Jump to content
The Education Forum
John Simkin

JFK Forum: Rules of Behaviour and other points

Recommended Posts

Guest Eugene B. Connolly
Yes a photo would be nice. No photo might be nicer.

Also it was great to read Clint Eastwood's posts.

Good to know Dirty Harry is keeping an eye on us all.

Don Roberdeau has emailed me explaining why he cannot show a photograph of himself. His reasons are understandable and is allowed to continue to post. What is your excuse?

What's my excuse?

Sorry John, I have no excuse.

Please ban me now before I post again.

EBC

Edited by Eugene B. Connolly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Eugene B. Connolly

}I{

Edited by Eugene B. Connolly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please ban me now before I post again.

You will not get banned for not posting your photograph. If we at a real seminar we could see each other faces. If you feel so strongly about keeping your facial characteristics a secret, then I, and the others will have to live with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please ban me now before I post again.

You will not get banned for not posting your photograph. If we at a real seminar we could see each other faces. If you feel so strongly about keeping your facial characteristics a secret, then I, and the others will have to live with it.

-------------------

But why no bio Mr Connolly??? Just curious.

And Richard Smith, I encourage honest debate, just did not want to see what looked like boring infighting. Felt it could be done in an email. This is indended to be a serious forum, so the personal attacks re. alteration of the Z film were getting to be too much. We can all read the book and decide for ourselves.

And whether or not you believe the FIles story, this too can be dealt with in an adult manner. As to being accused of being "CIA" or a disinformationist, well you must admit in this case there have been more than a few of those.

John's rule of having a bio and a photo is a good way to encourage trust. If there is one thing that is lacking in the "critical community" it is trust. So any way one can facilate such constitutes good practice, I believe.

Dawn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dawn

Some people have no biography and have no face: and they are the ones who know the truth about the Kennedy assassination!

Seriously, I am quite proud of the level of discourse here.

The wingnuts have been tamed and the "cream rises to the top..."

Thanks to everyone for participating fully and taking some small risks

by identifying yourselves .... Shanet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They don't get tamed because of photo up. They are the same with it or without it.

Just the more you see and read is the more you learn.

One of these days I will write somethings I have learned in a pattern with them.

Doesn't anyone see that?

I sure have. It shows all to well and they do it the same way.

That is WHY it shows.

They are out of patterns now.

They have no more recourse to turn to or go.

One by one they get figured out as well. We all know them now.

If I am wrong let me know and I do think everyone knows the who's and the what's maybe even better than I do. Probably?

Boy, do they ever have that same pattern.....

IF they tear down every word you say, tear down your learning, provoke situations, get deleted then they won. You don't comment than they got you and if you do comment they then blame you. YEAH they certainly do have a system that works for everyone of them.

They have several spys all of us talk about that. WE KNOW THE WHO'S THERE.

They have the feelers and the torment even to the worst situations you tell that you go though. Then they have the ones that take the cover for them and let them off the hook. YEAH that is the pattern. ONLY NOW they don't have as many of them so it shows up more. Again I say those words the jig is up.

I am not saying any names here. Go to and go by the rules of this and then apply over to the forum. Then we GOT THE PATTERN ON THEM and not the other way around.

NOW This is bound to stir them up more.

SO< hush we won't say anything any more.

Personally I went through the rules and abided fairly well

Just watch and see what happens next.

The other thing wake up.

That is a bit of my humor. Need it - with this.

NOW the best part is they know they are figured out.

Bad for them. Good for us.

We need a plot to get back and keep it recorded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Eugene B. Connolly

But why no bio Mr Connolly??? Just curious.

Be just curious...be very just curious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But why no bio Mr Connolly??? Just curious.

Be just curious... be very just curious.

As I have explained many times, one of the main reasons for this biography is to enable students to use this forum for research in their academic studies. All I can say is that students should treat any information provided by people unwilling to post their biography with great care. In fact, it should be treated as about as useful as graffiti written on a wall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Eugene B. Connolly

"As I have explained many times, one of the main reasons for this biography is to enable students to use this forum for research in their academic studies. All I can say is that students should treat any information provided by people unwilling to post their biography with great care. In fact, it should be treated as about as useful as graffiti written on a wall."

John, this is a most extreme, uncharitable, intemperate and splenetic posting. For some reason I expect better from you. This sort of snide undirected innuendo is unhelpful and uncalled for.To assume that the 'biographies' of certain individual 'researchers' are genuine in part or in whole or indeed of any value whatsoever is both naive and myopic. I treat any 'biography/information' given by these people with the suspicion it deserves. Having several University degrees and teaching diplomas I am totally unimpressed by those who think a string of letters after their name gives them some sort of cachet of respectability or of expertise on anything.

We are all learners. We are all amateurs [in both the literal and colloquial sense of the word]. We are all researchers for what is life itself but one long research? Let us have no bogus and spurious hierarchy of 'biographies' in this forum. As for your disdain for graffiti I feel it is unfounded. There is a lot to be said for graffiti which 'scratches' the surface to reveal deeper truths.

EBC

Edited by Eugene B. Connolly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We are all learners. We are all amateurs [in both  the literal and colloquial sense of the word]. We are all researchers for what is life itself but one long research? Let us have no bogus and spurious hierarchy of 'biographies' in this forum. As for your disdain for graffiti  I feel it is unfounded. There is a lot to be said for graffiti which 'scratches' the surface to reveal deeper truths.

The problems created by people insisting on remaining anonymous can be found here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2433

It seems Gibson was not telling the truth. Your decision not to post your details can only create suspicion about your motives for refusing to abide by forum rules. Maybe you just like playing the role of being a naughty boy. In truth, I could not care less what you do. The rest of the forum do not seem to be influenced by your behaviour and are posting their biographies and photos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Having several University degrees and teaching diplomas I am totally unimpressed by those who think a string of letters after their name gives them some sort of cachet of  respectability or of expertise on anything.

I can understand John wanting people to post a photo and a biography, but his reasoning is flawed for the reasons you have stated. Harold Wiesberg was a chicken farmer and I have yet to meet any Ph.D with Harold's knowledge of the facts surrounding the assassination. Anyone can make up a biography and who'd be the wiser? Some people have careers where they might not want their opinions traced back to them for political reasons. I think the trick to helping the students is to insist that members (bio or no bio) cite as much evidence as possible by referencing where they have gotten their information. Then the students can follow up and see if someone has stated the facts properly. Offering information without references to it is little more than offering an opinion and everyone should always be skeptical of an opinion until there has been reasonable information offered to support it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Having several University degrees and teaching diplomas I am totally unimpressed by those who think a string of letters after their name gives them some sort of cachet of  respectability or of expertise on anything.

I can understand John wanting people to post a photo and a biography, but his reasoning is flawed for the reasons you have stated. Harold Wiesberg was a chicken farmer and I have yet to meet any Ph.D with Harold's knowledge of the facts surrounding the assassination.

I am not interested in someone’s educational qualifications. As you rightly say, it is to “cite as much evidence as possible by referencing where they have gotten their information” that is important. Harold Wiesberg might have been a chicken farmer (he was a State Department intelligence analyst when he wrote Whitewash) but he never attempted to disguise his identify from his readers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dawn,

"And Richard Smith, I encourage honest debate, just did not want to see what looked like boring infighting. Felt it could be done in an email. This is indended to be a serious forum, so the personal attacks re. alteration of the Z film were getting to be too much. We can all read the book and decide for ourselves. "

Not sure how Z film alteration fits here, but I don't recall making any personal attacks regarding Mr Fetzer or his book here or anywhere else. I have however, made comments that questioned the veracity of the "evidence" presented regarding Z film alteration. Attacking someone's work is not the same as attacking them personally. As far as reading the book and determining its merit, unless you have an expert explain it, you couldn't decide for yourself by reading it, nor could I. Once it was explained by experts, and after reading the horrible responses by supporters of the alteration theory, I was absolutely convinced the Z film is authentic, and took the side of the anti-alterationists in the debate that was held at Lancer.

"And whether or not you believe the FIles story, this too can be dealt with in an adult manner. As to being accused of being "CIA" or a disinformationist, well you must admit in this case there have been more than a few of those."

With all due respect, it was dealt with in an adult manner from my point of view. It wasn't me who initiated the personal attacks. To be branded CIA in the research community is like the kiss of death. It was unprofessional, spiteful, childish, and intended to divert attention from the discussion at hand.

Let me engage in a hypethetical situation Dawn. I write my opinion on an aspect of the events in Dallas on November 22, 1963 on this forum(or any other). I claim that I have all kinds of facts to back up my statements. You spend 6 months looking into it, and post your findings. You essentially blow my case out of the water. My response to your investigation is that you are nothing more than a CIA plant. I go on to say I don't think you are really Dawn Meredith, and don't believe you when you say you are originally from Nova Scotia and lived in Boston. Furthermore, I tell you I think you're sitting behind a desk at Langley looking for ways to discredit my "true" story. On top of all that, I ask other forum members if they have ever met you, and to vouch for who you say you are. I repeatedly ask you to publicly post personal information about yourself to prove to me who you really are. When you refuse to publicly post personal information, I have YOU investigated, and post your personal information on that public forum, including your age and current sleepy little hometown. I don't think that would go over too well with you, or anyone else for that matter. Would you, under those circumstances, simply say, "oh well, there have been more than a few of those" on the forums? I think not.

Richard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BillM wrote:

[...]

Offering information without references to it is little more than offering an opinion and everyone should always be skeptical of an opinion until there has been reasonable information offered to support it.

==========

Would the entire reference library from the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineering, dating back to 1915 suffice in demonstrating that optical film printing techniques existed in 1963, for that matter, WELL before 1963? A case can be made for alteration, till forensic testing is done, the Z-film will remain a dubious piece of evidence, nice show and tell, but those in the know, K N O W!

Why not run a roll of film through the actual B&H Double8mm camera? Roland Zavada wanted that very test, too.... No soap, so say's the 6th Floor Museum, wonder why?

One could cite volumes -- not to mention, show examples ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dawn,

"And Richard Smith, I encourage honest debate, just did not want to see what looked like boring infighting. Felt it could be done in an email. This is indended to be a serious forum, so the personal attacks re. alteration of the Z film were getting to be too much. We can all read the book and decide for ourselves. "

Not sure how Z film alteration fits here, but I don't recall making any personal attacks regarding Mr Fetzer or his book here or anywhere else. I have however, made comments that questioned the veracity of the "evidence" presented regarding Z film alteration. Attacking someone's work is not the same as attacking them personally. As far as reading the book and determining its merit, unless you have an expert explain it, you couldn't decide for yourself by reading it, nor could I. Once it was explained by experts, and after reading the horrible responses by supporters of the alteration theory, I was absolutely convinced the Z film is authentic, and took the side of the anti-alterationists in the debate that was held at Lancer.

"And whether or not you believe the FIles story, this too can be dealt with in an adult manner.  As to being accused of being "CIA" or a disinformationist, well you must admit in this case there have been more than a few of those."

With all due respect, it was dealt with in an adult manner from my point of view. It wasn't me who initiated the personal attacks. To be branded CIA in the research community is like the kiss of death. It was unprofessional, spiteful, childish, and intended to divert attention from the discussion at hand.

Let me engage in a hypethetical situation Dawn. I write my opinion on an aspect of the events in Dallas on November 22, 1963 on this forum(or any other). I claim that I have all kinds of facts to back up my statements. You spend 6 months looking into it, and post your findings. You essentially blow my case out of the water. My response to your investigation is that you are nothing more than a CIA plant. I go on to say I don't think you are really Dawn Meredith, and don't believe you when you say you are originally from Nova Scotia and lived in Boston. Furthermore, I tell you I think you're sitting behind a desk at Langley looking for ways to discredit my "true" story. On top of all that, I ask other forum members if they have ever met you, and to vouch for who you say you are. I repeatedly ask you to publicly post personal information about yourself to prove to me who you really are. When you refuse to publicly post personal information, I have YOU investigated, and post your personal information on that public forum, including your age and current sleepy little hometown. I don't think that would go over too well with you, or anyone else for that matter. Would you, under those circumstances, simply say, "oh well, there have been more than a few of those" on the forums? I think not.

Richard

__________________________

Geez, this is getting pretty damn weird. I do not know quite how to take your post mr. Smith. My life is an open book. I have nothing to hide. My bio is 100% accurrate. You are welcome to check me out.

I made the posts I did as an honest effort to stop the friggen infighting. Period. I have had many researcher friends over these many decades and I have seen such an abundance of infighting that it just drives me nuts. So I joined this forum about 5 weeks ago and I asked that it be limited to serious research. Call me an idiot. My husband told me I just "don't understand how forum are, how poeple just flame each other". No I do not. I have kept away from forums.

Ok Richard, I am really agent 69. I have a second comperter hooked up with the company crowd, I just pretend to be an attorney, when really, I was in Cuba last week and behind the scenes Castro and I orcharasted the election to insure Bush would stay in power.

Please....if I have made one mistatke here it is that I have let all this become too personal. I feel like I know the people here when in fact I do not.

I care deeply about the murder of jfk and I believe it was an assassination from the highest levels of this government. So I foolishly got into a forum as I am sick and tired of all the people I know not giving two xxxxs and having zero knowledge about this case. I have talked to judges, other lawyers, district arttorneys... you just get the blank stare and the subject gets changed. THEY DON"t WANT TO KNOW. So I came onto a forum to find like minded people.

If someone wants references on me as to who I am, PM me and I can provide same.

BUT I will not give out my friends' private email and or phone numbers to be harrassed by people with an agenda.

I have been truthfull at all times on this forum. I have one agenda: solving this murder and stopping the infighting between people who say they want the same thing.

If some of you out there have a differnet agenda then you know who and what you truly are. I am not God. Bu there is a GOd and He knows the truth. We mortals are just trying to piece together the pictures of this horrible puzzle, to untalgle the forces behind the theft of our government on 11/22/63.

Dawn Meredith

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

×