Antti Hynonen

Duke,

Great post, lots of detail.

Question 1: Did Oswald ever deny boarding the bus or did he ever deny having obtained a bus transfer ticket that day?

Question 2: Assuming Oswald did have a bus transfer ticket, and assuming he obtained it as the WC claimed and as the transfer ticket in evidence indicates, what further destination would he have needed the transfer for?

More questions: Wouldn't McWatters' bus have taken him to Harlandale, I mean close enough to his room at North Beckley? What was his likely destination after N. Beckley? Didn't his landlady at N. Beckley say that she saw him out the window at the bus stop across the street shortly after 1 p.m. on 11/22/63?

Hi,

Just to clarify:

J. Raymond Carroll Posted Yesterday, 06:12 PM

QUOTE(Duke Lane @ Sep 25 2008, 08:15 AM)

Anyway, no matter: these guys arguing the point on McAdams' site forgot about Jack being in Oswald's way entirely.

I will post your comments on the McAdams forum when I get a spare moment.

QUOTE

And what makes anyone think Jack was an "honest witness" anyway?

Indeed.

QUOTE

Howard Brennan was looking in the wrong direction to have ever seen anything in the TSBD being fired anyway, which explains why he didn't "actually" see anything.

Racking my memory for DIRECT EVIDENCE of a shot or shots from the SN, all I can think of are some earwitnesses, and Richard Randolph Carr, the high school kid who claimed to have seen the rifle fire. It seems that hardly anyone, including even the warren Commission, considered him reliable.

QUOTE

If the Z-film is "altered," why didn't the all-knowing reconstructionist at least turn him around so he wasn't looking to the east?

Let's not go there, or we will have David Healey stomping all over us.

QUOTE

On the other hand, I can think of absolutely no other reason to put a gun on the sixth floor and hang it out a window without firing it unless you were betting on pure, dumb luck and knew the house was gonna fold.

I think the stakes were too high for such a bet.

The impression I have is that JFK's killers took chances that boggle the minds of most ordinary decent people, regardless of race creed or educational status.

Richard R. Carr was a construction worker who observed from some distance a man in the TSBD window. He later got a closer look at the man, as quite apparently this same man ran out of the TSBD and towards Carr and then got into a Rambler sw.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKcarrR.htm

A high school kid who witnessed two people together at the TSBD, and one of them holding a rifle (Arnold Rowland):

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKrowland.htm

Just to throw in my 2 cents, I do believe that both the Rowland and Carr testimonies are in all likelyhood honest testimonies and I do find them useful.

Another high school kid, who was an (important) witness is Amos Euins:

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/euins.htm

From the above:

Mr. EUINS. I was standing here on the comer. And then the President come around the corner right here. And I was standing here. And I was waving, because there wasn't hardly no one on the corner right there but me. I was waving. He looked that way and he waved back at me. And then I had seen a pipe, you know, up there in the window, I thought it was a pipe, some kind of pipe.

Mr. SPECTER. When had you first seen that thing you just described as a pipe?

Mr. EUINS. Right as he turned the corner here.

203

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

Mr. SPECTER. Now, exactly where did you see that thing you have described as a pipe come from. And take a good look now before you tell us where it was.

Mr. EUINS. Right here.

Mr. SPECTER. Now, will you mark an "X" on Exhibit No. 366 where you saw the pipe? Mark the exact window, if you can, Amos.

(Witness marking.)

Mr. SPECTER. All right.

Proceed to tell us what happened, Amos.

Mr. EUINS. Then I was standing here, and as the motorcade turned the corner, I was facing, looking dead at the building. And so I seen this pipe thing sticking out the window. I wasn't paying too much attention to it. Then when the first shot was fired, I started looking around, thinking it was a backfire. Everybody else started looking around. Then I looked up at the window, and he shot again. So--you know this fountain bench here, right around here. Well, anyway, there is a little fountain right here. I got behind this little fountain, and then he shot again.

So after he shot again, he just started looking down this, you know.

Mr. SPECTER. Who started looking down that way?

Mr. EUINS. The man in the window. I could see his hand, and I could see his other hand on the trigger, and one hand was on the barrel thing.

Mr. SPECTER. All right.

Now, at the time the second shot was fired, where were you looking then?

Mr. EUINS. I was still looking at the building, you know, behind this--I was looking at the building.

Mr. SPECTER. Looking at anything special in the building?

Mr. EUINS. Yes, sir. I was looking where the barrel was sticking out.

Mr. SPECTER. How many shots did you hear altogether?

Mr. EUINS. I believe there was four, to be exact.

Mr. SPECTER. Now, where were you looking at the time of the third shot, if you remember?

Mr. EUINS. After he shot the first two times, I was just standing back here. And then after he shot again, he pulled the gun back in the window. And then all the police ran back over here in the track vicinity.

Mr. Mack kindly corrected Don's and my recollection of the film discussed prior and it is fact the Darnell film, not the Couch film.

His message to me enclosed;

Antti,

The film was shot by WBAP-TV photographer Jimmy Darnell, not WFAA-TV's Malcolm Couch. The Darnell film, which exists only as a first generation print, as far as is known, was recently acquired by The Sixth Floor Museum.

Don Bailey Posted Today, 01:33 PM

QUOTE(Antti Hynonen @ Sep 17 2008, 03:10 AM)

http://www.jfklancer.com/ManWho.html

Please see the article in the link above. I don't want to divert the thread too much, but will suggest that perhaps one or more of the "false agents" as described in the piece above, may have been the same indivuals as in one or more of the "suspicious" cars seen in the parking lot and as described by Lee Bowers Jr.

Also the man with the overcoat covering his arm (and a weapon, see link above, Malcolm Summers) could very well be the man seen in the black and white footage taken at the fence immediately following the assassination, this footage also features a shot of Buddy Walters and some footage of a dark liquid seen on the concrete.

The name of this footage/the name of the person recording this escapes me.

Thanks Antti,

The Malcolm Couch film shows the man with the dark overcoat over his arm walking in front of the camera and when Couch films the bench and pool of blood area you see another man with a white overcoat over his arm standing on the sidewalk, facing the other man with the dark overcoat over his arm. Both of these men are wearing a white hat. The man with the white overcoat over his arm looks like the man walking away from the crowd in the Hughes film… he was filmed without the white overcoat on his arm.

Don

Don, quite so. Must have been the Malcolm Couch film, I was trying to recall. Malcolm C. has likely caught on film the man with the gun under his overcoat that Malcolm S. had described seeing. Must have been one of the government (IRS or postal inspector) "agents" like the fellow with the dirty hands that made Officer Smith think of an auto mechanic after considering what he had seen.... makes sense that someone inspecting letters or parcels or tax returns has dirty hands.... no?

"Outside the Depository, some witnesses later claimed they ran into Secret Service agents. Since there were no Secret Service agents at Dealey until 1:00 P.M., when Forrest Sorrels returned from Parkland Hospital, could that mean that somebody was impersonating Secret Service agents, indicating a conspiracy? Most of the witnesses later admitted they were mistaken. And immediately after the assassination, different groups of law enforcement officials (most of them having been there to watch the motorcade from nearby government buildings) spread out in Dealey Plaza--they included Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) agents, postal inspectors, officers from the Special Service Bureau of the Dallas Police, county sheriffs, IRS agents, and even an Army intelligence agent. . . . The author has reviewed the 1963 badges for the above organizations, and found that several look alike. Any of those law enforcement officials could have been confused with Secret Service agents. "

(Posner 269)

http://www.jfklancer.com/ManWho.html

http://www.jfklancer.com/ManWho.html

Please see the article in the link above. I don't want to divert the thread too much, but will suggest that perhaps one or more of the "false agents" as described in the piece above, may have been the same indivuals as in one or more of the "suspicious" cars seen in the parking lot and as described by Lee Bowers Jr.

Also the man with the overcoat covering his arm (and a weapon, see link above, Malcolm Summers) could very well be the man seen in the black and white footage taken at the fence immediately following the assassination, this footage also features a shot of Buddy Walters and some footage of a dark liquid seen on the concrete.

The name of this footage/the name of the person recording this escapes me.

Don,

The events in the parking lot and the railroad yard are interesting indeed. I am not much of a photoanalyst, but do find the numerous witness statements very interesting.

One of the more interesting ones being Officer Joe Smith's encounter with a Secret Service agent (supposedly none were present in Dealey) that day, immediately following the shootings.

Of course this statement was never investigated nor were any attempts made to identify and interview the person claiming to be SS to officer Smith (as far as i know).

Dallas Police Officer Joseph Smith

"After the shooting, Dallas Police officer Joe M. Smith encountered another suspicious man in the lot behind the picket fence [on the grassy knoll]. Smith told the Warren Commission that when he drew his pistol and approached the man, the man "showed [smith] that he was a Secret Service agent." (WC Vol. VII, pg. 535; see interview of Joseph M. Smith, Feb. 8, 1978, House Select Committee on Assassinations (JFK Document 005886).)

"I looked into all the cars and checked around the bushes. Of course, I wasn't alone. There was some deputy sheriff with me, and I believe one Secret Service man when I got there. I got to make this statement, too. I felt awfully silly, but after the shot and this woman, I pulled my pistol from my holster, and I thought, this is silly, I don't know who I am looking for, and I put it back. Just as I did, he showed me that he was a Secret Service agent." (Warren Commission Hearings, Vol. VII, pg.. 531)

Wim,

I don't think the first photo is of him. I thought the first one is a photo of the fellow who allegedly killed his parents and stored them in the fridge of his home. His name escapes me right now, but it was something like Rogers.

Steve Thomas Posted Yesterday, 06:03 PM

QUOTE(Steve Thomas @ Sep 9 2008, 02:52 PM)

Last night I was reading the December 6, 1963 issue of Life Magazine. In the article it says that early rumors about the assassination centered on a mysterious Cuban named Scentor.

I've never heard this name. Has anyone here ever come across this name before?

Steve Thomas

I find two references to "Scentor" on the Mary Ferrell site:

One is a letter from a schoolboy to the FBI asking why some things were discounted in the FBI's search, such as the Cuban Scentor.

(FBI WC Liason File, Section 26 p. 127)

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...bsPageId=751820

The other is a German newspaper article which mentions Scentor

(FBI JFK Assassination File, Section 53 p. 98

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...bsPageId=762682

Anybody here read German?

Steve Thomas

Hi Steve,

Too lazy to translate the whole thing. Basically it says Buchanan believes there was a conspiracy and tha the true events have been kept hidden from the general public by the officials in charge.

It mentions that as a potential accomplice the name "Scentor" has been mentioned (doesn't indicate by whom, could be Buchanan though), and that Scentor is a secretive, right-wing millionaire Cuban with ties to both Oswald and Ruby.

Thomas,

The title of the thread is fixed.

It does look like Billy Lovelady is in that office. I don't know whose office that is though. Is not Decker's, don't know?

I would guess that the older man, Oswald is saying something to, is a reporter. It may be the reporter who asked Oswald: " Why did you shoot the President?" - or something to that effect.

From Mae Brussel:

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/LHO.html

Did you kill the President?" Oswald replied, "No. I have not been charged with that. In fact, nobody has said that to me yet. The first thing I heard about it was when the newspaper reporters in the hall asked me that question. . . . I did not do it. I did not do it. . . . I did not shoot anyone."

Don Bailey Posted Today, 07:49 AM

QUOTE

Mr. McCLOY - From your examination of the actual bullets that you have been told were fired on the day of the assassination from this rifle, and from your--how many separate bullets do you identify?

Mr. FRAZIER - Two, at the maximum--possibly three, if these two jacket fragments came from different bullets. If they came from one bullet, then there would be a maximum of the whole bullet 399 and this bullet in two parts.

Mr. McCLOY - And you cannot tell whether these two particles came from one bullet or two separate ones?

Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG - When you say "two at the maximum," do you mean two at the minimum?

Mr. FRAZIER - I meant at least two bullets.

Mr. McCLOY - There were at least two different bullets?

Mr. FRAZIER - At least two, yes.

Frazier did not confirm or deny that the two fragments 567 and 569 were from the same bullet. And since the base (569) and the cone (567) were found in the area of the front seat it seems these two fragments are from the same bullet after striking the chrome trim.

Don

Don, perhaps the 567 and 569 could help support that in all likelyhood more than 3 bullets were fired. If we take into account that James Tague was hit by a fragment, Connaly was hit by more than one bullet (imo), Kennedy by more than one...... I already can see Tom coming to explain "facts" again. O-oo..

Moderators and the Administration of the Forum have decided that this thread will be locked. This thread and the subject area covered within is considered to be unsuitable in content, particularly as this section is for political conspiracies.

Jim Root Posted Yesterday, 08:35 PM

5) IF Nosenko was a Soviet plant, the timming of his first contact with US Intelligence, which coincides with Oswald re-defecting to the US, followed by Nosenko's defection after the assassination (and willingness to provide information about Oswald), could suggest that Oswald was part of a very big intelligence operation for the Soviets. IF Oswald were part of a very big intelligence operation for the Soviets and Oswald was "The Orchid Man" suggested by Angelton, then Oswald was part of a very big (perhaps even bigger than the Soviets) US Intelligence operation. If the above senario were true we should expect to find a similar reaction by US Intelligence toward Oswald's return to the US. Upon examination of the time lines we find that Edwin Anderson Walker's fall from grace coincides with Oswald's initial attempts to return to the US from the Soviet Union. Coincidence?

Jim,

We've been in touch regarding various angles of this case and other events occuring prior, the communication has been very interesting and very educational for me.

I read with great interest the connections you have made regarding numerous events and their timing. One question came to mind, it may be obvious, but it didn't click with me:

What is the significance of Gen. Edwin Anderson Walker's fall from grace coinciding with Oswald's initial attempts to return to the US?

Thanks.

Antti

Duke Lane Posted Today, 06:44 AM

QUOTE(Mike Williams @ Aug 12 2008, 04:54 PM)

Let us not forget our Marxist was also arrested wearing his Marine Corp Ring.

Ah, the surest possible sign of someone dissatisfied with the American Way of Life, eh? Let's see: "I hate this place, want to kill the President ... and proud to be a Marine!"

Think so?

Exactly what I was thinking. Further, I do recall LHO in an interview in New Orleans (I recall) having to think about how to respond to a rather spontaneous question on marxism, his response was that of someone trying to recall the lines when playing a part in a play. Of course the defection to Russia just adds to this logical equation of a man who at the age of 17 years volunteers to enlist, who was so bummed he couldn't enlist at 16.....

I recall seeing interviews of Gerald Ford, regarding the JFK investigation, where he would repeat the final statement by the Commission, which was along the lines:

"The Commission has not found any evidence indicating a conspiracy in the murder of President John F. Kennedy."

Perhaps he meant by the "no problem" that the Commission would leave the report to President Johnson and the American people, with "clean hands" as they would add this clause to their report.

William Kelly Posted Today, 08:31 AM

Don,

Is there a page by page repoduction of this manual?

Would it be possible to get a similar one?

Oswald is said to also have his brother Robert's USMC manual,

which he reportedly memorized before enlisting.

There's more to his manual than meets the eye.

BK

Memorizing the USMC manual as well as enlisting in the USMC, are of course actions which can be considered typical undertakings of communists/marxists.....

In 2 out of the 3 close up photos (windshield removed from vehicle) posted by Bernice it seems that the defect in the window is closer to the middle of the windshield than in the pictures where the windshield is attached to the vehicle.

In the first photos taken after the incident the defect appears just slightly to the driver side of the top of the rear-view mirror - non towards the middle of the windshield as in the windshield removed photos.

Hmmm......

The close ups do not clearly show a hole in either, were cameras and film really that poor in 1963???

Thanks for the photos.

Mike,

Re: measurements, I was having trouble reading your presentation. I believe 1" means one inch, correct?

Therefore 1 inch is 2,54 cm. This is 25,4 mm.

1mm= 1/25,4 of an inch. 2" would be 5,08cm or 50,8mm.

16mm. would be just around 5/8 of an inch or more precisely 16/25,4 of an inch.

http://bluefive.pair.com/inches_to_cm_to_inches.htm

Antti

Mike Williams Posted Yesterday, 11:25 AM

QUOTE(Antti Hynonen @ Aug 10 2008, 03:26 AM)

IMO there's not enough detail (or pixels) in the attached photos to determine whether the damaged area in the windshield shows a hole. More importantly IMO the existance of this defect (and the one in the trim of the windshield) indicates that most likely, there were more than 3 shots fired at the limo and it's occupants, thus indicating a conspiracy.

Antti,

The one certain thing is that a hole would leave a translucent area. We can see the crack in the parkland photo, and an alleged area of translucence. This area however could also be the chip in the glass that we see in the CE350 photo also above. The similarities in the cracks are marked by colored arrows. This means we are looking at the same damage in the PL photo that we are looking at in the CE350 photo (ala no switcheroo).

There is not a single photo in evidence that shows a hole in the glass. Not one. Yet all the photos in evidence share like characteristics with the original damage. Further evidence of the lack of a hole.

As for the damage to the limo overall being an indication of a conspiracy, you will have to expand on this a bit, as both the glass and chrome damage could come from a single shot passing through the rear of the head of JFK, fragmenting, and causing the damage. The total damage can be attributed to a single shot.

Best,

Mike

Mike, thanks for your reply.

http://ourworld.cs.com/mikegriffith1/forensic.htm

Any comments on the above?

As for the damage to the limo overall being an indication of a conspiracy, you will have to expand on this a bit, as both the glass and chrome damage could come from a single shot passing through the rear of the head of JFK, fragmenting, and causing the damage. The total damage can be attributed to a single shot.

Mike, I do agree that one shot could have caused damage to different areas of the vehicle, however most likely not a FMJ bullet as alleged by the WC. Perhaps my wording was off, as it leads the reader to believe that my opinion is that a hole in the windshield indicates a 4th shot (from the front, not an impossibility either), when in fact I wanted to allude to the likeliness of a 4th bullet having been one that fragmented, one of a different type that is.

I don't believe that a FMJ bullet would fragment as seen in the x-rays and and other evidence. Therefore this evidence does not agree with the Carcano being the only weapon used for all the shooting done in Dealy Plaza that day. Therefore if 3 shots were fired from the Carcano, the damage caused by the fragments at the scene and in the victim is likely caused by a different weapon/bullet.

Further, I do place more weight on the eyewitness statements regarding a hole in the windshield, than the photos I have seen depicting the limousine and windshield (which IMO do not contain enough detail to form a definitive opinion).

By the way, do you consider the existance of a hole in the windshield, or alternatively the lack of a hole to be a key issue? If yes, how so, if I may ask?

Also, do you consider you calculations regarding the precise size of the damaged area in the windshield to be accurate? I'm sure the size of the mirror is correct though - as you indicated.

Thanks!

IMO there's not enough detail (or pixels) in the attached photos to determine whether the damaged area in the windshield shows a hole. More importantly IMO the existance of this defect (and the one in the trim of the windshield) indicates that most likely, there were more than 3 shots fired at the limo and it's occupants, thus indicating a conspiracy.

Maggie Hansen Posted Today, 10:52 AM

QUOTE(Antti Hynonen @ Aug 8 2008, 07:53 AM)

I have also asked Ms. Hansen to kindly post a proper avatar today, in fact moments ago.

If a recognizable avatar is a requirement for one, it is a requirement for all members.

Antti,

John Simkin posted my bio and photo. He did not reject it. He posted it. If he now rejects it I will make an appointment with Annie Leibowitz first thing in the morning and you will have a new photo very soon there after.

In the mean time I am feeling rather singled out and attacked (even though my bio link works and all) so I will wait until I hear John's thoughts on this matter. I also expect that the rules will be universally applied and the others with dodgy photos (including Lens by the way, not face on or very clear, could be anyone) will be required to change their photos at the same time.

Ok, thanks.

I will check with Simkin asap. Any others not complying must change their photos as well, that is the way I see it.

If you can produce one of the same quality as Len's and showing as much of your face as in his, I'll consider that being in compliance.

Antti

William Kelly Posted Today, 10:50 AM

QUOTE(Antti Hynonen @ Aug 8 2008, 08:34 AM)

QUOTE

William Kelly Posted Today, 10:26 AM

QUOTE(Antti Hynonen @ Aug 8 2008, 07:57 AM)

QUOTE

Evan Burton Posted Today, 09:47 AM

Jack - all you have to do is put the link to your bio in your profile, as you have been asked to do several times now and in accordance with Forum rules, and your posts will all be made visible. Simple. If want assistance on how to place it in your signature line:

1. Near the top of the page, on the right hand side, there is a link labeled MY CONTROLS. Click on that.

2. A new page will appear. Go to the left hand side, and look for the heading PERSONAL PROFILE. Under that heading will be a selection labeled EDIT SIGNATURE. Click on it.

3. A text box will appear. Simply paste the URL for your biography into that box, then click on UPDATE MY SIGNATURE at the bottom of the box.

We CANNOT do this for you; you have to do it yourself. If you need assistance, please contact myself or one of the other Mods via PM and we'll help you.

Thank you.

Mr. Burton is quite right.

I have even e-mailed Mr. White the instructions on how to proceed with attaching a working bio to his profile, I have had no reply from him, nor has he complied.

If Mr. Burton does not set Mr. White's posts invisible, I will. That is until he complies with the rule regarding his bio.

Antti is a moderator too? Now we have Kathy, Evan and Antii involved in this and none of them want to know if it is really Len Colby or Len Brazil or who he is?

Will someone please provide me a link to Len's bio, as his page says he has no personal statement, that Jack is apparently lacking as well, though I'm pretty sure I know who Jack White is.

Now we have Charles posts being censored by Evan and Antti threatening to censor Jack by making his posts invisible even though we all know who Jack White is.

And the reason Len has to register under his real name is that it is a rule of this forum that the moderators are suppose to enforce, but apparently Kathy thinks its funny, Evan is waiting for John to wake up so he can check and see if he should allow Charles' statement, and Annti thinks its okay for Len to have a handle, or "call sign," when no one else is allowed to use one.

There is a reason why people hide behind such pseudo "call signs" and avoiding responsiblilty is one of them. Engaging in covert operations is another.

Len doesn't need somebody to vouch for him. All he has to do is be square with us.

Bill "Alec Hidell" Kelly

Bill,

I have been a moderator since the moderators were initiated on this Forum.

Here's Len's bio:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4878

(it appears at the bottom his each of his posts)

Jack's posts are already being blocked as he has repeatedly failed to attach his bio to his signature on his profile.

A couple of questions:

How do you know that Len is not using his real name on this Forum?

Where is Len using his call sign on this Forum?

Thanks!

Antti

I don't know that Len Colby is not using his real name on this forum. His bio looks pretty good to me too, except I'd like to know the answers to the quesitons posed to him by Tink and John, did he go to colllege with and know who Tink is talking about and is he related to CIA's Colby? And what did happen to his web site?

And is Len Colby his real name and does he use the name Len Brazil elsewhere?

Thanks!

BK

Bill, Ok, just for the heck of it, I'd like to know too.

Since we have already asked him these and many other related questions too, and since he has had ample opportunity to answer, but hasn't, should we still pursue this?

I can not think of a Forum rule which we could enforce to make him reply? Can you?

I think this borders with the Forum rule of us not being allowed to inquire the motivations of a member....

I know he uses LenBrazil in his e-mail address, does that help?

Antti

Maggie Hansen Posted Today, 10:39 AM

QUOTE(Evan Burton @ Aug 8 2008, 08:25 AM)

QUOTE(Maggie Hansen @ Aug 8 2008, 05:17 PM)

I do not understand why you don't 'get it'. Charles Drago has his post made invisible. Jack is treated like a child who is being naughty or 'petulant' as Evan called him and yet Kathy, Evan and you find no problem with someone being deceptive and using an alias. Mr 'what document do you have to support this claim' Colby is being let off with out being required to provide any proof of his own or being called to explain.

Maggie,

What proof do you have that len is NOT using his real name?

Evan, this is your job not mine. Or John and Andy's. Leave me out of it please.

Would it be appropriate to ask you for proof of your real identity? Perhaps the 100 point check?

Happy to comply if it is required of all.

I think not.

Also:

QUOTE

pet·u·lant pɛtʃələnt/ Pronunciation Key - [pech-uh-luhnt]

– adjective

moved to or showing sudden, impatient irritation, esp. over some trifling annoyance: a petulant toss of the head.

[Origin: 1590–1600; < L petulant- (s. of petulāns) impudent, akin to petere to seek, head for]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/petulant

???

All Jack has to do is abide with the rules of the Forum. Easy. He has been offered every assistance to do so. We are not asking him to do something every other member has to do. He is not being asked to reveal personal information he wishes to remain private. He is being asked to do what every other member here seems to regard as something quite normal. I think the term is accurate.

Yeah, Evan. As long as your bio link works you can use what ever alias you like. Great. Totally impartial. Play the ball not the man. Yeah.

Quote:"

EB: Maggie,

What proof do you have that len is NOT using his real name?

MH: Evan, this is your job not mine. Or John and Andy's. Leave me out of it please. #"

Maggie we have exactly the same proof that Len is Len as we have that Maggie is Maggie. As far as I can tell we are quite happy with both sets of factual evidence!

Maggie Hansen Posted Today, 10:29 AM

QUOTE(Evan Burton @ Aug 8 2008, 07:38 AM)

QUOTE(Maggie Hansen @ Aug 8 2008, 03:47 PM)

QUOTE(Evan Burton @ Aug 8 2008, 06:41 AM)

Maggie,

1. What screen name a member here chooses to use on another forum is none of our business. It has nothing to do with what Len posts here. If you have an issue with what Len posts here, then take him to task here.

2. I am not "pouncing" on Jack. John put out a PM regarding avatars some time ago, saying that members who did not comply were to have their posts stopped until they did comply. I took the bio to be equally important as it is a similar rule (John can say if this is so, or not). Jack was given several warning, and offered every assistance to comply with the Forum rules. If he chooses not to abide by the Forum rules, then he must accept the consequences. If ANY other member makes the same omission, then they will be asked in the same way to comply. I cannot understand why this is so difficult to understand.

But which is the real LEN? And why the need for an alias?

It is quite simple: Len's real name is the name he uses here - UNLESS he has received permission from John or Andy (NOT me or other Mods) to use an alternate.

Do you mean to say that you use your real name on all the forums you post on? If so, I must say you are being very foolish and leave yourself open to spam / hacking / identity theft / etc. You'll find that the Forum here is an exception to the rule; most members of other forums do NOT use their real names. In many cases it is discouraged.

Yes, actually I do. I do not belong to many forums but I use my name. It is also traditional for persons writing for 'peer reviewed' journals to use their real names and academic qualifications. As would be known to some here if not Len. No, I don't care what name Len uses anywhere else. Just here and that is the point. And you are all allowed to receive your plain brown paper wrapped magazines to your P.O. boxes as well. Really, I don't mind.

Yes, actually I do. I do not belong to many forums but I use my name. It is also traditional for persons writing for 'peer reviewed' journals to use their real names and academic qualifications. As would be known to some here if not Len. No, I don't care what name Len uses anywhere else. Just here and that is the point. And you are all allowed to receive your plain brown paper wrapped magazines to your P.O. boxes as well. Really, I don't mind.

Glad to se you stating the above. This being the case you should have no objections to posting a proper photograph as an avatar.

William Kelly Posted Today, 10:26 AM

QUOTE(Antti Hynonen @ Aug 8 2008, 07:57 AM)

QUOTE

Evan Burton Posted Today, 09:47 AM

Jack - all you have to do is put the link to your bio in your profile, as you have been asked to do several times now and in accordance with Forum rules, and your posts will all be made visible. Simple. If want assistance on how to place it in your signature line:

1. Near the top of the page, on the right hand side, there is a link labeled MY CONTROLS. Click on that.

2. A new page will appear. Go to the left hand side, and look for the heading PERSONAL PROFILE. Under that heading will be a selection labeled EDIT SIGNATURE. Click on it.

3. A text box will appear. Simply paste the URL for your biography into that box, then click on UPDATE MY SIGNATURE at the bottom of the box.

We CANNOT do this for you; you have to do it yourself. If you need assistance, please contact myself or one of the other Mods via PM and we'll help you.

Thank you.

Mr. Burton is quite right.

I have even e-mailed Mr. White the instructions on how to proceed with attaching a working bio to his profile, I have had no reply from him, nor has he complied.

If Mr. Burton does not set Mr. White's posts invisible, I will. That is until he complies with the rule regarding his bio.

Antti is a moderator too? Now we have Kathy, Evan and Antii involved in this and none of them want to know if it is really Len Colby or Len Brazil or who he is?

Will someone please provide me a link to Len's bio, as his page says he has no personal statement, that Jack is apparently lacking as well, though I'm pretty sure I know who Jack White is.

Now we have Charles posts being censored by Evan and Antti threatening to censor Jack by making his posts invisible even though we all know who Jack White is.

And the reason Len has to register under his real name is that it is a rule of this forum that the moderators are suppose to enforce, but apparently Kathy thinks its funny, Evan is waiting for John to wake up so he can check and see if he should allow Charles' statement, and Annti thinks its okay for Len to have a handle, or "call sign," when no one else is allowed to use one.

There is a reason why people hide behind such pseudo "call signs" and avoiding responsiblilty is one of them. Engaging in covert operations is another.

Len doesn't need somebody to vouch for him. All he has to do is be square with us.

Bill "Alec Hidell" Kelly

Bill,

I have been a moderator since the moderators were initiated on this Forum.

Here's Len's bio:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4878

(it appears at the bottom his each of his posts)

Jack's posts are already being blocked as he has repeatedly failed to attach his bio to his signature on his profile.

A couple of questions:

How do you know that Len is not using his real name on this Forum?

Where is Len using his call sign on this Forum?

Thanks!

Antti

Maggie Hansen Posted Today, 10:17 AM

QUOTE(Antti Hynonen @ Aug 8 2008, 07:38 AM)

Who can vouch that any one of us here are using their given names? Which member here can vouch for me?

Why does Len Colby need to prove that his name is really Len Colby, and why does nobody else need to do this for their respective names?

Why does he need to explain his responsibilities from a different website?

I think he only needs to cite sources for what he posts here, not for what he has posted elsewhere. By the way Len's email address starts with LenBrazil, I think I have seen it on this Forum somewhere. What's the big deal?

Why does he need to answer these?:

"Who is the webmaster/editor-in-chief/publisher of the self-styled "journal"?"

"What is a "nom de web" exactly? Please define." Isn't the answer to this, rather self evident? It is an alias used on the web, his call sign if you like.

Len's bio is a fine example of a bio and IMO all you need to know about him (and more) is right there.

Sure, Colby's opinions regarding conspiracies differ from many of ours, but is that a good reason to treat him like this?

I do not understand why you don't 'get it'. Charles Drago has his post made invisible. Jack is treated like a child who is being naughty or 'petulant' as Evan called him and yet Kathy, Evan and you find no problem with someone being deceptive and using an alias. Mr 'what document do you have to support this claim' Colby is being let off with out being required to provide any proof of his own or being called to explain.

Is the irony lost on you that Jack White who is universally well known is pursued relentlessly because his bio link was broken and Charles Drago post is disappeared because it questions the 'entity' known as Len Colby? (I think Charles may actually be on to some thing here.) In the mean time Len Colby/Brasil or who ever the 'entity' is is mollycoddled by the moderators like something delicate and fragile that needs protection from justifiable questions. Just because his/her bio link isn't broken it all conforms. I don't think so. Evan in no uncertain terms states that Jack has to conform to the rules just like every one else but some how this is not applied to Len. No it is all 'Who can vouch that any one of us here are using their given names?' and 'Surely you are all joking about placing any degree of seriousness in your questioning, aren't you?' and 'What screen name a member here chooses to use on another forum is none of our business. It has nothing to do with what Len posts here. ' But according to Jack there was a Len Brasil posting here. What is going on here? Is the Emperor wearing clothes?

Oh, I think I "get " everything quite well. Look, we have a set of rules on this Forum. Lately we moderators have been asked to enforce these, and that is waht we are doing. By the way if your avatar is not improved your posts will be blocked as well.

As a reminder here are Forum rulesn (John Simkin):

On the 12th November I posted a message about the behaviour of members.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2224

This in itself has been taken over by personal bickering. I have therefore decided to make a new statement about the aims and objectives of this forum and to stress the kind of behaviour that we expect from members.

JFK Forum

The main objective of this forum is to bring together researchers into the assassination of John F. Kennedy. It is hoped that this forum will enable researchers to share information they have acquired about the case. In this way, the forum will become a major way of communicating information about the assassination to the wider community (we have a far larger number reading the forum than those posting information).

Rules of the JFK Forum

(i) All members have to provide a biography. A link to this biography should be added to their signature (see below for instructions how to do this).

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1471

(ii) All members should use a photograph of themselves as an avatar (see below for instructions how to do this). If you still find you have problems with this please email me and I will help you with this.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1861

(iii) Wherever possible, members should give references (books, documents, etc) concerning the comments that they make. This will help those carrying out academic research into this area.

(iv) Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers. Most importantly, the motivations of the poster should not be questioned. At all times members should concentrate on what is being said, rather than who is saying it. It is up to the reader to look at the biography submitted by the poster, to judge whether they are telling the truth or not. The word “xxxx” is banned from use on the forum.

(v) Members should take care over the accuracy of their postings. This includes spellings, capital letters, etc. This is important as the forum is read by young students and therefore we should not be setting them a bad example. I would suggest you write initially in a word processing program that automatically checks spellings, etc. The finished work can then be copied and posted into the forum.

(vi) Make sure your postings are relevant to the thread. Please start another thread if your comments do not belong to any existing threads.

(vii) When you start a thread please make sure it is relevant to the events surrounding the assassination of JFK. We have other areas of the forum where you can post about Politics, History, Mass Media, Sociology, etc.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?act=idx

(viii) Members should use the quote function of the forum when replying to people’s posts. To do this click the REPLY button. Pressing this button will allow you to reply to a topic, and have the text from a particular reply quoted in your own reply. This can be edited so that only the relevant passage is included. If you want to reply to several postings, copy and paste the relevant comments into your own answer. To make this clear use the colour options to highlight what someone else is saying. Type in the name of the person after the quotation.

(ix) It helps the reader if the text of your posts goes right across the page. If you find this has not happened, use the EDIT button to make sure it does. I do this for you whenever I can but I find it very time-consuming so I would prefer it if you did it yourself.

(x) There is no need to add your own name to postings. The forum software does this automatically.

Please feel free to add your comments about these rules. I welcome suggestions about other rules we might need. However, do not use this thread to reopen disputes with other members. If you do, they will be deleted.

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

John Simkin