Mark Knight

You're arguing semantics, Sandy. If you say someone lied, you ARE calling him a liar. Check the dictionary. A liar is one who lies. Therefore you DID call Pat Speer a liar when you said he lied, according to the definition of the word on the English language. If you don't believe ME, look up the definition of "liar" and get back to me.

Mr. Niederhut, I have said in my previous comment that I think the administrative TEAM should decide on what the policy is. So I really don't have room to opine on what I think the policy should be until tha admin team discusses it. My opinion alone and a $20 bill will generally buy a cup of coffee and an equally to-be-disregarded opinion. Mr Cole, There are plenty of places on the internet today to discuss current politics. Just because, for example, one candidate saw JFK on television one time does NOT make such a discussion JFK-assassination related. And of course I expect you to "collegially" disagree. To this point, I stand by my recommendation that a set of moderators SEPARATE from the administrators be established. Then the moderators can moderate, and the administrators can administrate. When a single moderator or administrator starts changing EF rules without input from the other administrators -- such as making the word "liar" permissible when it formerly was automatically censored to "xxxx," incidents like the one that precipitated the recent brouhaha occur. The team system, however cumbersome it might have seemed, always prevented a single mod or administrator from turning the EF into his or her personal fiefdom and a single person becoming "lord of the manor," or "king of the hill. Just my opinions.

Perhaps we can take this to an appropriate place on the forum, because we're crerping into politics here rather than focusing on forum improvements.

The ownership of the Education Forum changed hands in 2014. Since then the COVID pandemic has changed a lot of the dynamics here. Some moderators became ill and were unable to participate. [While some contend that COVID was nothing worse than the average case of influenza, some of us had friends and family members who died from the effects of COVID.] In the aftermath, the EF was down to one or two ACTIVE moderators for a brief time [although it seemed a lot longer]. And at that point, some members apparently decided to see how far they could push the limits of what the moderators would allow. Mods got into the "putting out fires" mode, rather than operating in "fire prevention" mode. I will admit that a couple of my own actions were probably overkill, based more upon cumulative actions than the immediate actions of some members. For that, I apologize. In retrospect, I should've remained detached and didn't. When things started cooling off slightly, the Water Coolers and a couple of other sub-forums were created. I still contend that this was necessary in order to keep the JFK assassination topic separate from unrelated issues, especially those related to Trump, Biden, Putin, Netanyahu, and other persons and situations not directly connected to the JFK assassination. There was a point at which I was considering stepping down as a moderator. But at that point, one of the original 4 had stepped aside as an administrator; James was dealing with a health problem, I was told; and another administrator became upset enough to resign. I couldn't in good conscience just abandon Sandy to deal with everything on his own. With just the two of us active, it was about all we could do just to keep up with the "fire-starters." So I stayed. At this point, I think that it's time to reexamine the moderator role. In the past, under John Simkin and Andy Walker, the administrators and the moderators were not one and the same. I think it might be wise to once again revert to that setup. I would propose that the administrators meet privately and nominate at least four [and preferably five] moderators, providing the nominees are willing to do the job as fairly and impartially as possible. Once we have a team of moderators in place, I propose that any disciplinary action against any member be discussed, and then only undertaken as the result of a majority of the moderator team. Then, if the moderator team cannot reach a consensus, and ONLY then, the mods can alert the administrative team to settle the matter. At first, IMHO, the mod team should be overseen by the administrators to make sure the admins concur with the mods. But after a successful "probationary" period, the admins can allow the mods to operate as the EF rules allow and the admins can concern themselves with the other matters of operating the EF (such as raising funds and paying the web hosting bills). These are just suggestions. But at this point, I cannot allow the EF to take up huge portions of my time every day. I'm nearly 70 years old, I'm getting married on Saturday, and I have a life outside the EF...as most of the admins and mods do. People age. Priorities change. Part of the recent problems I blame on myself. I let life interfere with overseeing the EF. Mea culpa. Recently I was letting others handle most of the EF problems, forgetting what a mentor once told me: "You must INspect what you EXpect." I wasn't checking in to see if things were running smoothly. Until a member alerted me to the Pat Speer threads. When I did check in, I saw posts being made that would not have normally been allowed to have been made with the tenor used in them. I reacted. I didn't issue any penalties, but I let my displeasure be known...and I was basically told to "sit down and shut up." And as an administrator, I didn't respond well to that. And so here we are today. James is back, other admins have responded to the situation, and I'm glad to see James asking what we need to do to repair the situation. IMHO, that's the best approach, to solicit ideas, suggestions, and comments from the EF members. Many of the responses I've seen are helpful and thoughtful, and speaking for myself, I must say they're quite welcome. The EF has never been perfect, but the EF administrators haven't always solicited member input on how to improve the place. Now is a great opportunity to be heard. I don't believe the admin team has any intention of shutting it all down and starting over. We'd lose too many great threads in our vast archives. But don't kid yourself into thinking that the matter hasn't come up in conversations among the admin team. I think the EF is too valuable a source of information and mostly healthy discussion to have it fall into the great abyss of history. So bring on those ideas and suggestions on improving what we have.

Mr. Hofeling, Since you are approaching this "discussion" as a "prosecution" of Mr. Speer, I must remind you that the burden of proof in an American court [no, this isn't a court, but I use the court as an example] is on the PROSECUTION, and not on the defense. So can you PROVE that Mr. Speer actually used the word "liar" in reference to James Jenkins? To this point, I apparently have missed where you have posted that exact, direct quote. One can say that another person's story has changed over the years and still not call them a liar. Memories fade, people don't express themselves well, people also sometimes are simply mistaken at one point or another in their lives. Greg Doudna and I often disagree on the Forum. But I agree with Greg that when you accuse one party of calling someone a liar, it is incumbent upon you, as the accuser, to present evidence that the person you are accusing did what you have accused them of doing...that of calling someone a liar. Unless someone actually uses the word "liar," then you haven't proved your point. And it is NOT the responsibility of anyone, including the person you accused, to prove they didn't do what you claim they did. If someone points to the upper back part of the head, at what specific point -- how many millimeters from what particular point of reference -- does the upper part of the head become NOT a part of the top of the head? At what point on the skull does the "top of the head" begin and end? Yes, I'm asking for specificity in your response. Otherwise, is the top HALF of the head still the "top of the head"? Or is it the top 25% of the head? Or only the top 2% of the head? If you cannot define your term with any degree of specificity, then perhaps Mr. Speer's interpretation of the term "top of the head" is slightly less specific than yours, which, to this point, seems quite subject to interpretation. Poorly defined terms do not make one a liar. They simply reflect someone's perhaps-less-than-perfect interpretation of the evidence. So exactly where does "top of the head" begin and end, in relation to a specific point of reference on the head? If you cannot state your parameters with precision, then you cannot determine what is a lie and what is merely a difference in interpretation. So how many millimeters from what point does "top of the head" begin and end? Mr. Speer is still designated a moderator of The Education Forum, but he has chosen NOT to exercise that function since the ownership change 10 years ago. Mr. Speer was not lying when he said that he has not exercised that function since the ownership change. I have opted not to seek removal of that moderator designation because, by not using it, Mr. Speer shows no evidence of abusing it...and allowing him to keep the designation is benign and has done no harm to anyone. As an administrator of The Education Forum, I can't wait for you to direct Sandy Larson to suspend my posting priviliges or to ban me from the forum, simply for questioning your techniques when dealing with Mr. Speer. As of 6/2/2024, I am the last remaining administrator from the transfer of ownership of The Education Forum from John Simkin to the group of four new owners they selected in 2014. It seems I am the "last man standing" of that group of four post-Simkin owners unless James Gordon decides to return. Absent that return, I am the senior "owner" of the forum. Mr. Hofeling, I eagerly await your anticipated attempts to have me suspended or even banned from the forum [This is gonna be a hoot!]. When I'm suspended, maybe DVP can go by his former business and pick up a bucket [extra crispy, please, David!] and deliver it to me. I'm 25 miles west of Louisville, David...the same latitude as the first turn at Churchill Downs, and the same longitude as the exit of pit road at Talladega Speedway. I'll supply the drinks as long as you drink decaf cola.

As one of the forum administrators, I must point out that discussion forums such as this one are about discussing what one believes and why one believes it. The purpose is NOT to "ride someone out of town on a rail" simply because their interpretation of the facts differs from your own. And THAT, my friends, explains why David Von Pein was reinstated to The Education Forum (pending his agreement to follow EF rules on discussion decorum). So far as I can see, Pat and Keven are merely interpreting Jenkins' statement and the photos connected to them differently. Remember the "Mystic" paint Ford used on their Mustang a few years back? At different angles the car looked purple, green, or gold. So if two witnesses viewed an auto accident involving said Mustang, and one said the car was purple and the other swore it was green...which one is lying? Since they're directly contradicting one another, one of the witnesses HAS to be a liar...right? To me, that sums up this entire thread so far. But I'll read on.

I concur. Your assessment is more than just a tiny bit logical. Which, then, bolsters my assessment that the primary differences stem from interpretative differences and semantic differences.

Amen. Let's walk it back out of that territory. It serves no useful purpose.

I just read the first page of this thread. So far, what I see is a dispute over semantics. Allow me to explain my point. The phrase, "the scalp was attached to the bone," seems to imply an interpretation that the scalp was attached to bone that was not displaced from its normal position by a gunshot wound. It also seems that the phrase, "the bone was attached to the scalp," is being used to imply that bone, i.e. fragments of gunshot-shattered bone, were attached to the scalp, implying torn, lacerated, and damaged portions of the scalp. So this part seems to be more of an argument about semantics. Was the bone attached to the scalp, or was the scalp attached to the bone? Can anyone really describe this distinction without an apparent difference? I sure as hell can't. After I read another page, I'll check back in.

An absence of evidence does not equate to evidence of absence.

As we approach November 2023, 60 years following JFK's assassination, I ask my fellow Education Forum members who are able to please contribute in order to fund the forum going forward. No, we are not exactly in DIRE financial straits, but I bring this up to prevent that from occurring. There is a sticky post on the first page of the EF JFK Assassination Discussion Forum that instructs members on how to donate to the forum. We appreciate each and every donation, no matter how large or small. Thank you.

As we approach November 2023, 60 years following JFK's assassination, I ask my fellow Education Forum members who are able to please contribute in order to fund the forum going forward. No, we are not exactly in DIRE financial straits, but I bring this up to prevent that from occurring. There is a sticky post on the first page of the EF JFK Assassination Discussion Forum that instructs members on how to donate to the forum. We appreciate each and every donation, no matter how large or small. Thank you.

I have had that suspicion for years. Probably the truth. Look at a list of JFK's enemies: * Pro-Castro Cubans. * Anti-Castro Cubans. * Mafia. * CIA factions. And likely others. Each could go to their sponsors after the assassination, claim credit, get paid, and disappear. And other than the ACTUAL assassin(s), evidence would lead to each of the factions. All but one , upon investigation, would be a trip down a rabbit hole. Which pretty much describes where we are today.

Ben, Let's get back to dealing in facts, please. Richard Nixon was NOT impeached. The House was drawing up articles of impeachment, and the Senate was prepared to convict Nixon...Republicans as well as Democrats. But Nixon resigned. While you're entitled to form your own opinions, you are NOT entitled to conjure up "facts" not based upon evidence. Historically, William Jefferson Clinton was the first President since Andrew Johnson to be impeached. Nixon was no more impeached than Abraham Lincoln, James Garfield, William McKinley, and JFK were impeached. And I'm sure that information is widely available.

"Idolizing a politician -- ANY politician -- is very much like believing the stripper really likes you." -- Some wise person, sometime in the past.

When RFK Jr. is SPECIFICALLY discussing the JFK assassination, that would be relevant to this forum. When he mentions it peripherally in a general political speech, that speech is only peripherally connected to this forum and is better suited to the Political Discussions forum. Just because JFK was his uncle, that doesn't make HIS political speeches any more relevant to this forum than speeches by Trump, DeSantis, Biden, Christie, Haley, or any other politician. It's really a simple concept. It truly is.

A very insightful article, Paul.

Revenge. It's the path to a multitude of rabbit holes. Mafia. Anti-Castro Cubans. Pro-Castro Cubans. "And the beat goes on; yeah, the beat goes on." Because, to a degree, all these revenge seekers have both motives and resources. If you want to tie up ALL the political assassinations on US soil in the '60s and early '70s in a neat little package, consider...Richard Nixon. After the '62 California gubernatorial election, "You won't have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore" was Nixon's pouty response. Yet 6 years later, he's POTUS. MLK's assassination didn't benefit the Democrats, but it helped Nixon's campaign by removing a charismatic pro-Democratic Party leader. RFK's assassination helped Nixon by...yep, you guessed it...removing a charismatic Democratic leader. After RFK's death, Gene McCarthy folded his campaign and the anything-but-charismatic Hubert Humphrey became the Democratic Party nominee, handing the Presidency to Nixon. Fast-forward to '72. Even though McGovern's campaign imploded, George Wallace's campaign as an independent raised the possibility that the three-way race might not be decided by the Electoral College, but by the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives. So George Wallace is shot. Cui buono? Who benefits? Nixon. But Watergate showed us that Nixon wasn't at the head of the pyramid. Once Nixon had served his masters' purpose, the skids under him were greased with the release of the flood of Watergate evidence, and Nixon's time as POTUS was done. Figure out who was behind all of Nixon's pre-Watergate "good fortune," and I believe you'll discover the persons behind not only the JFK assassination but the others as well. Because I don't believe that history occurs in a vacuum. I think the JFK assassination was their first "success" on US soil, and that emboldened them to continue right through '72, if not beyond.

It's obvious to anyone who will open their eyes that the candidacy of RFJ Jr. is not SOLELY about releasing the JFK assassination records. If that was the case, then his candidacy would be a topic for the JFK assassination discussion forum. But he's not a single-issue candidate; nor should he be, if he expects to gain a wide swath of voter support. But as a candidate for the highest office in the USA, UNLESS he's directly discussing the JFK assassination, the discussion of his candidacy rightfully belongs in the Political Discussions forum area of The Education Forum. The Education Forum has areas to discuss many things, especially things important to teachers. The RFK Jr. candidacy is no more germain to the JFK assassination discussion than the discussions on teaching German or Spanish or French...which also have their own SEPARATE discussion forums on The Education Forum. That's really not such a difficult concept to grasp. For most of us.

Seems everything needs a disclaimer these days. Oh...and "Objects in mirror may be larger than they appear." I suppose that includes chances of more war as well.

As a kid in the 1960s, I was told that the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were "justified" due to the atrocities the Japanese committed against Allied POWs. I was told that they were justified to keep from fighting a war IN Japan with a projected heavy loss of Allied lives. But having lived through the Vietnam War years, I must question why the Allies were never caught committing any similar atrocities. Did they not happen? Or were they like Mi Lai in 'Nam, which only came out after someone "squealed" on Lt. Calley & Co.? THERE IS NOTHING MORAL ABOUT WAR. All the talk of the Geneva Convention aside, the entire point of war is NOT following rules and conventions. It's about "winning." Whatever that means. Most wars are begun about either territory, raw material access [sometimes the same thing], or about stealing some asset(s) from the region being attacked. Or it's about power over an adversary, as the Soviet missiles in Cuba would have given the USSR some knife-to-the-throat leverage over the US in '62. But wars are almost never begun to uphold a principle, although they're sold to the public as such. The possible exception to that might be religious wars, but even those have eventually ended up being about the spoils the winner may collect. Since I was a member of my high school's Class of 1972, I was one of those who questioned what we were being told "for our own good." Most of which, we've eventually determined, were lies, half-truths, or intentionally misleading statements meant to obfuscate what was really going on. [I wasn't a "dope-smoking hippie," but I sometimes could be found in the company of one or more of them.] And George Carlin was our guide through the BS, much as Jon Stewart is the guide for the current generation [at least those who will listen]. Is it ironic that a few of the comedians of a generation are the best at ascertaining the truth? I know that tradition goes back at least as far as Will Rogers in my grandparents' generation. If you can show me any war that was begun by the side that remained 100% morally right throughout the conduct of that war, I take my hat off to you. General Smedley Butler said, "War is a racket." "War; [good God, y'all!] What is it good for?" We all know the answer. It takes the lives of the strong young men of a nation, and it drains the treasuries of nations. It kills civilians as well as soldiers, because there has never, ever been a war without "collateral damage." So was dropping the bombs on Hiroshima any more immoral than any other aspect of war, which kills innocent civilians and destroys homes, schools, businesses, and hospitals? The photos we've seen of hundreds of bodies either burned or buried in huge trenches during war...have we established a scale of atrocities yet? NONE of it is good. We learned that 17 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Saudis...so we attacked...[checks notes]...Iraq. And for good measure we added another war in Afghanistan, urinating away billions of dollars down a rathole similar to what the USSR did in the 1980s...but using more sophisticated and expensive weaponry to do so.

The Torbitt document has never been verified. Like the datebook, its provenance has never been established.

Here's a link to EVERY area of The Education Forum: Forums - The Education Forum (ipbhost.com) It's also the EF home page.