John Cotter

Mark and David, At the risk of appearing to be a pernickety nitpicker, may I be so bold as to suggest that the author be advised of these apostrophic and other peccadilloes by private message? Pointing them out publicly in the forum makes it look like one is trying to score cheap points in order to compensate for being unable to logically rebut his article.

At the risk of appearing to be a punctilious prig, Mark, I would suggest that those kinds of pedantic points would have been better made in an addendum to a substantive commentary on the article.

Amen to all of that - not to mention the little matter of honest Jack murdering an innocent man in cold blood.

Greg Parker states, “The claim that Ruby shot Oswald to stop Oswald talking is utter crap.” Could Greg (or anyone) explain the basis for this statement?

I see that Greg Parker has posted an interesting reply to my question, which includes the following extract. Quote: So what could she possibly be hiding here? I think she was hiding the fact that she knew the person she had only just met, and who was well below her in the all-important social pecking order, would still be in her life almost 9 months later... End quote. That might explain it alright. It did cross my mind, but I thought it might be a bit tenuous. However, the fact that it independently crosses two people’s minds lends it greater credibility. Insofar as I understand the rest of GP’s reply, it seems to resolve another problem I saw with the “mundane” explanation, namely, the assumption that Ruth Paine knew the date when Marina had become pregnant two months earlier with enough accuracy to predict roughly the date of birth seven months later. I wasn’t aware – though I’m not surprised – that the Paines were interested in neo-paganism and what Jungians call lunar consciousness. That might help to explain Ruth Paine’s attentiveness to menstrual cycles and such matters. I’m not surprised, because east coast WASP “liberal” types such as the Paines were known to dabble in “right brain” stuff. This social phenomenon was prefigured in “fin-de-siecle occultism”, the title of a chapter in Richard Noll’s book, The Jung Cult, which contains the following paragraph: “Given the weakening of traditional ecclesiastical authority and the greater emphasis on personal decision making and individual action so typical of the Protestant ethic, it is no coincidence that the spiritualist movement arose in a largely Protestant America, a “Protestant Empire”, to use historian Sydney Ahlstrom’s metaphor, whose increasingly distant ties with the Old World made the spirit world seem so accessible – especially since it did not require clerical intercessors.” And then there’s the Paines’ connections to the CIA and Allen Dulles specifically. As noted in Deirdre Bair’s biography of Carl Jung (p 486), Jung became Dulles’s “sort of senior adviser on a weekly, if not almost daily, basis”, while Dulles was in Switzerland during WWII. As for The Wicker Man, it must be at least three decades since I watched that brilliant film. It’s one of many films from that era that I’d love to have time to watch again.

Why couldn’t Ruth Paine with her “steel trap mind” remember that innocent “mundane” explanation when testifying to the WC, instead of purportedly concocting a false convoluted story about the calendar notes?

Sandy, I would have kept the 56 year thread and closely moderated it. If the name calling were dealt with firmly it might have been stamped out or at least reduced.

Thank you, Bob. The Oxford Dictionary definition of “whataboutery” is: “the technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counter-accusation or raising a different issue.” https://uk.search.yahoo.com/search?fr=mcafee&type=E211IE1451G0&p=whataboutery+meaning But what about when you agree that the thing criticised is wrong before “making a counter-accusation or raising a different issue”?

Sandy, This is supposed to be a debating forum not an opinionating echo chamber. Since most people talk self-serving gibberish most of the time (Sturgeon’s law), untested opinions are less than worthless. Hence, the Irish Gaelic proverbs “Mairg do-ní deimhin da bharúil” (Woe to him who deems his opinion a certainty) and “Is ionann barúil is bréag” (An opinion is the same as a lie.). Grown-ups should be able to debate topics in a rational, respectful manner. Segregating members in the “water cooler” manner is treating them as children, idiots or baboons.

Benjamin didn't say people would vote for RFK Jr simply because he would open up the JFK records - though maybe some people would. There is a lot more to RFK Jr than his Kennedy surname. He has shown himself to be a man of principle, courage and substance, which is more than can be said of any recent US presidents or presidential candidates. However, even if he was only equal in those respects to those comparators, the fact that he has already openly challenged the US government's complicity in the JFKA should be enough for anyone who is interested in it to support RFK Jr's candidacy.

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/29129-note-to-sandy/?do=findComment&comment=501533

Amen to all that. I would add that it was a big mistake to banish the “56 years” thread to the oubliette. I said it at the time, I’ve said it repeatedly, and what has happened since has borne this out. The 56 years thread served the useful purpose of providing a catch-all sub-forum where some of the more general political ramifications of the JFKA could be discussed. In the absence of that thread, there’s been a proliferation of overlapping threads about the Ukraine shambles, contemporary US politics and so on which has pushed threads about specific aspects of the JFKA out of sight. There seems to have been an element of scapegoating about banishing the 56 years thread – as there was about the banning of Matthew Koch – in that members of a particular political persuasion were no longer dominating the thread as they had been previously. As they say, “a good scapegoat is almost as good as a solution”. The binning of the 56 years thread and the banning of Matthew Koch might have seemed a good way of burying, temporarily at least, of what was for some an inconvenient reality. But reality has a habit of not going away. Hence, its constant resurfacing under various headings in the absence of the 56 years thread, which had been created for the very purpose of accommodating it. It’s not too late to reinstate the 56 years thread. Its absence has made a dog’s dinner of the forum.

If this is true, it's almost as bad as the genocide of indigenous Americans on which the USA is founded. The mistreatment of ethnic Russians by the Ukrainian government and the mistreatment of Russian speakers by the Latvian government, among other matters, all need to be investigated by the relevant commission(s) of enquiry.

I hope RFK Jr is elected president, but I’m not optimistic about it. I saw a Youtube clip the other day of him being interviewed by someone who asked what evidence there was for the CIA’s involvement in the JFKA. He seemed ill-prepared for the question as he didn’t answer it very well. He may need some coaching on how to answer that particular question. Could anyone draft a suitably succinct reply and get it to him?

Exactly. These self-styled brilliant researchers seem to lack confidence in their findings. Otherwise, they wouldn’t feel threatened by alternative views or by the supposed inability of their readers to judge for themselves which views make the most sense.

As Humpty Dumpty said, “when I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean”. It’s interesting that Greg Parker cherry-picked a nonsensical internet article which suits his questionable modus operandi and ignores the standard definition of ad hominem. The following sentence from the article is illustrative in that regard: “Therefore, if you can't demonstrate that your opponent is trying to counter your argument by attacking you, you can't demonstrate that he is resorting to ad hominem.” This is patent nonsense. The terms “argument” and “opponent” clearly imply that what’s involved is a debate, and that by attacking you, your opponent – by definition – is trying to counter your argument. That’s borne out by the definitions of “ad hominem” in a number of independent sources, including Wikipedia and the Oxford Dictionary of English. Therefore, contrary to what the author claims, ad hominems are pervasive in social media. The fact that the author describes people who call them out as “delicate types, delicate of personality and mind” indicates an agenda on his part – an authoritarian agenda. It’s analogous to the CIA weaponizing the term “conspiracy theory/theorist” in suggesting essentially that anyone who questions official narratives is mentally ill. It’s called gaslighting. The funny thing is that Greg is defending Alex Wilson’s mudslinging on the spurious basis that it’s not ad hominem and that it’s therefore just good old verbal abuse. In other words, puerile name calling and insulting people are commendable on Planet ROKC because…because, well, Greg says so. Also, of course, as Greg has admitted, Wilson’s slapstick “logic” appeals to the peanut gallery. For Greg and Wilson, verbal abuse is great fun. What’s even funnier is that just because Greg adduced an obnoxiously nonsensical article to “justify” verbal abuse in his forum, Jeremy Bojcuk obsequiously dumps this “excellent article” on the Education Forum as if it were as infallibly authoritative as a papal encyclical. These are the groupthinkers who constantly proclaim their superior JFKA research skills and their intellectual superiority vis-à-vis the deplorables constantly targeted by Wilson – the “yokels” as he has called them. You couldn’t make this stuff up. I won’t go into all the other self-contradictory and Humpty Dumptyesque nonsense Greg spews about his veiled threat to divulge secrets I confided in him, other than to note his deflecting from this malign behaviour by imputing a “possibly” pathological misperception of his behaviour to me. In other words, attempted gaslighing. However, I’m glad Greg wishes me well despite his rottweiler Wilson repeatedly verbally abusing me. That’s the kind of generosity of spirit that has made ROKC so successful in its mission.

Amen to that.

William, In fairness to him, Alex Wilson is a talented writer. It’s just that you can’t be denigrating people left, right and centre and expect there to be no consequences. It’s a sad situation. I hope we can move on from this spat and that the ROKC and Ed forums can co-exist in a more harmonious fashion looking ahead. Actually, I didn’t take umbrage at your poteen “slagging”.* As I tried to explain at the time, I was focusing on its illogicality rather its derogatory import. I think Alex was trying to drive a wedge there. Yeah, that whiskey song is a hard one to pull off and you made a fine job of it. You might enjoy Christy Moore’s “Delirium Tremens” song, if for no other reason than it contains a reference to JFK: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vl1NQi_Vit0 *Hiberno-English for playful teasing – “ribbing” would probably be the closest standard English word to it.

I have no intention of going through Greg Parker’s reply to my last post line by line, because more than enough time has already been spent on this matter, which arose as a result of persistent ad hominem attacks on members of this forum by Alex Wilson and other ROKC members. “Ad hominem” is the key term here. The attacks in question were by definition personal, derogatory and illogical and no amount of self-serving obfuscation and excuses should be allowed deflect from that. However, I need to respond to the following passage specifically in Greg Parker’s reply: Quote: So no xxxx you., John. We don't "need" external enemies. That is just a byproduct of the research. I expect better than this made up garbage from you. But that aside, I am genuinely glad to see that you have overcome your trevails. I assume you have anyway, given you are using your true name. Your secrets remain safe. I keep my word. End quote. The contradiction between the opening “felicitation” and what follows speaks for itself. What follows though is quite insidious. Contrary to what Greg proclaims, my “secrets” do not remain safe, by dint of his mentioning them. For all that any reader of that passage knows, the secrets alluded to could be some heinous crimes committed by me. I therefore have no choice but to disclose that what’s being alluded to is my having to engage in expensive and protracted legal action in the Irish High Court as a result of my being seriously wronged and my being eventually vindicated by a settlement in my favour. Since the settlement involved my signing a non-disclosure agreement, I cannot describe my “trevails” (sic) in any more detail.

Well said. I see that Sir Alex has posted another screed, to which I’ll respond as follows. As always in such cases, Sir Alex hoists himself on his own petard with his mealy-mouthed pseudo apology. On the one hand he’s admitted he’s at fault, and on the other he’s not man enough to apologise properly – not that I or anyone else was looking for an apology. We were merely exposing his nonsense. He seems to think it matters to me that he says he dislikes me. Actually, I’m heartened by anyone displaying such schoolgirl silliness disliking me. Speaking of which, Greg Parker’s scoffing at our observing the rules of this forum is ironic, given the sycophancy of Sir Alex and others towards him. There’s an element of the gang mentality about ROKC as evidenced by the need to have external enemies to constantly pillory for the sake of maintaining gang cohesion. The core issue is that Sir Alex’s constant puerile ad hominems reflect negatively on him and on ROKC more than on his targets. That’s unfortunate, since undoubtedly, no less than at this forum, as I have repeatedly acknowledged, there’s a lot of constructive discussion and analysis at ROKC. As for Sir Alex’s professed superior knowledge of all things historical, he should bear in mind Socrates’ words: the wisest man is he who knows that he knows nothing. No truer words were probably never spoken, and their apparent self-negation serves paradoxically to validate them. I would add that his (predictably) opportunistic response to my Billy Connolly reference exposes Sir Alex’s ignorance of how comedy works, as explained by exemplars such as Charlie Chaplin and John Cleese – not to mention its being unwittingly revealed in Sir Alex’s own efforts. ROCK bashers of this forum bang on a lot about the supposed irrelevance of the political dimension of the JFKA and its consequences, while extolling their own purported forensic rectitude. The irony of this self-righteousness is lost on them. If the JFKA was not political and is of no political consequence, why all the fuss about it? Why have a ROKC forum at all, if the JFKA was just another murder? Moreover, the failure of ROKC in its professed mission – to have the JFKA case reopened – is quite obviously a matter of politics. The reason the US government has refused to bring the JFKA conspirators to justice is that it is an accessory to the JFKA. This underlines the utter stupidity of these bashers in their politically-driven rejection of Tucker Carlson’s and RFK Jr’s JFKA stance. In the highly unlikely event of the JFKA question ever being resolved, it can only happen in the public arena, and it’s only figures of the stature of Carlson and RFK Jr in the realms of the media and politics respectively who can make it happen. It won’t be resolved by interminable analysis and debating of minutiae in obscure internet forums.

PS. I've just seen that the ROKC overlord Greg Parker has seen fit to come to the defence of poor Sir Alex. That says it all.

Thank you, Squire Bojczuk. We note your being privy to Sir Alex’s privy, even to the extent of being privy to the inner motions whereby his excretions are gestated and the duration thereof. Thou art a good and faithful servant, a most attentive groom of the stool. Pray tell how many groats and ha’pence per annum do you receive from Sir Alex in return for your most obsequious ministrations, and how do you stand the smell?

Meanwhile, over at the red herring forum I see that Squire Jeremy Bojczuk has resumed service as Sir Alex Wilson’s groom of the stool. Sir Alex’s specialty is the endless excretion of ad hominem puerile namecalling – illogical re-buttal so to speak. I don’t think he has ever logically rebutted the arguments of any of the many targets of his vitriol (which include many members of this forum), or contributed anything substantive to the JFKA debate. It’s ironic that he imputed the Dunning-Kruger syndrome to one Ed Forum member, given his unawareness of his own psychological and intellectual impairment as evidenced by his vituperative incontinence. Sir Alex’s obsession with Hitler and the Nasties seems typical of a dwindling minority of Brits who cling to “their” victory in WWII as if it were a relic of their presumed gloriously edifying past. Hence, Sir Alex’s projection onto me an association with Hitler, which has absolutely zero basis other than Sir Alex’s own aforementioned obsession. I can’t deny that I find Sir Alex’s antics quite comical, not least his Blackadderesque rolling over into apologetic submissive mode when confronted by one of his targets in his excretorium. As Billy Connolly said, what is life if you can’t laugh at people less fortunate than yourself?

William, What do the initials NPR refer to? Do they refer to National Public Radio? Isn't National Public Radio funded by the US government?

I appreciate your courtesy, Sandy. I would add, though, that I have used the term "ruthless" rather than "brutal" to describe Putin, because I believe ruthlessness is more in keeping with the Realpolitik or Machiavellianism that Prof Mearsheimer talks about.