The Future of the JFK Forum

[Len Colby]

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.

[...]

Paul,

I respect your opinion but I didn't see what you did (and I'm no fan of Tom's or Jim's) can you point out posts/comments they made that justified John's actions.

Len

[Guest Robert Morrow]

"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

There are two books that have come out recently that give deep insight into John Kennedy - 1) Mimi Alford's book "Once Upon a Secret:" http://www.amazon.com/Once-Upon-Secret-President-Aftermath/dp/0812981340/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1370966473&sr=8-1&keywords=mimi+alford

and 2) "Dr. Feelgood" by Richard Lertzman http://www.amazon.com/Dr-Feelgood-Shocking-Treating-Prominent/dp/1620875896/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1370966516&sr=8-1&keywords=dr.+feelgood

Both most definitely have historical significance. JFK told his teenage lover Mimi Beardsley "I'd rather my children red than dead" and he told her this at the absolute peak of the Cuban Missile Crisis, just before the deal with the Soviets. If it had been up to LBJ and the JCS and most of Excom the emphasis would have been on the word "dead" and mostly "dead" Russian children.

That quote is an historically important insight into JFK from someone who had access to JFK that few others had; from a young woman Mimi who used to play rubber duckies with JFK in the White House bath tub (which also gives us important insight into John Kennedy & his personality).

John Kennedy wants to play rubber duckies and Curtis LeMay wants incinerated Russians.

The book "Dr. Feelgood" describes a meth overdose incident of JFK where he is running around naked in his hotel in 1962. This is the same year of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Think those Secret Service guys were not telling LBJ and the military about that?? Think they were not gossiping, telling their boss James Rowley (a long time LBJ friend) and that Rowely was not telling other key players about this behavior??

Think again, because they were. When the POTUS acts that over the top nuts, people tell their friends and those "friends" in many cases might be "enemies" of the Kennedy boys.

It was just one more reason the plotters had to justify the murder of a sitting president. Not the primary reason mind you, but another reason.

Edited June 11, 2013 by Robert Morrow

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Paul,

I respect your opinion but I didn't see what you did (and I'm no fan of Tom's or Jim's) can you point out posts/comments they made that justified John's actions.

Len

This is how Jim D. concluded what turned out be his final post-- Famous last words from Jim D.

(As per Ray baby, you are so discredited and you don't even know it. Why not sell your snake oil at DPF? See how long you last)

So no one will be surprised that I, for one, am glad that John Simkin has finally had enough of Jim D's nasty attitude.

Edited June 12, 2013 by J. Raymond Carroll

[Mark Knight]

Mr. Morrow, I'm wondering if you are correctly using the term "methamphetamine," versus the accepted and highly-prescribed "amphetamine" of the 1960's. "Amphetamine is scientifically known as methylated phenylethylamine. Methamphetamine is double methylated phenylethylamine." Obviously similar, but not identical.

So...are you CERTAIN that JFK was using methamphetamine?

[Robert Prudhomme]

Paul,

I respect your opinion but I didn't see what you did (and I'm no fan of Tom's or Jim's) can you point out posts/comments they made that justified John's actions.

Len

This is how Jim D. concluded what turned out be his final post-- Famous last words from Jim D.

(As per Ray baby, you are so discredited and you don't even know it. Why not sell your snake oil at DPF? See how long you last)

So no one will be surprised that I, for one, am glad that John Simkin has finally had enough of Jim B's nasty attitude.

Mr. Carroll

I find I must agree with you on this point. There are ways of dealing with an opponent in a debate that do not leave a bad taste in everyone's mouth.

My late father was fond of describing a smooth talking friend of his in the following manner, "He could tell someone to go to Hell, and actually have the fellow looking forward to the trip."

That, to me, is the essence of a good debater.

[Guest Robert Morrow]

Mr. Morrow, I'm wondering if you are correctly using the term "methamphetamine," versus the accepted and highly-prescribed "amphetamine" of the 1960's. "Amphetamine is scientifically known as methylated phenylethylamine. Methamphetamine is double methylated phenylethylamine." Obviously similar, but not identical.

So...are you CERTAIN that JFK was using methamphetamine?

That is splitting hairs, but you are probably correct. The Nazi pilots were users of "amphetamine." http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/crystal-meth-origins-link-back-to-nazi-germany-and-world-war-ii-a-901755.html

In any event, JFK's amphetamine addiction is quite important; all most drug addicts can think about is where they are going to get their next high from. JFK was so addicted that he wanted his drug doctor Max Jacobson to actually live in the White House with him. Wow.

Btw, Lyndon Johnson was a big pillhead himself - I am sure he was abusing the prescription drugs of the day when he was not sucking down cases of cheap Cutty Sark or chain smoking.

[Mark Knight]

Actually, it's NOT a case of splitting hairs. It's a case of striving for accuracy.

This is still billed as the EDUCATION Forum, and not the Rumor, Speculation, and Assumption Forum.

Please EDUCATE yourself on the similarities and the differences of amphetamines and methamphetamines, and how each is/was used in a medical setting. I spent some time myself searching out the terms and the the similarities and differences, and I highly recommend you do the same.

[Guest Robert Morrow]

I must confess I am not an expert on amphetamine or crystal meth, Thank God. I need to read up on it. I think many of the elites of that era had no idea what they were getting into with both amphetatimine and LSD. By the way, Willie Nelson said that he smoked weed with JFK on top of the White House. We know JFK was giving "poppers" (sexual enhancement drugs) to teenage girls. And I can easily believe Mary Meyer was doing LSD with President Kennedy. The popular use of these drugs was new at this time and the epic dangers associated with them were not fully understood.

From an Ed Forum reader:

"I think you got my previous email about JFK and Max Jacobson
and sex. Mark Knight is the one who is confused. Jacobson's potion
was based around METHamphetamine - also known today as Desoxyn.
Everyone back then and I mean everyone was popping plain amphetamine
(benzedrine) or dextroamphetamine (dexedrine) pills but those
"Vitamin Shots" were all based around methamphetamine (methedrine).
All amphetamines can induce extreme pro-sexual behavior and
psychosis - but methamphetamine is particularly euphoric and
prosexual. It is all detailed in the Jacobson book.

But also - JFK was on MANY other drugs at the same time including
opioid painkillers (narcotics) such as methadone and on
steroids too! This has all been documented to some degree or
another over the past years - I'm sure you have it all in your
library. You are totally on the right track with the drug
influences - he certainly was doing weed and coke and poppers
too and MAYBE did acid with Mary, etc. Lots of the elite were
then and of course you know about the Company's history with
LSD."

Edited June 11, 2013 by Robert Morrow

[Guest Robert Morrow]

From another Ed Forum reader:

Robert Morrow appears to be a sex obsessed, gossip mongering, drug fascinated, purveyor of nonsense. He also appears to have an unhealthy fascination with underage sex.

Why do you allow this man on your forum?

It's not my forum Robert, but the question is valid.

That is what is called "projection" and "shooting the messenger." John Kennedy loved gossip, especially if it was sexual gossip. Gore Vidal mentions that. JFK was completely sex obsessed, addicted to amphetamine and he was having sex with teenage girls such as Mimi Alford and the mother of Jack Worthington http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/04/jack200804

"His mother, an exquisite beauty queen in her youth, met John F. Kennedy soon after he became President through an introduction from Vice President Lyndon Johnson, a close family friend. Members of his mother’s family were political allies of LBJ during his ascent to power."

I don't know if JFK was having underaged sex, but he was obsessed with having teenage sex while he was a married man in his mid forties.

[Myra Bronstein]

Actually, it's NOT a case of splitting hairs. It's a case of striving for accuracy.

This is still billed as the EDUCATION Forum, and not the Rumor, Speculation, and Assumption Forum.

Please EDUCATE yourself on the similarities and the differences of amphetamines and methamphetamines, and how each is/was used in a medical setting. I spent some time myself searching out the terms and the the similarities and differences, and I highly recommend you do the same.

Thank you Mark. I guess it's splitting hairs like distinguishing truth from fiction is splitting hairs.

[Paul Trejo]

...I 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...

It seems to me that JFK researchers should be able to disagree about everything and still remain civil. I personally hope that the new regime will fulfill its mission and keep the Forum alive for decades to come -- at least until 2038 or when all official Lee Harvey Oswald files are finally made public.

Because, until all the facts are made public, none of us can claim to know the final answer -- it is like adding up a whole page of twenty digit numbers, where one of the numbers is blanked out -- and we are still expected to arrive at the total sum. The odds of getting it right are virtually impossible.

So, we should expect disagreements -- of the most blatant variety. Yet nothing should prevent civil discourse in the interest of free speech. Cantankerous talk actually stifles free speech, so I applaud the new regime (especially with regard to Tom Scully, who seemed to me to be unduly harsh as a moderator).

I personally had no complaint against Jim Di Eugenio, but if he was less than civil to somebody, then some warning is clearly warranted. I would want a warning, too, if I ever crossed the line of civility. Thumbs up for the new regime.

Finally -- I think that after 50 years of JFK research, we can hope for better insights and a higher quality of methods and theories. Here's to 25 more years of the Forum.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited June 12, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Guest Robert Morrow]

I disagree with Paul Trejo on many points. But I don't think I ever see him acting like a jerk on Education Forum.

So we can "agree to disagree" on some or many points.

You can scroll back 7 years on Education Forum and look at Pat Speer's comments - there is almost no record of him acting like an unhinged jackass, like so many in JFK research have done for decades.

Ditto Doug Caddy - a man sometimes personally attacked who never gets in the gutter with the pigs.

Those are 3 good examples.

[David Lifton]

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.

Paul:

If you are interested in one of the best books ever written which accurately describes Oswald's character and personality, then I highly recommend the book written by Ernst Titovets, Oswald's best friend when he was in Minsk. The book is titled OSWALD: Russian Episode, is 400 plus pages long. consist of 35 chapters divided into 7 separate sections. Titovets starts by painting the general picture in Minsk, circa 1960 (Oswald arrived there on January 7, 1960) and then goes through the story of how he met Oswald, and the friendship that ensued.

Titovets--then a medical student (and now "Dr. Titovets")-- met Oswald around September 24, 1960. The two went to plays, concerts, went out with girls, debated politics and philosophy. Titovets was a serious student of language, and accents. On one (or more) occasions, he set up a (Wollensak) tape recorder and had Oswald read from short stories by Hemingway, and from Shakespeare.

That's right: Hemingway and Shakespeare--and just reading about all this results in a genuine portrait of the real Oswald, not the two-dimensional cartoon figure spread all over the Internet by various Lone Nutters, whose "analyses" of Oswald border on character assassination.

I first spoke to Titovets back around 1992 or early 1993, within a year of the fall of the U.S.S.R., and when he almost made a trip to the U.S., and we have emailed a bit since then. And I do appear --briefly--in his book.

But back to Dr. Titovets, and my own view of his accomplishment. He is, in many respects, Lee Oswald's "Boswell." There is really none other like him. He is observant, highly analytic, and writes well. There is no other person who took such a sincere and genuine interest in Oswald, and then spent the time he did to write such a book. As Lee Oswald said, in his own "Historic Diary": "Erich [Ernst Titovets] is my oldest existing acquaintance. . .a friend of mine who speaks English very well."

Were it not for the Cold War, Titovets would have been an important witness before the Warren Commission.

Just imagine: you knew someone for just 20 months, and then--some 30 years later--that person set out to assemble his notes and recollections and writes a 400 page book about you. That's what Titovets did. And he has done a really fine job. This book provides a detailed accounting of Oswald, as observed by Titovets, for some 20 months--from 9/24/60, when he first met Oswald, until around May 22, 1962, when they visited briefly for the last time.

Ernst Titovets has a website, and perhaps you can order the book there.

In any event, I highly recommend the book for anyone seeking to understand Oswald, and get a balanced picture of what he was like.

DSL

6/12/13; 2:10 AM PDT; edited and revised: 6/12/13, 4:25 PDT

Los Angeles, California

Edited June 12, 2013 by David Lifton

[Barry Keane]

I have always followed the maxim that no one has the monopoly on wisdom in the case of the death of JFK. I certainly don't. I joined this forum to be educated. I do not get involved in personal attacks.If a member attacks me personally, I would simply ignore them. My research for what it's worth is for all to benefit from. If it brings us closer to the truth, great, if not no harm done. Let's just move on. The truth will out despite those whose remain short sighted and blinkered.

Keep on trucking John, you are a credit to us all!

[Anthony Thorne]

I hope the forum can continue, and I hope the personal attacks - in whichever direction - stop permanently. With John's advance warning there are various apps and software programs that allow people to download an entire site for offline reference - some here might wish to attempt an archival download of the forum and its many hundreds of valuable threads on the off chance that things don't end happily. Obviously I hope that doesn't happen though.

Just want to add a thank you in the meantime to John and the various forum members for their years of hard work and discussion as we approach the 50th.