Jump to content
The Education Forum

Clearing The Air


Recommended Posts

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.

Every single one of your replies make you sound just like the upper class snobs you claim to hate

Don is the best mod on this forum, the way you are talking to him is out of line

Now some of the other mods is a different story

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 87
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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,

clapping.gif

--Tommy smile.gif

DITTO........Don, just a thought, but it has seemed to me at times, when posts are made invisible, that it seems to bother

members more than any other action taken, talking i hate to say, gets you no where, imo...why, because in the first place any who are guilty will never admit it, as you said like children, pointing the finger.....best to you and the other mods, for the important but terrible job that lays on their shoulders, and the reason,that i would not accept the offer of being one..it takes the patience of Jobe, and that i believe, i lost some years back, .again, thanks for the forum John...best b

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Good to see we have something in common, Dean.

(apart from the great income and home abuse). Me? I work 15 hours a day, 6 days a week just to keep my head above water....

Every single one of your replies make you sound just like the upper class snobs you claim to hate

Don is the best mod on this forum, the way you are talking to him is out of line

Now some of the other mods is a different story

Dean, I never said I hated anyone. Like Don, you are replying to something that exists only in your own head (and that you think can justify getting your heckles raised about), instead of what was actually said.

The way I talked to to him is out of line? I'm sorry, but the made up stuff he was replying to made him out of line. Having a tough job doesn't give him the right to do that. I am not playing games here, nor avoiding the facts. I did my utmost to respond directly, clearly and honestly to him. I know that is heretical behavior in some circumstances here, but... well... again that is just tough. If not sitting back and taking Lifton's libels on the chin any more doesn't meet with the moderators approval - again, tough. But they better make damn sure when they come after me, they do so with facts and figures to back up what they say - and make damn sure what they say is actually responsive and objective - not the emotive crap designed to appeal to, and gain the support of, the likes of you and others who can't even tell the way the language is being used to manipulate the way they feel about what is happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Can I ask what is happening here? When I go back and look at John's comment, it now reads, "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." Yet there is no indication of editing to add, leaving the impression I only partially quoted John. Not being paranoid, nor making accusations. But it does seem to indicate that John and/or the mods can edit without trace.

Responding now to the added information: That you do not make money on this forum is no indication it is not part of your business. Like I said, I'm not trying to make this about you, or your site/s. You need to speak to Don about why he raised it. "It" being that this is your "home". I simply repudiated that claim as fallacious designed only to induce (undue) guilt and pointed out that it is not a home, but a business.

I know you are fed up, John. But so am I - and I at least try and see what has transpired from your perspective. Regardless, friendships should be able to endure differences of this kind. Apart from that - RC-D (as always) put down the history of this far better than I have been able to. Or maybe the person usually regarded as the voice of sanity, reason and logic has also lost the plot, along with me, Lee and Martin?

edit: typo

Edited by Greg Parker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

I am not knowledgeable on the Bledsoe case, but here David Lifton has calmly and rationally presented his case that Bledsoe was on the bus in a manner Joseph Backes can respond in kind. I think that is what forum members like myself who are not researchers but interested readers expect from those who have invested their lives trying to bring the truth of this case to light. I can glean from Lifton's post exactly what supports Bledsoe's being on the bus and the weakness of the position that she wasn't. If all such controversial issues were discussed in the tone and clarity Lifton provides for us here, there would be no need of moderators. Kudos, David, for a well-thought out position, which certainly will promote a well-thought out rebuttal. Regards, Dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg,

You seem to be unduly concerned about my comparing this forum to someone's home. You're certainly an intelligent guy, so you get the analogy. Why is it outrageous for me to suggest that every poster here try to be more civil and abide by the forum rules? Yes, I know, David Lifton doesn't abide by them, either. Where I differ from you and some others here is by recognizing that David's nastiness and personal attacks didn't occur in a vacuum-there was a give and take between himself and Lee Farley, subsequently joined by you and Martin Hay, in which no one looked heroic and everyone at some point violated the tenets of minimally acceptable forum etiquette.

If I have an idealogical bias about the subject matter in these threads, it would be against the positions David Lifton has espoused. The inference that the moderators here have "coddled" David, or somehow been more lenient than we should be towards him is unfair. If you want to maintain that we've been too hands-off in general, then I, at least, would certainly plead guilty in that regard. I've admitted several times that my inclination is to let the debates flow in a free form fashion, and that includes the input of David Lifton, Lee Farley, you and every other poster on this forum. I never voted to moderate or punish you, Lee or Martin. I never liked heavy handed moderation on a forum, so when I was asked to become a moderator, I decided to try and be the kind of moderator I would feel most comfortable with.

This is a really simple issue. Make your arguments as passionately as you want, even point out the inconsistencies and illogical nature of what other posters are saying. Claim their ideas or theories are absurd. But there is no need to garnish your posts with juvenile names. Or references to someone's occupation. Or perceived lack of qualifications. Or their physical appearance in their avatar photo. The most irrefutable information and logic can be undermined by a few gratuitious "idiots" or "jerks" or a mean spirited allegation about another poster's station in life or lack of formal education. Is it really too much to ask? Exactly how am I being biased towards David Lifton by requesting that you all try and do this?

JFK liked to quote the old Chinese proverb, "A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step." Upon signing the nuclear test ban treaty with the Soviets, he declared, "Let history record that we, in this land, at this time took the first step." I'd love to see you, or any of the other posters I mentioned, take that first step.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not knowledgeable on the Bledsoe case, but here David Lifton has calmly and rationally presented his case that Bledsoe was on the bus in a manner Joseph Backes can respond in kind. I think that is what forum members like myself who are not researchers but interested readers expect from those who have invested their lives trying to bring the truth of this case to light. I can glean from Lifton's post exactly what supports Bledsoe's being on the bus and the weakness of the position that she wasn't. If all such controversial issues were discussed in the tone and clarity Lifton provides for us here, there would be no need of moderators. Kudos, David, for a well-thought out position, which certainly will promote a well-thought out rebuttal. Regards, Dan

Dan,

your friend goes on and on that no one knew about the FBI interviews before he told us, and this is where we made our mistake.

But as usual, he is talking through the wrong orifice and refuses all efforts to be corrected. Perhaps you will be more forthcoming and admit that - why yes - there it right there. Those guys first mention those FBI interviews on page 4 of a very long thread - and well before DSL joined in.

http://educationforu...pic=17269&st=45

The lawyer who helped get Bledsoe through the interview was not just any lawyer. She was part of a coterie of influential Dallas females who were in LBJ's inner circle and included Sarah Hughes who swore LBJ in and Louise Raggio who was in the same church as Michael Paine, but who represented Ruth Paine in proposed divorce proceedings.

On this page, you've find a picture of the bus transfer which helped place Oswald on McWatters bus. David has thus far resisted all temptation to give us his no doubt brilliant understanding of how it remained in such pristine condition in Oswald's shirt pocket considering the roughing up it, and he, got during the arrest. Maybe you'd like to have a go at explaining it?

The only evidence placing Oswald at Mary's house was a calendar allegedly made by Oswald confirming he paid the rent for the first week. This was offered to the FBI by the young man who had PURCHASED it for $4.00 from Mary's son, Porter. The FBI allegedly took a copy of it and left it that. We do not know what happened to the copy. There is no evidence the handwriting was examined (and in any case, they should have kept the original for that, as well as for an examination for prints) . What does that tell you? I'll tell you what it tells me. The FBI knew it was bogus and that is why did not keep it - much less examine it. The kid ended up getting $250.00 at auction for it - which shows any brains Mary may have had, certainly weren't inherited by her son.

Anyhow, here is the news story of the auction sale: http://www.maryferre...bsPageId=737239

Note that the story said Oswald wrote his name "laboriously"? That phrase was actually used by the hand-writing expert used by the auction company (who had a vested interest in maintaining the lie that it was Oswald's writing). But why would Oswald have any difficulty writing his own name? The answer is , he wouldn't. But who would? An elderly lady, or her not-too-bright son, that's who - for the sake of a few bucks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tom Scully

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?

Robert Charles-Dunne,

I am very disappointed you decided to take the approach I've included in the quote box, above. My impression of what happened here on this past 1st of August was that you set an inspiring example of how not to take the bait and reply in kind when you found yourself targeted. In the midst of my repeated attempts to moderate the sustained posting activity aimed at you in a negative way having nothing to do with the topic at hand, you posted just once in response to it all. You resisted fanning the flames, or wading in to mix it up with the offending member.

In contrast to what predictably happens, you seemed like a partner in my effort, which lasted many hours, and would have seemed almost a complete waste of my time, if not for the restraint you extended and the patience you practiced. You ended your post with a reference to my demonstration of patience in the way I was trying to moderate. Kathy Beckett soon followed with a link to an older comment posted by John, which removed even the slimmest doubt that there was any merit to justify the barrage of posts aimed at you, personally.

By your current argument, I know you recognize that one in your situation, as a target, could have legitimately indulged himself last August, taken the bait, replied in kind to your tormentor, and then blamed him for "starting it". I have the sense from that experience involving you, that you didn't think taking that "out" was legitimate, at least not for you and the standard you set for how you conduct yourself.

So why are you excusing other members who permit a third party to set them off, excusing themselves for responding in kind to juvenile name calling or to catty, taunting barbs intended to trigger a mirrored, ugly reaction? Why do you criticize moderators for not accepting the excuses of "he started it!", "he made me dot it!". From a young age, I instilled in my son the notion that prisons are full of people who absolve themselves of responsibility for their own violent reaction to perceived slights and provocations from others. I taught my son that each of us always has a choice of how to react in anger, and that no one "makes us" do anything; that no one is responsible for the choice we make of raising a fist or turning the other cheek. I can recall all of my boy's feeble arguments against what I was trying to teach him. He is a man now, and he accepts that only he is responsible for the way he chooses to respond to anything anyone else says or does to him....no excuses. Countless times I reminded him that no one could make him do anything, he always had a choice to escalate or to remain composed.

When another member provokes you, either you become a partner of the moderator who becomes involved, or you choose to become another who needs to be moderated. If you post that "I couldn't let him get away with that," why would I accept that as an excuse absolving you, when I never accepted a similar shirking of responsibility from my young son.

Do you accept, Robert, that members who reply in kind are not as responsible for their posted language and tone, as the person "who starts it" is for what is in his preceding (inciting?) post? Are those who declare that they "couldn't just sit there and let him get away with posting that," half as responsible as their tormentor? As a man, now, my son would agree with me that a man takes responsibility for anything that he does; that no one can make anyone do anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dan,

your friend goes on and on that no one knew about the FBI interviews before he told us, and this is where we made our mistake.

But as usual, he is talking through the wrong orifice and refuses all efforts to be corrected. Perhaps you will be more forthcoming and admit that - why yes - there it right there. Those guys first mention those FBI interviews on page 4 of a very long thread - and well before DSL joined in.

http://educationforu...pic=17269&st=45

The lawyer who helped get Bledsoe through the interview was not just any lawyer. She was part of a coterie of influential Dallas females who were in LBJ's inner circle and included Sarah Hughes who swore LBJ in and Louise Raggio who was in the same church as Michael Paine, but who represented Ruth Paine in proposed divorce proceedings.

On this page, you've find a picture of the bus transfer which helped place Oswald on McWatters bus. David has thus far resisted all temptation to give us his no doubt brilliant understanding of how it remained in such pristine condition in Oswald's shirt pocket considering the roughing up it, and he, got during the arrest. Maybe you'd like to have a go at explaining it?

The only evidence placing Oswald at Mary's house was a calendar allegedly made by Oswald confirming he paid the rent for the first week. This was offered to the FBI by the young man who had PURCHASED it for $4.00 from Mary's son, Porter. The FBI allegedly took a copy of it and left it that. We do not know what happened to the copy. There is no evidence the handwriting was examined (and in any case, they should have kept the original for that, as well as for an examination for prints) . What does that tell you? I'll tell you what it tells me. The FBI knew it was bogus and that is why did not keep it - much less examine it. The kid ended up getting $250.00 at auction for it - which shows any brains Mary may have had, certainly weren't inherited by her son.

Anyhow, here is the news story of the auction sale: http://www.maryferre...bsPageId=737239

Note that the story said Oswald wrote his name "laboriously"? That phrase was actually used by the hand-writing expert used by the auction company (who had a vested interest in maintaining the lie that it was Oswald's writing). But why would Oswald have any difficulty writing his own name? The answer is , he wouldn't. But who would? An elderly lady, or her not-too-bright son, that's who - for the sake of a few bucks.

Greg,

Except for the parts I've bolded, that was a typically persuasive post. Can't you see how much more effective it would be without the unnecessary nastiness or sarcasm? Don't you understand how much harder it would be for David to respond inappropriately himself, if you stuck to your strong analysis of the evidence?

Edited by Don Jeffries
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

I am not knowledgeable on the Bledsoe case, but here David Lifton has calmly and rationally presented his case that Bledsoe was on the bus in a manner Joseph Backes can respond in kind. I think that is what forum members like myself who are not researchers but interested readers expect from those who have invested their lives trying to bring the truth of this case to light. I can glean from Lifton's post exactly what supports Bledsoe's being on the bus and the weakness of the position that she wasn't. If all such controversial issues were discussed in the tone and clarity Lifton provides for us here, there would be no need of moderators. Kudos, David, for a well-thought out position, which certainly will promote a well-thought out rebuttal. Regards, Dan

Hi Dan,

Thanks for your positive responds. I hope my post clarified the issue; whether it persuades people to change their mind is another matter. I noticed that Greg Parker, in responding to your post, cited "page 4" of a particular thread. I looked at "page 4" of that thread. I don't see where anyone posted the links to those 3 FBI reports, as I did. (In fact, I don't see a link to any one of them).

If/when Parker clarifies his post (and drops the insults) perhaps it deserves a response.

DSL

Edited by David Lifton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg,

You seem to be unduly concerned about my comparing this forum to someone's home. You're certainly an intelligent guy, so you get the analogy.

Don,

Pointing out that this forum is not analogous to a "home" and that the term was used purely to gain sympathy for your skewed views on this debacle from the overly sentimental among us, and to induce guilt in me, is being "unduly concerned"?

I don't think so.

But I ask where you and every other mod was hiding every time Mr L showed "undue concern" for the private lives and background details of those with whom he disagrees?

Why is it outrageous for me to suggest that every poster here try to be more civil and abide by the forum rules?

Once again, your imagination is running wild. I never said it was "outrageous". If you are trying to get me to lose my cool, you are certainly going the right way about it with this habit of attempting to put words in my mouth. Again - hopefully for the last time - all I did was point out this forum is not analogous to a "home" and that it was a dishonest warping of reality to try and compare it to one. A simple plea to be civil would not have drawn any criticism in and of itself.

Yes, I know, David Lifton doesn't abide by them, either. Where I differ from you and some others here is by recognizing that David's nastiness and personal attacks didn't occur in a vacuum-there was a give and take between himself and Lee Farley, subsequently joined by you and Martin Hay, in which no one looked heroic and everyone at some point violated the tenets of minimally acceptable forum etiquette.

No. They did not start in a vacuum. They started here at post #225 in what, as far as I can see, is DSL's first post in the thread

http://educationforu...ic=17269&st=210

"I'm sure glad you're in the field of TV script writing, or whatever it is you do. . because all of this attests to your powers of imagination. If you were in physical chemistry, I can just see you standing in front of the class, with your own version of the Periodic Table, waving your arms and telling everyone that the hydrogen atom really has three electrons, that water is really not H2O, but perhaps H5O, and explaining to everyone why your version of physical chemistry and thermodynamics really makes sense--and now if only everyone will be smart and astute enough to recognize your capabilities, why you'll provide the address to which they should send you your Nobel Prize.

Really. . . I'd like to see sensible answers to some of these questions. Do you think, given your assertion(s), that even half of them can be answered in any reasonable fashion?"

Oh, but I forgot. It doesn't matter who started it. It only matters who retaliates after taking reams of this stuff and having watched it go unmolested by any moderation whatsoever. And those who retaliate can be sure that they will be lectured, censored or sanctioned while those in the peanut gallery applaud your brainwashing of them through spinning what happened into a three on one tag team against the hapless, defenseless (and no doubt in this fable, appropriately named) David.

If I have an idealogical bias about the subject matter in these threads, it would be against the positions David Lifton has espoused. The inference that the moderators here have "coddled" David, or somehow been more lenient than we should be towards him is unfair.

"Unfair"? "UNFAIR"???? On you?? Too funny - too ironic for words.

But okay. I did ask before that if you come after me, to do it with facts. I'll give you another chance here.

Provide the evidence that proves moderation has been fairly applied to all parties by giving me one. JUST ONE LOUSY ONE example of where any of you - prior to you jumping in here - have "moderated" Lifton -- even mildly. Hell, I'll even accept "unofficial, friendly off-the-books" raps over the knuckles. Then I will list all the examples where it has been applied to me, Lee and Martin.

If you want to maintain that we've been too hands-off in general,

Nope. Too hands off specifically with one individual. You're a bright fellow. I'm sure that is going to sink in soon. Moderation for some involved, but not for the person who very clearly instigated the affray. In short, who started it would hardly matter if that person had received the same treatment as those he has targeted.

then I, at least, would certainly plead guilty in that regard.

Yes yes. I get it Don. You're a GOP moderator. Less interference is best.

I've admitted several times that my inclination is to let the debates flow in a free form fashion, and that includes the input of David Lifton, Lee Farley, you and every other poster on this forum. I never voted to moderate or punish you, Lee or Martin. I never liked heavy handed moderation on a forum, so when I was asked to become a moderator, I decided to try and be the kind of moderator I would feel most comfortable with.

Understood. But all that really means is that we have a moderation team who are rarely on the same page about anything. And that leads to lack of fairness and consistency.

This is a really simple issue. Make your arguments as passionately as you want, even point out the inconsistencies and illogical nature of what other posters are saying. Claim their ideas or theories are absurd. But there is no need to garnish your posts with juvenile names.

Where have I done that? I have changed his name only because it was being edited anyway. I sure as hell haven't called anyone any names in the manner you seem to be suggesting. Back it up if you can, by all means.

Or references to someone's occupation.

Again... please show where I have done that? The only person - apart from DSL who has that I'm aware of is Pat Speer with his completely unwarranted slur that all Weisberg was was a "cranky old chicken farmer" (or something to that effect).

Or perceived lack of qualifications.

Jesus H Christ! Where have I done that? Where? If this kind of stuff upsets you so much (and it should) then the person you need to speak to is David S Lifton. But that's the whole problem, isn't it? He has been allowed to do this kind of thing without sanction since his first reply to Lee and instead of addressing him about it, you are lecturing me! And you wonder why I get pissed off?

Or their physical appearance in their avatar photo. The most irrefutable information and logic can be undermined by a few gratuitious "idiots" or "jerks" or a mean spirited allegation about another poster's station in life or lack of formal education. Is it really too much to ask? Exactly how am I being biased towards David Lifton by requesting that you all try and do this?

My head is about to explode. Fair dinkum. I am just completely and utterly disgusted that you have the audacity to ask me stop calling people "idiots" or "jerks" when I have never done that. I don't think even Lifton has called anyone those names.

When are you going to ask me to stop beating my wife? That question can't be too far off can it? .

JFK liked to quote the old Chinese proverb, "A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step." Upon signing the nuclear test ban treaty with the Soviets, he declared, "Let history record that we, in this land, at this time took the first step." I'd love to see you, or any of the other posters I mentioned, take that first step.

And I'd like to see some fair, consistent and equitable moderation. I guess we'll both have to learn to live with disappointment.

Edited by Greg Parker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.maryferre...&imageOnly=true

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

http://www.maryferre...6&relPageId=347

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

http://www.maryferre...bsPageId=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

I am not knowledgeable on the Bledsoe case, but here David Lifton has calmly and rationally presented his case that Bledsoe was on the bus in a manner Joseph Backes can respond in kind. I think that is what forum members like myself who are not researchers but interested readers expect from those who have invested their lives trying to bring the truth of this case to light. I can glean from Lifton's post exactly what supports Bledsoe's being on the bus and the weakness of the position that she wasn't. If all such controversial issues were discussed in the tone and clarity Lifton provides for us here, there would be no need of moderators. Kudos, David, for a well-thought out position, which certainly will promote a well-thought out rebuttal. Regards, Dan

Hi Dan,

Thanks for your positive responds. I hope my post clarified the issue; whether it persuades people to change their mind is another matter. I noticed that Greg Parker, in responding to your post, cited "page 4" of a particular thread. I looked at "page 4" of that thread. I don't see where anyone posted the links to those 3 FBI reports, as I did. (In fact, I don't see a link to any one of them).

If/when Parker clarifies his post (and drops the insults) perhaps it deserves a response.

DSL

Drop the insults? You always demand a response, even when 90% of your post is one long insult. But you can use that as an excuse if you want. If it wasn't that, you'd have another excuse, or diversion, lined up anyway.

For those interested, see post # 53 here http://educationforu...pic=17269&st=45 by Duke.

In reading some of the thread again, I am reminded that me and Duke also had a "war" against each other - perhaps nearly as "mean-spirited" as that alleged between Lee and Lifton. It got to the point where Duke left. I don't know if it was my persuasion, but he did come back. The success of that thread was greatly assisted because of his return. So what was the difference? In retrospect, I believe the difference between the two conflicts was a matter of mutual respect. Duke and I had that at the start, and it won out (eventually) over personality conflicts. David S Lifton on the other hand, entered the thread with zero respect for anyone harboring doubts about Bledsoe. And that lack of respect showed from the get-go.

End of reminiscences regarding the Dukester.

If you now go to post # 55, you'll see I mention the second FBI report and provide a link to the third.

So David's continual harping that no one on that thread knew about those reports until he came along, and that therefore, they were given no consideration, is completely and utterly bogus.

Edited by Greg Parker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Bledsoe was 1/3 a xxxx, 1/3 brainwashed, and 1/3 nothing, but a demented, old woman. In no case, she is a credible witness.

She was, like Marina Oswald, B. W. Frazier, Tippit-Witness Callaway, or smoking gun witness Brennan exact the kind of suggestible "witness" that the WC stuff needed to bolster there act of past-design, called the Warren Report. The Warren Report belongs to the same category as Mein Kampf and The protocols of the elderly of zion, and I do not understand, why Lifton buys central parts of it.

The only motive to read the WR today, is to find out how they lied. And that is monkey business.

KK

Edited by Karl Kinaski
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Bledsoe was 1/3 a xxxx, 1/3 brainwashed, and 1/3 nothing, but a demented, old woman. In no case, she is a credible witness.

She was, like Marina Oswald, B. W. Frazier, Tippit-Witness Callaway, or smoking gun witness Brennan exact the kind of suggestible "witness" that the WC stuff needed to bolster there act of past-design, called the Warren Report. The Warren Report belongs to the same category as Mein Kampf and The protocols of the elderly of zion, and I do not understand, why Lifton buys central parts of it.

The only motive to read the WR today, is to find out how they lied. And that is monkey business.

KK

Hi Karl,

Its not at all clear to me why anyone--much less yourself--would write that I "buys central parts of [the Warren Report]".

For over 40 years, I have believed that Oswald was (a) innocent of JFK's assassination, (b ) was a patsy (as he said);and (c ) was framed.

What perhaps differentiates me from some others is that I have a very complete understanding of "how"he was framed, and realize that it revolves around a falsified autopsy, which in turn was based on an altered body.

Consequently, where I draw the line between "the deceiver and the deceived" is possibly different than where others do.

I have a very clear understanding played by the role of deception in this case. Many do not. They actually subscribe to the notion that "the case against Oswald" is the result of a bunch of people who simply lied. But that's not what happened in the Kennedy case. The "case against Oswald" is the result of falsified evidence,which deceived the investigation(s).

The rifle is real; the shells are real; the sniper's nest was "real." What was falsified was the autopsy, via corruption of the body itself; and the films.

Those who mistakenly believe that the Warren Report is simply the result of a pack of lies told by the Warren Commission staff are wrong. If you go to the National Archives and read through the voluminous files of the WC staff, it will become immediately apparent that they proceeded down the garden path because they were led there via falsified evidence.

Now let's return to Mary Bledsoe, for a moment; and let's compare her situation with that of Commander Humes, at the autopsy.

One of the reasons I believe that on Friday night, November 22, 1963, Commander Humes (et al) could not find a path for a missile through the body of JFK is that that's exactly what he said--and he said it in front of two FBI agents, Sibert and O'Neill, who wrote down his words, and filed a report--known as an FBI 302 report (or, in this case, as the Sibert and O'Neill report).

Because of that FBI report stating what the agents witnessed, the "later" version of events--i.e.,the official autopsy report, stating that there was a legitimate "back to front" path through Kennedy's body, is rejected by many (including me).

That's the power of an "early" FBI report.

In the case of Mary Bledsoe, there are --by analogy--THREE such FBI reports: one on 11/23, another on 11/28, and a third on 12/4.

Three times Mary Bledsoe was interviewed; three times she averred she was on the bus; five agents in all interivewed her; three reports were written.

I believe her story because she told the same story "early" and the told it three times.

In addition, she said the same thing in her Dallas Police affidavit--on 11/23/63. So that makes FOUR times.

Two of those Four times precede the Henry Wade news conference (on 11/24) in which he garbled the facts, and made a mess of things.

If you were in an ordinary auto accident and told the same story FOUR times, in such a brief period of time (as Bledsoe did), it really would not matter that, five months later, when you testified, and perhaps spoke haltingly (because of a stroke), your testimony was attacked and criticized. Your legitimate response could well be: "Look, I'm not doing very well today, but I already told this story FOUR times."

That's exactly the way I feel about Mary Bledsoe.

I really don't see what the problem is.

I believe her,about being on the bus when Oswald boarded, for the same reason(s) that I believe FBI agents Sibert and O'Neill, who witnessed the autopsy.

They were present, and watched Humes conduct the exam. They wrote down what he said. THere was no path for a bullet from back to front through the body--that's what Humes said on Friday night, 11/22/63.

Similarly, Mary Bledsoe gave her version of events FOUR times in eight days.

Now if two FBI agents had been on the bus, and were present when Oswald boarded, she could have pointed to him, and told them, "See that fellow, I know him. He roomed at my residence for a week starting on October 7 1963." Of course, two FBI agents were NOT present on the McWatters bus, but I am making an analogy. I am trying to explain why I believe Mary Bledsoe.

I believe Bledsoe because she essentially provided the same account FOUR times in eight days, and each time it was written down.

I don't think there's anything mysterious or particularly complicated about this.

I'm not concerned whether she was confused in April, 1964, when she was deposed. I'm focused on what she said in the immediate aftermath.

Also please note:

The fact that Oswald boarded the McWatters bus about 12:40 PM does not make him guilty of Kennedy's assassination--but it certainly does "rain on the parade" of those who fervently believe there are "two Oswalds" or some such thing, and that an imposter was involved in the events starting a few minutes after Kennedy's death.

I don't subscribe to any of that, and that's why I have no problem, at all, with Oswald being on McWatters bus, and then being the passenger in Whaley's cab.

I maintain that none of this is inconsistent with him being innocent of JFK's assassination.

Now let's return to your final sentence, and I quote: "The only motive to read the WR today, is to find out how they lied."

I disagree. The motive for reading the WR today is to understand how "they" were deceived. Because only if one understands how the deception worked, can one understand why the legal record in this case "looks" as it does, and, consequently, Warren Report reads as it does--and that is true whether the issue is Mary Bledsoe, or JFK's autopsy.

DSL

1/4/12; 5 AM

Los Angeles, CA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.maryferre...&imageOnly=true

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

http://www.maryferre...6&relPageId=347

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

http://www.maryferre...bsPageId=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

I am not knowledgeable on the Bledsoe case, but here David Lifton has calmly and rationally presented his case that Bledsoe was on the bus in a manner Joseph Backes can respond in kind. I think that is what forum members like myself who are not researchers but interested readers expect from those who have invested their lives trying to bring the truth of this case to light. I can glean from Lifton's post exactly what supports Bledsoe's being on the bus and the weakness of the position that she wasn't. If all such controversial issues were discussed in the tone and clarity Lifton provides for us here, there would be no need of moderators. Kudos, David, for a well-thought out position, which certainly will promote a well-thought out rebuttal. Regards, Dan

Hi Dan,

Thanks for your positive responds. I hope my post clarified the issue; whether it persuades people to change their mind is another matter. I noticed that Greg Parker, in responding to your post, cited "page 4" of a particular thread. I looked at "page 4" of that thread. I don't see where anyone posted the links to those 3 FBI reports, as I did. (In fact, I don't see a link to any one of them).

If/when Parker clarifies his post (and drops the insults) perhaps it deserves a response.

DSL

Drop the insults? You always demand a response, even when 90% of your post is one long insult. But you can use that as an excuse if you want. If it wasn't that, you'd have another excuse, or diversion, lined up anyway.

For those interested, see post # 53 here http://educationforu...pic=17269&st=45 by Duke.

In reading some of the thread again, I am reminded that me and Duke also had a "war" against each other - perhaps nearly as "mean-spirited" as that alleged between Lee and Lifton. It got to the point where Duke left. I don't know if it was my persuasion, but he did come back. The success of that thread was greatly assisted because of his return. So what was the difference? In retrospect, I believe the difference between the two conflicts was a matter of mutual respect. Duke and I had that at the start, and it won out (eventually) over personality conflicts. David S Lifton on the other hand, entered the thread with zero respect for anyone harboring doubts about Bledsoe. And that lack of respect showed from the get-go.

End of reminiscences regarding the Dukester.

If you now go to post # 55, you'll see I mention the second FBI report and provide a link to the third.

So David's continual harping that no one on that thread knew about those reports until he came along, and that therefore, they were given no consideration, is completely and utterly bogus.

I'm not buying any of this.

The posts you cite constitute scattered references to these FBI pages, where the focus seems to be the number of holes in Oswald's shirt.

Presentation is everything; so is focus.

My focus was then--and still is now--against the notion that Bledsoe wasn't even on the bus.

To appreciate the power of the message transmitted by these three interviews, they must be presented as a triplet.

That's exactly what I did. I presented them as a triplet, provided the links, and argued that it was not just improbable, but absurd to believe that Bledsoe lied three times in eight days to five different FBI agents.

The difference between my approach, and that of the two post(s) you are citing is the difference between looking at the forest and getting lost by focusing on some bark on one of the trees.

From the outset, I was focused on the big picture--was she there? (not. . "how many holes were there in the shirt? And did she mess up in describing that?" etc)

The posts you cite concern the question of whether Oswald had a hole in the left or right elbow, on the shirt he was wearing, when Bledsoe saw him board the bus.

There's no comparison.

I stand by my statement that I was the first person to present these reports as a triplet, and say: Do you folks understand what this means? Yes, she was really there. Mary Bledsoe was on the McWatters bus, and said so, three times in eight days, to five different FBI agents, the first time being on November 23, 1963.

And no, I don't think that the proponents of the "Bledsoe wasn't there" hypothesis, or the notion that "Bledsoe wasn't Oswald's landlady" hypothesis had any true understanding of the importance of the existence of THREE FBI interviews in eight days attesting to, supporting, and essentially validating, her story.

DSL

1/4/12; 5:20 AM

Los Angeles,CA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...