Evan Burton
-
Posts
4,419 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
16
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Evan Burton
-
-
I agree that they sometimes bring a bit of comic relief into the day - and make you think twice about some things - but the more rabid of these clowns have a very detrimental effect.
I liken it to the boy who cried wolf. These people going on about conspiracies and aliens and this and that to the extent where that when a REAL conspiracy is uncovered, most people will just put it down to another crazy notion from the nutters. The genuine matters of concern get lost amongst the dross.
-
Robert,
Could you give me a quick summary of your points? I'm not a JFK person, and have no knowledge nor real interest in the subject... but matters naval and some mention of technological development interests me.
Thanks!
-
I'm wondering why it was asked to be deleted? Peter Lemkin sent it out by e-mail to all and sundry, including me.
Peter should beware though, and EF members should take note: if you want to send an e-mail out to a group of people, some who may not have others e-mail addresses, you should send the mail to yourself and BCC (Blind carbon copy) to everyone else. This means recipients can see who sent the message, but not to whom it was addressed to.
The way it was sent out means that all recipients can see the e-mail addresses of all it was sent to.
-
Drago's comments are still available in the Google cache.
How dare you accuse so tireless and committed a researcher -- whose untold sacrifices of time and energy to the causes of truth and justice contributed to his death -- of such perfidy! You've just given away your game, and if you're wise, you'll slink away from this forum and spread your lies where they are welcome. For lying is indeed what you're doing when you state as fact that George Michael limited his research to material that was within easy reach of his Hartford home.Rather, it's because you are a xxxx, as I demonstrated in my lengthy response to your post above in which you lied about an honored researcher's work and methods and otherwise mischaracterized -- knowingly -- his opinions of you and all you churn out.You poor, deranged cretin. It was I, as a co-founder of the Deep Politics Forum, who invited Mr. Albarelli to join this forum. -
Kathleen, I would still appreciate you sending me the e-mails so I can trace from who they originated from.
Thanks!
-
What a load of .....!
As soon as I saw the Judica-Cordiglia brothers mentioned I knew that it was going to be garbage. Just how much garbage I didn't realised until I read the claims regarding Gagarin. At that point I didn't bother to read any more.
Fifteen minutes of my life wasted and I'm never getting it back.
-
Ah! I can see it now. Yesterday it came up with a message that I couldn't see it because it was not for release outside the US.
-
There are more inaccuracies. I locked the thread as stated, but it was with the concurrence of another admin and later approval of another mod. John did not believe that ANY thread should be locked, as it gave ammunition to people who claimed he was suppressing free speech. Upon learning this, I immediately unlocked the thread and apologised to the membership for my error. We are now discussing whether or not the locking of a thread requires a unanimous vote from the board staff, as is required when banning a person, etc.
You know, I'm actually a little chuffed at being such a target for the blind hatred of the DPF. They really do go out of their way to highlight how hypocritical they are. They bluster about free speech, but can you say what you want there? Nope.
Remember a fella there who was pro-911, pro-JFK assassination but had the stupidity to believe that the Moon Hoaxers were NOT right, and pointed out examples? He got banned.
A member both here and there, Matt Lewis, dared to say he was not comfortable about the way people were being treated at the DPF. He was immediately questioned about his motives, and questioned if he was a sock puppet. I think (but may be wrong) there were even veiled threads of banning him, too.
They banned me even though I never even tried to join!
Their level of hypocrisy is simply amazing.
-
One Small Step?: The Great Moon Hoax and the Race to Dominate Earth from Space
by Gerhard Wisnewski
Is it possible that the famous American moon landings were nothing but an illusion--all a fabrication? Could NASA have fooled the world by broadcasting simulations that had been filmed for training purposes?
From the very first manned flight into orbit right up to the present day, there have been serious anomalies in the official narrative of the conquest of space.
Bestselling author Gerhard Wisnewski dissects the history in minute detail--from the first Russian missions to the final American moon project of Apollo 17--looking at films, photos, radio communications, personal statements, and other available material. Using forensic methods of investigation, he pieces together a complex jigsaw depicting a disturbing picture of falsifications, lies, and fakery in the Cold War struggle for supremacy between the Soviet Union and the United States. The evidence he presents casts serious doubt on the possibility of humans ever having walked on the moon.
Wisnewski's research calls for a reassessment of the received wisdom that has become a part of our cultural fabric. He insists that the true story of space exploration has a more sinister undertone. Beneath the guise of civilian space travel, the US military has been developing fearsome new equipment and weapons to be secretly stationed in space, whose purpose is to militarize the sphere surrounding the Earth, and whose potential targets are every human being on the planet.
http://www.goodreads...arth_from_Space
Read excerpts from his book here, explaining the many reasons why Apollo was a hoax.
Thanks, Duane. It is completely possible that the events of 911 were launched from a space platform of some sort, and orchestrated like a video game.
At some point Star Wars DEW weaponry had to be tested, so why not the Twin Towers?
Jack
BINGO! That is my next Stundie nomination.
-
Yep. How would you show intent?
-
The Google book is not available for view outside the US.
Could someone post the list of claims?
I don't expect to see anything new, but you never know...
-
No, but I have no reason to disbelieve her.
-
I believe the term is libel, since the conversations are in text format.
Luckily I can back up what I have said about Magda since I kept her e-mails to me, and mine to her.
-
All of these speculations are WAY off track.
So you are privy to the real "track"? Care to share?
-
I'm just speculating, but I don't believe Myra would do this (post fake posts under false names). She is trying to keep the forum running. That leaves someone who has the ability to create display names, logins, etc, which would suggest a DPF (ex?) admin... perhaps one who has previously created sock puppets?
-
And just in case anyone asks: no, that is not me. It is incredibly immature.
-
Having first-hand experience of Magda's ability to recall events more to her liking than reality, and seen Drago's blowhard antics, I know whose version of events I'll give credence to.
-
The entire board seems to have been wiped of posts, with the exception of a sub-forum. There seems to be an explanation here http://www.deeppolit...cement.php?f=55
though this is one persons viewpoint.
From Myra Bronstein:
Magda and Co hacked the forum, and removed that thread with my lengthy explanation of the recent problems that was in the "So..." thread.
Here is the explanation again.
You should also be aware that Magda posts under pseudonyms, which is against the forum rules. One of her pseudonyms is Peter Tosh. I don't know them all. This is what started the recent implosion, the fact that she uses multiple aliases yet that is against forum rules, and I discovered it and confronted her.
---
Here's the full explanation of the events of the past weekend.
I think everyone here knows that our number one rule is that DPF members be treated with civility:
http://vu2027.laura....thread.php?t=58
“1. You will not post any material which is false, defamatory, inaccurate, hateful, harassing, threatening,...”
However, quite a while back a moderator write a post that referred to a member as, among other things, a “xxxx” and a “poor, deranged cretin” (https://mail.google.com/mail/?shva=1...69fd2db2ec9205 post #18). This is an unacceptable attack whether it comes from a regular member or a staff member.
Clearly the moderator was aware of rule #1 because around the same time he posted this:
http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/for...ead.php?t=2974
“John Bevilaqua and everyone else who would post here are on notice: If you wish to engage in schoolyard name-calling and bullying, go to the Education Forum -- a safe haven for enemy agents and those whose words unintentionally serve the enemy's cause. If you wish to associate yourself with the Deep Politics Forum, act with dignity, strength, honor, and commitment to cause. Or be gone.” In addition this moderator helped write the rules.
Oh hell it's obviously Charles, you can all see that at the links. Anyway, when I confronted Charles in multiple emails about the rule violation he refused to back down.
Here are three of my emails to him (and other staff members) on the rule violation:
“I see a thread wherein Charlie addresses JB with "You poor, deranged cretin." It's not ok for a moderator/co-founder to use rhetoric, such as name calling, that we don't permit members to use. It's especially bad in context when Charlie goes on to point out that he's "a co-founder of the Deep Politics Forum." It's a terrible example.
And it makes us look like hypocrites. Charlie please comply with the rules of the forum so we don't have to
moderate you. And please control your temper on the forum in the future.”
“I do*NOT*want JB banned under these circumstances because he has been conspicuiously [sic] provoked and taunted and abused. DPF has been debased by this episode Charlie, and unless it's handled well starting now and starting soon we'll look like petty hypocrites. In general, when people are banned it should not be done in anger. Anger is detrimental to a moderator.**Moderators must be fair and impassive.**If they have to count to 1000 to become impassive then they should do just that. And if they can't be impassive and fair no matter how high they count then they aren't good moderator material.”
“If someone doesn't apologize on forum to JB within 20 minutes I will post an apology. I'd prefer that co-founders look united, not fractured. But fair treatment of members is a higher priority than even that.”
Here is the Charles' email response. 'Scuse me for posting a private email to me but, again, there's simply no way to explain this without specifics:
“I have no intention of apologizing to JB. He lied about my dear friend and I did not stand for it and I shall not stand for it. I debased nothing.* How dare you say so?* How dare you threaten me with moderation?* FXXX off! <deleted by Burton>
*
I suggest that you communicate amongst yourselves regarding this notion of moderating me.* If you choose to do so, so be it.* The majority rules.* And it would be a unanimous decision. For if you choose to do so please be advised that I shall resign my "ownership" position in DPF and that I shall have nothing to do with this site ever again.**But not before I*demand the privilege of stating this fact and my reasons publicly on your pages.
Myra, don't you dare apologize in my name or you will regret it.
TIME OUT -- I just read Myra's apology and I responded to it.
TIME IN -- Decide among yourselves, and don't bother me again until you've reached that decision.”
Here is the apology that I posted to the member Charles insulted:
“John Bevilaqua,*
I apologize for the rhetoric directed at you in this thread. DPF staff members are expected to observe the same rules as members. Name calling and verbal abuse is not acceptable. As I said recently in another thread, such abuse is inconsistent with our principles at DPF.* At least I hope it is...”
In response to my apology Charles attacked me on the forum:
“This apology is not offered in my name. I apologize for nothing! And I commend you, Myra, for spreading 'em for the "man" who charged me -- your partner and alleged friend -- with using "Gestapo Tactics and McCarthyism Tactics." You are all about fairness, aren't you?”
“There you have it, Myra. You opened the sewer, and quess what spilled out? I'm just all a'twitter waiting for your next apology to this ... haircut. There. I've just given you something to apologize for. You made the choice. You get "Bevilaqua."”
In addition Charles attacked me repeatedly in email, both addressed to me and addressed to others who attempted to reason with him, for example:
“As for the Myra business: You too have been on the receiving end of her vitriol, her menopausal musings. *It all was to be tolerated just as long as the insanity was kept in-hous. When, motivated by what I must conclude was personal animus, she publicly apologized for a co-founder -- and I'm still waiting to learn if she got a majority OK to do so -- she left the reservation and opened herself to the spanking that she's needed -- and even begged for -- for so very long.”
“When Myra posted the apology she betrayed me and, by extension, the rest of us.* It was a knife in the back, and if I harbored even just a tiny bit of the paranoia that JB evinces in each of his sentences, I'd suspect that I was set up.”
*
“All should know -- beginning with her -- that I no longer trust Myra and will consider her to be harboring debilitating personal animus toward me.”
And on and on.
On the upside all other staff members supported me 100% in my attempt to make the rules apply to moderators as well as members. Here is a message from one moderator in the aftermath of Drago's “don't you dare apologize in my name or you will regret it” mail:
“Myra is, of course, quite right. *
We cannot have one rule for founders/moderators and another for members. *Abusing one's position is the sort of thing we all saw on the EF and left because of it. *And then set up our rules here to ensure it didn't happen with us. *Well, it has. *Charlie went looking for a fight, got it as he hoped, and is now crying foul. *It doesn't wash. And now he refuses to be moderated and says he intends to resign if he is. *But the fact is that he has to either voluntarily edit his post and remove all the acrimonious parts of it or be moderated by the rest of us. *He has dug in, is angry as hell and wants a fight. *
It's a very bad day for DPF. *And I have to say that I feel that Charlie has treated us all with considerable disrespect by putting us all in this position in the first place.
I think we now need now to set up a clear procedure for moderating moderators and founders. *Beginning now with Charlie but with the knowledge that we all can be, and will be, and should be, *sanctioned if we ever lose control as Charlie has done. *None of us can be above the rules we all agreed upon and set. *And which Charlie wrote.” *
From another moderator:
“Of course DPF mods/founders/staff must abide by the same rules as members....my judgement is that Charles*did*breach the undertaking that abuse of members will not be tolerated.* And many of our members, such as...do regard this as a dimension which distinguishes us from such as the Swamp.”
In spite of the rule violations and personal attacks we attempted to keep Charles on staff yet persuade him to follow the rules, and we drafted a clarified rule and email, signed by everyone--unanimous--and sent it to Charles, excerpts follow:
“A MESSAGE FROM THE FOUNDERS OF THE DEEP POLITICS FORUM
*
We have decided to*make explicit certain additional rules of engagement and behaviour on DPF.
*
Firstly,*all members, including DPF moderators and founders,*should receive*identical treatment from the DPF moderators, and abide by the agreed*rules of engagement.**
*
Secondly, our fundamental objective is for DPF to be an arena where research can be seriously discussed, and destroyed if appropriate, without*name calling or member abuse.* It is acceptable to be robust and even dismissive of the arguments of other members, if analysis and*evidence are provided.* It is acceptable to*state that a particular argument*serves the agenda of the powerful, again if analysis and*evidence are provided.*However,*since DPF is primarily*intended as an arena where serious informed research can be developed*and debated,*it is not acceptable to describe another member as, for instance,*an agent provocateur.
…
If you agree to these core philosophies for DPF, the two contained in the draft post below which will be placed online at DPF, and the third one which will not be publicly stated but which will be an explicit agreement between us as founders, then we would ask one further thing.* This is that you edit your description of Bevilaqua*as a "xxxx" and a "deranged cretin" as it is not consistent with the new rules of engagement for DPF.”
In response Charles absolutely refused to either follow the rules or edit his objectionable post:
“So I will not edit out my description of JB as a "xxxx;" to do so would be to retreat from the truth.” He then went on to attack me some more.
At that point I offered to step down from my leadership position on the forum since Charles was drawing a line in the sand. The mods declined my offer (“Myra -*the attack on you by Charles was*unacceptable and I think a parting of the ways is now inevitable.”)
We asked Charles to step down, which he did. We allowed him to remain a member. And so that he could save face, we kept the demotion private so that, even though this happened on February 6—almost a year ago--it was never apparent that Charles was no longer on staff.
The clarified rule that Drago refused to agree to (“All members, including DPF moderators and founders, should receive identical treatment from the DPF moderators, and abide by the agreed rules of engagement.) was posted (http://vu2027.laura....thread.php?t=58) to prevent another such episode.
Charles has continued to take digs at me and attack me in email. It has never completely stopped. Yet I have put up with his harassment and hostility and allowed him to remain a member. ('Scuse the editorial aside; I'm trying not to editorialize. But his hostility campaign sucked/sucks and it was/is traumatic.)
That's the back story. Ever since then DPF staff has been trying to insure that everybody, members and staff, follow the rules.
Ok so I went out of town for a week on business. Exhausting stressful trip. Told DPF staff in advance that I'd be gone and unavailable.
Got back from the trip and looked at the forum a few hours later and saw a post by Peter Tosh that made me very nervous (http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/for...ead.php?t=5168 ). Since I didn't know anything about Peter Tosh I was concerned that he was posting something possibly litigious.
So I locked the thread and posted a notice that it was locked “pending discussion by DPF staff members on the appropriateness of posting presumably real contact info for presumably real people.”
Then I emailed the staff:
“Is this "fascist list" acceptable on DPF?
It has names and addresses of (presumably) real people.
And the author--"Peter*Tosh"--has long been suspect 'cause of his "name."”
I quickly received an explanation from Jan:
“I think*Peter*Tosh*is one of Magda's pseudonyms.”
Wow.
I didn't know that any Mods were using pseudonyms.
I was horrified because, again, it's against the rules:
“7. You agree to register on this forum with your*real name*as User Name, i.e., your first name and family name. If you feel you must use a pseudonym please discuss this with the admin prior to registration.
13. All members, including DPF moderators and founders, should receive*identical treatment*from the DPF moderators, and abide by the agreed rules of engagement.”
After discussing it via email for a few minutes it turned out that Dawn and I were unaware that Magda was using a pseudonym(s). That is, two out of four staff members didn't know. So I was pissed and ranted in email that I felt betrayed bla bla bla. Jan and Magda both explained that the alias had been in use for a long time so it was too late to complain and was common knowledge etc. I disagreed and ranted like a bixxx <removed by Burton> for a while. Then I realized (same day) that this was not an intentional act of subterfuge and I was overreacting like crazy so I apologized to everyone:
“I also apologize to you and and Magda and Dawn for being so combative and difficult in this thread. *
I don't think I have a good sense of perspective today.”
And I didn't have good perspective because I was so exhausted from the trip I'd returned from a few hours earlier.
Jan refused to accept my apology (“I'm still waiting for your apology.”) and then proclaimed ominously:
“I think today has been a carcrash [sic], and DPF will need to move forward in a new fashion.”
This was on December 5.
On December 15 Jan announced that he wanted “to allow*Charles*back into the fold, as a core member of DPF.”
I pointed out that this was the other shoe dropping after the “DPF will need to move forward in a new fashion” declaration, and a clear act of spite against me, and an act that would be totally destructive to DPF given that Drago refuses to follow forum rules, was abusive of members, and extremely abusive towards me. And I voted “no way no how” to the proposition. Everyone else promptly voted yes.
Even though Drago could never come back without my approval, I felt—and feel—that the mere suggestion of allowing him to moderate a forum he can't behave in was, as I told all the Mods:
“A transparent way of getting revenge and of accumulating opposition votes against me... in spite of the fact that Chas has treated me like sXXt <removed by Burton> and never shown the slightest remorse. *CD has refused to follow DPF rules and never shown any intention of doing so. *He is an egotist with no integrity or judgement, which makes him a deal breaker in terms of me working with him, and I think that was real clear in my NO way NO how vote. *
This was a blatant power play on [Jan's] part and a political move that shows he will bring a human wrecking ball into the fold just to spite me. *Enthusiastically bringing my enemy back without the slightest concern for me, and for the chaos he already caused in DPF, is...back stabbing.”
I pointed out that everyone went along with the power play and told them I was pulling rank and pulling the plug on DPF.
Editorial aside: I have never before pulled rank. Even though I own the forum--the domain, the software, the web hosting, the works--I insured that all decisions were made democratically by vote. But this was the final straw and a clear sign that, as Drago was told earlier “a parting of the ways is now inevitable.”
That's when I turned the forum off. After thinking about it some more and realizing I could never again trust the Mods I got dejected and dropped the database and directory structure. Then after thinking about it some more I thought that even though I wasn't willing to work with the former Mods they may decide to open a different forum. And if they do decide to do that they should have access to all of their DPF posts. So I restored the forum and sent the following email to one (now ex) Mod:
“Now that DPF is back, if you and the other former mods decide to start a*forum*or merely want access to your posts, I'll help if needed. Though you should be able to access your posts on your own since you're still members.”
That was Sunday. The difference between Thursday and Sunday was my realization that the ex-Mods should have access to their posts to copy if desired, as well as the fact that I became confident I can run the forum on my own (IF members will report offensive posts). What hasn't changed since Thursday is my determination to only work alone on such projects from now on forever-after so this kinda shXX <deleted by Burton> won't happen again.
So that's the explanation. Warts and all.
<snip of duplicate text>
Clearly they don't appreciate my whistle-blowing because they hacked into the forum an deleted this explanation, along with the entire “So...” thread. So that's what happened.
So... I'm posting it again, this time as an Announcement in the hopes that more people see it before their next hack attack. Let's see how long it's allowed to remain this time.
Myra Bronstein, DPF Admin
-
Jack,
How about using a video camera to film them? That would give us a better idea.
-
If you believe it's true, you should demand some type of DNA testing. You should make moves to charge her (and presumably her husband) with fraud or deceptive dealing or whatever it is called (there were payouts to the victims' families).
Who is actually making these claims? Wouldn't this be the "evidence" that truthers are seeking? I'm a betting man and I'll bet that the originator of the claims won't do diddly about it.
-
-
Wow - you need a lawyer to settle your differences?
How American!
-
But weren't we told chemtrails are only recent? Or was this happening in the 1920s?
-
I can't help but think how the events at the DPF mirror the 9-11 movement, like many of the various "XXXX for 9-11 Truth" groups. They cannot tolerate dissent - even amongst their own. They seem incapable of co-operating despite having differing views, and so split off into splinter groups.
JFK Forum: Rules of Behaviour and other points
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
Tom,
I set up a photobucket account for Forum use. There is a post somewhere about it; I'll see if I can find it.
The contents of e-mails can be problematic, though I have no personal objection to the contents being displayed. I was always taught: don't put anything in an e-mail that you wouldn't want made public.
Government / military e-mails are different. In Australia they are covered by the Crimes Act. At the bottom of all ADF e-mails is the warning:
IMPORTANT: This email remains the property of the Department of Defence and is subject to the jurisdiction of section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914. If you have received this email in error, you are requested to contact the sender and delete the email.
Disclosure of the contents by a government official (or ex-official) without official sanction is, in Australia, a crime.Here is Section 70 of the Crimes Act.
This does not affect civilians, but any public servant is subject to the section.