JFK Forum: Rules of Behaviour and other points

[John Dolva]

You're most welcome, (as is William and everyone else), John.

Well in a sense I've been studying this as a person through numerous societies most of my life. I grew up in Sweden under Olaf Palme and from sweden we watched the US, and once Tom, through my seeming to look in that sort of direction, brought me to the MSC archives and I spent days on end reading documents, putting together the Draper stuff not knowing someone alse was/had doing/done it and in the process discovered an america that people seem so reluctant to acknowledge. Take the search for the mississippi three for example. In the process they found quite a number of bodies and body parts of others. Then Oxford and Walker, and a nudge here and there led me to the southern intelligence network, persons such as Birdsong, a hazy look at the much more secretive Alabama in terms of armament procurement and the KKK. There were areas where young people are described as responding ti JFK's death with 'he is not our president'. The incredible number of shots that kill by white on black where the coroner conspired and made out a death certificate that said death by heart attack, Durham and on and on and on. The place was in uproar. Oxford was not nothing. and so on...

What I don't agree with is the idea that I use the ignore button.

I dont know who killed Kennedy. I want to hear all sides. But the more I look at it the more I see a definite denial process that may very well be hampering the overall progress. I think the answer is in there somewhere.

Did you actually go to the MSC archives or is there an on-line resource available somewhere?

Yes http://mdah.state.ms.us/arrec/digital_archives/sovcom/ and yes i scoured it (agin playing around with the links and coming across apparently unlinked to docs such as an almost obscured Prentiss Bush in the Comittee set up by Thurmond re Walker) for the figures and found most over time and calculated much as yoiu have. I posted it some years ago i think anyway an earlier post as a result of Tom (The Man, out on the limb, much undeservedly maligned and oh so annoying, brilliant, acidic, dry, good old man) Purvis.

Have you looked at the dates of the Draper cash flows to the MSC and the subsequent or concomitant Civil Rights Acts of Violence yet?

Yes and the gap in info ostensibly during a members change covering the kennedy assasination. IOW that which one might assume SHOULD be there, isn't, and that, to me, is just as interesting.

Tom is Tom Scully or who?

People just continue to marginalize folks like GLK Smith, Vonsiatsky and Draper because they just can not comprehend the level of vitriole,

hatred and violence which can be summoned by these demons from Hell. Their associates talk about putting bullets in the heads of communist schoolteachers, and Vonsiatsky sticks ice picks into victims thighs to make them talk, uses brass knuckles on unfriendly reporters who wrote things that he disagrees with or makes him look bad, and machine guns unarmed Bolsheviks for their political views. Draper sends innocent people to the electric chair, orchestrates character assassination campaigns against Alger Hiss and others, and pays to have Evers, Chaney, Goodman and Schwerner the Birmingham choir girls, then MLK and JFK murdered. Sound like a lot of people here not only use those Morris and McCarthy tactics, but would like to try and use Vonsiatsky and Draper tactics as well. Point well taken and well made. And then some here try to call them "marginal or peripheral figures with ever-shrinking influence and power?" Dream on. Dream on my friends. It was for these very reasons that Draper and GLK Smith jumped on board the JFK lottery bandwagon. They were both almost dead broke, aging rapidly and feeling impotent and powerless because their lifelong major goals and projects were considered a dismal failure in their minds. Some other people could probably empathize with that feeling as well, right?

Yes a centuries long way of life with the odd n hunt here and there were drawing to a close, the sharecroppers, like one of Tills killers, could no longer run roughshod over near slave labour limited and intimidated into the bottom of the food chain for an entire society. Kennedys proposals re freedom of movement, education, just basic rights really, got them where it hurts them the most, and they certainly contributed to the atmosphere wherein JFK's death becomes something welcomed. AFA i'm concerned and im sure there are many Rebels who'd agree with me, the Civil War never ended.

[John Bevilaqua]

So it is not a violation of forum rules to post the names, addresses and phone numbers from open source references?

BK

If the intention is to intimidate, coerce, harass or otherwise threaten a person, then of course, it is. Just be careful. You

are treading on some potentially very serious issues, with both criminal and civil repurcussions, by making a threatening or

intimidating statement like that and even worse repurcussions, if you actually carry it out.

[John Bevilaqua]

I agree with Bill that John become increasing unpleasant. This happened last time he was an active member. However, as far as I know, no one has complained to the moderators about his behaviour until now. I would think there is a good case for him being placed on moderation.

Well I for one complained to the moderators just a week ago, the complaint being that many of Bevilaqua's posts have very little, if indeed any, real relevance to the assassination or case. It was made crystal clear that whilst the moderator was sympathetic and even hinted at agreement no action was going to be taken, frankly I was confused as the complaint was a legitimate one, until I was informed by a mod (who under no circumstances will be named) that the moderators had been instructed, by yourself (John Simkin) to "allow Bevilaqua a great deal of latitude". Any comment Mr Simkin? Is it true that because of personal friendship, political affiliation or whatever reason Bevilaqua's posts are not bound by the rules of this forum? Perhaps you feel Bevilaqua is a more importaint member than the rest of us plebs? Or perhaps he pulls more "hits"? This is your forum Mr Simkin, you own it, so if this is the case no one, least of all me, can deny you have the right. But I feel it would be a great shame if the ED forum went the same way as the Rich Dellarosa site where favoritism and protection is the norm. I sincerly hope I've not breached any forum rules with these rather awkward questions, I'm more than aware that I dont carry any special privileges here...the question is can the same be said for Bevilaqua ?

\

Is it true that John Bevilaqua had been a member of this forum before and had been banned or otherwise left?

Is it true that John Simkin has given moderators instructions to give him a "great deal of latitude"?

Thanks,

BK

Is it true that these questions are provocative, irrelevant, immature, vindictive, devisive, delusional, paranoic, condescending and cast aspersions

on the very character and motivations of both John Simkin and others?

The answers to the 2 questions above are No and No.

[John Bevilaqua]

Bill, concerning the JFK assassination case, you're miles ahead of most here -- resentment is inevitable. Blow it off, the guy isn't worth your time!

This has got to be a first and hopefully a last, but I find myself actually agreeing with David Healy.

Bill, dont let this raving fanatic intimidate you. Just enjoy the irony, Belivaqua emulates and uses the same tactics as the man he claims to despise the most...Joe McCarthy!!

Actually Whittaker Chambers stated that it was in fact Robert J. Morris who was the originator and perpetrator of most of the attitudes

and actions mistakenly attributed to Joseph McCarthy during McCarthyism, including stifling or trampling on First Amendment rights,

book burning, and if it existed in the 1950's "Grafitti Tagging". Why don't we all just call off the dogs and go back to posting and reading?

Just block out what you don't want to see or read, put on your blinders and go on your merry way where the light is the brightest and

where the grass has already been trampled flat. That is surely a great approach. As for me, I prefer to take the path not taken before.

I called off the dogs a long time ago but the barking still continues from multiple sources. If you do not like my postings, either do not

read them or block them out using your My Controls panel. Simple enough, right? I for one am tired of these attempts at coercion,

threats and intimidation. It is just like skating on thin ice.

[Denis Pointing]

Breached forum rules? You have GOT to be kidding. You have breached the very rules of humanity, of common decency and of the very principles of The First Amendment itself. And you are concerned with forum rules? What a joke! How about the rules of fair play, of leveling the playing field, or the rules of the drive-by gang bangers who just resort to playing "Grafitti Tagger" when they happen to disagree with a certain posting or a certain poster? Amazing

You have the nerve to lecture me on "rules of humanity, of common decency" after writing the following rabid racist rantings about Ken Rahn! What a bloody hypocrite you are.

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

Quote from Belvilaqua:

Villify him.

Pillory him.

Expose him.

Humiliate him.

Badger him.

Call him on everything.

Lambaste him.

Degrade him.

Ream him."

Anyone interested in the real Bevilaqua should read this article by Ken Rahn:

Exterminating the evil and dangerous Ken Rahn

John Bevilaqua, under the alias of John McLoughlin, attended the two Providence conferences on the JFK assassination, the one in 1993 sponsored by Jerry Rose and "The Third Decade," and the one in 1999 sponsored by the University of Rhode Island and my JFK class. He spoke at each, and he and I became acquaintances. After the second conference, he even volunteered to give copies of his manuscript to my class, but never followed through.

Something happened in the fall of 2000, and he turned on me with a vengeance. Writing as "Jim Anderson," he sent a very strong attacking message to alt.conspiracy.jfk, whose contents show that these feelings had been building up inside him for some time. Here is one of the tamer parts of that message:

Hey now, you are talking about our version of Mr. McCarthy, Kenneth Rann, who actually claims that he can, merely by expelling gas from his ass, rise a distance of 9.99999999 (I forget how many 9's) centimeters above a chair while in a seated position with 2 strong, but totally naked, URI football players pressing down on his shoulders, thus proving beyond the shadow of a doubt that the "head snap" could have been produced by gasses coming out of the cranial cavity from bullet number 5 which was a frontal shot thus mimicking the frontal lobotomy that Herr Doktor Rann underwent just to prove, and I quote:

"Vee Ghermans cum frum ze strong breeding stock, and ah soooo schmaaht, zat ve can akchuly undergo Total Frontal Lobotomy and still come up ticking. Vee haff so many exzess brrain zells zat vee can effun donate sum to charatees and still vin ze Nobel Prizes. Yah vohl. You can not effun see zee scarse, because zey vent in behind my eyeballs. Zay popped out the eyeball and poked around for a while and I can still do JFK research. Take a lookie here."

Bevilaqua was apparently set off by earlier comments I had made publicly in support of the theory behind the "jet effect," the idea that the mass of blood and tissue expelled forward from JFK's exploding head would have contributed to his rearward motion seen so dramatically in the Zapruder film. He combined this with my German surname and decided to mock rather than deal with the argument itself.

After falling silent for a time, he surfaced again in mid-April 2001 with a vengeance. This time he was writing as Dr. Hans J. Eysenck, "Nazi brain scientist." Added to list of outrages was the fact that the students in my JFK classes generally agreed with my approach to the assassination, something that Bevilaqua preferred to attribute to brainwashing on my part. Here is part of a message he sent to alt.conspiracy.jfk, in response to a thread on a different topic:

"You know what a shame it is when so called certified and accredited (???) professeurs actually have the audacity, under the guise of academic respectability, to profess baldfaced lies and untruths in front of these poor young kids who are paying about $100,000 to listen to falsehoods. When we were in school we used to hiss in unison if we felt we were being lied to with prevarications, mistruths or falsehoods. I witnessed a handful of students, nice kids otherwise, who had been subjected to an entire semester of distortions and brainwashing at the URI laboratory of Herr Doktor Khan. They babbled the "right" jargon on cue, used politically correct techniques of analysis and "critical thinking," which means they criticized anything that smacked of conspiracy theory, cited party line and party dogma on command, and in general just "followed orders" from above in order to get a good grade from the grade master.

…

INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY is a very strong term, but I mean this in the strongest sense. Academic Freedom does not have any room for Intellectual Dishonesty.

To bend and twist young impressionable minds when one has already revealed a pattern of the destruction of the minds of youths who have put their faith in you is an intellectual atrocity akin to mind rape and mind bending.

Anyone guilty of these intellectual atrocities and affronts against humanity should be castigated, reviled, belittled and exposed.

And I plan to do just that."

What merited this announced plan to "castigate, revile, belittle, and expose"? Apparently the combination of my last name, my speaking out about unsupported "conspiracies," my JFK class, and my support for the laws of physics.

Here is part of another post to alt.conspiracy.jfk from that same period of mid-Aril 2001. I am now Nazi scientist Dr. Runwith Khan, and the stakes are being raised to Nazi brain science and mind control:

"Just consider an entire classroom of kids watching Khan essentially using Nazi Brain Science in proving that, let's say, The World is Flat, and the entire class watches in awe and rapture, agreeing with him, writing papers on the topic, and then applauding his efforts without smirking or laughing at his efforts. THAT is Nazi Brain Science at its very best.

Sort of like hypnotized Korean POWs in Manchurian Candidate where Khan is playing the role of Dr. Yen Lo to his audience and his students think they are part of a meeting of a New Jersey Horticulture Club.

Khan even looks and sounds a little like Yen Lo, don't you think? …with that sing-song little pseudo-scientific cadence he has which is intended only to confuse his students into a trance like state so they will be more susceptible to his lies and falsehoods.

I am serious folks. This is mind control and altered state consciousness at its very best."

If you think it couldn't get any worse, you are wrong. A week later, Bevilaqua again raised the stakes in a post to alt.conspiracy.jfk, part of which reads:

"If you find and MIT, Draper Labs type he will probably support the Nuke em and Puke em, Military Industrial Complex School of Thought and be...get this....a non-believer in conspiracies in the JFK hit.

My suggestion is: DO NOT SUPPORT HIM

DO NOT DEFEND HIM

Villify him.

Pillory him.

Expose him.

Humiliate him.

Badger him.

Call him on everything.

Lambaste him.

Degrade him.

Ream him."

These goals were contained in another message to a poster who commented on so much meanness in one person:

"The meanness comes only from those who deliberately hide or distort the truth. I want to be purged from his website and from his feeble mind forever. I will continue to call him publicly on any forgeries, distortions, or outright lies he publishes or posts, too. Until the end of time. It is a free country."

Not even the University of Rhode Island could escape his aim. Here are two paragraphs from another message to alt.conspiracy.jfk:

"His students think they are actually part of a class on logic and critical thinking when in fact they are part of a class on anything but. They are part of a class on mind control and thought control as part of the Alton W. Jones campus project at a misleading New England University

…

I am serious folks. This is mind control and altered state consciousness at its very best. Check out what Alton W. Jones did at Columbia University in the 1960's and the 1970's regarding the use of Cold War Psycholigical Warfare techniques to convince people that the Cold War was a good thing for the country."

Closing comments

It is appropriate to close this biography of John Bevilaqua by recalling the huge contrast between stimuli and reactions. His huge, complex Nazi scenario for the killing of JFK was a response to two conversations partially overheard by third parties, plus twelve anagrams, mostly imperfect, in a book written years before the assassination. His campaign against me (preceded and followed by similar but less intense actions against others) was apparently stimulated by my criticism of undocumented "conspiracies," my university course on the assassination, and my support for the laws of physics. The responses are entirely disproportionate to the stimuli.

Bevilaqua's "Final Solution" to the JFK assassination

Testimony to the Assassination Records Review Board (November 18, 1994, Dallas, Texas)

Bevilaqua's version of the Winnipeg Airport Incident (Winnipeg Free Press, 22 November 2000)

Peter Whitmey's more-careful version of the Winnipeg Airport Incident (The Fourth Decade, March 1999)

Edited May 28, 2009 by Denis Pointing

[Evan Burton]

I would therefore suggest we acquire some more moderators. I would suggest the following should be asked to become moderators: Peter Lemkin, Bill Kelly, Don Jefferies and Cigdem Göle.

Bill has declined.

Cigdem has accepted.

Don, Peter - do you accept the nomination?

[John Bevilaqua]

I would therefore suggest we acquire some more moderators. I would suggest the following should be asked to become moderators: Peter Lemkin, Bill Kelly, Don Jefferies and Cigdem Göle.

Bill has declined.

Cigdem has accepted.

Don, Peter - do you accept the nomination?

Bill has already threatened me twice in writing saying that I have more to fear from him than from either Frank Sturgis or James Hosty

and then he threatened to publish personal information about me with the implication that it was being done as retribution for some

alleged offenses and that he expected that the threat of publication of such information or the actual publication of such information

would somehow alter my behavior or cause some other untoward but unspecified repercussions to happen to me. That is called

uttering a threat.

[William Kelly]

I would therefore suggest we acquire some more moderators. I would suggest the following should be asked to become moderators: Peter Lemkin, Bill Kelly, Don Jefferies and Cigdem Göle.

Bill has declined.

Cigdem has accepted.

Don, Peter - do you accept the nomination?

Bill has already threatened me twice in writing saying that I have more to fear from him than from either Frank Sturgis or James Hosty

and then he threatened to publish personal information about me with the implication that it was being done as retribution for some

alleged offenses and that he expected that the threat of publication of such information or the actual publication of such information

would somehow alter my behavior or cause some other untoward but unspecified repercussions to happen to me. That is called

uttering a threat.

NOT Hosty, who I'm sure would not like you to call him and badger him on the phone again.

I said I would do what little old Sarah McLendon and seventy year old Frank Sturgis threatened to do to you, which I imagined Sarah would like to paddle you and Frank slap you around till you promised to learn some manners and be polite to people. Especially people you don't even know - like Bernice - and me - you only met me for fifteen minutes in 1992 and I haven't thought about you since and now I've been attacking you for fifteen years.

I don't have any personal information about you to publish, other than the fact that you physically assaulted John Judge and have a habit of using aliases and try to hide and avoid any consequences for your behavior. All else I know about you is what Dr. Rahn published on his web site, and apparently you acted as you normally do with him as well.

I don't agree with Rahn or his society of coincidentalists, and I argue with them, but I don't insult them and threaten them either.

And I would think that someone who tries to have a person arrested for a perceived slight in order to have them fired from their job, would have the same mindset, if they have the technical capability, to launch a cyber attack and shut down forums and web sites, so now you are on my suspect list for all such attacks in the future, especially after people get tired of your antics here and you move on to somewhere else.

As others have already said before me, you exhibit all the attributes of the right-wing fascists and nazis who you ostensibly specialize in and blame for the assassination.

We don't need more moderators, we need better manners.

Bill Kelly

(Real Name)

Edited May 29, 2009 by William Kelly

[Don Jeffries]

I'll give being a moderator a try, just as long as I can still post my own thoughts as well.

[Evan Burton]

I'll give being a moderator a try, just as long as I can still post my own thoughts as well.

Great Don! Nice to have you on the team.

As Kathy has pointed out many times: just because you are a mod does not mean you cannot have your own opinion. It just means that we deal with complaints on a fair and unbiased basis, and ensure forum rules are applied equally.

[John Bevilaqua]

I'll give being a moderator a try, just as long as I can still post my own thoughts as well.

Can I be a moderator, too, so I can help you distinguish between your own thoughts from those which occurred elsewhere? Just kidding.

[William Kelly]

Now I get it.

John Simkin wanted to expose all of the students, teachers and researchers who read this forum to how a Harvard educated gentleman uses logic, reason, empathy and human interaction skills in the course of pursing truth and justice.

I'm sure we've all learned a lot.

BK

[William Kelly]

A few weeks ago Evan Burton placed Evan Marshall on Moderation because he didn't have a photo avitar and we haven't heard from him since.

I've previously asked for an exemption for him to have a photo because being a Detroit cop he is subject to the "Cape Fear" syndrome, in which someone who has been convicted of a crime and goes to jail blames the lawyer, judge, witnesses and cops for putting them away and seeks revenge when they get out.

As a policeman, his perspective on the assassination and other crimes is important to understand what happened, and his last post was in regards to the murder of Dallas policeman J.D. Tippitt.

The purpose of the photo and the use of real names is to prevent people from hiding behind false ids and avoid the consequences of their posts and behavior. This is not the case with him.

So I ask John Simkin will he please grant Evan Marshall an exception to this rule, and permit to post again without moderation?

Thank you,

Bill Kelly

[John Dolva]

Less than 16 % of Moderators are Women. (In the real world, Women form 50% of the worlds population.)

This descrepancy is repeated in many male dominated groupings, Gov, or Otherwise.

Sexism is so pervasive that even Women are against their deeply held objections and are forced into roles that are in so many ways complicit in this situation.

Men who take a stand on it, (and any other issues related to inequalities), pecome pariahs, public enemies #1, outcasts, traitors ( to what? truth? ), subversives.

Men who don't, are as guilty as those who act overtly or covertly to perpetuate this.

This complicity, this silence, plays into the hands of those who wish to see this status quo maintained.

[Guest]

Less than 16 % of Moderators are Women. (In the real world, Women form 50% of the worlds population.)

This descrepancy is repeated in many male dominated groupings, Gov, or Otherwise.

Sexism is so pervasive that even Women are against their deeply held objections and are forced into roles that are in so many ways complicit in this situation.

Men who take a stand on it, (and any other issues related to inequalities), pecome pariahs, public enemies #1, outcasts, traitors ( to what? truth? ), subversives.

Men who don't, are as guilty as those who act overtly or covertly to perpetuate this.

This complicity, this silence, plays into the hands of those who wish to see this status quo maintained.

These are important points John. Women are indeed under represented on this forum as members let alone as moderators. I wonder why this is? One problem may be that membership of an internet community carries the risk of unwanted and unpleasant attention from 'men' boldened by internet relative anonymity.

I would welcome any suggestions as to how to get a more reflective gender balance on this forum.