Jonathan Nolan Wrote:In her own words JVB stated that she lived at 1032 Marengo Street New Orleans LA,
[URL="https://www.google.com.au/maps/place/1032+marengo+street+new+orleans/@29.9227914,-90.0981602,3a,75y,271.4h,90t/data=%213m4%211e1%213m2%211sNMEI9Qm99RfNIzu5ev2WVQ%212e0%214m2%213m1%211s0x0:0x7f335922627a219e?sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjFr6n4mejKAhUBFpQKHdUWBeUQxB0IHDAA"]Street View
[/URL] Get directions 1032 Marengo St, New Orleans, LA 70115, USA
and Lee moved to Magazine Street 7 Blocks away, with Marina and his children. She further states that it's the Magazine Street bus that they rode together for work but also "rode it all the time whenever they want[ed]".
At this time JVB and Oswald were having a physical relationship.
Clay Shaw helped them, and was alleged to be a close confidante of Ochshner.
Here is the entire route along with 4907 Magazine and 544 Camp.
So this clandiestine pair meets virtually daily on the same bus going to the same place...
Ok.. the same busdriver would most definitely remember these same two people, maybe?
An awful lot of stops along St. Charles, right? People on and off and on and off would not notice two lovebirds stealing away their morning commute?
And finally Jon - what remains the most difficult to swallow and even more difficult for her or her followers to address is the W-2 offered up as definitive proof of her working at Reilly. http://www.ctka.net/2015/JudythBaker-DJ.pdf
"in her own words" this is the proof. The first and most obviopus question is Why Copy "B", the one that is sent with the tax return and not Copy "C" which is the taxpayer's copy?
Which in turn asks - How did she get the IRS's copy of her W-2 for that return?
Yet they are all rendered moot by the fact the W-2 does not exist in this format... There is not a single example of a W-2 from the 50's, 60's or 70's which puts the amounts below the name.
Worse yet... the top copy does not match the duplicate beneath it- the bleed thru is of the same data raised up a bit and over 3/4"
Yet when you take that top sheet and move it back to the book by aligning the holes... (negative image) the bleed thru should be above the the orignal, not below.
The day has not yet come where JVB or her supports address this glaring problem. This remains the #1 item of Evidence put forth to prove she worked at Reilly.
DJ
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
David Josephs Wrote:So this clandiestine pair meets virtually daily on the same bus going to the same place...
Ok.. the same busdriver would most definitely remember these same two people, maybe?
An awful lot of stops along St. Charles, right? People on and off and on and off would not notice two lovebirds stealing away their morning commute?
And finally Jon - what remains the most difficult to swallow and even more difficult for her or her followers to address is the W-2 offered up as definitive proof of her working at Reilly. http://www.ctka.net/2015/JudythBaker-DJ.pdf
"in her own words" this is the proof. The first and most obviopus question is Why Copy "B", the one that is sent with the tax return and not Copy "C" which is the taxpayer's copy?
Which in turn asks - How did she get the IRS's copy of her W-2 for that return?
I agree. I am adding fuel to the fire by relating it back to her own testimony though, rather than let it drift through hearsay and anecdotes from "what she said to X" type reports.
She herself, freely and voluntarily, has supplied payslips (flashed up on screen briefly in Men Who Killed Kennedy), the tax form - the employer copy; she has also supplied an address - 1032 Merango.
These are the sort of details that must either authenticate or disprove testimony. They mustn't be explained away.
And I think they prove that the older woman who has appeared as JVB is a fake, in the sense that what she has described happening did not happen.
In listening to her earliest testimony - and it is testimony because she is inviting belief in her own story and wants us to rely on trust and so forth - there seems to be a few different segments, stitched together.
A. she was a child prodigy.
B. she worked in cancer experiments in a "home lab" kind of way.
C. this came to the attention of some sort of "secret school" type operation, which recruited her.
D. they took her away to work and undergo an accelerated learning project.
E. this accelerated learning project did not begin immediately when she arrived in the target city and she was left very close to destitute and homeless.
F. at the same time her father threatened to -or actually did- report her as a runaway.
G. she was planning to elope.
1. she dropped stuff in a post office, LHO picked it up, and they briefly spoke.
2. LHO walked her home.
3. LHO effectively chatted her up, LHO's wedding ring notwithstanding.
A case can be made that the beginning of each of her story segments closely conforms with reality - child prodigy, went to another city, bumped into someone who looked like LHO in a post office; but subsequently each "stub" spirals off into a fantasy. This would be what a fantasy prone individual would do- fantasize and create a mythology or a narrative based on some real but rather insignificant basis.
So that's a fairly light shade of gray between the black and white of "JVB is a deliberate liar" and "JVB is the center of a wide ranging government conspiracy to conceal the real nature of LHO's work and a secret progam to develop transmittable cancer as a bioweapon".
In terms of the intriguing elements in the older JVB's stories, there is no element of these stories, even the appareny corroborative details, that was not public information available in open source documents by the time she came forward.
For example:
* the secret school / X-Men program had been the subject of an Outer Limits episode, two mentions in John Keel paperbacks, several similar television stories and is also a kind of modern myth - right down to the expression of the same trope in the "Harry Potter" books.
* transmittable cancer was the allegation made by Roger Craig and Jack Ruby.
JVB replied to David Josephs' W-2 claims on her Facebook page.
In her usual way, I'm not really sure what she's saying. I'm not sure how the other forms she shows proves anything.
I found one red flag. She said the blue dots on her form were to cover income for privacy. No, my judgment is the blacked out fields with dots was because Florida had no state income tax so that field was blacked out. A classic case of JVB making something up and getting caught while trying to explain something. Or - it was because she had a Florida address so the state tax field would be automatically blocked out on a W-2 for Louisiana employment.
Albert Doyle Wrote:JVB replied to David Josephs' W-2 claims on her Facebook page.
In her usual way, I'm not really sure what she's saying. I'm not sure how the other forms she shows proves anything.
I found one red flag. She said the blue dots on her form were to cover income for privacy. No, my judgment is the blacked out fields with dots was because Florida had no state income tax so that field was blacked out. A classic case of JVB making something up and getting caught while trying to explain something. Or - it was because she had a Florida address so the state tax field would be automatically blocked out on a W-2 for Louisiana employment.
Interesting thought Albert yet the W-2 is from Louisiana, not FL and is a repetitive form bound in that book it's resting upon.
Looks to me like the "WM B. REILY...." is preprinted on the form. When you have many people working for you who are only there as a cover for something else, this may be the type of form given - but again, why Copy B?
Maybe you could link to or paste it here for me? I've looked at the pages I can see of hers and cannot find any "rebuttal"
The form says "COPY B - To be filed with taxpayer's return" The rest of us have a Copy C which is for the taxpayer and my form matches the official forms used throughout the US.
Why is Judyth's Copy B a form which the IRS does not offer?
The "blue circles" are there to prevent info from being copied to another Copy of this form. All I'd like to know is where she gets a form with all the official markings that is not a form used by the IRS yet looks just like one - if you had never seen an actual form W-2.
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
10-05-2016, 05:43 PM (This post was last modified: 10-05-2016, 06:00 PM by Albert Doyle.)
I think the blue dots are because there is no city or state tax withheld or mentioned for a person who resides in another state with no city or state tax (Florida). This could explain the different form. It is possible it is a form issued for persons who reside in other states than Louisiana. This is possibly a non-resident form and that's why you can't find it in normal W-2 stock. Seems this could be solved by finding others who had the same situation.
It is still possible that form is a visual indicator for CIA-associated companies.
JVB answered the B Copy issue saying she was naive because it was the first time she paid any taxes and simply pulled the wrong form.
" ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. I have now been accused of creating a fraudulent W2 form! Both David Josephs and Dawn Meredith keep claiming I fake my records. Together they went on the Education Forum to claim that no such W2 form B as I show for Reily ever existed. Josephs wrote: "Thanks Dawn...Has she ever been able to explain having the wrong copy (B copy) of a W-2 from 1963 which never existed as a form. For those who have not seen the comparison.... The 1963 W-2 reflects the reordered [sic] tax & wage boxes from 1962. [JVB: THIS ISN'T TRUE. THE W2 FORMS WERE SENT EARLY IN 1964 REPORTING 1963 WAGES. AND I WOULD HAVE EXPLAINED THIS BEFORE NOW, BUT DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THIS FALSE ACCUSATION. THEY NEVER TELL ME WHAT THEIR LATEST MESS-UP IS ABOUT.]
Josephs next wrote: And all three have the amount earned above the person's name. this is what this form looked like all thru the 50's and 60's." [JVB: THAT IS WHAT THE FORM LOOKED LIKE FOR FLORIDA AND LOUISIANA, EXCEPT FOR FORM B: SOME PARTS IN THE LOUISIANA VERSION WAS BLOCKED WITH BLUE CIRCLES SO THE AMOUNT COULD NOT BE READ ON THAT FORM, FOR PRIVACY. I SHOW SCANS, BELOW , OF MY HUSBAND ROBERT BAKER'S W-2 FORM FOR WAGES EARNED IN FLORIDA IN 1963 AND FOR THOSE EARNED IN LOUISIANA FOR 1963. AS YOU CAN SEE, THEY LOOK DIFFERENT. JOSEPHS FALSELY ASSUMED THAT ALL W2 FORM B'S WERE THE SAME FOR EVERY STATE (!!!!). NOT SO. IF ANYTHING, THIS SHOWS HOW AUTHENTIC AND RELIABLE MY RECORDS ARE, AND HOW FLAWED THE ATTACKS OF MY ACCUSERS ARE. (photos: (1) scans of Robert Baker's (my husband) W23 forms from Florida and from Louisiana. ONE SECTION IN LOUISIANA, FORM B, IS DIFFERENT FROM FORM C. NOTE THAT FLORIDA'S FORM B IS DIFFERENT FROM LOUISIANA'S. (2) scan of my W2 Form in Florida. It looks just like the form Joseph shows.
(3) Here are several Blank w2 forms as used in Florida which Josephs compared to my W2 LOUISIANA FORM B. Due to the ignorance of this prejudiced 'researcher" he made a false comparison and called it "the last nail in Baker's coffin." Josephs shows the message on his forms as 'evidence' -- not realizing that Robert's W2 Form B for Louisiana is also in my possession, and the sections of Robert's B and C match at the tear lines. Josephs tried to claim that the W2 form under the Reily one did not match, but the tear lines were not lined up, as anyone can observe for themselves. I just took a scan of the top one. The other one was damaged. [P.S. : ROBERT AND I BOTH KEPT OUR Louisiana W2 FORM B'S BECAUSE WE WERE NAIVE. WE HAD NEVER FILLED OUT ANY TAX FORMS BEFORE 1964. NOBODY EVER CONTACTED US ABOUT NOT SENDING THEM IN. ] "
[URL="https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10209491703874959&set=pcb.10209491767916560&type=3"]
[/URL][URL="https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10209491752956186&set=pcb.10209491767916560&type=3"]
[/URL][URL="https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10209491759076339&set=pcb.10209491767916560&type=3"]
[/URL]
The Copy B Withholding form SHE AND FETZER use to prove Baker worked at Reily - does not match a single other 1963 W-2 form from any state or from any federal printing run. What I simply requested was for her to produce another 1963 form which positions the name above the amounts. This has never been done. Like so many items - these forms are props.
JVB from her Facebook page:
" ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. I have now been accused of creating a fraudulent W2 form! Both David Josephs and Dawn Meredith keep claiming I fake my records. Together they went on the Education Forum to claim that no such W2 form B as I show for Reily ever existed. Josephs wrote: "Thanks Dawn...Has she ever been able to explain having the wrong copy (B copy) of a W-2 from 1963 which never existed as a form. For those who have not seen the comparison.... The 1963 W-2 reflects the reordered [sic] tax & wage boxes from 1962. [JVB: THIS ISN'T TRUE. THE W2 FORMS WERE SENT EARLY IN 1964 REPORTING 1963 WAGES. AND I WOULD HAVE EXPLAINED THIS BEFORE NOW, BUT DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THIS FALSE ACCUSATION. THEY NEVER TELL ME WHAT THEIR LATEST MESS-UP IS ABOUT.]
As I show in the next image and as Dawn reiterated, of the 4 boxes for income and taxes above the name of the taxpayer, the 1[SUP]st[/SUP]/2[SUP]nd[/SUP] and 3[SUP]rd[/SUP]/4[SUP]th[/SUP] boxes were simply switched with each other between the 1962 year and 1963 year. Nothing else changed. JVB's response appears to show her confusion over the issue and is telling us that 1963 W-2 reflect 1963 wages - which everyone knows.
I started here thinking that maybe the 1963 forms DID change to look like JVB's Reily form... not so much
THIS is the form JVB offered to prove she worked with Oswald May-June-July 1963. From the arguments JVB offers, Different State's forms are different therefor ALL 1963 Louisiana Federal Tax Forms SHOULD the same.
My question was why keep Copy B when it is clear to this genius and anyone who can read, what to do with the forms?
JVB responds to the "Part B" question"
P.S. : ROBERT AND I BOTH KEPT OUR Louisiana W2 FORM B'S BECAUSE WE WERE NAIVE. WE HAD NEVER FILLED OUT ANY TAX FORMS BEFORE 1964. NOBODY EVER CONTACTED US ABOUT NOT SENDING THEM IN
Naive? This is a woman who has been performing complex experimentation for years, a prodigy, a genius yet cannot read or follow directions?
It follows then that she would kept ALL 1963 W-2 form copy B's, no? yet we have a Copy C on the correct federal form for the ChemResearch Florida Job which in turn matches her husband Roberts Copy C from Louisiana (a different State) also from 1963? (very bottom images) but we'll get there.
Both did work in Louisiana in 1963, both got a number of W-2 forms to submit with their taxes.
The bottom form, just below, is NOT A FEDERAL FORM but a "State of Louisiana" form - nothing on it says "Federal".
Accordingly Robert would have his "Federal" Withholding form for 1963 (not shown) and Judyth would have a 1963 "State of LA" tax form like her husband's.. (also not shown or offered as evidence)
If these were the only two forms for both that year maybe we could understand the Naivete. But the Bakers had at least 2 more W-2 forms from 1963
Before we get to these other 2 forms which directly refutes each one of Judyths explanations, she sets herself up :
JVB Write: JOSEPHS FALSELY ASSUMED THAT ALL W2 FORM B'S WERE THE SAME FOR EVERY STATE (!!!!). NOT SO.
IF ANYTHING, THIS SHOWS HOW AUTHENTIC AND RELIABLE MY RECORDS ARE, AND HOW FLAWED THE ATTACKS OF MY ACCUSERS ARE
According to Judyth's argument - Louisiana and Florida have different FEDERAL FORMS... yet when we look below at the generic 1963, Peninsular in FLORIDA, and EVANGELINE in LOUISIANA
we can easily see they are all the same - Taxpayer's name below the income and tax amounts... and all the lines and text written the same way and in the same place
Only the REILY Copy is different - although it's the same state and same year as her husbands 1963 form. ooops IS Copy B any different from Copy C?
Well, if you look again at the top image, 1962 to 1963, Copy B is identical to C regarding where the names and amounts are placed.
Yes indeed - Judyth shows exactly how authentic and reliable the information she uses to support her story actually is...
Florida and Louisiana with EXACTLY the same 1963 federal form (Peninsular & Evangeline), a STATE FORM from Louisiana being different as expected
and finally her Reily form from 1963 & Louisiana just like her husband's from Evangeline in 1963 in Louisiana - yet they could not be any more different.
In every case her answers only bury her authenticity that much deeper.
As a scientist she should know a lot better - the evidence shown here proves that FEDERAL TAX FORMS are in fact the same across the states related to FEDERAL income (there is no "state" box for income and taxes which is not added for many years) so states would provide "STATE" tax forms as shown above for Louisiana) The only different form offered is Judyth's 1963 Reily Copy B which offers a layout not found on any other Federal Tax form in the 50's 60's or 70's. There is a book of forms underneath the image....
From where do tax forms in a book like that, in that layout, come? and why can we not find a single other example of a 1963 Copy B that looks like that?
In Addition, if she can ever address Anna Lewis' repeated statement that she dated Oswald in LA between Jan-Apr 1962 while he was with Marina and baby June in Russia - it might help shed some light.
Her close friend Anna Lewis - while Judyth is sitting behind her off camera - tells us TWICE in the same interview, that Oswald and Judyth dated with her and her husband to be between Jan & April 1962 while our man Harvey is in Minsk with Marina around the time June is born.
THESE are the 2 main supporting bits of evidence for her having been with Oswald that summer.... she even claimed to John Armstrong that people mistook her for Marina as late as September. When John reminded her Marina was 8 months pregnant at the time and inquired if she was as well to complete the charade - that was the end of the discussion.
This SECRET relationship continued with them "riding the same bus to and from work"
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
In her defense, there could have been a screw up with the W-2 from the employer, however, the ring is another issue. The ring is the key to this whole thing, that was when Ruth Paine went to N.O to pick up Marina Oswald. Do you suppose Lee gave Marina the ring? And said something like, when you get to Dallas, put my ring on the table next to the bed, in-case someone wants to accuse me of killing Kennedy, because I'm going to tell JVB I'm going to try and save Kennedy's life by making funny faces out the sixth floor window if I get the job at the TSBD. This way I can have a relationship outside our marriage, and, no worries about me ever thinking about us wanting to get back together again, because I met this hot chick JVB.
And, for the next three months of getting to know her, and before I leave for Dallas, I'm going to tell JVB everything I know about Carlos Marcello, Guy Banister, David Ferre and Clay Shaw, and I may even throw in Raphael Cruz later on.
Scott Kaiser Wrote:In her defense, there could have been a screw up with the W-2 from the employer, however, the ring is another issue. The ring is the key to this whole thing, that was when Ruth Paine went to N.O to pick up Marina Oswald. Do you suppose Lee gave Marina the ring? And said something like, when you get to Dallas, put my ring on the table next to the bed, in-case someone wants to accuse me of killing Kennedy, because I'm going to tell JVB I'm going to try and save Kennedy's life by making funny faces out the sixth floor window if I get the job at the TSBD. This way I can have a relationship outside our marriage, and, no worries about me ever thinking about us wanting to get back together again, because I met this hot chick JVB.
And, for the next three months of getting to know her, and before I leave for Dallas, I'm going to tell JVB everything I know about Carlos Marcello, Guy Banister, David Ferre and Clay Shaw, and I may even throw in Raphael Cruz later on.
The End!
Lucky you're not on the Trine Day Choo-Choo Train anymore, Scott. Your caboose would be "de-coupled" by Millegan for disparaging his cash cow.
![[Image: 13103374_10209491703874959_8588664691757...e=57E209B3]](https://scontent-mia1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-0/p350x350/13103374_10209491703874959_8588664691757566005_n.jpg?oh=e5376d71e1ac79ea30e089211b9d4e62&oe=57E209B3)
![[Image: 13076770_10209491752956186_8604353382006...e=57AD1955]](https://scontent-mia1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-0/p370x247/13076770_10209491752956186_8604353382006123375_n.jpg?oh=f0758326dda8622079d3ee771c835a0d&oe=57AD1955)
![[Image: 13091888_10209491759076339_6979264100470...e=57A06293]](https://scontent-mia1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-0/s280x280/13091888_10209491759076339_6979264100470598978_n.jpg?oh=b85fc22a9129b169e19b1b5ba1bdacb3&oe=57A06293)