Final Thoughts on the Mack Business, and a Fond Au Revoir

[John Simkin]

I have been reading this forum for about three years, almost daily. I lurk because I don't have much to offer and I don't think I will ever immerse myself to the degree that is needed to become a regular participant.

But I can say that on more than one occasion a thread of conversation has led me off on a tangent picking up a book or two to learn a little more about our history, especially as it relates to the Kennedy years. In fact if I subtract the assassination completely, I am still left with a wide variety of books that came to my doorstep because of something I cross referenced here.

It's a shame that the intensity of infighting and name calling gets out of hand now and again. I guess a certain degree is to be expected considering the subject matter and the passion with which both sides approach that subject. As a READER ONLY, I have managed to work around the pissing contests and absorb what seems relevant to the subject.

I have enjoyed reading Charles Drago and Tosh Plumlee very much. If they decide to stay gone it is not only the regulars who will miss out (although I expect many of you will keep in touch behind the scenes) but also those of us (and I know I'm not alone) who remain in the shadows.

cheers -

Otto.

This is an important point. You only have to look at the page impressions that these threads get to realise the number of people who read these contributions.

[Ron Ecker]

Does anyone else have the feeling that this forum has been hit by a Mack Truck?

[J. William King]

I have been reading this forum for about three years, almost daily. I lurk because I don't have much to offer and I don't think I will ever immerse myself to the degree that is needed to become a regular participant.

But I can say that on more than one occasion a thread of conversation has led me off on a tangent picking up a book or two to learn a little more about our history, especially as it relates to the Kennedy years. In fact if I subtract the assassination completely, I am still left with a wide variety of books that came to my doorstep because of something I cross referenced here.

It's a shame that the intensity of infighting and name calling gets out of hand now and again. I guess a certain degree is to be expected considering the subject matter and the passion with which both sides approach that subject. As a READER ONLY, I have managed to work around the pissing contests and absorb what seems relevant to the subject.

I have enjoyed reading Charles Drago and Tosh Plumlee very much. If they decide to stay gone it is not only the regulars who will miss out (although I expect many of you will keep in touch behind the scenes) but also those of us (and I know I'm not alone) who remain in the shadows.

cheers -

Otto.

Like you, Otto, I'm more a reader than a poster. I try to contribute what I can, but I can't compete with the heavyweights on here. However, I can tell you what the problem is lately....

Frustration.

This subject has been studied and studied and studied over and over for over 40 years and there is still no clear picture of who/what/why. New discoveries are rare and old evidence is being looked at for the bazillionth time. Things are being seen that aren't there. Simple typos and mistakes are looked at as being part of the sinister plan. The most mundane of subjects are being hashed and rehashed like they really mean something. I remember a thread with hundreds of responses concerning whether or not the shoe in the famous "Kennedy's leg sticking out of the limo on Stemmons" picture had been retouched or not. What difference does it make if it was or not? None.

Please pardon the analogy, but what happens to a bunch of rats in a cage after the food has run out. They turn on each other. I think that is what's happening on here. If everyone just takes a step back, realizes this fact, and stop the personal attacks on their fellow researchers, things will improve. Remember, everyone has a right to their opinion.

Please, boys and girls. You're the best researchers in the business. Can't we all just get along and work together towards the final truth?

Just my 2 cent's worth.

JWK

Edited February 27, 2008 by J. William King

[William Plumlee]

I have been reading this forum for about three years, almost daily. I lurk because I don't have much to offer and I don't think I will ever immerse myself to the degree that is needed to become a regular participant.

But I can say that on more than one occasion a thread of conversation has led me off on a tangent picking up a book or two to learn a little more about our history, especially as it relates to the Kennedy years. In fact if I subtract the assassination completely, I am still left with a wide variety of books that came to my doorstep because of something I cross referenced here.

It's a shame that the intensity of infighting and name calling gets out of hand now and again. I guess a certain degree is to be expected considering the subject matter and the passion with which both sides approach that subject. As a READER ONLY, I have managed to work around the pissing contests and absorb what seems relevant to the subject.

I have enjoyed reading Charles Drago and Tosh Plumlee very much. If they decide to stay gone it is not only the regulars who will miss out (although I expect many of you will keep in touch behind the scenes) but also those of us (and I know I'm not alone) who remain in the shadows.

cheers -

Otto.

Like you, Otto, I'm more a reader than a poster. I try to contribute what I can, but I can't compete with the heavyweights on here. However, I can tell you what the problem is lately....

Frustration.

This subject has been studied and studied and studied over and over for over 40 years and there is still no clear picture of who/what/why. New discoveries are rare and old evidence is being looked at for the bazillionth time. Things are being seen that aren't there. Simple typos and mistakes are looked at as being part of the sinister plan. The most mundane of subjects are being hashed and rehashed like they really mean something. I remember a thread with hundreds of responses concerning whether or not the shoe in the famous "Kennedy's leg sticking out of the limo on Stemmons" picture had been retouched or not. What difference does it make if it was or not? None.

Please pardon the analogy, but what happens to a bunch of rats in a cage after the food has run out. They turn on each other. I think that is what's happening on here. If everyone just takes a step back, realizes this fact, and stop the personal attacks on their fellow researchers, things will improve. Remember, everyone has a right to their opinion.

Please, boys and girls. You're the best researchers in the business. Can't we all just get along and work together towards the final truth?

Just my 2 cent's worth.

JWK

JWK:

Thanks. I second that. Its good to take a fresh look and too, to look at ourselves. I for one will try to do that. Its good advise and makes one focus if they will take it to heart. Thanks again...I needed that.

Edited February 27, 2008 by William Plumlee

[Chris Scally]

JWK:

Well put. Your comments apply to a few recent threads here.

Hopefully, common sense will prevail, and we can all get back to the JFK assassination, instead of character assassination.

Chris Scally

[Myra Bronstein]

Charles was and is right about this forum.

He was one of the last good researchers left here.

I'm out.

[Don Jeffries]

Myra,

Why are you leaving the forum?

I really don't understand why so many good people stop posting here. You have confidence in your beliefs, and are knowledgable about the subjects you post on, so the worst that can happen is that others will disagree with you. I don't find it difficult at all to make my points, and I think there are fair and reasonable rules here which help maintain some order.

I was very sad to see Charles go, and I'll be very sad if you leave. I always enjoy your posts and this place will not be the same without you.

[Mark Stapleton]

I'm in full agreement with Peter and Don.

I hope Charles and Myra reconsider. Two of the sharpest, most lucid, and wittiest minds on the case. Everyone can become agitated once in a while, especially under hostile provocation. That's only human. And sane and rational voices like theirs are at a premium in the real world and the cyberworld.

America's going to turn the page in November, imo. It could mean Government resistance to real investigations into the asassinations of the sixties may weaken. This might be a little optimistic but I think it could be a chance with Obama in the WH. Probably the last chance. So it's a bad time to leave, imo.

Please reconsider, Charles and Myra.

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

I'm in full agreement with Peter and Don.

I hope Charles and Myra reconsider. Two of the sharpest, most lucid, and wittiest minds on the case. Everyone can become agitated once in a while, especially under hostile provocation. That's only human. And sane and rational voices like theirs are at a premium in the real world and the cyberworld.

America's going to turn the page in November, imo. It could mean Government resistance to real investigations into the asassinations of the sixties may weaken. This might be a little optimistic but I think it could be a chance with Obama in the WH. Probably the last chance. So it's a bad time to leave, imo.

Please reconsider, Charles and Myra.

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

Me to.

Now is not the time to lose members who are so good a pointing out the relevance of the Kennedy years to today's precarious politics, when democracy might well dying.

[Dawn Meredith]

I'm in full agreement with Peter and Don.

I hope Charles and Myra reconsider. Two of the sharpest, most lucid, and wittiest minds on the case. Everyone can become agitated once in a while, especially under hostile provocation. That's only human. And sane and rational voices like theirs are at a premium in the real world and the cyberworld.

America's going to turn the page in November, imo. It could mean Government resistance to real investigations into the asassinations of the sixties may weaken. This might be a little optimistic but I think it could be a chance with Obama in the WH. Probably the last chance. So it's a bad time to leave, imo.

Please reconsider, Charles and Myra.

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

Me to.

Now is not the time to lose members who are so good a pointing out the relevance of the Kennedy years to today's precarious politics, when democracy might well dying.

I know that I can speak for Charlie, and myself, and am pretty postivive for Myra as well, that we do NOT intent to cease work on this case, and related issues. Ever!! And "democracy"...well it's kinda like "freedom" in the Janis sense: "freedom's just another word". Things are very bad for those of us who long for justice. Getting worse by the day.

Dawn

[Terry Mauro]

If there is benefit to be discerned from the exchanges I recently initiated regarding Gary Mack, I suggest it lies within consideration of the passionately and self-righteously delivered claim by so many posters ostensibly on the side of truth and justice that conspiracy is simply a matter of opinion.

And so Housman is brought to mind ...

What can I do, what can I write

Against the fall of night?

I have reached the conclusion that the fight, at least for me, is best fought elsewhere than in these cyberpages.

The truth may be rendered as a simple statement of fact and is inescapable save through ignorance and/or corruption:

Anyone with reasonable access to the evidence in the JFK assassination who does not conclude that President Kennedy was murdered by conspirators is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.

The field is not mine to cede. I simply move to a different line to stage what passes for an offensive of my own choosing.

To those who, as a consequence of their dementia and/or criminal intent, deny conspiracy, I offer only this: Pray for a cure and/or forgiveness.

To those who choose to continue the fight on this, a ground that your sacrifices have hallowed, I offer my solidarity and respect.

As for me, I shall continue in a different manner to speak and to write against the fall of night.

Watch your newspapers.

Charles R. Drago

February 25, 2008

Charles, when you say "watch your newspapers" I sincerely hope you mean that you're working on a positive development, and not contemplating a desperate act. While I agree with many of your views, I can not agree with your presumption that we can understand other men's souls, and judge their cognitive powers without error. There are many people who BELIEVE Oswald acted alone, with as much intensity and self-righteousness as we BELIEVE he did not. While history has shown that there is little chance we'll ever be able to convince them, it also has shown that if we take the argument to the public--much as Mark Lane once did--that we'll win over the next generation.

I've found that one can reach newbies via Youtube and the IMDB forum for the film JFK. If we reach people before they get indoctrinated in the "Oswald did it" cult, there's a chance new members of the media will see things our way, and quit toeing the company line. If you want to make an impact you might want to take your efforts there. But--warning--no one anywhere is particularly swayed by "I'm right and if you disagree with me you're cognitively impaired" type arguments. It just doesn't play in Peoria.

*************************************************

"There are many people who BELIEVE Oswald acted alone, with as much intensity and self-righteousness as we BELIEVE he did not. While history has shown that there is little chance we'll ever be able to convince them, it also has shown that if we take the argument to the public--much as Mark Lane once did--that we'll win over the next generation."

We can try winning over the next generation only if they're not completely and thoroughly indoctrinated by their neocon, or just plain ignorant, low intelligence quotient, ostriches with their heads in the sand, sheeple for parents.

Does that cover every point? Because, what you're essentially trying to accomplish is to turn a sow's ear into a silk purse when it comes to ignorant people who basically lack the equipment to think critically, and most likely are too afraid to buck this already dysfunctional system called The American Government.

Good luck, because I've spent the past 40 years talking myself blue in the face only to end up looking into a pair of vacant eyes, or ones that look like a deer's caught in the headlights, staring back at me. If they can't even begin to comprehend, they need to go all the way back to school for the tools that I doubt they'll ever have a inkling to go looking for.

Your heart may be in the right place, but their heads aren't.

Keep on keeping on, FWIW.

Edited April 11, 2008 by Terry Mauro

[John Simkin]

ANYONE WHO WANTS TO COMBAT LIES AND IGNORANCE AND TO WRITE THE TRUTH MUST OVERCOME AT LEAST FIVE DIFFICULTIES - THEY MUST HAVE THE COURAGE TO WRITE THE TRUTH WHEN TRUTH IS EVERYWHERE OPPOSED; THE KEENNESS TO RECOGNIZE IT, ALTHOUGH IT IS EVERYWHERE CONCEALED; THE SKILL TO MANIPULATE IT AS A WEAPON; THE JUDGMENT TO SELECT THOSE IN WHOSE HANDS IT WILL BE EFFECTIVE; AND THE CUNNING TO SPREAD THE TRUTH AMONG SUCH PERSONS. - BERTOLD BRECHT (GERMANY 1935)

Good words and he did what he could to fight against the growth of fascism in Germany. However, when Adolf Hitler gained power in 1933 he was forced to flee from Germany. While living in exile in Denmark and Sweden he wrote anti-Nazi plays in the United States such as The Roundheads and the Peakheads and Fear and Misery of the Third Reich, Galileo (1939), Mother Courage (1939), The Good Man of Szechuan (1941), The Resistible Rise of Arturo Ui (1941) and the Caucausian Chalk Circle (1943).

He arrived in the United States in 1941 and after settling in Hollywood, helped with the writing of the film, Hangman Also Die (1943). In 1947 the House of Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), chaired by J. Parnell Thomas, began an investigation into the entertainment industry. The HUAC interviewed 41 people who were working in Hollywood. These people attended voluntarily and became known as "friendly witnesses". During their interviews they named nineteen people who they accused of holding left-wing views.

Brecht was one of those named and after giving evidence to the House of Un-American Activities Committee, where he denied being a member of the American Communist Party, he left for East Germany. He now forgot his campaign for the truth and supported this vile dictatorship.

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

I am also sorry that members of the forum stop posting because of the presence of people like Len Colby and Tim Gratz. However, I will not ban them from this forum because I will not resort to the methods of right and left-wing dictatorships.

[Jack White]

ANYONE WHO WANTS TO COMBAT LIES AND IGNORANCE AND TO WRITE THE TRUTH MUST OVERCOME AT LEAST FIVE DIFFICULTIES - THEY MUST HAVE THE COURAGE TO WRITE THE TRUTH WHEN TRUTH IS EVERYWHERE OPPOSED; THE KEENNESS TO RECOGNIZE IT, ALTHOUGH IT IS EVERYWHERE CONCEALED; THE SKILL TO MANIPULATE IT AS A WEAPON; THE JUDGMENT TO SELECT THOSE IN WHOSE HANDS IT WILL BE EFFECTIVE; AND THE CUNNING TO SPREAD THE TRUTH AMONG SUCH PERSONS. - BERTOLD BRECHT (GERMANY 1935)

Good words and he did what he could to fight against the growth of fascism in Germany. However, when Adolf Hitler gained power in 1933 he was forced to flee from Germany. While living in exile in Denmark and Sweden he wrote anti-Nazi plays in the United States such as The Roundheads and the Peakheads and Fear and Misery of the Third Reich, Galileo (1939), Mother Courage (1939), The Good Man of Szechuan (1941), The Resistible Rise of Arturo Ui (1941) and the Caucausian Chalk Circle (1943).

He arrived in the United States in 1941 and after settling in Hollywood, helped with the writing of the film, Hangman Also Die (1943). In 1947 the House of Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), chaired by J. Parnell Thomas, began an investigation into the entertainment industry. The HUAC interviewed 41 people who were working in Hollywood. These people attended voluntarily and became known as "friendly witnesses". During their interviews they named nineteen people who they accused of holding left-wing views.

Brecht was one of those named and after giving evidence to the House of Un-American Activities Committee, where he denied being a member of the American Communist Party, he left for East Germany. He now forgot his campaign for the truth and supported this vile dictatorship.

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

I am also sorry that members of the forum stop posting because of the presence of people like Len Colby and Tim Gratz. However, I will not ban them from this forum because I will not resort to the methods of right and left-wing dictatorships.

Gratz is tolerable and in some ways provides valuable insights. Colby, Lamson, Lewis and Burton are intolerable...providing only

insults and opinions but never any research. I, too, am opposed to banning such provocateurs. I am in favor of ignoring them.

Jack

[Mike Williams]

"Gratz is tolerable and in some ways provides valuable insights. Colby, Lamson, Lewis and Burton are intolerable...providing only

insults and opinions but never any research. I, too, am opposed to banning such provocateurs. I am in favor of ignoring them."

Is that not in and of itself an opinion? Providing only insults......wow......the pot calling the kettle black.

I read quite a bit on the forum here, when I can stomach it, and feel like sifting through piles of sniveling and adolescent fighting to scrape up the smallest bit of information. Once you remove the ridiculous, almighty, you have no degree so you know nothing crowd, once you disregard space rays, alteration ridiculousness, and all the petty school yard squabbling, it is a rather good forum.

(Although one must confess some sense of sadistic glee at the beatings Josiah Thompson has delivered to Dr. Fetzer, and his group of whimsical unrealists.)

Mr. Simkin,

I applaud you for your restraint, truly, but is there not a line that needs to be drawn? Is there ever going to be a recognizable line behind good solid educational information and discussion, and disruption? I can appreciate your views on censorship, but sometimes the unruly children in the class need to be squelched, so those eager to learn, and not tiff, can do so in an educational environment.

Not that I have any hope that anything I have said will take hold, but what the heck.....it was said.

[Terry Mauro]

"Gratz is tolerable and in some ways provides valuable insights. Colby, Lamson, Lewis and Burton are intolerable...providing only

insults and opinions but never any research. I, too, am opposed to banning such provocateurs. I am in favor of ignoring them."

Is that not in and of itself an opinion? Providing only insults......wow......the pot calling the kettle black.

I read quite a bit on the forum here, when I can stomach it, and feel like sifting through piles of sniveling and adolescent fighting to scrape up the smallest bit of information. Once you remove the ridiculous, almighty, you have no degree so you know nothing crowd, once you disregard space rays, alteration ridiculousness, and all the petty school yard squabbling, it is a rather good forum.

(Although one must confess some sense of sadistic glee at the beatings Josiah Thompson has delivered to Dr. Fetzer, and his group of whimsical unrealists.)

Mr. Simkin,

I applaud you for your restraint, truly, but is there not a line that needs to be drawn? Is there ever going to be a recognizable line behind good solid educational information and discussion, and disruption? I can appreciate your views on censorship, but sometimes the unruly children in the class need to be squelched, so those eager to learn, and not tiff, can do so in an educational environment.

Not that I have any hope that anything I have said will take hold, but what the heck.....it was said.

***************************************************************

""Gratz is tolerable and in some ways provides valuable insights. Colby, Lamson, Lewis and Burton are intolerable...providing only

insults and opinions but never any research. I, too, am opposed to banning such provocateurs. I am in favor of ignoring them.""

I happen to agree with the above statement, but take a look at the tone of your reply.

"I read quite a bit on the forum here, when I can stomach it, and feel like sifting through piles of sniveling and adolescent fighting to scrape up the smallest bit of information. Once you remove the ridiculous, almighty, you have no degree so you know nothing crowd, once you disregard space rays, alteration ridiculousness, and all the petty school yard squabbling, it is a rather good forum."

(Although one must confess some sense of sadistic glee at the beatings Josiah Thompson has delivered to Dr. Fetzer, and his group of whimsical unrealists.)

You come off as a passive-aggressive, pompous little snit. The pot calling the kettle black, indeed!

"Mr. Simkin,

I applaud you for your restraint, truly, but is there not a line that needs to be drawn? Is there ever going to be a recognizable line behind good solid educational information and discussion, and disruption? I can appreciate your views on censorship, but sometimes the unruly children in the class need to be squelched, so those eager to learn, and not tiff, can do so in an educational environment."

And, as far as brown-nosing the admin goes, that, and $3.50 American, may get you a cup of Starbucks.

"Not that I have any hope that anything I have said will take hold, but what the heck.....it was said."

Especially, since everything you've said has already been stated dozens of times before. And, what makes you think that anyone will give a rat's patootey about what you've just redundantly implied, here?

Why don't you think before you make a statement, and use some logic in framing your rebuttals. Otherwise, you come off sounding no better than the ones you choose to attack.

Oh, and BTW, if you insist on accepting this as an "attack" from me, you are absolutely right. Take it as an example of your own ill-conceived handiwork.