59 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

That's funny!  Celebrating by the pool, latte with I'm guessing tequila shots (based on the lemon/lime slices).  Did you see this other story picture?

Jamie Lee Curtis raises eyebrows with a photo of her updated trophy cabinet following Oscars (yahoo.com)

Pretty sure she's recovering.

17 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Interesting and new to me. For many Native American and Canadian tribes crimes resulted in loss of honor, banishment. 

I'm aware of that as well, Paul.

Hopefully a scholar on the subject will weigh in, but for now, I actually read the Honor Price in a somewhat different light.  Mr. Koch was  causing some to be "embarrassed" or turn red faced caused by his insults and disgusting remarks, attacking their dignity (did he lodge a permanent image in some minds of me hysterically grabbing for Prozac?!), which weakens their honor which affects credibility and livelihood. Presumably it's comparable to defamation in English Law.   

I could be misinterpreting Honor Price altogether. (homework!)

25 minutes ago, Mark Knight said:

Mr. Cotter, I will step in for Mr. Bulman and explain "precisely what was wrong" with the comments he cited.

In the pinned topic MEMBERSHIP BEHAVIOUR, administrator James Gordon posted the following:

"In addition I have noted that some members have been playing with word structure to avoid using offensive language. That will no longer be tolerated."

This is NOT some new rule. This post dates back to 2015. And it covers what you did twice with a word beginning with "f" and again with a word beginning with "p". [I won't repost the words, because I don't want to give you the opportunity to call me a hypocrite for demonstrating the offensive behaviour in order to point out examples of the offensive behaviour.]

I would suggest you take a couple of moments to reacquaint yourself with the forum rules.

The Education Forum is NOT ROKC. The administrators, though we are human, are attempting to continue the standards established by our predecessor, John Simkin.

References:

MEMBERSHIP BEHAVIOUR - JFK Assassination Debate - The Education Forum (ipbhost.com)

 

 

Thank you, Mark.  So, I could insist that Matthew Koch's crass use of feces (he opted for a far more crass term) to identify elements central to Albarelli's investigation into the assassination in Dallas that I included in a comment, be removed — lest his disgusting comment is left to smolder on the thread?  I won't spend time digging thru the muck,  but I'm compelled to make the point that Mr. Koch got away with a good deal in the short time I've been engaged.

14 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

You know, after the JFKA, the only group (in general) that cared what happened on 11/22 was the left-wing. They were ridiculed as commie-sympathizers, nuts and so on. 

The rotten idea is that someone should care if a President is deposed by non-democratic forces---but only if that president is from your party. 

Then, Nixon was deposed (remember, he was never impeached. He resigned). As a leftie college student, I celebrated.

Now, with partisan sentiments cooling, people are beginning to wonder: What really happened to Nixon? Why are the fingerprints of the CIA all over everything, and consider that Woodward was an ONI guy--whose first j-job was at the nation's premier political newspaper?  Really? Even the guy who revealed the WH had a taping system was former CIA. 

But back in 1970s, there was not a leftie in nation who wondered at all about the Nixon true story. People who wondered about Nixon's exit were ridiculed, scorned, obviously right-wing nuts. 

Today we have the odd, evolving tale of a true non-establishment figure Trump, the Russiagate Hoax, the alliance of the intel state-media and the rival political party, the Twittergate files, and the mysterious events of 1/6. 

Right-wingers are open to alternative narratives regarding Trump, and what looks like regime-change ops during his presidency, while left-wingers ridicule the MAGA-nuts, or even extol the virtues of censorship regarding those events. 

Nothing ever changes. 

I do not know what happened to JFK, Nixon or Trump. 

I am open to alternative conjectures. 

I respect other people's opinions. No one (at least us commoners) knows all the facts.

You're invoking a subjective perspective or "view". You provide no facts to substantiate your arguments, and in fact your litany related to Trump has been credibly, factually disproven. examples in bold.  

the Russiagate Hoax — Barr's interference and misrepresentation of the Mueller Report, Barr's findings in Italy that he covered up, Dunham's attempts that fell short with only one indictment.

the alliance of the intel state-media and the rival political party — Murdoch has privatized intel. McCarthy and Carlson represent the NEW intel state-media.

the Twittergate files — dropped by media operative Matt Taibi instead of being turned over to authorities directly.

and the mysterious events of 1/6. —  Loudermilk photographing hallways, access and egress, stairwells is very mysterious, a-typical of tourist behavior.

Forbes is not prone to publishing unsubstantiated claims ...

@John Cotter @Benjamin Cole
 

On the question of Matthew Koch’s banishment, today seems an appropriate day to refer to the ancient …

Irish Brehon Law and the Honor Price

. . .Every freeman was ranked, but rank was not determined by birth.  Instead, a person’s status in society was determined by his honor price.  Everyone had an “honor price”. 

The honor price had several functions in society and in law.  First, it was an assessment of his dignity, or “face”.  Honor price was called lóg n-enech literally “the price of his face".  In the old Irish language, “honor” and “face” are the same word; to make someone red in the face was synonymous with ‘offense against honor’. Among the free classes honor price was a man's most jealously guarded possession, more precious than life.  One of the most stringent punishments for an offence was the loss of one’s honor price.  Loss of honor price meant loss of social status and a decrease in rank.  It was to be avoided at all cost.

Secondly, a person’s honor price represented his or her present status in the community.  It was directly related to his material wealth.  The assessment of a person's property, that is, its character and value, including land, personal property, and clients, was vital to assess his honor price, and the honor price was an essential part of the Irish system of justice. It was symbolically represented by appropriate dress, equipment, manners, size of retinue and reputation.

Finally, the amount of compensation for any wrong depended on the amount of a person’s honor price.  The honor price was the payment due to any free man if his honor or rights were injured by another person.  The honor price fluctuated according to a man's fortunes, and this was important because compensation for wrongs was directly related to it. Consequently, the honor price was the most important element in the legal status of every freeman.  Native Irish law never subscribed to the principle of all citizens being equal before the law.  Thus an offense against a person of high rank entailed a greater penalty than the same offense against a person of lower rank.

If a person injured someone, a penalty was imposed.  When the penalty imposed was a fine, the fine was determined according to the level of the offense.  On the other hand, if the penalty imposed was the payment of a portion of the injured person’s honor price, it was according to the rank and quality of the person to whom it was paid. Thus, the requirement of the payment of a person’s honor price was a more serious penalty than a fine.  At a later stage of development, fixed penalties for specific crimes were established and enforced equally regardless of the rank of the victim.

Trump’s Media Company Reportedly Under Federal Investigation For Money Laundering Linked To Russia

Alison Durkee

Mar 15 Forbes Staff

• Investigators were reportedly tipped off about the payments in October 2022 by whistleblower Will Wilkerson, a former executive at Trump Media, who told the Guardian the payments initially “caused alarm” at Trump Media and executives considered returning the money but decided not to, in part because they couldn’t afford to lose it.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2023/03/15/trumps-media-company-reportedly-under-federal-investigation-for-money-laundering-linked-to-russia/sh=19119cd268a1
(1 of 4 free articles, btw)

44 minutes ago, Evan Marshall said:

As I said I simply wanted to satisfy my own curiosity. I'm not going to name names as I promised not to. Besides the shooters are not the important ones. Who hired the shooters is what counts.

The shooters lead to those who handpicked them, saw that they would be safely extracted, paid them for their services. Those who handpicked them lead to those who made the decision.  

The scene of the crime is the cornerstone of any investigation so of course the mechanics must be identified.  

It's unfortunate you can't, at this late date, name names yet you feel comfortable stating that you know, personally, at least one individual who claims to have been involved in the plot. Not wishing to be contentious, but a bit of cat and mouse from my perspective, although I hope that's not your intention.

6 hours ago, John Cotter said:

On February 6^th 1962 JFK declared his commitment to the “four freedoms” which FDR had said defined the aspirations of the 20^th century.

The first of these freedoms was “freedom of speech and expression”.

https://www.jfklibrary.org/asset-viewer/archives/JFKWHA/1962/JFKWHA-077-002/JFKWHA-077-002

It’s sadly ironic to see a freedom held so dear by JFK being suppressed in a forum supposedly dedicated to discovering the truth about his assassination.

The day of John Kennedy's address to the nation on June 11, 1963, I turned 16, and his speech "woke" me up fully to what my mother had been pointing out since my age of reason ... the appalling discrimination we witnessed (and were de facto party to) in our small town  . . . African Americans had to sit in the balcony of the Royal Theatre, African Americans had to drink from separate fountains at our county courthouse, African Americans were forced to return to the other side of the tracks before sunset or face harassment - ergo the name of their 'neighborhood' Sunset.  Kennedy told me this was wrong, and must stop.

Yet . . .  as late as 1999, GOP Texas Gov. George Bush, then campaigning for a second term, signed off on a sting operation in that small Texas town that resulted in the national headline-making arrests of 16% of the town's African American population.  A corrupt undercover agent testified and some of my classmates received excessive sentences including one who was sentenced to 99 years in prison.

So, any effort on this forum or any other to argue that "wokeness" is an affront to their freedom of speech, or their behavior, in an attempt to reverse the Civil Rights Act — while invoking John Kennedy — should and will be challenged.

President John F. Kennedy, June 1963 

... It ought to be possible ... for American students of any color to attend any public insititution they select without having to be backed up by troops.

... It ought to be possible for Americans consumers of any color to receive equal service in places of public accommodation, such as hotels and restaurants and theaters and retail stores, without being forced to resort to demonstrations in the street, and it ought to be possible for American citizens of any color to register to vote in a free election without interference or fear of reprisal.

It ought to be possible, in short, for every American to enjoy the privileges of being American without regard to his race or his color. In short, every American ought to have the right to be treated as he would wish to be treated, as one would wish his children to be treated. But this is not the case….

...This is not a sectional issue…Nor is this a partisan issue…This is not even a legal or legislative issue alone. It is better to settle these matters in the courts than on the streets, and new laws are needed at every level, but law alone cannot make men see right.

We are confronted primarily with a moral issue. It is as old as the scriptures and is as clear as the American Constitution.

The heart of the question is — whether all Americans are to be afforded equal rights and equal opportunities. Whether we are going to treat our fellow Americans as we want to be treated. If an American, because his skin is dark, cannot eat lunch in a restaurant open to the public, if he cannot send his children to the best public school available, if he cannot vote for the public officials who represent him, if, in short, he cannot enjoy the full and free life which all of us want, then who among us would be content to have the color of his skin changed and stand in his place? Who among us would then be content with the counsels of patience and delay?

One hundred years of delay have passed since President Lincoln freed the slaves, yet their heirs, their grandsons, are not fully free….

...It is not enough to pin the blame on others, to say this is a problem of one section of the country or another, or deplore the fact that we face. A great change is at hand, and our task, our obligation, is to make that revolution, that change, peaceful and constructive for all.

Those who do nothing are inviting shame as well as violence. Those who act boldly are recognizing right as well as reality…

4 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

John,

     I seriously doubt that anyone on this forum is opposed to "freedom of speech and expression," with certain exceptions.

    For example, few among us would support freedom of hate speech-- speech inciting violence and/or hate crimes against individuals or groups.

    There was a time in American history when the Know Nothing Party denounced Irish immigrants-- accusing them of, "Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion."

     The Know Nothings wanted to Make America Great Again by denigrating and persecuting Irish Catholics.

     (Incidentally, my Slovenian aunts and uncles told me about American kids throwing rocks at them and calling them, "Cat Lickers" in the 1920s.  Not so long ago.)

    And what about deleterious false advertising-- false claims that endanger the public health?  Should they be freely expressed?

    As for the Education Forum, I posted my opinion recently about a putative EF mission/agenda of discerning and reporting the truth, about history, current events, and other subjects.   Knowledge and truth matter here.  It's an attribute that has attracted many people to this forum.  It's not Reddit.

    So, if EF members repeatedly disregard facts and post falsehoods, is that entirely acceptable on this forum?  

    Should there be no reasonable limits here on the "free expression" of disinformation?

    As for freedom of expression, I'm posting two of my 30 year-old Celtic recordings for St. Patrick's Day.

    I take no credit for these fine performances, other than playing the guitar and bodhran accompaniments.

    Dr. Steven Kick, of the University of Colorado, played the flute on Josie McDermott's Reels.

    My old friend, Rock Eggen, an original member of the Irish folk band, Tenpenny, of Salt Lake City, played the flute on The Butterfly Slip Jig.

    Erin go bragh, folks!

https://soundclick.com/share.cfm?id=14563196

https://soundclick.com/share.cfm?id=14563198

 

    

    

Great session, W.! 

sláinte mhaith agus go mbeirimid beo ar an am seo arís

and may all your wars be happy and all your songs be sad.

 

18 hours ago, Matt Allison said:

Trying to give untruths the same weight as facts by referring to them as opinion, is generally considered a cheap propaganda technique.

Example:

Person 1 "My point of view is that the earth is flat."

Person 2 "That's not true. The earth is round."

Person 1 "Well, it's just my point of view, so it's valid."

Person 2. "No, it's really not. Sorry."

 

well stated, Matt.

5 hours ago, Pete Mellor said:

Leslie,

Where in 'Coup in Dallas' is that reference to Project Lancelot?

I've followed the Index pages linked to Angleton but have drawn a blank.

Chapter 9 — Dallas . . . Lay of the Land
A Look Behind the Curtains

A well-known, highly regarded oil “expert” by the name of Jack Crichton returned home to Dallas from a three-week, State sponsored tour of Romania sometime between October 15th and October 19th, 1963, a span of time that appears highly relevant to our investigation according to entries in the Lafitte records:

October 17

JA call yest. Says High-level gathering in DC

Lancelot – Go-ok-Oswald-others.

October 28

Lancelot Planning

October 29

Lancelot Planning

From Alan Kent's essay on the enigmatic "T"

3.) That T acts as a conduit of instructions from Angleton—and is mentioned in the December 5 entry with Angleton (“JA – close out Lancelot – T”)—indicates that this person is very close to Angleton; probably a long-time colleague of Angleton’s.

And, Dick Russell writes in his limited analysis of the Lafitte datebook (note his emphasis that if the datebook was a hoa, at least this entry was logged in at earlier a decade after the assassination, and preliminary examination of ink and paper indicates otherwise.) 

ANGLETON: Listed in the datebook by his last name as well as initials (JA and JJA), the then-head of Counterintelligence for the CIA appears to have been involved in “high-level gathering in DC'' during which “Lancelot planning” was discussed. The Lancelot reference is to a plot to kill JFK. The datebook’s final mention of James Angleton, (December 5, 1963) states: “JA – CLOSE OUT LANCELOT.” Angleton’s name was not generally known until the mid-1970s, when he was forced out of the CIA following revelations that he’d organized an illegal domestic spying program. 

Here, Dick emphasizes that if the datebook was a hoax, the entry would have been logged more than a decade after the assassination. Preliminary examination of ink and paper indicates that is not the case.

[And, Peter, we share your frustration with the index. I won't make excuses but explain that turning around an index for a 600-pg. book in 48 hours is not recommended. (we didn't index the essays.]

On 3/14/2023 at 9:35 PM, Paul Brancato said:

I don’t think Souetre and elements of JMWAVE are mutually exclusive. 

Paul,
The uniqueness of the datebook maintained by Lafitte throughout 1963 is that it cuts through the morass of three letter agencies, cryptonyms, agency and military structures, and simply identifies individuals who were operating outside structure for a one-off operation identified as Project Lancelot by James Angleton with the intention of assassinating John Kennedy in Dallas. 

 

11 hours ago, Evan Marshall said:

Trust me. They wouldn't need him. Go to Mary Ferrell's sit and download "Tipping Point". Larry has the best idea about the actual shooters. Independently, I talked to a Vietnam era spec ops sniper who was in the Dal Tex building as a backup who was unneeded. A close friend of mine who was a Green Beret A Team leader in Vietnam before joining CIA has verified the backup sniper's bone fides to me. Since none of the books I'm currently working have anything to do with JFK I've simply satisfied my own curiosity.

Evan, are you at liberty to name names? 

I've discussed Souetre with Larry Hancock, a gentleman and a scholar, and we disagree that Souetre was misidentified as having been in Dallas.

The records of Pierre Lafitte — a longtime contract agent for FBN, CIA, FBI, and personal friend of George Hunter White and James Angleton, as well as Charlie Siragusa and Sheffield Edwards — indicate Soutre was flown into Dallas in mid-November where he remained until being flown out on November 23. Souetre was in Dallas at the behest of Otto Skorzeny, Hitler's once Favorite Commando, who according to Lafitte was the strategist for the assassination in Dallas. Souetre was among the preferred trainers in Otto's assassination camps.

If your Vietnam era spec ops sniper was in the Dal Tex building as backup, who do you think directed him to act as backup, and backup to whom?
 

Carlson blowback ...

New Jan. 6 footage shows Grassley just feet away from rioters, Chansley

. . . However, federal prosecutors hit back at Carlson in a court filing on Sunday, claiming that his presentation of the footage lacked context and only spanned about four minutes out of the hour that Chansley spent in the Capitol.

“The televised footage lacks the context of what occurred before and after the footage. Chansley entered the building as part of a violent crowd,” prosecutors said in the filing, which related Proud Boy Dominic Pezzola’s court case.
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/3903991-new-jan-6-footage-shows-grassley-just-feet-away-from-rioters-chansley/

and footage here at Des Moines Register...

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2023/03/16/new-footage-shows-how-close-chuck-grassley-came-to-rioters-on-jan-6/70013950007/

42 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Paul-

Actually, I think Bush jr. more or less "stole" the 2000 election, through the Florida thing. Many serious scholars think Bush stole 2004 through manipulation of Ohio absentee ballots. 

Paul--I am not approaching this topic of toppling Presidents through the red-blue pissing wars lens.

I am approaching from the perspective of an intel state (the globalist tool) removing Presidents they do not favor---in the JFK case brutally, in the Nixon and Trump cases through the investigative and prosecutorial powers of the state, matched with party hostilities and affiliated M$M. 

I hope I am treated civilly in this regard---I regard this as an extension of my understanding that JFKA was removed by the intel state. 

This does not go on anymore? Well, they can't keep shooting Presidents. So, how?

Are you not curious that Nixon was not replaced by Agnew (a regrettable lightweight type of fellow) but by Ford? 

This has nothing to do with my personal politics, which are those of an aging 1960s liberal, who is possibly only a little less idealistic than before. 

I look forward to your contributions to the EF.

 

Apologies Paul for interjecting here, but staying with Ben's continued argument that Trump was somehow the victim of the investigative and prosecutorial powers of the state, similar to Nixon, Ben is ignoring in fact Trump lost the election. The assertion can't go unchallenged.

Ben's position is confirmation to me that Trump is a kind of doppleganger by design - a "lookalike" meant to fool elements of the country he would uphold the Constitution and the Office of the President when in fact he was central to the attack on both in 2020.

And if I can ask, where doe Charles and Mike Flynn fit into the scenario when both are/were servants of the Military-Industrial Complex. Eastman is part of "the conservative establishment", so how does he avoid accusations of being a player within the conservative wing of the "deep state"?

Thanks for allowing me to add this to your conversation with Ben.

37 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

I am planning a post on the JFK, Nixon and Trump regime changes. 

I doubt it will meet with your favor, or maybe anyone else's. 

It is hard, even at this late date, to nail down the "facts" of the JFKA. The WC and HSCA failed, IMHO.

Similarly, my interpretations of the Nixon and Trump departures can be criticized for not relying on "fact."

So it goes. 

I look forward to your perspectives and opinions of how those three President left office. I will treat your presentations as earnest. 

I've made presentations which you have yet to address in the specifics. 

2 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

We have different perspectives. I do not accuse you of propagating lies, or disinformation. 

I value your contributions to the EF, and encourage your participation. 

Well that's very nice, Ben.  It does not however mitigate the fact that you cannot prove there was a Regime Change in 2020, and that you seem to reject that Trump attempted his own coup by disrupting the process in Georgia, and other states, that culminated on Jan. 6 in his attempt to stop the peaceful transfer of presidential power.  If you have a "perspective" on those events, I would very much like to hear it, and I will listen with an open ear.

10 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

I did not say the 2020 election was stolen.

I concur that Russiagate was largely a hoax, and I am very skeptical of the official Jan. 6 narrative. 

The two above episodes, and many smaller ones, appear to be events and narratives intended to undercut the Trump and populist wings of the 'Phants.

That is my view.  

In my view the national security state loathed, detested and reviled Trump, and used available investigative tools, prosecutorial agencies and party affiliations accordingly.  

You have a different point of view. That is fine. I do not accuse you of perpetuating lies. 

BTW, check out this article on the easy hackability of voting machines. From the NYT magazine, cover story, in 2018. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/26/magazine/election-security-crisis-midterms.html

 

 

A crisis! So...why did the NYT say the 2018 elections were very vulnerable to hacking...and go mute on the topic in 2020? 

Keep an open mind, and engage in civil conversation. 

 

 

Notice your exclamation mark, Ben.

How am I being uncivil?  I'm stating fact with as little hyperbole as I can muster when dealing with propaganda.

 You view 2020 as a regime change.  Facts prove otherwise.  Facts also prove that Trump attempted to seize power by other means than the peaceful transfer of presidential power on January 6.  

Fact, not view, speaking of open minds.
 

Fulton County special grand jury heard second Trump call with top Georgia lawmaker

19 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

We disagree on recent events.

I do not accuse you of perpetuating a falsehood, only that you have a different point of view than mine. 

 

You can't accuse me for the simple reason I'm not perpetuating the falsehood that Trump won the 2020 election which must be the foundation of your view that there was a regime change.  

You have no evidence 2020 was stolen, nor does anyone else, yet you insist that your views should be 'respected'. Couching lies as "views" is absurd.  

Do the research yourself, and I challenge you to provide a single instance (other that an obscure case ruled on a technicality) of fraud sufficient to throw the election to Trump?

We do have evidence, videos and testimony, that Trump intended to interrupt the peaceful transfer of presidential power.  That is an attempted Coup.  

6 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

To say Trump is a divisive and controversial topic vastly understands the case, and I understand many highly intelligent people are revolted at Trump. 

But, as with Nixon, a President can have deep flaws...and also be deposed from office not through clean, democratic means. 

I happen to regard Nixon as a war criminal, and books have been written about 200 million cluster bombs left in Laos, Agent Orange, Operation Phoenix and so on.

But the CIA withheld the Bay of Pigs (JFK) files from Nixon (he had asked to see them) and shortly thereafter five CIA guys get arrested at the Watergate---and Nixon gets the blame. (I am short-handing everything, obviously).

Even the guy who revealed the White House had a taping system was former CIA, and Bob Woodward was former ONI. 

In the usual party politics, the D-Party was happy to go on the warpath against Nixon. Nixon was out. 

I understand if I say "Russiagate was a hoax" that the walls will fall in. Nevertheless, an impeachment proceeding followed, just like after Watergate. The D-Party was happy to engage in party warfare, as both parties always are. A replay. 

Just keep an open mind---there was JFK, then Nixon, and then Trump.

A hard coup, a soft coup, and then a regime-change op? 

So who runs the USA?

Interesting topic. 

My views may differ from yours, and I look forward to learning more about your views. 

 

 

 

and then a regime-change op? 

To be taken seriously, views are generally informed. Perpetuating the lie does not reflect well on yours. 

4 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

I welcome your views, if different from mine. 

Someday I may author a speculative piece:

"The Hard Coup, The Soft Coup, and the Regime Change Op: JFK, Nixon and Trump"

There are certainly clues that the deep state deposed all three.

That is probably not your view. 

We may be worlds apart in our perspectives. 

So be it. 

I concur that the presidency is the target. Weaken the executive branch, one leg of the barstool, and democratic government collapses.  So it's possible our views coalesce in that the presidency was under attack by elements within the Military Industrial Complex in Dealey Plaza in Dallas (in concert with an international cabal), and the Watergate in D.C. Our "views" diverge when you suggest Trump was victim of regime change.  It is Trump who attacked the presidency likely as early as the day Roger Stone coined the term "Stop the Steal." 

Georgia grand jury heard another Trump call recording
https://www.stltoday.com/news/national/georgia-grand-jury-heard-another-trump-call-recording/article_115923b8-2ff1-5e53-b50d-ed9c9ea00d7d.html

20 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

LS--

Well-stated, and you may be right.

But---imagine how much larger our first-round readership would be, and subsequent ripples, if we took a "big tent" attitude towards new participants and media allies. 

If there are Trump supporters interested in the JFKA and Tucker Carlson's treatment of the JFKA Records act...and they want to join the EF (and pay, if they can afford it!) then I contend the Trump supporters should be welcomed with open arms, and treated extra-civilly.

Bad-mouthing nearly one-half the political spectrum may not be best move to get the JFKA records opened, and the additional records you want opened (for which I salute your efforts). 

 

I agree about the big tent, and have always advocated for a healthy two, or better yet, three +, party system similar to a number of international democracies. It would be messy, but it would be representative democracy.

Yes, I have a problem when bad actors infiltrate any tent, and I'm pretty defensive of this one (the Royal) as you no doubt recognize.  You'll ask what constitutes infiltration, and I could be glib and say "you'll know them when you see them," but kidding aside, I've concluded based on Hank's investigation and our additional research, the assassination of Kennedy — a president whose platform is polar opposite of the platform Trump ran on — was ideologically driven by etremists from the right on an international scale. And MAGA, led by Trump is simply the latest iteration (think JBS, Buchanan's "America First," the Tea Party) of the big tent that housed those extremists in 1963.

MAGA is anathema to all that Kennedy stood for. So, when Carlson promoted propaganda designed to please MAGA, and along with Trump coopted the term "deep state" and spun it to suggest that Trump and Kennedy had something in common, or when Trump attempted a coup using lies about the 2020 election,  those who believed the lies rolled into Kennedy assassination research tents in a multi-pronged attack and promoted the lie that Trump was the reincarnation>

I think we're looking at the hammer that will nail the coffin of democracy constructed in Dallas in 1963.

and, fyi, you likely have no way of knowing what some have experienced in the past several years on Facebook and other assassination discussion platforms. Vile defense of the same fascism that eroded democracy in the 1930s as reported by Rachel Maddow recently in the podcast ULTRA, "gender-ism," racism, anti-Semitism, violent attitudes toward the OTHER.  I've been in the trenches since 2013 and most particularly since our book was published.  I know of what I speak.

And there are hundreds who've contributed to EF over the years who've been through a good deal more.

1 hour ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

MSNBC and NBC reported in the morning after the record dump but they have not followed up despite efforts by the MFF team. And I dont remember any in-depth segments during the evening broadcast and I searched for them. a 30 second segment is not covering the issue. 

When I interviewed Alec Baldwin in 2017, I asked him why Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews and others on progressive channels supported the Oswald as lone gunman narrative. He then told of his experience when he had a show on NBC and they cancelled a program he was going to air for the 50th anniversary. He said he was told by a senior producer that it was the policy of the network to support the official conclusion.

and this is the network that refused to turn over assassination records to the ARRB and declines to allow the Darnall film to be studies using modern forensic techniques.

Hence, my comments about NBC and MSNBC are based on their own actions or obstructions, and not some ring wing paranoia (P.S  I do not consider myself right wing in case you were grouping me into that category).    

Larry, are you at liberty to share whether Carlson's producer(s) contacted you and/or someone on your team, or vice versa? 

3 hours ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

Joe Bauer- I agree 100% Joe. Bill Maher would be great. how about some of you contact his producers? Likewise with Chris Hayes. One thing I've learned from my recent media experience is that the producers control the shows. The hosts are simply the faces of the shows.  

Am I the only one that sees Maher as controversial and hardly a credible journalist? I don't think he even purports to be.  If Maher, why not Jon Stewart then?  

Currently, Carlson is being taken seriously by millions regardless of journalistic standards, so the antidote must be a serious journalist.   Hayes works, but Melber is a better fit.

As I lobbied with several other comments on this thread, I nominate Ari Melber at MSNBC (and not simply because he's a music afficionado!). It would be timely considering his recent pieces on both Carlson, and Trump's attorney in the Stormy Daniels case, Joe Tacopina.

Melber is measured, as likable a personality as Carlson is to many including moderates, and well-read. And a licensed attorney which Carlson is not. I don't think Melber carries the baggage Maddow has with the JFKA community, and certainly he's less controversial than Bill Maher who imv would be the frying pan into the fire. 

https://www.msnbc.com/the-beat-with-ari/watch/see-tucker-carlson-hackery-exposed-over-decades-165357637632

https://www.msnbc.com/the-beat-with-ari/watch/charges-see-trump-defense-lawyer-grilled-by-ari-melber-full-msnbc-interview-165343813639. 

5 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Leslie - even though I share your fears regarding Carlson, other more moderate on air anchors aren’t yet willing to step up to the plate. Larry and co would have taken any opening they got I’m sure. If by taking up the story Carlson made it more difficult to make the lobbying bi-partisan, I doubt that was why he did so. Other nefarious reasons may exist of course. But whatever the case, it’s still necessary to build some kind of coalition. There is no going back. 
You asked the right question - how can we break the logjam on the Democratic side? 

Thanks, Paul.  As I lobbied with several other comments on this thread, I nominate Ari Melber at MSNBC (and not simply because he's a music afficionado!). It would be timely considering his recent pieces on both Carlson, and Trump's attorney in the Stormy Daniels case, Joe Tacopina.

Melber is measured, as likable a personality as Carlson is to many including moderates, and well-read. And a licensed attorney which Carlson is not. I don't think Melber carries the baggage Maddow has with the JFKA community, and certainly he's less controversial than Bill Mahr who imv would be the frying pan into the fire. 

https://www.msnbc.com/the-beat-with-ari/watch/see-tucker-carlson-hackery-exposed-over-decades-165357637632

https://www.msnbc.com/the-beat-with-ari/watch/charges-see-trump-defense-lawyer-grilled-by-ari-melber-full-msnbc-interview-165343813639. (watch Tacopina try to grab a paper from Melber. I've never seen that during an interview. I couldn't help but think of the phrase, "desperate moves by desperate men.")