John Simkin

Wikipedia, Spartacus and the JFK Assassination

158 posts in this topic

In terms of history, the accepted implications are that (i) facts should be established as much as possible from reliable sources, and (ii), where interpretations of facts are disputed, Wikipedia should attempt to follow its uniform procedures for reporting on controversies and contentious issues. These include several areas, such as source criticism and the assessment of the prominence of various points of view and perspectives. There is doctrine on what Wikipedia considers 'original research', in other words synthesis of ideas.

If we look at the case of editing of the Gerald Ford entry, we can see that the above statement is not true. As I pointed out, in 1997 the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) released a document that revealed that Ford had altered the first draft of the report to read: "A bullet had entered the base of the back of his neck slightly to the right of the spine." Ford had elevated the location of the wound from its true location in the back to the neck to support the single bullet theory.

Ford admitted this was the case in an interview with Mike Feinsilber, of the Associated Press on Gerald Ford and the Warren Report (2nd July, 1997).

The passage was not removed because of its factual basis, but because it portrayed Ford as participating in a cover-up of the evidence during his time on the Warren Commission.

Mr. Simkin, could you please explain what you mean by "Ford admitted this was the case"? He "admitted" revising a sentence, but he didn't say he'd "elevated" the wound or that he made the change to support the SBT. What evidence is there that he made the revision for that reason, may I ask?

Jean Davison

This is the original article:

Mike Feinsilber, Gerald Ford and the Warren Report (2nd July, 1997)

Thirty-three years ago, Gerald R. Ford took pen in hand and changed - ever so slightly - the Warren Commission's key sentence on the place where a bullet entered John F. Kennedy's body when he was killed in Dallas.

The effect of Ford's change was to strengthen the commission's conclusion that a single bullet passed through Kennedy and severely wounded Texas Gov. John Connally - a crucial element in its finding that Lee Harvey Oswald was the sole gunman.

A small change, said Ford on Wednesday when it came to light, one intended to clarify meaning, not alter history.

''My changes had nothing to do with a conspiracy theory,'' he said in a telephone interview from Beaver Creek, Colo. ''My changes were only an attempt to be more precise.''

But still, his editing was seized upon by members of the conspiracy community, which rejects the commission's conclusion that Oswald acted alone.

''This is the most significant lie in the whole Warren Commission report,'' said Robert D. Morningstar, a computer systems specialist in New York City who said he has studied the assassination since it occurred and written an Internet book about it.

The effect of Ford's editing, Morningstar said, was to suggest that a bullet struck Kennedy in the neck, ''raising the wound two or three inches. Without that alteration, they could never have hoodwinked the public as to the true number of assassins.''

If the bullet had hit Kennedy in the back, it could not have struck Connolly in the way the commission said it did, he said.

The Warren Commission concluded in 1964 that a single bullet - fired by a ''discontented'' Oswald - passed through Kennedy's body and wounded his fellow motorcade passenger, Connally, and that a second, fatal bullet, fired from the same place, tore through Kennedy's head.

The assassination of the president occurred Nov. 22, 1963, in Dallas; Oswald was arrested that day but was shot and killed two days later as he was being transferred from the city jail to the county jail.

Conspiracy theorists reject the idea that a single bullet could have hit both Kennedy and Connally and done such damage. Thus they argue that a second gunman must have been involved.

Ford's changes tend to support the single-bullet theory by making a specific point that the bullet entered Kennedy's body ''at the back of his neck'' rather than in his uppermost back, as the commission staff originally wrote.

Ford's handwritten notes were contained in 40,000 pages of records kept by J. Lee Rankin, chief counsel of the Warren Commission.

They were made public Wednesday by the Assassination Record Review Board, an agency created by Congress to amass all relevant evidence in the case. The documents will be available to the public in the National Archives.

The staff of the commission had written: ''A bullet had entered his back at a point slightly above the shoulder and to the right of the spine.''

Ford suggested changing that to read: ''A bullet had entered the back of his neck at a point slightly to the right of the spine.''

The final report said: ''A bullet had entered the base of the back of his neck slightly to the right of the spine.''

Ford, then House Republican leader and later elevated to the presidency with the 1974 resignation of Richard Nixon, is the sole surviving member of the seven-member commission chaired by Chief Justice Earl Warren.

In his book, 'The JFK Assassination Debates' (2006) Michael L. Kurtz explained the importance of what Ford did.

Virtually every serious Kennedy assassination researcher believes that the Warren Commission's single bullet theory is essential to its conclusion that only one man fired shots at President Kennedy and Governor Connally. The awkwardness of the Mannlicher-Carcano's bolt action mechanism, which forced FBI experts to fire two shots in a minimum of 2.25 seconds, even without aiming, coupled with the average time of 18.3 film frames per second as measured on Abraham Zapruder's camera, constitute a timing constraint that compels the conclusion either that Kennedy and Connally were struck by the same bullet, or that two separate gunmen fired two separate shots at the two men. Although a handful of researchers contend that the first shot struck Kennedy at frame Z162 or Z189, thereby allowing sufficient time for Oswald to fire a separate shot with the Carcano and strike Connally at frame Z237, the vast majority of assassination scholars maintain one of two scenarios. First, both Kennedy and Connally were struck by the same bullet at frame Z223 or Z224, evidenced by the quick flip of the lapel on Connally's suit jacket as the bullet passed through his chest. Second, the first bullet struck Kennedy somewhere between frames Z210 and Z224, and the second bullet struck Connally between frames Z236 and Z238, evidenced by the visual signs on the film of Connally reacting to being struck.

The evidence clearly establishes, however, that Kennedy and Connally were struck by separate bullets. The location of the bullet wound in Kennedy's back has given rise to considerable controversy. Originally, the Warren Commission staff draft of the relevant section of the Warren Report stated that "a bullet had entered his back at a point slightly above the shoulder and to the right of the spine." The problem lay in the course of the bullet through Kennedy's body. If a bullet fired from the sixth-floor window of the Depository building nearly sixty feet higher than the limousine entered the president's back, with the president sitting in an upright position, it could hardly have exited from his throat at a point just above the Adam's apple, then abruptly change course and drive downward into Governor Connally's back. Therefore, Warren Commissioner Gerald Ford deliberately changed the draft to read: "A bullet had entered the base of the back of his neck slightly to the right of the spine." Suppressed for more than three decades, Ford's deliberate distortion was released to the public only through the actions of the ARRB. When this alteration first surfaced in 1997, Ford explained that he made the change for the sake of "clarity." In reality, Ford had elevated the location of the wound from its true location in the back to the neck to ensure that the single bullet theory would remain inviolate. The actual evidence demonstrates the accuracy of the initial draft. Bullet holes in Kennedy's shirt and suit jacket, situated almost six inches below the top of the collar, place the wound squarely in the back. Because JFK sat upright at the time, and because photographs and films show that neither the shirt nor the suit jacket rode up over his collar, the location of the bullet holes in the garments prove that the shot struck him in the back. Kennedy's death certificate places the wound at the level of the third thoracic vertebra. Autopsy photographs of the back place the wound in the back two to three inches below the base of the neck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Charles Matthews and the other four panel members representing Wikipedia voted for to ban editor RPJ from the publication because: [Editor] RPJ regularly cites information from unreliable sites dedicated to a propagandistic point of view, one is spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk, . . . .”

Matthews and the other four panel members of Wikipedia need to retract that finding of fact because it is not true.

The members support their contention that Spartacus is unreliable and propagandistic offering the following citations to Spartacus that they contend support their allegation. These citations clearly do not support the contention of the five panel members asserting the charges.

1- First, is a citation to Spartacus relating to a telephone conversation between FBI Director, J. Edgar Hoover and President Lyndon Johnson . The conversation took place a week after President Kennedy was murdered. Hoover told Johnson that a bullet that matches the alleged murder weapon came from Kennedy’s body and not Governor Connally’s body. This evidence contradicts the famous magic bullet theory that the Warren Commission used to explain how one bullet could have caused so much damage to the two victims and ended up inside of Connally. Hoover said it came from Kennedy not Connally. This was the same information Hoover gave Johnson the day after the murder. Again, the conversation was preserved on tape and anyone can go and listen to it, just as anyone can listen to this information being repeated a week later and preserved on tape.

Some editors at Wikipedia were devastated by this information since it refutes the Warren Commission’s theory which a small group editors at Wikipedia tightly embrace. These other editors wouldn’t allow the information be placed in the article even though it is the basic policy of Wikipedia that all significant viewpoints be included in an article and let the reader choose which viewpoint is more persuasive.

Despite this policy of including conflicting evidence and viewpoints on issues, the editors who insisted on deleting the information agued the following points on what the editors personally believed happened, which is impermissible under Wikipedia policy:

• One editor speculates that Hoover was “blowing smoke.”

• Another said that the material from Spartacus concerning Hoover’s information was “factual, but irrelevant’ because the editor came to the belief that “there is no showing that Hoover did the same kind of research the Commission did to come to his conclusion.” No supporting evidence was offered for this belief, and if there was such evidence it should have also been placed in the article.

• Another comment was “Hoover's viewpoint that the bullet came out of Kennedy is equal in significance and popularity to the viewpoint that Sun revolves around the Earth.” No proof was offered to support this claim on the alleged popularity of the viewpoint.

• Then an editor speculated that Hoover’s statement that the bullet came from Kennedy’s body “was probably a mistaken assumption made early in an investigation, as is known to happen frequently, and should not be given undue weight by having it as a counterbalance to the WC finding.” Not only is this editor speculating on the matter but even assumes the role as an expert authority on what “frequently” happens in murder investigations.

• Since none of the above reasons form any basis for censoring the information from the article, the five member panel from Wikipedia, which includes Mr. Matthews, decided the information should be censored and the editor who added the information should be banned because the information came from Spartacus which is allegedly “unreliable,” and that the editor was “aggressive” by including it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_F._...J._Edgar_Hoover

The five member panel, including Mr. Matthews, must retract the finding of fact made against Spartacus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In terms of history, the accepted implications are that (i) facts should be established as much as possible from reliable sources, and (ii), where interpretations of facts are disputed, Wikipedia should attempt to follow its uniform procedures for reporting on controversies and contentious issues. These include several areas, such as source criticism and the assessment of the prominence of various points of view and perspectives. There is doctrine on what Wikipedia considers 'original research', in other words synthesis of ideas.

If we look at the case of editing of the Gerald Ford entry, we can see that the above statement is not true. As I pointed out, in 1997 the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) released a document that revealed that Ford had altered the first draft of the report to read: "A bullet had entered the base of the back of his neck slightly to the right of the spine." Ford had elevated the location of the wound from its true location in the back to the neck to support the single bullet theory.

Ford admitted this was the case in an interview with Mike Feinsilber, of the Associated Press on Gerald Ford and the Warren Report (2nd July, 1997).

The passage was not removed because of its factual basis, but because it portrayed Ford as participating in a cover-up of the evidence during his time on the Warren Commission.

Mr. Simkin, could you please explain what you mean by "Ford admitted this was the case"? He "admitted" revising a sentence, but he didn't say he'd "elevated" the wound or that he made the change to support the SBT. What evidence is there that he made the revision for that reason, may I ask?

Jean Davison

This is the original article:

Mike Feinsilber, Gerald Ford and the Warren Report (2nd July, 1997)

Thirty-three years ago, Gerald R. Ford took pen in hand and changed - ever so slightly - the Warren Commission's key sentence on the place where a bullet entered John F. Kennedy's body when he was killed in Dallas.

The effect of Ford's change was to strengthen the commission's conclusion that a single bullet passed through Kennedy and severely wounded Texas Gov. John Connally - a crucial element in its finding that Lee Harvey Oswald was the sole gunman.

A small change, said Ford on Wednesday when it came to light, one intended to clarify meaning, not alter history.

''My changes had nothing to do with a conspiracy theory,'' he said in a telephone interview from Beaver Creek, Colo. ''My changes were only an attempt to be more precise.''

But still, his editing was seized upon by members of the conspiracy community, which rejects the commission's conclusion that Oswald acted alone.

''This is the most significant lie in the whole Warren Commission report,'' said Robert D. Morningstar, a computer systems specialist in New York City who said he has studied the assassination since it occurred and written an Internet book about it.

The effect of Ford's editing, Morningstar said, was to suggest that a bullet struck Kennedy in the neck, ''raising the wound two or three inches. Without that alteration, they could never have hoodwinked the public as to the true number of assassins.''

If the bullet had hit Kennedy in the back, it could not have struck Connolly in the way the commission said it did, he said.

The Warren Commission concluded in 1964 that a single bullet - fired by a ''discontented'' Oswald - passed through Kennedy's body and wounded his fellow motorcade passenger, Connally, and that a second, fatal bullet, fired from the same place, tore through Kennedy's head.

The assassination of the president occurred Nov. 22, 1963, in Dallas; Oswald was arrested that day but was shot and killed two days later as he was being transferred from the city jail to the county jail.

Conspiracy theorists reject the idea that a single bullet could have hit both Kennedy and Connally and done such damage. Thus they argue that a second gunman must have been involved.

Ford's changes tend to support the single-bullet theory by making a specific point that the bullet entered Kennedy's body ''at the back of his neck'' rather than in his uppermost back, as the commission staff originally wrote.

Ford's handwritten notes were contained in 40,000 pages of records kept by J. Lee Rankin, chief counsel of the Warren Commission.

They were made public Wednesday by the Assassination Record Review Board, an agency created by Congress to amass all relevant evidence in the case. The documents will be available to the public in the National Archives.

The staff of the commission had written: ''A bullet had entered his back at a point slightly above the shoulder and to the right of the spine.''

Ford suggested changing that to read: ''A bullet had entered the back of his neck at a point slightly to the right of the spine.''

The final report said: ''A bullet had entered the base of the back of his neck slightly to the right of the spine.''

Ford, then House Republican leader and later elevated to the presidency with the 1974 resignation of Richard Nixon, is the sole surviving member of the seven-member commission chaired by Chief Justice Earl Warren.

In his book, 'The JFK Assassination Debates' (2006) Michael L. Kurtz explained the importance of what Ford did.

Virtually every serious Kennedy assassination researcher believes that the Warren Commission's single bullet theory is essential to its conclusion that only one man fired shots at President Kennedy and Governor Connally. The awkwardness of the Mannlicher-Carcano's bolt action mechanism, which forced FBI experts to fire two shots in a minimum of 2.25 seconds, even without aiming, coupled with the average time of 18.3 film frames per second as measured on Abraham Zapruder's camera, constitute a timing constraint that compels the conclusion either that Kennedy and Connally were struck by the same bullet, or that two separate gunmen fired two separate shots at the two men. Although a handful of researchers contend that the first shot struck Kennedy at frame Z162 or Z189, thereby allowing sufficient time for Oswald to fire a separate shot with the Carcano and strike Connally at frame Z237, the vast majority of assassination scholars maintain one of two scenarios. First, both Kennedy and Connally were struck by the same bullet at frame Z223 or Z224, evidenced by the quick flip of the lapel on Connally's suit jacket as the bullet passed through his chest. Second, the first bullet struck Kennedy somewhere between frames Z210 and Z224, and the second bullet struck Connally between frames Z236 and Z238, evidenced by the visual signs on the film of Connally reacting to being struck.

The evidence clearly establishes, however, that Kennedy and Connally were struck by separate bullets. The location of the bullet wound in Kennedy's back has given rise to considerable controversy. Originally, the Warren Commission staff draft of the relevant section of the Warren Report stated that "a bullet had entered his back at a point slightly above the shoulder and to the right of the spine." The problem lay in the course of the bullet through Kennedy's body. If a bullet fired from the sixth-floor window of the Depository building nearly sixty feet higher than the limousine entered the president's back, with the president sitting in an upright position, it could hardly have exited from his throat at a point just above the Adam's apple, then abruptly change course and drive downward into Governor Connally's back. Therefore, Warren Commissioner Gerald Ford deliberately changed the draft to read: "A bullet had entered the base of the back of his neck slightly to the right of the spine." Suppressed for more than three decades, Ford's deliberate distortion was released to the public only through the actions of the ARRB. When this alteration first surfaced in 1997, Ford explained that he made the change for the sake of "clarity." In reality, Ford had elevated the location of the wound from its true location in the back to the neck to ensure that the single bullet theory would remain inviolate. The actual evidence demonstrates the accuracy of the initial draft. Bullet holes in Kennedy's shirt and suit jacket, situated almost six inches below the top of the collar, place the wound squarely in the back. Because JFK sat upright at the time, and because photographs and films show that neither the shirt nor the suit jacket rode up over his collar, the location of the bullet holes in the garments prove that the shot struck him in the back. Kennedy's death certificate places the wound at the level of the third thoracic vertebra. Autopsy photographs of the back place the wound in the back two to three inches below the base of the neck.

------------------------

Thanks for your response.

Yes, I have read the original article and the excerpt from Kurtz' book. My point is that neither one offers any evidence whatsoever to support the claim that Ford made his revision to support the SBT. Both Morningstar and Kurtz claim that the entry wound *had* to be raised to the "back of the neck" in order to make the Warren Commission's single bullet theory work. But the assertion isn't supported, it's simply a claim.

Furthermore, the claim is false, since there was no need to raise the wound into the nape of the neck. Here's the official WC illustration of the SBT, Commission Exhibit 903:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol18_0055b.htm

Whether one agrees with it or not, that *is* the WC's trajectory for the single bullet, and as you can see, it doesn't require an entry in "the back of the neck."

I respectfully ask that you take another look at this issue. My question is still, what evidence is there that Ford made his revision in order to support the SBT?

Jean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In terms of history, the accepted implications are that (i) facts should be established as much as possible from reliable sources, and (ii), where interpretations of facts are disputed, Wikipedia should attempt to follow its uniform procedures for reporting on controversies and contentious issues. These include several areas, such as source criticism and the assessment of the prominence of various points of view and perspectives. There is doctrine on what Wikipedia considers 'original research', in other words synthesis of ideas.

If we look at the case of editing of the Gerald Ford entry, we can see that the above statement is not true. As I pointed out, in 1997 the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) released a document that revealed that Ford had altered the first draft of the report to read: "A bullet had entered the base of the back of his neck slightly to the right of the spine." Ford had elevated the location of the wound from its true location in the back to the neck to support the single bullet theory.

Ford admitted this was the case in an interview with Mike Feinsilber, of the Associated Press on Gerald Ford and the Warren Report (2nd July, 1997).

The passage was not removed because of its factual basis, but because it portrayed Ford as participating in a cover-up of the evidence during his time on the Warren Commission.

Mr. Simkin, could you please explain what you mean by "Ford admitted this was the case"? He "admitted" revising a sentence, but he didn't say he'd "elevated" the wound or that he made the change to support the SBT. What evidence is there that he made the revision for that reason, may I ask?

Jean Davison

This is the original article:

Mike Feinsilber, Gerald Ford and the Warren Report (2nd July, 1997)

Thirty-three years ago, Gerald R. Ford took pen in hand and changed - ever so slightly - the Warren Commission's key sentence on the place where a bullet entered John F. Kennedy's body when he was killed in Dallas.

The effect of Ford's change was to strengthen the commission's conclusion that a single bullet passed through Kennedy and severely wounded Texas Gov. John Connally - a crucial element in its finding that Lee Harvey Oswald was the sole gunman.

A small change, said Ford on Wednesday when it came to light, one intended to clarify meaning, not alter history.

''My changes had nothing to do with a conspiracy theory,'' he said in a telephone interview from Beaver Creek, Colo. ''My changes were only an attempt to be more precise.''

But still, his editing was seized upon by members of the conspiracy community, which rejects the commission's conclusion that Oswald acted alone.

''This is the most significant lie in the whole Warren Commission report,'' said Robert D. Morningstar, a computer systems specialist in New York City who said he has studied the assassination since it occurred and written an Internet book about it.

The effect of Ford's editing, Morningstar said, was to suggest that a bullet struck Kennedy in the neck, ''raising the wound two or three inches. Without that alteration, they could never have hoodwinked the public as to the true number of assassins.''

If the bullet had hit Kennedy in the back, it could not have struck Connolly in the way the commission said it did, he said.

The Warren Commission concluded in 1964 that a single bullet - fired by a ''discontented'' Oswald - passed through Kennedy's body and wounded his fellow motorcade passenger, Connally, and that a second, fatal bullet, fired from the same place, tore through Kennedy's head.

The assassination of the president occurred Nov. 22, 1963, in Dallas; Oswald was arrested that day but was shot and killed two days later as he was being transferred from the city jail to the county jail.

Conspiracy theorists reject the idea that a single bullet could have hit both Kennedy and Connally and done such damage. Thus they argue that a second gunman must have been involved.

Ford's changes tend to support the single-bullet theory by making a specific point that the bullet entered Kennedy's body ''at the back of his neck'' rather than in his uppermost back, as the commission staff originally wrote.

Ford's handwritten notes were contained in 40,000 pages of records kept by J. Lee Rankin, chief counsel of the Warren Commission.

They were made public Wednesday by the Assassination Record Review Board, an agency created by Congress to amass all relevant evidence in the case. The documents will be available to the public in the National Archives.

The staff of the commission had written: ''A bullet had entered his back at a point slightly above the shoulder and to the right of the spine.''

Ford suggested changing that to read: ''A bullet had entered the back of his neck at a point slightly to the right of the spine.''

The final report said: ''A bullet had entered the base of the back of his neck slightly to the right of the spine.''

Ford, then House Republican leader and later elevated to the presidency with the 1974 resignation of Richard Nixon, is the sole surviving member of the seven-member commission chaired by Chief Justice Earl Warren.

In his book, 'The JFK Assassination Debates' (2006) Michael L. Kurtz explained the importance of what Ford did.

Virtually every serious Kennedy assassination researcher believes that the Warren Commission's single bullet theory is essential to its conclusion that only one man fired shots at President Kennedy and Governor Connally. The awkwardness of the Mannlicher-Carcano's bolt action mechanism, which forced FBI experts to fire two shots in a minimum of 2.25 seconds, even without aiming, coupled with the average time of 18.3 film frames per second as measured on Abraham Zapruder's camera, constitute a timing constraint that compels the conclusion either that Kennedy and Connally were struck by the same bullet, or that two separate gunmen fired two separate shots at the two men. Although a handful of researchers contend that the first shot struck Kennedy at frame Z162 or Z189, thereby allowing sufficient time for Oswald to fire a separate shot with the Carcano and strike Connally at frame Z237, the vast majority of assassination scholars maintain one of two scenarios. First, both Kennedy and Connally were struck by the same bullet at frame Z223 or Z224, evidenced by the quick flip of the lapel on Connally's suit jacket as the bullet passed through his chest. Second, the first bullet struck Kennedy somewhere between frames Z210 and Z224, and the second bullet struck Connally between frames Z236 and Z238, evidenced by the visual signs on the film of Connally reacting to being struck.

The evidence clearly establishes, however, that Kennedy and Connally were struck by separate bullets. The location of the bullet wound in Kennedy's back has given rise to considerable controversy. Originally, the Warren Commission staff draft of the relevant section of the Warren Report stated that "a bullet had entered his back at a point slightly above the shoulder and to the right of the spine." The problem lay in the course of the bullet through Kennedy's body. If a bullet fired from the sixth-floor window of the Depository building nearly sixty feet higher than the limousine entered the president's back, with the president sitting in an upright position, it could hardly have exited from his throat at a point just above the Adam's apple, then abruptly change course and drive downward into Governor Connally's back. Therefore, Warren Commissioner Gerald Ford deliberately changed the draft to read: "A bullet had entered the base of the back of his neck slightly to the right of the spine." Suppressed for more than three decades, Ford's deliberate distortion was released to the public only through the actions of the ARRB. When this alteration first surfaced in 1997, Ford explained that he made the change for the sake of "clarity." In reality, Ford had elevated the location of the wound from its true location in the back to the neck to ensure that the single bullet theory would remain inviolate. The actual evidence demonstrates the accuracy of the initial draft. Bullet holes in Kennedy's shirt and suit jacket, situated almost six inches below the top of the collar, place the wound squarely in the back. Because JFK sat upright at the time, and because photographs and films show that neither the shirt nor the suit jacket rode up over his collar, the location of the bullet holes in the garments prove that the shot struck him in the back. Kennedy's death certificate places the wound at the level of the third thoracic vertebra. Autopsy photographs of the back place the wound in the back two to three inches below the base of the neck.

------------------------

Thanks for your response.

Yes, I have read the original article and the excerpt from Kurtz' book. My point is that neither one offers any evidence whatsoever to support the claim that Ford made his revision to support the SBT. Both Morningstar and Kurtz claim that the entry wound *had* to be raised to the "back of the neck" in order to make the Warren Commission's single bullet theory work. But the assertion isn't supported, it's simply a claim.

Furthermore, the claim is false, since there was no need to raise the wound into the nape of the neck. Here's the official WC illustration of the SBT, Commission Exhibit 903:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol18_0055b.htm

Whether one agrees with it or not, that *is* the WC's trajectory for the single bullet, and as you can see, it doesn't require an entry in "the back of the neck."

I respectfully ask that you take another look at this issue. My question is still, what evidence is there that Ford made his revision in order to support the SBT?

Jean

Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? Especially now that the evil man is dead.

What a man is thinking leaves no evidence, but by his deeds you know him.

Jack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for your response.

Yes, I have read the original article and the excerpt from Kurtz' book. My point is that neither one offers any evidence whatsoever to support the claim that Ford made his revision to support the SBT. Both Morningstar and Kurtz claim that the entry wound *had* to be raised to the "back of the neck" in order to make the Warren Commission's single bullet theory work. But the assertion isn't supported, it's simply a claim.

Furthermore, the claim is false, since there was no need to raise the wound into the nape of the neck. Here's the official WC illustration of the SBT, Commission Exhibit 903:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol18_0055b.htm

Whether one agrees with it or not, that *is* the WC's trajectory for the single bullet, and as you can see, it doesn't require an entry in "the back of the neck."

I respectfully ask that you take another look at this issue. My question is still, what evidence is there that Ford made his revision in order to support the SBT?

Jean

What a remarkable response. If one clicks on the URL provided by Ms. Davison, one finds a photo of a chap standing by a limo, holding a rod above the shoulder of the simulated JFK, indicating the bullet missed JFK entirely. I don't know whose tongue is planted more firmly in cheek: the WC for thinking this would pass as evidence for anything, or Ms. Davison for citing it as though it demonstrates her point here.

As Ms. Davison well knows, the wording employed by both the first draft of the WC report and the subsequent alterations provided by the late Gerald Ford are both incongruent with the known evidence. Hence, the reliance upon either the first draft or Ford's "clarification" will lead to a fraudulent result.

Ms. Davison does not argue that Ford didn't make the cited changes in the report's language. Nor could she, for Ford admitted to having done so when first confronted about it in 1997. His caveat was simple: ''My changes had nothing to do with a conspiracy theory. My changes were only an attempt to be more precise.''

Yet precision would require correctly reporting what the evidence demonstrated, and none of the known evidence indicates that Kennedy was struck either "above the shoulder" or at "the base of the neck." Those still in doubt, after all these years, need only view the items appended below to realize that either contention cited above was a blatant lie, the latter only slightly moreso than the former.

What seems to have provoked Ms. Davison's ire is the contention that Ford's editing was undertaken to achieve the very thing it helped to accomplish: to wit, to place the entry wound - contrary to all the evidence - in a position where it could tenably exit via JFK's throat. Ms. Davison is welcome to split that hair from here to eternity, but it will not alter the untenability of Ford's handiwork in any event.

In the meantime, those less interested in parsing the nonessential can see for themselves that without fraudulently moving the back wound upward, the "single bullet theory" would have been laughed out of the report by the very same people who - via this sleazy sleight of hand - could become its most vehement proponents, with none more vehement than the late Gerald Ford.

Edited by Robert Charles-Dunne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Charles Matthews and the other four panel members representing Wikipedia voted for to ban editor RPJ from the publication because: [Editor] RPJ regularly cites information from unreliable sites dedicated to a propagandistic point of view, one is spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk, . . . .”

Matthews and the other four panel members of Wikipedia need to retract that finding of fact because it is not true.

The members support their contention that Spartacus is unreliable and propagandistic offering the following citations to Spartacus that they contend support their allegation. These citations clearly do not support the contention of the five panel members asserting the charges.

1- First, is a citation to Spartacus relating to a telephone conversation between FBI Director, J. Edgar Hoover and President Lyndon Johnson . The conversation took place a week after President Kennedy was murdered. Hoover told Johnson that a bullet that matches the alleged murder weapon came from Kennedy’s body and not Governor Connally’s body. This evidence contradicts the famous magic bullet theory that the Warren Commission used to explain how one bullet could have caused so much damage to the two victims and ended up inside of Connally. Hoover said it came from Kennedy not Connally. This was the same information Hoover gave Johnson the day after the murder. Again, the conversation was preserved on tape and anyone can go and listen to it, just as anyone can listen to this information being repeated a week later and preserved on tape.

Some editors at Wikipedia were devastated by this information since it refutes the Warren Commission’s theory which a small group editors at Wikipedia tightly embrace. These other editors wouldn’t allow the information be placed in the article even though it is the basic policy of Wikipedia that all significant viewpoints be included in an article and let the reader choose which viewpoint is more persuasive.

Despite this policy of including conflicting evidence and viewpoints on issues, the editors who insisted on deleting the information agued the following points on what the editors personally believed happened, which is impermissible under Wikipedia policy:

• One editor speculates that Hoover was “blowing smoke.”

• Another said that the material from Spartacus concerning Hoover’s information was “factual, but irrelevant’ because the editor came to the belief that “there is no showing that Hoover did the same kind of research the Commission did to come to his conclusion.” No supporting evidence was offered for this belief, and if there was such evidence it should have also been placed in the article.

• Another comment was “Hoover's viewpoint that the bullet came out of Kennedy is equal in significance and popularity to the viewpoint that Sun revolves around the Earth.” No proof was offered to support this claim on the alleged popularity of the viewpoint.

• Then an editor speculated that Hoover’s statement that the bullet came from Kennedy’s body “was probably a mistaken assumption made early in an investigation, as is known to happen frequently, and should not be given undue weight by having it as a counterbalance to the WC finding.” Not only is this editor speculating on the matter but even assumes the role as an expert authority on what “frequently” happens in murder investigations.

• Since none of the above reasons form any basis for censoring the information from the article, the five member panel from Wikipedia, which includes Mr. Matthews, decided the information should be censored and the editor who added the information should be banned because the information came from Spartacus which is allegedly “unreliable,” and that the editor was “aggressive” by including it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_F._...J._Edgar_Hoover

The five member panel, including Mr. Matthews, must retract the finding of fact made against Spartacus.

********************************************************

"Some editors at Wikipedia were devastated by this information since it refutes the Warren Commission’s theory which a small group editors at Wikipedia tightly embrace. These other editors wouldn’t allow the information be placed in the article even though it is the basic policy of Wikipedia that all significant viewpoints be included in an article and let the reader choose which viewpoint is more persuasive."

Devastated? Where are these people living? In Disneyland?

"Despite this policy of including conflicting evidence and viewpoints on issues, the editors who insisted on deleting the information a[r]gued [sic] the following points on what the editors personally believed happened, which is impermissible under Wikipedia policy:

• One editor speculates that Hoover was “blowing smoke.”

• Another said that the material from Spartacus concerning Hoover’s information was “factual, but irrelevant" because the editor came to the belief that “there is no showing that Hoover did the same kind of research the Commission did to come to his conclusion.” No supporting evidence was offered for this belief, and if there was such evidence it should have also been placed in the article.

"factual, but irrelevant" because Hoover hadn't done the same kind of research the Commission did to come to his conclusion? And, nobody stopped to think, for one instant of a second that the "Commission" might be the one "blowing smoke?" Tell me something. Had any of your supposed "experts" viewed the crude sketches rendered in the New York Times newspaper in June 1964 that depicted the single-bullet trajectory, and asked themselves, or their father, as I did, "Hey Dad, how can this bullet go down like this and up again at this angle, like they're drawing it, here?" I was 19 years old! I knew I was being lied to, by some people I was supposed to be trusting with my life.

• Another comment was “Hoover's viewpoint that the bullet came out of Kennedy is equal in significance and popularity to the viewpoint that Sun revolves around the Earth.” No proof was offered to support this claim on the alleged popularity of the viewpoint.

The comment wouldn't have been made had we not the documentation to back it up.

• Then an editor speculated that Hoover’s statement that the bullet came from Kennedy’s body “was probably a mistaken assumption made early in an investigation, as is known to happen frequently, and should not be given undue weight by having it as a counterbalance to the WC finding.” Not only is this editor speculating on the matter but even assumes the role as an expert authority on what “frequently” happens in murder investigations.

Please feel free to cite your forensic experts' opinions. From what I've gathered, there appears to be a distinct lack of bonafide "experts" working the stalls of Wikipedia.

• Since none of the above reasons form any basis for censoring the information from the article, the five member panel from Wikipedia, which includes Mr. Matthews, decided the information should be censored and the editor who added the information should be banned because the information came from Spartacus which is allegedly “unreliable,” and that the editor was “aggressive” by including it.

Unreliable, according to whom? Those timid yahoos Wikipedia's trying to pass off as "knowledgeable?"

Your five member panel appear to be as five ostriches with their heads in the sand. I'm sorry if their senses seemed to have been assaulted by the unpleasant REALITIES of life, as depicted by the folks at Spartacus, et.al.

I suppose Spartacus might need to pepper their dialogue with more euphemistically acceptable descriptions in which to clothe their facts, lest they prove unpalatable to the five experts running the show at Wikipedia. NOT!

___________________________________________

I'm sorry, John. You may delete this if you think I'm out of line, here. But, this narrow-minded, myopic form of mindset really ticked me off.

Theresa C. Mauro

Culver City, CA USA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, I have read the original article and the excerpt from Kurtz' book. My point is that neither one offers any evidence whatsoever to support the claim that Ford made his revision to support the SBT. Both Morningstar and Kurtz claim that the entry wound *had* to be raised to the "back of the neck" in order to make the Warren Commission's single bullet theory work. But the assertion isn't supported, it's simply a claim.

Furthermore, the claim is false, since there was no need to raise the wound into the nape of the neck. Here's the official WC illustration of the SBT, Commission Exhibit 903:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol18_0055b.htm

Whether one agrees with it or not, that *is* the WC's trajectory for the single bullet, and as you can see, it doesn't require an entry in "the back of the neck."

I respectfully ask that you take another look at this issue. My question is still, what evidence is there that Ford made his revision in order to support the SBT?

Jean

See above the Robert Charles-Dunne explanation of why Ford’s actions are so important to the “magic bullet” theory.

It is the rule of the forum that members post a biography and use a photograph as an avatar. Could you please add yours (or post it to me and I will do it for you).

I assume you are the author of Oswald's Game (1983)? A book loved by people like John McAdams and David R. Von Pein. This is what Pein says about Oswald’s Game in his Amazon review.

Anything I've ever seen written by Jean Davison merits high marks on the "Common Sense" scale when it comes to evaluating the various aspects of the John F. Kennedy assassination and Lee Harvey Oswald's obvious involvement in that 1963 crime.

Davison is an expert on Presidential assassin Lee H. Oswald, and over the many years since her 1983 book "Oswald's Game" was published, she has defended her "Lone Assassin" position (at a variety of public JFK forums) with grace, dignity, and (above all) a wealth of facts to support the idea that Oswald was anything BUT an innocent "Patsy" on 11/22/63 (as many, many conspiracy promoters believe).

I've spoken to lots of "CTers" over the years who seem to merely be taking the accused double-murderer (Oswald) at his word when he said "I'm just a patsy" to the Live TV cameras shortly after his arrest. That's curious logic, in my opinion....to blindly accept, at face value, those four words being uttered by the guy who's in handcuffs. Surely Lee Oswald had no reason to tell any falsehoods, right? ~smirk~

It is oh so obvious to anyone who has even casually examined the evidence in the JFK case that Lee Harvey Oswald started lying to the police almost immediately after his arrest, and he never stopped lying when it came to anything that had to do with the JFK and J.D. Tippit murders he was officially charged with.

Offhand, I cannot think of a single hunk of "truth" he uttered (either to the police or to the television cameras in the hallways) during his 46-hour detention when it came to pertinent info about the murders themselves. Every single thing Oswald said was a lie in this regard....everything.....

"I didn't shoot anybody; no sir!" -- Provable Lie.

"Those pictures are fakes; my head; somebody else's body." -- Provable Lie.*

"I never owned a rifle." -- Provable Lie.*

"I didn't bring any bulky package to work on 11/22." -- Provable Lie.*

* = Paraphrased, not verbatim, quotes...due to the idiotic fact that the DPD/FBI/USSS decided to not record a word Oswald said. Was that stupid? Sure it was. Was it conspiratorial? In a CTer's eyes...of course it was. In reality? There's not a shred of proof to show that the DPD had conspiratorial motives by not recording Oswald's comments.

And probably Lee Harvey's biggest lie of them all:

"They've taken me in because of the fact I lived in the Soviet Union; I'm just a patsy!"

That last Oswald quote is actually a double lie -- both the first part of the quote and the infamous "Patsy" portion too.

And Oswald's "Patsy" remark actually takes on a whole new meaning when we judge the WHOLE comment Oswald made there, including the obvious lie about being taken in (by the Dallas Police) only due to the fact he had once defected to Russia....because his "Patsy" whitewash comes right on the heels of a PROVABLE LIE re. the "Soviet Union". One lie, therefore, is almost certainly feeding the next.

Also: Oswald didn't say anything about some outside entity (e.g., Clay Shaw, Jim Garrison, David Ferrie, Guy Bannister, the Boogie Man, et al) setting him up as the patsy during his famous "I'm Just A Patsy" statement. He, in essence, since the remark tailgates the lie re. the "Soviet Union", is pointing the finger of "Patsy blame" at the Dallas Police, and not at anyone else who might have "set him up" beforehand. And, in my view, that's an important distinction to remember when assessing the famous and wildly-misinterpreted "Patsy" remark made by Oswald.

Why on Earth so many conspiracy fans want to treat the words of the accused double-murderer as Gospel is a mystery indeed. It's similar to blindly accepting the protestations of Charles Manson or O.J. Simpson, when they insisted "I'm innocent".

Every single scrap of physical evidence in both the John F. Kennedy murder case and the case involving the killing of Dallas Patrolman J.D. Tippit points toward Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone killer of both men in November of '63. Always has; and always will.

Thank you, Jean Davison, for your excellent book "Oswald's Game"....and for the "high road" that you have taken since writing it when dealing with critics of your work re. Oswald. I've yet to read an article or a newsgroup posting by Jean that didn't brim over with common sense and reasoned thinking with respect to the JFK assassination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, I have read the original article and the excerpt from Kurtz' book. My point is that neither one offers any evidence whatsoever to support the claim that Ford made his revision to support the SBT. Both Morningstar and Kurtz claim that the entry wound *had* to be raised to the "back of the neck" in order to make the Warren Commission's single bullet theory work. But the assertion isn't supported, it's simply a claim.

Furthermore, the claim is false, since there was no need to raise the wound into the nape of the neck. Here's the official WC illustration of the SBT, Commission Exhibit 903:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol18_0055b.htm

Whether one agrees with it or not, that *is* the WC's trajectory for the single bullet, and as you can see, it doesn't require an entry in "the back of the neck."

I respectfully ask that you take another look at this issue. My question is still, what evidence is there that Ford made his revision in order to support the SBT?

Jean

See above the Robert Charles-Dunne explanation of why Ford’s actions are so important to the “magic bullet” theory.

It is the rule of the forum that members post a biography and use a photograph as an avatar. Could you please add yours (or post it to me and I will do it for you).

I assume you are the author of Oswald's Game (1983)? A book loved by people like John McAdams and David R. Von Pein. This is what Pein says about Oswald’s Game in his Amazon review.

Anything I've ever seen written by Jean Davison merits high marks on the "Common Sense" scale when it comes to evaluating the various aspects of the John F. Kennedy assassination and Lee Harvey Oswald's obvious involvement in that 1963 crime.

Davison is an expert on Presidential assassin Lee H. Oswald, and over the many years since her 1983 book "Oswald's Game" was published, she has defended her "Lone Assassin" position (at a variety of public JFK forums) with grace, dignity, and (above all) a wealth of facts to support the idea that Oswald was anything BUT an innocent "Patsy" on 11/22/63 (as many, many conspiracy promoters believe).

I've spoken to lots of "CTers" over the years who seem to merely be taking the accused double-murderer (Oswald) at his word when he said "I'm just a patsy" to the Live TV cameras shortly after his arrest. That's curious logic, in my opinion....to blindly accept, at face value, those four words being uttered by the guy who's in handcuffs. Surely Lee Oswald had no reason to tell any falsehoods, right? ~smirk~

It is oh so obvious to anyone who has even casually examined the evidence in the JFK case that Lee Harvey Oswald started lying to the police almost immediately after his arrest, and he never stopped lying when it came to anything that had to do with the JFK and J.D. Tippit murders he was officially charged with.

Offhand, I cannot think of a single hunk of "truth" he uttered (either to the police or to the television cameras in the hallways) during his 46-hour detention when it came to pertinent info about the murders themselves. Every single thing Oswald said was a lie in this regard....everything.....

"I didn't shoot anybody; no sir!" -- Provable Lie.

"Those pictures are fakes; my head; somebody else's body." -- Provable Lie.*

"I never owned a rifle." -- Provable Lie.*

"I didn't bring any bulky package to work on 11/22." -- Provable Lie.*

* = Paraphrased, not verbatim, quotes...due to the idiotic fact that the DPD/FBI/USSS decided to not record a word Oswald said. Was that stupid? Sure it was. Was it conspiratorial? In a CTer's eyes...of course it was. In reality? There's not a shred of proof to show that the DPD had conspiratorial motives by not recording Oswald's comments.

And probably Lee Harvey's biggest lie of them all:

"They've taken me in because of the fact I lived in the Soviet Union; I'm just a patsy!"

That last Oswald quote is actually a double lie -- both the first part of the quote and the infamous "Patsy" portion too.

And Oswald's "Patsy" remark actually takes on a whole new meaning when we judge the WHOLE comment Oswald made there, including the obvious lie about being taken in (by the Dallas Police) only due to the fact he had once defected to Russia....because his "Patsy" whitewash comes right on the heels of a PROVABLE LIE re. the "Soviet Union". One lie, therefore, is almost certainly feeding the next.

Also: Oswald didn't say anything about some outside entity (e.g., Clay Shaw, Jim Garrison, David Ferrie, Guy Bannister, the Boogie Man, et al) setting him up as the patsy during his famous "I'm Just A Patsy" statement. He, in essence, since the remark tailgates the lie re. the "Soviet Union", is pointing the finger of "Patsy blame" at the Dallas Police, and not at anyone else who might have "set him up" beforehand. And, in my view, that's an important distinction to remember when assessing the famous and wildly-misinterpreted "Patsy" remark made by Oswald.

Why on Earth so many conspiracy fans want to treat the words of the accused double-murderer as Gospel is a mystery indeed. It's similar to blindly accepting the protestations of Charles Manson or O.J. Simpson, when they insisted "I'm innocent".

Every single scrap of physical evidence in both the John F. Kennedy murder case and the case involving the killing of Dallas Patrolman J.D. Tippit points toward Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone killer of both men in November of '63. Always has; and always will.

Thank you, Jean Davison, for your excellent book "Oswald's Game"....and for the "high road" that you have taken since writing it when dealing with critics of your work re. Oswald. I've yet to read an article or a newsgroup posting by Jean that didn't brim over with common sense and reasoned thinking with respect to the JFK assassination.

*******************************************************************

"Anything I've ever seen written by Jean Davison merits high marks on the "Common Sense" scale when it comes to evaluating the various aspects of the John F. Kennedy assassination and Lee Harvey Oswald's obvious involvement in that 1963 crime.

Davison is an expert on Presidential assassin Lee H. Oswald, and over the many years since her 1983 book "Oswald's Game" was published, she has defended her "Lone Assassin" position (at a variety of public JFK forums) with grace, dignity, and (above all) a wealth of facts to support the idea that Oswald was anything BUT an innocent "Patsy" on 11/22/63 (as many, many conspiracy promoters believe).

I've spoken to lots of "CTers" over the years who seem to merely be taking the accused double-murderer (Oswald) at his word when he said "I'm just a patsy" to the Live TV cameras shortly after his arrest. That's curious logic, in my opinion....to blindly accept, at face value, those four words being uttered by the guy who's in handcuffs. Surely Lee Oswald had no reason to tell any falsehoods, right? ~smirk~

It is oh so obvious to anyone who has even casually examined the evidence in the JFK case that Lee Harvey Oswald started lying to the police almost immediately after his arrest, and he never stopped lying when it came to anything that had to do with the JFK and J.D. Tippit murders he was officially charged with.

Offhand, I cannot think of a single hunk of "truth" he uttered (either to the police or to the television cameras in the hallways) during his 46-hour detention when it came to pertinent info about the murders themselves. Every single thing Oswald said was a lie in this regard....everything....."

Von Pain would be the first one leading a lynch mob, after directing a kangaroo court proceeding.

He's totally reminiscent of those red-neck peckerwood Ku Klux Klanners who terrorized the south and got away with it for all those years. Von Pain has the brain of a peahen, and the logic and reasoning skills of an imbecile. He should be waving the Confederate flag for all it's worth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is this all about? I've read several posters here opine that it might be good to have some LNs here to keep the debate lively. Jean Davison comes here and asks a couple of polite questions, and for this she is subjected to attacks. To make matters worse, the attacks reference David von Pein, a notably more aggressive writer who merely admires Davison's book, to give her the "guilt-by-association" treatment. Whassup with that? It is also striking that this all occurs in a thread complaining that all points of view are not fairly represented at another site. Are contrary or controversial points of view not welcome here? Are we unable to answer Davison's polite questions with equal politeness? Frankly, this kind of give-and-take helps us keep our own house in better order.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is this all about? I've read several posters here opine that it might be good to have some LNs here to keep the debate lively. Jean Davison comes here and asks a couple of polite questions, and for this she is subjected to attacks. To make matters worse, the attacks reference David von Pein, a notably more aggressive writer who merely admires Davison's book, to give her the "guilt-by-association" treatment. Whassup with that? It is also striking that this all occurs in a thread complaining that all points of view are not fairly represented at another site. Are contrary or controversial points of view not welcome here? Are we unable to answer Davison's polite questions with equal politeness? Frankly, this kind of give-and-take helps us keep our own house in better order.

Indeed,

DVon Pain is wrong about everything else he says about Oswald, but Jean's writing on the assassination does have reasoned thinking, sound logic and common sense, and she should be a welcome addition to the discussion.

I started a thread on her book Oswald's Game under History Books to broaden such a discussion, if she bothers to stick around.

I would also like to address DVP's points in another thread as well.

You would think that if DVP and JD used common sense they would recognize that if all the evidence points so distinctly at one person as the culpret, that it may be planted as a set up?

As for Ford, I would like to know what Jean Davison thinks Ford had in mind when he changed the wording of the report if it was not to reallign the facts to fit the single-bullet-theory?

BK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is this all about? I've read several posters here opine that it might be good to have some LNs here to keep the debate lively. Jean Davison comes here and asks a couple of polite questions, and for this she is subjected to attacks. To make matters worse, the attacks reference David von Pein, a notably more aggressive writer who merely admires Davison's book, to give her the "guilt-by-association" treatment. Whassup with that? It is also striking that this all occurs in a thread complaining that all points of view are not fairly represented at another site. Are contrary or controversial points of view not welcome here? Are we unable to answer Davison's polite questions with equal politeness? Frankly, this kind of give-and-take helps us keep our own house in better order.

Indeed,

DVon Pain is wrong about everything else he says about Oswald, but Jean's writing on the assassination does have reasoned thinking, sound logic and common sense, and she should be a welcome addition to the discussion.

I started a thread on her book Oswald's Game under History Books to broaden such a discussion, if she bothers to stick around.

I would also like to address DVP's points in another thread as well.

You would think that if DVP and JD used common sense they would recognize that if all the evidence points so distinctly at one person as the culpret, that it may be planted as a set up?

As for Ford, I would like to know what Jean Davison thinks Ford had in mind when he changed the wording of the report if it was not to reallign the facts to fit the single-bullet-theory?

BK

Just after I made the above post, I checked "History Books" and saw your new thread on her book. Bravo. That's the kind of open-mindedness I was talking about. Sure, hold her feet to the fire on what she's written - that's fair game. The attack mode is not. It is just so hypocritcal that it comes in a thread about that very subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is this all about? I've read several posters here opine that it might be good to have some LNs here to keep the debate lively. Jean Davison comes here and asks a couple of polite questions, and for this she is subjected to attacks. To make matters worse, the attacks reference David von Pein, a notably more aggressive writer who merely admires Davison's book, to give her the "guilt-by-association" treatment. Whassup with that? It is also striking that this all occurs in a thread complaining that all points of view are not fairly represented at another site. Are contrary or controversial points of view not welcome here? Are we unable to answer Davison's polite questions with equal politeness? Frankly, this kind of give-and-take helps us keep our own house in better order.

Stephen Roy's gentlemanly solicitude toward Ms. Davison is examplary, but unnecessary.

Ms. Davison authored a book 23 years ago, and in the interim has demonstrated on various JFK fora that she is perfectly capable of holding her own in debates. She needs no protection, and - contrary to Stephen's impression of this thread - hasn't been subjected to any "guilt by association."

In re-reading this thread, I see no incivility or "attacks" toward Ms. Davison; only toward Mr. Von Pein, whose Amazon review highly lauds Ms. Davison's book. If the odium is directed toward Mr. Von Pein, it is less because he admires Ms. Davison's book, and more because there is a relatively fresh residual odour here from his efforts in these parts. Mr. Von Pein's MO is to trumpet the importance of logic and common sense, yet resorts to vituperative insults toward the "idiots" and "fools" who don't agree with his point of view - or worse, have the cheek to dare challlenge his unsupported assumptions. He may have earned whatever comes his way, but this doesn't reflect poorly upon Ms. Davison; only upon Mr. Von Pein, who is something far more disagreeable than merely a "notably more aggressive writer," to use Stephen's highly charitable description.

There is a remarkable tendency among a small group of players to highly praise each other at every turn. Mel Ayton will characterize Max Holland as a brilliant historian, and Holland will return the favour by characterizing Ayton's latest literary effort as brilliant, which is then regurgitated at every opportunity. When there are so few remaining adherents to their particular cause, they must make maximal use of each other's ability to propagdanize on behalf of that shrinking cause. If Ms. Davison's book attracts proponents like Mr. Von Pein, it is unfortunate for her, but it wasn't the result of anything done by a member of this forum.

Had John Simkin wished to denigrate Ms. Davison's book, he wouldn't have cited Mr. Von Pein's capsule review of fulsome praise, but would have employed the only other review for the book at Amazon, penned by forum member Vince Palamara: "More Oswald-did-it alone garbage; avoid."

Those wishing to learn more about the book in question are advised to spend the $5.95 it will cost them at Amazon, and read Ms. Davison's work for themselves.

As to Stephen's larger point pleading for greater civility here, that is always a good idea, no matter how difficult some members here make it to maintain a level of politesse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is this all about? I've read several posters here opine that it might be good to have some LNs here to keep the debate lively. Jean Davison comes here and asks a couple of polite questions, and for this she is subjected to attacks. To make matters worse, the attacks reference David von Pein, a notably more aggressive writer who merely admires Davison's book, to give her the "guilt-by-association" treatment. Whassup with that? It is also striking that this all occurs in a thread complaining that all points of view are not fairly represented at another site. Are contrary or controversial points of view not welcome here? Are we unable to answer Davison's polite questions with equal politeness? Frankly, this kind of give-and-take helps us keep our own house in better order.

Stephen Roy's gentlemanly solicitude toward Ms. Davison is examplary, but unnecessary.

Ms. Davison authored a book 23 years ago, and in the interim has demonstrated on various JFK fora that she is perfectly capable of holding her own in debates. She needs no protection, and - contrary to Stephen's impression of this thread - hasn't been subjected to any "guilt by association."

In re-reading this thread, I see no incivility or "attacks" toward Ms. Davison; only toward Mr. Von Pein, whose Amazon review highly lauds Ms. Davison's book. If the odium is directed toward Mr. Von Pein, it is less because he admires Ms. Davison's book, and more because there is a relatively fresh residual odour here from his efforts in these parts. Mr. Von Pein's MO is to trumpet the importance of logic and common sense, yet resorts to vituperative insults toward the "idiots" and "fools" who don't agree with his point of view - or worse, have the cheek to dare challlenge his unsupported assumptions. He may have earned whatever comes his way, but this doesn't reflect poorly upon Ms. Davison; only upon Mr. Von Pein, who is something far more disagreeable than merely a "notably more aggressive writer," to use Stephen's highly charitable description.

There is a remarkable tendency among a small group of players to highly praise each other at every turn. Mel Ayton will characterize Max Holland as a brilliant historian, and Holland will return the favour by characterizing Ayton's latest literary effort as brilliant, which is then regurgitated at every opportunity. When there are so few remaining adherents to their particular cause, they must make maximal use of each other's ability to propagdanize on behalf of that shrinking cause. If Ms. Davison's book attracts proponents like Mr. Von Pein, it is unfortunate for her, but it wasn't the result of anything done by a member of this forum.

Had John Simkin wished to denigrate Ms. Davison's book, he wouldn't have cited Mr. Von Pein's capsule review of fulsome praise, but would have employed the only other review for the book at Amazon, penned by forum member Vince Palamara: "More Oswald-did-it alone garbage; avoid."

Those wishing to learn more about the book in question are advised to spend the $5.95 it will cost them at Amazon, and read Ms. Davison's work for themselves.

As to Stephen's larger point pleading for greater civility here, that is always a good idea, no matter how difficult some members here make it to maintain a level of politesse.

Perhaps you're right, but all she did was ask a question, and the only response was a note that von Pein liked her book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is this all about? I've read several posters here opine that it might be good to have some LNs here to keep the debate lively. Jean Davison comes here and asks a couple of polite questions, and for this she is subjected to attacks. To make matters worse, the attacks reference David von Pein, a notably more aggressive writer who merely admires Davison's book, to give her the "guilt-by-association" treatment. Whassup with that? It is also striking that this all occurs in a thread complaining that all points of view are not fairly represented at another site. Are contrary or controversial points of view not welcome here? Are we unable to answer Davison's polite questions with equal politeness? Frankly, this kind of give-and-take helps us keep our own house in better order.

******************************************************

Jean Davison's debating techniques can stand alone on their own merits. To have someone of such low caliber as Von Pain [or his name], associated with a review of Davison's work is an insult, and injurious to anything beneficial Ms. Davison may be putting forth on behalf of the LN'ers.

This is soley my attack on Von Pain. Please note, I have not referenced anything against Davison, or her words. I've merely referenced the absurdity of Von Pain's own syntax in bold lettering with regard to his ability to put forth a cohesive review of Davison, let alone anything, or anyone else. I, for one, would not relish the association Von Pein seems to be attempting in his questionably "glowing" review of Davison's work, especially in his feeble, thinly veiled, and contemptuous remarks regarding Oswald's arrest. Von Pein, obviously has no conception of the term "Due Process." Those who lack the basic understanding of the letter of the law, will be relegated to the level of vigilante, or kangaroo court status, which is exactly how Von Pein comes across in his review of Davison's work. If I were her, and trying to make a rational, logical case for my views, I certainly would not appreciate Von Pein's blithering opinion of my work, no matter how salutory he was trying to word it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As something of a fence-sitter on certain aspects of this matter (yeah, I know, I know, beat me up!), I will say this about some of the LN postings that have been appearing of late, here and elsewhere: I have no problem with well-framed and polite LN arguments; as I said, it helps us all put a finer point on our arguments. A few years back, there seemed to be some LN postings that followed these guidelines; but lately, a lot of the LN stuff has taken on an overly-aggressive and deprecating quality. I've just about given up on alt.conspiracy.jfk, and I'm close to giving up on alt.assassination.jfk. I don't think some of these posters realize how ineffective their arguments are when they phrase them in such insulting tones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now