Clearing The Air

[Guest Tom Scully]

Don:

Now that you have warned everyone, I think you have to start suspending people for repeated infractions.

I don't agree with the indictments in all respects. Especially what you said about Martin.

But now that you did it, I think you have to enforce it.

Either that or go to no moderation at all.

...What are we to do at this point? If we moderated all who have technically violated forum rules, we'd be left with very few regular posters. ....

Jim,

Do you advocate a "decider"? Should a structure be set up similar to the one Obama has just this past month signed into law after it passed both houses of congress? The POTUS now has in law, the unconstitutional authority to order the military to take anyone into custody anywhere, and to imprison them under military authority as long as the POTUS DECIDES....no hearing before a civil magistrate, no charges, no requirement of evidence.

No one is subject to suspension or revoking of posting privileges here unless a majority of moderators who vote on whether or not to take such action, usually the voting period is 24 hours from the time a suspension is proposed, vote to do it.

John could just decide to do what he wants to, as Obama now can, under the new unconstitutional law. John is a fairer or more democratically oriented man than our politicians are. So are all of the moderators. Is shooting first and asking questions later, really a better way to do this? We are fair. No one should mistake this quality for weakness.

I feel I must balance Don's description of the Farley - Lifton dynamic. My observation is that Lifton has a thing about Farley....that he has singled Lee out for special attention.

Joe Backes got into this, too. The Bledsoe controversy is older than Farley's attention to it. IMO, this is Farley's advantage, and it is a pity he muddies it to the point that it has become blurred in Don's view, and I'm sure in the view of others.

All Lee Farley needs to do is keep to stating his case, and avoid responding in kind to David Lifton. Mr. lifton will predictably keep on making it about Farley, instead of about Farley's research backed opinions. Easy to advise, hard to do.

[Greg Parker]

Don,

as with Lifton, you guys are predictable. DSL can say whatever crap he wants; spew whatever lies; ridicule and bully to his hearts content. Nada action from you guys. But all hell breaks loose as soon as someone responds to him with a few home truths. Worse still, one of you insists we should welcome his bile as somehow being a positive thing. At least you have included Lifton in your round of "chastisements". I knew sooner or later, one of you would be forced to. Pity it's too little, too late.

I do want to directly address some of the issues you raise.

1. Yes, moderating is a tough task. So what. Lots of jobs are. If you don't like it - don't do it. And if you can't do it FAIRLY and CONSISTENTLY - you SHOULDN'T do it.

2. Bringing Lee Farley into it after he has said he is through with Lifton, is a bit harsh.

3. Do I ridicule Lifton? Sure. When he deserves it. I do it openly and transparently with a wink to actually reality. His, on the other hand, is of the mean-spirited, sly type based on his own morbid fantasies to avoid technical breaches of "the rules".

4. You hate having to keep making these posts? Too bad. All that had to be done was to deal with Lifton from the get-go. This mess was created because he was never dealt with.

5. I have the utmost respect for John Simkin -- but this continual habit of referring to this site as his home for the purpose of behavior control, is quite misleading. This is not his home. It is his place of business. Traffic = money. I don't say that in a pejorative fashion. He has done a fantastic job in building this site, and I wish him continued and growing success. But his home? That's just a play for false sympathy. I would think that the only person on this site who actually resides in his place of business is me. For whatever that's worth.

6. I will continue to criticize moderation when it is applied to me unjustly.

7. I don't like Lifton. Correct. So what? Where do you state the reverse? You don't. Because you and the others have an inbuilt bias toward him. It has taken some effort to get one of you to even mildly rebuke him for any of his array of appallingly dishonest behaviors. Bottom line. It is you guys I blame. Not him. He clearly cannot help himself.

8. Swearing. Ban it by all means. But please learn a bit of history first. "Swear words" only became "swear words" because the upper classes decided that the slang used by commoners was "vulgar" and ought not be repeated by people "of breeding". Designating certain words as "vulgar" is historically nothing but elitist snobbery. Surely no history is unimportant? If this means nothing, then nor does who killed JFK - because historical truths and lessons are meaningless.

9. You guys deal with me however you see fit. But while I can still post, I will continue to point out Lifton's lies if and when they are aimed at me or about me. Otherwise, as far as I'm concerned, he is free to pursue his fantasies without my input. I'm not here to play games, make friends OR enemies. But making both are almost inevitable when you stand your ground. Nor do I want this to be a lifelong (and losing) fight for the facts of 11/22, and if that means hurting a few feelings along the way -- tough.

10. Speaking of which... your comment that "It's irrelevant to any discussion at hand, that Greg Parker's web site postulates any particular theory..." may cause some to conclude that you agree with Lifton that this constitutes my belief about the case, or alternatively, it is the main focus of the web site - whether or not I support it. Neither of those propositions is true and I want you to reword the statement to say that "lying about Greg's website is against forum rules." Or if you cannot bring yourself to actually say it like it is, then simply withdraw the statement altogether. I'd rather no statement than a misleading one.

Okay, where do we start....

As a moderator, I would like to state first of all that too many posters on this forum are showing a total lack of respect for the moderating team. As you may know, I probably disagree with most of the other moderators much of the time on the issues discussed here, but I cannot find fault in their attempts to moderate what often degenerates into a juvenile shouting match. How do you moderate what is in effect a seventh grade food fight in the cafeteria? As I've stated before, I don't believe in heavy handed moderation. I have always thought that posters on an internet forum like this one ought to be able to conduct themselves as responsible adults. How many times do we have to beg you to stop the personal attacks, the name calling and the general nastiness? Our words appear to have had little effect on any of you. Also, when you are debating Pat Speer, Tom Scully or any other moderator, there is no need for you to bring up the subject of their moderation, especially when you are ridiculing it, unless it is connected directly to the discussion at hand, which it rarely is.

What are we to do at this point? If we moderated all who have technically violated forum rules, we'd be left with very few regular posters. What makes it all the more frustrating is the fact that the most egregious offenders here are also some of the most knowledgable and interesting posters. Without you all, the discussions would be less educational in nature and the flow of information would be diminished. No one wants that. However, none of us wants the general lack of courtesy towards others to continue, either. There is no excuse for some of the behavior that has been exhibited here recently. Belittling others, bashing moderators- is this the way responsible adults should be conducting themselves on any internet forum? If this were a gaming forum or something, populated primarily by teens and those in their twenties, then perhaps we should expect this kind of stuff. But this is supposed to be a forum dedicated to discussing the assassination of President Kennedy. People from all over the world read what we write here. Do you really feel comfortable with some of the bile that's being posted under your actual names?

David Lifton- you have developed a disturbing tendency to attack the messenger more than the message. It's irrelevant to any discussion at hand, that Greg Parker's web site postulates any particular theory, or that he may believe in an Oswald twin. What Martin Hay or any other poster on this forum does for a living is just as irrelevant to any discussions. Any alleged personal issues regarding Robert Charles-Dunne are most certainly off limits here- don't you sense the irony of you complaining about others bringing up similar things, when you are guilty of doing it yourself? And are you regularly in the habit of alluding to legal action at the drop of a hat? Eventually, people are just going to stop talking to you if they sense that.

Lee Farley- You seem to have a personal animosity towards David Lifton that goes beyond the disagreements many of us have with him on several issues. There is an easily detectable venom in your posts that turns many of us off, even when you are making a logical argument (which you usually are).

Greg Parker- The same can be said for you- you clearly don't like David Lifton and feel comfortable in ridiculing him.

Martin Hay- Again, like Lee and Greg, some of your posts strike me as attempts to "bait" Lifton into something, and he predictably usually accepts the bait, and returns the nastiness. What was the point in passing along the observations of someone who works with Weisberg's papers, that amounted to nothing more than malicious gossip? Anyone that knew Weisberg knows how much he bad mouthed all the other critics. His personal observations regarding Lifton or anyone else don't pack much credibility because of this.

Joe Backes- Do you read the posts on this forum? What makes you think that it's acceptable to drop the "F" bomb and other words of profanity into your arguments? Is this how you normally discuss things? Injecting your own nasty tone into the discussions at hand have accomplished the almost impossible task of making a bad situation worse.

So much more could be said, but I wanted to single out the most egregious offenders and let them know how I view things. I am disappointed at having to keep posting things like this, but most of you simply won't try and reform yourselves. Think of this forum as someone's home- would you act so beligerantly, attacking those you disagree with personally, calling names- if you were their guest? PLEASE start showing everyone respect, even those you strongly oppose on each and every issue. There is no excuse for this kind of behavior from people as educated and well spoken as all of you are. You can all make your arguments more effectively if you stop the name calling, the references to other posters' occupations, lack of qualifications, avator photos, etc.

If you want a heavy, hands on moderation team, then you're doing everything you can to get that. I don't think anyone would benefit from that, but you can't expect even the most tolerant team of moderators to continue to ignore what's been going on here. John Simkin provides a place for us all to express ourselves and communicate with others from around the world. If you can't or won't respect what I'm saying, or the moderation team in general, try to recognize that it is John's forum, and conduct yourselves as mature adults who know better.

Edited January 3, 2012 by Greg Parker

[John Simkin]

This thread reminds me why I no longer participate in JFK discussions. I enjoy a good relationship with several of the people named in this thread and would describe them as decent human beings, however, when they get involved in a discussion on the JFK assassination, they can become very unpleasant. I am sure they would say somebody else started it, but all I see is the results of the arguments.

When I die I would like it put on my headstone that he “brought out the best in people”. I think in life I have been successful in this objective. However, I have been completely unsuccessful as far as this forum is concerned.

I am very reluctant to put people on moderation but it is clear that some people will need to suffer this penalty. The forum is run on a democratic basis and I will publish the results of our vote on the forum.

[Don Jeffries]

Jim,

I was speaking primarily as a member of this forum first, and as a moderator second. My observations would be the same, whether I was a moderator or not.

No "official" warning here- I wanted to try and address the nasty, bullying behavior on the part of too many posters on this forum. I cited specific names in order to get their attention, not to sanction them. As Tom Scully noted, any punishment would come from a group vote.

[Don Jeffries]

Don,

as with Lifton, you guys are predictable. DSL can say whatever crap he wants; spew whatever lies; ridicule and bully to his hearts content. Nada action from you guys. But all hell breaks loose as soon as someone responds to him with a few home truths. Worse still, one of you insists we should welcome his bile as somehow being a positive thing. At least you have included Lifton in your round of "chastisements". I knew sooner or later, one of you would be forced to. Pity it's too little, too late.

We hear this constantly, that we're biased towards David Lifton. I wrote the post you're replying to. I disagree far more with David's views on this subject than I do with Lee or you. Like many others here, you want the strong arm of moderation applied to those you're arguing with, but object if it's applied to you or someone you agree with.

I do want to directly address some of the issues you raise.

1. Yes, moderating is a tough task. So what. Lots of jobs are. If you don't like it - don't do it. And if you can't do it FAIRLY and CONSISTENTLY - you SHOULDN'T do it.

I've noted that there are so many offenses, by so many posters, that to apply every rule constantly would mean that a good portion of the most prolific posters on the forum would be on moderation. That's what we want to avoid, and thus the constant pleas for everyone to try and cut out the nasty stuff.

2. Bringing Lee Farley into it after he has said he is through with Lifton, is a bit harsh.

If Lee actually proves to be "through" with Lifton, I give him a great deal of credit. However, he is a big part of what we're discussing. I think his give and take with Lifton is the primary focus of what I'm talking about. Now, it's become a three on one situation, with you and Martin joining Lee in unanimous opposition to Lifton.

3. Do I ridicule Lifton? Sure. When he deserves it. I do it openly and transparently with a wink to actually reality. His, on the other hand, is of the mean-spirited, sly type based on his own morbid fantasies to avoid technical breaches of "the rules".

The fact that you (accurately) see Lifton's mean-spiritedness, but don't see Lee's, or Martin's, or your own, illustrates the main problem here. You are all posting in a mean-spirited manner, most of the time now. I've said many times that I am on your side in most every debate with David Lifton. I've told him I think it's ridiculous to cling to witnesses like Bledsoe. I didn't believe Oswald was on that bus years before Lee Farley started posting here.

4. You hate having to keep making these posts? Too bad. All that had to be done was to deal with Lifton from the get-go. This mess was created because he was never dealt with.

Yes, you (and others) want us to "deal" harshly with Lifton, much as Lifton would like us to deal harshly with you. Your attitude is akin to the child who keeps pointing at the other kid and cries, "He started it!" At this point, it doesn't matter any more who triggered the nastiness first. I can see how Lifton's sense of superiority and tendency to talk down to younger critics like Lee Farley would become really irritating. However, to respond in kind to the point of trying to demean him as an individual is just as misguided. As we try to tell our children, it takes two to tango.

5. I have the utmost respect for John Simkin -- but this continual habit of referring to this site as his home for the purpose of behavior control, is quite misleading. This is not his home. It is his place of business. Traffic = money. I don't say that in a pejorative fashion. He has done a fantastic job in building this site, and I wish him continued and growing success. But his home? That's just a play for false sympathy. I would think that the only person on this site who actually resides in his place of business is me. For whatever that's worth.

So you respect the owner of the forum by stating you're going to do whatever you want. You obviously realize I didn't mean this was John Simkin's literal home. Why is it so difficult for you-laying aside the sins of any other posters-to simply say you'll try to post in a more civil way?

6. I will continue to criticize moderation when it is applied to me unjustly.

Again, you will do what you want.

7. I don't like Lifton. Correct. So what? Where do you state the reverse? You don't. Because you and the others have an inbuilt bias toward him. It has taken some effort to get one of you to even mildly rebuke him for any of his array of appallingly dishonest behaviors. Bottom line. It is you guys I blame. Not him. He clearly cannot help himself.

I certainly have no bias towards David Lifton. Yes, it's clear he doesn't like you, Lee Farley or Martin Hay, either. Does that make you feel better?

8. Swearing. Ban it by all means. But please learn a bit of history first. "Swear words" only became "swear words" because the upper classes decided that the slang used by commoners was "vulgar" and ought not be repeated by people "of breeding". Designating certain words as "vulgar" is historically nothing but elitist snobbery. Surely no history is unimportant? If this means nothing, then nor does who killed JFK - because historical truths and lessons are meaningless.

No one takes a back seat to me in my hatred of upper class snobbery. However, it's obvious that you, Lee, David, and every other poster on this forum abides by the rules against profanity, at least. Joe has certainly read the posts here and should know that isn't appropriate language.

9. You guys deal with me however you see fit. But while I can still post, I will continue to point out Lifton's lies if and when they are aimed at me or about me. Otherwise, as far as I'm concerned, he is free to pursue his fantasies without my input. I'm not here to play games, make friends OR enemies. But making both are almost inevitable when you stand your ground. Nor do I want this to be a lifelong (and losing) fight for the facts of 11/22, and if that means hurting a few feelings along the way -- tough.

Okay, continue with your "tough" stances. Keep calling each other "fantasists." That's the way to "fight for the facts of 11/22."

10. Speaking of which... your comment that "It's irrelevant to any discussion at hand, that Greg Parker's web site postulates any particular theory..." may cause some to conclude that you agree with Lifton that this constitutes my belief about the case, or alternatively, it is the main focus of the web site - whether or not I support it. Neither of those propositions is true and I want you to reword the statement to say that "lying about Greg's website is against forum rules." Or if you cannot bring yourself to actually say it like it is, then simply withdraw the statement altogether. I'd rather no statement than a misleading one.

Greg, I've never visited your web site, so I know nothing about its content. I was merely trying to make a point to David Lifton. I certainly do apologize if I gave anyone the impression that I agreed with Lifton's statements about it, because I have never even viewed your web site.

[John Simkin]

5. I have the utmost respect for John Simkin -- but this continual habit of referring to this site as his home for the purpose of behavior control, is quite misleading. This is not his home. It is his place of business. Traffic = money. I don't say that in a pejorative fashion. He has done a fantastic job in building this site, and I wish him continued and growing success. But his home? That's just a play for false sympathy. I would think that the only person on this site who actually resides in his place of business is me. For whatever that's worth.

Greg, this forum only costs me money. All advertising on this forum goes to Andy Walker.

[Greg Parker]

Don,

as with Lifton, you guys are predictable. DSL can say whatever crap he wants; spew whatever lies; ridicule and bully to his hearts content. Nada action from you guys. But all hell breaks loose as soon as someone responds to him with a few home truths. Worse still, one of you insists we should welcome his bile as somehow being a positive thing. At least you have included Lifton in your round of "chastisements". I knew sooner or later, one of you would be forced to. Pity it's too little, too late.

We hear this constantly, that we're biased towards David Lifton.

Then maybe... just maybe, Don... there's at least a little truth there. I mean, if I had people telling me all day my feet stink... I might just start to think I should at least check it out...

I wrote the post you're replying to.

Yes. And I acknowledged that at last, someone included Lifton in the round of rebukes.

I disagree far more with David's views on this subject than I do with Lee or you.

I know some are having difficulty with the concept, but this has nothing at all to do with his disagreeing with some aspects of the case. If that was all there was to it, there would be fights breaking out all over the place between me or Lee and various other posters. See, what the subtext of your statement is is that it is our fault - we are the bad guys in all this because we cannot abide anyone disagreeing with us. You think you have no bias? Think again. Your statement is the classic "some of my best friends are black" argument.

Like many others here, you want the strong arm of moderation applied to those you're arguing with, but object if it's applied to you or someone you agree with.

Which again, is a total mischaracterization to hide the fact that Lifton has up to now received NO moderation or warnings whatsoever - despite continually making stuff up about others, or using whatever bio information he can find in attempts to humiliate. Apparently all of that is quite acceptable. But call him on it and watch out. A mod will appear out of nowhere to lecture or apply the black marker on banned words - even when they're the truth and can be easily proven. So do I want moderation applied to him and only him? Total bollocks. Do I want it applied to him? Yes. But I am assuming there is some sort of sanction against what is borderline libel in much of what he makes up about others. Am I wrong about that?

I do want to directly address some of the issues you raise.

1. Yes, moderating is a tough task. So what. Lots of jobs are. If you don't like it - don't do it. And if you can't do it FAIRLY and CONSISTENTLY - you SHOULDN'T do it.

I've noted that there are so many offenses, by so many posters, that to apply every rule constantly would mean that a good portion of the most prolific posters on the forum would be on moderation. That's what we want to avoid, and thus the constant pleas for everyone to try and cut out the nasty stuff.

Who said that anyone wanted rules constantly applied? The terms I used were "fairly" and "consistently". Please stick to what I say and not reply to what you think you can argue against.

2. Bringing Lee Farley into it after he has said he is through with Lifton, is a bit harsh.

If Lee actually proves to be "through" with Lifton, I give him a great deal of credit. However, he is a big part of what we're discussing. I think his give and take with Lifton is the primary focus of what I'm talking about. Now, it's become a three on one situation, with you and Martin joining Lee in unanimous opposition to Lifton.

...Unanimous opposition to Lifton's [edit] Don't you think it's a little odd that, until the past day or he had not started any thread discussing his own work? He has spent almost his entire time here trying to tear down the work of others. You haven't noticed this?

3. Do I ridicule Lifton? Sure. When he deserves it. I do it openly and transparently with a wink to actually reality. His, on the other hand, is of the mean-spirited, sly type based on his own morbid fantasies to avoid technical breaches of "the rules".

The fact that you (accurately) see Lifton's mean-spiritedness, but don't see Lee's, or Martin's, or your own, illustrates the main problem here.

The fact that the mods want to only ever discuss OUR alleged shortcomings, but until you now - refused to address Lifton's is one of MY main problems. But you are right. I don't see any mean-spiritedness in the posts of Lee or Martin. They are blunt, to be sure. But at the heart of what they say, is a shining honesty. I don't even see tarnished honesty in Lifton's posts directed at them. As for me, I don't think I have been mean-spirited, either -- but I acknowledge I'm not the one to make that judgement.

You are all posting in a mean-spirited manner, most of the time now. I've said many times that I am on your side in most every debate with David Lifton. I've told him I think it's ridiculous to cling to witnesses like Bledsoe. I didn't believe Oswald was on that bus years before Lee Farley started posting here.

Again - it's not a matter of whose on whose side in which debate. I don't care, and I'm sure the others don't, that Lifton disagrees about Bledsoe. The manner of his disgreement; his predilection for attacking the messenger, cherry-picking and obfuscating were some of the problems.

4. You hate having to keep making these posts? Too bad. All that had to be done was to deal with Lifton from the get-go. This mess was created because he was never dealt with.

Yes, you (and others) want us to "deal" harshly with Lifton,

Can you please provide a quote of anyone saying that? Repeating it, doesn't make it any truer. I want you to deal with him - in the same manner that me, Lee and Martin are being dealt with. "Harshly" is your word and again shows a bias away from the facts.

much as Lifton would like us to deal harshly with you.

Truly? Has he asked for us to be dealt with? "Harshly" or otherwise? Because, to be honest, it sounds like something you've made up in order to give an appearance that you're a good guy whose not just accusing us of wanting tyrannical treatment dealt out to him - he's hounding you to do the same to us! And all we all very naughty! If I'm wrong - apologies - but I'd want you to back it up with evidence to show I am.

Your attitude is akin to the child who keeps pointing at the other kid and cries, "He started it!" At this point, it doesn't matter any more who triggered the nastiness first. I can see how Lifton's sense of superiority and tendency to talk down to younger critics like Lee Farley would become really irritating. However, to respond in kind to the point of trying to demean him as an individual is just as misguided.

There we go again. He has REPEATEDLY tried to demean, me, Lee and now Martin. And does so with partial and total falsehoods. No one has to make anything up about him. The facts are enough.

And that is all I have done - told the truth by pointing out those falsehoods - and I'm the bad guy? Telling the truth is "misguided"? I can call him an obfuscater, a fantasist and a million other euphemisms, but not the "l" word?

As we try to tell our children, it takes two to tango.

I don't dance.

5. I have the utmost respect for John Simkin -- but this continual habit of referring to this site as his home for the purpose of behavior control, is quite misleading. This is not his home. It is his place of business. Traffic = money. I don't say that in a pejorative fashion. He has done a fantastic job in building this site, and I wish him continued and growing success. But his home? That's just a play for false sympathy. I would think that the only person on this site who actually resides in his place of business is me. For whatever that's worth.

So you respect the owner of the forum by stating you're going to do whatever you want.

As far as I am concerned, they are two separate issues. If Lifton had been targeted for the lectures and deletions that others have, including now, myself, I wouldn't have a case, would I? And as for it not mattering who started it? If I notice a skin cancer on my body, I don't leave it to spread and affect the whole. I get it cut out. Maybe it doesn't matter either who started WWII - after all, it takes two to bomb the crap out of Europe.

You obviously realize I didn't mean this was John Simkin's literal home. Why is it so difficult for you-laying aside the sins of any other posters-to simply say you'll try to post in a more civil way?

It's a bad analogy - and one designed to evoke sympathy. There are few words that are more emotive than "home".

As for my behavior - I have taken whatever steps I have because you guys hadn't taken any against him yourself. I grew up dirt poor. All my father left me were a set of values to live by. I admit, I don't always apply them perfectly.

6. I will continue to criticize moderation when it is applied to me unjustly.

Again, you will do what you want.

I will do what I see as appropriate in the given circumstances until I am banned, or Lifton is appropriately sanctioned for his [edit] about me and others, in which case I would be satisfied you guys have finally looked up the words "fair" and "consistent".

7. I don't like Lifton. Correct. So what? Where do you state the reverse? You don't. Because you and the others have an inbuilt bias toward him. It has taken some effort to get one of you to even mildly rebuke him for any of his array of appallingly dishonest behaviors. Bottom line. It is you guys I blame. Not him. He clearly cannot help himself.

I certainly have no bias towards David Lifton. Yes, it's clear he doesn't like you, Lee Farley or Martin Hay, either. Does that make you feel better?

Nope. too late.

8. Swearing. Ban it by all means. But please learn a bit of history first. "Swear words" only became "swear words" because the upper classes decided that the slang used by commoners was "vulgar" and ought not be repeated by people "of breeding". Designating certain words as "vulgar" is historically nothing but elitist snobbery. Surely no history is unimportant? If this means nothing, then nor does who killed JFK - because historical truths and lessons are meaningless.

No one takes a back seat to me in my hatred of upper class snobbery. However, it's obvious that you, Lee, David, and every other poster on this forum abides by the rules against profanity, at least. Joe has certainly read the posts here and should know that isn't appropriate language.

Fine. As long as you understand what it is you're applying.

9. You guys deal with me however you see fit. But while I can still post, I will continue to point out Lifton's lies if and when they are aimed at me or about me. Otherwise, as far as I'm concerned, he is free to pursue his fantasies without my input. I'm not here to play games, make friends OR enemies. But making both are almost inevitable when you stand your ground. Nor do I want this to be a lifelong (and losing) fight for the facts of 11/22, and if that means hurting a few feelings along the way -- tough.

Okay, continue with your "tough" stances. Keep calling each other "fantasists." That's the way to "fight for the facts of 11/22."

You need to talk to Pat Speer about why he thinks anyone labelled a "fantasist" is fair game.

10. Speaking of which... your comment that "It's irrelevant to any discussion at hand, that Greg Parker's web site postulates any particular theory..." may cause some to conclude that you agree with Lifton that this constitutes my belief about the case, or alternatively, it is the main focus of the web site - whether or not I support it. Neither of those propositions is true and I want you to reword the statement to say that "lying about Greg's website is against forum rules." Or if you cannot bring yourself to actually say it like it is, then simply withdraw the statement altogether. I'd rather no statement than a misleading one.

Greg, I've never visited your web site, so I know nothing about its content. I was merely trying to make a point to David Lifton. I certainly do apologize if I gave anyone the impression that I agreed with Lifton's statements about it, because I have never even viewed your web site.

Are you saying you were also unaware that I am one of the most vociferous critics of the theory Lifton keeps saying I and my website support? If you were unaware of that as well, then I accept the apology.

Edited January 3, 2012 by Greg Parker

[Greg Parker]

5. I have the utmost respect for John Simkin -- but this continual habit of referring to this site as his home for the purpose of behavior control, is quite misleading. This is not his home. It is his place of business. Traffic = money. I don't say that in a pejorative fashion. He has done a fantastic job in building this site, and I wish him continued and growing success. But his home? That's just a play for false sympathy. I would think that the only person on this site who actually resides in his place of business is me. For whatever that's worth.

Greg, this forum only costs me money. All advertising on this forum goes to Andy Walker.

Thanks for straightening me out on that John. But just to be clear, I was taking about the whole site - of which this forum is just one small part. If I am still wrong, please correct me, but I don't want to turn this into a debate about you, or the site. I hope you understand the context in which it was raised at all.

[John Simkin]

5. I have the utmost respect for John Simkin -- but this continual habit of referring to this site as his home for the purpose of behavior control, is quite misleading. This is not his home. It is his place of business. Traffic = money. I don't say that in a pejorative fashion. He has done a fantastic job in building this site, and I wish him continued and growing success. But his home? That's just a play for false sympathy. I would think that the only person on this site who actually resides in his place of business is me. For whatever that's worth.

Greg, this forum only costs me money. All advertising on this forum goes to Andy Walker.

Thanks for straightening me out on that John. But just to be clear, I was taking about the whole site - of which this forum is just one small part. If I am still wrong, please correct me, but I don't want to turn this into a debate about you, or the site. I hope you understand the context in which it was raised at all.

Of course I make money from my Spartacus Educational website. But this forum is not part of my main site. It is an independent forum. The only connection is that I pay for both sites. Nor can I see the connection between this and you and other members abusing each other on this forum.

[Greg Parker]

5. I have the utmost respect for John Simkin -- but this continual habit of referring to this site as his home for the purpose of behavior control, is quite misleading. This is not his home. It is his place of business. Traffic = money. I don't say that in a pejorative fashion. He has done a fantastic job in building this site, and I wish him continued and growing success. But his home? That's just a play for false sympathy. I would think that the only person on this site who actually resides in his place of business is me. For whatever that's worth.

Greg, this forum only costs me money. All advertising on this forum goes to Andy Walker.

Thanks for straightening me out on that John. But just to be clear, I was taking about the whole site - of which this forum is just one small part. If I am still wrong, please correct me, but I don't want to turn this into a debate about you, or the site. I hope you understand the context in which it was raised at all.

Of course I make money from my Spartacus Educational website. But I cannot see the connection between this and you and other members abusing each other on this forum.

Exactly my point, John. There is none.

[David Lifton]

[snipped. . to save space]

[snipped]

Joe,

(snipped, to save space)

[snipped]

2.) I don't know why you give such a huge crap about the Mary Bledsoe story and feel the need to rush to its defense.

Nor why you use it to bash anyone in the JFK case that annoys you but this nonsense has to stop. The Mary Bledsoe story is 100% FAKE!

I am more confident of that than I am of knowing what my own name is. I will go over every bit of testimony, cross referencing all of it, I will go over every word, every version of every story told by every witness. I'll go over it street by street. I'll take you by the hand and walk the whole damn bus route with you if you want the next time your in Dallas for a JFK conference.

You have got to get it into your head its made up xxxx. They boxed themselves into a corner making an amalgamation

of two completely different women, neither of whom was Bledsoe, to give credibility to the story of Oswald's escape via public transport, and to give credibility of the story D.A. Henry Wade told Sunday night, after Oswald was dead, that Oswald laughed when he told a woman that the president was shot. When examined carefully the entire story of LHO ever being on McWalters bus falls apart. Everything destroys it. The witnesses destroy each other, simple geography destroys it. Only a total fool would believe it.

They needed a woman who normally took that bus, who would know Oswald, and recite back a story told to her. They found Mary Bledsoe. They prep her and put her into a room, with a female lawyer there to help her as she is questioned by the Warren Commission. The WC people questioning her were not the ones who prepped her. There is no evidence that she really was Oswald's landlady. None. No mail for Oswald was redirected there. There's no receipt for the rent. No independent eyewitness ever saw him at Bledsoe's. There's nothing, except Bledsoe let slip the idea that he left some of his luggage behind. And the WC guys zero in on that. And even that goes nowhere. Even she wants to scream stop asking me about his damn luggage.

The idea that Mary Bledsoe having had a stroke now makes he story more credible to you is a sick joke. Strokes do not improve memory or brain function. A stroke kills a part of the brain. As a medical expert in this case you should know that.

I believe you posted the FBI reports you think rescue her story. I'll look at them again. But, I assure you they do not.

It's not a theory David. It's very simple cross examination of the evidence. It's fact. Oswald was not on that bus. Nor was Bledsoe.

Instead of examining the evidence in an intelligent, logical fashion you've got it stuck in your craw that Bledsoe is actively lying, that she came forward to lie, that she is part of a conspiracy. No. She is used by idiots to tell a story they want told, period. Bledsoe couldn't tell you what day it was without EDIT, even if you told her what day it was and gave her 20 chances to get it right. McWatters couldn't tell you what his name was without saying, "In other words..."

These are poor, working class, blue collar, uneducated people. They are being used and they don't know it. Bledsoe isn't some kind of evil genius. She's a moron. But unlike McWatters they don't give up on her. She's the only way out for them for this impossible story.

Joe Backes

Joe,

I couldn't disagree more. And here's where I believe your theory breaks down. Just consider what you have written:

QUOTE:

They needed a woman who normally took that bus, who would know Oswald, and recite back a story told to her. They found Mary Bledsoe. They prep her and put her into a room, with a female lawyer there to help her as she is questioned by the Warren Commission. The WC people questioning her were not the ones who prepped her. There is no evidence that she really was Oswald's landlady. None. No mail for Oswald was redirected there. There's no receipt for the rent. No independent eyewitness ever saw him at Bledsoe's. There's nothing, except Bledsoe let slip the idea that he left some of his luggage behind. UNQUOTE

Now read the 3 FBI reports I have cited. Again, here are the links:

First FBI interview, 11/23/63, by FBI Agents Harrison and Weir (CD 5, 340-341)

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=329103&imageOnly=true

2nd FBI interview; 11/28/63; by FBI Agent Bardwell Odum; (CD 5, 342-344)

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10406&relPageId=347

3rd interview: 12/4/63; by FBI agents Brown and Butler (CD 7, pp 302 – 303)

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=330120

CD 7 About the shirt (but she goes through it again, that she saw him enter the bus); 12/4/63

Now consider --that is, reconsider--what you have written:

"They prep her and put her into a room, with a female lawyer there to help her as she is questioned by the Warren Commission. The WC people questioning her were not the ones who prepped her."

Now the question I pose comes down to this: "Who are 'they'?"

Your analysis implies that all this skullduggery takes place prior to Bledsoe's Warren Commission testimony--but the 3 FBI reports prove otherwise; those three FBI reports make clear that Bledsoe told her story to FBI agent on 11/23/63--and then again in two more FBI interviews.

INSERT ADDED ON 1/3/12: Also please note: Mary Bledsoe provided her account to the FBI on Saturday, November 23, a full day before the Sunday (11/24) press conference held by District Attorney Wade, in which he made a hash of so many facts. So this notion that Bledsoe was dragged out to present a false account which would lend credibility to what Wade had said on Sunday evening is provably false--again: her initial FBI interview (by agents Harrison and Wier, CD 5, pp 340-341, the first of the 3 links I posted--was a full day prior to Wade's news conference) . END OF INSERT

So this notion--a seriously oversimplified notion, imho--that Mary Bledsoe told a false story, as a result of some "prepping" prior to April 2, 1964, when she was deposed in Dallas by WC attorneys Jenner and Belin, is belied by the fact that she told the same story on November 23, 1963, to FBI agents Harrison and Weir (CD 5, pp 340-341) and then again to FBI Agent Bardwell Odum (on 11/28/63) and then again to FBI agents Brown and Butler on 12/4/63.

So the entire notion that her account is a Warren Commission fabrication, is provably false. It is recorded in a sequence of three separate FBI reports starting on November 23, 1963. As you well know, there was no "Warren Commission" back then. The Commission wasn't created until 11/29/63, and the lawyers didn't report for work until early January, 1964--but Mary Bledsoe's account was already a matter of record in three FBI reports, starting the day after the assassination.

Consequently, the entire notion that her account was a concoction of the Warren Commission is provably false.

(INSERT: . . as is the notion that she was somehow "trotted out" to corroborate what Wade said on Sunday, is false, since she provided her account a full day before, on Saturday, 11/23)

So now, if you wish to argue that Mary Bledsoe's story is false, you must argue that between the afternoon of November 22, 1963, and the very next day (Saturday, November 23) Mary Bledsoe was induced to fabricate this entire story of (a ) having known Oswald as her boarder, and (b ) of having seen him (indeed, immediately recognized him) when he boarded McWatters' bus at Elm and Murphy--and then somehow induced to tell this completely false story to two FBI agents on Saturday, November 23--and not only that, but then to repeat it again on November 28, 1963, and then still again on December 4, 1963.

And then, to appear before two Warren Commission attorneys on April 2, 1964, and go through it all again.

So if Bledsoe is "in on it" --i.e., in on this "conspiracy to lie and fabricate"--she commits multiple felonies on November 23, 1963, does it again on November 28, 1963, and still again on December 4, 1963, and then finally --again commits perjury on April 2, 1964!

Not only do I think that is highly implausible and unlikely--I think its perfectly absurd.

As to what I call the "auxiliary hypothesis"--that Bledsoe wasn't Oswald's landlady (for a week, commencing 10/7/63)--the reason for some folks positing that is obvious: those who advance this preposterous hypothesis need to find a way of "proving" (in their minds) that Bledsoe could not possibly have legitimately "identified" Oswald on the McWatters bus, and so by saying Bledsoe was not his landlady, they remove the basis for that instant recognition. They not only compound her felonies (by saying she is lying about that, too) but then have the flimsy basis for believing that she could not have identified Oswald, as she did, because he never boarded with her (i.e., rented in her home) at 621 N. Marsalis in the first place!

I don't believe any of this, and as far as I'm concerned, the obvious motive for those making these claims is that they do not want Oswald on McWatters bus because (instead) they passionately believe that he left Dealey Plaza in a station wagon, as reported by Roger Craig (and others).

So that, imho, is really what's going on here. Of course, once they march down that path, they get tied up in all kinds of other complications: if Oswald was not on McWatters bus, then he was not the person in Whaley's cab; and if he was not the person in Whaley's cab, why then he was not the person who was dropped off by Whaley and ran into the rooming house at 1026 North Beckley, at around 1 p.m., and--finally--if he was not that person, then someone else ran into the rooming house (not Oswald) and so that leaves open the possibility (in the minds of those advancing all this) that Oswald couldn't have been at the scene of the Tippit murder, and perhaps was simply at the Texas Theater, watching the movie, when the police closed in on the theater and pounced on Oswald as Tippit's killer. Or some variation of this sequence. The details are unimportant. The ultimate goal is to completely overturn the "official timetable" by removing Oswald from McWatters' bus.

I believe this entire line of analysis to be false--and the problem starts with this false notion that Mary Bledsoe, who had certainly been Oswald's landlady, for a week, starting on 10/7/63, and who certainly was a passenger on McWatters bus, did not immediately recognize Oswald when he boarded the bus, at approximately 12:40 P.M.

One other thing: I believe your "social" commentary on Mary Bledsoe is also incorrect. You write: "These are poor, working class, blue collar, uneducated people. They are being used and they don't know it. Bledsoe isn't some kind of evil genius. She's a moron."

Sorry, but she's a doctor's daughter, and I just don't see why you characterize her as you do.

DSL

1/3/12; 5:15 AM PST

Los Angeles, California

PS: 1/3/12; 5:40 PM PST: See important "INSERT" above, re Wade's news conference, and its chronological relationship to first FBI interview, which preceded it by a full day. So much, then, for the theory that Bledsoe was being "used" to "cover" for Wade, and some of his bizarre and inaccurate statements. DSL

Edited January 4, 2012 by David Lifton

[Thomas Graves]

Okay, where do we start....

As a moderator, I would like to state first of all that too many posters on this forum are showing a total lack of respect for the moderating team. As you may know, I probably disagree with most of the other moderators much of the time on the issues discussed here, but I cannot find fault in their attempts to moderate what often degenerates into a juvenile shouting match. How do you moderate what is in effect a seventh grade food fight in the cafeteria? As I've stated before, I don't believe in heavy handed moderation. I have always thought that posters on an internet forum like this one ought to be able to conduct themselves as responsible adults. How many times do we have to beg you to stop the personal attacks, the name calling and the general nastiness? Our words appear to have had little effect on any of you. Also, when you are debating Pat Speer, Tom Scully or any other moderator, there is no need for you to bring up the subject of their moderation, especially when you are ridiculing it, unless it is connected directly to the discussion at hand, which it rarely is.

What are we to do at this point? If we moderated all who have technically violated forum rules, we'd be left with very few regular posters. What makes it all the more frustrating is the fact that the most egregious offenders here are also some of the most knowledgable and interesting posters. Without you all, the discussions would be less educational in nature and the flow of information would be diminished. No one wants that. However, none of us wants the general lack of courtesy towards others to continue, either. There is no excuse for some of the behavior that has been exhibited here recently. Belittling others, bashing moderators- is this the way responsible adults should be conducting themselves on any internet forum? If this were a gaming forum or something, populated primarily by teens and those in their twenties, then perhaps we should expect this kind of stuff. But this is supposed to be a forum dedicated to discussing the assassination of President Kennedy. People from all over the world read what we write here. Do you really feel comfortable with some of the bile that's being posted under your actual names?

David Lifton- you have developed a disturbing tendency to attack the messenger more than the message. It's irrelevant to any discussion at hand, that Greg Parker's web site postulates any particular theory, or that he may believe in an Oswald twin. What Martin Hay or any other poster on this forum does for a living is just as irrelevant to any discussions. Any alleged personal issues regarding Robert Charles-Dunne are most certainly off limits here- don't you sense the irony of you complaining about others bringing up similar things, when you are guilty of doing it yourself? And are you regularly in the habit of alluding to legal action at the drop of a hat? Eventually, people are just going to stop talking to you if they sense that.

Lee Farley- You seem to have a personal animosity towards David Lifton that goes beyond the disagreements many of us have with him on several issues. There is an easily detectable venom in your posts that turns many of us off, even when you are making a logical argument (which you usually are).

Greg Parker- The same can be said for you- you clearly don't like David Lifton and feel comfortable in ridiculing him.

Martin Hay- Again, like Lee and Greg, some of your posts strike me as attempts to "bait" Lifton into something, and he predictably usually accepts the bait, and returns the nastiness. What was the point in passing along the observations of someone who works with Weisberg's papers, that amounted to nothing more than malicious gossip? Anyone that knew Weisberg knows how much he bad mouthed all the other critics. His personal observations regarding Lifton or anyone else don't pack much credibility because of this.

Joe Backes- Do you read the posts on this forum? What makes you think that it's acceptable to drop the "F" bomb and other words of profanity into your arguments? Is this how you normally discuss things? Injecting your own nasty tone into the discussions at hand have accomplished the almost impossible task of making a bad situation worse.

So much more could be said, but I wanted to single out the most egregious offenders and let them know how I view things. I am disappointed at having to keep posting things like this, but most of you simply won't try and reform yourselves. Think of this forum as someone's home- would you act so beligerantly, attacking those you disagree with personally, calling names- if you were their guest? PLEASE start showing everyone respect, even those you strongly oppose on each and every issue. There is no excuse for this kind of behavior from people as educated and well spoken as all of you are. You can all make your arguments more effectively if you stop the name calling, the references to other posters' occupations, lack of qualifications, avator photos, etc.

If you want a heavy, hands on moderation team, then you're doing everything you can to get that. I don't think anyone would benefit from that, but you can't expect even the most tolerant team of moderators to continue to ignore what's been going on here. John Simkin provides a place for us all to express ourselves and communicate with others from around the world. If you can't or won't respect what I'm saying, or the moderation team in general, try to recognize that it is John's forum, and conduct yourselves as mature adults who know better.

Ok, Don.

You've admonished David, Lee, Greg, Joseph and myself for what you percieve as our bad behaviour and/or infractions of forum rules.

Fine. I can take it on the chin.

Now when does Pat Speer get admonsihed for basically calling me a xxxx?

Is that not against forum rules?

Or do the moderators take care of their own?

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

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

Don Jeffries,

--Tommy

[John Dolva]

I think everyone should feel admonished. I certainly do. I like the bit about ''Think of this forum as someone's home'' that one is a visitor to. What does civil constructive dialogue demand? I think an introspection is necessary. At the same time there are battles that are fought. (Personally I think the benign martial art GO helpfu)l. Sometimes the nastinesses tell more about the person being so as well as the one who cannot be the one to stop being so plus all the other various ways people use to claw themselves to wherever they think they should be.

Or something like that.

[Dean Hagerman]

I would think that the only person on this site who actually resides in his place of business is me. For whatever that's worth.

I reside in my place of buisness as well, my wife and I run a public buisness (not some sit at home selling stuff on Ebay fake job) and our home suffers severe abuse every day

The only reason we are sticking with it is the great income it provides

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

This thread reminds me why I no longer participate in JFK discussions. I enjoy a good relationship with several of the people named in this thread and would describe them as decent human beings, however, when they get involved in a discussion on the JFK assassination, they can become very unpleasant. I am sure they would say somebody else started it, but all I see is the results of the arguments.

John, with all due respect - and I think you know I mean that as more than a nicety - this attitude you’ve just displayed toward those aggrieved by Lifton’s track record on the Forum is at the very heart of the problem.

You seem to be saying that whomever “starts it,” is an irrelevant detail. And that anybody injured by whomever “started it” has no recourse, not even self-defense, lest Teacher find fault. And that whomever “starts it” is in the clear, so long as s/he is allowed to get away with it by authority figures such as yourself, which is what has happened. I doubt very much that you spent your career in the classroom ignoring the provocations of bullies and then telling their victims to “suck it up,” but that is how you are coming across with the above comment.

When the first infractions - Lifton’s bizarrely bilious treatment of fellow members - went unpunished and unchallenged by moderators too cowardly to deal with it, this only emboldened Lifton to commit greater atrocities against decorum, and required the fellow members subjected to his unfair and irrelevant personal attacks to respond in kind.

Read for yourself the offending threads and it’s transparently clear what has transpired on your Forum as a direct result of your moderators not doing what your stated rules require of them. I only became embroiled in this because of the remorselessly shabby treatment dished out to Lee Farley, and wouldn’t have felt compelled to come to his defense had a single moderator made a single objection to such scurrilous childishness. How many aspersions of Lee Farley’s character, integrity and mental competency must he be required to tolerate before he is forgiven for responding in kind? (It has since grown to encompass all others who came to Lee’s defense, irrespective of whether they necessarily believe his hypotheses about anything.)

Now, you seem perfectly happy to wave all of this away as immaterial. You should not be so blithe. The tolerance of such bullying abuse by a Forum member of other members brings disrepute to the Forum. It is better to have no rules than rules that are unequally applied. There can be no justice without equity, yet both have been made sorely conspicuous by their absence. Hence, the howls of outrage

Don Jeffries - whom I’ve “known” in the internet sense of reading his contributions for more than a decade and quite like - has observed something important: “We hear this constantly, that we're biased towards David Lifton.”

If you only “hear this” complaint from those arguing with Lifton, you might despair that it’s a classic case of “he said/they said.” If you are hearing this complaint from members who have no skin in the game one way or the other, you might wish to consider why that perception has gained currency among the membership. If that perception is widespread, how can you deny it reflects directly upon the performance of your own minions here?

Moderators appear to be demanding forgiveness from the victims of the bully’s excesses, while doing nothing to curb those excesses. And you then mock their indignation as a childish matter of “who started it,” as though he who cast the first stone should be considered blameless.

I know for a fact that you do not live your life in such a moral vacuum and would ask that you pay closer attention to what transpires on your own Forum. If it makes you uncomfortable, and you run it, just think of the calumny that is felt by those who are the victims of needless, and irrelevant aspersions allowed daily by your moderators.

Will you now say it’s not your fault because you didn’t start it?