Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[Jack White]

[quote=James H. Fetzer]THE ONLY CONFLICT LIES IN YOUR PREJUDICE, JACK!

NOTE: I think that Judyth makes excellent points, Jack.
I am sorry to have to say I agree with her completely!

...

I AM WELL AWARE THAT I AM HUMAN AND CAN MAKE AN OCCASIONAL ERROR.
BUT YOUR STATEMENTS BRUSH ME OFF AS A WORTHLESS PERSON NOT EVEN
DESERVING OF A HEARING. AND YOU DID NOT GIVE ME A FAIR ONE, EITHER.
...

Dr. Jim,

Perhaps Judyth Baker can explain to me/us WHY her 'alleged' relationship with LHO is relevant in the conspiracy to murder JFK? Do you Judyth feel you can clear LHO's name? And, what is it, you Judyth, hope to accomplish through Dr. Fetzer and his good graces?

Thanks

David

Exactly, David.

As for the wild statements of JVB, I have no prejudice against
her. In fact the only feeling I have for her is pity...that she
gave up her family and has suffered so much, for no good reason.
She keeps repeating that I HATE HER, when I hate nobody. I am
interested only in TRUTH, and her tales change so often that
I wonder which, if any, of them are true.

I have been working to clear the name of Lee Harvey Oswald
for nearly 50 years, in the interest of history, truth and justice.
But I have no personal feeling for LHO, who like JFK, was a
victim of sinister forces he did not fully understand. Those who
used him and then sacrificed him are the ones to be scorned.
I am trying to clear LHO. She is "trying to clear LHO". But
she hates my efforts. Makes no sense, does it?

As persons, I did not like either JFK nor LHO...but I want justice
for both. JFK did not understand that the president is not really
in charge. LHO thought being a spy was fun, till Ruby spoiled it.

LHO was a patsy. I am beginning to believe that JVB may also
have been some intended patsy of sorts, in some convoluted
intelligence operation of which she had no knowledge. The nature
of the JVB "patsy plan" likely did not involve the JFK assassination,
but perhaps some scheme which still has potential continuing
consequences. That is why she still is being pushed forward as
a distraction, because it is still important to SOMEONE in power
to provide misdirection to the real reason for the LHO/JVB affair.

JVB and LHO to me were obviously pawns being used in some
intelligence scenario or scenarios of which they (and we) are
not conscious of.

Jack

[Dawn Meredith]

[quote=James H. Fetzer]THE ONLY CONFLICT LIES IN YOUR PREJUDICE, JACK!

NOTE: I think that Judyth makes excellent points, Jack.
I am sorry to have to say I agree with her completely!

...

I AM WELL AWARE THAT I AM HUMAN AND CAN MAKE AN OCCASIONAL ERROR.
BUT YOUR STATEMENTS BRUSH ME OFF AS A WORTHLESS PERSON NOT EVEN
DESERVING OF A HEARING. AND YOU DID NOT GIVE ME A FAIR ONE, EITHER.
...

Dr. Jim,

Perhaps Judyth Baker can explain to me/us WHY her 'alleged' relationship with LHO is relevant in the conspiracy to murder JFK? Do you Judyth feel you can clear LHO's name? And, what is it, you Judyth, hope to accomplish through Dr. Fetzer and his good graces?

Thanks

David

On this same point I have seen page after page of posts to refute what Barb J has said. I recently noted that Barb-someone I do not know- appears to be working in tandim with McAdams. If this is the case why would anyone waste a second of time even reading this stuff, let alone refuting it?

Judyth should merely present her points of historical relevence and ignore her detractors. Just mho.

Dawn

[Magda Hassan]

On this same point I have seen page after page of posts to refute what Barb J has said. I recently noted that Barb-someone I do not know- appears to be working in tandem with McAdams. If this is the case why would anyone waste a second of time even reading this stuff, let alone refuting it?

Judyth should merely present her points of historical relevance and ignore her detractors. Just mho.

Dawn

I think that is excellent advice Dawn.

[Bernice Moore]

On this same point I have seen page after page of posts to refute what Barb J has said. I recently noted that Barb-someone I do not know- appears to be working in tandem with McAdams. If this is the case why would anyone waste a second of time even reading this stuff, let alone refuting it?

Judyth should merely present her points of historical relevance and ignore her detractors. Just mho.

Dawn

I think that is excellent advice Dawn.

I do also Magna but that would mean not having the last word, and imo that would be ruddy awful ...to both...b:banghead:

[James H. Fetzer]

JUDYTH REPLIES TO JACK WHITE ABOUT
AN ERROR SHE HAS PREVIOUSLY ADDRESSED

JUDYTH WRITES:

I can hardly believe what Jack White wrote.

Now he is slamming Dr. Williams, as if he were not a competent researcher.

Why the incredible hostility?

JACK WRITES:

What is emerging is that when an error occurs, IT IS ALWAYS THE FAULT OF SOMEONE ELSE.

JUDYTH REPLIES:

==I TOOK RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ERROR, JACK.
I MIS-READ THE MANUSCRIPT AND THOUGHT IT WAS JUST A LIST DUE TO SPACING ON THE PAGE.
==

JACK WRITES:

JVB would have us believe that John Delane Williams made up his article as fiction that he
created without any basis.

JUDYTH REPLIES:

==I SAID THAT I THOUGHT IT WAS A LIST, JACK. I HAD SENT HIM A LIST OF PEOPLE I MET IN APRIL AND MAY.==

JACK WRITES:

With no previous input using information provided by JVB, Williams
decided on his own,

JUDYTH REPLIES:

==LOOK AGAIN, JACK.. ON THE 27TH, I MET DAVID FERRIE.

THE REST OF IT WAS, DUE TO SPACING ON THE COMPUTER, I SAW AS A LIST.
IT WAS NOT DR. WILLIAMS' FAULT. I HAVE ALREAYD EXPLAINED THAT ELSEWHERE
IN THE PAPER IT CORRECTLY SAYS OCHSNER WAS OUT OF TOWN FOR TWO WEEKS.
THAT'S FROM APRIL 20 TO MAY 4TH.

A GOOD RESEARCHER CAN CONCLUDE THAT I DID NOT MEET OCHSNER ON THE 27TH
AND THAT THERE IS AN ERROR THERE. SAME FOR THE NAMES THAT FOLLOW, THEY HAD
OTHER DATES AND THAT IS CLEAR FROM EVERYTHING ELSE I HAVE SAID FOR YEARS.==

JACK WRITES:

that on the second day of knowing Lee, that Lee took her to the office of
Doctor Ochsner, and that while she waited outside, Lee went in to see the doctor,
came back out, and then took JVB into the doctor's office and introduced the two of them.
Why would Williams make this up?

JUDYTH REPLIES:

==UNBELIEVABLE STRETCH, TRYING TO INSINUATE THAT I WOULD CARELESSLY GIVE OUT ANY
OLD DATES AT ANY OLD TIME, WHEN THIS IS A SINGLE, DISTINCT ERROR THAT I HAVE CAREFULLY EXPLAINED IS OBVIATED WHEN THE REST OF THE TEXT CONCERNING OCHSNER IS READ.==

==HAVE YOU NEVER HEARD THE WORD 'ERRATA' BEFORE?==

IT EXISTS BECAUSE SOMETIMES A DOCUMENT CAN HAVE AN ERROR THAT NEEDS CORRECTING.
I WILL PUBLISH THE DOCMENT ON SCRIBD AND INDICATE THE ERROR AND EXPLAIN THAT IT WAS
AN ERROR THAT IN FACT CANNOT BE FOUND IN ANY OF MY OTHER DESCRIPTIONS OF THE TIME-LINE
OR IN "THE MEN WHO KILLED KENNEDY" DOCUMENTARY.==

[NOTE: In an earlier post, she observed that the time line can also be
found in "The Love Affair" segment of Nigel Turner's documentary. So
her explanation here is in fact one that she has provided Jack before.]

JACK WRITES:

Where did he get the date? How did he know that Lee went in first and then later introduced the doctor
to JVB? This is extraordinary detail for someone to make up and not expect the fiction to be noticed.

JUDYTH REPLIES:

==WHAT IN GOD'S NAME ARE YOU CLAIMING? THAT DR. JOHN WILLIAMS MADE THIS UP, JUST BECAUSE
OF ONE ERROR? WILLIAM HAS INTEGRITY AND SO DO I. THIS IS A RELATIVELY EASY ERROR TO CORRECT.
BUT CARRY ON, VENT YOUR WRATH.==

JACK WRITES:

Or did he not know that Ochsner was in South America, and decided to just make
something up to add interest to the story? Why?

Did Williams have ANY basis for writing his article?

I am disappointed that I am the only one who feels that Williams wrote information that
had previously been presented to him in some form from the JVB story. I am disappointed
that I am castigated for making an observation that is so obvious that anyone should see
through the sham.

JUDYTH REPLIES:

==ONE ERROR AND YOU BLOW UP AND WON'T LISTEN TO REASON. I SHOW YOU THAT
ELSEWHERE IN THE MANUSCRIPT IT SAYS OCHSNER WAS OUT OF TOWN FOR TWO WEEKS,
WHICH YOU IGNORE. YOU MUST TAKE YOUR POUND OF FLESH FROM A SINGLE ERROR IN A
LONG MANUSCRIPT--YOU EVEN MENTIONED YOU WENT TO A LARGER PRINT TO READ--AND
YOU CALL EVERYTHING A SHAM.

YOU EVEN IMPLY THAT DR. WILLIAMS, A FINE RESEARCHER, IS SOMEHOW AN IDIOT FOR
WRITING THIS PAPER. I BELEVE YOU ARE AWARE THAT HE WROTE NOT ONE, BUT TWO
PAPERS ABOUT LEE OSWALD AND ME.

WILLIAMS IS A STATISTICIAN WITH A PHD IN THE SUBJECT WHO WAS INVESTIGATING MY
STORY. HE DID A FINE JOB. HE OFFERED A STATISTICAL STUDY OF THE EVIDENCE SHOWING
THAT THE PROBABILITY THAT OUR JOBS WERE ARRANGED FOR US AT REILY'S IS A MILLION
FOR AGAINST ONE. WE HAD TO CORRESPOND THROUGH EMAILS, BUT HIS ASSISTANT HAD
KNOWN ME PERSONALLY FOR YEARS. YOU IGNORE MY WITNESSES. YOU INSULT ME WITH
EVERY POST AND ARE ALLOWED TO DO SO.==

JVB

[quote name='Jack White' date='Mar 16 2010, 06:05 AM' post='187020']
What is emerging is that when an error occurs, IT IS ALWAYS THE FAULT OF SOMEONE ELSE.

JVB would have us believe that John Delane Williams made up his article as fiction that he
created without any basis. With no previous input using information provided by JVB, Williams
decided on his own, that on the second day of knowing Lee, that Lee took her to the office of
Doctor Ochsner, and that while she waited outside, Lee went in to see the doctor, came back
out, and then took JVB into the doctor's office and introduced the two of them. Why would
Williams make this up? Where did he get the date? How did he know that Lee went in first
and then later introduced the doctor to JVB? This is extraordinary detail for someone to
make up and not expect the fiction to be noticed. Or did he not know that Ochsner was in
South America, and decided to just make something up to add interest to the story? Why?

Did Williams have ANY basis for writing his article?

I am disappointed that I am the only one who feels that Williams wrote information that
had previously been presented to him in some form from the JVB story. I am disappointed
that I am castigated for making an observation that is so obvious that anyone should see
through the sham.

Jack

[quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='187018' date='Mar 16 2010, 03:57 AM']THE ONLY CONFLICT LIES IN YOUR PREJUDICE, JACK!

NOTE: I think that Judyth makes excellent points, Jack.
I am sorry to have to say I agree with her completely!

Dear Jack:

We have established the following:

1) I made a reading error that resulted in Banister and Ochsner being mentioned
on the wrong date. I supplied evidence that my correction matched what is easly
available online and that I had misinterpreted what was there as a list, which was
unconnected to the date a few lines aove it.

2) I pointed out that YOU misread the article yourself when you stated that I did
not mention Ochsner being out of town (South America). It seems you, too, are
capable of misreading the long article. I have shown you that Ochsner was out
of town and that it was in the article.

3) I pointed out that, for some reason, you have changed actual words, such as
'apartment' to 'room', and otherwise degraded information that is relevant to
establishing connectons between me and Oswald

4) You further left out connectors between Oswald and myself, such as mentioning
that, when I was forced to resign--yes, it was actually getting fired, but I signed a
resignation--it had occurred because I was seen with Oswald not long before he
was arrested for opassing out pamphlets--you simply didn't mention this connector.

By failing to do so, you exhibited a remarkable amount of prejudice in reporting my
position as a witness. I have been stunned, actually, by these seemingly deliberate
distortions of the record.

Now you compound everything with insults, such as beow:

Now, in 2010, she says that is wrong...that he was in South America at that time.

==We have alrerady addressed this, Jack--It says in the same article you supposedly
read that Oschner was out of town for two weeks when I arrived in New orleans.

Obviously, then, I could not have met him on April 27, since I arrived in New Orleans
on April 20. But let us move on to your insults and leave your errors behind:

Previously I had read that she had been invited to come to New Orleans to be an intern
under Dr. Ochsner. Now if you can sort this out and make sense of it, you are better
than I am at interpreting conflicting statements. I find this (and many other things)

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO CONFLICT. WHAT I FIND DISTURBING IS THAT YOU PASS
JUDGMENT ON ME APPARENTLY WITHOUT EVER SEEING THE DOCUMENTARY BY NIGEL
TURNER. IT IS CLEAR THERE--AND HAS ALWAYS BEEN CLEAR--THAT I WAS OFFERED
AN INTERNSHIP WITH DR. MARY SHERMAN BY OCHSNER AND THAT MY UNIVERSITY
WENT ON THE TRIMESTER SCHEDULE THAT YEAR.

WE GOT OUT TWO WEEKS EARLIER THAT OTHER SCHOOLS, BUT OCHSNER LEFT THE
COUNTRY, THINKING I WOULD ARRIVE TWO WEEKS LATER THAN I DID. SHERMAN
WAS WITH HIM PART OF THAT TME.

I FOUND MYSELF WTHOUT FUNDS. WATCH THE DOCMENTARY OR READ THE BOOK,
BUT PLEASE DO NOT PASS JUDGMENT ON ME WITHOUT HAVING EVEN READ THIS
ONE ARTICLE BY DR. JOHN WLLIAMS WITH CARE.

I AM SHOCKED AND SURPRISED AT THE CARELESSNESS INVOLVED HERE.

I CANNOT EVEN FEEL ANGER, JUST SHOCK.

YOU DO NOT CARE NOT WHETHER YOU DESTROY A WITNESS WHOSE TESTIMONY
YOU HAVE OBVIOUSLY NEVER INSPECTED. YOU HAVE RELIED ON HEARSAY.

IT GRIEVES ME TO SAY THESE WORDS. YOU HAVE DONE SO MUCH FOR THE
RESEARCH COMMUNITY.

too confusing to sort out or bother with. And so what?

THESE WORDS IMPLY IGNORANCE OF WHAT I KNOW AND WISH TO CONVEY
TO THE FORUM HERE--IF I EVER GET THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK OF THOSE
THINGS INSTEAD OF HAVING TO DEFEND MY INTEGRITY AND VERY SANITY ON
THIS FORUM AGAINST SPECIOUS ATTACKS.

I AM WELL AWARE THAT I AM HUMAN AND CAN MAKE AN OCCASIONAL ERROR.
BUT YOUR STATEMENTS BRUSH ME OFF AS A WORTHLESS PERSON NOT EVEN
DESERVING OF A HEARING. AND YOU DID NOT GIVE ME A FAIR ONE, EITHER.

Was Ochsner behind the assassination? Or if he had ANY involvement, was it
important?

AT LAST, A QUESTON OF VALUE.

I do not get that impression from ANYTHING JVB has said. Even if EVERYTHING
she says is true, it does not enhance the things we already knew.

HOW CAN YOU BE IN A POSITON TO JUDGE THE IMPORTANCE OF WHAT I HAVE
TO SAY, MR. WHITE, SINCE YOU HAVE NEVER MET ME, NEVER INTERVIEWED ME,
NEVER EVEN SEEN THE DOCUMENTARY, WHICH IS BASIC TO COMPREHENDING
MY TESTIMONY.

MUCH INFORMATION I HAVE DID NOT MEAN MUCH TO ME AT THE TIME. BUT BEING
THREATENED, REVILED AND ATTACKED CHANGES ONE'S PERSPECTIVE, AND I HAVE
DILIGENTLY SOUGHT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT I KNOW.

I HOPE ATTACKS WILL STOP AND I WLL BE ALLOWED TO PRESENT MY INFORMATION.

YOU HAVE SPENT PAGES AND PAGES ATTACKING ME, WHILE REVEALING THAT YOU
HAVE ACCEPTED THE JUDGMENTS OF OTHERS WITHOUT RELYING ON YOUR OWN
HIGH INTELLIGENCE AND GOOD SENSE. SOME PEOPLE YOU TRUSTED HAVE QUITE
NEGATIVELY INFLUENCED YOU, JACK,

I AM VERY SORRY TO HAVE TO WRITE THESE THINGS TO A MAN WHOM I HAVE LONG
RESPECTED, DESPITE HIS UNENDING HOSTILE ATTITUDE TOWARD ME FOR OVER FIVE
YEARS.

IT SEEMS THAT "I AM HATED WITHOUT CAUSE" BY YOU.

JVB[/quote]
[/quote]

What is emerging is that when an error occurs, IT IS ALWAYS THE FAULT OF SOMEONE ELSE.

JVB would have us believe that John Delane Williams made up his article as fiction that he
created without any basis. With no previous input using information provided by JVB, Williams
decided on his own, that on the second day of knowing Lee, that Lee took her to the office of
Doctor Ochsner, and that while she waited outside, Lee went in to see the doctor, came back
out, and then took JVB into the doctor's office and introduced the two of them. Why would
Williams make this up? Where did he get the date? How did he know that Lee went in first
and then later introduced the doctor to JVB? This is extraordinary detail for someone to
make up and not expect the fiction to be noticed. Or did he not know that Ochsner was in
South America, and decided to just make something up to add interest to the story? Why?

Did Williams have ANY basis for writing his article?

I am disappointed that I am the only one who feels that Williams wrote information that
had previously been presented to him in some form from the JVB story. I am disappointed
that I am castigated for making an observation that is so obvious that anyone should see
through the sham.

Jack

[James H. Fetzer]

JUDYTH RESPONDS ABOUT LIFTON'S ILLEGAL TAPE RECORDING

NOTE: This causes me more distress than I can say about my good
friend, David Lifton. I wish none of this had happened. It grieves me.
And Jack maintains that there is nothing new to be learned from Judyth!

JUDYTH REPLIES:

WE MUST BEIEVE THAT DAVID LIFTON, WHO PLACED A STORY SAYING I KNEW OSAMA
AND LEARNED HOW TO FLY PLANES BUT NOT TO LAND THEM ON THE INTERNET, NOT LONG
AFTER NINE-ELEVEN--MAKING ME THE TARGET OF WEIRDOS AND PARANOIDS WHO THEN
HARRASSED ME--WILL GIVE YOU A TRUE RECKONING OF WHAT WAS ON THE TAPE, EVEN
THOUGH HE SPENT A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THE INTERVIEW TIME CONCERNED ABOUT
HOW "60 MNUTES" TREATED ME, IF I HAD FIRST CLASS TRANSPORTATION, FOR EXAMPLE.
WHEN I TOLD "60 MINUTES", THE NEXT TME THEY FLEW ME TO NEW YORK, I WENT FIRST
CLASS.

LIFTON INTERVIEWED RACHEL OSWALD, PROMISING HE WOULD HELP HER FINANCIALLY,
GOT THE INTERVIEW WHILE THE GIRL WAS WORKING AS A WAITRESS WORKING HER
WAY THROUGH COLLEGE, THEN SOLD HIS STORY FOR $$$$$ BUT GAVE HER NARY A DIME.

THIS GOOD RESEARCHER TALKED TO ME ONCE ON THE PHONE, ILLEGALLY TAPING THE
CONVERSATION WITHOUT MY KNOWLEDGE, WHICH IS A FELONY IN CALIFORNIA. I WILL
NOW PROCEED TO RESPOND TO WHAT IS BELOW:

Scroll down to the caps in bold to see my replies. JVB

(2) JUDYTH TALKES ABOUT DAVID ATLEE PHILLIPS

LEE TOLD ME THAT DAVID ATLEE PHILLIPS WAS THE ONE WHO MASTERMINDED MUCH OF
THE ASSASSINATION OF JOHN F. KENNEDY. HE TOLD ME THAT PHILLIPS AND OTHERS
WOULD BE PRESENT TO WATCH JFK GO DOWN. ADDITIONAL DETAILS ARE IN THE BOOK.

An excerpt from David Lifton's conversation with Judyth.

On the question of whether Lee every (sic) met with David Atlee Phillips and whether
Lee knew Phillips by his real name; and the question of whether other employees
at Reily knew Phillips by either or both names ("Bishop" or Phillips), here's what
Judyth told me on March 4, 2000:

QUOTE ON: (FROM LIFTON'S ILLEGAL FELONIOUS TAPE: YOU MUST TAKE HIS WORD FOR
ITS ACCURACY...THE SAME PERSON WHO POSTED THAT I SAID I DID CANCER RESEARCH
INSIDE A COFFEE COMPANY...A JOKE, BUT PEOPLE TOOK IT SERIOUSLY...HIS WHOLE
APPROACH WAS TO MAKE A JOKE OF MY IDENTITY AS A WITNESS. HE NEVER MET ME.
REMEMBER THAT. HIS BIOGRAPHY ON LEE NEVER PUBLISHED. REMEMBER THAT, TOO.

JVB: What I simply want to do. . I want you to know that [Oswald] is an
innocent man; this is a man who had a chance to get out of this thing, and
he stuck it out. OK? He stuck it out. Of course, he wanted to get out
alive, and all that, but that is not the point, but he, [starts to get upset] he
knew that; [pause, starts to cry--dsl] he knew, we knew things were really
bad when Phillips didn't show up.

==BY THE TIME THIS RECORDING BY LIFTON WAS MADE, I KNEW THAT LEE'S "MR. B"
CONTACT--WHO ONCE TOLD LEE HIS NAME WAS 'BENTON' AND ANOTHER TIME SOUNDED
LIKE 'BENSON' --WAS INTRODUCED TO HIM IN TEXAS EARLY SEPTEMBER AS ' BISHOP'
WHEN HE WAS WITH VECIANA THERE.

THIS WE DISCERNED AT THE END WAS DAVID ATLEE PHILLIPS. WHEN I SAY 'PHILLIPS',
I MEAN HIS HANDLER IN MEXICO CITY, WITH WHOM LEE TRIED TO MAKE CONTACT
WHEN THE MEDICAL CONTACT AT THE SOUVENIR SHOP FAILED TO APPEAR. PHILLIPS
HAD FLOWN TO WASHINGTON AND WAS UNAVAILABLE. IT WAS A BLOW TO OSWALD.==

He told me, [recovers; now sounds cheerful-DSL] listen -I didn't know
what David Atlee Phillips name was until our last phone conversation,
or maybe a couple before that. I can't remember. But he told me, to
NEVER forget his name. He told me, "never forget his name."

DSL: How did he know his name, by the way?

JVB: Oh, he met him. But, listen, I'd overheard, we'd overheard, I'd
overheard his name before, over at Reily's. They talked about a guy
named Bishop, and [someone] said, 'That's Phillips", and so I had
an idea who that was.

==DAVID ATLEE PHILLIPS HAD BEEN IN NEW ORLEANS BEFORE OR AFTER THE DATE
MAY 15, 1961 WHEN INCA WAS FORMED, AND FUNDRAISING FOR THE INFORMATION
COUNCIL OF THE AMERICAS WAS BEING ARRANGED BY OCHSNER AND BUTLER.

PHILLIPS WAS THERE AND PROVIDED IDEAS FOR PROPAGANDA AND FUNDING.

HE DID NOT DISGUISE HIS NAME.
RECORDS EXIST ABOUT THIS VISIT.
DR. PLATZMAN HAS ONE SUCH RECORD.

I WAS PRESENT AT MONAGHAN'S DESK WHEN REILY'S SECRETARY CAME DOWN TO FIND OUT
IF HERBERT PHILBRICK WAS GOING TO GET A FREE FLIGHT TO NEW ORLEANS THROUGH A REILY
CONTRIBUTION TO INCA, OR WAS IT A FREE STAY AT BRENT HOUSE AT OCHSNER'S, AND SO ON....

MONAGHAN WAS IN CHARGE OF FINANCE, CREDIT, FIELD OPERATIONS FOR THE COMPANY, AND
SECURITY, TOO. HE WAS A FORMER FBI MAN.

MY EARS PERKED UP BECAUSE LEE OSWALD WAS INTERESTED IN MEETING PHILBRICK, WHO DID
ARRIVE A FEW WEEKS LATER AND GAVE A PRESENTATION, WHEN LEE WAS ABLE TO MEET HIM.

EVENTUALLY, PHILBRICK DID BECOME AN OFFICIAL ADVISOR TO INCA , I THINK IN 1964. THE
SECRETARY MENTIONED THAT A "MR. BISHOP" HAD CALLED TO SAY HE WOULD PROVIDE FUNDS
FOR THE FLIGHT THROUGH REILY'S. A MEETING WAS GOING TO BE HELD ABUT IT. SHE WANTED
TO KNOW WHO "BISHOP" WAS, AS SHE HAD NOBODY ON FILE BY THAT NAME. AND MONAGHAN
SAID QUITE CLEARLY, "THAT'S PHILLIPS."

I TOLD THIS TO LEE, WHO LATER SAID HE HEARD PHILLIPS HAD COME TO INCA. SO WE BOTH
HEARD THE SAME THING, BUT I THINK I HEARD IT FIRST. BY THE LAST PHONE CALL, LEE HAD
DECIDED THAT BISHOP AND PHILLIPS HAD TO BE THE SAME PERSON.==

This raises obvious questions - and here are some David had for Martin Shackelford:

QUESTIONS FOR MARTIN SHACKELFORD:

1) Did Judyth tell you, as she did me, that she knew Phillips by his real name,
*and* by his alias?

LOOK AGAIN AT WHAT I ACTUALLY SAID, ACCORDING TO LIFTON HMSELF:

But, listen, I'd overheard, we'd overheard, I'd overheard
his name before, over at Reily's. They talked about a guy
named Bishop, and [someone] said, 'That's Phillips", and so
I had an idea who that was.

==LIFTON'S OVERSIMPLIFIED QUESTION MAKES IT SEEM THAT I STATED THAT I
I KNEW PHILLIPS BY BOTH NAMES. OF COURSE I DID NOT 'KNOW' HIM AT ALL.

I HAD NO CONCEPT OF WHAT HE LOOKED LIKE.

ONLY BECAUSE LEE DIDN'T KNOW THE REAL NAME OF HIS TOP HANDLER DID WE
KEEP ALERT WHEN NAMES WERE DROPPED.

THE FACT THAT PHILBRICK WAS GOING TO COME TO NEW ORLEANS TO BE
INTERVIEWED BY OCHSNER AND CHARTER NCA MEMBER REILY WAS IMPORTANT
TO ME BECAUSE LEE WANTED TO MEET PHILBRICK. SO I LISTENED CAREFULLY
ABOUT PHILBRICK, WHICH HELPED ME REMEMBER THE REST OF THE CONVERSATION...

QUESTIONS CAN BE WORDED IN A WAY THAT MAKES A DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION
OF THE REALITY. I NEVER 'KNEW' PHLLIPS. I NEVER 'KNEW' BISHOP.==

2) Did she tell you that Lee Oswald knew Phillips by his real name, *and* his alias?

==AGAIN, AND I SAY THE SAME THING IN THE DOCUMENTARY, LEE NEVER KNEW, WHEN
HE MET BISHP, THAT HE WAS SPEAKING TO PHILLIPS. HE FIGURED IT OUT LATER. THIS
LOADED QUESTION MAKES IT SEEM THAT I WAS SAYING LEE KNEW BOTH NAMES, AS IF,
PERHAPS, FOR A LONG TIME...THAT'S NOT WHAT I SAID .==

3) If Phillips was involved in a covert operation that involved LHO, do you think
he'd tell him BOTH his alias and his real name?

==OF COURSE NOT. AND I NEVER SAID PHILLIPS TOLD LEE ANY SUCH THING. BUT THE
FACT THAT DAVID ATLEE PHILLPS' RESIDENCE WAS ACTUALLY IN FORT WORTH, VERY
CLOSE TO DALLAS, LEE WAS ABLE TO HUNT IT DOWN IN THE END.

AND THAT IS WHY, IN HIS LAST CALLS --AND ESPECIALLY THE VERY LAST CALL -- LEE
MADE A POINT, AS IT SAYS CLEARLY IN TMWKK DOCUMENTARY, THAT AT LAST HE HAD
FIGURED OUT WHO HIS HANDLER WAS--AT LAST.

IT IS DISCONCERTING THAT LIFTON CREATED THE IMPRESSION OF ASSERTIONS THAT
NEVER EXISTED, THAT I NEVER MADE, FOR YOU TO SEE FOR YOURSELF. FORTUNATELY,
INTELLIGENT READERS HERE CAN DISCERN THE TRUE MEANING.==

4) IF Phillips was involved in a covert operation, do you think he'd have anything
whatsoever to do with employees at Reily Coffee-again for any reason;
but, just for the sake of argument, let's say he did.

==IN HIS HUBRIS, MR.LIFTON MADE A FALSE ASSUMPTION THAT THESE WERE ORDINARY
EMPLOYEES. HE FAILED TO OBAIN MORE INFORMATION. MR. MONAGHAN WAS THE VICE
PRESIDENT, A FORMER FBI MAN. GERRY HEMMING IS ON RECORD SAYING MR. REILY OF
THE REILY COFFEE COMPANY HAD WORKED FOR THE CIA FOR YEARS. PHILLIPS IS ON
RECORD VISITING NEW ORLEANS AND BEING INVOLVED WITH INCA FUNDRAISING
OPERATIONS. REILY WAS A CHARTER MEMBER OF INCA AND ONE OF INCA'S MOST
GENEROUS DONORS. LIFTON'S QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN CIRCULATING--BASED ON A
FALSE PREMISE--CONFUSING GOOD RESEARCHERS FOR YEARS. WHY DID HE DO THIS?==

Do you believe that he'd be using both his real name AND his alias?

==OF COURSE NOT. STRETCH THE TRUTH ENOUGH AND I CAN SAY DAVID LIFTON IS
A LIPTON TEA BAG.==

If so, this has got to be one of the most insecure operations in intelligence history:

==NOW HE MAKES A SPIEL, BASED ON NOTHING==

not only does the low level agent, supposedly working directly under the CIA' Chief of
the Western Hemisphere Division know both his names,

==SPECIOUS, UNTRUE, UNINFORMED, AND TWISTING THE FACTS HE WAS GIVEN==

but so does his girlfriend! And, in addition, so do numerous others at the coffee company
where he is employed, oiling the machinery!

==NUMEROUS OTHERS? REILY'S SECRETARY AND MY BOSS, THE VICE PRESIDENT. AT
ANY TIME, MR. LIPTON, ER, MR. LIFTON, COULD HAVE COME TO CORRECT CONCLUSIONS,
HAD HE NOT PRE-DECIDED TO TRASH ME AS A WITNESS, POSSIBLY SO HIS BOOK WOULD
NOT HAVE TO INCLUDE ANYTHING ABOUT ME IN HIS BIOGRAPHY ABOUT OSWALD. I HAD
ALLOWED HIM TO INTERVIEW ME BECAUSE I'D HOPED TO HELP HIS BOOK BECOME A
SUCCESS WITH NEW INFORMATION ABOUT A NEW WITNESS. LIFTON DECIDED TO DO A
NUMBER ON ME, INSTEAD.==

[quote name='Barb Junkkarinen' date='Mar 15 2010, 11:34 PM' post='186991']
[quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='186935' date='Mar 15 2010, 04:15 PM']
(2) JUDYTH TALKES ABOUT DAVID ATLEE PHILLIPS

LEE TOLD ME THAT DAVID ATLEE PHILLIPS WAS THE ONE WHO MASTERMINDED MUCH OF THE
ASSASSINATION OF JOHN F. KENNEDY. HE TOLD ME THAT PHILLIPS AND OTHERS WOULD BE PRESENT
TO WATCH JFK GO DOWN. ADDITIONAL DETAILS ARE IN THE BOOK.[/quote]

An excerpt from David Lifton's conversation with Judyth.

On the question of whether Lee every met with David Atlee Phillips and whether
Lee knew Phillips by his real name; and the question of whether other employees
at Reily knew Phillips by either or both names ("Bishop" or Phillips), here's what
Judyth told me on March 4, 2000:

QUOTE ON:

JVB: What I simply want to do. . I want you to know that [Oswald] is an
innocent man; this is a man who had a chance to get out of this thing, and
he stuck it out. OK? He stuck it out. Of course, he wanted to get out
alive, and all that, but that is not the point, but he, [starts to get upset] he
knew that; [pause, starts to cry--dsl] he knew, we knew things were really
bad when Phillips didn't show up.

He told me, [recovers; now sounds cheerful-DSL] listen -I didn't know
what David Atlee Phillips name was until our last phone conversation,
or maybe a couple before that. I can't remember. But he told me, to
NEVER forget his name. He told me, "never forget his name."

DSL: How did he know his name, by the way?

JVB: Oh, he met him. But, listen, I'd overheard, we'd overheard, I'd
overheard his name before, over at Reily's. They talked about a guy
named Bishop, and [someone] said, 'That's Phillips", and so I had an
idea who that was.

This raises obvious questions - and here are the questions David had for Martin Shackelford:

QUESTIONS FOR MARTIN SHACKELFORD:
1) Did Judyth tell you, as she did me, that she knew Phillips by his real name,
*and* by his alias?

2) Did she tell you that Lee Oswald knew Phillips by his real name, *and* his
alias??

3) If Phillips was involved in a covert operation that involved LHO, do you think
he'd tell him BOTH his alias and his real name?

4) IF Phillips was involved in a covert operation, do you think he'd have
anything whatsoever to do with employees at Reily Coffee-again for any reason;
but, just for the sake of argument, let's say he did.
Do you believe that he'd be using both his real name AND his alias? If so, this
has got to be one of the most insecure operations in intelligence history: not only
does the low level agent, supposedly working directly under the CIA' Chief of
the Western Hemisphere Division know both his names, but so does his
girlfriend! And, in addition, so do numerous others at the coffee company where
he is employed, oiling the machinery!

Indeed, David's last comment sums it up rather well, imo.

(3) JUDYTH TALKS ABOUT JAMES FILES

IT GETS SO TOUGH, BEING A WITNESS. YOU MAKE ENEMIES BECAUSE YOUR TESTIMONY DOESN'T FIT

JIMMY SAID ONE THING CORRECT, SO I BELIEVE HE MET LEE OSWALD BUT IS NOT TELLING
EVERYTHING AS IT HAPPENED, OR HE HEARD IT FROM SOMEBODY WHO MET LEE. LEE HAD
A TINY SCAR NOBODY NOTICES ON HIS LIP. WIM ASKED ME HOW LEE GOT THE SCAR AND
I TOLD HIM, IN THE MARINES DURING BOOT CAMP, AND EXPLAINED THE INCIDENT.

NOW, FILES KNEW IT, TOO, AND I CANNOT EXPLAIN HOW HE DID.

It is no mystery how anyone would know that information. It is in Oswald's autopsy report.

Midline, upper lip, terminating at the vermillion margin is a 1/4 inch pale scar.

NOTE: The vermillion is where the pink lip tissue and the skin meet.

Barb :-)
[/quote]

[James H. Fetzer]

JUDYTH RESPONDS TO MY PSY OPS EXPERT:

PLEASE TELL YOUR PSY OPS EXPERT THAT HE IS ON THE MONEY...

Get this, and let him know:

WHEN WE MOVED TO AUSTIN IN 1966, WHEN ROBERT BEGAN HIS DOCTORAL
PROGRAM THERE IN GEOLOGY AND STATISTICS, I ENROLLED IN A HUMBLE
CHEMISTRY COURSE TO TRY TO GET BACK INTO SCIENCE...

YES, IT WAS ONLY 3 YEARS LATER, BUT SEEMED AN ETERNITY TO ME AS A
YOUNG PERSON WHO WANTED TO BECOME A DOCTOR.

I WAS CALLED INTO HARRY RANSOM'S OFFICE. I HAVE SINCE LEARNED THE
SEE AYE EYE CONNECTIONS RANSOM HAD.



HE ORDERED ME PERSONALLY TO DROP THE COURSE AND NEVER GO NEAR
MEDICAL OR SCIENCE COURSES AGAIN.

I SPENT TWENTY-FIVE SLOW YEARS ACCUMULATING ENOUGH SCIENCE CREDITS
ANYWAY (MY GREAT LOVE) AND OBTAINED A RARE B.S. DEGREE IN ANTHROPOLOGY,
INCLUDING FORENSIC SCIENCE.

IT WAS AS CLOSE AS I COULD GET TO BECOMING A DOCTOR.

I WILL NEVER FORGIVE THESE xxxxxxxxxxx FOR RUINING MY CHANCE TO HELP
PEOPLE AND CURE CANCER. YES, I KNEW PLENTY ABOUT BIOWEAPONS.

EVEN TODAY--I STRESS THAT--EVEN TODAY--COULD GUIDE A LAB TO A CURE
FOR SOFT TISSUE CANCERS, USING BACTERIOPHAGE MANIPULATION.

THERE IS MUCH MORE I COULD SAY ABOUT THIS, BUT FOR NOW, THIS
IS ENOUGH. I AM GOING TO SAVE THE REST FOR THE BOOK.

J

[quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='187011' date='Mar 16 2010, 04:15 AM']PLACING JUDYTH'S EXPERIENCE IN PERSPECTIVE

I invited my psy ops expert to read the thread and
offer his observations about what has been taking
place on this forum. It appears to place Judyth's
experience in perspective in relation to TI patterns
of "Targeted Individuals" of intelligence operations.

Jim, I read all the posts. I do agree with what Monk says and I find his reasoning impeccable. Monk is a very intelligent man and has always expressed good judgement from what I know of his posts over the years. I also know where you are coming from and do not have the specific knowledge base about this matter to agree or disagree with you. But I can certainly respect your opinion and you could be correct.

To many, Judyth's story just isn't interesting from a raw evidenciary standpoint for the JFK assassination. It is no more than a human interest story to these folks and I can understand that. No doubt Jack White is a serious researcher and has made many astonishing and well founded research discoveries about the JFK Assassination and Nasa's faked moon landing videos. It seems to me that he has taken a perspective somewhat like Monk's, that most of Judyth's story is a personal interest story and is of little value to the JFK Assassination, although Jack appears to have concluded there are a number of contradictions in her story.

It seems to me that Jack has focused on some apparent contradictions between what others claim Judyth stated in the past and what she states now. And it seems to me that both Jack and Monk really think Judyth's story would not make any difference in a court of law if the JFK Assassination was ever brought to trial and the true perps were prosecuted for the murder and the coverup as accessories after the fact (by the way such accessory after the fact crimes are still being committed and by a fair number of intel ops in high places--don't belive me google the "black eagle trust" just for one of many, many long term intel ops--oops, maybe I shouldn't have spilled the beans on that--too bad--connect some dots if you want to).

It appears that Jack thinks Judyth's story contained certain things that have been shown to be a problem based on prior claims of hers. It is my understanding that Jack has a long history of being a very no nonsense, hardnosed, serious and very successful researcher who has little time for personal interest stories unless proven to be relevant and backed up by irrefutable 100% hard evidence, preferably photo or video. I don't have the background or knowledge of this matter to evaluate what detail of Judyth's personal story about her and Oswald is correct to every last detail or not, so I can't myself come to any judgments about the veracity of the details of Judyth's personal story. But I don't doubt that she is a long term TI for whatever reasons.

I can state without reservation that the way this matter has played out has all the fingerprints of a long term intel intercept op and a very sophisticated psyop. Where there is smoke there is fire, so what part of Judyth's history is intel working so hard to keep buried? And what part might they be working to embellish that would lead researchers away from what they want to stay hidden?

Usually this kind of op must be ordered and tracked by a single person at a very high level who was responsible for this operation right from the very start and maybe still is. In rare occasions a matter may be so important it is signed off or reassigned to another high level decision maker or small team once the original decision maker retires or dies. The initial decision maker would probably have to have been central to the JFK Assassination coverup and carry a great deal of absolute caesarian power and "with prejudice" authority. This key person or decision maker would perhaps have something personal to lose if this certain part of Judyth's story ever comes out and is exposed to international public scrutiny and thousands of researchers who have great resources and extensive investigative skills. One possibility is that perhaps a major investment this person or group was involved in and is still involved in would be directly jeapardized if that certain part of Judyth's story received too much attention. The key would be to find what this investment is in. If you doubt this occurs, try watching the following video on fluoride at the bottom of this post (this will give you an idea of how this works--skip through any boring parts): http://preventdisease.com/home/tips79.shtml

For example, what about the well-known little problem with the neuro-toxin aspartame (especially when heated in the sun) and how rummy got things well greased at the FDA for approval and got the negative studies buried.

And of course there are some real nobodies posting against Judyth who never made any major contributions to JFK Assassination research anytime in their lives and use the internet as a means to try to make their mark, to establish themselves as an authority (or perhaps to further an agenda being promoted by someone they are aligned with, whether they understand the game plan or not). These folks seem to always deliver an untruthful payload in everything they do, even though their initial approach may sound like "serious research". And it seems to be true to the following game plan, which is standard operating procedure, typical intel "sources and methods" trade-craft. This game plan is your typical "provoke and punish" strategy for discrediting and wearing out a witness. I'm not saying these folks vacationed at the dairy farm--Camp Peary--milking cows and working with pencil thrusts, lamps or "buses", but they seem to be following a game plan and are obsessed with covering up and obscuring facts of the JFK Assassination in other of their postings and so called "research" and seem to relish attacking Judyth's story.

It works like this: Go over the targeted individual's story with a fine tooth comb and then do it again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again ad nauseum, maybe as a team, until you find some contradictions (and there always will be some because TI's are human). Then using these apparent inconsistencies and contradictions, take some very hard specific shots at the TI's story at its most vulnerable points and do it in a passive aggressive but still insulting, discrediting manner which makes them feel attacked and demeaned as a person, while ignoring any suffering they have gone through while they have been a TI.

Then keep it up for years, and years, regurgitating and recycling the same old stuff, even if it was undone before once or twice until two three goals are attained:

Goal #1: Wear the TI out (individuals who are long term TI's typically are survivors and long ago made the commitment to survive and defend their story at all costs. (That's why they never gave up their story in the first place for for so many years, they are strong willed and cannot be cowered or shut up no matter what.)

Goal #2: Distract and shift the attention of the TI and others as far away from what secret you are attempting to keep covered up as possible in order to prevent a certain thread from being pulled, a thread which could unravel a current op which is an extension of a past op and is also very, very important.

GOAL #3: Keep this game plan going by creating "conflict points" and recycling these over and over until goals #1 & #2 are well attained and the TI is distracted from getting her story out (in this case completing her book which will probably sell fairly well since the author has some very interesting base facts already well established which set an interesting plausibility for her story).

I understand that Judyth has a very interesting story to tell about Oswald and her relationship with him which is important history, even if it is told from her own personal perspective based on her contacts and knowledge of him. I for one am not really interested in the personal aspects of it, but much more interested in the basic background facts of her medical research, and why and how she was selected for help with a very interesting medical research program. But I am going to buy her book as soon as ity is out because I want to support her efforts to survive as a TI.

Certainly it seems obvious that her very high IQ and her excellent HS academic achievements, along with an apparent very high aptitude for academic achievement made her interesting to certain parties many years ago back in the early 1960s, and there are always officials who are on the look out for the very gifted to bring into their pet programs. This is what interests me. I still believe that the real reason for Judyth being a long term TI is related to the cancer research she did and certain secret aspects of the medical research she was exposed to, but I may be incorrect on this or any other of my assertions. I just don't think so, however. I always root for the TI victims and I hope that Judyth attains real success with her book, which I believe she will.[/quote]

[David Guyatt]

Jim, I would be grateful if you would tell your friend that I find his mention of "Black Eagle Trust" in association with the underlying subject matter more than interesting.

Thank you.

[James H. Fetzer]

This is a nice example of why what Judyth has to say is so important:

FROM MY PSY OPS EXPERT:

The following is strictly my own opinion based on reports from certain individuals and others must do their own research to validate these ideas one way or the other. Much is based on hearsay and anecdotal information which may be unreliable.

IMO the black eagle trust (fund) is a very important issue and is directly linked to the the Lily gold, the Nazi Gold, operation paperclip, the MKultra program, big pharma (which has had heavy links to eugenics and nazis as well as nazi mind kontrol experts brought over as a part of operation paperclip), DOE, nuclear weapons industry, cancer society, illegal drug and weapons trafficking, child trafficking, big pharma, vaccines, high tech dumbing down, eugenics, money laundering, wall street, int' merchant banking and all us covert operations since WW2 including the current nazification of the USA under all of the last regimes since JFK was murdered. Those who doubt he was killed by a military coup de etat may find some interesting research done by William F. Pepper on the MLK assassination. He presents well documented scenarios about how these deep black "wet boy" ops are set up and conducted.

The black eagle trust has really been largely ignored except for a few very, very few skilled researchers. I know Jim Marrs has done some very good work researching at least some related aspects of this matter to the bormann group of 700+ corps which survived ww2 and I have a great deal of respect for his work on the post ww2 nazi collaboration with, and takeover of, us intel. And a couple others have done pioneering work on this, and David Guyatt in particular has done some very outstanding work on this. This man most likely has a great deal of research which would explain the betf impact on black ops today. http://www.deepblacklies.co.uk/the_spoils_of_war.htm If I wanted to know more about it I would take a detailed look at what research he can provide and I would pay a great deal of attention to his suggestions. I would also ask Jim Marrs if he has additional ideas on any connections between nazis, south america, black eagle trust, wall street, banking, nato, pentagon, big pharma and dallas. I found his book "The Rise of the Fourth Reich" about nazis surviving and thriving after the war very, very well done. Mae Brussel discovered some very interesting connections between imported nazis and the us govt after WW2 just from studying newspapers (of course the fact that she had tremendous intuitive ability and was highly intelligent would explain her ability to connect the dots so well).

The betf appears to connect directly to the JFK Assassination, many other assassinations of foreign leaders by us intel around the world and was perhaps the main financing vehicle used to buy and sell politicians, fix elections, take care of problems outside official channels, bribe pentagram officials and generals, judges, prominent corp officials, etc. It has perhaps been the main secret slush fund used to finance the emerging "fourth reich of the rich" and their new world order of int'l corporations.

It apparently has also been connected to high tech, long term eugenics efforts to dumb the people down by fluoridating the water, adding lead to the gasoline and mercury and sv-40 fragments in vaccines, which also helps to create many long term illnesses and keep certain parts of the medical industry booming, via connections to the defense complex. Vaccines never needed mercury, it is there only for eugenics and dumbing down. It appears to connect to HIV as a bioweapon, current work on nanoparticle size injectable electronic chips, chemtrail spraying, psychoelectronics including gwen and haarp, GMO foodstuffs and "suicide seeds" which can't reproduce after the product is grown once, making the farmers dependent on a seed provider. The major media and many major industries have been "deputized" as agents of national security, thus they cooperate with the shadow government very well and this big slush fund is apparently a very important part of the shadow government.

The black eagle trust perhaps became quickly aligned with or was an extension of the infamous Bormann Group of 700+ corporations owned by nazi who survived and prospered after WW2 (the nazis won WW2 and the German people lost the war--this is because the nazis were started by an interconnected set of esoteric secret societies associated with wall street, int'l merchant banking, the opium trade, and the old black european nobility (typically referred to as "money changers"). The real power to this day still lies in a certain part of germany, with alleged ties to brussels (shape) and "the joint" in NYC (not dc either). These folks start the wars to keep the defense complex generating huge profits to further the creation of the "new world order of the ages" i.e. NWO. What is the new world order? It is a new order based and centered out of the "new world" ie North America and constructed on the esoteric principals of interlocked secret societies, but it is run by certain power figures and "families" outside the US most likely.

IMO, If one wants to understand who was behind the terrible events in dealey plaza, one needs to fully examine and research the black eagle trust, who started it and their ties to dealey and its cover up and who runs it today. Maybe I would look very carefully at gen willoughby and gen ed lansdale for starters and their ties to alan dulles, sullivan and cromwell, wall street and the rest of the "blue bloods". Betf has been alleged to have now reported to have built up a balance of 13.3 trillion US dollars equivalent value (much from illegal narcotics and weapons sales, and "safari club" type eugenics and associated takeover of a country's natural resources, so the folks running it can literally buy darned near the whole world. Who are the key players at the top of us intel who have had the authority to disperse these funds over the years of its existence?. What has been the chain of command of the betf since the end of ww2 and who were the key players at that time? Why does eugenics such an important part of their game plan (see "georgia guideposts" for their nwo "ten commandments").

Not enough folks understand the existence and composition of the shadow government and what it is. Some feel it is the skeleton formation of the new world order. Once the fascist transformation is complete, the nwo may be a new world government in and of the "new world" for the whole world run out of dc (at least that is why these folks are trying for). The very best research on what the shadow government is can be found in the work of California psychologist Richard Boyland, Ph.D. I cannot vouch for the rest of his work because I have not studied it but I can state emphatically that his description of the shadow government is excellent. http://www.apfn.org/apfn/shadow.htm Some very excellent researchers have provided very good evidence that england never gave up its determination to once again colonize the US and get it back. Some say this was finally attained in 1913 and have identified the "pilgrim society" as the main vehicle for this, similar to the "order of the bell". Only recently has good research on the pilgrim group been made available on the internet. http://www.silver-investor.com/charlessa..._dec04.pdf . So you have the "double headed eagle" running everything, with one head the visible and the other the hidden or real power. You have this "double-mindedness" expressed in every deep black op because that is what these people are all about: complete duplicity in everything, i.e. one story for the media for dispense to the public edward bernays style and the other for their own inside game plan. This complete and total duplicity with every major media outlet and the near complete educational system under the control of the shadow government creates a scenario where the truth, even if discovered and dispensed by good researchers is so incredulous that almost no member of the public will know it is true. Some may believe it is true or might be true but without the blessing of the major mass media they cannot allow themselves to know it is true. Almost every great deep black ops secret is hidden in plain sight with very little risk of discovery (as Prof Marshall McLuhan once stated that secrecy laws are only needed to protect the little secrets, that the incredulity of the public protects the big ones).

Therefore, a new strategy developed to psychologically process the group mind of the public, this was "the king's new clothes' game", which is best described as using researchers to dispense the real truth in small packets, and then countering it with posner type absurdities which fit the usual government line of lies. This allows many to believe a small part of the truth without be able to know it for sure sine they can't without validation by the major mas media. Result is what the shadow government intended. This pairing of "truth releases" followed by "posner absurdity cover ups" that support the king's new clothes shtick creates heavy duty cognitive dissonance for most. And it is well known that such cognitive dissonance makes most folks just go away in "quiet desperation", thus alienating them and dis-empowering them from participating in their own government. The real mystery to some is why do our politicians and corp leaders play into the king's new clothes shtick and pay homage to the king by telling his new clothes look great when he is really naked? Answer, because they know they must do this to climb the food chain and get their own piece of pie and pot of gold. They must pay homage or lest they may be "a man without a country" by morning.

[James H. Fetzer]

JUDYTH RESPONDS TO VIKLUND FOR THE LAST TIME

NOTE: I would remind those new to this thread that
collusion between Viklund, Junkkarinen, and McAdams
has been established based upon exchanges between
them that are found in earlier posts on this very thread.

JUDYTH'S REPLIES ARE IN BOLD:

1. Who; what authority, has decided that you are to travel in secrecy, ”for your protection”?

Who are you to dare ask such a question of a person you have never met and for whom you have only secondhand information. Further, do you think I would expose the agents who saved my life? Do you think I would place in my files everything pertaining to the case, knowing that snoopers such as you exist?

2. Why did your friends present – as I showed by quotation – a summon to a meeting, as a grant of asylum?

They are not “experts” (as you are) in technical legal terminology. They were only trying to help, when I was accused of being an illegal alien. My friends did not know that ‘granted political asylum’ is a term that could only be used after being granted ‘permanent political asylum’—something I told them would not happen.

3. Why are you giving the impression that you received special treatment, when your case, in every possible respect, was a standard asylum seekers case?

You are wanting to hear motive in this loaded question. Let’s get to the ‘question’ : WAS it a “standard asylum seekers case”? I was an American woman with a service dog, handicapped, who had just come from another EU country and should have been sent right back to that other EU country. I was the first American non-combatant woman, I was told, in decades, to enter the system. After five days of inquiries, etc., they advised me I could never win the case, but I would receive help by being allowed into the system for my protection. Is any of this “standard?”

a) I came from Hungary and had been there only one month, yet was not returned to Hungary, as EU agreements specify. Was that standard? No.

B) I was granted inhibition: few people obtain it. Is inhibition “standard”?

c) I was not immediately deported to the US at the outset, even though the US is on a list of countries considered ‘safe.’ Is there another non-combatant American in the system anywhere? Why wasn’t ‘standard deportation’ upheld?

d) I was advised to make an appeal in person. Other kinds of appeals were also made, as I was guided on what to do so I could stay as long as possible until my family could help me. Such advice does not get into an official record. Why would it? I was also advised to appeal on Swedish national television to receive inhibition. After the TV appeal was made, inhibition was granted. That was not ‘standard.’

4. Why are you saying that you could have stayed another ”year or two”, when, in fact, you by every possible means available to you, had exhausted your options to stay in Sweden?

I exerted ‘every possible means’ because I faced real danger. I had to leave a good teaching job in Hungary, with free housing, free bus transport, health insurance, an annual plane ticket to the US, and $750/mo. teaching 25 hours a week total, for two high schools. I had prestige and good living conditions for a single person there.

Imagine how horrible it was to have to leave, due to death threats. How expensive.

My options were not exhausted regarding living in Sweden. I could have filed a third appeal from any country outside Sweden (or not) and then returned, to take a position in a company that offered to hire me so I could stay in Sweden. I could have stayed under a business residency permit. Such permits are good from six months to two years and are renewable. What business is this of yours, Mr. Vuklund?

5. Why are you suggesting that the two Swedish Court who decided in your case, disregarded the evidence and used a ”standard reply” to motivate their findings?

Again, a loaded question. Asking ‘why’ is a common rhetorical ploy. You ask why and then add any old question to the ’why.’ The ploy tries to extricate information that has nothing to do with the question. It also makes a reader of the question suspicious of me instead of being suspicious of Mr. Viklund’s motives. BTW, Citation, please.

6. What is the name of the official who told you that the two Court decisions would be kept confidential?

This intrusive question into my civil rights is none of your business. I have witnesses who will privately verify the fact to Dr. Fetzer and others who are of reputable character--who respect issues of privacy and human rights (unlike yourself) to reveal the names of the kind people who helped me.

I never said that the court decisions themselves would be kept confidential. I said you gave out information that shows you know more than you should have. You snooped.

In my view, these areas have a certain degree of importance, as far as her stay in Sweden. She has given all kinds of explanations and none of them can be corroborated with what is shown in the decisions from the Swedish Courts. Therefore, this is a good opportunity for her to straighten these things out, once and for all.

I have others as well, but as I stated yesterday, these would be a good start.

I have patiently responded to this person who called me mentally deranged on a public forum without the insult being removed by a moderator. I asked Mr. Viklund who HE worked for. When he failed to reply, I posted information available. He next asks:

So, Mr Fetzer, will you assist in making these issues clarified?

Mr. Viklund, a validated expert in translation and protocol, knows how to properly address the distinguished Dr. Fetzer. He refused to reveal his occupation, though he did not deny that he solicited people in a New York ad to hire him to conduct private internet investigations to obtain information, with himself as “source” to be kept confidential. Have a nice day.

FINAL STATEMENT:

I ASK THAT THIS FINAL RESPONSE TO MR. VIKLUND, WHO HAS DARED ASK WHO MY (CONFIDENTIAL) HANDLERS WERE, BE POSTED AT THE EDUCATION FORUM, WITH THE STATEMENT “MR. VIKLUND IS NOW INFORMED, SINCE HE WAS ALLOWED TO POST ABUSE OF JUDYTH BAKER AT THE EDUCATION FORUM, BY STATING THAT SHE HAD A MENTAL ILLNESS, THAT SHE WILL NO LONGER RESPOND TO ANYTHING MR. VIGLUND POSTS OR ASKS. JUDYTH BAKER HAS RELIED AS PATIENTLY AND POLITELY AS POSSIBLE UNDER THESE CONDITIONS.

MR. VIKLUND’S 2001 ADVERTISEMENT, OFFERING TO GATHER INFORMATION ON THE INTERNET ON A CONFIDENTIAL BASIS, FOR HIRE, IS ALL WE NEED TO KNOW ABOUT HIS ETHICAL STANDARDS.

JVB

This post has been edited by Glenn Viklund: Today, 11:46 AM

[quote name='Glenn Viklund' post='187140' date='Mar 17 2010, 12:43 PM']I promised a summation of my views on the asylum issue, and here it is.

These are the questions I directed to Judyth. I received no answers and have instead added my own suggestions.

1. Who; what authority, has decided that you are to travel in secrecy, ”for your protection”?

Suggestion: There has been no such decision, anywhere. Not in the US, not in Europe. No stamps is simply just the result of crowded airports, lazy customs or something along these lines. It happens every day to tens of thousands of travelers. The reason for her to make something other than that out if this, is to add further credibility to all kinds of alledged threats.

2. Why did your friends present – as I showed by quotation in my first posting – a summon to a meeting, as a grant of asylum?

Suggestion: Shackelford presented a document as proof of asylum (of some ”kind”, never mind that ”kind” of asylum did not and do not exist, that's not the point here.) Read my first posting here on EDU to see exactly what Shackelford said. This was NOT to prove her involvement in the process or that she was not in the country illegally. Judyth provided them with this view and that's what they went with.

To Martin Shackelford: I'll be briefly in the US this summer, I'll bring you a newly cooked Janssons Temptation and buy you a beer, just to get your take on this embarrasing fiasco. I might be wrong, but I have a feeling that you're not to happy with how this thing transpired..I must also apologize to you. You did provide incorrect information, but only Pamela and Marsh criticized me with all kinds of nonsense for bringing this information forward. You did not, which I stated in my first posting here. For this, I apologize.

3. Why are you giving the impression that you received special treatment, when your case, in every possible respect, was a standard asylum seekers case?

Suggestion: Basically the same reasons as given in the first question, see more related to this, below.


4. Why are you saying that you could have stayed another ”year or two”, when, in fact, you by every possible means available to you, had exhausted your options to stay in Sweden?

Suggestion: Well, that's a good question, considering how easy it is to determine that she tried everything, but had to leave. As I mentioned in my first posting, this fits well into the broader picture where she wants to give the impression of her making all the choices, her setting the agenda, her case being very special and claims along these lines.


5. Why are you suggesting that the two Swedish Courts who decided in your case, disregarded the evidence and used a ”standard reply” to motivate their findings?

Suggestion: Does any Governmental Agency anywhere, ever do anything regarding Judyth without having some, dark sinister motive behind their actions? In this case she's suggesting that they somehow had to say they did not believe her story for reasons of political correctness. What this goes to show, is how little Judyth understand about how things work in Sweden. But of course, her side of this argument adds lots of weight to her more generally speaking. ”Yes, even Swedish Courts were afraid of to speak up”. But when reading the verdict, they did indeed speak up, loud and clear. Here's an example:
Judyth tells the Court: ”I have proof that I was kidnapped and harmed in Holland”. When motivating their decision, here's how the Court responded:

”Regarding the alledged kidnapping in Holland, this has not been elaborated on, and it nevertheless is not likely to have occured” [my translation]. Which of course is the bureaucratic, judicial version of saying: Sorry Ms Baker, we don't believe a word of this.

Really, a no brainer, this one.


6. What is the name of the official who told you that the two Court decisions would be kept confidential?

Suggestion: No one ever told her this. In the rare exception, which her case was not, black out of sensitive parts is step one. Only in the extremely rare case does complete confidentiality of the Courts decisions apply. It goes without saying that every single official she ever got in touch with is well aware of this.

Admittedly, an inch of progress seems to have been made; Judyth, yesterday:

”The latest test is trying to discredit the very obvious fact that when I applied for political asylum, an action I took to escape death threats in Hungary, I was not immediately deported after they heard my case. No matter how many experts they drag out, the fact is that I was accepted for consideration, and even got a writ of inhibition, which is unusual. ”

Her asylum experience has now boiled down to ”I was accepted for consideration” which definitely is more in line with reality. Funny, as this is precisely what I stated in McAdams forum fifteen months ago. Which, at that point, resulted in bucket loads of yelling from her friends.

But, and I must agree with Jack White's brilliant way of putting it – it's hard when you have a moving target. Because despite this considerable return to reality, she once again changes the story. Now we are to understand that despite public records of all relevant decisions made and actions taken in her case, there is this thing with developments outside of the records. Things that are impossible to track down, of course.

Yes, and I said so in my first posting: Certainly they may have cut her a little slack about this and that, it's more than likely that they did. And certainly, I believe she was treated well, with lots of expressions of understanding for her situation from people around her, including, no doubt, officials.

However, there's a huge gap from this to all claims of special handlings in important aspects of Judyth's case. Whatever actions that was taken on her behalf ”on the ground”, none of it could have contradicted or added anything of significance as compared to what is to be found in the public records today. To suggest otherwise, if that is what she is now doing, is ridiculous. Had Judyth had anything else to say in relation to the questions I asked, she would certainly have done so.

I've gone through this very carefully. Looking at what Judyth says now and what she said through her friends back in 08. Going through the cases as they are officially outlined by the Swedish Courts. Having a few phone conversations with officials and having a few discussions with a friend of mine who is a lawyer. I'm an economist by profession and indeed used to check and double check the facts, prior to making any conclusions.

To re-iterate:

1. Judyth Vary Baker applied for political asylum in Sweden in the early fall of 2007.
2. This was denied later that fall.
3. She immediately appealed this decision.
4. This appeal was denied, in the early summer of 2008, and she had to leave the country shortly thereafter.
5. Her judicial status during this entire process was that of an asylum seeker.


How these five simple facts could end up described as something very different is remarkable. And would indeed not normally be of any importance at all. In this particular case, however, I think the above is very revealing. Her story related to this fits well into how events often unfold when it comes to Judyth. There's a claim. She changes details when proven wrong. She accuses others of misrepresentations and worse. She makes new claims, and the story itself has now changed considerably.

An example is the above question about the lack of stamps in her passport. She has repeatedly claimed that this is done ”for her protection” - when, as I've shown, this is simply not true. But, this fits well into all, no matter unsubstanciated, of her claims that she is continously being hunted and threatened. To the Courts she says she has proof of this. Nonetheless she fails to produce any such evidence. The Courts leaves no doubts as to what their opinion is. And remember, this was the chance of a lifetime for Judyth. Not only could she have stayed, worked, received pension and lived in Sweden, but she could also have received ”governmental approval” of her need to get asylum. Think about that for a second. How would Judyth have been able to use a positive decision in her favour when it comes to telling her story? I'm sure most people in this forum can imagine at least some of the possibilities. Oh dear...

And yet. With all this at stake, she fails. And judging by the statements from the Courts, she failed miserably. No elaboration on these threats (which is absolutely remarkable, on the Internet forums she can elaborate until the end of times on just about anything), no proof and ”we do not believe this”. Period. In an earlier posting, I stated that she'd exhausted her options. Another example of this is that she filed for an ”Oral Hearing”, a sort of last resort where you can make your case verbally to the Court. This claim was flatly denied. They found no need to hear Judyth personally lay out her story. What does this suggest?

In her story there are quite a few of these incidents mentioned. Has she ever filed a report about any of these abuses and/or criminal actions that she claims to have been subjected to? Has anyone ever been charged? Has anyone ever been convicted? We're talking about serious crimes here, kidnapping, being run over by cars, attempted murder and the likes. It's certainly no nickel and dimes crimes.

To my knowledge, the answer is no to all of those questions. Having in mind that this refers to a considerable number of issues, this cannot be explained as a coincidence. It's a pattern. She claims this and she claims that, but she has no proof. She doesn't even bother to report all these extremely serious incidents. Her words are not supported by her actions.

So, with regards to the asylum issue all of this has meant adding a few, but important, facts that are not true, grossly and intentionally overstating the importance, especially as seen and dealt with by the government agency involved, of her case (and of herself), and repeatedly giving the wrong definition of her status in Sweden during this process.

Judyth has shown in this thread that she still does not understand, remarkable as it is for this no doubt intelligent woman, that her story is in the public domain. Thus, she never understood that what she did and that what she told Swedish authorities would be out in the open. That her actions to try to strengthen her story and credibility by connecting the asylum issue to the rest of her JFK-story, could ever be examined thoroughly.

But besides this, the above is clearly not how anyone who is telling the truth is behaving. It is, on the other hand, hallmarks of how people behave when they are dishonest. Judyth has done this before, is doing it here and will undoubtfully do just exactly this in the future. Counter arguments or questions are not allowed and are mostly defined as ”attacks”. Those who do not buy her story are ”personal attackers”. Errors in discussions are always primarily the shortcoming of others, while Judyth's mistakes are rare exceptions, and above all, have a variety of perfectly acceptable reasons.

Does it matter, why bother?

Obviously, I think it does. This asylum thing is not an isolated incident where she's had a bad day. All of us have bad days. When looking at the JVB story, it becomes abundantly clear to me that this is just a continuation of how matters had evolved long before she ever set foot in Europe. In one area after another, about one detail after another, the same familiar pattern was already established. I do not believe her story of how this asylum issue is connected to her earlier claims in the JFK-matter. I do not believe this story for the simple reason that the facts says otherwise. If this immense and ever changing flood of words from Judyth to even some minor degree was matched by facts, by proof, by other witnesses and/or by her own actions and behaviour, it could very well have been quite a different story. Judyth's Internet research now is not gone change this at all. No matter that this research may or may not add to the JFK debate.

And that, FWIW, sums it up on my part.[/quote]