Jump to content
The Education Forum
John Simkin

The Future of the JFK Forum

Recommended Posts

Guys,

Don't usually come out here, although I do on occasion.

Just a couple of comments from a Moderator on another Forum.

John owns the Forum. He is entitled to grant or deny access for anyone he wants. If you do not like that, you are always welcome to create your own Forums, and do whatever rules you want. (I can even show you sites that will host them for free.)

A Forum can be pre-approved postings, or open. Open Forums run the risk of inappropriate posting being made before the Moderator can see them, or object to them. Therefore some inappropriate material may appear, although the offender may be warned or banned after the fact.

A Blog typically only has postings that have been approved and put into place by the owner. This often means that you will only see information the owner agrees with, and not diverse opinions.

Social Media (such as Twitter or Facebook) has slowed many of the Forums. As it is open to almost anything, at least ONCE.

John has full rights to only invite and tolerate people who follow his rules. He owns the Forum, and has stated what the rules are. I think he fairly only bans people who violate the rules; however, since it is HIS forum, he can do whatever he wants.

As always, if you don't like the rules of someone else's Forum, you can start your own, and try to get people to show up.

OK. Back to Lancer.

Respectfully,

Jerry Dealey

Edited by Jerry Dealey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you disagree with me fine - attack my sources or theories or analysis - but don't launch nasty, unhinged personal attacks on me or anyone else at Education Forum.

Tom Scully reminds me a lot of Charles Drago - a pair of little Napolean complex men, nasty personal attack artists who loved to abuse their positions as moderators.

[...]

As for Charles Drago, stupid is in session whenever he is at the keyboard.

[...]

Drago...posts...autistic masturbation and nasty personal attacks.

Pot meets Kettle.

Lyndon Johnson was supporting *Republican* Nelson Rockefeller for president in spring 1968 and before that was seriously considering Rockefeller for vice president in 1968. .... That tells me Nelson Rockefeller was either involved in the JFK assassination or that he knew all about it and approved of it. [DVP's emphasis.]

Talk about a huge leap of faith. Geesh.

So Rockefeller is now a prime suspect in Morrow's conspiracy world. Morrow's got no evidence against him (of course). Nothing. Just a gut feeling. But that's enough for Bob Morrow. Pathetic.

(Sorry for the off-topic post here, but I felt the above junk about Nelson Rockefeller deserved to be addressed, if only slightly.)

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Robert Morrow

If you disagree with me fine - attack my sources or theories or analysis - but don't launch nasty, unhinged personal attacks on me or anyone else at Education Forum.

Tom Scully reminds me a lot of Charles Drago - a pair of little Napolean complex men, nasty personal attack artists who loved to abuse their positions as moderators.

[...]

As for Charles Drago, stupid is in session whenever he is at the keyboard.

[...]

Drago...posts...autistic masturbation and nasty personal attacks.

Pot meets Kettle.

Lyndon Johnson was supporting *Republican* Nelson Rockefeller for president in spring 1968 and before that was seriously considering Rockefeller for vice president in 1968. .... That tells me Nelson Rockefeller was either involved in the JFK assassination or that he knew all about it and approved of it.

Talk about a huge leap of faith. Geesh

So Rockefeller is now a prime suspect in Morrow's conspiracy world. No evidence against Nelson. No nothing. Just a gut feeling. But that's enough for Bob Morrow. Pathetic.

The hands of LBJ, military intelligence and the CIA are all over the JFK assassination. Nelson Rockefeller had very close ties to Lyndon Johnson and Nelson was a big player at high levels in the intelligence community for a long time.

I have always thought there was a lot of truth in the following passage, by the way, it is a data point of evidence implicating Nelson Rockefeller in the JFK assassination. One can assess this evidence how one wants to, but it is evidence. I called Rodney Stich a few years ago and he said, yes, Trenton Parker did indeed make these allegations in 1993. I have the highest respect for Rodney Stich, a truth teller of epic proportions.

From Defrauding America, Rodney Stich, 3rd edition 1998 p. 638-639]:

“The Role of deep-cover CIA officer, Trenton Parker, has been described in earlier pages, and his function in the CIA's counter-intelligence unit, Pegasus. Parker had stated to me earlier that a CIA faction was responsible for the murder of JFK … During an August 21, 1993, conversation, in response to my questions, Parker said that his Pegasus group had tape recordings of plans to assassinate Kennedy. I asked him, "What group were these tapes identifying?" Parker replied: "Rockefeller, Allen Dulles, Johnson of Texas, George Bush, and J. Edgar Hoover." I asked, "What was the nature of the conversation on these tapes?"

I don't have the tapes now, because all the tape recordings were turned over to [Congressman] Larry McDonald. But I listened to the tape recordings and there were conversations between Rockefeller, [J. Edgar] Hoover, where [Nelson] Rockefeller asks, "Are we going to have any problems?" And he said, "No, we aren't going to have any problems. I checked with Dulles. If they do their job we'll do our job." There are a whole bunch of tapes, because Hoover didn't realize that his phone has been tapped. Defrauding America, Rodney Stich, 3rd edition p. 638-639]

Edited by Robert Morrow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Take it to another thread, Bob.

(I'm sorry I got him wound up.)

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am disgusted and disappointed to see so many members and moderators supporting and attempting to rationalize John Simkin's biased and agenda-driven decision to oust Jim DiEugenio and Tom Scully from the forum. I can only surmise that these people don't really mind what's happened because a) they were too lazy to read Tom's detailed and informative posts and they didn't like seeing Jim, with his vast knowledge, destroying their baseless fictions and fantasies about the assassination.

And make no mistake, that's what this is all about: John's desire to protect the bullxxxx theories of his friends from further destruction at the hands of those who know better.

Well kudos, John, You've effectively silenced the voice of reason and ensured that your members will now only hear the baseless fictions you want them to hear. I hope you're proud of yourself. Though I suspect not since you haven't had the courage to answer my requests to explain what rules Jim broke or provide the evidence that Tom called Albarelli “a xxxx”, as you claimed he did.

Don't worry, I'll get out of your “house”. I'll leave you and your acolytes to wallow in your own filth. I can't stand the smell in here anyway.

Feel free to delete my membership at your leisure. I've got too much integrity to hang around here anymore.

Ciao.

You missed it, Martin. The problem with the forum was not that John was pushing some sort of agenda, but that some members, believing they'd discovered the truth about an issue, thought this gave them free rein to insult and bully those not subscribing to this truth.

The tragedy is that, yes, you are correct, much of what Tom and Jim (and Lee and Greg, who I'm pretty sure remains a member), wrote was indeed true.

Neither John nor the majority of the moderators consider it our duty to police the facts. Moderators are here not to scold or ban those whose facts are not in order, but to try to curb member on member abuse. Now, since those whose facts are not in order are those most likely to be abused, this puts us in the ironic position of having to defend those whose facts are often not in order, and whose opinions run counter to our own, and punish those with whom we most often agree.

I have met both John and Jim. I like them both. They have different personalities, however, that clash to no small degree.

It could very well be that this falling out was inevitable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andy Walker and I started the Education Forum in December 2003. The main objective was to create a place to discuss educational issues. At the time we were both involved in several educational projects, including the European Virtual School. If you look at the following thread you will see the biographies of our early members.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=530

A second objective of the forum was to enable people to engage in debate about the content of my Spartacus Educational website. This was important because my website contains information on controversial subjects. In fact, it was started in September 1997 to support the History National Curriculum (England and Wales). An important feature of this curriculum is to study the different interpretations of the past.

In those early months of the Forum we had some interesting discussions about educational issues and the content of my website. Although members strongly disagreed about some of these subjects all the members treated each other with respect and no one was banned nor did we need to have moderators.

In March 2004 I was asked if I would start a new section of the Forum on the subject of the JFK assassination. I had taught the subject in the classroom as an “interpretation” exercise since 1979 and had put some of this material on the website in 1998. At the time, there was very little material of the subject and was appearing near the top of search-engine inquiries (this was a time before Google).

I agreed to this request and the first posting took place a few days later on the subject of David Atlee Phillips. The main objective of this section was to bring together researchers into the assassination of JFK. As I said a few months later: “It is hoped that this forum will enable researchers to share information they have acquired about the case. In this way, the forum will become a major way of communicating information about the assassination to the wider community (we have a far larger number reading the forum than those posting information).”

In the early days of the JFK forum authors of books on the assassination, were willing to discuss their material on the subject. I was aware that people held strong opinions on the assassination but I had no idea of the level of hatred that people had for fellow researchers. The real problem was not between those who believed in the lone-gunman theory and those who were convinced it was a conspiracy. The real conflict was between those who believed in different conspiracy theories. Sometimes they agreed on the overall theory but disagreed passionately on some minor detail.

These discussions often resulted in members making abusive comments. The worst offenders were members who saw JFK as some Jesus Christ type figure who was killed because he was trying to save the world. Therefore, anyone who suggested that JFK was a flawed individual faced the prospect of venomous attack.

Several of the authors who had been attacked told me they were no longer willing to post on the Forum because of the abuse they received. At that time I considered closing down the JFK section of the forum. It was causing me more grief than it was worth. However, at the same time, the forum did contain good researchers who were always polite and argued their case in a logical manner. I therefore asked for volunteers to moderate the forum. It was a thankless task but some people did volunteer to do the job.

In November, 2004, I posted the new forum rules.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2243

It included (iv): “Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers. Most importantly, the motivations of the poster should not be questioned. At all times members should concentrate on what is being said, rather than who is saying it. It is up to the reader to look at the biography submitted by the poster, to judge whether they are telling the truth or not. The word “xxxx” is banned from use on the forum.”

Members often broke this rule and persistent offenders were warned about their behaviour. Some were put on moderation but it seemed to have little impact on their long-term behaviour. I have to confess that by this stage I was completely disillusioned with the JFK Forum and rarely read it and only occasionally posted items that I thought members might find interesting.

Occasionally I received emails from friends bring my attention to what some members were saying about me on the forum, other people’s forums and websites. Some of these unpleasant comments were about my so-called support of Peter Janney’s book, Mary’s Mosaic. It is true that I believe that the CIA were involved in the death of Mary Pinchot Meyer as can be seen on my page on her and the discussion that I started on 23rd March 2005.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3520

It seems my main sin was not that I was blaming the CIA for her death but because I was suggesting that JFK had affairs with women. I posted this attack on me by Jim DiEugenio here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=11208

I even allowed Jim to join the Forum in June 2010 so he could continue his attacks on me. I am not complaining. I think these attacks say more about Jim than me. However, to my eternal shame, I did not protect Peter Janney enough when his book Mary’s Mosaic was published in 2012. What made it worse was one of his main tormentors was one of our moderators, Tom Scully.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19058

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19777

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19367

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.

Last week I received an email from Hank Albarelli Jr. about a thread about his book, "A Secret Order"

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19016

I had not read the thread before and would have assumed it would have been dealt with by the moderators. In fact, the main offender was one of the moderators, Tom Scully, where he breaks the Forum rules by calling Albarelli a xxxx.

Hank argues:

The recent posts and actions of James DiEugenio and one Tom Scully are accomplishing nothing but the gross discrediting, and perhaps destruction, of the forum. These two fellows seem to be on some sort of pathological campaign to damage and discredit any forum member who may happen to disagree with them or that posts something they don't agree with.

Their destructive campaign against Peter Janney is a very good example. Their blatant attempt to coerce me into that campaign is yet another fine example of how devious and harmful these two individuals can be. (The fact that Scully lists himself as a site "moderator" is quite surprising to me.)

I noted you in my new book as a fine historian, and also highly praised the forum and several of its members, but I would hesitate to do that again given the actions of the above two fellows. I fear that they are making a mockery of the forum and are using it simply for their own devices. Quite sad to observe and experience.

I find I am in complete agreement with Hank’s comments and have decided to delete Jim DiEugenio and Tom Scully membership. This is a start of a new regime at the Forum. If any other member makes abusive comments about a fellow member, their membership will also be deleted. If anyone tries to subvert this measure by posting comments of banned members, they will also be removed from the forum.

This is the last chance for the JFK Forum. If this new approach does not work, the whole forum will be removed.

For some of the completely ignorant and asinine theories that have surfaced here, as well as on virtually every other "talk show", there are many who should be ejected from the forum along with not even being allowed to post anything anywhere on the internet.

As one who has been the "target" of many, if your facts can not withstand scrutiny, then please be my guest and go elsewhere where your feelings will not suffer.

This forum, not unlike the JFK lancer forum, has provided a relative open discussion, even to myself, who just may be the only person who does not subscribe to the aspects of multiple assassinss; body snatchers; and much of the hype relative to supposedly planted evidence and/or alteration to much of this evidence.

Along with of course my presented information relative to the simple facts that the Carcao (Model 91/38) rifle utilized was a weapon of superior accuracy and that LHO was in fact an individual of relatively excellent rifle marksmanship.

Personally, I have met and corresponded with many who first came to this forum who also recognize the difference between the BS and the factual information.

It has therefore been an additional "EDUCATIONAL" experience, and I personally would hate to see this forum close it's doors as there have been many factual truths that were first revealed on the pages contaiined therein.

If you are of the opinion that the forum should ultimately close, might I recommend that it not do so until well after the the 50th anniversary of the assassination event.

Although there are many who will become lost as well as highly discouraged by the often "garbage" found here, one must often take the good with the bad in order to sort for themselves what actually has any factual truths.

Tom

P.S. For whatever it may or may not be worth, the JFK Assassination Forum as well as the John McAdams forum are also riddled with much of the same lack of factual research that one often finds here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone claimed that John values decorum over truth, or something like that. Nonsense. He is not out of bounds at all when he asks that people disagree without resorting to nastiness. What's wrong with that?

I read over the recent exchange with Lifton and DiEugenio and Scully. I don't think this is about whether John is protecting a published writer from criticism on this board. Its about protecting any of us from personal attacks. Lifton's behavior in this wasn't spotless either, but he was responding in kind, and lost his cool a bit. But I don't see where he started the unpleasantness. I would have felt like he did in his place. And btw I think Lifton is a little blind to the extent which the CIA exercises control over the media. But that isn't the point. It is certainly a matter of style not substance.

Were DiEugenio and Scully to accept their fault and write to John expressing regret that they had become nasty about all this that would be enough to reinstate them in my mind. But just pointing out that others have similarly resorted to personal attacks but were not so punished is not enough. John just picked the two whomwere most egregious and made an example of them. I'd like to see those two remain here, but until there is some expression of understanding from them I support John's decision.

Someone else asked several pages ago - sorry I have lost track of who - if I think John should post his displeasure publicly or privately. I would answer privately, but if that didn't work then a public confrontation would be a good idea in my opinion.

Sorry for the rambling. This whole subject is somewhat upsetting because of some personal family history with the disruptive tactics of government agents. When discussions amongst us devolve into one on one attacks it causes me to distrust the motives of both parties, almost as if their argument becomes a show designed to discourage inclusive debate. This has happened previously with several posters, and when it does it causes me to tune out, which I then suspect to be exactly the point.

Paul,

I wanted to focus on one statement you made, and make some comments which perhaps will clarify my own position on all this.

Quoting from your post:

And btw I think Lifton is a little blind to the extent which the CIA exercises control over the media. But that isn't the point. It is certainly a matter of style not substance. UNQUOTE

My own comment:

The issue is not whether Priscilla Johnson MacMillan may have been a CIA operative in 1959:

The point is that Lee Oswald definitely was a CIA operative in October, 1959, and his entire defection was a fake.

So: Oswald was not “framed” by false accounts created by two nefarious female “CIA agents” in 1959; rather:

Oswald -- himself a CIA operative -- consciously and deliberately spewed the words that MacMillan and Mosby both dutifully wrote down in 1959, and then distributed through their news outlets: Mosby, via UPI; and McMillan via NANA.

Oswald himself indeed said what Oswald is alleged to have said in 1959 -- and he had very specific reasons for saying it: i.e., to further his fake defection to the USSR.

So that is the issue, not whether Macmillan and/or Mosby were agency-affiliated in 1959.

Those JFK researchers who –for whatever reason—insist on focusing on McMillan are looking at the issue through the wrong end of the telescope. Priscilla McMillan was not the central character back in 1959; Oswald was—and, historically, still is.

Viewed that way, the “media” was not “controlling” the portrait of Oswald; rather, Oswald was utilizing the media (available to him in Moscow) to paint the picture of himself that he wanted projected—i.e., to “paint” his own “self-portrait” to further his own defection.

DSL

6/10/13; 8:10 PM PDT

Los Angeles, California

Edited by David Lifton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John,

If you decide to pull the plug on the forum I hope you will, as requested upstream:

1-Leave the JFK assassination material and the Spartacus material up for reference.

And:

2-Please, *please* do not pull the plug until the 50th anniversary of the murder is well past. The 50th anniversary is a rare opportunity to get more people interested. And there will be, already are, many "revelations" emerging in the next year that will require discussion/exposure.

I hope you welcome Jim back. (I have my own bias and don't care about the other guy. I supposed I should be honorable and support equitable treatment of both, but I really don't want that other guy back. Bad moderators are way worse than over-emotional members. And moderators should be held to a higher standard. There, I've rationalized.) Jim's perspective and depth of knowledge on JFK is valuable and I don't want his voice stilled here.

Also, as others have pointed out, the murder of JFK and the impact on the world is hugely emotional for sincere individuals who value the truth. They (we) are only human and lose our cool on occasion. I think Jim is in this category.

And finally, while personal attacks have been against the rules for a while, enforcement of that rule has been inconsistent. Lack of rule enforcement is akin to lack of rule. I'd like to see Jim as an active member here.

Thanks for the JFK forum John, and for this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote from Tom Fairlie:

"Even the trolls occasionally post something worthwhile."

Yes, Tom, you are correct. As the old saying goes, "Even a broken clock has a chance at being right twice a day." :sun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question: if you remove the forum, is there a possibility to put the topics (there were sometimes very fruitful discussions) on CD for sale? I mean this 10 year discussion is a complete new form of "historiography", isn't it? It would be stupid and a shame, to destroy it, or make it unavailable for the public...and a victory for the Lone Nut party,...

KK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The worst offenders were members who saw JFK as some Jesus Christ type figure who was killed because he was trying to save the world..."

John Simkin

"John Kennedy was a compromised sex freak of the highest order, a meth addict..."

Robert Morrow

After all he was a hard working human being, murdered in the streets like a dog, by several killers, and buried twice: on Nov. 25. 1963 and by the iron plate of the worlds most stupid cover-story ever created...

KK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

.

Pat, what message is being sent in the process which selected Tom and Jim's membership for deletion?

The message is that it's John's Forum, and that he is only willing to put up with so much. So DON'T PUSH THE ENVELOPE.

Several years back, John got into a fray with Tim Gratz. I supported Tim on the specific point in question (John had misquoted Tim about something), but supported John for ousting Tim anyhow. So why support John?

Because this is JOHN'S forum, which is akin to his LIVING ROOM. That's how I see it. We are guests in John's living room, having a discussion. If we ask him for entry into his home, in order to talk to his other guests, and get out of hand, and abuse one of HIS other guests, well, then, we shouldn't be surprised when we're shown the door...ESPECIALLY if the guest was a friend of John's, invited by John into his home to discuss his work.

It's that simple to me. We're his guests. And should act like it.

On a point of information, Tim Gratz threatened me with legal action for pointing out his role in Watergate. Gratz, a disbarred lawyer, knew enough about the legal system to make life difficult for me when I visited the States.

Yes Pat, you are right, I do consider this forum as like my home and have been unhappy for sometime about the way people behave in it. I am hoping that this decision will make people think twice before abusing other members. If it does not, then I will close it down and you can all get out of my house and find your own venue.

John: I agree that member abuse should not be tolerated. But why is this so unfairly dispensed? I see Lifton questioning the mental health of others and similar abuse, yet he remains. I have other questions re the PJM thread but don't dare pose them, lest they be deemed "objectionalbe"..

Dawn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a lie posted here cannot be called a lie here, irrespective of who posts it, then the Forum has outlived its usefulness anyway.

Rather than forbidding the posting of outright lies, what is forbidden is calling a lie a lie. Orwell is spinning.

There is much outright crap posted here by dilettantes, agenda-driven shills and the historically-challenged - all considered fair game by moderators who fail to act - yet those who draw attention to the fact that it is outright crap are the ones “moderated.”

The imbalance of moderation - letting David Lifton question the mental health of other members, but acing his victims when they respond in kind - is not “moderation;” it is sucking up and fawning of the most egregious sort.

Those too faint of heart to man up when their hokum is rightly labeled as hokum should be shown the door. They waste everyone’s time, moderators included.

That they are published authors means nothing; we've all read books that contribute nothing to the debate, but distract attention from the exploration of the most fruitful areas, even if they top the New York Times' bestsellers list. Such authors should and must be challenged, irrespective of who they are.

I agree with John Simkin - for whom I have great respect - that this Forum has been on a downhill slide for some time. The moderators have done nothing to slow the decline, but actually contributed to it with their one-sided punishments.

If it continues, the loss of one’s membership will be a badge of honour, rather than a slight.

In closing, despite my occasional confrontations with him over evidence and how it is to be interpreted, I won't stay anywhere Jim DiEugenio is unwelcome.

Bravo!

Agreed. RCD is one of the main reasons I come here. His brilliance and thought process are dazzling.

Dawn

Edited by Dawn Meredith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a lie posted here cannot be called a lie here, irrespective of who posts it, then the Forum has outlived its usefulness anyway.

Rather than forbidding the posting of outright lies, what is forbidden is calling a lie a lie. Orwell is spinning.

[...]

"Outlived its usefulness", huh? That rule was in place well before you joined this forum. It does not prohibit demonstrating that claims made by others are false nor IMO does it prohibit demonstration the claimant should have know the information was incorrect. It would be up to the readers to decide if the claimant was dishonest or confused.

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

×
×
  • Create New...