Cory Santos

Deleted. We are not going to neutrality here.

So again, here we are at the river. Where are the moderators? Attacks by many on President Trump, Republicans, our countries institutions. All in violation of the so called forum rules. It’s very embarrassing and hardly educational.

So even Cliff agrees with me on one narrow point, CIA had nothing to do with it. Again it’s a simple misinterpretation of what Pres. Trump said and what he meant.

He could, and probably does, mean a benign cover up- which the CIA admits to- when referring to them being behind “it”.

This has to be moved to a different forum. Rules are rules. lol.

But see no one, mostly, will get that reference. It does not come off well and makes you not look independent. That is a key for a moderator, respectfully.

Interesting you chose Alex Jones. Why not cite Jerry Springer who was known for this? Oh he was a democrat. We only cite bad Republicans on the forum. SMH.

I have not said anything previously but I feel I must now. I noticed that the moderation here seems to be approaching a one sided “agree with me or peril” view of history. W and I rarely agree, yet I thought his post was deserving of discussion- and I agreed with him about the lack of merits of the book he was discussing. Yet it was moved. I noticed just recently a moderator has threatened Mr. Morrow over his post. While, I do not comment on whether I agree or disagree with Mr. Morrow’s views, the point is, I have seen people on this forum question the sexual habits of other actors such as Lee Harvey Oswald, Jack Ruby, Shaw, David Ferrie, Jim Garrison, Ruth Paine, etc., seemingly without any penalty or warning. I myself have brought up multiple times the alleged affairs of JFK and Marilyn Monroe and debated Jim D. (Which I think gives forum readers a great research and historical record of the arguments for and against such a proposition). So my question is: Is there a new standard where mention of alleged affairs are not allowed unless demonstratively provable? If that is the case what is required to prove it? Unlike many on here, I have studied at the graduate level in History so I wonder what standards will be applied? If any forum is notorious for not being able to agree on what evidences is, from a legal perspective, in my opinion, this certainly is the forum for that. As such, I doubt there will ever be a consensus here as to this historical issue. Thus, in my opinion, it seems like the moderation here now is more censorship than moderation. If we can’t debate like adults what is the point of this forum? To just follow a blind faith set forth by a few? That is neither academic nor educational. I hope forum leadership chooses otherwise.

Ron, really? He is linking it to the subject. How is he stalking, taunting-which goes on a lot here, or harassing Jim? The moderation seems to be getting out of control.

I think it is a mistake to start sub categorizing threads so much that they are lost. I don’t agree with the post but to make a JFK book discussion separate from this forum is not a good idea in my opinion.

Why was the thread moved?

Here is a fact. He will not be elected because one campaign is pushing to keep him out of the debates, oh and off state ballots. Oh and Jim D could note rightly also that the son of the man who is the reason presidential candidates qualify for secret service protection has been denied it by one administration several times now. Amazing. I think Jim’s responses have been rather tempered and factual to this point. it is too bad so much name calling continues on this site just for debating or discussing an issue.

Quite the Fermi Paradox here.

https://www.rdrnews.com/obituaries/ap_obits/dr-cyril-wecht-celebrity-pathologist-who-argued-more-than-1-shooter-killed-jfk-dies-at/article_fbe03cdf-cd01-5470-8c04-dabd9a04cd3e.html

https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/legacyremembers/cyril-wecht-obituary?pid=206928825