Membership of the JFK Forum

[John Simkin]

On another thread Shanet Clark pointed out that the Forum was "getting to be quite an international research consortium".

In no particular order we have Peter Dale Scott, Barr McClellan, Anthony Summers, Lamar Waldron, Gerald McKnight, William Pepper, Joe Trento, Alfred McCoy, Joan Mellen, G. Robert Blakey, Larry Hancock, Barr McClellan, Josiah Thompson, Matthew Smith, Jim Feltzer, Dan E. Moldea, Don Bohning, William Turner, Jim Marrs, William Reymond, Dick Russell, Nina Burleigh, Craig Roberts, David Talbot, Walt Brown, Jeff Morley, James Richards, Ron Ecker, Pat Speer, Nick Cullather, Joel Bainerman, Lee Israel, William E. Kelly, Robert Charles Dunne, John Hunt, Robin Ramsay, J. Raymond Carroll, Jack White, David Mantik, Greg Parker, Martin Shackelford, Alan J. Weberman, Steve Thomas, Gary Buell, Ryan Crowe, Lee Forman, Tosh Plumlee, Gerry Hemming, Stephen Roy, Doug Caddy, Mark Knight, Alan Kent, Robin Unger, Peter Lemkin, David Boylan, Dawn Meredith, Robert Howard, Al Carrier, Harry J. Dean, Vaughn Marlowe, Antii Hynonen, Nathaniel Heidenheimer, Mark Stapleton, Doug Horne, Pamela McElwain-Brown, Bill Miller, David Healey, Stephen Turner, Michael Hogan, Duke Lane, etc. etc.

I am currently trying to persuade Philip Agee to join our discussions (that might frighten a few observers). Gaeton Fonzi, Garry Cornwell, Mark Lane, David Lifton, Richard D. Mahoney, Norman Redlich, Victor Marchetti, Noel Twyman, Nigel Turner, Jim Hougan, Peter Kornbluh, Billy Sol Estes, are others I have been trying very hard to get involved in these debates.

My main disappointment has been my failure to persuade “lone gunman” theorists to join the Forum. Gerald Posner, Gus Russo, Dale Myers, John McAdams, Edward Jay Epstein, Kenneth A. Rahn (he said it was not academic enough), Hugh Aynesworth, David Reitzes and Dave Perry have all turned me down.

One thing is clear, lone gunman theorists are much more reluctant to join open debate on these cases. Dan E. Moldea is an exception and is much admired for showing his courage in joining the Dragons Den.

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

Perhaps a sufficiently tweedy enclave could be formed within the forum in which only the credentialed would be allowed. I will rush to get a more advanced degree from Southeast Texas Teachers College so that I might join--at least in my own estimate-- the ranks of Alfred McCoy and Gerald McNight, in debating Sir Kenneth A. Rahn in this moated thread.

We all recognize the bravery and selfless devotion to the public good shown by American Academia throughout the Cold War, and especially in more recent years!

[John Geraghty]

John,

What would you make of a protected thread created for a debate between two members representing both LN and conspiracy believers.

I have been trying to come up with a good way to have an debate online, but can not find anything that would fit a timeframe of say an hour or so and provide sufficient time for both sides to put forward a detailed argument. By debate I mean of course a discussion between two opposing sides, a chairperson and an adjudicator.

Would Kenneth Rahn et al find this more acceptable do you think?

John

[Pat Speer]

One thing is clear, lone gunman theorists are much more reluctant to join open debate on these cases. Dan E. Moldea is an exception and is much admired for showing his courage in joining the Dragons Den.

To be clear, Moldea is only a lone gunman theorist on the RFK assassination. On his website, I believe, he stands by his conclusion that JFK was killed by a conspiracy.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

On another thread Shanet Clark pointed out that the Forum was "getting to be quite an international research consortium".

In no particular order we have Peter Dale Scott, Barr McClellan, Anthony Summers, Lamar Waldron, Gerald McKnight, William Pepper, Joe Trento, Alfred McCoy, Joan Mellen, G. Robert Blakey, Larry Hancock, Barr McClellan, Josiah Thompson, Matthew Smith, Jim Feltzer, Dan E. Moldea, Don Bohning, William Turner, Jim Marrs, William Reymond, Dick Russell, Nina Burleigh, Craig Roberts, David Talbot, Walt Brown, Jeff Morley, James Richards, Ron Ecker, Pat Speer, Nick Cullather, Joel Bainerman, Lee Israel, William E. Kelly, Robert Charles Dunne, John Hunt, Robin Ramsay, J. Raymond Carroll, Jack White, David Mantik, Greg Parker, Martin Shackelford, Alan J. Weberman, Steve Thomas, Gary Buell, Ryan Crowe, Lee Forman, Tosh Plumlee, Gerry Hemming, Stephen Roy, Doug Caddy, Mark Knight, Alan Kent, Robin Unger, Peter Lemkin, David Boylan, Dawn Meredith, Robert Howard, Al Carrier, Harry J. Dean, Vaughn Marlowe, Antii Hynonen, Nathaniel Heidenheimer, Mark Stapleton, Doug Horne, Pamela McElwain-Brown, Bill Miller, David Healey, Stephen Turner, Michael Hogan, etc. etc.

I am currently trying to persuade Philip Agee to join our discussions (that might frighten a few observers). Gaeton Fonzi, Garry Cornwell, Mark Lane, David Lifton, Richard D. Mahoney, Norman Redlich, Victor Marchetti, Noel Twyman, Nigel Turner, Jim Hougan, Peter Kornbluh, Billy Sol Estes, are others I have been trying very hard to get involved in these debates.

My main disappointment has been my failure to persuade “lone gunman” theorists to join the Forum. Gerald Posner, Gus Russo, Dale Myers, John McAdams, Edward Jay Epstein, Kenneth A. Rahn (he said it was not academic enough), Hugh Aynesworth, David Reitzes and Dave Perry have all turned me down.

One thing is clear, lone gunman theorists are much more reluctant to join open debate on these cases. Dan E. Moldea is an exception and is much admired for showing his courage in joining the Dragons Den.

Perhaps the others are neither hard-headed enough nor absolutely certain of their perceptions, work, and evidence to adequately weather the frequent attacks against them which any "Lone Gunman/Lone Nut" follower receives by posting here.

Tom

P.S. Still only a single assassin!

"It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument"

William G. McAdoo

And, history will, as it usually does, be the final determining factor as to "Who's Who"!

[Mike Perez]

In no particular order we have Peter Dale Scott, Barr McClellan, Anthony Summers, Lamar Waldron, Gerald McKnight, William Pepper, Joe Trento, Alfred McCoy, Joan Mellen, G. Robert Blakey, Larry Hancock, Barr McClellan, Josiah Thompson, Matthew Smith, Jim Feltzer, Dan E. Moldea, Don Bohning, William Turner, Jim Marrs, William Reymond, Dick Russell, Nina Burleigh, Craig Roberts, David Talbot, Walt Brown, Jeff Morley, James Richards, Ron Ecker, Pat Speer, Nick Cullather, Joel Bainerman, Lee Israel, William E. Kelly, Robert Charles Dunne, John Hunt, Robin Ramsay, J. Raymond Carroll, Jack White, David Mantik, Greg Parker, Martin Shackelford, Alan J. Weberman, Steve Thomas, Gary Buell, Ryan Crowe, Lee Forman, Tosh Plumlee, Gerry Hemming, Stephen Roy, Doug Caddy, Mark Knight, Alan Kent, Robin Unger, Peter Lemkin, David Boylan, Dawn Meredith, Robert Howard, Al Carrier, Harry J. Dean, Vaughn Marlowe, Antii Hynonen, Nathaniel Heidenheimer, Mark Stapleton, Doug Horne, Pamela McElwain-Brown, Bill Miller, David Healey, Stephen Turner, Michael Hogan, etc. etc

I believe it could be be because the ln's don't want to have to defend their position with the likes

of the heavy hitters that post on this forum. Just look at some of the names John posted and put

yourself in their position. So basically I think they are just scared to go up against anyone that

can and will defend the conspiracy therories on a public forum where there are this many heavy

hitters. They would rather do it one on one so they say something and then say they didn't say

that when they are called on it.

IMHO...

Mike

[Mark Stapleton]

On another thread Shanet Clark pointed out that the Forum was "getting to be quite an international research consortium".

In no particular order we have Peter Dale Scott, Barr McClellan, Anthony Summers, Lamar Waldron, Gerald McKnight, William Pepper, Joe Trento, Alfred McCoy, Joan Mellen, G. Robert Blakey, Larry Hancock, Barr McClellan, Josiah Thompson, Matthew Smith, Jim Feltzer, Dan E. Moldea, Don Bohning, William Turner, Jim Marrs, William Reymond, Dick Russell, Nina Burleigh, Craig Roberts, David Talbot, Walt Brown, Jeff Morley, James Richards, Ron Ecker, Pat Speer, Nick Cullather, Joel Bainerman, Lee Israel, William E. Kelly, Robert Charles Dunne, John Hunt, Robin Ramsay, J. Raymond Carroll, Jack White, David Mantik, Greg Parker, Martin Shackelford, Alan J. Weberman, Steve Thomas, Gary Buell, Ryan Crowe, Lee Forman, Tosh Plumlee, Gerry Hemming, Stephen Roy, Doug Caddy, Mark Knight, Alan Kent, Robin Unger, Peter Lemkin, David Boylan, Dawn Meredith, Robert Howard, Al Carrier, Harry J. Dean, Vaughn Marlowe, Antii Hynonen, Nathaniel Heidenheimer, Mark Stapleton, Doug Horne, Pamela McElwain-Brown, Bill Miller, David Healey, Stephen Turner, Michael Hogan, etc. etc.

I am currently trying to persuade Philip Agee to join our discussions (that might frighten a few observers). Gaeton Fonzi, Garry Cornwell, Mark Lane, David Lifton, Richard D. Mahoney, Norman Redlich, Victor Marchetti, Noel Twyman, Nigel Turner, Jim Hougan, Peter Kornbluh, Billy Sol Estes, are others I have been trying very hard to get involved in these debates.

My main disappointment has been my failure to persuade “lone gunman” theorists to join the Forum. Gerald Posner, Gus Russo, Dale Myers, John McAdams, Edward Jay Epstein, Kenneth A. Rahn (he said it was not academic enough), Hugh Aynesworth, David Reitzes and Dave Perry have all turned me down.

One thing is clear, lone gunman theorists are much more reluctant to join open debate on these cases. Dan E. Moldea is an exception and is much admired for showing his courage in joining the Dragons Den.

Perhaps the others are neither hard-headed enough nor absolutely certain of their perceptions, work, and evidence to adequately weather the frequent attacks against them which any "Lone Gunman/Lone Nut" follower receives by posting here.

Tom

P.S. Still only a single assassin!

"It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument"

William G. McAdoo

And, history will, as it usually does, be the final determining factor as to "Who's Who"!

Tom,

I hope you don't take offense at my comments because I like you, but to me LNers are the modern equivalent of flat earthers. The LN theory has been crushed under the weight of contrary evidence for years now.

To debate LNers is a waste of time and time is the implacable enemy. It's hard enough trying to establish consensus within the serious research community.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

On another thread Shanet Clark pointed out that the Forum was "getting to be quite an international research consortium".

In no particular order we have Peter Dale Scott, Barr McClellan, Anthony Summers, Lamar Waldron, Gerald McKnight, William Pepper, Joe Trento, Alfred McCoy, Joan Mellen, G. Robert Blakey, Larry Hancock, Barr McClellan, Josiah Thompson, Matthew Smith, Jim Feltzer, Dan E. Moldea, Don Bohning, William Turner, Jim Marrs, William Reymond, Dick Russell, Nina Burleigh, Craig Roberts, David Talbot, Walt Brown, Jeff Morley, James Richards, Ron Ecker, Pat Speer, Nick Cullather, Joel Bainerman, Lee Israel, William E. Kelly, Robert Charles Dunne, John Hunt, Robin Ramsay, J. Raymond Carroll, Jack White, David Mantik, Greg Parker, Martin Shackelford, Alan J. Weberman, Steve Thomas, Gary Buell, Ryan Crowe, Lee Forman, Tosh Plumlee, Gerry Hemming, Stephen Roy, Doug Caddy, Mark Knight, Alan Kent, Robin Unger, Peter Lemkin, David Boylan, Dawn Meredith, Robert Howard, Al Carrier, Harry J. Dean, Vaughn Marlowe, Antii Hynonen, Nathaniel Heidenheimer, Mark Stapleton, Doug Horne, Pamela McElwain-Brown, Bill Miller, David Healey, Stephen Turner, Michael Hogan, etc. etc.

I am currently trying to persuade Philip Agee to join our discussions (that might frighten a few observers). Gaeton Fonzi, Garry Cornwell, Mark Lane, David Lifton, Richard D. Mahoney, Norman Redlich, Victor Marchetti, Noel Twyman, Nigel Turner, Jim Hougan, Peter Kornbluh, Billy Sol Estes, are others I have been trying very hard to get involved in these debates.

My main disappointment has been my failure to persuade “lone gunman” theorists to join the Forum. Gerald Posner, Gus Russo, Dale Myers, John McAdams, Edward Jay Epstein, Kenneth A. Rahn (he said it was not academic enough), Hugh Aynesworth, David Reitzes and Dave Perry have all turned me down.

One thing is clear, lone gunman theorists are much more reluctant to join open debate on these cases. Dan E. Moldea is an exception and is much admired for showing his courage in joining the Dragons Den.

Perhaps the others are neither hard-headed enough nor absolutely certain of their perceptions, work, and evidence to adequately weather the frequent attacks against them which any "Lone Gunman/Lone Nut" follower receives by posting here.

Tom

P.S. Still only a single assassin!

"It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument"

William G. McAdoo

And, history will, as it usually does, be the final determining factor as to "Who's Who"!

Tom,

I hope you don't take offense at my comments because I like you, but to me LNers are the modern equivalent of flat earthers. The LN theory has been crushed under the weight of contrary evidence for years now.

To debate LNers is a waste of time and time is the implacable enemy. It's hard enough trying to establish consensus within the serious research community.

Since I have not argued the "LNer" , then I have no problem with stating that it is a mis-concept.

The "Shooter", whoever he was, and in all probability it was LHO, was most assuredly not a "Lone Nut".

Lone and Single Assassin?---------------Yep!

The "Conspiracy/Multiple Assassin" crowd can, as they say, yell til the cows come home.

Unfortunately, they have yet to produce a single "iota" of forensic; ballistic; pathological; or physical fact; which demonstates other than the three shots fired from the 6th floor of the TSDB.

However, I must also pay compliment to "Specter & Company" as they have done quite well keeping people chasing myths and mythological creatures.

Personally, I enjoy the frequent laughs I get when reviewing such items as the "Body Kidnapping" scenarios, etc.

Tom

P.S. Were I that "thin skinned", in regards to criticism, not likely that I would continue to post on this forum.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Indeed Tom, I daily give praise that you are here to guide us all though. What ever would we do without you.

Keep on keepin on Mr Purvis.....

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Indeed Tom, I daily give praise that you are here to guide us all though. What ever would we do without you.

Keep on keepin on Mr Purvis.....

Rather, exactly how far towards a resolution has this thing gotten in the past 40 years?

It is only about 20 X more confused and asinine than it was shortly after the assassination when the US Secret Service readily determined the location of the Presidential Limousine at the impact point to JFK of each of the three shots fired.

That, to me, would appear to be a significant digression of the facts!

[Michael Hogan]

If, after readily determining "the location of the Presidential Limousine at the impact point to JFK of each of the three shots fired," the Secret Service would have done things differently maybe things would only be, say 2.8 times more "confused and asnine" than the about 20X that Mr. Purvis says exists today.

The HSCA stated in their findings:

D.) Agencies and departments of the U.S. Government performed with varying degrees of competency in the fulfillment of their duties. President John F. Kennedy did not receive adequate protection. A thorough and reliable investigation into the responsibility of Lee Harvey Oswald for the assassination of President John F. Kennedy was conducted. The investigation into the possibility of conspiracy in the assassination was inadequate. The conclusions of the investigations were arrived at in good faith, but presented in a fashion that was too definitive.

1.The Secret Service was deficient in the performance of its duties.

2. The Secret Service possessed information that was not properly analyzed, investigated or used by the Secret Service in connection with the President's trip to Dallas; in addition, Secret Service agents in the motorcade were inadequately prepared to protect the President from a sniper.

3. The responsibility of the Secret Service to investigate the assassination was terminated when the Federal Bureau of Investigation assumed investigative responsibility.

The above was in carefully guarded language. In more direct terms, important Secret Service agents stayed up late and got drunk the night before. In Dealey Plaza, reactions of the agents (save Clint Hill) were woefully slow. The Secret Service repeatedly violated their own Presidential security directives. There were numerous reports of mysterious men producing Secret Service identification in Dealey Plaza immediately following the assassination. Secret Service agents gave conflicting and false testimony to the FBI and Warren Commission. Secret Service agents were among the first to see the President's mortal wounds, even before the doctors at Parkland and their early descriptions are at odds with official findings.

The Secret Service hijacked the late President's body out of Dallas, ultimately denying a proper autopsy. The Secret Service had initial possession of much of the crucial evidence including Connally and Kennedy's clothing, the crime scene in the limousine, photographs and films, CE399, and later, autopsy photographs and x-rays. They destroyed certain evidence that would have been necessary had Oswald gone to trial.

Pretty impressive performance from an agency whom some believe had the facts all figured out shortly after the assassination.

Mike Hogan

[J. Raymond Carroll]

On another thread Shanet Clark pointed out that the Forum was "getting to be quite an international research consortium".

My main disappointment has been my failure to persuade “lone gunman” theorists to join the Forum. Gerald Posner, Gus Russo, Dale Myers, John McAdams, Edward Jay Epstein, Kenneth A. Rahn (he said it was not academic enough), Hugh Aynesworth, David Reitzes and Dave Perry have all turned me down.

I have only a slight acqaintance with Dave Perry (we exchanged a few emails) but I feel certain that Dave is not a "Lone Gunman" theorist. Dave Perry has made solid contributions to the JFK inquiry by rigorously debunking some of the myths and hoaxes that have bedevilled the case. His website http://home.comcast.net/~dperry1943/ is more valuable than some highly touted books I can think of.

Dave emailed me that he is unwilling to join the forum because he considers it too much of a "chat room," and I can see his point. While John Simkin sets a great example by posting thoughtful essays, usually well sourced, I am afraid most of us do not follow John's example with any regularity. It is one thing for a newbie to ask a question, but too often we tend to post off the top of our heads, relying on our all too fallible memories of "something I read somewhere" to make inferential leaps that are unsustainable. I'm sure I am as guilty of this as anyone, but I hope less so since the long-overdue excommunication of Tim Gratz.

May I suggest that Jean Davison, author of "Oswald's Game," is a lone gunman theorist who might be willing to join the forum. She often posts on McAdams forum, and might welcome the more rarified atmosphere here. I would also suggest an approach to Vince Palamara, who knows more about the Secret Service than the Secret Service does.

I am honored to see my name alongside names like Josiah Thompson, Gerald McKnight and Doug Horne, but I must protest the omission of Duke Lane, one of the very best of the new generation of researchers. As it happens, Duke is a very good friend of the aforementioned Dave Perry.

[John Simkin]

Dave emailed me that he is unwilling to join the forum because he considers it too much of a "chat room," and I can see his point....It is one thing for a newbie to ask a question, but too often we tend to post off the top of our heads, relying on our all too fallible memories of "something I read somewhere" to make inferential leaps that are unsustainable. I'm sure I am as guilty of this as anyone, but I hope less so since the long-overdue excommunication of Tim Gratz.

Good point. The Forum is many things to different people. Where possible, it is very helpful to include page references, etc. I would very much like Dave to join and do what he can to make it an "academic" forum as well as a place where friends get together to discuss important issues.

May I suggest that Jean Davison, author of "Oswald's Game," is a lone gunman theorist who might be willing to join the forum. She often posts on McAdams forum, and might welcome the more rarified atmosphere here. I would also suggest an approach to Vince Palamara, who knows more about the Secret Service than the Secret Service does.

I would love to see both as members. Please send me their contact details if you have them.

I am honored to see my name alongside names like Josiah Thompson, Gerald McKnight and Doug Horne, but I must protest the omission of Duke Lane, one of the very best of the new generation of researchers. As it happens, Duke is a very good friend of the aforementioned Dave Perry.

I am sorry if I missed anybody's name off the list (I have added Duke's name). I met Duke in Dallas and agree he is a fine researcher.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

If, after readily determining "the location of the Presidential Limousine at the impact point to JFK of each of the three shots fired," the Secret Service would have done things differently maybe things would only be, say 2.8 times more "confused and asnine" than the about 20X that Mr. Purvis says exists today.

The HSCA stated in their findings:

D.) Agencies and departments of the U.S. Government performed with varying degrees of competency in the fulfillment of their duties. President John F. Kennedy did not receive adequate protection. A thorough and reliable investigation into the responsibility of Lee Harvey Oswald for the assassination of President John F. Kennedy was conducted. The investigation into the possibility of conspiracy in the assassination was inadequate. The conclusions of the investigations were arrived at in good faith, but presented in a fashion that was too definitive.

1.The Secret Service was deficient in the performance of its duties.

2. The Secret Service possessed information that was not properly analyzed, investigated or used by the Secret Service in connection with the President's trip to Dallas; in addition, Secret Service agents in the motorcade were inadequately prepared to protect the President from a sniper.

3. The responsibility of the Secret Service to investigate the assassination was terminated when the Federal Bureau of Investigation assumed investigative responsibility.

The above was in carefully guarded language. In more direct terms, important Secret Service agents stayed up late and got drunk the night before. In Dealey Plaza, reactions of the agents (save Clint Hill) were woefully slow. The Secret Service repeatedly violated their own Presidential security directives. There were numerous reports of mysterious men producing Secret Service identification in Dealey Plaza immediately following the assassination. Secret Service agents gave conflicting and false testimony to the FBI and Warren Commission. Secret Service agents were among the first to see the President's mortal wounds, even before the doctors at Parkland and their early descriptions are at odds with official findings.

The Secret Service hijacked the late President's body out of Dallas, ultimately denying a proper autopsy. The Secret Service had initial possession of much of the crucial evidence including Connally and Kennedy's clothing, the crime scene in the limousine, photographs and films, CE399, and later, autopsy photographs and x-rays. They destroyed certain evidence that would have been necessary had Oswald gone to trial.

Pretty impressive performance from an agency whom some believe had the facts all figured out shortly after the assassination.

Mike Hogan

Still waiting for that factual resolution! Please hurry as I most certainly do not have another 40 years to wait.

[Ron Ecker]

Lone and Single Assassin?---------------Yep!

It's just like Mark ("Would I lie?") Fuhrman says, they were "easy shots."