The Future of the JFK Forum

[William Paris]

Regarding Robert Morrow....at one point, perhaps several years ago, his graphic descriptions of the sex issues of the case were getting a little out of hand. I have noticed that it has been toned down since then. Perhaps he realized it. Perhaps a mod made a suggestion. Either way, this is a good example of a postive behavior modification.

[Dawn Meredith]

From another Ed Forum reader:

Robert Morrow appears to be a sex obsessed, gossip mongering, drug fascinated, purveyor of nonsense. He also appears to have an unhealthy fascination with underage sex.

Why do you allow this man on your forum?

It's not my forum Robert, but the question is valid.

That is his major concern. It began with Clinton and his sexapades. Robert was obsessed with the Clintons. Then for some reason he began reading posts here, called me out of the blue to discuss the assassination. At first he seemed genuine so I gladly pointed him in several directions, to authors I believed would further his study. He was fixed on LBJ. Would not hear of CIA involvement, but later that changed. This was several years back. During our many discussions he kept his sex obsession and outright interest in all matters perverse under wraps. Only when I began to see his posts here, and on his facebook page did I see the full extent of his real obsession. That is when I cut off all ties.When I saw his post recently smearing Charles Drago I had to laugh. Equally so when he made comments about DPF and our private discussions. In his dreams. We booted him ages ago and he has no clue about our private dealings. He just likes to blow smoke. His sex rants do this forum no favors. He never misses a chance to scrape the bottom. So yes it's a valid question. But he is welcomed here. I supposed some deem his views "educational" .

Dawn

[Norman T. Field]

As a long time lurker who rarely posts, I find this forum to be a very valuable resource. Given the volatile subject matter, I believe that consisent monitoring and standard of behavior enforcement to be essential.

Frankly, I am amazed that some of the insulting and derogatory comments I have read were allowed to stand unchallenged. An enforced level of civility is essential to a rational discussion, to say nothing of putting a muzzle on the occasional foam spewing xxxxx.

Please keep this forum alive, else the forces of darkness defeat a valient quest for truth. As such, even (espesically) moderators must be held accountable.

[Guest Robert Morrow]

From another Ed Forum reader:

Robert Morrow appears to be a sex obsessed, gossip mongering, drug fascinated, purveyor of nonsense. He also appears to have an unhealthy fascination with underage sex.

Why do you allow this man on your forum?

It's not my forum Robert, but the question is valid.

That is his major concern. It began with Clinton and his sexapades. Robert was obsessed with the Clintons. Then for some reason he began reading posts here, called me out of the blue to discuss the assassination. At first he seemed genuine so I gladly pointed him in several directions, to authors I believed would further his study. He was fixed on LBJ. Would not hear of CIA involvement, but later that changed. This was several years back. During our many discussions he kept his sex obsession and outright interest in all matters perverse under wraps. Only when I began to see his posts here, and on his facebook page did I see the full extent of his real obsession. That is when I cut off all ties.When I saw his post recently smearing Charles Drago I had to laugh. Equally so when he made comments about DPF and our private discussions. In his dreams. We booted him ages ago and he has no clue about our private dealings. He just likes to blow smoke. His sex rants do this forum no favors. He never misses a chance to scrape the bottom. So yes it's a valid question. But he is welcomed here. I supposed some deem his views "educational" .

Dawn

I can't think of 2 people who were more obsessed with unhinged sexual promiscuity than John Kennedy and Bill Clinton, except that unlike Bill Clinton, I don't think John Kennedy was raping anyone.

Lyndon Johnson gets a free pass in the media for *his* completely unhinged sexual promiscuity as well. Author Ron Kessler says LBJ was having sex with 5 of his 8 secretaries and was so out of control he should have been in a mental institution.

There is a reason for that - there is a cover up for LBJ going on and his depravities & epic mental instabilities are glossed over because they tarnish him and lead us down the road to the JFK assassination. Most especially there is a cover up of the sub rosa war going on between the Kennedys & LBJ.

Re: Clinton - Juanita Broaddrick was not the only woman he has raped. Judy Stokes, a friend of Miss America Elizabeth Ward Gracen, says he raped her, too. And there was a 1999 article in Capital Hill Blue entitled "Bill Clinton's Long History of Sexual Violence" http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1157708/posts

One of the most important things to know about the Clintons is that they beat up and nearly murdered Gary Johnson, a neighbor of Gennifer Flowers & the lawyer for Larry Nichols on June 26, 1992. Gary Johnson had security camera videotapes of Bill Clinton often entering Gennifer's next door condominium.

Web link: http://1984arkansasmotheroftheyear.blogspot.com/2012/02/clintons-beat-up-and-nearly-murdered.html

As for my personal interest in the JFK assassination, it began in spring 2008 when I was web surfing Education Forum. I came across a thread indicting Lyndon Johnson and it was very persuasive to me and I was glad to see that Dawn Meredith, one of the posters lived in my town of Austin.

The case against LBJ is a no-brainer; it is so overwhelming, the cup runneth over, so much diversity in the case against Johnson.

It took me a while to figure out the CIA was involved and more importantly, the military. The military left fewer fingerprints but if Gen. Edward Lansdale was involved, then surely Gen. Curtis LeMay and Gen. Lyman Lemnitzer and particularly Air Force military intelligence was involved.

It took me a while for the light bulb to go off in my mind that LBJ and his Dallas, TX oil men had immaculate high level CIA/military connections and they worked in unison with these people to murder John Kennedy. And Cuba policy, far more so than Vietnam, was a big reason for the JFK assassination in addition to Lyndon Johnson's personal desire to not be politically and personally executed. Since the 1980's, with the revelations of Madeleine Brown, Billie Sol Estes and Barr McCellan, LBJ's involvement has been clear.

One of the flaws of Oliver Stone's JFK was that it emphasized Vietnam policy as a trigger for the JFK assassination when it should have really emphasized Cuba policy and nuclear tensions between the USA and the USSR.

The early folks who suspected LBJ were right as were the ones who suspected the CIA (Mark Lane, Jim Garrison) or the military (Vincent Salandria). It was all those folks; LBJ was the congressional water boy for both the MIC and the CIA.

Dawn Meredith was correct about the JFK assassination since Day 1:

Posted 31 January 2006 - 01:24 AM

John:

Great to see the forum looking at the Tx. aspect to this case. Henry Marshall and Clint People's murders are examples of what happens to public officals of integrity who attempt to stem the tide of horrific corruption.

I have believed that LBJ killed JFK since day one and studying the the lives and murders of Marshall and Peoples has only solidified this belief.

Dawn

Web link: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5988

Edited June 12, 2013 by Robert Morrow

[David S. Brownlee]

IMO this forum should be expanded - the "Guardian" broke a story the other day that has been smothered in the USA about oil price fixing by the major players.

THIS IS an ENORMOUS Story - maybe the biggest of our time $$-wise.

They also previously were the ones who broke the story that bearded British "special agents" were called in to finally overtake Ghaddaffi's forces when air supremacy alone wasn't working and the gutless "revolutionaries" were running every time a mortar round got within half a mile of them.

Edited June 12, 2013 by David S. Brownlee

[Greg Kooyman]

What it comes down to, IMO, is that this is, and always has been, John's Forum. That's the reality. He tried to make it an open one, where people could discuss the assassination in an open and civil way. That proved impossible.

John's vision for HIS forum was that it be a place where serious scholars and researchers could discuss the assassination. Members were forced to apply for membership, etc. His vision failed to come to bloom, however, in large part because those most passionate about the JFK assassination are also those most self-righteous about the JFK assassination. Things degraded to the point where some threads amounted to little more than GOTCHA! You're a xxxx! No, I'm not. You're the xxxx!! No, I'm not. You're the xxxx!

My hope is that this sends a message, and that in time Jim and Tom are allowed to return to the forum, and do so...

P.S. One of my favorite threads on this forum was one where I asked Tink Thompson about a mistake he'd made in Six Seconds in Dallas, that had misled his readers. He admitted he'd made a mistake. BINGO. That's all it took. I pointed out a mistake, and he acknowledged it as one. This went smoothly, in part, because we respected each other.

Let's all try to respect each other, and respect ourselves in the process.

Pat,

I believe your post describes best what John did. I have been a longtime member, but have few posts, simply because I only try to post when I feel it may be of some benefit. I never saw any success in the personal attacks I have witnessed on this forum over the years. They never resulted in changing the other side's opinion about things. Quite frankly, I felt it was a complete waste of time and space on the threads they appeared on.

I had hoped as you so aptly put it, that this forum would be "hotbed" of activity in terms of active research and exchanges of ideas concerning the assassination among the research community. With the 50th anniversary of the assassination approaching, it is my hope that this forum can work closer to that ideal goal.

That said, I am hoping that John re-considers admitting both former members back to the forum. I greatly admire the work that James DiEugenio has done, and admit that though he is passionate in his views, I believe Jim has a lot to offer this forum in terms of research and historical opinion.

- Greg

[Guest Robert Morrow]

David Lifton - thanks for claryfying your position re Oswald and MacMillan. I have gone back and forth for years on who Oswald was, and lately I am of a different opinion than yourself and others here. After reading all of Oswald's writings, listening to his radio interview, and reading DeMohrenschildt's book, I came to the conclusion that Oswald was what most people who met him described him as - a non-conformist idealistic leftist. Either that is true, or he was living a complete lie to everyone. In fact, the only person who seemed to see him differently was Volkmar Schmidt, who claimed that Oswald had his sights set on JFK, and that he, Volkmar, put the suggestion in his head that Walker would be a better object of his hate. Let me ask you to clarify your position further: do you think Oswald, in his capacity as a CIA operative, was a right winger masquerading as a leftist? As an old lefty myself I thought his radio interview very nuanced and not party line, and think it would he unusual for a right winger to portray a leftist like that. What do you think he was up to in New Orleans? I read Best Evidence years ago, and don't recall if you laid out an overall theory of the conspiracy.

If you are interested in one of the best books ever written which accurately describes the personalility, then I highly recommend the book written by Ernst Titovets, Oswald's best friend when he was in Minsk. The book is titled OSWALD: Russian Episode, and is 400 plus pages long. He starts by painting the general picture in Minsk, circa 1960 (Oswald arrived there on January 7, 1960) and then goes through the story of how he met Oswald. Titovets--the a medical student (and now "Dr. Titovets")-- met him around September 24, 1960. The two went to plays, concerts, went out with girls, debated politics and philosophy. Just imagine: you knew someone for just 20 months, and then--some 30 years later--that person set out to assemble his notes and recollections and wrote a 400 page book about you. Ernst Titovets has a website, and perhaps you can order the book there.

In any event, I highly recommend the book for anyone seeking to understand Oswald, and get a balanced picture of what he was like.

DSL

6/12/13; 2:10 AM PDT

Los Angeles, California

Web link to Ernst Titovets book and information. Highly recommended.

This book is extremely rare & historically significant. We need to get Trine Day or Skyhorse Publishing to print this book and make it available for the masses. This should have been done a long time ago.

http://www.etitovets.com/OSWALD-Russian-Episode.pdf

Edited June 12, 2013 by Robert Morrow

[Tom Wilson]

I rarely post because of the intense passions of researchers that often end in personal attacks. Having said that, I for one believe that not allowing those passionate researchers to engage in the debate on this, the best JFK forum out there, does a dis-service to the community. Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names can never hurt me.

I vote John, that unless someone posts a threat to another, you need to allow for open, and passionate discussion of the assassination of President Kennedy.

Most who are members or visitors to the JFK Forum I believe are smart enough to discern facts from opinions of those who have devoted their lives to seeking the truth in this case. I'm a firm CT'er, and do not agree with most everything DVP has to say. But I would think it a travesty, if he were not allowed to voice his opinion. Tom Scully and Jim DiEugenio are exceptionally knowledgible on this case and not hearing their voices is a mistake

[Greg Burnham]

While I was the Sgt-at-Arms for Rich DellaRosa'a JFKresearch Assassination Forum from 1998 to 2010 we had our share of heated debates. And from those

debates much was gained in terms of the dissemination of information, the "think tank" style of discovering new significance to old information, and much

more. There were approximately 13 persons banned from the forum in the same number of years.

The litmus test that was applied to justify deleting a member's post or banning a member (in the event that the behavior leading to the deletion of posts persisted)

was simple. The question we asked ourselves was: "Does this member's behavior consistently DISRUPT research more than it contributes to research?"

This question was asked without passion and without prejudice. Based on THAT litmus test, only one person per year, on average, earned the boot. Certainly

individual researchers will become passionate about their views and occasionally will break the rules. It is human nature. However, banning those with whom

we disagree BECAUSE we disagree with them is censorship. Banning those who interfere with research through their persistent disruptive behavior is not

censorship. It is self-preservation.

Edited June 12, 2013 by Greg Burnham

[Paul Brancato]

Very well put Greg.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

So yeah, Ray, you and Albarelli have been subjected to some real tough things alright. Really feel for your pain.

None of that of course helps explain the silencing of Jim,

Greetings Daniel:

I feel your pain also, and you seem to be in more pain than I am.

I believe in free inquiry, but not in personal insults. Jim D has had a HABIT of insulting me

and questioning my bona fides ever since he joined the forum, but I am a big boy

and never once complained to moderators,

although I was often sorely tempted.

While I was contemplating how to respond to Jim D's latest insult,

(the one you quoted) John Simkin made his historic

"Future of the Forum" announcement, banishing Jim D. & Tom Scully.

I do not see this as an impediment to free inquiry.

Anyone who wants to read Jim D's latest musings

and see who he is insulting these days

can do so at leisure over on the Deep Politics Forum,

which is only a mouse-click away. I assume that Tom Scully

is free to post there also.

I think it was the great enforcer Clemenza who said:

"It's good to shed a little blood now and then.

It clears the air."

Edited June 15, 2013 by J. Raymond Carroll

[J. Raymond Carroll]

A regime does not need moderators only servility.

Greetings Gary:

Being blunt I would say that if moderators like yourself had given John Simkin help

by suitably chastising Jim D. for his many and blatant violations at the times they happened

then John Simkin might never have had to take more drastic action.

I did try to complain about Tom Scully

and he sent me this

MODERATOR'S WARNING

Sent 29 March 2012 - 12:51 AM

You've been informed multiple times it is in violation of forum rules to be uncooperative towards, or to publicly protest or criticize moderators or their actions. Any post in which you display my name or protest or criticize moderators or their actions will be made invisible. In your case, there is zero tolerance for breaking these rules because you've established a pattern of intending to do it in every post!

I did not complain about Scully directly to John Simkin, thinking that moderators who might be actively monitoring the thread in question would suitably chastise the Bully Scully. But the other moderators seemingly yawned as Scully the Bully abused his power.

Pardon me if I shed no tears for Tom Scully.

[Douglas Caddy]

John Simkin is a man of strong convictions, a character trait for which he is justly admired. For him now to reverse his decisions regarding Jim D. and Tom S. would show indecisiveness, something for which he is not known.

If Jim D. and Tom S. were allowed back in, they would take the decision to do so as an open invitation to carry on as before only this time their abusive actions would increase exponentially because they would have good reason to believe that if they were kicked off again they would later be invited back. It would become a never ending drama/trauma for forum members.

[Greg Burnham]

I suggest that members refrain from attacking those who have been banned from the forum, since the latter are unable to defend themselves.

If you are happy or relieved that those persons have been banned for what is, in your opinion, "good cause" -- that should be good enough.

[David Von Pein]

Deleted duplicate trying to deal with posting when the damned thing won't take quote boxes.

You must have used the "quote" feature more than five times in a post.

This forum software is very annoying at times, in that it won't accept more than 5 "quote blocks" in a single post (which isn't neaerly enough for many longer responses that forum members have). And it won't accept more than 5 photos in a single post either, which can also be an aggravating limitation on occasion.

Edited June 15, 2013 by David Von Pein