Thomas Graves, What sort of posts & threads would you prefer to read?

[Guest Tom Scully]

Even if this had not appeared in the thread I found it in, and in reply to what was posted, I would have found it particularly disappointing to read:

Tommy, please justify your criticism / ridicule. What approach would you take if you were to do and share JFK Assassination research that would be more productive than my approach? Should the details I and others who employ the research techniques I employ, not be found and shared? Are they mostly unimportant? How do you know?

As an example, my latest is posted in the Cord Meyer thread. I was searching for relationships of Joseph F. Dryer and family and Thomas J. Devine and family, all of Rochester, NY. Instead a reference to Louise Hooker and Devine's maternal grandfather, Charles W. Dodge caught my eye.

Then, pursuing the obvious, I researched whether Charles W. Dodge has married a close relative of Edward Gordon Hooker; whether Demohrenschildt's step nephew and oil exploration partner was related to Devine's grandmother, and thus, to Devine.

George L. Ohrstrom, Jr., and Family, Father was Prescott Bush ...

educationforum.ipbhost.com › ... › JFK Assassination Debate

Apr 8, 2012 – Miss Alexandra Mills Is Bride of TJ Devine ... Mrs. Thomas J. Devine and of the late Prof. and Mrs. Charles W. Dodge,

Instead, I found that Devine's maternal grandmother, Louise Hooker Dodge, was the first cousin of Elon Huntington Hooker, father-in-law of John D. Rockefeller, III, who married Hooker's daughter, Blanchette Ferry Hooker, in 1932.

David Milton's son-in-law, George O'Neill, was employed at Train, Cabot. Thomas J. Devine was employed at Train, Cabot.

Abby Rockefeller Mauzé - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abby_Rockefeller_Mauzé

She had two daughters with her first husband, David Milton: Abby Rockefeller Milton, married George Dorr O'Neill; Marilyn Rockefeller Milton, married William .....

Robert G. Stone, Jr. married Percy Stillman Rockefeller's daughter, Marion. Thomas J. Devine was a director at Stone's Stonetex oil exploration company. Robert G. Stone, Jr. was the Harvard Fund officer linked to the manipulative bailout of Harken Energy. Harken's Alan Quasha had bought George W Bush's worthless oil exploration company, resulting in Bush having the funds to buy one percent of the Texas Ranger's baseball team, positioning Bush as a viable contender for Texas governor.

Marion Rockefeller's brother, Percy Avery, became a Bell, Dallas helicopter test pilot in the late 1950's at the time David Mitlon headed the Equity Corp., majority owner of Bell Aircraft and appointed George O'Neill to the Bell board of directors and Walter Dornberger as Bell V.P.

If you're communicating to me that you think the details in the above example are trivial or unimportant, please post why, and how you know this.

I see them as building blocks. How would I notice Devine's grandfather, if I had not taken note of, and remembered this:

If you've got a better way of investigating, please advise. From what I observe, no more is known about what your "tanned jacketed man" is holding an allegedly passing off to another individual today, than was known when the animated gif you posted was initially posted. We all pick our best shots. How are yours developing, well enough to justify subjecting what I bring to the table, to baiting ridicule?

[Len Colby]

Isn't the creation of threads 'calling out' members officially frowned upon? Isn't it especially intimidating for a member to be targeted in such a way by an administrator? Aren't Tom's questions especially unfair because someone, presumably Tom himself, deleted the thread in question? Wasn't Tom, or who ever deleted/invisiblized the thread supposed to said why they did so in the 'Moderator's Actions' thread? Does anyone really care about his lengthy 'nth degrees of separation' posts?

Have I asked enough rhetorical questions in this post?

[Mark Knight]

One of the problems with this forum these days is that there are more threads in which one party is "calling out" another, and fewer threads in which the actual JFK assassination is being discussed. In the case of SOME of the parties involved, I suspect that this is by design, in an effort to run off the serious researchers. I won't mention names, but it does seem that most of the threads that have turned into micturition contests seem to have all the same players involved. I find it interesting that when one cannot intelligently question the information a party provides, these people then turn to attacking the credentials of the persons who provided the offending information...despite the fact that it is the INFORMATION, and not necessarily the credentials of the person who provides it, that is ultimately important to discovering truth.

This is my perception of what's truly going on here. Does anyone else see what I see?

Edited November 11, 2012 by Mark Knight

[Guest Tom Scully]

Mark, agendas aside, a cardinal rule is that the "baby" must always be thrown out with the bathwater.

It appears to be a community wide affliction.

Shoot the messenger, dispense with, minimize the details in the message, rinse, repeat.

This forum is part of "the community". Aversion to new details is considered an enthusiastically accepted trait. Sophomoric posting and culling out the perceived weak

hand for steady doses of abuse until the anticipated reaction is achieved are a couple of other SOP's in this forum.

I do not see where it is written that other members must sit still and tolerate it. "Thank you, sir! I'll have another," is not going to suffice, and neither is announcing that you

want your forum membership deleted.

[Mark Knight]

I made no such "announcement," Mr. Scully. I fully intend to continue my membership here, and I would hope that the quality of the discussion improves markedly...and soon.

Not sure where you got the idea that I was asking to have my membership deleted. If that is NOT what you were saying, perhaps you should express yourself more clearly.

[Guest Tom Scully]

Mark, lately there has been a spate of protest resignations from forum membership. I think this is still the best place I know of to share and to learn from the efforts of others.

I was not linking you to or suggesting anything related to resigning from forum membership, to you.

I replied to you because you asked if anyone else sees what you see. Reduced to one sentence, I think it is better to confront other members than to pick up your ball and go home, or to take the sting of the slap, again and again, or ignore the tendency to attack the messenger instead of debating the merits of the message.

I cannot share the post with you that Tommy replied to. Another moderator made the post invisible. It was inappropriate for Tommy to take the opportunity to pile on, by replying to that particular post. The goal of some is to press other members until they request deletion of their membership or allow their buttons to be pressed to the point that they post their way into suspension or moderation. The instigators move on to a new target.

[Bernie Laverick]

Mark, lately there has been a spate of protest resignations from forum membership. I think this is still the best place I know of to share and to learn from the efforts of others.

I was not linking you to or suggesting anything related to resigning from forum membership, to you.

I replied to you because you asked if anyone else sees what you see. Reduced to one sentence, I think it is better to confront other members than to pick up your ball and go home, or to take the sting of the slap, again and again, or ignore the tendency to attack the messenger instead of debating the merits of the message.

I cannot share the post with you that Tommy replied to. Another moderator made the post invisible. It was inappropriate for Tommy to take the opportunity to pile on, by replying to that particular post. The goal of some is to press other members until they request deletion of their membership or allow their buttons to be pressed to the point that they post their way into suspension or moderation. The instigators move on to a new target.

lately there has been a spate of protest resignations from forum membership

Why is that then Tom? Could it be the appalling moderation? Could it be that moderators like you come down heavy handed on the most minor infringements yet allow the 'spoilers' (a collection of oddballs, freaks and misfits) a free reign to insult, divert and clog up the bandwidth with aggressive behaviour? Don't whinge about members leaving this forum whern the truth is that YOU can't moderate it effectively!

I won't name them all, we know who they are, they come on here, dominate every thread, insult the regular forum members, threaten legal action and/or other retribution, make creepy checks on other members' personal details (particularly when that person has wiped the floor with the puerile BS that passes for debate on here), and no one does a thing to stop it.

Just recently I saw a thread by a newish member Michael (apologies can't remember the last name) who provided an essay on his take on the assassination. It was quite a good read, didn't agree with everything, but there were a couple of fresh angles and it was a reasonable attempt. I must admit though, I felt ashamed to see the avalanche of bile and hatred directed towards him. Sadly that wasn't just confined to the usual culprits. He had no protection from the moderators whatsoever... yet the Rago-Carlier-Cinque character recieves it constantly. Why is he so special? That's why there has been a 'spate of protest resignations' Tom.

So for the third time of asking now. Will you please delete my membership from this forum and remove all my posts as soon as is conveniently possible.

Thank you,

Bernie

[Thomas Graves]

[...]

Why is that then Tom? Could it be the appalling moderation?

[...]

Thank you,

Bernie

Bernie,

Actually, Bernie, I think that most of the moderators here do a very good job.

--Tommy

[Ian Kingsbury]

Tom

One of the problems is keeping up to speed with what is known

And what has been thrown out with the bath water .

I myself split my time between the current board and the historical posts

Only to sometimes find what was Good in 2009 has been disregarded

In 2011.

However the first names I looked for was yours and Robert's(Howard)

As these could be followed using the original documents.

I personally do not have a clue where to find most of it and am glad when somebody does

I think Thomas might be looking for easy answers or for a more collective method of research

Easy in a classroom but with so many different individuals interested in completely

Differing aspects of the case , this would be difficult to achieve.

Over at Duncan's site there is only Duncan to moderate and the behaviour there is at times appalling

( including me) which is why they are all still focused on the magic Dealey show.

I for one think you are doing a great and thankless task.

So Thank you Tom Scully.

Ian

[Len Colby]

One of the problems with this forum these days is that there are more threads in which one party is "calling out" another, and fewer threads in which the actual JFK assassination is being discussed. In the case of SOME of the parties involved, I suspect that this is by design, in an effort to run off the serious researchers. I won't mention names, but it does seem that most of the threads that have turned into micturition contests seem to have all the same players involved. I find it interesting that when one cannot intelligently question the information a party provides, these people then turn to attacking the credentials of the persons who provided the offending information...despite the fact that it is the INFORMATION, and not necessarily the credentials of the person who provides it, that is ultimately important to discovering truth.

This is my perception of what's truly going on here. Does anyone else see what I see?

Mark,

You were pretty obviously referring to me and the questions I’ve put to Schweitzer here. Once again you ignore that:

I addressed several questions to him* about his silly synopsis and he dodged the first, ignored most but replied truculently to the last which was the one about his retirement and then overtime gave mutually contradictory answers.

HE repeatedly pointed to his legal career to bolster his credibility.

* http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18521&st=75

AND

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18521&st=120#entry253886

[Mark Knight]

And once again, you prove my point, Mr. Colby. This forum ONCE was about the JFK assassination. Now it seems it's about who can "one-up" the previous poster...and no longer about the evidence or theories related to the JFK assassination. Now the JFK assassination is the LAST topic to be discussed here. Seems the bickering and backbiting and one-upsmanship has taken center stage, and refuses to yield.

And so I don't come off as being a hypocrite, I'll refrain from commenting further on this disturbing trend once I finish my comments in this post.

Edited November 14, 2012 by Mark Knight

[Don Jeffries]

I agree completely with Mark Knight. How many threads that go on for more than a page here do not involve some sort of accusations, questioning of someone's credentials, etc.? And this forum is still a lot less contentious than most on the internet. Too many in the research community are more concerned with personality than substance, imho.

Each day, I appreciate a bit more Gary Shaw's decision to walk away from this subject.

[Guest Tom Scully]

(quote name='Bernie Laverick' timestamp='1352722700' post='262642']

[...]

Why is that then Tom? Could it be the appalling moderation?

[...]

Thank you,

Bernie

(/quote]

Bernie,

Actually, Bernie, I think that most of the moderators here do a very good job.

--Tommy

There is an old saying, "Lead, follow, or.....get out of the way!"

One of us does not respect or support what this forum is supposed to be about, or the "work" still actually being presented here, and I do not think it is me. I actually still

hold out for the hope of collaboration; I guess that is a pipe dream.

(quote name='Tom Scully' timestamp='1352808397' post='262663']

Paul, the biggest turn off is your attitude. You post with an air of authority not often matched by your command of the material. You have everything figured out. You know what is relevant and what isn't. It would save me a lot of time and effort if I could capture the simplicity of your approach to this work.

I am slow..... dull.....still attempting to figure out where Lucille Bass Connell found the time and summoned the interest.Confusing myself with irrelevant details instead of using a central (conclusion?) basis on which to hang everything that seems to support it.

I come back to the dilemma of you projecting more certainty than researchers with much more information. I am sharing some of what I have found to

support my sense of frustration and befuddlement in reaction to your delivery.

Mary Ferrell points out that it was C. Lee Connell who was a pallbearer at the 1964 funeral of the founder of Dallas Catholic Relief.

This all smacks of a private witness protection program, complete with a name change to his mother's maiden name. When? Why? Was bigamy also involved? Protestant, Catholic, or Jew, Lucille was certainly an equal opportunity right winger...... How did a northeast appliance business owner of

the Jewish faith end his life with an obituary naming the children of C. Lee Connell of Dallas as the children of the deceased? I do not know much but it

seems to be a good idea to attempt to run down the background details....

<snip>

(/quote]

Tom, if you have something to say, why don't you come right out and say it?

My command of the material is not the issue -- nor is my attitude. Nor do I have "everything figured out."

But I do call 'em like I see 'em -- whenever I see irrelevant information -- like birth certificates and death certificates of the children of people who talked to the FBI about Sylvia Odio -- I will call it irrelevant unless somebody can use clear sentences to explain the relevance.

Quantity of information may be important, but quality of information is more important.

Lucille Bass Connell had time on her hands -- what is the problem with that? Don't you know any right-wing housewives with time on their hands? Such people are a cliche in the South.

Is it really relevant that Lucille Bass Connell's husband was a pall bearer at the 1964 funeral of the founder of Dallas Catholic Relief? Clearly -- Lucille Bass was an active volunteer for that Charity, and clearly she wanted to be a matron for her city -- so she volunteered her husband. It happens every day. But if you think there is something suspicious about it, please explain why.

You say that "this all smacks of a private witness protection program," but you don't provide your reasoning. Why not?

Is it really so astounding that a northeast appliance business owner of the Jewish faith ended his life with an obituary naming the children of C. Lee Connell of Dallas as his children? Surely you have heard of divorce, re-marriage and adoption. Surely you're heard about people bickering about renaming their children after a divorce.

You suggested that it is important to "attempt to run down the background details," so, have you done that? If so, do you have some actual connection to share? If so, why not just spell it out?

As for my opinions, I try to stay close to the topic of Leonardo, Angel, Sylvia Odio, Lee Harvey Oswald and the personnel in question inside the thread upon which I comment.

I am surprised to have to respond to insults about being a "turn off" simply because I have an opinion and I express it. If you disagree, Tom, feel free to explain your reasoning. But posting insults along with tons of material that are largely irrelevant to the specific focus of the thread at hand seems to me to be counter-productive.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul,

--Tommy

Building blocks, shared as found, in real time, as found, in the faint hope of c-o-l-l-a-b-o-r-a-t-i-o-n.:

http://www.findagrav....4791486&df=all

Michael Lee Connell M.D. Jun. 24, 1935 Aug. 31, 1990

Hunting Creek Baptist Church Cemetery

Big Island

Bedford County

Virginia, USA

Pawling NY Patterson News Chronicale 1981 - Fultonhistory.com

fultonhistory.com/.../Pawling%20NY%20Patterson%20News%20Chr...

Harlem Valley Psychiatric degree* ... NY. Uaiversiry hi the sufl at at arti la ex tsnotacoreai af hit ar af. A life tka .... i March 14, 1981 ... Dr. Michael L Connell has

Dr. Michael Lee Connell The Pawling News-Chronicle, Pawling, N.Y., Thursday, March 19, 1981

Proceedings of the Annual Conference - Page 5

books.google.com/books?id=mzUYAAAAIAAJ

United States. Mental Health Career Development Program - 1963 -

Dr. Michael L. Connell, USPHS Hospital, New Orleans, La. Dr. Harold T. Conrad, USPHS Hospital, New Orleans, La.

The President's report - Page 34

books.google.com/books?id=KdBKAAAAYAAJ

University of Virginia - 1972 - Snippet view - More editions

Robert M. Carey, M.D., Assistant Professor of Internal Medicine; (Vanderbilt University) Janice M. Carlisle, Acting Assistant Professor ... Des Moines) Michael L. Connell, M.D., Clinical Assistant Professor of Psychiatry; (Veterans Administration Hospital, New Orleans)

The following is a post from:

Of 'Lone Nut Assassin's' Lawyer's and Psychiatrist's

Started by Robert Howard, Dec 10 2006 08:58 PM

Next Installment: Silvia Odio and Dr Louis Shlipak

An FBI document dated September 14, 1964 under the heading Lee Harvey Oswald reads in part

"Odio is alleged to have told Mrs. C.L. Connell on November. 28, 1963 that Oswald had spoken previously to small Cuban exile-groups in Dallas and had been well received . Odio is also alleged by Mrs. Connell to have mentioned that a friend of Odio's had called a Cuban friend in New Orleans who warned the Cubans in Dallas to beware of Oswald as they considered him a possible double-agent trying to infiltrate the Cuban exile-groups."

I realize that this may or may not be old news but the phrasing of the document gives hints that the Cuban friend in New Orleans may have been Carlos Bringuer, then there is the controversy over discrepancies in 'the accounts given of events' between Silvia Odio and Lucille Connell aka Mrs Mary Lucille Bass Connell aka Lucille Connell Light, [these variations are not aliases just indicative of full name and the latter her name circa 1978.] There is more than one possibility obviously concerning said discrepancies over statement made to the FBI regarding these two personages, [thank God it does not take a woman to know, [inside joke] Mrs Connell could have been.........spinning at best or lying at worse and furthermore Silvia Odio as the following reveals was suffering from....god knows what.....

Continuing......another document dated September 10th, 1964 an FBI report by SA Richard Burnett reads:

First line redacted [a name, probably a hospital administrator ]............Professional Center Hospital, 1735 West Irving Boulevard,

advised that her files indicate that SILVIA EUGENIA ODIO, 1816-A West Davis, Dallas, Texas was a patient

at this hospital on one occasion and that was from the time of her admission at 4:00 PM on November 22, 1963 until her discharge from the hospital around 3:15 November 24, 1963

The patient was described as a single female, 26 years of age, born May 4, 1937, and an employee of National Chemsearch, Carl Road, Irving, Texas. She listed as her friend one SHEILA MACOURICK, 4222 North Crest, Dallas, Texas.

The hospital records note that Miss Odio was treated by Dr. LOUIS SHLIPAK, whose final medical diagnosis of Miss Odio's condition was

"Psychophysiologic Vasomotor Reaction."

Dr. SHLIPAK prepared a history and physical report on November 22, 1963, pertaining to Miss ODIO's health and it reads as follows:

"This 25 year old white female was admitted on 11-22-63 after fainting at work. The patient is apparently two months' pregnant, and has been having a threatened abortion. She has been bleeding for approximately four or five days, and at the present time. Approximately three nights ago she had very heavy bleeding, but this has lessened since that time."

The patient was in an automobile accident approximately one month ago in which her abdomen was slightly injured. She had bleeding for approximately two day's following this. The patient has been under considerable emotional strain and has been under the care of a psychiatrist."

"Soon after hearing of President Kennedy's death, the patient fainted at work. She was seen at work, and then taken to the hospital via ambulance."

"This is apparently the patient's fourth pregnancy."

"The patient has been having rather frequent, though intermittent headaches."

Miss GORE [likely this is the name redacted at beginning of the document] added her files do not indicate that Miss ODIO has ever been a patient at this hospital prior to or subsequent to this one occasion from November 22, 1963 through November 24, 1963

END

Well, interesting....Sheila Macourek [see the name discrepancy?] is of particular interest to me, maryferrell.org has the following regarding her:

SHEILA ----- MACOUREK

CD 1546, pp. 196, 198 Worked in same office with Sylvia Odio at National Chemsearch. By 9/10/64, Macourek was married and living in Portugal...Portugal...how far is say Lisbon, Portugal to Madrid, Spain? That would be 311 miles or 501 kilometers, as the crow flies, as it were. Why does that matter? There are a few JFK assassination 'person's of interest' who matriculated over to Madrid, which had and has it's own particular set of intriguing Post Cold War activity [ranging from CIA, Reinhard Gehlen/Otto Skorzeny/US Army CIC/Franco/Willoughby/KGB ...oh never mind..it's just a thought..

Also National Chemsearch get's into an area of oil/geologist's.....Socony Mobil does it not?

JAMES H. DYER

CD 1546, pp. 196-197 International co-ordinator for National Chemsearch Corp., Carl Rd., Irving. Sylvia Odio was his secretary from Sept 16, 1963, until Feb 10, 1964, when she quit...

In closing I would mention that obviously there are voluminous articles. book excerpts et cetera regarding this subject. I pretty much try not to endorse a particular author, on any JFK related subject because then I can be open to accusations of being...well...take your pick, but I am forced to suggest that Jim DiEugenio in my opinion would be my guide in sifting through what could be the most convoluted episode of al the JFK Assassination related subplots, because...well I think his work on the subject is impartial and pretty much speaks for itself...As to the identities of Leopoldo & Angel, as Will Smith say's [Oh Hell, no!!]

Edited November 14, 2012 by Tom Scully

[Mike Rago]

Building blocks, shared as found, in real time, as found, in the faint hope of c-o-l-l-a-b-o-r-a-t-i-o-n.:

Everyone knows that you are not interested in collaboration so cut the crapola. As another Michael has observed, you are usually one of the ones who is likely to call "fire" in a crowded theater or to kick a man when he is down.

http://educationforu...330#entry262341

This thread, that you created and put Thomas's name on is but another example of your abuse of power. Thomas is not on moderation, just like I am not on moderation. But Scully has his own special set of rules. No other moderator does what you do.

This thread should not even exist. You created it for your own purpose. It has nothing to do with the JFK assassination.

Edited November 14, 2012 by Mike Rago

[Len Colby]

And once again, you prove my point, Mr. Colby. This forum ONCE was about the JFK assassination. Now it seems it's about who can "one-up" the previous poster...and no longer about the evidence or theories related to the JFK assassination. Now the JFK assassination is the LAST topic to be discussed here. Seems the bickering and backbiting and one-upsmanship has taken center stage, and refuses to yield.

And so I don't come off as being a hypocrite, I'll refrain from commenting further on this disturbing trend once I finish my comments in this post.

Mark

I proved you point? Really? If you don’t want to see pissing matches don’t start them. As to Schweitzer and his silly theories as pointed out I addressed several of them, he decided to only respond to the part about his retirement/license.

PS - Don

If that’s really how you feel you should take it up with Tom who insists on continuing his urination contest with Tommy going so far to (without provocation) accuse him of being someone who does “not respect or support what this forum is supposed to be about, or the "work" still actually being presented here”. And he also seems to instigating another such exchange with Paul.

PS - Mike

Who is the other Michael?