John Simkin Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 No, this is my first forum and while I find it to be extremely interesting, again all the personal infighting is hard to follow.. You need a roadmap. And I am personally not interested in peoples' infighting. Having known members of the research community now since the early 70's I am VERY TIRED of all the infighting I have seen over these long years. I want to see progress on the case and unity in this small world of "critical research". But sadly there are some with a personal agenda, so one has to be most careful. That is one of the main reasons I have not ever gone on forums. With that said, I do believe that there is much valuable work being done on this forum. So I try to just skin thru the garbage. Dawn Meredith made this post on the thread about the JFK Lancer Conference. I believe it is one of the most important postings made on this forum. Hopefully, people will take note of what Dawn is saying. I fear that will not be the case. I am fairly new to the investigation on the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Although I have been interested in the case since it happened, I only began serious research about a year ago. This involved me joining two forums on the subject: JFK Lancer and JFKresearch. It did not take me long to be upset by the terrible in-fighting that took place on these forums. This is in no way a criticism of the two people who run these two forums: Debra Conway and Richard J. DellaRosa. In fact, they make sterling efforts to keep their members from insulting each other. But it is an impossible job when you have certain individuals who appear to be determined to abuse others. I believe forums have tremendous potential for carrying out effective academic research. As I have said elsewhere, forums allows you to link brains together. In this way it allows you to create what has been called “collective intelligence” or “community intelligence”. This is the reason why I established this forum. I thought I could bring together researchers with a wide variety of different information and expertise in order to work together to break this case. In many ways it has been a great success. We now have a fairly large group of researchers who are willing to share their information on the assassination. Although this group do not always agree, they respect each others opinions and never resort to personal abuse. However, we do have a small minority of members who are very quick to make attacks on people they disagree with. As I believe passionately in the idea of free speech I have so far only resorted to censorship on one occasion. Instead I emailed the offenders and told them to treat their opponents with respect. In some cases this has worked. In too many cases it has not. This has resulted in some members becoming disillusioned with this forum. Some have become less active in the debate, fearing that their comments might receive an abusive response. I now feel that we have got to the stage where I have to take action. My primary concern is to retain the membership of the important researchers. If this means I will have to lose the membership of those who appear to be playing a negative role on this forum, so be it. Therefore, if members continue to make abusive comments about other members, I will delete these posts and ban them from the forum. As most of you know, I am organizing an online conference on the JFK assassination during the week 21st November – 27th November. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1891 We have a very impressive collection of contributors. If we all get involved in the debates that take place, we shall produce a tremendous resource for future JFK researchers. As I don’t know of anything similar taking place on the web I think we might be making history. We might also be producing a model for people working in other fields. The contributors, like all academic researchers, have differing views of the topic. I expect all those posting in these threads to act like people do in a university seminar. Hopefully we will get healthy debate. But be warned. I will not tolerate abusive comments aimed at individuals. At all times you must concentrate on the evidence, not on the motivation or personality of the poster. If you do not abide by this rule, you will have your posts deleted and your membership suspended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Root Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 John Thank you for the words of wisdom. I have been researching for nearly a decade now and find that in general discussions with the average pblic many honest people have many different theories about the assassination of John F. Kennedy. In many cases these various theories contridict each other. I have come to the conclusion that not all the theories can be correct while at the same time believing that a majority of the researchers who have developed their theory have gone about their work in a sincere manner. If ever any one answer is to be found, it will only be found by knowledgable people who can set thier egos aside and enter into open discussion without fear of ridicule. Jim Root Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanet Clark Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 John Quick note of support for your position and prerogative. The personal and inane side-tracks I have read on Lancer play right into the hands of reactionary authorities, by marginalizing all those who question authority as "quacks." This JFK Forum, so far, has been well elevated above this, and reaped more consideration, as we (I believe) are taken seriously by open minded readers (who may choose not to join and participate). I have been abused only mildly on this forum, although I have seen some odd behavior here which drastically lowers our reputation if it is allowed to continue. Like you, I try to maintain the tone we take in graduate seminars, open minded, critical of weakly supported cases, but generally collegial and supportive. None of the core group I respect the most here are at any risk of being censored, and I hope you do take steps to limit what can only be irrational, self-defeating and counter-productive participation. Shanet Clark, US Senate/WR Hearst Scholar and Woodruff History Fellow, GSU Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Cox Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 John (in my best grandmotherly voice) I say "nip it in the bud." I like the other forum vets here are sick to death of it anyone who is attacked for making a valid point or the "other prominent fight" surfacing has to be dealt with and quick IMHO. This kind of thing has been poison to research potential. Majority rules on this one. Just my humblest of opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Mauro Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 If ever any one answer is to be found, it will only be found by knowledgable people who can set their egos (my emphasis. TM) aside and enter into open discussion without fear of ridicule. I think Jim Root hit the nail on the head with the above statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denis Morissette Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 Hey Terry. I always thought you were a man! I love your hair! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nancy Eldreth Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 Mr. Simkin thank you. I had so much attack I can't tolerate it. Try to aim for the stars and get taken down in the next seconds. Respect is long over due and it is a shame that so many don't think how the other person feels. Peaceful issues isn't with JFK (but it could be), if only they would give it that thought. So many of my emails ends with the word PEACE. I do think sometimes that it would take a miracle to get the facts straightened out on this issue. So, I do pray for that now to happen. PEACE, Nancy Yes, I have found myself deleting several of my posts because I was afraid of what people would say on this forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted November 13, 2004 Author Share Posted November 13, 2004 Mr. Simkin thank you. I had so much attack I can't tolerate it. Try to aim for the stars and get taken down in the next seconds. Nancy, I will try to protect you. However, one of the reasons you upset people is that you appear to find it difficult to keep "on topic". This morning I had to move your post on Abraham Lincoln from a question on JFK's fears of being assassinated. Please think through your ideas before you post. This will reduce the amount of aggression that is directed towards you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Mauro Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 Hey Terry. I always thought you were a man! I love your hair! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hi Denis, I have a girlfriend who's name is Denise, but spells it like your name, so for a while I thought you were a female, too! LOL LLH My hair is just about to my waist again, so I'm getting ready to have it trimmed back up to below my shoulders. I used to get it tangled in the hand control on my machine at the hospital, even pulled back away from my face. It grows like a weed. If you ever need some to make a rug for yourself in your old age, I'll send you the cuttings. But, maybe you should direct your compliments to me in private e-mail. tmauro@pacbell.net Thanks. Ter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 (edited) John, Points well taken. I hasten to add: when it comes to debate and/or discussion of ANY and I stress ANY, JFK related Dealey Plaza films, or photos -- here or at other forums, seminars, any venue for that matter -- its ALL opinion! Including mine, of which I'm on the published record with. Declarations of 'certainty' frequently made regarding various motion/still images related to JFK's murder are common, complete with no image[ry] provenance, provided. Foolishness! There are few competent [my opinion] photoanalysts here, and damn few that make their opinion known on the internet! Quite frankly, I know of ONE on this forum, that person does not and will not post, just monitor. Over the years many have claimed the phoptoanalyst mantle, very few have delivered *credible bonifides*, if ANY. The loudest have delivered NONE. Quite frankly a few of us think the majority of debates regarding DP imagery, other than the Z-film and the Moorman5 photo is diversion - the only Nov 22nd '63 film of consequence is the Zapruder Film -- all the rest is *sideshow* fodder... A Education Forum regarding the JFK Assassination is wonderful for the uninitiated, lest we all be reminded, murder is a very messy business... Best regard's, David Healy Film/Video Special Effects Compositing Specialist Broadcast Consultant Edited November 13, 2004 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 (edited) Quite frankly a few of us think the majority of debates regarding DP imagery, other than the Z-film and the Moorman5 photo is diversion - the only Nov 22nd '63 film of consequence is the Zapruder Film -- all the rest is *sideshow* fodder...David Healy Film/Video Special Effects Compositing Specialist Broadcast Consultant David - As I recall ... the last time you offered an opinion about the Zapruder film you had said that you have not seen any proof that the Zfilm has been altered. Has that opinion changed lately? I also find it somewhat odd that you mention the other film and photo evidence as a "sideshow". If one goes back into the alteration thread on this forum or looks at the Fetzer book that you like to push so often - it dealt with mostly "sideshow" material as you now call it. While you never offered any data or evidence in the alteration thread on this forum, you certainly participated in it more times than one cares to count. So apparently being a part of what you call a sideshow has not concerned you. I might also add that not once in your section of the 'Hoax' book did you mention that the other related materials in that book was part of any sideshow, yet on this forum that is how you refer to them. I might also add that two other films {the Nix and Muchmore films) captured the point in time that Moorman's #5 photo was taken, so are they not important as well. So please try to take one position or the other because things are starting to sound a bit confusing ... on one hand all the other photo and film evidence is a side show not worthy of consideration IYO, yet you tell people to buy 'Hoax" which is mostly nothing but claims using film captures and photos that you now say is nothing more than a sideshow. That cannot make any sense to someone following what you've said on this site. I will say this ... In the event that you fall back on the side of thinking the Zapruder film is altered and you wish to address the evidence concerning the Zapruder film, please feel free to do so and do so specifically. If one only replies to such issues on a constant basis without offering any evidence in support of their position, then that only makes them a "Sideshow Bob" who is better known as being 'Crusty the Clowns' sidekick! Edited November 13, 2004 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 (edited) As I recall ... the last time you offered an opinon about the Zapruder film you had said that you have not seen any proof that the film has been altered. ----------- Last time? Everytime it comes up, it's my opinion. Never have touched, nor forensically tested any film!Maybe you have something more than opinion? Like, you've actually fornsically tested some of the film? If not, yours is just opinion, too. Don't you agree? Your observant: no legit researcher has seen; touched; and completed forensic testing regarding the alledged camera original Z-film, nor has ANY institution. Let's also include, any of the 'alledged' original optical prints, of which there are 3, one of which is currently housed at the 6th Floor Museum [great Zapruder family tax break, yes? David Lifton did write about this in HOAX - the wild and wooley ways of Capitalism, dont ya just love it?]. Forensic testing of the film, verifying [a very simple process] the authenticity of any of these pieces of film, would move mountains for the non-alteration Z-film camp. But all we get is reguritated Dale Myers 3D version of 2D imagery, nonesense. Of which we'll be blessed with more in a few weeks time, AGAIN! Must be another anniversary... Even Roland Zavada wanted forensic testing, why-o-why didn't Roland get his way? Edited November 13, 2004 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 (edited) Forensic testing of the film, verifying [very simple process] the authenticity of any of these pieces of film, would move mountains for the non-alteration Z-film camp. But all we get is reguritated Dale Myers 3D version of 2D imagery, nonesense. Of which we'll be blessed with more in a few weeks time, AGAIN! Must be another anniversary... When testing was done to the original Dillard negatives - they ended up be damaged. People, like yourself, have complained bitterly how the Zapruder film was allowed to be spliced in two separate places and now without offering any valid observation of something on the film not representing what actually occurred ... you want to risk destroying what's left of the camera original. You must be joking! What's worse is that you don't see why anyone would be hesitant to risk further damage to that film. It's like with a missing person's case - you first have to show that someone is missing. You certainly don't just send the authorities out looking for someone without establishing a basis for the need to do so in the first place. That can be done by comparing the Zapruder film to the existing 'sideshow' images from other films and photos taken during the assassination. Many of us have done this and we cannot find any differences between them all. If you can find one, then let us know ... then I'll be pushing for an investigation, as well. Below is what can happen when a photo or film has been scientifically tested. Edited November 13, 2004 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 (edited) David - As I recall ... the last time you offered an opinion about the Zapruder film you had said that you have not seen any proof that the Zfilm has been altered. Has that opinion changed lately? dgh01: you went ahead an edited your original post -- so hear we go again-- I also find it somewhat odd that you mention the other film and photo evidence as a "sideshow". If one goes back into the alteration thread on this forum or looks at the Fetzer book that you like to push so often - it dealt with mostly "sideshow" material as you now call it. dgh01: push? Never collected a dime... While you never offered any data or evidence in the alteration thread on this forum, you certainly participated in it more times than one cares to count. dgh01: evidence of alteration? Why would I post that? A simple scenario and explanation elludes you: IF the film was altered, here's how it COULD of been altered, that was the thesis for the HOAX chapter, right in the first page -- Have you actually READ the article? tsk-tsk! All other claims as to my pushing the alteration scenario, from your side of the fence are, quite simply BOGUS... So apparently being a part of what you call a sideshow has not concerned you. I might also add that not once in your section of the 'Hoax' book did you mention that the other related materials in that book was part of any sideshow, yet on this forum that is how you refer to them. I might also add that two other films {the Nix and Muchmore films) captured the point in time that Moorman's #5 photo was taken, so are they not important as well. dgh01: nice try, read above... So please try to take one position or the other because things are starting to sound a bit confusing ... on one hand all the other photo and film evidence is a side show not worthy of consideration IYO, yet you tell people to buy 'Hoax" which is mostly nothing but claims using film captures and photos that you now say is nothing more than a sideshow. That cannot make any sense to someone following what you've said on this site. dgh01: tell people to buy HOAX? no young Bill -- READ Hoax! Scientic evidence of chicanry, 2nd class propogandist have tried to debunk it, Dr. Costella's work stands. I will say this ... In the event that you fall back on the side of thinking the Zapruder film is altered and you wish to address the evidence concerning the Zapruder film, please feel free to do so and do so specifically. If one only replies to such issues on a constant basis without offering any evidence in support of their position, then that only makes them a "Sideshow Bob" who is better known as being 'Crusty the Clowns' sidekick! dgh01: and the attacks on Jack White continue, thank you Mr. Peter's! Edited November 13, 2004 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 Forensic testing of the film, verifying [very simple process] the authenticity of any of these pieces of film, would move mountains for the non-alteration Z-film camp. But all we get is reguritated Dale Myers 3D version of 2D imagery, nonesense. Of which we'll be blessed with more in a few weeks time, AGAIN! Must be another anniversary... When testing was done to the original Dillard negatives - they ended up be damaged. People, like yourself, have complained bitterly how the Zapruder film was allowed to be spliced in two separate places and now without offering any valid observation of something on the film not representing what actually occurred ... you want to risk destroying what's left of the camera original. You must be joking! dgh01: If you don't know -OR- understand film forensic testing, might be a good idea, not-to-go-here What's worse is that you don't see why anyone would be hesitant to risk further damage to that film. It's like with a missing person's case - you first have to show that someone is missing. You certainly don't just send the authorities out looking for someone without establishing a basis for the need to do so in the first place. That can be done by comparing the Zapruder film to the existing 'sideshow' images from other films and photos taken during the assassination. Many of us have done this and we cannot find any differences between them all. If you can find one, then let us know ... then I'll be pushing for an investigation, as well. Below is what can happen when a photo or film has been scientifically tested. dgh01: nice try, no banana! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now