15-03-2010, 03:27 AM
JUDYTH COMMENTS ON MONK'S POST:
Look how Monk thinks I have noting to add... That is relevent....It has been years
since we spoke....
There seems to be a desperation to turn the conversation AWAY from New Orleans..
Here's what is relevant:
Despite all the hoopla about TEXAS, NEW ORLEANS IS WHERE THE PLOT WAS HATCHED.
Lee said meetings were held in Baton Rouge.
Can somebody look into US MILITARY PRESENCE IN BATON ROUGE?
I WILL IF I EVER GET THE TIME.
LEE SAID HE WAS INSPECTED BY A MILITARY OFFICER in baton rouge before the officer
went into a meeting where representatives from New Orleans met with dalas plotters.
Lee was posted as a 'guard' but they discussed him in some way. This was in early
September just after he had seen David Atlee Phillips (Mr. B--Bishop) in, I think it
was Houston, in the presence of Antonio Veciana, who reported that to Gaeton Fonzi.
Everybody got to view lee and see his face as Lee was the 'guard." Everyone. The
military guy acted as if he was memorizing Lee's face. He was a Navy man.
Lee aid they came out and informed him that a fund had been set up to care for his wife
and child so that if he wanted to transfer to Mexico (he had requsted this) it culd be done
after his mission to Mexico City.
That mission, btw, lured Lee to Mexico City and into all kinds of exposure so he could
later be framed...
They LATER ordered him to return to DALLAS and broke their promise, telling him he
would be reassigned to Mexico and could even enroll as college student there, be an
informant for the CIA with funding, etc.--BUT IT WOULD BE AFTER CHRISTMAS.
DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THIS PIECE OF INFORMATION, WHICH MY INNER RESEARCH
CIRCLE KNOWS ABOUT AND MY EDITORS, HAS NO VALUE WHATSOEVER TO THE JFK
RESEARCH COMMUNITY IN UNRAVELING HOW LEE OSWALD WAS MANIPULATED INTO
GOING TO MEXICO CITY, WHY HE RETURNED TO DALLAS WHEN HE EXPECTED, AS SEEN
IN THE BOOK MARINA AND LEE, NEVER TO SEE MARINA AND THE BABY AGAIN FOR YEARS
AND YEARS?
LEE IS ON RECORD AS WEEPING, AND MARINA, TOO.
OH, HOW I WISH I HAD THAT BOOK AGAIN! GET THAT AND READ IT!
NOW, I 'HAVE NOTHING OF IMPORTANCE TO SAY ABOUT THE ASSASSINATION...'
THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE TELLING YOU.
UNDERSTAND, IF I HAD SPOKEN TO THE 'BARB CROWD' ABOUT THIS, THE EVIDENCE
MIGHT HAVE BEEN HUNTED DOWN AND HAVE DISAPPEARED.
I ASK YOU TO FIND STUDENTS OR SOMEBODY TO SEARCH FOR IT.
THE MEETING IN BATON ROUGE WAS ONE OF SEVERAL.
JVB
[quote name='Greg Burnham' post='186781' date='Mar 14 2010, 05:52 AM'][quote name='Jack White' post='186779' date='Mar 13 2010, 08:17 PM']As for me, I care not at all whether JVB's tales are 100 percent true or 100 percent
false. Whichever it is, nothing she says, whether true or false, adds one iota to our
knowledge of the JFK assassination.[/quote]
Jack,
While I feel confident that this is not a "black and white" issue and I don't think it is all or nothing, I too have my doubts about what value or relevance her evidence has to our inquiry about JFK's murder. So, I finally agree with part of what you are saying.
Up until now, many have been less than open minded toward the possibility that her statements were even worth considering. So this might be a break through. Her claims may still turn out to be irrelevant, but at least they might be given a fair shake here.
Again, I object to the use of the term "everything she says" -- as it is an inappropriate generalization. Moreover, you haven't reviewed "everything she has said" as that would be impossible. As for her being divisive and disruptive, I beg your pardon, but I vigorously disagree. On the JFKresearch forum, it was not she who was disruptive! Not even a little bit, Jack. Quite the contrary. I was there and witnessed what I consider to be one of the most vile attacks on any member by those who are normally not inclined to such behavior. The disruption was not caused by Judyth's behavior AT ALL. It was caused because THE SUBJECT of her and her story was even brought up.
That said, it seems as though your current position is at least more reasonable than your previous one.
[/quote]
Look how Monk thinks I have noting to add... That is relevent....It has been years
since we spoke....
There seems to be a desperation to turn the conversation AWAY from New Orleans..
Here's what is relevant:
Despite all the hoopla about TEXAS, NEW ORLEANS IS WHERE THE PLOT WAS HATCHED.
Lee said meetings were held in Baton Rouge.
Can somebody look into US MILITARY PRESENCE IN BATON ROUGE?
I WILL IF I EVER GET THE TIME.
LEE SAID HE WAS INSPECTED BY A MILITARY OFFICER in baton rouge before the officer
went into a meeting where representatives from New Orleans met with dalas plotters.
Lee was posted as a 'guard' but they discussed him in some way. This was in early
September just after he had seen David Atlee Phillips (Mr. B--Bishop) in, I think it
was Houston, in the presence of Antonio Veciana, who reported that to Gaeton Fonzi.
Everybody got to view lee and see his face as Lee was the 'guard." Everyone. The
military guy acted as if he was memorizing Lee's face. He was a Navy man.
Lee aid they came out and informed him that a fund had been set up to care for his wife
and child so that if he wanted to transfer to Mexico (he had requsted this) it culd be done
after his mission to Mexico City.
That mission, btw, lured Lee to Mexico City and into all kinds of exposure so he could
later be framed...
They LATER ordered him to return to DALLAS and broke their promise, telling him he
would be reassigned to Mexico and could even enroll as college student there, be an
informant for the CIA with funding, etc.--BUT IT WOULD BE AFTER CHRISTMAS.
DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THIS PIECE OF INFORMATION, WHICH MY INNER RESEARCH
CIRCLE KNOWS ABOUT AND MY EDITORS, HAS NO VALUE WHATSOEVER TO THE JFK
RESEARCH COMMUNITY IN UNRAVELING HOW LEE OSWALD WAS MANIPULATED INTO
GOING TO MEXICO CITY, WHY HE RETURNED TO DALLAS WHEN HE EXPECTED, AS SEEN
IN THE BOOK MARINA AND LEE, NEVER TO SEE MARINA AND THE BABY AGAIN FOR YEARS
AND YEARS?
LEE IS ON RECORD AS WEEPING, AND MARINA, TOO.
OH, HOW I WISH I HAD THAT BOOK AGAIN! GET THAT AND READ IT!
NOW, I 'HAVE NOTHING OF IMPORTANCE TO SAY ABOUT THE ASSASSINATION...'
THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE TELLING YOU.
UNDERSTAND, IF I HAD SPOKEN TO THE 'BARB CROWD' ABOUT THIS, THE EVIDENCE
MIGHT HAVE BEEN HUNTED DOWN AND HAVE DISAPPEARED.
I ASK YOU TO FIND STUDENTS OR SOMEBODY TO SEARCH FOR IT.
THE MEETING IN BATON ROUGE WAS ONE OF SEVERAL.
JVB
[quote name='Greg Burnham' post='186781' date='Mar 14 2010, 05:52 AM'][quote name='Jack White' post='186779' date='Mar 13 2010, 08:17 PM']As for me, I care not at all whether JVB's tales are 100 percent true or 100 percent
false. Whichever it is, nothing she says, whether true or false, adds one iota to our
knowledge of the JFK assassination.[/quote]
Jack,
While I feel confident that this is not a "black and white" issue and I don't think it is all or nothing, I too have my doubts about what value or relevance her evidence has to our inquiry about JFK's murder. So, I finally agree with part of what you are saying.
Quote:I believe everyone should be free to form individual opinions about this instead
of being ridiculed for being in one camp or the other. My only interest is in truth. If her
every statement could be shown to be true, nobody yet has explained why it matters.
Up until now, many have been less than open minded toward the possibility that her statements were even worth considering. So this might be a break through. Her claims may still turn out to be irrelevant, but at least they might be given a fair shake here.
Quote:Everything she says is more National Enquirer material than important information. My main
concern is that JVB is divisive and disruptive. I suggest a moratorium till her book comes out,
to see exactly what she claims.
Again, I object to the use of the term "everything she says" -- as it is an inappropriate generalization. Moreover, you haven't reviewed "everything she has said" as that would be impossible. As for her being divisive and disruptive, I beg your pardon, but I vigorously disagree. On the JFKresearch forum, it was not she who was disruptive! Not even a little bit, Jack. Quite the contrary. I was there and witnessed what I consider to be one of the most vile attacks on any member by those who are normally not inclined to such behavior. The disruption was not caused by Judyth's behavior AT ALL. It was caused because THE SUBJECT of her and her story was even brought up.
That said, it seems as though your current position is at least more reasonable than your previous one.
[/quote]