I am grateful to Abraham Bolden for mentioning "Lee" as the informant to the FBI who saved Kennedy in Chicago. Lee told me he had worked hard to save Kennedy and had succeeded in one instance, which I reported to Shackelford and Platzman in 1999, as well as to "60 Minutes". Bolden confirmed that a "Lee" saved JFK from assassination in Chicago.

This makes sense to me, as Dr. Mary Sherman had many contacts in Chicago, coming originally from University of Chicago, and he said he relied on contacts to get the message through. He also dared to send some death threats as Dallas approached, hoping to get more security for JFK.

He was also present at the Stevenson UN Day event in Dallas when Stevenson was physically attacked by being spat upon and hit with a signboard during his speech. Lee had helped as one of the demonstrators and hoped the incident would increase security levels on JFK, for he knew if JFK made it to Dallas, he would have difficulty getting out alive unless extraordinary measures were taken.

He had penetrated (or was lured) into what he described as an assassination ring. The last meeting I knew of occurred on Sunday evening, the week before he assassination. He said he had never seen the individual he met a that time before. He wondered if they met so the character would be able to kill him on the 22nd...

We talked about an hour and a half his last call, which ended about 37 1/2 hours before the assassination, ending very early Thursday AM... He wanted to spend Thursday night with his babies and Marina... He wept, and said he would be there to tell them goodbye.

JVB

If the above bogus document is part of the JVB story, then she is most definately part of a very complicated psychological warfare operation that is being conducted by one Gregory Douglas, one which we are very familiar with and one that is meant to decieve and confuse.

BK

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

JUDYTH RESPONDS TO JACK WHITE:

I have a post from dated July 4, 2004, where Rich DellaRosa states that I resigned from his forum...DellaRosa also said that he not only erased the posts and files, but would do it again in a heartbeat, because I was telling 'fairytales' and had nothing to important to say. He also added some insults. I did not exhibit any 'abusive behavior' on the forum. his has been repeated several times by Jack and I wish to disabuse the reader who might start reading at this point in the thread.

==RESPONSE TO THE REST OF J W'S POST==MY COMMENTS IN CAPS==

Her story at that time...and my memory from that far back may be faulty, and Rich is no longer available to confirm, here is how I remember it, and arguments about it led to JVB eventually being banished from the forum for abusive behavior:

QUOTES FROM RICH DELLAROSA, JULY 4, 2004:

....you ersased (sic) everything.

You resigned...

"Your posts were deleted AFTER you resigned."

[i DISAGREE: THEY WERE ERASED BEFORE I RESIGNED]

JVB's story then (as I recall) was that LHO and JVB conversed EVERY night by phone.

==ON TMWKK THE LOVE AFFAIR AND EVER SINCE 1999 WHEN I FIRST SPOKE OUT, I MENTIONED 14-15 PHONE CALLS BETWEEN OCTOBER 6 AND EARLY AM NOV. 21.==

He would go across Beckley Street from his rooming house to a 24-hour laundromat and call her on a pay phone there, and they would talk for hours. This was countered on several counts, as I recall.

==IT HAS NEVER BEEN COUNTERED. A JANITOR IS IN THE MARY FERRELL CHRONOLOGY REPORTING SEEING LEE OSWALD THERE THE LAST NIGHT HE CALLED ME. I DID NOT SAY THAT LEE USED THE LAUNDROMAT EVERY TIME FOR A CALL. I DESCRIBED BEING ABLE TO HEAR CARS PASSING BY ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS...NOR DID I CLAIM A PAYPHONE EXISTED INSIDE THE LAUNDROMAT. I HAVE SOME INFORMATION ABOUT HIS, THOUGH, THAT THE RESEARCH COMMUNITY SHOULD KNOW ABOUT. IT CASTS ASPERSIONS ON THE ROLE AND CONDUCT OF RUTH PAINE ON THE EVENING OF NOV. 21==

Some researcher found no such nearby laundromat existed.

==INACCURATE. THE JANITOR'S LAUNDROMAT REPORT WAS FROM THE FBI.==

At that time, pay phone calls were timed by the minute, and were very expensive, especially long distance, and JVB had LHO spending huge sums on pay phone calls.

==FALSE. JACK WHITE HAS OBVIOUSLY NEVER SEEN THE LOVE AFFAIR DOCUMENTARY, WHERE I EXPLAIN WE TAPPED INTO A MAFIA RACING LINE AND ALL CALLS WERE FREE. I EXPLAINED HE SET-UP TO "60 MINUTES" IN SOME DETAIL. A GOOD RESEARCHER SHOULD A LEAST LOOK AT THE DOCUMENTARY, WHICH IN ITSELF IS JUST A DISTILLATION.... WITNESSES ARE NOT IN IT DUE TO THEIR FEAR. WE HAVE DOCUMENTED PRESSURE USED AGAINST ANNA LEWIS, FOR EXAMPLE.==

Then she told of a very long call the night of November 21,

==FALSE. NEVER SAID THAT. IT WAS LATE ON THE NIGHT OF WEDNESDAY, NOV. 20, EXTENDING INTO EARLY AM NOV. 21. ==

lasting past midnight. This was countered with the fact that LHO was in Irving and not at the rooming house, and his pre-assassination night was well documented. When reminded that LHO could not call from the all-night laundromat, JVB was adamant that the long midnight call was made,

[NOT TRUE!]

and that he found another pay phone in Irving.

[NOT TRUE!]

==UTTER FABRICATION THAT DOES NOT MATCH ANYTHING EVER WRITTEN OR SPOKEN BY ME.....FALSE STATEMENTS ARE BEING ATTRIBUTED TO ME==

For this to have happened, LHO would have had to get out of bed without waking Marina, leave the Paine house secretly, walk to find a pay phone in the residential neighborhood, talk a long time, return to the Paine house, and sneak back into bed without awakening Marina or children. This is how I remember the forum exchanges from years ago.

==YOU HAVE THE DATE WRONG, JACK. I HAVE ALWAYS STATED THE CALL WAS THE NIGHT OF NOV. 20 TO EARLY AM NOV. 21. I HAVE TO RESPOND BECAUSE PEOPLE WILL THINK YOU ARE CORRECT, AND YOU ARE NOT. A DIFFERENT FORUM STARTED SAYING "SHE SAID SHE 'TALKED TO OSWALD ON NOV. 21" AND THE NEXT THING I KNEW, THEY SAID WE TALKED THE NIGHT OF NOV. 21. I TRIED TO CORRECT THEM, BUT MY STATEMENT WAS IGNORED.. THIS MAY BE WHAT YOU RECALL.==

JVB became very abusive to Rich and some other researchers after about nine months, and Rich finally banished JVB and her supporters (at that time mostly Martin Shackleford, Bob Vernon, Wim Dankbaar and several others).

==I TRY NOT TO BE ABUSIVE TO ANYONE, JACK. PEOPLE SUPPORTING ME THERE OBJECTED TO MY TREATMENT AND GOT BANISHED, TOO. THINK ABOUT THAT! WHAT IF THE EDUCATION FORUM BANISHED DR. FETZER, GREG BURNHAM AND PAMELA BROWN FOR DEFENDING SOME OF MY STATEMENTS ON THESE THREADS? BUT THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED IN DELLAROSA'S FORUM.==

My details may not be totally accurate, but this is the gist that I remember from those long ago arguments. In the aftermath of the banishments, someone with an ISP in Amsterdam hacked Rich's forum twice, each time causing it to go down for several days, and losing earlier messages, including the JVB exchanges.

==THESE MAY HAVE BEEN THE DUTCH THIEVES, WHO STOLE MY BELONGINGS, THREATENED MY FRIENDS, HACKED INTO EVERYWHERE I HAD POSTED AND DELETED MY POSTS. THEY ALSO HACKED INTO MY COMPUTER, STOLE MY BOOK, AND POSTED ALTERED VERSIONS OF IT ONLINE, PICKED UP BY MCADAMS TO USE AGAINST ME, THIS MATERIAL INCLUDED THE UNFINISHED OUTLINE 'DEADLY ALLIANCE' WHICH HAD NOT YET BEEN CORRECTED IN FULL, BUT IS SILL BEING USED AGAINST ME WITH ITS SEVERAL ERRORS LEFT TO VIEW==

The phone call story seemed preposterous to some on the forum then, and I still find it difficult to swallow. I feel I must speak up again, because this same argument I thought was settled years ago, and now it surfaces again.

==YOU HAVE IT WRONG, JACK. MARRS, LIVINGSTONE, SHACKELFORD, DEVRIES, DANKBAAR, PLATZMAN AND OTHERS KNOW THE TIME LINE HAS NEVER CHANGED AND NO CALL EVER OCCURRED THE NIGHT OF THE 21ST. NOR DID I EVER STATE ANYTHING ABOUT A CALL FOR IRVING FOR THAT DATE.I STOUTLY DEFENDED THE MATTER EXACTLY AS I AM DOING NOW. BUT IT WAS ERASED==

Jack

ADDENDUM: During the midnight phone call, LHO told JVB that JFK would be killed on Friday, as the story goes. This caused forum members to charge JVB with being an accessory to the assassination, if she knew in advance of the attempt and did not try to contact authorities. This led to various accusations and counter accusations, as I recall.

I had vowed not to waste more time on the JVB story, but I cannot let this go unchallenged. It covers the

same ground which was disputed years ago on the DellaRosa forum.

With due respect to Greg and Jim...the latest is not the way I remember it...from about 8 years ago on Rich's forum.

Her story at that time...and my memory from that far back may be faulty, and Rich is no longer available to

confirm, here is how I remember it, and arguments about it led to JVB eventually being banished from the

forum for abusive behavior:

JVB's story then (as I recall) was that LHO and JVB conversed EVERY night by phone. He would go across Beckley

Street from his rooming house to a 24-hour laundromat and call her on a pay phone there, and they would talk for

hours. This was countered on several counts, as I recall. Some researcher found no such nearby laundromat existed.

At that time, pay phone calls were timed by the minute, and were very expensive, especially long distance, and

JVB had LHO spending huge sums on pay phone calls. Then she told of a very long call the night of November 21,

lasting past midnight. This was countered with the fact that LHO was in Irving and not at the rooming house,

and his pre-assassination night was well documented. When reminded that LHO could not call from the all-night

laundromat, JVB was adamant that the long midnight call was made, and that he found another pay phone in

Irving. For this to have happened, LHO would have had to get out of bed without waking Marina, leave the

Paine house secretly, walk to find a pay phone in the residential neighborhood, talk a long time, return

to the Paine house, and sneak back into bed without awakening Marina or children. This is how I remember

the forum exchanges from years ago. JVB became very abusive to Rich and some other researchers after

about nine months, and Rich finally banished JVB and her supporters (at that time mostly Martin Shackleford,

Bob Vernon, Wim Dankbaar and several others). My details may not be totally accurate, but this is the gist

that I remember from those long ago arguments. In the aftermath of the banishments, someone with an ISP

in Amsterdam hacked Rich's forum twice, each time causing it to go down for several days, and losing earlier

messages, including the JVB exchanges.

The phone call story seemed preposterous to some on the forum then, and I still find it difficult to swallow. I feel I

must speak up again, because this same argument I thought was settled years ago, and now it surfaces again.

Jack

ADDENDUM: During the midnight phone call, LHO told JVB that JFK would be killed on Friday, as the story goes.

This caused forum members to charge JVB with being an accessory to the assassination, if she knew in

advance of the attempt and did not try to contact authorities. This led to various accusations and counter

accusations, as I recall.

[Greg Burnham]

We have disagreed on many things, Kathy, but--IMO--you make a good point, but only to a degree. For one, he wasn't stupid enough to "get killed by the secret service" for interfering with the motorcade. On the other hand, if he'd really been "in the know" about a plot in Dealey Plaza and had wanted to save Kennedy, why did he not do anything to stop it? Then again, what could he have done? Perhaps he was stupid for showing up at work that day AT ALL--if he really knew that there was a plot...and was talking to his "lover" on the phone about it?

For me, some of this story is incredulous--on its face--and some seems counterintuitive to common sense. It's saving grace is its enormity--and its possibilities--just too much to get my head sufficiently around to be comfortable making a judgment call.

I think this is the longest thread ever held in John Simkin's forum. I am skimming it, so I apologize if this question has been asked already.

So imagine how I feel when I read lies that Oswald wanted to kill JFK. The very opposite was the case: he risked his life to try to save him.

JVB

What did Oswald do to save Kennedy's life? How stupid was Oswald? The Presidential motorcade was going to pass where he worked -- didn't he find that suspicious? Handing out leaflets, doing 2 radio shows about communism, etc. Didn't he realize covert agencies were painting him red? He was practically the only one in the TSBD who didn't go out and watch the President go by. Didn't he hear the shots?

Now, what did he do to save Kennedy? Stand there drinking a coke? If he really wanted to be a hero, why didn't he run in front of the limo, yelling, "They're going to kill you," and cover Kennedy's head? Of course the Secret Service would have killed him. But he did nothing to stop the shooting.

Kathy C

[John Dolva]

[There are a couple of things that have been bothering me, and I'm sure the answer is simple: I'm basically lazy!

The only search link to that document is to the Macadams sife (my guess is that the proper code is in the manuscript and the file named according to another filing system) and that it's not a hearing transcript. I wonder if a hearing transcript exists in the public domain?]

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

JUDYTH REPLIES TO DIXIE DEA:

CITATIONS, PLEASE, DIXIE DEA. (DIXIE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO MAKE ANY SUCH CITATIONS AS PROVENANCE WILL SHOW THAT HEARSAY IS INVOLVED.)

HOWEVER, IN LIVINGSONE'S PUBLICATION OF MY BOOK, THERE WERE UNCORRECTED ERRORS, WHICH DIXIE KNOWS I HAVE MENTIONED AS REASONS FOR IS NOT BEING AN AUTHORIZED EDITION.

I WAS UNABLE TO SEE THE FINAL GALLEY AND HAD TO RELY ON MARTIN SHACKELFORD TO RELAY ANY CORRECTIONS FROM WHAT MARTIN EMAILED ME.

MANY OF THOSE CORRECTIONS NEVER MADE IT INTO THE BOOK. MATERIAL THAT WAS SPECULATIVE WAS NOT LABELED AS SUCH AND YOU WOULD HAVE TO READ IT CAREFULLY TO REALIZE IT WAS SPECULATION.

SHACKLEFORD BELIEVED ALL CORRECTIONS GOT MADE, BUT THERE IS, FOR EXAMPLE, A BLATANT EXAMPLE OF HOW MUCH WAS WRONG WITH THAT BOOK: AN ENTIRE LONG PARAGRAPH IS REPEATED IN THE LIVINGSTONE PUBLICATION. I WAS ABLE TO SUCCESSFULLY GET THE BOOK STOPPED FROM PUBLICATION AS I PROVED IT WAS PUBLISHED WITHOUT MY PERMISSION.

DIXIE AND BARB CONGRATULATE EACH OTHER ON REMEMBERING THINGS THAT DID NOT HAPPEN. BY GANGING UP TOGETHER, THEY BELIEVE THEY CAN THEN ASSERT THAT THESE THINGS HAPPENED.

BARB CHIMES IN, THOUGH SHE WAS NOT ON THE FORUM. I WASN'T THERE IN 2001. I SENT YOU THE SHEET SHOWING WHEN GREG WAS THERE, HOPE YOU HAVE IT. HE SIGNED THAT SHEET.

THEY ARE DOING THE SAME SCREENING--BIG POSTS, REPEATING THINGS UNTRUE, RE-POSTING TO AGREE WITH EACH OTHER--WHICH OBSCURES ANY HOPE OF PEOPLE SEEING WHAT REALLY HAPPENED.

JVB

Jack....Judyth already did have her long awaited, first book published. In fact, it was in two volums, one of which contained all of her Endnotes....which were numerous. Harry Livingstone published it through a print to read company. Sometimes that is the only way to do so. I did obtain the copies, but then she stopped the publication, becaus eit did not turn out as she had hoped. There again, there are descrepencies as to her reason and with Martin Shacklefords reasons. So this upcoming book is actually her second book. There were numerous inconsistencies from her forum post claims and in her first book.

Dixie

[Jack White]

Thanks, Dixie...I was unaware that Harry published a book about JVB. I have not kept up

with any of her tales since she left Rich's forum. I am not interested in her romance.

Jack

Jack....Judyth already did have her long awaited, first book published. In fact, it was in two volums, one of which contained all of her Endnotes....which were numerous. Harry Livingstone published it through a print to read company. Sometimes that is the only way to do so. I did obtain the copies, but then she stopped the publication, becaus eit did not turn out as she had hoped. There again, there are descrepencies as to her reason and with Martin Shacklefords reasons. So this upcoming book is actually her second book. There were numerous inconsistencies from her forum post claims and in her first book.

Dixie

[Greg Burnham]

Dixie,

I'm not saying Judyth joined in 2001. I don't remember the year for a certainty, but I know that I met with her BEFORE she joined--for sure. I think we met in 2001--but I don't recall exactly how long it took for her to join after we met. It's probably not a critical point, though.

I really appreciate your admission that you "bashed her (claims)" -- although, IMHO, it was more like: You guys BASHED HER personally, too... And it was not fair. It was against "flame free zone" policy, even if she was wrong. That said, it is irrelevant to the veracity of her account. "Bashing" (or the lack thereof) doesn't resolve the issue one way or the other, but it does serve to delay (and in some cases halt) the process.

GO_SECURE

monk

Greg...now that you mentioned year 2001 that she joined, I am now thinking you are correct about that. It was just that some of us had already heard about her in 2000 and had started discussing her there, before she ever joined. I am not trying to minimize my own part in attempting to bash her claims. I did not believe her then, and still don't. Yet, I feel we got too carried away.

I am also not very interested in such romance stories.....it all reminds me if those silly True Confessions Magazines, I use to read as a teenager....yet, I thought they were silly even then.

Yes, I do believe we are talking about the same woman that got banned, but not over Judyth.

Dixie

[Michael Hogan]

.......On the other hand, if he'd really been "in the know" about a plot in Dealey Plaza and had wanted to save Kennedy, why did he not do anything to stop it? Then again, what could he have done? Perhaps he was stupid for showing up at work that day AT ALL--if he really knew that there was a plot...and was talking to his "lover" on the phone about it?

For me, some of this story is incredulous--on its face--and some seems counterintuitive to common sense. It's saving grace is its enormity--and its possibilities--just too much to get my head sufficiently around to be comfortable making a judgment call.

Cogent thoughts that go to the heart of the matter, in my opinion.

When Oswald's death was announced, it was clear that the alleged assassin would take certain secrets to the grave.

At that time most people probably couldn't have imagined just how many enduring secrets that would be.

Edited March 23, 2010 by Michael Hogan

[Greg Burnham]

Cogent thoughts that go to the heart of the matter, in my opinion.

When Oswald's death was announced, it was clear that the alleged assassin would take certain secrets

to the grave. At that time most people probably didn't realize just how many enduring secrets that would be.

Thanks, Mike. I find it interesting that we sometimes forget (or neglect to remember) the obvious significance of this man's age: He was ONLY 24 years old! Imagine that...it was one of us? Hard to imagine--reliving my 24th year in his shoes or even in my own shoes for that matter! Yet, he--of such limited life experience--we presume went to the grave with extraordinary secrets about the crime of the century! Or, at least that's what we're being asked to believe... Let me clarify my meaning: I think he went to the grave with a lot of information, but--he may not have been aware of the significance of the majority of it himself. This is in no way "proof" of my assertion-- but, he was ONLY 24 -- I don't think that he or Judyth knew at that tender age (as HEMMING would say): "xxxx from shinola" -- And, who among us would have? Yet, Judyth paints an unrealistic picture of his abilities, IMO. His exceptional level of "wisdom" (as reported by her) is inconsistent with his years of life experience and with his poor judgment. --I'm just thinking out loud, now--

GO_SECURE

monk

[Dixie Dea]

From Judyth to Dixie via Fetzer........what are you talking about? I didn't say anything that you didn't just say, in a different way. I am aware of the doings about your first book I have your words and then there is also Martins words (who was always one of your biggest supporters) ....I have no idea who is or isn't correct. What all Martin has to say, can be found at McAdams archives discussion group and I am not going to try and hunt it all down and don't want to repeat all that Martin had to say because I don't like to carry things from one forum to another. Others can look it up, if interested.

Citations! You would be surprised at what all I have accumulated, including the Timeline that you and Rich attermpted over some time. And do not pull that game on me that Barb and I are aligned to create havoc on you! I figure there is a good chance we would both tell each other (or anyone else for that matter) where to go if we even made such a suggestion to each other. In the first place, I hardly even know Barb and we do not run in the same circle at all....and even our JFK interests are in quite different areas, as far as I can tell. I can never figure out why it is thought some of us are too ignorant to be able to form our own opinions iwthout anyones help or being a part of some group. That is just some more of the psych. intimidation. I do not care what anyone else does or doesn't believe...none of my business. I only care what I think!! In addition, I have been known to change my views in some areas, through the years and have always said that if I should change my mind about your claims, I would freely admit it. However, when you just make up stuff..like saying Barb and I are involved on this together...that is also quite telling. I doubt that anyone except you and Fetzer would even think such things or make such accusations. Its true that I tend to write long messages, including most of my emails. I tend to forget it is just a simple email and think I am writing a book...but then you do the same thing. That is just the way we are!

I was hoping you would accept that I had nothing personal against you. I have mentioned before, that I have had clients who I also couldn't believe, but still I did like them very much. I really don't want to continue trying to antagonize each other!!!

Dixie

[Greg Burnham]

Monk...your memories may be better than mine, especially about certain things. But my memory is very

clear about abusive messages (lots of emails, as well as forum postings) from JVB and Dankbaar. Vernon

was never abusive that I remember. I think Shack also sent lots of emails, but not abusive. It was a

campaign like BELIEVE US, OR SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES. And I am sure that you remember the

TWO HACKINGS which DOWNED THE FORUM. Rich told me in emails that HE TRACED THE HACKINGS TO

AN ISP IN AMSTERDAM.

Thanks for your remembrances. It is hard to reconstruction something this old.

Jack

Jack,

I haven't seen any memory lapses so far that I couldn't have committed myself! I sincerely and firmly DISBELIEVE that Judyth posted any abusive messages to the forum, EVER. I would remember as a function of helping Rich administer policy there. I do recall Wim posting highly vitriolic messages critical of anyone who didn't immediately accept Judyth's story, or James Files' story, or Chauncey Holt as a 3rd tramp, etc. I do recall the ISP discovery for the hacking incidents as I was the one who tracked it down and supplied it to Rich for confirmation.

GO_SECURE

monk

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Jack,

I'm very troubled by your incessant repetition of points that have long since been resolved. If Judyth and Monk and I have all explained to you had she was NOT "booted" but "resigned", why is that too difficult for you to accept? And listening to your laundry list of mistakes you allege she has made in her story, when her rebuttals are more convincing than your accounts, I am VERY troubled that your massive bias against her feeds your posts and leads to distortions in your all-too-fallible memory.

You want to discount that she and Lee were romantically involved, but don't you understand that, unless she had been on very personal terms with Lee, she almost certainly would not have learned so much about him? And anyone who suggests that what she knows could have come from books is committing a greater fantasy than those of which she has been accused. I have been dealing with her very extensively involving many exchanges and, in my opinion, there is no way she could be faking this!

And while, when you first encountered my psy ops expert's opinions about why she was being harassed, you said that you found that more reasonable than anything else that might explain it, since then you have turned a deaf ear to everything she has had to say on this forum. I know you think I am committing some kind of gross blunder, but, at this point in time, I am convinced that she is "the real deal" and that most of the attacks upon her from the past were not warranted.

I am not alone in this assessment, as you know, since Nigel Turner, Jim Marrs, Edward Haslam, Wim Dankbaar, and others unnamed come out on her side, too. I suggest that you consider the possibility that Judyth posed such a threat, once she decided she could no longer remain silent, that massive efforts have been exerted in repeated attempts to discredit her, including planting false stories attributed to her that have subsequently been used against her.

You have observed--more than once--that perhaps the right approach is to study her book when it appears, but of course you aren't waiting. My best guess is that you are wary of Judyth because you believe that her account has the potential to undermine the "Harvey & Lee" scenario to which you are committed. Well, I have explained--several times now--why her knowledge of the man she knew as "Lee" in New Orleans does not necessarily conflict with "the two Oswalds", unless, of course, it turns out that "the second Oswald" was concocted out of a rather varied assortment of impersonators across time, where the creation of false documentary records has been mistaken for a single person living a parallel life.

You have strong opinions about this, while I do not. But unless you doubt there was "a second Oswald", why become apoplectic about the man that Judyth appears to have known in New Orleans? If she really were a flake, a fake, or a phony, then why should you or anyone else be so concerned about her? The big picture, in my view, makes no sense at all unless there is a great deal more truth to what she has to say than you are willing to allow. And, with virtually every exchange on this forum, I become more and more convinced that she is right and that most of her critics are wrong, not in every detail, of course-since I cannot imagine how anyone could reconstruct any significant portion of their lives without some shortcomings or failings--but in its general features and, with respect to its crucial aspects.

When you and Dixie and Barb cannot even recollect accurately what happened on Rich's forum during the past ten years, for example, and are unwilling to even admit that Judyth resigned from the forum after confronting massive hostility, then I despair of the claims that your charges against her carry any weight. You are a dear friend, Jack, and I do not want to rupture our friendship, but the weight of the evidence available to me places me on her side of this divide, not on yours. Too many of your arguments depend upon your presumptions about making phone calls and the like, to cite a small example, where you don't appear to know the facts.

Please grant Judyth a modicum of respect and place less emphasis upon your fallible memory and appeals to what is or is not plausible to you. The bottom line is that, but for her personal relationship, she would not have known so much about him, where she seems to know more than anyone else on this forum. You should care about their personal relationship, since, as I see it, that was the framework for their interaction and for placing her in the position to observe and learn so much about him. I don't expect this post to resolve our differences, but I wanted to explain to you my point of view.

Jim

Thanks, Dixie...I was unaware that Harry published a book about JVB. I have not kept up

with any of her tales since she left Rich's forum. I am not interested in her romance.

Jack

Jack....Judyth already did have her long awaited, first book published. In fact, it was in two volums, one of which contained all of her Endnotes....which were numerous. Harry Livingstone published it through a print to read company. Sometimes that is the only way to do so. I did obtain the copies, but then she stopped the publication, becaus eit did not turn out as she had hoped. There again, there are descrepencies as to her reason and with Martin Shacklefords reasons. So this upcoming book is actually her second book. There were numerous inconsistencies from her forum post claims and in her first book.

Dixie

Edited March 23, 2010 by James H. Fetzer