06-08-2015, 04:42 PM
(This post was last modified: 06-08-2015, 06:22 PM by Albert Doyle.)
JVB reacted on her Facebook page saying the accusations against her about lying about Mexico were false. Funny, the Facebook page entry she made on this did not have any comments option. Why did Judyth lock out any comments on this subject? What was Judyth worried about that she disabled comments?
Judyth claims that Lee came back from Mexico and explained the Cuban Consulate visit in detail, including descriptions of Silvia Duran. But history is showing that Oswald never visited the Consulate. Instead Duran said a shorter man with curly blond hair claimed to be Oswald on that visit. In fact CIA got the Mexican police to jail Duran because she would not say it was Oswald who visited the Consulate.
Surely if the real Oswald did visit the Consulate I doubt the CIA cameras would have failed.
In her Facebook response JVB said this was all simple to explain. That Duran didn't want to admit she witnessed Oswald because the two had an affair at a twist party in Mexico during the visit, and since Duran was married she didn't want people to know. But this response is yet another good example of JVB's fabricated excuse-making because why would a Consulate visit expose a sexual relationship that happened elsewhere? Not only that but Oswald was allegedly witnessed by Ascue at the Consulate so lying about it would only bring more attention to Duran.
Furthermore Baker says Lee was ordered to Mexico but the mission was called off. But, if we look at the record Baker is backing, the mission wasn't called off. Indeed she is claiming Oswald went to the Consulate. Also, the record shows Oswald stayed for a week and performed many attempts at getting visas. He stayed long enough for the twist party according to Baker. So if the mission was called off why doesn't Baker give more detail on when it was cut off and how it relates to this alleged account she provides. Smart researchers will see that Baker provides nothing more than what is available from books. If indeed she was as on the inside as she claims you would think there would be more corroborating exclusive information? Specific details of the cut-off time and how it affected the mission. No, instead we are offered these conflicting generalities that Baker conspicuously makes no attempt to answer. Hers is just a flow of rhetoric that doesn't really answer what needs to be answered. Duran's excuse that she didn't want to reveal a relationship with a presidential assassin differs from not wanting to admit an affair because she was married. It was obviously the cover story she used to prevent having to admit she was tortured away from her original account.
If the original tale wasn't evidence enough of JVB's story-telling her childish excuse that Duran was trying to hide an affair should be. JVB is obviously making up excuses as she goes along after being caught and they aren't very good ones. It is clear that Duran was jailed because she refused to back off her witnessing of an Oswald impostor. JVB's excuses aren't working and her Mexico tale is a good barometer of her credibility.
.
Judyth claims that Lee came back from Mexico and explained the Cuban Consulate visit in detail, including descriptions of Silvia Duran. But history is showing that Oswald never visited the Consulate. Instead Duran said a shorter man with curly blond hair claimed to be Oswald on that visit. In fact CIA got the Mexican police to jail Duran because she would not say it was Oswald who visited the Consulate.
Surely if the real Oswald did visit the Consulate I doubt the CIA cameras would have failed.
In her Facebook response JVB said this was all simple to explain. That Duran didn't want to admit she witnessed Oswald because the two had an affair at a twist party in Mexico during the visit, and since Duran was married she didn't want people to know. But this response is yet another good example of JVB's fabricated excuse-making because why would a Consulate visit expose a sexual relationship that happened elsewhere? Not only that but Oswald was allegedly witnessed by Ascue at the Consulate so lying about it would only bring more attention to Duran.
Furthermore Baker says Lee was ordered to Mexico but the mission was called off. But, if we look at the record Baker is backing, the mission wasn't called off. Indeed she is claiming Oswald went to the Consulate. Also, the record shows Oswald stayed for a week and performed many attempts at getting visas. He stayed long enough for the twist party according to Baker. So if the mission was called off why doesn't Baker give more detail on when it was cut off and how it relates to this alleged account she provides. Smart researchers will see that Baker provides nothing more than what is available from books. If indeed she was as on the inside as she claims you would think there would be more corroborating exclusive information? Specific details of the cut-off time and how it affected the mission. No, instead we are offered these conflicting generalities that Baker conspicuously makes no attempt to answer. Hers is just a flow of rhetoric that doesn't really answer what needs to be answered. Duran's excuse that she didn't want to reveal a relationship with a presidential assassin differs from not wanting to admit an affair because she was married. It was obviously the cover story she used to prevent having to admit she was tortured away from her original account.
If the original tale wasn't evidence enough of JVB's story-telling her childish excuse that Duran was trying to hide an affair should be. JVB is obviously making up excuses as she goes along after being caught and they aren't very good ones. It is clear that Duran was jailed because she refused to back off her witnessing of an Oswald impostor. JVB's excuses aren't working and her Mexico tale is a good barometer of her credibility.
.