Leslie Sharp

Having read more carefully Mark's explanation of how moderation works, I will modify it -- out of deference to you personally. I too think this thread should remain focused on appreciation of the moderators' thankless task. However, at least one moderator commented that this is (paraphrasing) a debriefing or decompression, and a number of comments speak to the question of Mr. Koch's behavior so I felt it appropriate to acknowledge my role in the "imbroglio", and to also stand my ground that Mr. Koch's posts were without merit, lacking credibility, and clearly designed to trigger, ergo a conscious provocateur. Deletion is forthcoming. ... make that modification is forthcoming.

You've never read Thompson then.

John, keep in mind that one of Matthew Koch’s final posts on the infamous thread was a link to a Milo Yiannopoulos video with a kind of chyron claiming that feminism is equivalent to AIDS. Turns out, Milo is a “fellow traveler”. From 2017… Ryan Lizza, The New Yorker Yiannopoulos is the technology editor for Breitbart, the right-wing, pro-Trump news site formerly run by Steve Bannon, who is now President Trump’s chief strategist and arguably the most powerful man in the White House. While working for Bannon, Yiannopoulos did more than anyone else at Breitbart to explain and build bridges to the so-called alt-right, the amorphous collection of neo-nationalist [SIC]activists. Bannon once said that Breitbart was “the platform for the alt-right.” . . . Yiannopoulos, who has called himself a “fellow-traveller” [sic] of the movement, last year wrote a sympathetic essay, “An Establishment Conservative’s Guide to the Alt-Right,” which attempted to usher the movement into semi-respectability among the site’s many Trump-loving readers. At an infamous alt-right conference in Washington in November, attendees toasted Trump with the National Socialist salute. But, over the past year, Yiannopoulos, along with the alt-right, Bannon, and Trump—whom Yiannopoulos often calls “Daddy”—moved from the laughingstock fringes to the center of the conservative movement. So, are you arguing that Matthew Koch wasn’t aware of what he was saying when he referred to “fellow-traveler”? Remember Mr. Koch apparently respects Mr. Yioannopolis which explained his obnoxious remarks directed at a female on that thread. And no, I'm not asking for a rehash. The facts stand, and I will own my part in succumbing to his triggers on several occasions. For Chris Barnard's benefit, from my subjective experience, which I am entitled to express, Mr. Koch exhibited the characteristics of a trained provocateur. Chris, if we're permitted to identify perps in the Kennedy assassination who are no longer able to defend themselves, logically the same rule should apply here. If I'm still transgressing forum rules, a moderator, not a school monitor, should step in. https://www.newyorker.com/news/ryan-lizza/how-alt-right-fellow-traveller-milo-yiannopoulos-cracked-up-the-right

Paul, can you or Evan clarify "him"?

Adding two cents, W. Banning the use of historically accurate terms distorts truth and compromises facts. For instance, fact — the title of Yeadon and Hawkins' book is N azi Hydra in America, not PooPoo Hydra in America. The classic by Shirer and Rosenbaum, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: The history of N azi Germany, is not subtitledThe History of PooPoo Germany. I'm guessing you agree how absurd and silly this reads on a forum purporting to appeal to historians of all stripes? (and the go-arounds are even more ludicrous. N-azi is not, historically, hyphenated nor does it have a backslash, or other creative solutions to the silly ban.) I'm aware the term N-zi was being hurled as an epithet on this forum, but surely there's an algorithm that distinguishes usage? And I'll add that because what goes around comes around, I'm opposed to censorship in any fashion unless it's to prevent or interrupt someone from (metaphorically) crying fire in the crowded theatre. "And then they came for us," as is happening with book banning. It goes without saying that robust debate is the cornerstone of democracy so I believe the lies promoted by TC and his ilk provide a perfect foil to advance truth and we must, now more than ever, rise to the occasion. Contrary to Kelleyanne Conway, there are no alternative truths. But, it requires truth seekers to hone their research and communication skills. I'm talking to myself and the recent imbroglio with Mathew Koch. I'm not immune to triggers and should have been on my toes. That said, I have no doubt he has been trained, seriously trained. I recognized some of the tactics, but fell prey anyway. Your observation of the timeline of the insanity that ensued on that thread aligns with my research into the history. He joined in September, and I suspect he was assigned Ed Forum. In time, maybe one of us can nail it down. Thus is the nature of most who are committed to K assassination research. I respect your posts hugely!

Mark, having been baptized by fire moderating Russ Baker's whowhatwhy.org in the early days, I have the greatest respect for you and the team — regardless of my own subjective view of certain recent adjudication. It's a thankless task.

As a matter of interest, W., wasn't the Wilson analysis of the thread posted on kennedysandking, and didn't it originate with Paul Blau at ROKC? I may have the trajectory reversed, and for all I know Blau and Wilson are one and the same. I haven't checked recently, but in the past I've noticed that Jim DiE doesn't always permit comments. Is the Wilson analysis allowed to smolder?

They knew there wasn't a fire and not only claimed otherwise, used the near full extent of their massive resources to perpetuate the lie. Succinct and to the point. QED

Full disclosure, Rex may remember my name as a member of a small camp of researchers concerned by the privatization of the Ferrell collection. I trust he'll distinguish this project from that history.

if a large company wanted to shut someone up, they would sue them. Risking aboutism (among the more annoying contemporary debate tactics), you're familiar with Trump's track record?

Do you have Adobe Acrobat? My Word version of the manuscript is pre-final-edit, but I think I can send you the Acrobat final edit. I'll check with our editor. If you're genuinely interested, I'll make the effort.

A number have requested a lite version of Hank's investigation so we're in discussion regarding to the possibility. For now, you might read Coup in small bites over a few months? I think you can get it online for $15 these days. If your in Thailand, I think Kindle version is quite reasonable as well. Here's to no more derailments.

I just remembered that Oliver Curme has a non-profit in Boston that appeared (last I looked) to be well connected, albeit in the music world but no doubt it's a potential introduction to government transparency nonprofits in New England. If you haven't approached him with the recommendation, should someone on the MFF board or team make the attempt? Caveat ... this may have been discussed and I've simply missed it.

Ben, apparently you misread the exchange with Larry. We're discussing a thread dedicated solely to egregious failures by NARA to fulfill FOIA requests, not yet another thread on the origins of the assassination in Dallas. Best you not attempt to derail momentum? btw, views are not the equivalent of fresh evidence.

Finally, if any of you have good contacts at any of the good government/open government/transparency nonprofits, please let me know. we'd love to have them file amici briefs opposing the governments motion to dismiss. You all can help with this important lawsuit. We can incorporate that request on the new dedicated thread. I believe it was Ben who said recently that this is a tiny pond . . . and perhaps he was referring only to the recent thread that almost took down the house . . . that none other than the twelve or so even cared about the debate. II argued that he has no idea who is following Ed Forum from the bleachers. That argument was borne out yesterday when two other credible sites picked up on the brouhaha of of that particular thread and ran with it - unfortunately in a ridiculing fashion. The point being ... this, and other forums that qualified amateur researchers follow, can have spin-off results in support of the NARA case. I know you have invested considerable energy already to set similar efforts in motion, and possibly you've suggested this at Ed Forum previously. Hopefully moderators will recognize redundancy. Another venue or two might tip the scales. [for the record, I sent Maddow's staff a copy of Coup. No response to date. Maybe another attempt, through our publisher, highlighting your arguments that Carlson has grabbed the gauntlet might have some success.]

Are you a US citizen, just out of curiosity? I respect highly your support of Larry and the team's efforts to secure the final batch of documents. But I'm assuming with this response that your support is limited to moral, not actively contributing in some fashion?

Right on, Paul. Hopefully Ben and others committed to Larry and Bill's effort will get on board.

Ben, will you join me in the effort proposed by Larry? Will you actively support and contribute to a new Ed Forum thread that is exclusive, i.e. limited to gathering a list of the more egregious mishandling of NARA files - not just the Joannides batch — but others including Jean Rene Marie Soutre and Dallas INS November 1963? It will require time and effort to solicit information to build the list. It's your opportunity to actively support Larry, Bill and the rest of the team as you are admonishing others to do. Do you live in Britain? which would limit your efforts to approach your local, state and federal representatives. I don't know the level of knowledge you have of the actual investigation, but you seem to be committed to a bipartisan effort to solve the case and we agree that securing the rest of the assassination and related files is a major (perhaps final) step. Either the files being withheld are holding keys, or they're not. Pls. advise?

Will do Larry, if a thread doesn't already exist. I'll include links to J. Gary Shaw's suit as example, and track down Hank Albarelli's FOIA for Souetre files as well. It's clear you're not in a position to get into the debate about Carlson's motives, and I respect that a bird in the hand is .... But for any who are listening, I contend the issue is relevant to the discussion at hand when it is argued that because Carlson pursued the NARA case five years after Trump failed to conform to the JFK Record Act, he's a better journalist than those of opposing political persuasion who are cognizant he is attempting to politicize what should have been a bipartisan effort all along. You no doubt recall that Hilary Clinton was on board release of the files. What happened?

Agree all, Matt.

I ask for indulgence of those members participating on this thread if you're annoyed that I'm diverting somewhat from the Thankyou! Tucker Carson topic. I argue it's part and parcel. And Larry, I'm going to risk taking advantage of this opportunity to capture your attention on the question of those still withheld files. I plan to direct mail Jeff Morley the following, but it seems to me the request should be made public as well. Hi Jeff, A research friend brought to my attention the following from the Spartacus Education page featuring your work . . . I am interested in hearing from JFK researchers willing to publicly support a call to Congress to enforce the JFK Records Act. I know that the Joannides records are not the only assassination-related material that is being illicitly withheld so I am also interested in hearing from researchers about specific groups of records, known to exist, that have not been released. (I assume the invitation still stands regardless of the passage of time.) Also, in tandem, several researchers have contacted me recently to ask if Hank ever received a response to his FOIA for the 14-page report — CIA and/or FBI — on Jean Rene Marie Souetre. If he received the records prior to his passing, he would have highlighted them in the draft manuscript of Coup. We’re also searching for INS records of the detention of one or more French citizens in Dallas on November 22. I recently confirmed with J. Gary Shaw (co-investigator with Bud Fensterwald) who sued for access to Souere and related records, that he has never been provided INS reports of the alleged deportation of Souetre/Mertz/Roux. Would you consider adding the “lost” Souetre files, and the INS records for November in Dallas, to the list of priority records still being withheld? I know that among those lifelong assassination researchers, Gary, Alan Kent, and Jeff Meek — who according to Mary Ferrell was the first to secure at least one document related to Souetre — are supportive of my request. regards as always, Leslie

I'm sorry, Larry, but is this "opinion"? https://www.rachelmaddow.com/rachel-maddow-presents-ultra/ I trust this comment won't be perceived as an attempt to divert from the topic of the thread. You have compared Maddow to Carlson so I feel justified in offering the following. Her thorough research - not opinion - is directly related to "the inevitable end result of the past [60] years," yet she continues to be pilloried by 'the community' because she has contended in the past that Oswald was a lone nut. For the record, evidence presented in our book insists that Oswald was somewhere in the middle ... a critical component of the Dallas plot and at least partially aware of his role as patsy in the lead up. In ULTRA, Rachel identities a key N-azi propagandist, George Sylvester Viereck, who surfaced in Hank's investigation into assassination strategist SS Otto Skorzeny and his co-horts. What does Tucker Carlson actually know about this area of research which we contend is germane to the cold-case murder investigation, and where was he when Trump failed to release ALL files as promised during his 2015 campaign, and as supported by the JFK Act?

Is it lost on anyone that the remaining JFK files have become a political wedge issue? Is anyone surprised? Where was the outcry from Carlson et al. when Trump failed to release all files while he was the first president to have the full force of the JFK Act in his quiver? We're now being told that he was "frightened" to do so because of what he saw in those files. This sounds like quintessential Roger Stone dirty tricks to me. And I concur, as Larry and his team have emphasized for months, the outcome of the pending case matters greatly ... but I argue that unless we, the community, figure out the layers of subterfuge in play at the moment, which in my opinion reflect the very ideological forces that drove the assassination in Dallas — we miss an opportunity to fully expose the end result of the past 60 years. I think we can do both ... confront this on fronts ancillary to Larry and Bill's pending legal suit. Ed Forum is among the most credible platforms for just such an effort. Allowing bully provocateurs who are distorting the record of January 6 — in direct support of the president who failed to release all of the files in 2017, the legally designated year — to shut down a thread directly relevant to the aforementioned is not only embarrassing for the community writ large, it is extremely concerning in my view.

Matt Allison, I think Matthew is tired and grumpy.