Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[Adrian Mack]

Jefferson Morley is certainly to be applauded, but I think his chances are rather slim to slimmer than slim - because the evil apparatus of denials, lies and cover-ups is very strong and he is one man with few behind him.

The Kennedy assassination research community will have even fewer than its current meager numbers behind it if it attaches itself so promiscuously to exotica like moon hoax theories. That's not striking at the Beast; that's sinking your own ship. I suspect that the evil apparatus wants you poring over images of Neil Armstrong and then reporting back to a tiny constituency of internet warriors. It's anything but a threat to them. It's an assist.

I guess I'm not sure what you want out of it. Do you think Americans are going to march on Washington with pitchforks and torches because there might be something fishy about the Apollo Mission?

To dismiss this as "foisting speculation" is uninformed.

Jack, with the greatest respect, it's not uninformed. The 9/11 Truth Movement, such as it is, lost its window of opportunity in the immediate wake of the Commission Report, which was so obviously and blatantly compromised that it should have been rejected en masse the minute it rolled off the press. But instead of holding the government's feet to the fire, 9/11 Truth became mired in alternative theories of its own - speculation - that it has spent the subsequent lost years not proving. It has also alienated vast numbers of people that you need on side if you're serious about dismantling the evil apparatus.

It's an energy sink and, frankly, a tragedy.

[Jack White]

I am trying to understand the timelines of JVB and LHO, so have
been doing some reading, and found the following of interest:

4-20-63: JVB arrives in NOLA.
4-25-63: LHO arrives in NOLA.
4-26-63: JVB meets total stranger LHO in a line at post office.
4-27-63. LHO takes JVB on a NOLA tour to meet...
...Ferrie
...Bannister
...Ochsner
4-27-63: JVB and LHO instructed to watch for classified ad for
employment, 640 Magazine Street, by Alvin Prechter.
5-1-63: Robert Baker arrives in NOLA and demands immediate marriage.
5-2-63: JVB and Baker elope to Mobile Alabama
5-3-63: Baker leaves his bride of one day.
5-4-63: JVB is evicted from her rented room.
5-4-63: LHO arranges a new room for JVB.
5-9-63: LHO and JVB interviewed by Prechter at 640 Magazine.
5-10-63: LHO and JVB hired by Standard Coffee Company.
5-17-63: LHO and JVB transferred to Reily Coffee Company.
7-19-63: LHO fired by Reily.
8-9-63: HVB fired by Reily.

What I gather from these timelines:

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

2. Within two days of arriving in NOLA, LHO met total stranger JVB
and took her around NOLA introducing her to Ferrie, Bannister and
Ochsner.

3. JVB and LHO were co-employees only from 5-10 until 7-19...
20 days in May, 30 days in June, and 19 days in July...a total of
69 days.

Previously I had been under the impression that ALL of the claimed
association took place at Reily Coffee Company.

Jack

[Peter Lemkin]

Jefferson Morley is certainly to be applauded, but I think his chances are rather slim to slimmer than slim - because the evil apparatus of denials, lies and cover-ups is very strong and he is one man with few behind him.

The Kennedy assassination research community will have even fewer than its current meager numbers behind it if it attaches itself so promiscuously to exotica like moon hoax theories. That's not striking at the Beast; that's sinking your own ship. I suspect that the evil apparatus wants you poring over images of Neil Armstrong and then reporting back to a tiny constituency of internet warriors. It's anything but a threat to them. It's an assist.

I guess I'm not sure what you want out of it. Do you think Americans are going to march on Washington with pitchforks and torches because there might be something fishy about the Apollo Mission?

To dismiss this as "foisting speculation" is uninformed.

Jack, with the greatest respect, it's not uninformed. The 9/11 Truth Movement, such as it is, lost its window of opportunity in the immediate wake of the Commission Report, which was so obviously and blatantly compromised that it should have been rejected en masse the minute it rolled off the press. But instead of holding the government's feet to the fire, 9/11 Truth became mired in alternative theories of its own - speculation - that it has spent the subsequent lost years not proving. It has also alienated vast numbers of people that you need on side if you're serious about dismantling the evil apparatus.

It's an energy sink and, frankly, a tragedy.

Wait. The two people quoted above are two different people with differing views, as we all do have. The first was mine and I am not on record on in my mind made any statement on Apollo. In fact, I think most separate investigations should be generally be kept separate - as it is hard enough to convince the average American of any one - say Dallas or 9-11 or MLK. [Those three by the way I do endorse and am quite convinced that the official versions of which are false, and knowingly/calculatedly false.] While I would personally like those who question about Apollo to try to keep that separated from, for example, those three I mentioned, everyone is their own person and make their own decisions on how to play to the masses. I certainly don't think the 9-11 nor the JFK community 'lost the opportunity' or 'dropped the ball'. We are few in number and with the power of our convictions, mostly; against the huge power of the deep political state and the fig-leaf state that also has its own reasons to just ignore all this and have us watch TV and go shopping. It doesn't take a majority to change the direction of a country. We stopped Vietnam with, I'd guess, 5% or less of the population actively against it and another half rather passively to ambivalently against it. Change happens when a few dedicated people start a movement. Civil Rights was perhaps the largest movement in recent times, as almost all African Americans and a small percentage of European (and other)-Americans decided to finally try to offer what had been promised on paper 100 years earlier....but look...it still has NOT be made fact on the ground. The war on drugs [really war with drugs] and other such are Jim Crow in disguise. My point is the system is SO broken while we need to go through the motions of working with and through it, it really needs to be bypassed, IMO.....it is too rotten, too corrupt and too entrenched to EVER let much in the way of progress. In fact, at this point in history the Oligarchy is gaining in power and repression and the average person - the Demos - loosing ground horribly. Answer: new paradigms and peaceful revolution. How: educate and pass on the information and the enthusiasm. It is that or perish....soon. IMO. The other quote is not mine...perhaps Jack, not sure.

[Adrian Mack]

Wait. The two people quoted above are two different people with differing views, as we all do have. The first was mine and I am not on record on in my mind made any statement on Apollo.

Peter, yes! My apologies! I hope my larger point still stands however -- moon hoax theories are toxic in my view. That's all I'm trying to say. The second quote was Jack's, correct.

[Dawn Meredith]

[quote=Jack White]Jim...Armstrong and a British researcher that John hired to help
spent months in the National Archives. They requested and copied
EVERY document which mentioned Oswald or any member of the
Oswald family. All of these documents were gathered into more than
100 4-inch 3-ring binders by subject and arranged according to date.
In addition John examined public records anywhere referenced in the
documents...and conducted hundreds of interviews of persons mentioned
in any documents.

The most crucial of these (as you will find when you read the book)
was a man named Palmer McBride, a man who worked with Lee Harvey
Oswald in New Orleans while official records showed that Lee Harvey
Oswald was in Japan.

John's book then shows that most other documents were contradictory
when compared. What emerged was two different timelines for two
different men on the same dates...a physical impossibility.

As you say, forged documents are commonplace...BUT NOT ONES
WHICH CONTRADICT EACH OTHER and raise questions. Forged
documents would NOT be created WHICH SHOW TWO OSWALDS,
BUT JUST THE OPPOSITE. At all costs, they would HIDE any evidence
of two Oswalds.

When you read the book, you will see that contrary to developing
theories, John shows evidence of two LHOs in two places at the
same time. The evidence is overwhelming.

Jack

Jim:
At the point of beating this drum too many times I have to say again, just give Andy a call and get a copy of Harvey and Lee for both yourself and Judyth. All this time Judyth wastes countering the posts about her could be spend so much more productively. I too believe whe is the real deal and that her only mission in all of this is to clear Lee's name. In order for her to do do, and for you to continue to defend her story and Lee's story is to have the facts. I used to think that going down the Lee Harvey Oswald road was one of those areas too riddled in disinfo to be ever understood. Armstrong just lays it all out. It is documents, not opinion. Proof of two seperate individuals. Living at times very near to each other. Witness after witness who knew "Lee" described the same person: quick tempered, not given to talks of Marxism, never uttering a word of Russian, while witness after witness who knew "Harvey" describe a mild mannered man, not given to fights, very taken with the intellectual concepts of Marxism, perfect Russian...They are two distinct people. PLEASE read the book. You are doing Judyth no favors trying to refute Armstrong and Judyth is making her case far weaker doing the same. In the past she always followed the evidence. Not argued against it. I understand she feels slighted by Armstrong. All the more reason to do the reading that took him TWELVE years of his life to research.
Dawn

[Phil Dragoo]

Everything done is done at the expense of other things not done.

I posit energies expended in 1) moon landing; 2) World Trade Center demolition; 3) attacks on John Armstrong's hypothesis (et al) are done at the expense of establishing that a conspiracy conducted a coup d'etat and conversely the conspirators' theory (Warren Commission to present) is provably false.

This dilution of the latter effort would no doubt cause Dulles, Helms, Angleton, Johnson and Hoover to interrupt their poker game in hell and have a hearty chuckle.

[Adrian Mack]

Everything done is done at the expense of other things not done.

I posit energies expended in 1) moon landing; 2) World Trade Center demolition; 3) attacks on John Armstrong's hypothesis (et al) are done at the expense of establishing that a conspiracy conducted a coup d'etat and conversely the conspirators' theory (Warren Commission to present) is provably false.

This dilution of the latter effort would no doubt cause Dulles, Helms, Angleton, Johnson and Hoover to interrupt their poker game in hell and have a hearty chuckle.

Couldn't agree more.

[James H. Fetzer]

Jack has repeatedly told me that Armstrong is "not a researcher". He has amassed documents and allows them to "speak for themselves". But if Armstrong is not a researcher, then he may very well have misunderstood or misinterpreted what he accumulated in the way of this massive repository of "documents". Jack has told that there are documents that show Oswald at one location at one time and also at another location at another time, which is certainly impossible for physical, unique, human beings. But DOCUMENTS can show the same person at two different locations at the same time. On a new thread at the Simkin forum, Bill Simpich, for example, is doing a great job of unearthing important evidence about the manner in which the agency creates false identities using variations on names, including this:

With or without his knowledge, it looks like Oswald was used for counter-espionage purposes as part of a CIA molehunt for Soviet spies within the agency

The names of both Lee Harvey Oswald and his wife Marina Prusakova were repeatedly misspelled as "Lee Henry Oswald" and "Marina Pusakova" in CIA messages during the time that Oswald was reported to have visited the Cuban and Soviet consulates in Mexico City. It wasn't just a typographical error. This error and others like it had been made repeatedly by the same person.

The CIA's Ann Egerter (also known as Egeter) told Congressional investigators that she worked at the office that spied on their own spies, known as the Counter-Intelligence/Special Investigations Group, or CI/SIG. Egerter assisted in the preparation of two separate CIA messages on 10/10/63, both referring to him as Lee Henry Oswald. One message inaccurately referred to Oswald as "approximately 35 years old, with an athletic build" and the other message more accurately described him as "born 18 Oct 1939, five foot ten inches, light brown wavy hair". In fact, Oswald's central CIA file was wrongly entitled by Egerter as "Lee Henry Oswald" several years earlier when he had defected from the Marines to the Soviet Union. By the time of the weekend of the assassination, even Walter Cronkite was calling him "Lee Henry Oswald".

There was another common practice among the agencies to invert Oswald's name as "Harvey Lee Oswald". Like most people, Lee Oswald never used his middle name except for official purposes. This practice of transposing his names emanated from CIA and military sources, and the FBI eventually picked up on it as well.

The House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) knew about this practice and looked for Oswald files under these various names during their investigation of this case during the 70s.

Just a few of many examples:

1. A remarkable 1972 handwritten memo entitled "Harvey Lee Oswald" states: "Today the DC/CI (Deputy Chief, Counter-intelligence) advised me that the Director had relayed via the DDP (Deputy Director of Plans) the injunction that the Agency was not, under any circumstances, to make inquiries or ask questions of any source or defector about Oswald."

2. Thomas Casasin, chief of CIA's Soviet Russia Division 6, wrote that at one point he had "operational interest in the Harvey story" that involved the theme of defection.

3. The Warren Commission documented someone named "Harvey Oswald" appeared at the Selective Service office in Austin to complain about his military discharge at the same time that another Oswald was heading to Mexico City.

4. Lt. Harvey Oswald was reported to be seen in a well-known bar in Havana with leading FPCC leader Robert Taber right after the Bay of Pigs invasion.

5. "Harvey Lee Oswald" has a list of approximately a hundred documents attributed to him. Many of them have been destroyed or cannot be found, including an entire FBI file under that name.

In the intelligence practice of having two or more files on a subject, the regular name is used for material that is meant for the public domain, while the transposed or misspelled name is for covert information. In that manner, an agency can tell the "truth" about the contents of their overt file, and hide its covert information in the covert file with the transposed or misspelled name.

Author and professor Peter Dale Scott cites many of the errors discussed above (and more) in his groundbreaking essay Oswald and the Hunt for Popov's Mole. Most of these errors were committed by highly educated agents like Egerter, whose careers depend on getting names right and accurately spelling the names of relevant parties.

Scott suggests that these errors are wholly deliberate, and that this pattern is one of the essential methods used by the CIA in a "molehunt" looking for Soviet spies that might be trying to penetrate the CIA itself. If a spy without proper clearances to the document were to repeat the misspelled name to another party, this "marked card" would point to the errant spy. Scott has written:

"In the game of molehunting, of course, the distinction between targeter and targeted is not a secure one. The situation is something like the parlor game of Murder, in which the culprit is"likely to be one of the investigators."

Egerter's boss James Angleton was the head of CIA counterintelligence. Angleton used CI/SIG in a ruthless manner, destroying the lives of innocent officers and anyone else who stood in the way of his hunt for Soviet agents supposedly penetrating the CIA. By the time Angleton was fired in the midst of the Watergate era, he was accused of being a Soviet mole himself. By 1980, Congress was forced to pass a bill to compensate the unfairly accused officers in what became known as the "Mole Relief Act".

This is very interesting stuff. It seems to me to raise the possibility that Armstrong's "Harvey & Lee" thesis may have been constructed by selecting from evidence that he (Armstrong) himself may not have completely understood. Is something like that possible? Indeed, it has also given me the feeling that Judyth didn't know everything about Lee, even if she knew a lot. What interests me is whether John Armstrong was aware of these kinds of considerations about building false identities, using variations on names, and all the rest. From what you say, I have to infer that he did not. As Simpich remarks, with or without his knowledge, it looks like Oswald was used for counter-espionage purposes as part of a CIA molehunt for Soviet spies within the agency. This casts the significance of Armstrong's research into doubt. I have ordered HARVEY & LEE, by the way, but, as you observe, I am going to be inundated with a massive documentary record. But documents--especially faking them for the purpose of creating alibis for their agents--is a speciality of the CIA. I hope you understand the difference between DOCUMENTS CLAIMING TWO PERSONS WERE AT DIFFERENT PLACES AT THE SAME TIME and TWO PERSONS BEING AT DIFFERENT PLACES AT THE SAME TIME.

I have previously posted four commentaries from a psy ops experts about this case. Before Jack went back to John Armstrong to discuss this, he displayed a more open mind that Judyth might be being harassed and stalked because of knowledge derived from her cancer research and work on bio-weapons, as the posts from my psy ops expert suggest. I think he is right, but I also believe her personal story humanizes the alleged assassin, who has been demonized for decades by the government and the mass media. A guy who had relationships, a sense of humor, who socialized and shared his life with someone else is a real human being--an implausible candidate for "lone, demented gunman". Her story makes it clear that he was working undercover for the government, knew he was being impersonated, and was attempting to save the president's life, not take it. For all of her imperfections, I believe in her and regard her story as extremely important and worth bringing to the public, even at the cost of antagonizing some very old friends. I cannot understand for the life of me when I have explained this point to Jack several times on two different fora, where he continues to imply that he doesn't see the point. I would like to think I should not have to explain it for a third time--yet that is what I am doing here.

[James H. Fetzer]

Some of us can walk and chew gum at the same time. If you want to make ignorant posts that show you have never done any serious research on one of these subjects, you can continue to demonstrate your lack of knowledge.

If you actually want to learn something about 9/11 or the moon landings, then follow the leads I have already provided. That neither of you is doing that speaks volumes about the superficial character of your understanding.

Everything done is done at the expense of other things not done.

I posit energies expended in 1) moon landing; 2) World Trade Center demolition; 3) attacks on John Armstrong's hypothesis (et al) are done at the expense of establishing that a conspiracy conducted a coup d'etat and conversely the conspirators' theory (Warren Commission to present) is provably false.

This dilution of the latter effort would no doubt cause Dulles, Helms, Angleton, Johnson and Hoover to interrupt their poker game in hell and have a hearty chuckle.

Couldn't agree more.

[Magda Hassan]

I would ask that all members refrain from personal attacks and keep the focus on the research and data only. Please count to 10 if you are feeling particularly pissed off and then let the moment pass. It is not worth having this interesting thread derailed just to have a swipe at some one.

Carry on gentlemen.