Discussion:
Note to Pamela Brown Re: JVB
(too old to reply)
bpete1969
2017-05-29 22:20:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Pamela,

I noticed that you linked your last post here, at the Education Forum and
for that reason I am creating this post.

The Education Forum (as well as others) has a standing policy of not being
able to call a member a liar. I find that rather inconvenient at times and
don't really agree with the premise because a lie is a lie. If you can
prove that a person lied then you should be able to say so. Let the person
accused of lying defend their statement.

Judyth Very Faker is a perfect example of someone that will use that
policy as a way to make outrageous claims and then hide behind the
protection provided by such policies.

There have been many instances where JVB has been caught making statements
that don't match prior statements. In every instance, there is a reason
for the inconsistencies; someone misquoted her, someone is quoting
something from a stolen altered email, someone is quoting something from a
stolen altered manuscript. The list goes on.

I spent countless hours digging through threads at the Education Forum and
found several falsehoods by JVB.

The first was her claim that she and her fiance Robert Baker were using
code names to correspond during the brief time she was in New Orleans
alone, waiting for him to arrive. It was important for her to use the
"code name ruse" to explain why Oswald thought she was involved in their
undercover get Castro project. That claim is covered here...

http://www.bpete1969.com/2017/02/another-thread-unravelsa-pretty.html

The second inconsistency I covered was concerning her claim that she was
emancipated from her parents by a college Dean and that she was
"technically illegally" enrolled in the University of Florida 5 weeks
after the start of the Spring Semester. I can only guess that she felt she
had to show that she was so gifted and needed by the get Castro plotters
that rules were tossed aside, only for her. I don't get into the fact that
prior to her book, she claimed that Sen. George Smathers sought her out
and arranged the enrollment but in her book claims that it was her mother
and Aunt who contacted Smathers and arranged everything. The emancipation
claim is covered here:

http://www.bpete1969.com/2017/02/another-thread-unravelsa-pretty.html

I find it quite humorous that it was The George Smathers Library that held
the information that proved she was lying.

The last but most important instance of JVB pulling the wool over
everyone's eyes (in my opinion) is her claim that she met Oswald in the
Post Office. I guess you could say that I consider this as the "ground
zero" for all of her other claims about She & Lee.

John Simkin ran a thread about JVB at the Ed. Forum and JVB responded.
This was early in her shell game (March 2004). He asked her a simple
question and she provided a simple answer. Fast forward to 2010 and again,
the Ed. Forum was the place where Jim Fetzer started a thread to promote
Judyth and her newest incarnation of "The Book". You're familiar with "The
Book". The one that everyone must read. Have a question about two
contradictory statements by JVB? Then read "The Book". Have a question
about a particular referenced piece of evidence? You must read "The Book".
"The Book" would explain everything, even though "The Book" had yet to be
published and released.

JVB had stated at some point that when she met Oswald, he was dressed in
shabby clothes. David Lifton made comment to this fact as the reason he
didn't believe her story. Lifton had a copy of a document from the
employment agency used by Oswald and in that document it stated that on
the day JVB claimed to have met Oswald, he was dressed in a shirt and tie.
JVB now had a problem. She originally told Simkin that she met Oswald at
1:00 p.m. but because of Lifton's evidence, she had to allow time for
Oswald to change clothes for his trip to the employment agency. JVB had
been confronted with this timing problem well before 2010 and her last
re-write of "The Book". So, to accommodate Lifton's evidence, she
completely changed her story and stated that Oswald was dressed neatly
when she first met him. Unfortunately for JVB, she had forgotten what she
told Simkin in 2004 and now claimed that she met Oswald at 8:30 a.m. to
allow time for him to get a tie before going to the employment agency.

That claim is covered here:

http://www.bpete1969.com/2017/03/the-only-lie-that-matters.html

Unfortunately, the title of the blog contains the word "lie". And in the
Ed. Forum world, you can't use that word.

I find it ironic that in a group so dedicated to the "truth", one can't
use the word "lie" to denote a lie.

Good luck with your research. I have a feeling that if you think JVB is
the link to some hidden "truth" in a massive cover up that hinges on her
involvement, you'll need to buy a truck load of flashlight batteries. The
rabbit hole she inhabits is actually a maze of gopher holes and you'll do
well to buy stock in Duracell.
mainframetech
2017-05-30 23:24:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bpete1969
Pamela,
I noticed that you linked your last post here, at the Education Forum and
for that reason I am creating this post.
The Education Forum (as well as others) has a standing policy of not being
able to call a member a liar. I find that rather inconvenient at times and
don't really agree with the premise because a lie is a lie. If you can
prove that a person lied then you should be able to say so. Let the person
accused of lying defend their statement.
Judyth Very Faker is a perfect example of someone that will use that
policy as a way to make outrageous claims and then hide behind the
protection provided by such policies.
There have been many instances where JVB has been caught making statements
that don't match prior statements. In every instance, there is a reason
for the inconsistencies; someone misquoted her, someone is quoting
something from a stolen altered email, someone is quoting something from a
stolen altered manuscript. The list goes on.
I spent countless hours digging through threads at the Education Forum and
found several falsehoods by JVB.
The first was her claim that she and her fiance Robert Baker were using
code names to correspond during the brief time she was in New Orleans
alone, waiting for him to arrive. It was important for her to use the
"code name ruse" to explain why Oswald thought she was involved in their
undercover get Castro project. That claim is covered here...
http://www.bpete1969.com/2017/02/another-thread-unravelsa-pretty.html
The second inconsistency I covered was concerning her claim that she was
emancipated from her parents by a college Dean and that she was
"technically illegally" enrolled in the University of Florida 5 weeks
after the start of the Spring Semester. I can only guess that she felt she
had to show that she was so gifted and needed by the get Castro plotters
that rules were tossed aside, only for her. I don't get into the fact that
prior to her book, she claimed that Sen. George Smathers sought her out
and arranged the enrollment but in her book claims that it was her mother
and Aunt who contacted Smathers and arranged everything. The emancipation
http://www.bpete1969.com/2017/02/another-thread-unravelsa-pretty.html
I find it quite humorous that it was The George Smathers Library that held
the information that proved she was lying.
The last but most important instance of JVB pulling the wool over
everyone's eyes (in my opinion) is her claim that she met Oswald in the
Post Office. I guess you could say that I consider this as the "ground
zero" for all of her other claims about She & Lee.
John Simkin ran a thread about JVB at the Ed. Forum and JVB responded.
This was early in her shell game (March 2004). He asked her a simple
question and she provided a simple answer. Fast forward to 2010 and again,
the Ed. Forum was the place where Jim Fetzer started a thread to promote
Judyth and her newest incarnation of "The Book". You're familiar with "The
Book". The one that everyone must read. Have a question about two
contradictory statements by JVB? Then read "The Book". Have a question
about a particular referenced piece of evidence? You must read "The Book".
"The Book" would explain everything, even though "The Book" had yet to be
published and released.
JVB had stated at some point that when she met Oswald, he was dressed in
shabby clothes. David Lifton made comment to this fact as the reason he
didn't believe her story. Lifton had a copy of a document from the
employment agency used by Oswald and in that document it stated that on
the day JVB claimed to have met Oswald, he was dressed in a shirt and tie.
JVB now had a problem. She originally told Simkin that she met Oswald at
1:00 p.m. but because of Lifton's evidence, she had to allow time for
Oswald to change clothes for his trip to the employment agency. JVB had
been confronted with this timing problem well before 2010 and her last
re-write of "The Book". So, to accommodate Lifton's evidence, she
completely changed her story and stated that Oswald was dressed neatly
when she first met him. Unfortunately for JVB, she had forgotten what she
told Simkin in 2004 and now claimed that she met Oswald at 8:30 a.m. to
allow time for him to get a tie before going to the employment agency.
http://www.bpete1969.com/2017/03/the-only-lie-that-matters.html
Unfortunately, the title of the blog contains the word "lie". And in the
Ed. Forum world, you can't use that word.
I find it ironic that in a group so dedicated to the "truth", one can't
use the word "lie" to denote a lie.
The problem with naming a liar in a forum is that the argument will
not end, and it will disrupt the whole place. Also, calling a liar will
only lead to arguments pro and con, and could polarize a whole forum with
no end in sight. Aside for that it's not nice.

Chris
bpete1969
2017-05-31 14:39:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bpete1969
Pamela,
I noticed that you linked your last post here, at the Education Forum and
for that reason I am creating this post.
The Education Forum (as well as others) has a standing policy of not being
able to call a member a liar. I find that rather inconvenient at times and
don't really agree with the premise because a lie is a lie. If you can
prove that a person lied then you should be able to say so. Let the person
accused of lying defend their statement.
Judyth Very Faker is a perfect example of someone that will use that
policy as a way to make outrageous claims and then hide behind the
protection provided by such policies.
There have been many instances where JVB has been caught making statements
that don't match prior statements. In every instance, there is a reason
for the inconsistencies; someone misquoted her, someone is quoting
something from a stolen altered email, someone is quoting something from a
stolen altered manuscript. The list goes on.
I spent countless hours digging through threads at the Education Forum and
found several falsehoods by JVB.
The first was her claim that she and her fiance Robert Baker were using
code names to correspond during the brief time she was in New Orleans
alone, waiting for him to arrive. It was important for her to use the
"code name ruse" to explain why Oswald thought she was involved in their
undercover get Castro project. That claim is covered here...
http://www.bpete1969.com/2017/02/another-thread-unravelsa-pretty.html
The second inconsistency I covered was concerning her claim that she was
emancipated from her parents by a college Dean and that she was
"technically illegally" enrolled in the University of Florida 5 weeks
after the start of the Spring Semester. I can only guess that she felt she
had to show that she was so gifted and needed by the get Castro plotters
that rules were tossed aside, only for her. I don't get into the fact that
prior to her book, she claimed that Sen. George Smathers sought her out
and arranged the enrollment but in her book claims that it was her mother
and Aunt who contacted Smathers and arranged everything. The emancipation
http://www.bpete1969.com/2017/02/another-thread-unravelsa-pretty.html
I find it quite humorous that it was The George Smathers Library that held
the information that proved she was lying.
The last but most important instance of JVB pulling the wool over
everyone's eyes (in my opinion) is her claim that she met Oswald in the
Post Office. I guess you could say that I consider this as the "ground
zero" for all of her other claims about She & Lee.
John Simkin ran a thread about JVB at the Ed. Forum and JVB responded.
This was early in her shell game (March 2004). He asked her a simple
question and she provided a simple answer. Fast forward to 2010 and again,
the Ed. Forum was the place where Jim Fetzer started a thread to promote
Judyth and her newest incarnation of "The Book". You're familiar with "The
Book". The one that everyone must read. Have a question about two
contradictory statements by JVB? Then read "The Book". Have a question
about a particular referenced piece of evidence? You must read "The Book".
"The Book" would explain everything, even though "The Book" had yet to be
published and released.
JVB had stated at some point that when she met Oswald, he was dressed in
shabby clothes. David Lifton made comment to this fact as the reason he
didn't believe her story. Lifton had a copy of a document from the
employment agency used by Oswald and in that document it stated that on
the day JVB claimed to have met Oswald, he was dressed in a shirt and tie.
JVB now had a problem. She originally told Simkin that she met Oswald at
1:00 p.m. but because of Lifton's evidence, she had to allow time for
Oswald to change clothes for his trip to the employment agency. JVB had
been confronted with this timing problem well before 2010 and her last
re-write of "The Book". So, to accommodate Lifton's evidence, she
completely changed her story and stated that Oswald was dressed neatly
when she first met him. Unfortunately for JVB, she had forgotten what she
told Simkin in 2004 and now claimed that she met Oswald at 8:30 a.m. to
allow time for him to get a tie before going to the employment agency.
http://www.bpete1969.com/2017/03/the-only-lie-that-matters.html
Unfortunately, the title of the blog contains the word "lie". And in the
Ed. Forum world, you can't use that word.
I find it ironic that in a group so dedicated to the "truth", one can't
use the word "lie" to denote a lie.
The problem with naming a liar in a forum is that the argument will
not end, and it will disrupt the whole place. Also, calling a liar will
only lead to arguments pro and con, and could polarize a whole forum with
no end in sight. Aside for that it's not nice.
Chris
You just described what happens by not calling Marsh a liar.
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-01 01:21:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bpete1969
Post by mainframetech
Post by bpete1969
Pamela,
I noticed that you linked your last post here, at the Education Forum and
for that reason I am creating this post.
The Education Forum (as well as others) has a standing policy of not being
able to call a member a liar. I find that rather inconvenient at times and
don't really agree with the premise because a lie is a lie. If you can
prove that a person lied then you should be able to say so. Let the person
accused of lying defend their statement.
Judyth Very Faker is a perfect example of someone that will use that
policy as a way to make outrageous claims and then hide behind the
protection provided by such policies.
There have been many instances where JVB has been caught making statements
that don't match prior statements. In every instance, there is a reason
for the inconsistencies; someone misquoted her, someone is quoting
something from a stolen altered email, someone is quoting something from a
stolen altered manuscript. The list goes on.
I spent countless hours digging through threads at the Education Forum and
found several falsehoods by JVB.
The first was her claim that she and her fiance Robert Baker were using
code names to correspond during the brief time she was in New Orleans
alone, waiting for him to arrive. It was important for her to use the
"code name ruse" to explain why Oswald thought she was involved in their
undercover get Castro project. That claim is covered here...
http://www.bpete1969.com/2017/02/another-thread-unravelsa-pretty.html
The second inconsistency I covered was concerning her claim that she was
emancipated from her parents by a college Dean and that she was
"technically illegally" enrolled in the University of Florida 5 weeks
after the start of the Spring Semester. I can only guess that she felt she
had to show that she was so gifted and needed by the get Castro plotters
that rules were tossed aside, only for her. I don't get into the fact that
prior to her book, she claimed that Sen. George Smathers sought her out
and arranged the enrollment but in her book claims that it was her mother
and Aunt who contacted Smathers and arranged everything. The emancipation
http://www.bpete1969.com/2017/02/another-thread-unravelsa-pretty.html
I find it quite humorous that it was The George Smathers Library that held
the information that proved she was lying.
The last but most important instance of JVB pulling the wool over
everyone's eyes (in my opinion) is her claim that she met Oswald in the
Post Office. I guess you could say that I consider this as the "ground
zero" for all of her other claims about She & Lee.
John Simkin ran a thread about JVB at the Ed. Forum and JVB responded.
This was early in her shell game (March 2004). He asked her a simple
question and she provided a simple answer. Fast forward to 2010 and again,
the Ed. Forum was the place where Jim Fetzer started a thread to promote
Judyth and her newest incarnation of "The Book". You're familiar with "The
Book". The one that everyone must read. Have a question about two
contradictory statements by JVB? Then read "The Book". Have a question
about a particular referenced piece of evidence? You must read "The Book".
"The Book" would explain everything, even though "The Book" had yet to be
published and released.
JVB had stated at some point that when she met Oswald, he was dressed in
shabby clothes. David Lifton made comment to this fact as the reason he
didn't believe her story. Lifton had a copy of a document from the
employment agency used by Oswald and in that document it stated that on
the day JVB claimed to have met Oswald, he was dressed in a shirt and tie.
JVB now had a problem. She originally told Simkin that she met Oswald at
1:00 p.m. but because of Lifton's evidence, she had to allow time for
Oswald to change clothes for his trip to the employment agency. JVB had
been confronted with this timing problem well before 2010 and her last
re-write of "The Book". So, to accommodate Lifton's evidence, she
completely changed her story and stated that Oswald was dressed neatly
when she first met him. Unfortunately for JVB, she had forgotten what she
told Simkin in 2004 and now claimed that she met Oswald at 8:30 a.m. to
allow time for him to get a tie before going to the employment agency.
http://www.bpete1969.com/2017/03/the-only-lie-that-matters.html
Unfortunately, the title of the blog contains the word "lie". And in the
Ed. Forum world, you can't use that word.
I find it ironic that in a group so dedicated to the "truth", one can't
use the word "lie" to denote a lie.
The problem with naming a liar in a forum is that the argument will
not end, and it will disrupt the whole place. Also, calling a liar will
only lead to arguments pro and con, and could polarize a whole forum with
no end in sight. Aside for that it's not nice.
Chris
You just described what happens by not calling Marsh a liar.
Only the McAdams minions are allowed to call me a liar. I am not even
allowed to call Trump a liar and I KNOW that he doesn't post here. He's
not smart enough to know how to post here.
bpete1969
2017-06-05 01:07:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bpete1969
Post by mainframetech
Post by bpete1969
Pamela,
I noticed that you linked your last post here, at the Education Forum and
for that reason I am creating this post.
The Education Forum (as well as others) has a standing policy of not being
able to call a member a liar. I find that rather inconvenient at times and
don't really agree with the premise because a lie is a lie. If you can
prove that a person lied then you should be able to say so. Let the person
accused of lying defend their statement.
Judyth Very Faker is a perfect example of someone that will use that
policy as a way to make outrageous claims and then hide behind the
protection provided by such policies.
There have been many instances where JVB has been caught making statements
that don't match prior statements. In every instance, there is a reason
for the inconsistencies; someone misquoted her, someone is quoting
something from a stolen altered email, someone is quoting something from a
stolen altered manuscript. The list goes on.
I spent countless hours digging through threads at the Education Forum and
found several falsehoods by JVB.
The first was her claim that she and her fiance Robert Baker were using
code names to correspond during the brief time she was in New Orleans
alone, waiting for him to arrive. It was important for her to use the
"code name ruse" to explain why Oswald thought she was involved in their
undercover get Castro project. That claim is covered here...
http://www.bpete1969.com/2017/02/another-thread-unravelsa-pretty.html
The second inconsistency I covered was concerning her claim that she was
emancipated from her parents by a college Dean and that she was
"technically illegally" enrolled in the University of Florida 5 weeks
after the start of the Spring Semester. I can only guess that she felt she
had to show that she was so gifted and needed by the get Castro plotters
that rules were tossed aside, only for her. I don't get into the fact that
prior to her book, she claimed that Sen. George Smathers sought her out
and arranged the enrollment but in her book claims that it was her mother
and Aunt who contacted Smathers and arranged everything. The emancipation
http://www.bpete1969.com/2017/02/another-thread-unravelsa-pretty.html
I find it quite humorous that it was The George Smathers Library that held
the information that proved she was lying.
The last but most important instance of JVB pulling the wool over
everyone's eyes (in my opinion) is her claim that she met Oswald in the
Post Office. I guess you could say that I consider this as the "ground
zero" for all of her other claims about She & Lee.
John Simkin ran a thread about JVB at the Ed. Forum and JVB responded.
This was early in her shell game (March 2004). He asked her a simple
question and she provided a simple answer. Fast forward to 2010 and again,
the Ed. Forum was the place where Jim Fetzer started a thread to promote
Judyth and her newest incarnation of "The Book". You're familiar with "The
Book". The one that everyone must read. Have a question about two
contradictory statements by JVB? Then read "The Book". Have a question
about a particular referenced piece of evidence? You must read "The Book".
"The Book" would explain everything, even though "The Book" had yet to be
published and released.
JVB had stated at some point that when she met Oswald, he was dressed in
shabby clothes. David Lifton made comment to this fact as the reason he
didn't believe her story. Lifton had a copy of a document from the
employment agency used by Oswald and in that document it stated that on
the day JVB claimed to have met Oswald, he was dressed in a shirt and tie.
JVB now had a problem. She originally told Simkin that she met Oswald at
1:00 p.m. but because of Lifton's evidence, she had to allow time for
Oswald to change clothes for his trip to the employment agency. JVB had
been confronted with this timing problem well before 2010 and her last
re-write of "The Book". So, to accommodate Lifton's evidence, she
completely changed her story and stated that Oswald was dressed neatly
when she first met him. Unfortunately for JVB, she had forgotten what she
told Simkin in 2004 and now claimed that she met Oswald at 8:30 a.m. to
allow time for him to get a tie before going to the employment agency.
http://www.bpete1969.com/2017/03/the-only-lie-that-matters.html
Unfortunately, the title of the blog contains the word "lie". And in the
Ed. Forum world, you can't use that word.
I find it ironic that in a group so dedicated to the "truth", one can't
use the word "lie" to denote a lie.
The problem with naming a liar in a forum is that the argument will
not end, and it will disrupt the whole place. Also, calling a liar will
only lead to arguments pro and con, and could polarize a whole forum with
no end in sight. Aside for that it's not nice.
Chris
You just described what happens by not calling Marsh a liar.
Only the McAdams minions are allowed to call me a liar. I am not even
allowed to call Trump a liar and I KNOW that he doesn't post here. He's
not smart enough to know how to post here.
Well Marsh, that proves I'm not his minion because even though I have
shown you to be one in the past, McAdams won't let me call you one.
j***@gmail.com
2017-06-13 00:04:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bpete1969
Post by mainframetech
Post by bpete1969
Pamela,
I noticed that you linked your last post here, at the Education Forum and
for that reason I am creating this post.
The Education Forum (as well as others) has a standing policy of not being
able to call a member a liar. I find that rather inconvenient at times and
don't really agree with the premise because a lie is a lie. If you can
prove that a person lied then you should be able to say so. Let the person
accused of lying defend their statement.
Judyth Very Faker is a perfect example of someone that will use that
policy as a way to make outrageous claims and then hide behind the
protection provided by such policies.
There have been many instances where JVB has been caught making statements
that don't match prior statements. In every instance, there is a reason
for the inconsistencies; someone misquoted her, someone is quoting
something from a stolen altered email, someone is quoting something from a
stolen altered manuscript. The list goes on.
I spent countless hours digging through threads at the Education Forum and
found several falsehoods by JVB.
The first was her claim that she and her fiance Robert Baker were using
code names to correspond during the brief time she was in New Orleans
alone, waiting for him to arrive. It was important for her to use the
"code name ruse" to explain why Oswald thought she was involved in their
undercover get Castro project. That claim is covered here...
http://www.bpete1969.com/2017/02/another-thread-unravelsa-pretty.html
The second inconsistency I covered was concerning her claim that she was
emancipated from her parents by a college Dean and that she was
"technically illegally" enrolled in the University of Florida 5 weeks
after the start of the Spring Semester. I can only guess that she felt she
had to show that she was so gifted and needed by the get Castro plotters
that rules were tossed aside, only for her. I don't get into the fact that
prior to her book, she claimed that Sen. George Smathers sought her out
and arranged the enrollment but in her book claims that it was her mother
and Aunt who contacted Smathers and arranged everything. The emancipation
http://www.bpete1969.com/2017/02/another-thread-unravelsa-pretty.html
I find it quite humorous that it was The George Smathers Library that held
the information that proved she was lying.
The last but most important instance of JVB pulling the wool over
everyone's eyes (in my opinion) is her claim that she met Oswald in the
Post Office. I guess you could say that I consider this as the "ground
zero" for all of her other claims about She & Lee.
John Simkin ran a thread about JVB at the Ed. Forum and JVB responded.
This was early in her shell game (March 2004). He asked her a simple
question and she provided a simple answer. Fast forward to 2010 and again,
the Ed. Forum was the place where Jim Fetzer started a thread to promote
Judyth and her newest incarnation of "The Book". You're familiar with "The
Book". The one that everyone must read. Have a question about two
contradictory statements by JVB? Then read "The Book". Have a question
about a particular referenced piece of evidence? You must read "The Book".
"The Book" would explain everything, even though "The Book" had yet to be
published and released.
JVB had stated at some point that when she met Oswald, he was dressed in
shabby clothes. David Lifton made comment to this fact as the reason he
didn't believe her story. Lifton had a copy of a document from the
employment agency used by Oswald and in that document it stated that on
the day JVB claimed to have met Oswald, he was dressed in a shirt and tie.
JVB now had a problem. She originally told Simkin that she met Oswald at
1:00 p.m. but because of Lifton's evidence, she had to allow time for
Oswald to change clothes for his trip to the employment agency. JVB had
been confronted with this timing problem well before 2010 and her last
re-write of "The Book". So, to accommodate Lifton's evidence, she
completely changed her story and stated that Oswald was dressed neatly
when she first met him. Unfortunately for JVB, she had forgotten what she
told Simkin in 2004 and now claimed that she met Oswald at 8:30 a.m. to
allow time for him to get a tie before going to the employment agency.
http://www.bpete1969.com/2017/03/the-only-lie-that-matters.html
Unfortunately, the title of the blog contains the word "lie". And in the
Ed. Forum world, you can't use that word.
I find it ironic that in a group so dedicated to the "truth", one can't
use the word "lie" to denote a lie.
The problem with naming a liar in a forum is that the argument will
not end, and it will disrupt the whole place. Also, calling a liar will
only lead to arguments pro and con, and could polarize a whole forum with
no end in sight. Aside for that it's not nice.
Chris
You just described what happens by not calling Marsh a liar.
Only the McAdams minions are allowed to call me a liar. I am not even
allowed to call Trump a liar and I KNOW that he doesn't post here. He's
not smart enough to know how to post here.
I think we're not allowed to allude to anything negative about Barb j
either and she hasn't posted her for a long time.
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-14 13:41:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bpete1969
Post by mainframetech
Post by bpete1969
Pamela,
I noticed that you linked your last post here, at the Education Forum and
for that reason I am creating this post.
The Education Forum (as well as others) has a standing policy of not being
able to call a member a liar. I find that rather inconvenient at times and
don't really agree with the premise because a lie is a lie. If you can
prove that a person lied then you should be able to say so. Let the person
accused of lying defend their statement.
Judyth Very Faker is a perfect example of someone that will use that
policy as a way to make outrageous claims and then hide behind the
protection provided by such policies.
There have been many instances where JVB has been caught making statements
that don't match prior statements. In every instance, there is a reason
for the inconsistencies; someone misquoted her, someone is quoting
something from a stolen altered email, someone is quoting something from a
stolen altered manuscript. The list goes on.
I spent countless hours digging through threads at the Education Forum and
found several falsehoods by JVB.
The first was her claim that she and her fiance Robert Baker were using
code names to correspond during the brief time she was in New Orleans
alone, waiting for him to arrive. It was important for her to use the
"code name ruse" to explain why Oswald thought she was involved in their
undercover get Castro project. That claim is covered here...
http://www.bpete1969.com/2017/02/another-thread-unravelsa-pretty.html
The second inconsistency I covered was concerning her claim that she was
emancipated from her parents by a college Dean and that she was
"technically illegally" enrolled in the University of Florida 5 weeks
after the start of the Spring Semester. I can only guess that she felt she
had to show that she was so gifted and needed by the get Castro plotters
that rules were tossed aside, only for her. I don't get into the fact that
prior to her book, she claimed that Sen. George Smathers sought her out
and arranged the enrollment but in her book claims that it was her mother
and Aunt who contacted Smathers and arranged everything. The emancipation
http://www.bpete1969.com/2017/02/another-thread-unravelsa-pretty.html
I find it quite humorous that it was The George Smathers Library that held
the information that proved she was lying.
The last but most important instance of JVB pulling the wool over
everyone's eyes (in my opinion) is her claim that she met Oswald in the
Post Office. I guess you could say that I consider this as the "ground
zero" for all of her other claims about She & Lee.
John Simkin ran a thread about JVB at the Ed. Forum and JVB responded.
This was early in her shell game (March 2004). He asked her a simple
question and she provided a simple answer. Fast forward to 2010 and again,
the Ed. Forum was the place where Jim Fetzer started a thread to promote
Judyth and her newest incarnation of "The Book". You're familiar with "The
Book". The one that everyone must read. Have a question about two
contradictory statements by JVB? Then read "The Book". Have a question
about a particular referenced piece of evidence? You must read "The Book".
"The Book" would explain everything, even though "The Book" had yet to be
published and released.
JVB had stated at some point that when she met Oswald, he was dressed in
shabby clothes. David Lifton made comment to this fact as the reason he
didn't believe her story. Lifton had a copy of a document from the
employment agency used by Oswald and in that document it stated that on
the day JVB claimed to have met Oswald, he was dressed in a shirt and tie.
JVB now had a problem. She originally told Simkin that she met Oswald at
1:00 p.m. but because of Lifton's evidence, she had to allow time for
Oswald to change clothes for his trip to the employment agency. JVB had
been confronted with this timing problem well before 2010 and her last
re-write of "The Book". So, to accommodate Lifton's evidence, she
completely changed her story and stated that Oswald was dressed neatly
when she first met him. Unfortunately for JVB, she had forgotten what she
told Simkin in 2004 and now claimed that she met Oswald at 8:30 a.m. to
allow time for him to get a tie before going to the employment agency.
http://www.bpete1969.com/2017/03/the-only-lie-that-matters.html
Unfortunately, the title of the blog contains the word "lie". And in the
Ed. Forum world, you can't use that word.
I find it ironic that in a group so dedicated to the "truth", one can't
use the word "lie" to denote a lie.
The problem with naming a liar in a forum is that the argument will
not end, and it will disrupt the whole place. Also, calling a liar will
only lead to arguments pro and con, and could polarize a whole forum with
no end in sight. Aside for that it's not nice.
Chris
You just described what happens by not calling Marsh a liar.
Only the McAdams minions are allowed to call me a liar. I am not even
allowed to call Trump a liar and I KNOW that he doesn't post here. He's
not smart enough to know how to post here.
I think we're not allowed to allude to anything negative about Barb j
either and she hasn't posted her for a long time.
But SHE was allowed to call me a liar. Moderator Privilege.
OHLeeRedux
2017-06-15 00:45:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bpete1969
Post by mainframetech
Post by bpete1969
Pamela,
I noticed that you linked your last post here, at the Education Forum and
for that reason I am creating this post.
The Education Forum (as well as others) has a standing policy of not being
able to call a member a liar. I find that rather inconvenient at times and
don't really agree with the premise because a lie is a lie. If you can
prove that a person lied then you should be able to say so. Let the person
accused of lying defend their statement.
Judyth Very Faker is a perfect example of someone that will use that
policy as a way to make outrageous claims and then hide behind the
protection provided by such policies.
There have been many instances where JVB has been caught making statements
that don't match prior statements. In every instance, there is a reason
for the inconsistencies; someone misquoted her, someone is quoting
something from a stolen altered email, someone is quoting something from a
stolen altered manuscript. The list goes on.
I spent countless hours digging through threads at the Education Forum and
found several falsehoods by JVB.
The first was her claim that she and her fiance Robert Baker were using
code names to correspond during the brief time she was in New Orleans
alone, waiting for him to arrive. It was important for her to use the
"code name ruse" to explain why Oswald thought she was involved in their
undercover get Castro project. That claim is covered here...
http://www.bpete1969.com/2017/02/another-thread-unravelsa-pretty.html
The second inconsistency I covered was concerning her claim that she was
emancipated from her parents by a college Dean and that she was
"technically illegally" enrolled in the University of Florida 5 weeks
after the start of the Spring Semester. I can only guess that she felt she
had to show that she was so gifted and needed by the get Castro plotters
that rules were tossed aside, only for her. I don't get into the fact that
prior to her book, she claimed that Sen. George Smathers sought her out
and arranged the enrollment but in her book claims that it was her mother
and Aunt who contacted Smathers and arranged everything. The emancipation
http://www.bpete1969.com/2017/02/another-thread-unravelsa-pretty.html
I find it quite humorous that it was The George Smathers Library that held
the information that proved she was lying.
The last but most important instance of JVB pulling the wool over
everyone's eyes (in my opinion) is her claim that she met Oswald in the
Post Office. I guess you could say that I consider this as the "ground
zero" for all of her other claims about She & Lee.
John Simkin ran a thread about JVB at the Ed. Forum and JVB responded.
This was early in her shell game (March 2004). He asked her a simple
question and she provided a simple answer. Fast forward to 2010 and again,
the Ed. Forum was the place where Jim Fetzer started a thread to promote
Judyth and her newest incarnation of "The Book". You're familiar with "The
Book". The one that everyone must read. Have a question about two
contradictory statements by JVB? Then read "The Book". Have a question
about a particular referenced piece of evidence? You must read "The Book".
"The Book" would explain everything, even though "The Book" had yet to be
published and released.
JVB had stated at some point that when she met Oswald, he was dressed in
shabby clothes. David Lifton made comment to this fact as the reason he
didn't believe her story. Lifton had a copy of a document from the
employment agency used by Oswald and in that document it stated that on
the day JVB claimed to have met Oswald, he was dressed in a shirt and tie.
JVB now had a problem. She originally told Simkin that she met Oswald at
1:00 p.m. but because of Lifton's evidence, she had to allow time for
Oswald to change clothes for his trip to the employment agency. JVB had
been confronted with this timing problem well before 2010 and her last
re-write of "The Book". So, to accommodate Lifton's evidence, she
completely changed her story and stated that Oswald was dressed neatly
when she first met him. Unfortunately for JVB, she had forgotten what she
told Simkin in 2004 and now claimed that she met Oswald at 8:30 a.m. to
allow time for him to get a tie before going to the employment agency.
http://www.bpete1969.com/2017/03/the-only-lie-that-matters.html
Unfortunately, the title of the blog contains the word "lie". And in the
Ed. Forum world, you can't use that word.
I find it ironic that in a group so dedicated to the "truth", one can't
use the word "lie" to denote a lie.
The problem with naming a liar in a forum is that the argument will
not end, and it will disrupt the whole place. Also, calling a liar will
only lead to arguments pro and con, and could polarize a whole forum with
no end in sight. Aside for that it's not nice.
Chris
You just described what happens by not calling Marsh a liar.
Only the McAdams minions are allowed to call me a liar. I am not even
allowed to call Trump a liar and I KNOW that he doesn't post here. He's
not smart enough to know how to post here.
I think we're not allowed to allude to anything negative about Barb j
either and she hasn't posted her for a long time.
But SHE was allowed to call me a liar. Moderator Privilege.
Just speaking the truth.
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-16 14:16:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bpete1969
Post by mainframetech
Post by bpete1969
Pamela,
I noticed that you linked your last post here, at the Education Forum and
for that reason I am creating this post.
The Education Forum (as well as others) has a standing policy of not being
able to call a member a liar. I find that rather inconvenient at times and
don't really agree with the premise because a lie is a lie. If you can
prove that a person lied then you should be able to say so. Let the person
accused of lying defend their statement.
Judyth Very Faker is a perfect example of someone that will use that
policy as a way to make outrageous claims and then hide behind the
protection provided by such policies.
There have been many instances where JVB has been caught making statements
that don't match prior statements. In every instance, there is a reason
for the inconsistencies; someone misquoted her, someone is quoting
something from a stolen altered email, someone is quoting something from a
stolen altered manuscript. The list goes on.
I spent countless hours digging through threads at the Education Forum and
found several falsehoods by JVB.
The first was her claim that she and her fiance Robert Baker were using
code names to correspond during the brief time she was in New Orleans
alone, waiting for him to arrive. It was important for her to use the
"code name ruse" to explain why Oswald thought she was involved in their
undercover get Castro project. That claim is covered here...
http://www.bpete1969.com/2017/02/another-thread-unravelsa-pretty.html
The second inconsistency I covered was concerning her claim that she was
emancipated from her parents by a college Dean and that she was
"technically illegally" enrolled in the University of Florida 5 weeks
after the start of the Spring Semester. I can only guess that she felt she
had to show that she was so gifted and needed by the get Castro plotters
that rules were tossed aside, only for her. I don't get into the fact that
prior to her book, she claimed that Sen. George Smathers sought her out
and arranged the enrollment but in her book claims that it was her mother
and Aunt who contacted Smathers and arranged everything. The emancipation
http://www.bpete1969.com/2017/02/another-thread-unravelsa-pretty.html
I find it quite humorous that it was The George Smathers Library that held
the information that proved she was lying.
The last but most important instance of JVB pulling the wool over
everyone's eyes (in my opinion) is her claim that she met Oswald in the
Post Office. I guess you could say that I consider this as the "ground
zero" for all of her other claims about She & Lee.
John Simkin ran a thread about JVB at the Ed. Forum and JVB responded.
This was early in her shell game (March 2004). He asked her a simple
question and she provided a simple answer. Fast forward to 2010 and again,
the Ed. Forum was the place where Jim Fetzer started a thread to promote
Judyth and her newest incarnation of "The Book". You're familiar with "The
Book". The one that everyone must read. Have a question about two
contradictory statements by JVB? Then read "The Book". Have a question
about a particular referenced piece of evidence? You must read "The Book".
"The Book" would explain everything, even though "The Book" had yet to be
published and released.
JVB had stated at some point that when she met Oswald, he was dressed in
shabby clothes. David Lifton made comment to this fact as the reason he
didn't believe her story. Lifton had a copy of a document from the
employment agency used by Oswald and in that document it stated that on
the day JVB claimed to have met Oswald, he was dressed in a shirt and tie.
JVB now had a problem. She originally told Simkin that she met Oswald at
1:00 p.m. but because of Lifton's evidence, she had to allow time for
Oswald to change clothes for his trip to the employment agency. JVB had
been confronted with this timing problem well before 2010 and her last
re-write of "The Book". So, to accommodate Lifton's evidence, she
completely changed her story and stated that Oswald was dressed neatly
when she first met him. Unfortunately for JVB, she had forgotten what she
told Simkin in 2004 and now claimed that she met Oswald at 8:30 a.m. to
allow time for him to get a tie before going to the employment agency.
http://www.bpete1969.com/2017/03/the-only-lie-that-matters.html
Unfortunately, the title of the blog contains the word "lie". And in the
Ed. Forum world, you can't use that word.
I find it ironic that in a group so dedicated to the "truth", one can't
use the word "lie" to denote a lie.
The problem with naming a liar in a forum is that the argument will
not end, and it will disrupt the whole place. Also, calling a liar will
only lead to arguments pro and con, and could polarize a whole forum with
no end in sight. Aside for that it's not nice.
Chris
You just described what happens by not calling Marsh a liar.
Only the McAdams minions are allowed to call me a liar. I am not even
allowed to call Trump a liar and I KNOW that he doesn't post here. He's
not smart enough to know how to post here.
I think we're not allowed to allude to anything negative about Barb j
either and she hasn't posted her for a long time.
But SHE was allowed to call me a liar. Moderator Privilege.
Just speaking the truth.
No, but as always you miss the point. Violating the rules.
OHLeeRedux
2017-06-17 03:31:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bpete1969
Post by mainframetech
Post by bpete1969
Pamela,
I noticed that you linked your last post here, at the Education Forum and
for that reason I am creating this post.
The Education Forum (as well as others) has a standing policy of not being
able to call a member a liar. I find that rather inconvenient at times and
don't really agree with the premise because a lie is a lie. If you can
prove that a person lied then you should be able to say so. Let the person
accused of lying defend their statement.
Judyth Very Faker is a perfect example of someone that will use that
policy as a way to make outrageous claims and then hide behind the
protection provided by such policies.
There have been many instances where JVB has been caught making statements
that don't match prior statements. In every instance, there is a reason
for the inconsistencies; someone misquoted her, someone is quoting
something from a stolen altered email, someone is quoting something from a
stolen altered manuscript. The list goes on.
I spent countless hours digging through threads at the Education Forum and
found several falsehoods by JVB.
The first was her claim that she and her fiance Robert Baker were using
code names to correspond during the brief time she was in New Orleans
alone, waiting for him to arrive. It was important for her to use the
"code name ruse" to explain why Oswald thought she was involved in their
undercover get Castro project. That claim is covered here...
http://www.bpete1969.com/2017/02/another-thread-unravelsa-pretty.html
The second inconsistency I covered was concerning her claim that she was
emancipated from her parents by a college Dean and that she was
"technically illegally" enrolled in the University of Florida 5 weeks
after the start of the Spring Semester. I can only guess that she felt she
had to show that she was so gifted and needed by the get Castro plotters
that rules were tossed aside, only for her. I don't get into the fact that
prior to her book, she claimed that Sen. George Smathers sought her out
and arranged the enrollment but in her book claims that it was her mother
and Aunt who contacted Smathers and arranged everything. The emancipation
http://www.bpete1969.com/2017/02/another-thread-unravelsa-pretty.html
I find it quite humorous that it was The George Smathers Library that held
the information that proved she was lying.
The last but most important instance of JVB pulling the wool over
everyone's eyes (in my opinion) is her claim that she met Oswald in the
Post Office. I guess you could say that I consider this as the "ground
zero" for all of her other claims about She & Lee.
John Simkin ran a thread about JVB at the Ed. Forum and JVB responded.
This was early in her shell game (March 2004). He asked her a simple
question and she provided a simple answer. Fast forward to 2010 and again,
the Ed. Forum was the place where Jim Fetzer started a thread to promote
Judyth and her newest incarnation of "The Book". You're familiar with "The
Book". The one that everyone must read. Have a question about two
contradictory statements by JVB? Then read "The Book". Have a question
about a particular referenced piece of evidence? You must read "The Book".
"The Book" would explain everything, even though "The Book" had yet to be
published and released.
JVB had stated at some point that when she met Oswald, he was dressed in
shabby clothes. David Lifton made comment to this fact as the reason he
didn't believe her story. Lifton had a copy of a document from the
employment agency used by Oswald and in that document it stated that on
the day JVB claimed to have met Oswald, he was dressed in a shirt and tie.
JVB now had a problem. She originally told Simkin that she met Oswald at
1:00 p.m. but because of Lifton's evidence, she had to allow time for
Oswald to change clothes for his trip to the employment agency. JVB had
been confronted with this timing problem well before 2010 and her last
re-write of "The Book". So, to accommodate Lifton's evidence, she
completely changed her story and stated that Oswald was dressed neatly
when she first met him. Unfortunately for JVB, she had forgotten what she
told Simkin in 2004 and now claimed that she met Oswald at 8:30 a.m. to
allow time for him to get a tie before going to the employment agency.
http://www.bpete1969.com/2017/03/the-only-lie-that-matters.html
Unfortunately, the title of the blog contains the word "lie". And in the
Ed. Forum world, you can't use that word.
I find it ironic that in a group so dedicated to the "truth", one can't
use the word "lie" to denote a lie.
The problem with naming a liar in a forum is that the argument will
not end, and it will disrupt the whole place. Also, calling a liar will
only lead to arguments pro and con, and could polarize a whole forum with
no end in sight. Aside for that it's not nice.
Chris
You just described what happens by not calling Marsh a liar.
Only the McAdams minions are allowed to call me a liar. I am not even
allowed to call Trump a liar and I KNOW that he doesn't post here. He's
not smart enough to know how to post here.
I think we're not allowed to allude to anything negative about Barb j
either and she hasn't posted her for a long time.
But SHE was allowed to call me a liar. Moderator Privilege.
Just speaking the truth.
No, but as always you miss the point. Violating the rules.
You only care about the rules when they work to your benefit. That is,
when they protect you from being called out for spreading damnable
alternative facts.
Mark OBLAZNEY
2017-06-17 17:58:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bpete1969
Post by mainframetech
Post by bpete1969
Pamela,
I noticed that you linked your last post here, at the Education Forum and
for that reason I am creating this post.
The Education Forum (as well as others) has a standing policy of not being
able to call a member a liar. I find that rather inconvenient at times and
don't really agree with the premise because a lie is a lie. If you can
prove that a person lied then you should be able to say so. Let the person
accused of lying defend their statement.
Judyth Very Faker is a perfect example of someone that will use that
policy as a way to make outrageous claims and then hide behind the
protection provided by such policies.
There have been many instances where JVB has been caught making statements
that don't match prior statements. In every instance, there is a reason
for the inconsistencies; someone misquoted her, someone is quoting
something from a stolen altered email, someone is quoting something from a
stolen altered manuscript. The list goes on.
I spent countless hours digging through threads at the Education Forum and
found several falsehoods by JVB.
The first was her claim that she and her fiance Robert Baker were using
code names to correspond during the brief time she was in New Orleans
alone, waiting for him to arrive. It was important for her to use the
"code name ruse" to explain why Oswald thought she was involved in their
undercover get Castro project. That claim is covered here...
http://www.bpete1969.com/2017/02/another-thread-unravelsa-pretty.html
The second inconsistency I covered was concerning her claim that she was
emancipated from her parents by a college Dean and that she was
"technically illegally" enrolled in the University of Florida 5 weeks
after the start of the Spring Semester. I can only guess that she felt she
had to show that she was so gifted and needed by the get Castro plotters
that rules were tossed aside, only for her. I don't get into the fact that
prior to her book, she claimed that Sen. George Smathers sought her out
and arranged the enrollment but in her book claims that it was her mother
and Aunt who contacted Smathers and arranged everything. The emancipation
http://www.bpete1969.com/2017/02/another-thread-unravelsa-pretty.html
I find it quite humorous that it was The George Smathers Library that held
the information that proved she was lying.
The last but most important instance of JVB pulling the wool over
everyone's eyes (in my opinion) is her claim that she met Oswald in the
Post Office. I guess you could say that I consider this as the "ground
zero" for all of her other claims about She & Lee.
John Simkin ran a thread about JVB at the Ed. Forum and JVB responded.
This was early in her shell game (March 2004). He asked her a simple
question and she provided a simple answer. Fast forward to 2010 and again,
the Ed. Forum was the place where Jim Fetzer started a thread to promote
Judyth and her newest incarnation of "The Book". You're familiar with "The
Book". The one that everyone must read. Have a question about two
contradictory statements by JVB? Then read "The Book". Have a question
about a particular referenced piece of evidence? You must read "The Book".
"The Book" would explain everything, even though "The Book" had yet to be
published and released.
JVB had stated at some point that when she met Oswald, he was dressed in
shabby clothes. David Lifton made comment to this fact as the reason he
didn't believe her story. Lifton had a copy of a document from the
employment agency used by Oswald and in that document it stated that on
the day JVB claimed to have met Oswald, he was dressed in a shirt and tie.
JVB now had a problem. She originally told Simkin that she met Oswald at
1:00 p.m. but because of Lifton's evidence, she had to allow time for
Oswald to change clothes for his trip to the employment agency. JVB had
been confronted with this timing problem well before 2010 and her last
re-write of "The Book". So, to accommodate Lifton's evidence, she
completely changed her story and stated that Oswald was dressed neatly
when she first met him. Unfortunately for JVB, she had forgotten what she
told Simkin in 2004 and now claimed that she met Oswald at 8:30 a.m. to
allow time for him to get a tie before going to the employment agency.
http://www.bpete1969.com/2017/03/the-only-lie-that-matters.html
Unfortunately, the title of the blog contains the word "lie". And in the
Ed. Forum world, you can't use that word.
I find it ironic that in a group so dedicated to the "truth", one can't
use the word "lie" to denote a lie.
The problem with naming a liar in a forum is that the argument will
not end, and it will disrupt the whole place. Also, calling a liar will
only lead to arguments pro and con, and could polarize a whole forum with
no end in sight. Aside for that it's not nice.
Chris
You just described what happens by not calling Marsh a liar.
Only the McAdams minions are allowed to call me a liar. I am not even
allowed to call Trump a liar and I KNOW that he doesn't post here. He's
not smart enough to know how to post here.
I think we're not allowed to allude to anything negative about Barb j
either and she hasn't posted her for a long time.
But SHE was allowed to call me a liar. Moderator Privilege.
Just speaking the truth.
No, but as always you miss the point. Violating the rules.
You only care about the rules when they work to your benefit. That is,
when they protect you from being called out for spreading damnable
alternative facts.
If you want to get sick, go to……. jfkdallasconference.com

Go ahead…….. click on bookstore/links…… I
double-dog dare ya' !!!
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-18 03:10:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bpete1969
Post by mainframetech
Post by bpete1969
Pamela,
I noticed that you linked your last post here, at the Education Forum and
for that reason I am creating this post.
The Education Forum (as well as others) has a standing policy of not being
able to call a member a liar. I find that rather inconvenient at times and
don't really agree with the premise because a lie is a lie. If you can
prove that a person lied then you should be able to say so. Let the person
accused of lying defend their statement.
Judyth Very Faker is a perfect example of someone that will use that
policy as a way to make outrageous claims and then hide behind the
protection provided by such policies.
There have been many instances where JVB has been caught making statements
that don't match prior statements. In every instance, there is a reason
for the inconsistencies; someone misquoted her, someone is quoting
something from a stolen altered email, someone is quoting something from a
stolen altered manuscript. The list goes on.
I spent countless hours digging through threads at the Education Forum and
found several falsehoods by JVB.
The first was her claim that she and her fiance Robert Baker were using
code names to correspond during the brief time she was in New Orleans
alone, waiting for him to arrive. It was important for her to use the
"code name ruse" to explain why Oswald thought she was involved in their
undercover get Castro project. That claim is covered here...
http://www.bpete1969.com/2017/02/another-thread-unravelsa-pretty.html
The second inconsistency I covered was concerning her claim that she was
emancipated from her parents by a college Dean and that she was
"technically illegally" enrolled in the University of Florida 5 weeks
after the start of the Spring Semester. I can only guess that she felt she
had to show that she was so gifted and needed by the get Castro plotters
that rules were tossed aside, only for her. I don't get into the fact that
prior to her book, she claimed that Sen. George Smathers sought her out
and arranged the enrollment but in her book claims that it was her mother
and Aunt who contacted Smathers and arranged everything. The emancipation
http://www.bpete1969.com/2017/02/another-thread-unravelsa-pretty.html
I find it quite humorous that it was The George Smathers Library that held
the information that proved she was lying.
The last but most important instance of JVB pulling the wool over
everyone's eyes (in my opinion) is her claim that she met Oswald in the
Post Office. I guess you could say that I consider this as the "ground
zero" for all of her other claims about She & Lee.
John Simkin ran a thread about JVB at the Ed. Forum and JVB responded.
This was early in her shell game (March 2004). He asked her a simple
question and she provided a simple answer. Fast forward to 2010 and again,
the Ed. Forum was the place where Jim Fetzer started a thread to promote
Judyth and her newest incarnation of "The Book". You're familiar with "The
Book". The one that everyone must read. Have a question about two
contradictory statements by JVB? Then read "The Book". Have a question
about a particular referenced piece of evidence? You must read "The Book".
"The Book" would explain everything, even though "The Book" had yet to be
published and released.
JVB had stated at some point that when she met Oswald, he was dressed in
shabby clothes. David Lifton made comment to this fact as the reason he
didn't believe her story. Lifton had a copy of a document from the
employment agency used by Oswald and in that document it stated that on
the day JVB claimed to have met Oswald, he was dressed in a shirt and tie.
JVB now had a problem. She originally told Simkin that she met Oswald at
1:00 p.m. but because of Lifton's evidence, she had to allow time for
Oswald to change clothes for his trip to the employment agency. JVB had
been confronted with this timing problem well before 2010 and her last
re-write of "The Book". So, to accommodate Lifton's evidence, she
completely changed her story and stated that Oswald was dressed neatly
when she first met him. Unfortunately for JVB, she had forgotten what she
told Simkin in 2004 and now claimed that she met Oswald at 8:30 a.m. to
allow time for him to get a tie before going to the employment agency.
http://www.bpete1969.com/2017/03/the-only-lie-that-matters.html
Unfortunately, the title of the blog contains the word "lie". And in the
Ed. Forum world, you can't use that word.
I find it ironic that in a group so dedicated to the "truth", one can't
use the word "lie" to denote a lie.
The problem with naming a liar in a forum is that the argument will
not end, and it will disrupt the whole place. Also, calling a liar will
only lead to arguments pro and con, and could polarize a whole forum with
no end in sight. Aside for that it's not nice.
Chris
You just described what happens by not calling Marsh a liar.
Only the McAdams minions are allowed to call me a liar. I am not even
allowed to call Trump a liar and I KNOW that he doesn't post here. He's
not smart enough to know how to post here.
I think we're not allowed to allude to anything negative about Barb j
either and she hasn't posted her for a long time.
But SHE was allowed to call me a liar. Moderator Privilege.
Just speaking the truth.
No, but as always you miss the point. Violating the rules.
You only care about the rules when they work to your benefit. That is,
when they protect you from being called out for spreading damnable
alternative facts.
No, silly. I am disadvantaged by the rules not being applied FAIRLY.
Others are allowed to call me a liar. But I am not allowed to call George
Bush a liar. I am not allowed to call Donald Trump a liar. ONLY because
they are Republicans and protected by a Republican moderator. I don't NEED
to call you a liar. I just post the documents to prove that you are WRONG.
You can be wrong without being a liar.

But I am not allowed to say that you are STUPID. But YOU are allowed to
call people stupid.

I like rules when they are applied FAIRLY. I don't like BIAS.

You keep mentioning Alternative Facts. Are you Kellanne's boyfriend?
Bud
2017-06-17 13:41:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bpete1969
Post by mainframetech
Post by bpete1969
Pamela,
I noticed that you linked your last post here, at the Education Forum and
for that reason I am creating this post.
The Education Forum (as well as others) has a standing policy of not being
able to call a member a liar. I find that rather inconvenient at times and
don't really agree with the premise because a lie is a lie. If you can
prove that a person lied then you should be able to say so. Let the person
accused of lying defend their statement.
Judyth Very Faker is a perfect example of someone that will use that
policy as a way to make outrageous claims and then hide behind the
protection provided by such policies.
There have been many instances where JVB has been caught making statements
that don't match prior statements. In every instance, there is a reason
for the inconsistencies; someone misquoted her, someone is quoting
something from a stolen altered email, someone is quoting something from a
stolen altered manuscript. The list goes on.
I spent countless hours digging through threads at the Education Forum and
found several falsehoods by JVB.
The first was her claim that she and her fiance Robert Baker were using
code names to correspond during the brief time she was in New Orleans
alone, waiting for him to arrive. It was important for her to use the
"code name ruse" to explain why Oswald thought she was involved in their
undercover get Castro project. That claim is covered here...
http://www.bpete1969.com/2017/02/another-thread-unravelsa-pretty.html
The second inconsistency I covered was concerning her claim that she was
emancipated from her parents by a college Dean and that she was
"technically illegally" enrolled in the University of Florida 5 weeks
after the start of the Spring Semester. I can only guess that she felt she
had to show that she was so gifted and needed by the get Castro plotters
that rules were tossed aside, only for her. I don't get into the fact that
prior to her book, she claimed that Sen. George Smathers sought her out
and arranged the enrollment but in her book claims that it was her mother
and Aunt who contacted Smathers and arranged everything. The emancipation
http://www.bpete1969.com/2017/02/another-thread-unravelsa-pretty.html
I find it quite humorous that it was The George Smathers Library that held
the information that proved she was lying.
The last but most important instance of JVB pulling the wool over
everyone's eyes (in my opinion) is her claim that she met Oswald in the
Post Office. I guess you could say that I consider this as the "ground
zero" for all of her other claims about She & Lee.
John Simkin ran a thread about JVB at the Ed. Forum and JVB responded.
This was early in her shell game (March 2004). He asked her a simple
question and she provided a simple answer. Fast forward to 2010 and again,
the Ed. Forum was the place where Jim Fetzer started a thread to promote
Judyth and her newest incarnation of "The Book". You're familiar with "The
Book". The one that everyone must read. Have a question about two
contradictory statements by JVB? Then read "The Book". Have a question
about a particular referenced piece of evidence? You must read "The Book".
"The Book" would explain everything, even though "The Book" had yet to be
published and released.
JVB had stated at some point that when she met Oswald, he was dressed in
shabby clothes. David Lifton made comment to this fact as the reason he
didn't believe her story. Lifton had a copy of a document from the
employment agency used by Oswald and in that document it stated that on
the day JVB claimed to have met Oswald, he was dressed in a shirt and tie.
JVB now had a problem. She originally told Simkin that she met Oswald at
1:00 p.m. but because of Lifton's evidence, she had to allow time for
Oswald to change clothes for his trip to the employment agency. JVB had
been confronted with this timing problem well before 2010 and her last
re-write of "The Book". So, to accommodate Lifton's evidence, she
completely changed her story and stated that Oswald was dressed neatly
when she first met him. Unfortunately for JVB, she had forgotten what she
told Simkin in 2004 and now claimed that she met Oswald at 8:30 a.m. to
allow time for him to get a tie before going to the employment agency.
http://www.bpete1969.com/2017/03/the-only-lie-that-matters.html
Unfortunately, the title of the blog contains the word "lie". And in the
Ed. Forum world, you can't use that word.
I find it ironic that in a group so dedicated to the "truth", one can't
use the word "lie" to denote a lie.
The problem with naming a liar in a forum is that the argument will
not end, and it will disrupt the whole place. Also, calling a liar will
only lead to arguments pro and con, and could polarize a whole forum with
no end in sight. Aside for that it's not nice.
Chris
You just described what happens by not calling Marsh a liar.
Only the McAdams minions are allowed to call me a liar. I am not even
allowed to call Trump a liar and I KNOW that he doesn't post here. He's
not smart enough to know how to post here.
I think we're not allowed to allude to anything negative about Barb j
either and she hasn't posted her for a long time.
But SHE was allowed to call me a liar. Moderator Privilege.
A privilege I feel should be extended to everyone.
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-18 00:12:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bud
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bpete1969
Post by mainframetech
Post by bpete1969
Pamela,
I noticed that you linked your last post here, at the Education Forum and
for that reason I am creating this post.
The Education Forum (as well as others) has a standing policy of not being
able to call a member a liar. I find that rather inconvenient at times and
don't really agree with the premise because a lie is a lie. If you can
prove that a person lied then you should be able to say so. Let the person
accused of lying defend their statement.
Judyth Very Faker is a perfect example of someone that will use that
policy as a way to make outrageous claims and then hide behind the
protection provided by such policies.
There have been many instances where JVB has been caught making statements
that don't match prior statements. In every instance, there is a reason
for the inconsistencies; someone misquoted her, someone is quoting
something from a stolen altered email, someone is quoting something from a
stolen altered manuscript. The list goes on.
I spent countless hours digging through threads at the Education Forum and
found several falsehoods by JVB.
The first was her claim that she and her fiance Robert Baker were using
code names to correspond during the brief time she was in New Orleans
alone, waiting for him to arrive. It was important for her to use the
"code name ruse" to explain why Oswald thought she was involved in their
undercover get Castro project. That claim is covered here...
http://www.bpete1969.com/2017/02/another-thread-unravelsa-pretty.html
The second inconsistency I covered was concerning her claim that she was
emancipated from her parents by a college Dean and that she was
"technically illegally" enrolled in the University of Florida 5 weeks
after the start of the Spring Semester. I can only guess that she felt she
had to show that she was so gifted and needed by the get Castro plotters
that rules were tossed aside, only for her. I don't get into the fact that
prior to her book, she claimed that Sen. George Smathers sought her out
and arranged the enrollment but in her book claims that it was her mother
and Aunt who contacted Smathers and arranged everything. The emancipation
http://www.bpete1969.com/2017/02/another-thread-unravelsa-pretty.html
I find it quite humorous that it was The George Smathers Library that held
the information that proved she was lying.
The last but most important instance of JVB pulling the wool over
everyone's eyes (in my opinion) is her claim that she met Oswald in the
Post Office. I guess you could say that I consider this as the "ground
zero" for all of her other claims about She & Lee.
John Simkin ran a thread about JVB at the Ed. Forum and JVB responded.
This was early in her shell game (March 2004). He asked her a simple
question and she provided a simple answer. Fast forward to 2010 and again,
the Ed. Forum was the place where Jim Fetzer started a thread to promote
Judyth and her newest incarnation of "The Book". You're familiar with "The
Book". The one that everyone must read. Have a question about two
contradictory statements by JVB? Then read "The Book". Have a question
about a particular referenced piece of evidence? You must read "The Book".
"The Book" would explain everything, even though "The Book" had yet to be
published and released.
JVB had stated at some point that when she met Oswald, he was dressed in
shabby clothes. David Lifton made comment to this fact as the reason he
didn't believe her story. Lifton had a copy of a document from the
employment agency used by Oswald and in that document it stated that on
the day JVB claimed to have met Oswald, he was dressed in a shirt and tie.
JVB now had a problem. She originally told Simkin that she met Oswald at
1:00 p.m. but because of Lifton's evidence, she had to allow time for
Oswald to change clothes for his trip to the employment agency. JVB had
been confronted with this timing problem well before 2010 and her last
re-write of "The Book". So, to accommodate Lifton's evidence, she
completely changed her story and stated that Oswald was dressed neatly
when she first met him. Unfortunately for JVB, she had forgotten what she
told Simkin in 2004 and now claimed that she met Oswald at 8:30 a.m. to
allow time for him to get a tie before going to the employment agency.
http://www.bpete1969.com/2017/03/the-only-lie-that-matters.html
Unfortunately, the title of the blog contains the word "lie". And in the
Ed. Forum world, you can't use that word.
I find it ironic that in a group so dedicated to the "truth", one can't
use the word "lie" to denote a lie.
The problem with naming a liar in a forum is that the argument will
not end, and it will disrupt the whole place. Also, calling a liar will
only lead to arguments pro and con, and could polarize a whole forum with
no end in sight. Aside for that it's not nice.
Chris
You just described what happens by not calling Marsh a liar.
Only the McAdams minions are allowed to call me a liar. I am not even
allowed to call Trump a liar and I KNOW that he doesn't post here. He's
not smart enough to know how to post here.
I think we're not allowed to allude to anything negative about Barb j
either and she hasn't posted her for a long time.
But SHE was allowed to call me a liar. Moderator Privilege.
A privilege I feel should be extended to everyone.
Is that why you do it? You think you can win any argument by calling
your opponent a liar? Weak.
OHLeeRedux
2017-06-18 21:32:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
5:12 PMAnthony Marsh
- show quoted text -
Is that why you do it? You think you can win any argument by calling
your opponent a liar? Weak.



If the shoe fits, wear it, Anthony "Alternative Facts" Marsh.

Anthony Marsh
2017-05-31 19:48:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bpete1969
Pamela,
I noticed that you linked your last post here, at the Education Forum and
for that reason I am creating this post.
The Education Forum (as well as others) has a standing policy of not being
able to call a member a liar. I find that rather inconvenient at times and
don't really agree with the premise because a lie is a lie. If you can
prove that a person lied then you should be able to say so. Let the person
accused of lying defend their statement.
Judyth Very Faker is a perfect example of someone that will use that
policy as a way to make outrageous claims and then hide behind the
protection provided by such policies.
There have been many instances where JVB has been caught making statements
that don't match prior statements. In every instance, there is a reason
for the inconsistencies; someone misquoted her, someone is quoting
something from a stolen altered email, someone is quoting something from a
stolen altered manuscript. The list goes on.
I spent countless hours digging through threads at the Education Forum and
found several falsehoods by JVB.
The first was her claim that she and her fiance Robert Baker were using
code names to correspond during the brief time she was in New Orleans
alone, waiting for him to arrive. It was important for her to use the
"code name ruse" to explain why Oswald thought she was involved in their
undercover get Castro project. That claim is covered here...
http://www.bpete1969.com/2017/02/another-thread-unravelsa-pretty.html
The second inconsistency I covered was concerning her claim that she was
emancipated from her parents by a college Dean and that she was
"technically illegally" enrolled in the University of Florida 5 weeks
after the start of the Spring Semester. I can only guess that she felt she
had to show that she was so gifted and needed by the get Castro plotters
that rules were tossed aside, only for her. I don't get into the fact that
prior to her book, she claimed that Sen. George Smathers sought her out
and arranged the enrollment but in her book claims that it was her mother
and Aunt who contacted Smathers and arranged everything. The emancipation
http://www.bpete1969.com/2017/02/another-thread-unravelsa-pretty.html
I find it quite humorous that it was The George Smathers Library that held
the information that proved she was lying.
The last but most important instance of JVB pulling the wool over
everyone's eyes (in my opinion) is her claim that she met Oswald in the
Post Office. I guess you could say that I consider this as the "ground
zero" for all of her other claims about She & Lee.
John Simkin ran a thread about JVB at the Ed. Forum and JVB responded.
This was early in her shell game (March 2004). He asked her a simple
question and she provided a simple answer. Fast forward to 2010 and again,
the Ed. Forum was the place where Jim Fetzer started a thread to promote
Judyth and her newest incarnation of "The Book". You're familiar with "The
Book". The one that everyone must read. Have a question about two
contradictory statements by JVB? Then read "The Book". Have a question
about a particular referenced piece of evidence? You must read "The Book".
"The Book" would explain everything, even though "The Book" had yet to be
published and released.
JVB had stated at some point that when she met Oswald, he was dressed in
shabby clothes. David Lifton made comment to this fact as the reason he
didn't believe her story. Lifton had a copy of a document from the
employment agency used by Oswald and in that document it stated that on
the day JVB claimed to have met Oswald, he was dressed in a shirt and tie.
JVB now had a problem. She originally told Simkin that she met Oswald at
1:00 p.m. but because of Lifton's evidence, she had to allow time for
Oswald to change clothes for his trip to the employment agency. JVB had
been confronted with this timing problem well before 2010 and her last
re-write of "The Book". So, to accommodate Lifton's evidence, she
completely changed her story and stated that Oswald was dressed neatly
when she first met him. Unfortunately for JVB, she had forgotten what she
told Simkin in 2004 and now claimed that she met Oswald at 8:30 a.m. to
allow time for him to get a tie before going to the employment agency.
http://www.bpete1969.com/2017/03/the-only-lie-that-matters.html
Unfortunately, the title of the blog contains the word "lie". And in the
Ed. Forum world, you can't use that word.
I find it ironic that in a group so dedicated to the "truth", one can't
use the word "lie" to denote a lie.
The problem with naming a liar in a forum is that the argument will
not end, and it will disrupt the whole place. Also, calling a liar will
Yeah, and so what? Sometimes you need to disrupt things. You'd argue for
being polite to the British troops occupying Boston.
Post by mainframetech
only lead to arguments pro and con, and could polarize a whole forum with
no end in sight. Aside for that it's not nice.
And you can't see that this has already happened here?
Isn't that what you came here to do?
Post by mainframetech
Chris
bpete1969
2017-06-05 01:07:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bpete1969
Pamela,
I noticed that you linked your last post here, at the Education Forum and
for that reason I am creating this post.
The Education Forum (as well as others) has a standing policy of not being
able to call a member a liar. I find that rather inconvenient at times and
don't really agree with the premise because a lie is a lie. If you can
prove that a person lied then you should be able to say so. Let the person
accused of lying defend their statement.
Judyth Very Faker is a perfect example of someone that will use that
policy as a way to make outrageous claims and then hide behind the
protection provided by such policies.
There have been many instances where JVB has been caught making statements
that don't match prior statements. In every instance, there is a reason
for the inconsistencies; someone misquoted her, someone is quoting
something from a stolen altered email, someone is quoting something from a
stolen altered manuscript. The list goes on.
I spent countless hours digging through threads at the Education Forum and
found several falsehoods by JVB.
The first was her claim that she and her fiance Robert Baker were using
code names to correspond during the brief time she was in New Orleans
alone, waiting for him to arrive. It was important for her to use the
"code name ruse" to explain why Oswald thought she was involved in their
undercover get Castro project. That claim is covered here...
http://www.bpete1969.com/2017/02/another-thread-unravelsa-pretty.html
The second inconsistency I covered was concerning her claim that she was
emancipated from her parents by a college Dean and that she was
"technically illegally" enrolled in the University of Florida 5 weeks
after the start of the Spring Semester. I can only guess that she felt she
had to show that she was so gifted and needed by the get Castro plotters
that rules were tossed aside, only for her. I don't get into the fact that
prior to her book, she claimed that Sen. George Smathers sought her out
and arranged the enrollment but in her book claims that it was her mother
and Aunt who contacted Smathers and arranged everything. The emancipation
http://www.bpete1969.com/2017/02/another-thread-unravelsa-pretty.html
I find it quite humorous that it was The George Smathers Library that held
the information that proved she was lying.
The last but most important instance of JVB pulling the wool over
everyone's eyes (in my opinion) is her claim that she met Oswald in the
Post Office. I guess you could say that I consider this as the "ground
zero" for all of her other claims about She & Lee.
John Simkin ran a thread about JVB at the Ed. Forum and JVB responded.
This was early in her shell game (March 2004). He asked her a simple
question and she provided a simple answer. Fast forward to 2010 and again,
the Ed. Forum was the place where Jim Fetzer started a thread to promote
Judyth and her newest incarnation of "The Book". You're familiar with "The
Book". The one that everyone must read. Have a question about two
contradictory statements by JVB? Then read "The Book". Have a question
about a particular referenced piece of evidence? You must read "The Book".
"The Book" would explain everything, even though "The Book" had yet to be
published and released.
JVB had stated at some point that when she met Oswald, he was dressed in
shabby clothes. David Lifton made comment to this fact as the reason he
didn't believe her story. Lifton had a copy of a document from the
employment agency used by Oswald and in that document it stated that on
the day JVB claimed to have met Oswald, he was dressed in a shirt and tie.
JVB now had a problem. She originally told Simkin that she met Oswald at
1:00 p.m. but because of Lifton's evidence, she had to allow time for
Oswald to change clothes for his trip to the employment agency. JVB had
been confronted with this timing problem well before 2010 and her last
re-write of "The Book". So, to accommodate Lifton's evidence, she
completely changed her story and stated that Oswald was dressed neatly
when she first met him. Unfortunately for JVB, she had forgotten what she
told Simkin in 2004 and now claimed that she met Oswald at 8:30 a.m. to
allow time for him to get a tie before going to the employment agency.
http://www.bpete1969.com/2017/03/the-only-lie-that-matters.html
Unfortunately, the title of the blog contains the word "lie". And in the
Ed. Forum world, you can't use that word.
I find it ironic that in a group so dedicated to the "truth", one can't
use the word "lie" to denote a lie.
Good luck with your research. I have a feeling that if you think JVB is
the link to some hidden "truth" in a massive cover up that hinges on her
involvement, you'll need to buy a truck load of flashlight batteries. The
rabbit hole she inhabits is actually a maze of gopher holes and you'll do
well to buy stock in Duracell.
My second link in the post was a repeat of the first. My apologies.

Judyth's emancipation story is found here...

http://www.bpete1969.com/2017/03/judys-emanicpation-proclamation.html
j***@gmail.com
2017-06-13 00:03:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bpete1969
Pamela,
I noticed that you linked your last post here, at the Education Forum and
for that reason I am creating this post.
The Education Forum (as well as others) has a standing policy of not being
able to call a member a liar. I find that rather inconvenient at times and
don't really agree with the premise because a lie is a lie. If you can
prove that a person lied then you should be able to say so. Let the person
accused of lying defend their statement.
Judyth Very Faker is a perfect example of someone that will use that
policy as a way to make outrageous claims and then hide behind the
protection provided by such policies.
There have been many instances where JVB has been caught making statements
that don't match prior statements. In every instance, there is a reason
for the inconsistencies; someone misquoted her, someone is quoting
something from a stolen altered email, someone is quoting something from a
stolen altered manuscript. The list goes on.
I spent countless hours digging through threads at the Education Forum and
found several falsehoods by JVB.
The first was her claim that she and her fiance Robert Baker were using
code names to correspond during the brief time she was in New Orleans
alone, waiting for him to arrive. It was important for her to use the
"code name ruse" to explain why Oswald thought she was involved in their
undercover get Castro project. That claim is covered here...
http://www.bpete1969.com/2017/02/another-thread-unravelsa-pretty.html
The second inconsistency I covered was concerning her claim that she was
emancipated from her parents by a college Dean and that she was
"technically illegally" enrolled in the University of Florida 5 weeks
after the start of the Spring Semester. I can only guess that she felt she
had to show that she was so gifted and needed by the get Castro plotters
that rules were tossed aside, only for her. I don't get into the fact that
prior to her book, she claimed that Sen. George Smathers sought her out
and arranged the enrollment but in her book claims that it was her mother
and Aunt who contacted Smathers and arranged everything. The emancipation
http://www.bpete1969.com/2017/02/another-thread-unravelsa-pretty.html
I find it quite humorous that it was The George Smathers Library that held
the information that proved she was lying.
The last but most important instance of JVB pulling the wool over
everyone's eyes (in my opinion) is her claim that she met Oswald in the
Post Office. I guess you could say that I consider this as the "ground
zero" for all of her other claims about She & Lee.
John Simkin ran a thread about JVB at the Ed. Forum and JVB responded.
This was early in her shell game (March 2004). He asked her a simple
question and she provided a simple answer. Fast forward to 2010 and again,
the Ed. Forum was the place where Jim Fetzer started a thread to promote
Judyth and her newest incarnation of "The Book". You're familiar with "The
Book". The one that everyone must read. Have a question about two
contradictory statements by JVB? Then read "The Book". Have a question
about a particular referenced piece of evidence? You must read "The Book".
"The Book" would explain everything, even though "The Book" had yet to be
published and released.
JVB had stated at some point that when she met Oswald, he was dressed in
shabby clothes. David Lifton made comment to this fact as the reason he
didn't believe her story. Lifton had a copy of a document from the
employment agency used by Oswald and in that document it stated that on
the day JVB claimed to have met Oswald, he was dressed in a shirt and tie.
JVB now had a problem. She originally told Simkin that she met Oswald at
1:00 p.m. but because of Lifton's evidence, she had to allow time for
Oswald to change clothes for his trip to the employment agency. JVB had
been confronted with this timing problem well before 2010 and her last
re-write of "The Book". So, to accommodate Lifton's evidence, she
completely changed her story and stated that Oswald was dressed neatly
when she first met him. Unfortunately for JVB, she had forgotten what she
told Simkin in 2004 and now claimed that she met Oswald at 8:30 a.m. to
allow time for him to get a tie before going to the employment agency.
http://www.bpete1969.com/2017/03/the-only-lie-that-matters.html
Unfortunately, the title of the blog contains the word "lie". And in the
Ed. Forum world, you can't use that word.
I find it ironic that in a group so dedicated to the "truth", one can't
use the word "lie" to denote a lie.
Good luck with your research. I have a feeling that if you think JVB is
the link to some hidden "truth" in a massive cover up that hinges on her
involvement, you'll need to buy a truck load of flashlight batteries. The
rabbit hole she inhabits is actually a maze of gopher holes and you'll do
well to buy stock in Duracell.
Funny.

Actually, it is my thinking right now that Judyth is providing a major
clue to the ongoing coverup of the truth about the JFK assassination,
through her behavior, as well as her statements. So, no, she doesn't have
any answers, but may be pointing us to some in her own wacky way.
Pamela
s***@yahoo.com
2017-06-13 19:15:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by bpete1969
Pamela,
I noticed that you linked your last post here, at the Education Forum and
for that reason I am creating this post.
The Education Forum (as well as others) has a standing policy of not being
able to call a member a liar. I find that rather inconvenient at times and
don't really agree with the premise because a lie is a lie. If you can
prove that a person lied then you should be able to say so. Let the person
accused of lying defend their statement.
Judyth Very Faker is a perfect example of someone that will use that
policy as a way to make outrageous claims and then hide behind the
protection provided by such policies.
There have been many instances where JVB has been caught making statements
that don't match prior statements. In every instance, there is a reason
for the inconsistencies; someone misquoted her, someone is quoting
something from a stolen altered email, someone is quoting something from a
stolen altered manuscript. The list goes on.
I spent countless hours digging through threads at the Education Forum and
found several falsehoods by JVB.
The first was her claim that she and her fiance Robert Baker were using
code names to correspond during the brief time she was in New Orleans
alone, waiting for him to arrive. It was important for her to use the
"code name ruse" to explain why Oswald thought she was involved in their
undercover get Castro project. That claim is covered here...
http://www.bpete1969.com/2017/02/another-thread-unravelsa-pretty.html
The second inconsistency I covered was concerning her claim that she was
emancipated from her parents by a college Dean and that she was
"technically illegally" enrolled in the University of Florida 5 weeks
after the start of the Spring Semester. I can only guess that she felt she
had to show that she was so gifted and needed by the get Castro plotters
that rules were tossed aside, only for her. I don't get into the fact that
prior to her book, she claimed that Sen. George Smathers sought her out
and arranged the enrollment but in her book claims that it was her mother
and Aunt who contacted Smathers and arranged everything. The emancipation
http://www.bpete1969.com/2017/02/another-thread-unravelsa-pretty.html
I find it quite humorous that it was The George Smathers Library that held
the information that proved she was lying.
The last but most important instance of JVB pulling the wool over
everyone's eyes (in my opinion) is her claim that she met Oswald in the
Post Office. I guess you could say that I consider this as the "ground
zero" for all of her other claims about She & Lee.
John Simkin ran a thread about JVB at the Ed. Forum and JVB responded.
This was early in her shell game (March 2004). He asked her a simple
question and she provided a simple answer. Fast forward to 2010 and again,
the Ed. Forum was the place where Jim Fetzer started a thread to promote
Judyth and her newest incarnation of "The Book". You're familiar with "The
Book". The one that everyone must read. Have a question about two
contradictory statements by JVB? Then read "The Book". Have a question
about a particular referenced piece of evidence? You must read "The Book".
"The Book" would explain everything, even though "The Book" had yet to be
published and released.
JVB had stated at some point that when she met Oswald, he was dressed in
shabby clothes. David Lifton made comment to this fact as the reason he
didn't believe her story. Lifton had a copy of a document from the
employment agency used by Oswald and in that document it stated that on
the day JVB claimed to have met Oswald, he was dressed in a shirt and tie.
JVB now had a problem. She originally told Simkin that she met Oswald at
1:00 p.m. but because of Lifton's evidence, she had to allow time for
Oswald to change clothes for his trip to the employment agency. JVB had
been confronted with this timing problem well before 2010 and her last
re-write of "The Book". So, to accommodate Lifton's evidence, she
completely changed her story and stated that Oswald was dressed neatly
when she first met him. Unfortunately for JVB, she had forgotten what she
told Simkin in 2004 and now claimed that she met Oswald at 8:30 a.m. to
allow time for him to get a tie before going to the employment agency.
http://www.bpete1969.com/2017/03/the-only-lie-that-matters.html
Unfortunately, the title of the blog contains the word "lie". And in the
Ed. Forum world, you can't use that word.
I find it ironic that in a group so dedicated to the "truth", one can't
use the word "lie" to denote a lie.
Good luck with your research. I have a feeling that if you think JVB is
the link to some hidden "truth" in a massive cover up that hinges on her
involvement, you'll need to buy a truck load of flashlight batteries. The
rabbit hole she inhabits is actually a maze of gopher holes and you'll do
well to buy stock in Duracell.
Funny.
Actually, it is my thinking right now that Judyth is providing a major
clue to the ongoing coverup of the truth about the JFK assassination,
through her behavior, as well as her statements. So, no, she doesn't have
any answers, but may be pointing us to some in her own wacky way.
Pamela
Who is directing this "ongoing coverup"? And why? All of the key players
in the assassination are long dead. A handful, now in their seventies and
eighties, are still alive; but the major figures are deceased. So, the old
"cui bono" question arises.

And who directed Baker to be part of it?

Some specific names, please.
j***@gmail.com
2017-06-17 13:37:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by bpete1969
Pamela,
I noticed that you linked your last post here, at the Education Forum and
for that reason I am creating this post.
The Education Forum (as well as others) has a standing policy of not being
able to call a member a liar. I find that rather inconvenient at times and
don't really agree with the premise because a lie is a lie. If you can
prove that a person lied then you should be able to say so. Let the person
accused of lying defend their statement.
Judyth Very Faker is a perfect example of someone that will use that
policy as a way to make outrageous claims and then hide behind the
protection provided by such policies.
There have been many instances where JVB has been caught making statements
that don't match prior statements. In every instance, there is a reason
for the inconsistencies; someone misquoted her, someone is quoting
something from a stolen altered email, someone is quoting something from a
stolen altered manuscript. The list goes on.
I spent countless hours digging through threads at the Education Forum and
found several falsehoods by JVB.
The first was her claim that she and her fiance Robert Baker were using
code names to correspond during the brief time she was in New Orleans
alone, waiting for him to arrive. It was important for her to use the
"code name ruse" to explain why Oswald thought she was involved in their
undercover get Castro project. That claim is covered here...
http://www.bpete1969.com/2017/02/another-thread-unravelsa-pretty.html
The second inconsistency I covered was concerning her claim that she was
emancipated from her parents by a college Dean and that she was
"technically illegally" enrolled in the University of Florida 5 weeks
after the start of the Spring Semester. I can only guess that she felt she
had to show that she was so gifted and needed by the get Castro plotters
that rules were tossed aside, only for her. I don't get into the fact that
prior to her book, she claimed that Sen. George Smathers sought her out
and arranged the enrollment but in her book claims that it was her mother
and Aunt who contacted Smathers and arranged everything. The emancipation
http://www.bpete1969.com/2017/02/another-thread-unravelsa-pretty.html
I find it quite humorous that it was The George Smathers Library that held
the information that proved she was lying.
The last but most important instance of JVB pulling the wool over
everyone's eyes (in my opinion) is her claim that she met Oswald in the
Post Office. I guess you could say that I consider this as the "ground
zero" for all of her other claims about She & Lee.
John Simkin ran a thread about JVB at the Ed. Forum and JVB responded.
This was early in her shell game (March 2004). He asked her a simple
question and she provided a simple answer. Fast forward to 2010 and again,
the Ed. Forum was the place where Jim Fetzer started a thread to promote
Judyth and her newest incarnation of "The Book". You're familiar with "The
Book". The one that everyone must read. Have a question about two
contradictory statements by JVB? Then read "The Book". Have a question
about a particular referenced piece of evidence? You must read "The Book".
"The Book" would explain everything, even though "The Book" had yet to be
published and released.
JVB had stated at some point that when she met Oswald, he was dressed in
shabby clothes. David Lifton made comment to this fact as the reason he
didn't believe her story. Lifton had a copy of a document from the
employment agency used by Oswald and in that document it stated that on
the day JVB claimed to have met Oswald, he was dressed in a shirt and tie.
JVB now had a problem. She originally told Simkin that she met Oswald at
1:00 p.m. but because of Lifton's evidence, she had to allow time for
Oswald to change clothes for his trip to the employment agency. JVB had
been confronted with this timing problem well before 2010 and her last
re-write of "The Book". So, to accommodate Lifton's evidence, she
completely changed her story and stated that Oswald was dressed neatly
when she first met him. Unfortunately for JVB, she had forgotten what she
told Simkin in 2004 and now claimed that she met Oswald at 8:30 a.m. to
allow time for him to get a tie before going to the employment agency.
http://www.bpete1969.com/2017/03/the-only-lie-that-matters.html
Unfortunately, the title of the blog contains the word "lie". And in the
Ed. Forum world, you can't use that word.
I find it ironic that in a group so dedicated to the "truth", one can't
use the word "lie" to denote a lie.
Good luck with your research. I have a feeling that if you think JVB is
the link to some hidden "truth" in a massive cover up that hinges on her
involvement, you'll need to buy a truck load of flashlight batteries. The
rabbit hole she inhabits is actually a maze of gopher holes and you'll do
well to buy stock in Duracell.
Funny.
Actually, it is my thinking right now that Judyth is providing a major
clue to the ongoing coverup of the truth about the JFK assassination,
through her behavior, as well as her statements. So, no, she doesn't have
any answers, but may be pointing us to some in her own wacky way.
Pamela
Who is directing this "ongoing coverup"?
Those who want the truth concealed.

And why? All of the key players
Post by s***@yahoo.com
in the assassination are long dead. A handful, now in their seventies and
eighties, are still alive; but the major figures are deceased. So, the old
"cui bono" question arises.
The WCR was intended to placate the public. The public was supposed to
have been *taught* to be followers.
Post by s***@yahoo.com
And who directed Baker to be part of it?
Fetzer.
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Some specific names, please.
To me the Ongoing Coverup is a process with certain principles. The
principles remain in effect regardless of which people are involved in it.
Bud
2017-06-17 23:44:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by bpete1969
Pamela,
I noticed that you linked your last post here, at the Education Forum and
for that reason I am creating this post.
The Education Forum (as well as others) has a standing policy of not being
able to call a member a liar. I find that rather inconvenient at times and
don't really agree with the premise because a lie is a lie. If you can
prove that a person lied then you should be able to say so. Let the person
accused of lying defend their statement.
Judyth Very Faker is a perfect example of someone that will use that
policy as a way to make outrageous claims and then hide behind the
protection provided by such policies.
There have been many instances where JVB has been caught making statements
that don't match prior statements. In every instance, there is a reason
for the inconsistencies; someone misquoted her, someone is quoting
something from a stolen altered email, someone is quoting something from a
stolen altered manuscript. The list goes on.
I spent countless hours digging through threads at the Education Forum and
found several falsehoods by JVB.
The first was her claim that she and her fiance Robert Baker were using
code names to correspond during the brief time she was in New Orleans
alone, waiting for him to arrive. It was important for her to use the
"code name ruse" to explain why Oswald thought she was involved in their
undercover get Castro project. That claim is covered here...
http://www.bpete1969.com/2017/02/another-thread-unravelsa-pretty.html
The second inconsistency I covered was concerning her claim that she was
emancipated from her parents by a college Dean and that she was
"technically illegally" enrolled in the University of Florida 5 weeks
after the start of the Spring Semester. I can only guess that she felt she
had to show that she was so gifted and needed by the get Castro plotters
that rules were tossed aside, only for her. I don't get into the fact that
prior to her book, she claimed that Sen. George Smathers sought her out
and arranged the enrollment but in her book claims that it was her mother
and Aunt who contacted Smathers and arranged everything. The emancipation
http://www.bpete1969.com/2017/02/another-thread-unravelsa-pretty.html
I find it quite humorous that it was The George Smathers Library that held
the information that proved she was lying.
The last but most important instance of JVB pulling the wool over
everyone's eyes (in my opinion) is her claim that she met Oswald in the
Post Office. I guess you could say that I consider this as the "ground
zero" for all of her other claims about She & Lee.
John Simkin ran a thread about JVB at the Ed. Forum and JVB responded.
This was early in her shell game (March 2004). He asked her a simple
question and she provided a simple answer. Fast forward to 2010 and again,
the Ed. Forum was the place where Jim Fetzer started a thread to promote
Judyth and her newest incarnation of "The Book". You're familiar with "The
Book". The one that everyone must read. Have a question about two
contradictory statements by JVB? Then read "The Book". Have a question
about a particular referenced piece of evidence? You must read "The Book".
"The Book" would explain everything, even though "The Book" had yet to be
published and released.
JVB had stated at some point that when she met Oswald, he was dressed in
shabby clothes. David Lifton made comment to this fact as the reason he
didn't believe her story. Lifton had a copy of a document from the
employment agency used by Oswald and in that document it stated that on
the day JVB claimed to have met Oswald, he was dressed in a shirt and tie.
JVB now had a problem. She originally told Simkin that she met Oswald at
1:00 p.m. but because of Lifton's evidence, she had to allow time for
Oswald to change clothes for his trip to the employment agency. JVB had
been confronted with this timing problem well before 2010 and her last
re-write of "The Book". So, to accommodate Lifton's evidence, she
completely changed her story and stated that Oswald was dressed neatly
when she first met him. Unfortunately for JVB, she had forgotten what she
told Simkin in 2004 and now claimed that she met Oswald at 8:30 a.m. to
allow time for him to get a tie before going to the employment agency.
http://www.bpete1969.com/2017/03/the-only-lie-that-matters.html
Unfortunately, the title of the blog contains the word "lie". And in the
Ed. Forum world, you can't use that word.
I find it ironic that in a group so dedicated to the "truth", one can't
use the word "lie" to denote a lie.
Good luck with your research. I have a feeling that if you think JVB is
the link to some hidden "truth" in a massive cover up that hinges on her
involvement, you'll need to buy a truck load of flashlight batteries. The
rabbit hole she inhabits is actually a maze of gopher holes and you'll do
well to buy stock in Duracell.
Funny.
Actually, it is my thinking right now that Judyth is providing a major
clue to the ongoing coverup of the truth about the JFK assassination,
through her behavior, as well as her statements. So, no, she doesn't have
any answers, but may be pointing us to some in her own wacky way.
Pamela
Who is directing this "ongoing coverup"?
Those who want the truth concealed.
Those people who want the truth concealed are imaginary, invented by
those who can`t accept the reality of this event, that Oswald killed
Kennedy.
Post by j***@gmail.com
And why? All of the key players
Post by s***@yahoo.com
in the assassination are long dead. A handful, now in their seventies and
eighties, are still alive; but the major figures are deceased. So, the old
"cui bono" question arises.
The WCR was intended to placate the public.
They thought that providing the public with the facts would convince
them of the truth. Didn`t work out entirely like that.
Post by j***@gmail.com
The public was supposed to have been *taught* to be followers.
Pure nonsense They put their conclusions on the table and people were
free to accept them or not.

And of course the underlying assumption is that Pamela is more clever
than the average "sheeple", she can see through things. I`ve yet to see
any display by her of such cleverness, in fact I`ve seen strong
indications of the opposite, an almost complete lack of reasoning ability
and critical thinking skills.
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by s***@yahoo.com
And who directed Baker to be part of it?
Fetzer.
Fetzer is driven by the same desperation Pamela was driven by, the
desperation to believe Oswald is innocent. All CTers share this
desperation as far as I can tell (I see no conspiracies with Oswald as a
participant being championed in these newsgroups, anyway), they just
clutch at different straw.
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Some specific names, please.
To me the Ongoing Coverup is a process with certain principles. The
principles remain in effect regardless of which people are involved in it.
Inventions, constructs, windmills to be tilted against.
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-18 03:08:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by bpete1969
Pamela,
I noticed that you linked your last post here, at the Education Forum and
for that reason I am creating this post.
The Education Forum (as well as others) has a standing policy of not being
able to call a member a liar. I find that rather inconvenient at times and
don't really agree with the premise because a lie is a lie. If you can
prove that a person lied then you should be able to say so. Let the person
accused of lying defend their statement.
Judyth Very Faker is a perfect example of someone that will use that
policy as a way to make outrageous claims and then hide behind the
protection provided by such policies.
There have been many instances where JVB has been caught making statements
that don't match prior statements. In every instance, there is a reason
for the inconsistencies; someone misquoted her, someone is quoting
something from a stolen altered email, someone is quoting something from a
stolen altered manuscript. The list goes on.
I spent countless hours digging through threads at the Education Forum and
found several falsehoods by JVB.
The first was her claim that she and her fiance Robert Baker were using
code names to correspond during the brief time she was in New Orleans
alone, waiting for him to arrive. It was important for her to use the
"code name ruse" to explain why Oswald thought she was involved in their
undercover get Castro project. That claim is covered here...
http://www.bpete1969.com/2017/02/another-thread-unravelsa-pretty.html
The second inconsistency I covered was concerning her claim that she was
emancipated from her parents by a college Dean and that she was
"technically illegally" enrolled in the University of Florida 5 weeks
after the start of the Spring Semester. I can only guess that she felt she
had to show that she was so gifted and needed by the get Castro plotters
that rules were tossed aside, only for her. I don't get into the fact that
prior to her book, she claimed that Sen. George Smathers sought her out
and arranged the enrollment but in her book claims that it was her mother
and Aunt who contacted Smathers and arranged everything. The emancipation
http://www.bpete1969.com/2017/02/another-thread-unravelsa-pretty.html
I find it quite humorous that it was The George Smathers Library that held
the information that proved she was lying.
The last but most important instance of JVB pulling the wool over
everyone's eyes (in my opinion) is her claim that she met Oswald in the
Post Office. I guess you could say that I consider this as the "ground
zero" for all of her other claims about She & Lee.
John Simkin ran a thread about JVB at the Ed. Forum and JVB responded.
This was early in her shell game (March 2004). He asked her a simple
question and she provided a simple answer. Fast forward to 2010 and again,
the Ed. Forum was the place where Jim Fetzer started a thread to promote
Judyth and her newest incarnation of "The Book". You're familiar with "The
Book". The one that everyone must read. Have a question about two
contradictory statements by JVB? Then read "The Book". Have a question
about a particular referenced piece of evidence? You must read "The Book".
"The Book" would explain everything, even though "The Book" had yet to be
published and released.
JVB had stated at some point that when she met Oswald, he was dressed in
shabby clothes. David Lifton made comment to this fact as the reason he
didn't believe her story. Lifton had a copy of a document from the
employment agency used by Oswald and in that document it stated that on
the day JVB claimed to have met Oswald, he was dressed in a shirt and tie.
JVB now had a problem. She originally told Simkin that she met Oswald at
1:00 p.m. but because of Lifton's evidence, she had to allow time for
Oswald to change clothes for his trip to the employment agency. JVB had
been confronted with this timing problem well before 2010 and her last
re-write of "The Book". So, to accommodate Lifton's evidence, she
completely changed her story and stated that Oswald was dressed neatly
when she first met him. Unfortunately for JVB, she had forgotten what she
told Simkin in 2004 and now claimed that she met Oswald at 8:30 a.m. to
allow time for him to get a tie before going to the employment agency.
http://www.bpete1969.com/2017/03/the-only-lie-that-matters.html
Unfortunately, the title of the blog contains the word "lie". And in the
Ed. Forum world, you can't use that word.
I find it ironic that in a group so dedicated to the "truth", one can't
use the word "lie" to denote a lie.
Good luck with your research. I have a feeling that if you think JVB is
the link to some hidden "truth" in a massive cover up that hinges on her
involvement, you'll need to buy a truck load of flashlight batteries. The
rabbit hole she inhabits is actually a maze of gopher holes and you'll do
well to buy stock in Duracell.
Funny.
Actually, it is my thinking right now that Judyth is providing a major
clue to the ongoing coverup of the truth about the JFK assassination,
through her behavior, as well as her statements. So, no, she doesn't have
any answers, but may be pointing us to some in her own wacky way.
Pamela
Who is directing this "ongoing coverup"?
Those who want the truth concealed.
And why? All of the key players
Post by s***@yahoo.com
in the assassination are long dead. A handful, now in their seventies and
eighties, are still alive; but the major figures are deceased. So, the old
"cui bono" question arises.
The WCR was intended to placate the public. The public was supposed to
have been *taught* to be followers.
Post by s***@yahoo.com
And who directed Baker to be part of it?
Fetzer.
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Some specific names, please.
To me the Ongoing Coverup is a process with certain principles. The
principles remain in effect regardless of which people are involved in it.
How does the CIA keep covering up documents from 100 years ago? Who
would still be alive who cares?
Loading...