Jump to content
The Education Forum

Robert Charles-Dunne

Members
  • Content Count

    754
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

About Robert Charles-Dunne

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

13,781 profile views
  1. Michael: Very astute of you to draw our attention to Tommy’s proclivity for altering his posts, even months after the fact. When he’s been bested by others, he wants to diminish the extent to which it is true. Even if it means altering the context of the original flow of posts. Gaslighting by any other name is still gaslighting. There are many things you can call a man so sneaky, none of them good. Then there is the matter of witless posts suggesting the original conspirators would never have let Oswald appear on film during the Big Event. This presupposes that Tommy knows what the conspirators planned (um...how?), and that their plan would fall to pieces if Oswald were observed anywhere other than the 6th floor. Not so. And it doesn’t take an Einstein to parse it out. The fact that others destroyed evidence, censored, altered, and lied after the fact in service of a lone gunman conclusion doesn’t mean that is what the conspirators intended. In fact, the original charge against Oswald by the Dallas DA stipulated that he killed John Kennedy in furtherance of an international communist conspiracy. I posit the conspirators wished to create precisely that response. So, prima facie evidence of other weapons, other possible shooters, rendezvous with “Comrade Kostin” (aka Kostikov), membership in the FPCC, communications with the various leftist parties (Communist, Socialist, etc.) were deliberately left behind and/or “floated” by the conspirators. So long as Oswald could by tied to the putative murder weapon, given his leftist background, it didn’t really matter who fired it. He was still part of a Commie conspiracy. In fact, it was through Oswald’s purported ownership of the weapon that the Commie conspiracy was demonstrably credible, albeit fictitious. The evidence for this conspiracy wasn’t hidden by the conspirators, but was deep-sixed by the investigators whose own reputations would suffer if a conspiracy could be proved to the nation’s satisfaction. It is by tracing who crafted damning evidence against Oswald BEFORE the Big Event that we can identify those who maneuvered him into place on 11/22/63. Did Tommy really not consider so obvious an hypothesis before creating that thread? Apparently not. Which tells us something about Tommy’s intellectual rigor. As in, there’s little evidence for it. Which makes it all the more puzzling why so many Forum members take the bait and keep engaging this barnacle in discussions he will only warp through subsequent editing anyway. I just find it odd that a number of Forum barnacles all preach various hypothesis as though they were fact, and what they all share in common is diverting interest and discussion away from prime suspects in the CIA, and direct it instead toward General Walker, or pro-Castro Cubans, or Lyndon Johnson, or the KGB. The fact that CIA pays people like Max Holland for precisely such diversionary codswallop doesn’t mean the Forum barnacles are likewise subsidized. But, paid or not, they are, like Max Holland, doing the Agency’s bidding. Accessories After The Fact. Ye shall know them by their fruits.
  2. If I was unclear, I apologize. My password was invalidated, but not by the moderators. When one logs in, one is advised that it is not a secure connection. My suspicion is that somebody decided to make it hard for me to log on. Simply asked for a new password, and it's all a-ok. Until the next time somebody invalidates my password. At that point, it will be clear that the cause is not a mere tech quirk, but deliberate targeting. We'll see.
  3. Robert, With all due respect, "write a book?" With all due respect, Tommy, maybe stop posting garbage? This reply of yours doesn’t rise to the level of amateur, something you and Trejo seem to share. Even The Who’s Tommy - though deaf, dumb and blind - could do better. Should we look at the Mitrokhin Archive, then, as just another in a very long line of CHEKA, OGPU, etc, NKVD, KGB, FSB-SVR "active measures" counterintelligence ops, interwoven oh-so-skillfully with yet another "strategic deception" op? Rule #1 in intelligence: Consider all the possibilities. Anyone who doesn’t is an idiot. If an intelligence agency or operative(s) have a track record of a certain behaviour, it must be taken into account. So if your above-cited Soviet (and/or parallel or proxy) intelligence operations have a track record of floating horse manure for western consumption, shouldn’t the prevailing mindset be to question anything and everything they issue subsequently? Rule #2 in intelligence: Accept as probable those possibilities that have the greatest amount of genuine evidence. Anyone who doesn’t is an idiot. So, for example, if somebody is foolhardy enough to suggest - in the absence of anything remotely probative as evidence - that the Cubans in Mexico City stitched up a Soviet consular official by suggesting he masqueraded as Oswald in visiting the Cuban consulate, (or worse still, that he didn’t visit the Cubans but the Cubans said he did) what can be said? There is no “there” there. There is only feverish speculation, the culminations of which serves no discernible purpose, other than to absolve the most obvious authors of the Mexico City charade, whom you will recall were CIA and not G2 or KGB. Did CIA (or anyone for that matter) ever cough up a photograph of Oswald? They should have had some, if he were there. Did they produce a tape recording of his voice? They should have been able to, because we know there was/were tape/s? Did they even provide something as simple, but damning as a fingerprint? Did they even provide evidence of something as mundane and retrievable as Oswald’s means of transport for entry into and egress from MC? CIA’s MC station was well-staffed (quantity and quality of personnel), well-funded, and tasked with monitoring what was a major hotspot for presumed Communist activity in North America. Somehow that devious Oswald outsmarted them all. Is CIA so unfathomably incompetent? Or is there something else, and more easily explicable, afoot? Apparently, in a city of 10+ million people, there was only one man who was simultaneously thin, short and blond? Why not run that past Lopez and Hardway and see what they think? But, but, but, even though the FSB and GRU, ..... by using social media-based "active measures" (aka the "sharing" with us of FSB and GRU-hacked e-mails, and the publishing and tweeting of anti-Hillary / pro-Trump "fake news") made even more effective due to the cumulative effects of 90-plus years of "active measures" interwoven very artfully with 58 years of "operational deceptions," and the legions of "tin foil hat conspiracy theories" engendered over the years thereby, and the resultant dumbing-down-of-our-society-in-general thereby, ..... recently installed a blackmail-able, expendable, "useful idiot" as our president in order to sow discord and chaos in our country (at least mine, Robert), why would those nice Ruskies continue messing with our minds by "giving" us this ... this ... this ..... DISINFO ARCHIVE? If the foregoing can be accurately translated back into English, it only shows your own tin-foil hat is too tight. Seems to be that you’re making my own point for me. Yes, they have a track record of dis-informing the west in Mother Russsia, that continues up until this very day. So when anybody - Mitrokhin, Nechiporenko, Nosenko, et al - defects with a story, or even documentation, extreme skepticism is the only proportional response. You’d like to pick and choose, based upon your own assumptions. Serious people have suggested the Soviets were behind the Oswald “Mr. Hunt” note, the stories in Paesa Sera re: CMC/Clay Shaw, etc. Whether they are correct or not, they are responsible and rational to assume Russians guilty until proved innocent. Nothing that comes from Russia - even the treasures brought by “defectors” - can be taken at face value. You think it laughable that the Soviets never seriously probed Oswald upon his arrival. You may be right. But it may also be that the Soviets already knew, or had reason to suspect, that Oswald was not a bona fide defector. Hence, he was under surveillance, but never recruited. I think it equally laughable that upon his return from the USSR, the CIA displayed no known interest in him. The Agency knew that Oswald had attempted to “defect” and “renounce his citizenship,” that he had threatened to disclose to the Kremlin any and all military secrets he possessed, and was thus a traitor to his country. Do you find it explicable that this traitor had his return fare paid by the US taxpayer but was never debriefed upon his return? Is CIA so unfathomably incompetent? Or did they, like the Russians, know that Oswald hadn’t been a genuine defector? And if he wasn’t a genuine defector, who sent him there? Hmm, but I AM beginning to see your point, Robert ... After all, those fake archives DO tell us that Yuri Nosenko was a true defector. Again, you make my point for me. I say the Mitrokhin material is suspect. You assert it is genuine - and cite it approvingly - while nevertheless stating it is completely wrong about whether Nosenko was genuine. So, you get to pick and choose what you believe from the same source. Interesting... um.... methodology. -- Tommy Or, or, or ... do you think Christopher Andrew, official historian for British Intel and co-author (with Mitrokhin) of "The Sword and the Shield," is really working for the evil, evil, evil ... (gasp) ... CIA? And that the Mitrokhin Archive are just another insidious "Langley Production"? Can you prove otherwise? Thought not. PS Should somebody tell Mister Simkin he's been duped by ... somebody? John Simkin wasn’t duped by anybody. He reported accurately what had been disclosed from the Mitrokhin material. Don’t recall his writings urging either skepticism or credulity. I just did. Somehow, between the time of my prior post today and my attempt to log on just now, my password had been invalidated. Funny that it worked a few hours back, but now does not. Interesting, no? Oh yes, of course. We are advised “logins entered here could be compromised.” D’ya think? I’m flattered.
  4. Assumption piled upon assumption. Where to begin? If one is to traffic Mitrokhin Archive material, it would be helpful to know how much due diligence it was subjected to before being disseminated in the west. Can we trust the KGB documents at face value? The US intelligence community has never done so before, but we are assured by Tommy it is unnecessary to consider. It was said, and/or written, by somebody with KGB credentials, so it must be true. Just like everything on the internet. Can we trust that Mitrokhin Archive material is not being selectively quoted for a possible third party purpose by those who disseminated the material? Or that it hasn’t been materially altered by western intelligence? Let’s recall that before it was received by CIA, the Mitrokhin Archive material was given to the UK’s MI-6. Can we be certain that what Tommy quotes from is actually true? No we cannot. The wholly disreputable CIA mouthpiece Max Holland tried to make much of this nothingburger, which is only entirely predictable given the CIA’s long-standing fear of and animus toward Mark Lane. And the Agency’s long-term financial subsidy of Max Holland. And, or course, rather than allow Mark Lane a chance to rebut the allegations, Tommy merely accepts the KGB material as genuine and then parrots the CIA line, not unlike Max Holland, as it transpires. Apparently Tommy can find what he wants to find on the Sparticus site, but cannot locate on the self-same website what he wishes others not to read or know. (One may wish to keep Tommy’s baseless but entirely partisan and highly selective propaganda viewpoint in mind as one reads Tommy defending the likes of James Jesus Angleton, or when he floats imaginary scenarios wherein a Soviet consulate official masqueraded as Oswald at the Cuban Consulate. Or the official didn’t masquerade as Oswald, but the Cubans said he did. Or some such claptrap. Because in a city of ten million people, there was only one short, thin, blond guy it could have been. Max Holland would be proud. David Atlee Phillips, prouder still.) It is equally, albeit unintentionally, self-revealing that Tommy cites CIA man Bagley to exculpate CIA man Angleton. Because, of course, one team member can be considered entirely honest when he absolves another team member. How does this Bagley chap come to be more important and persuasive than numerous CIA officials who officially investigated Angleton and concluded that he was either a drunk, incompetent or a Soviet mole? So, let’s give the accused Mark Lane the chance to do what Tommy didn’t; reply to Tommy’s KGB credulity: “Holland states that the KGB was secretly funding my work with a payment of "$12,500 (in 2005 dollars)." It was a secret all right. It never happened. Holland's statement is an outright lie. Neither the KGB nor any person or organization associated with it ever made any contribution to my work. No one ever made a sizable contribution, with the exception of Corliss Lamont, who contributed enough for me to fly one time from New York to Dallas to interview eyewitnesses. The second-largest contribution was $50 given to me by Woody Allen. Have Corliss and Woody now joined Holland's fanciful conspiracy? Funds for the work of the Citizens Committee of Inquiry were raised by me. I lectured each night for more than a year in a Manhattan theater. The Times referred to the very well attended talks as one of the longest-running performances off Broadway. That was not a secret. I am surprised that Holland never came across that information, especially since he refers to what he calls "The Speech" in his diatribe. Apparently, Holland did not fabricate the KGB story; his associates at the CIA did. There is proof for that assertion, but I fear that I have taken too much space already. For that information, contact me at mlane777@cs.com. Am I being unfair when I suggest a connection between Holland and the CIA? Here is the CIA game plan: Fabricate a disinformation story. Hand it to a reporter with liberal credentials; for example, a Nation contributing editor. If the reporter cannot find a publication then have the CIA carry it on its own website under the byline of the reporter. Then the CIA can quote the reporter and state, " according to..." Holland writes regularly for the official CIA website. He publishes information there that he has been given by the CIA. The CIA, on its official website, then states, "According to Holland..." If you would like to look into this matter of disinformation laundering, enter into your computer "CIA.gov + Max Holland." You will find on the first page alone numerous articles by Holland supporting and defending the CIA and attacking those who dare to disagree, as well as CIA statements attributing the information to Holland.” http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKlaneM.htm Tommy is one of the barnacles clinging to this site for the obvious purpose of deflecting our interest in the leading suspect in the assassination - CIA - just as CIA pays the likes of Max Holland to do. Paul Trejo is another such barnacle, wasting readers’ time while pushing a theory that is based on zero evidence, but much “opinion.” It is remarkable that these two men of leisure - as they must be in order to post around the clock - would spend their free time in such fruitless pursuits. One will also note that both these barnacles adopt a juvenile, almost infantile, tone of mockery when defending the Agency. Adopting an Elmer Fudd lisp is among Tommy’s condescending techniques. Mocking “CIA CT”s as somehow mentally aberrant is among Trejo’s self-revealing literary tics. Mature adults need not resort to such childishness, nor do they need to waste their time reading the utterances of such barnacles. Forum members may read and respond to such obvious pro-Agency bilge as much as they wish. But they should at least know the game plan that is at work to dupe them with what is essentially vapor and keep wheels spinning in no fruitful direction. It should also not escape the attention of Forum members that there is a very basic and obvious ploy at work in the postings of the barnacles: ABC. Who killed the President? Anybody But CIA.
  5. You're as literate as you are honest. To wit: NOBODY phoned either the Dallas Police or the FBi. That's not a typo; it's an evasion to avoid looking stupid. But you DO look stupid, because nobody - repeat NOBODY - phoned anyone in any level of law enforcement. You'd know this if you weren't as literate as you are honest: Mr. STERN. Did you take over from Agent Fain or in some other way? Mr. HOSTY. No, sir; I did not take over directly. When Agent Fain retired directly from the Bureau he had closed the case. He had a case which we call a pending inactive case on Mrs. Marina Oswald. This case I did take over. It was in what we call a pending inactive status, that is, nothing was to be done for a period of 6 months. Then at the end of the 6-month period it was then turned into a pending case and I went out and attempted to locate Mrs. Marina Oswald for the purpose of interviewing her. I might add that it is the practice of the FBI to interview immigrants from behind the Iron Curtain on a selective basis, and she was so selected to be one of these persons to be interviewed. Mr. STERN. When was this? Mr. HOSTY. This was March 4, 1963, when I began my inquiry as to her present whereabouts. I determined on March 4, 1963, through the Immigration and Naturalization Service records that she had moved from Fort Worth to the Dallas area. She was living on a street called Elsbeth Street in the Oak Cliff section of Dallas. Mr. STERN. What happened in connection with the case of Lee Harvey Oswald? Mr. HOSTY. This case was closed at this time. It was closed. On March 11, 1963, I made inquiry at this Elsbeth address, and determined from the landlady, I believe her name was Mrs. Tobias, that she had just evicted Lee and Marina Oswald from her apartment building because of their alleged fighting and his alleged drinking. They caused a disturbance and she had asked him to leave on March 3, 1963. She told me they had moved a short distance away. She didn't know where. On that same date, I was able to determine from the postal authorities that they had changed their address to 214 Neely Street, also in the Oak Cliff section of Dallas. You'll note that Hosty was just following up on something six months old. Nobody called him. That's YOUR invention. If he'd received a call from either Tobias on March 3, when the Oswalds were advised they'd be evicted, he wouldn't have had to look up her address on Elsbeth the following day. Then why on earth would you offer up a list of 19 names? Your falsehoods are now conflicting with each other. You don't know the difference between witness testimony and gossip. Or your posterior from your elbow. My excoriating you began well before your most recent folly with Ernie Lazar, who can handle himself and needs no help from me or anyone else. Your predictions are as laughable as your posts.
  6. Perhaps you should address those concerns with Paul Trejo, the biased propagandist who seems so intent upon foisting these lies upon an unsuspecting public. There were no witnesses who saw Oswald beat his wife. Neighbours did not call police. Paul Trejo has no interest in getting the details right; only in twisting them to conform to his groundless hypothesis. Ask **him** how any of these falsehoods put us closer to resolution. I only show up occasionally to help clean up where Trejo's fouled the footpath.
  7. Precisely. And what he cannot find to buttress his arguments, he invents. I repost the following from six weeks ago because Trejo lacked the nerve to respond. Thus, escaping the ramifications of a message that soon wafted into the ether: Here is the Trejo methodological fraud in high contrast: QUOTE: Paul Trejo is congenitally incapable of putting forth an honest argument; he merely invents things that are pleasing to him, then hopes he doesn’t get called out for his inventions. This all started because Paul said Oswald’s fellow tenants called police to complain Oswald beat his wife. It was a Trejo invention. No such instance occurred, nor could Trejo provide proof that it had. But then proof and truth are unnecessary in his protocols. Then the accuser switched gears. In the absence of tenants who called police, there were witnesses to Oswald beating his wife who DIDN’T call the police. Per Trejo's fevered imagination, there were seven eye-witnesses to Oswald beating Marina, then it was 12 and then it ballooned to 19. It was like witnessing a modern-day Joe McCarthy swelling the numbers of imaginary Communists in the state department; the number being fluid, so long as it kept heading upward. 19? Surely, so many people must provide definitive proof that Oswald beat his wife. Except that Trejo now wishes to rescind the bulk of the 19 as though he didn’t name them to begin with. This, from last Wednesday in this thread: “2. The seven people I QUOTED were Eye-Witnesses ONLY. That's why I neglected all the others. (RC Dunne named 12 non-eye-witnesses, wasting our time, plus he omitted Marguerite). Tidy. Except it wasn’t me who omitted Oswald’s mother. Paul Trejo neglected to include her on HIS list of 19 witnesses. It is also a blatant falsehood that I invented a dozen unimportant witnesses to “waste our time.” As even the least literate among us could perceive had they only done what Trejo didn’t: remember to read the very intro to my original takedown of his so called “witnesses.” It can be found on the first page of this thread: “Just to bring this thread back to the topic on which it started, Paul Trejo has now had some days to provide what he claims to have in abundance, the witness testimony that Lee Oswald beat his wife. With nineteen people cited, he should have had little difficulty in doing so, yet his streak of failing to provide compelling evidence for his contentions continues unblemished. In fact, he now seems to deny that the onus of providing proof for his contentions resides with him. It is now our job to do his homework for him. Instead, Paul has given us a list of people who presumably testified to that effect, and the Commission volume in which it could be located, but not the testimony itself. This is akin to a lawyer standing up in court, naming the nineteen witnesses who have critical information, listing their addresses, yet then failing to call any one of them to the stand.” It is because Trejo named 19 witnesses, without troubling himself to recount what they had testified to, that I took the testimony of each and rubbed Trejo’s face in the testimony they did NOT provide. Now he’d like to deny having proffered those witnesses, for reasons even the slowest Forum member could discern.. The man is as dishonest as he is ill-equipped to debate with others here. That such undiluted idiocy still appears here only diminishes the stature of the Forum. Edited September 12 by Robert Charles-Dunne END QUOTE Why do people waste their time daily in debating a bag of hot air who has contributed zero toward our common goals?
  8. Paul Trejo is congenitally incapable of putting forth an honest argument; he merely invents things that are pleasing to him, then hopes he doesn’t get called out for his inventions. This all started because Paul said Oswald’s fellow tenants called police to complain Oswald beat his wife. It was a Trejo invention. No such instance occurred, nor could Trejo provide proof that it had. But then proof and truth are unnecessary in his protocols. Then the accuser switched gears. In the absence of tenants who called police, there were witnesses to Oswald beating his wife who DIDN’T call the police. Per Trejo's fevered imagination, there were seven eye-witnesses to Oswald beating Marina, then it was 12 and then it ballooned to 19. It was like witnessing a modern-day Joe McCarthy swelling the numbers of imaginary Communists in the state department; the number being fluid, so long as it kept heading upward. 19? Surely, so many people must provide definitive proof that Oswald beat his wife. Except that Trejo now wishes to rescind the bulk of the 19 as though he didn’t name them to begin with. This, from last Wednesday in this thread: “2. The seven people I QUOTED were Eye-Witnesses ONLY. That's why I neglected all the others. (RC Dunne named 12 non-eye-witnesses, wasting our time, plus he omitted Marguerite). Tidy. Except it wasn’t me who omitted Oswald’s mother. Paul Trejo neglected to include her on HIS list of 19 witnesses. It is also a blatant falsehood that I invented a dozen unimportant witnesses to “waste our time.” As even the least literate among us could perceive had they only done what Trejo didn’t: remember to read the very intro to my original takedown of his so called “witnesses.” It can be found on the first page of this thread: “Just to bring this thread back to the topic on which it started, Paul Trejo has now had some days to provide what he claims to have in abundance, the witness testimony that Lee Oswald beat his wife. With nineteen people cited, he should have had little difficulty in doing so, yet his streak of failing to provide compelling evidence for his contentions continues unblemished. In fact, he now seems to deny that the onus of providing proof for his contentions resides with him. It is now our job to do his homework for him. Instead, Paul has given us a list of people who presumably testified to that effect, and the Commission volume in which it could be located, but not the testimony itself. This is akin to a lawyer standing up in court, naming the nineteen witnesses who have critical information, listing their addresses, yet then failing to call any one of them to the stand.” It is because Trejo named 19 witnesses, without troubling himself to recount what they had testified to, that I took the testimony of each and rubbed Trejo’s face in the testimony they did NOT provide. Now he’d like to deny having proffered those witnesses, for reasons even the slowest Forum member could discern.. The man is as dishonest as he is ill-equipped to debate with others here. That such undiluted idiocy still appears here only diminishes the stature of the Forum.
  9. You should reserve your high dudgeon for those who invent an alternate universe of transparently fraudulent details. Such as fools who claim 19 witnesses testified that LHO beat his wife, while populating that list with people who hadn’t even met the Oswalds, hadn’t seen any evidence for the assertions, or had heard third hand gossip which those allegedly responsible for spreading then denied having said. Or, in the case of the one alleged eye-witness, he wasn’t called to testify. If one good witness exists, there is no need to invent a massive list of those who are incapable of providing any first hand evidence, let alone proof. One need only quote his testimony. But, of course, the one purportedly genuine eye witness didn’t testify. Seems to be a surprising lack of curiosity about that anomaly. Why would the WC call upon numerous people who knew nothing, or little, yet refrain from calling the one ostensible eyeball witness who could tell them precisely what they wanted to hear? His affidavit makes plain he was available to be called when witness testimony was taken. For reasons yet unclear, perhaps, the WC deliberately avoided calling the single person who could make the case. The fact that Trejo has the lowest standards for veracity, and lacks even the most basic of analytical skills in these matters, is plain to those who read his guff and twaddle. But some people are easily trolled, because so long as the bullxxxx being spewed comports with their own personal bias, they see nothing wrong with it. Embrace it, in fact. As we see here. To wit, Trump and his supporters. They think they need only repeat falsehoods often enough and they become true because..... *magic.* It won’t work for them, and it certainly won’t work here. Paul Trejo demonstrates that with his every post. For example, Trejo’s post in this very thread where he stipulates that he only claimed 7 eye-witnesses, and that I procured more, lesser valid witnesses to fraudulently deceive. To wit: “Instead of listing the seven actual witnesses to Lee's violence against Marina Oswald, the famous Robert Charles Dunne goes into great detail itemizing more than a dozen witnesses who never claimed to have seen such violence.” Yet at the very beginning of the post that has Trejo so agitated is the stipulation, which Trejo had and has no basis to deny: “Just to bring this thread back to the topic on which it started, Paul Trejo has now had some days to provide what he claims to have in abundance, the witness testimony that Lee Oswald beat his wife. With nineteen people cited, he should have had little difficulty in doing so, yet his streak of failing to provide compelling evidence for his contentions continues unblemished. In fact, he now seems to deny that the onus of providing proof for his contentions resides with him. It is now our job to do his homework for him. Instead, Paul has given us a list of people who presumably testified to that effect, and the Commission volume in which it could be located, but not the testimony itself. This is akin to a lawyer standing up in court, naming the nineteen witnesses who have critical information, listing their addresses, yet then failing to call any one of them to the stand. When something so bizarre as this takes place, one knows there’s fraud afoot. To wit, the following list of nineteen people provided by Paul Trejo and what we should find in furtherance of his contentions, but do not.” So, first Trejo posts 19 names of “witnesses,” only to later disavow a dozen of them as fraudulent. And then mis-attributes his own attempted fraud onto me. But the fraud is his, not mine, as the above clearly demonstrates. “...the famous Robert Charles Dunne goes into great detail itemizing more than a dozen witnesses who never claimed to have seen such violence.” Yet these dozen people who who never claimed to have seen such violence are the very people Trejo used to pad his witness list into something so large, it MUST be undeniably true. In other words, Trejo named a dozen people as witnesses whom he then denounced as know-nothings. How does such a fraud artist still manage to xxxxx members here? I should also point out to Paul Trejo, who has repeatedly crowed that he somehow bested me in this debate some years: people who win debates don’t usually feel compelled to say so. They are comfortable in the knowledge that they won, and allow other posters to draw their own conclusions. I am that comfortable. Trejo clearly is not. Anyone who paid the slightest attention to the original thread in question would vehemently disagree with Trejo’s false assertions of triumph. And have. Perhaps Tom Scully’s wayback machine needs to be dusted off again.
  10. Paul Trejo is either illiterate, a fool or a xxxx, or perhaps all three. To wit, we now have a desperate gambit by Trejo in which he claims I picked a dozen irrelevant witnesses, and ignored the seven witnesses he thinks germane. Had he read the beginning of the post that has him so rankled, he would have seen: “To wit, the following list of nineteen people provided by Paul Trejo and what we should find in furtherance of his contentions, but do not:” Illiterate, fool or xxxx? I’ll let readers here decide.
  11. I haven’t missed the point, Evan; I believe you may have missed mine. There is much evidence open to debate, because it can be construed more than one way. That’s fair game. It’s a difference of opinion that makes a horse race, they say. However, just as a recent example, Paul Trejo asserted that there were 20 witnesses to Oswald’s abuse of his wife Marina. Were he merely ignorant of the actual facts - which is a recurring pattern with him, as I’ve demonstrated - that doesn’t make him a xxxx; it merely means he’s wrong and needs to be corrected. In order to correct his blatant misrepresentation of the facts, I meticulously searched through the testimony and demonstrated beyond doubt that most of the people Paul Trejo included in his “20" figure had no such direct first-hand knowledge and did not testify as he said they did. Nevertheless, and despite acknowledging the "20" figure was overstated, Paul Trejo thereafter still contended there were twenty witnesses. At this point, it is no longer a mistake - because he’s been shown and admitted the error of his ways - and is an outright falsehood. Fairly clear instance, wouldn’t you think? I raise the point because I think there is a parallel with the Janney episode. A few observations which I’ll try to keep brief. From the little bit of correspondence we’ve had during the eight years I’ve been a member here, I believe John Simkin to be a liberal egalitarian who felt he could construct the single best and most effective JFK site by inviting the best researchers and authors. A laudable goal, and one he achieved I think. (It is a measure of his liberalism that he has granted membership to persons such as Jim DiEugenio, who had written some unflattering things about John prior to joining here.) Because authors were invited by John, he no doubt hoped that they’d be treated with civility by the Forum membership. Contrary to the analogy offered, I don’t think this is John’s living room, but his classroom. He has invited visiting lecturers, through whom we might benefit by learning more, and they might benefit by selling some books. Unfortunately for some of those authors, the membership here proved to be as well versed - or more so - than the authors who presume to educate us. Fireworks is predictably inevitable, particularly if authors expected deference rather than civility. Haughtiness ensues, due to wounded pride. But whom should we fault for this? The authors, whose case has not been made beyond a reasonable doubt? Or the members who point out that failing on the authors’ part? This is multiply true in the case of Peter Janney’s book. John Simkin not only invited Peter here, but I believe provided him with some material aid in preparing his book (please correct me if I’m wrong on this), and subscribes to the book’s central premise that CIA murdered Mary Pinchot Meyer. (As it happens, I am inclined to concur with that assertion. That does not require me - or anyone - to accept Janney’s scenario for the crime if compelling evidence is not presented.) Both the ousted members found reasonable fault with Janney’s book and demonstrated that some of the evidence presented was underwhelming at best, incorrect at worst. In fact, ex-moderator Tom Scully seemed to have located the man Janney accused of being Mary Meyer’s murderer, a man whom Janney himself claimed he was unable to find. Most of the comments made by the ousted members seemed fair game to me. But then, I don’t have a personal relationship with Peter Janney. I believe that John has inadvertently admitted that he put his thumb on the scale in Janney’s favour: “The main reason I did not act on this was because I was part of the argument. If I had tried to restrain these attacks I would have been accused of being biased and interfering with free speech. Even so, it was no real excuse for not protecting a friend.” If a friend has been proved wrong, as I believe Janney had been by the ousted members, he doesn’t need protection; he needs correction. If he is unwilling to be corrected when shown persuasive evidence by forum members, a true friend shares some harsh truth with him. The alternative is to allow said friend to flail fruitlessly with a demonstrably flawed scenario, an allowance that does no favor to the friend, or the truth. Those who persist in pushing data they know to be wrong are no longer merely mistaken; they are trafficking in falsehoods. It is a disservice to this Forum’s raison d’etre to remain silent in such a case, irrespective of who the trafficker may be. Those who refused to remain silent were the ones made to pay the price of excommunication, well after Janney ceased to post here. I have written the foregoing to respond to something directed specifically to me. If DiEugenio and Scully are not re-instated as members, it will be my last post here, for reasons I think I have made sufficiently clear. (Edited for typo)
  12. No need, John. It's already been done, several times. One of the JFK sewing circles even published an online directory in which members self-identified their areas of interest, so that the most problematic ones could be surveilled, to determine the extent of their progress. Purging members of the EF who advocate CIA involvement in the assassination won't do much to dispel such notions of your Agency sponsorship, however. You and I know they're not connected, but it helps keep such canards vibrantly alive in fevered imaginations.
×
×
  • Create New...