Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Great JFK Debate: Jim Fetzer vs. Gary Mack


Guest James H. Fetzer
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest James H. Fetzer

BACKGROUND:

During a thread that originated over the new contributions of K.D. Ruckman to the "Oswald in the doorway" debate, where his interview on "The Real Deal" of 20 February has now been published:

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 2012

K. D. Ruckman

JFK: More on Oswald in the Doorway

Ralph Cinque engaged in an exchange with David Lifton, Gary Mark, David Healy, Jerry Dealey, Bernice Moore, John Costella, Jack White, David Mantik, and me:

Dr. Ralph Cinque

Mar 2 (4 days ago)

to dlifton, gmack, shake_aeffects, jerry, me, bmoore1242, john.costella, jwjfk, dmantik

KD Ruckman added the observation that besides the right collars matching, the notched t-shirts matching, and the left lapels matching, you'll also notice that with the foldover on the left side of both that you see Oswald's bulging about half-way down, whereas the bulge on Doorman's seems to occur lower, close to the bottom. Keep in mind that in all of the images of Oswald in that shirt, it hangs a little differently each time. Every time Oswald shifted, the shirt shifted and hung a little different, and that's just the way it was. So, this is still an excellent match, and it is perfectly consistent with the comparison of other images.

But notice also that the bottom vee, and I mean the vee formed by the exposed white t-shirt at the bottom of the shirt at the point where the outer shirt is finally buttoned, that the point of that vee looks the same on both. Not only is the look of it the same, but the location of it is exactly the same on both.

Not only is it highly unlikely that Lovelady would have left his shirt unbuttoned IN THE EXACT SAME MANNER AND TO THE SAME POINT AS OSWALD, but in none of the pictures we have of Lovelady was his shirt that unbuttoned. Just compare the unbuttonings of Doorman, Oswald, and then Lovelady. In no image is Lovelady's shirt as unbuttoned.

11qqtec.jpg

DAVID LIFTON ENTERS ON THE SIDE OF GARY MACK:

Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2012 22:02:39 -0800

Subject: Re: Robert Groden Altgen's photo

From: dlifton

To: GMack; shake_aeffects; jerry; jfetzer@d.umn.edu

CC: bmoore1242; john.costella; jwjfk; dmantik; doctorcinque

To all:

I fully agree with Gary Mack on this issue. Also: I appreciate how much time it takes (and that he has taken) to engage in this sort of debate, and write these long and detailed emails, especially when the “evidence” is often what this or that person claims “to see” in a photo.

In these emails, Gary has laid out the evidence, and I think its rock solid.

FWIW: I concluded decades ago—circa 1973, when (while working as “researcher” on Executive Action) I first found the footage of Oswald being marched by Lovelady, at the Homicide and Robbery Bureau—that it was Oswald in the doorway. I shared that information, and the imagery, with Groden, who obviously pursued it further. Good for him!

So, FWIW: I do not agree at all with the arguments made by Cinque and Fetzer. I would characterize them as obscure, weak, and far-fetched—and very subjective.

So that’s my position: I’m positive it was Lovelady in the doorway.

Moreover: If Oswald was in the doorway (which, I must emphasize, I don’t believe at all, but if it were true. . ). . .others would have said he was there (and not weeks or months later, but immediately). Moreover, he certainly would have told his brother and his wife. But there’s no such evidence in the record. He said no such thing to his brother or his wie; and, as to the others in the stairway area, FBI agents were questioning all these people, within a very short while. If Oswald was actually standing on the stairs, word of that would have spread like wildfire.

Think about it: What better evidence for Oswald to possess—evidence easier to enunciate and promulgate—than the simple statement: “Of course I didn’t shoot Kennedy! I was standing outside watching the parade!” etc

But Oswald never made any such statement, and besides—for all the reasons enumerated by Gary, and so evident in the imagery—it was (in fact) not Oswald on the stairs of the TSBD. It was Billy Lovelady.

FWIW (and taking a broader view): I think this is a good example of the role coincidence plays in this event, because, if I was a plotter (and I do believe there was a serious plot that day) who would ever expect that someone would be standing in the doorway area who looked so similar, in a photograph, to the patsy who was being framed? That is really one helluva coincidence, and carries with it an important lesson as to the role coincidence can (and sometimes does) play.

So that’s my take on the situation.

DSL

GARY MACK, DAVID HEALY, AND JERRY DEALEY CHIP IN:

Gary Mack:

( complaint from member. Permission not given for email to be published)

From: David Healy [mailto:shake_aeffects]

Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 2:14 PM

To: Jerry Dealey; 'James Fetzer'; Gary Mack

Cc: bmoore1242; john.costella; jwjfk; dmantik; dlifton; 'Dr. Ralph Cinque'

Subject: Re: Robert Groden Altgen's photo

for a reasonable review of this image, what is needed, is this: a 1200dpi digital scan of the photos original negative, PERIOD! Then pass that around... Come on....wake Gorden up!

DavidH.

From: Jerry Dealey

To: 'James Fetzer'; 'Gary Mack'

Cc: bmoore1242; john.costella; jwjfk; dmantik; shake_aeffects; dlifton; 'Dr. Ralph Cinque'

Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2012 11:28 AM

Subject: Robert Groden Altgen's photo

Guys,

Robert Groden loaned me his enlargement of the Altgens Doorway, for 3 weeks. It is a photographic blow-up, on Kodak paper, and he says it has not been modified by computer in any way.

I scanned it at 1200, and added a Watermark (per Robert's request). Not sure it is any clearer than the Anthony Marsh scan, which was probably professionally scanned, instead of using my poor scanner.

But I said if I got him to give me one, I would provide it. He was hesitant, because his book is at press, and he spends a lot of time on the Oswald/Lovelady discussion. He originally also thought it was Oswald, but after studying the original negative and prints from it (which this is supposed to be), he agree it was Lovelady. He never believed in alteration, however.

Not that it will change anyone's mind, if they have a bias to "alteration" theories. But I said I would forward it.

Jerry Dealey

I EXPLAIN WHY IT IS EMBARRASSING TO HAVE GRODEN/LIFTON/MACK ON THE SAME SIDE:

James Fetzer

Mar 2 (4 days ago)

to Ralph, dlifton, gmack, shake_aeffects, jerry, bmoore1242, john.costella, jwjfk, dmantik

Ralph,

It is profoundly embarrassing that eminences such as Robert Groden and David Lifton would ignore the relevant evidence and side with Gary Mack in a case of this magnitude. Groden has not even been able to bring himself to acknowledge that the Zapruder film has been faked, which in my opinion undermines his standing as an expert on any issue of photography and film. Lifton has done great work on so many aspects of the case that his incompetence in this instance is inexcusable.

Gary Mack, of course, is the keeper of the flame when it comes to the official account of the assassination of JFK and, in my opinion, cannot be taken at face value on any issue of importance. I am adding this post only because you have heard from Gary and now from Lifton and Groden, at least indirectly. I commend you and DK for your brilliant contributions to this issue, which provides a stunning indictment of the government for its complicity in the assassination and cover-up.

Are these people completely aware of the discoveries of DK in relation to altering images of Billy Lovelady in order to create false impressions that he looked more like the man in the doorway, even to the extent of shortening his left arm in some of these photos? It seems to me that, if Groden, Lifton and Mack persevere in their denial of photographic fakery--which extends to the use of a Lovelady imposter in the doorway area--then their de facto complicity in this matter is beyond any doubt.

Keep up your excellent work! I look forward to future publications on this together.

Warm regards,

Jim

GARY MACK REPLIES CLAIMING THAT HE KNOWS MORE THAN I AND I REBUT HIM:

Gary Mack

Mar 2 (4 days ago)

to me, Ralph, dlifton, shake_aeffects, jerry, bmoore1242, john.costella, jwjfk, dmantik

( complaint by member. Permission not given for email to be published)

James Fetzer

Mar 2 (3 days ago)

to Gary, dlifton, shake_aeffects, jerry, bmoore1242, john.costella, jwjfk, dmantik, Ralph

Gary,

Your attempts to bamboozle the public are well-known and copiously documented. Consider, for example, the appendix to "Mary in the Street Revisited", http://jfkresearch.com/Moorman/, where David Lifton called you out for stage-managing Mary Moorman's attempts to show what she had done on 22 November 1963.

To suggest you and David are on the same team is as disingenuous as your efforts to undermine stunning new research that establishes--beyond a reasonable doubt, in my view, since no alternative explanation is reasonable--that Lee was in the doorway at the time of the assassination. But what else should we expect?

Jim

MACK RESPONDS WITH A GRATUITOUS ASSAULT ON MADELEINE DUNCAN BROWN:

Gary Mack

2:33 PM (17 hours ago)

to me, dlifton, shake_aeffects, jerry, bmoore1242, john.costella, jwjfk, dmantik, Ralph

(complaint by member. Permission not given for email to be published.)

Gary Mack[/i]

James Fetzer

2:45 PM (17 hours ago)

to Gary, dlifton, shake_aeffects, jerry, bmoore1242, john.costella, jwjfk, dmantik, Ralph

Gary,

I know that, as a matter of formality, you have to have the last word. So you have it! But everyone on this list knows how things stand and your role in preserving the Oswald myth.

Jim

Gary Mack

2:50 PM (17 hours ago)

to me, dlifton, shake_aeffects, jerry, bmoore1242, john.costella, jwjfk, dmantik, Ralph

(Complaint by member. Permission not given for email to be published)

Gary Mack[/i]

RALPH TRIES TO STEER THE DISCUSSION BACK TO OSWALD IN THE DOORWAY:

Dr. Ralph Cinque

3:05 PM (16 hours ago)

to gmack, me, dlifton, shake_aeffects, jerry, bmoore1242, john.costella, jwjfk, dmantik

Talking about pictures being correct, the Altgens photo correctly shows Oswald's shirt and t-shirt: the collars, the lapels, the loose fit, and the notched t-shirt. And it's highly significant that neither you, nor any other state shill, even tries to deny it. Instead, you just change the subject.

Clothing is very specific and personal. It comes in all forms, and it gets worn in different ways. The likenesses in clothing between Oswald and Doorman are too great to dismiss. Besides the structural features of the clothing being the same, the fact that both shirts are unbuttoned to the exact same point is highly significant. Oswald's shirt was very unbuttoned, and by necessity because the buttons were missing. But, Lovelady's buttons were not missing, and in no image of him from that day is his shirt as unbuttoned as we see on Oswald or Doorman. Take a look at my latest collage which shows the bottom part of the shirts of Oswald and Doorman. Notice how the level is exactly the same. Do you really think that by coincidence Lovelady was comported the exact same way that day?

And regarding past investigations, when did the Warren Commission or the HSCA ever address the issue of Doorman's clothing? His t-shirt being notched like Oswald's was ignored. His outer shirt being loose and disheveled like Oswald's was ignored. Where is the issue of the unbuttoning of the shirt addressed? When are the collars and lapels examined? They weren't. Those investigations were a joke. Heck, the HSCA didn't even react when Billy Lovelady suddenly and unexpectedly died right before he was to testify before them. You'd think they would have looked into it. But, they were probably relieved.

Look at the picture, Gary. You're seeing the same guy wearing the same shirt. And don't bother to deny it. It can't be denied. Ralph Cinque

90sw7m.jpg

James Fetzer

3:16 PM (16 hours ago)

to Gary, dlifton, shake_aeffects, jerry, bmoore1242, john.costella, jwjfk, dmantik, Ralph

When our next article is out, I will let both you and the rest of the link know. Thanks.

MACK IMPLIES COWORKERS WHO DID NOT ID LEE THEN MUST BE LYING, WHICH I REBUT:

Gary Mack

3:27 PM (16 hours ago)

to Ralph, me, dlifton, shake_aeffects, jerry, bmoore1242, john.costella, jwjfk, dmantik

(Complaint by member. Permission not given for email to be published)

Gary Mack[/i]

James Fetzer

4:09 PM (15 hours ago)

to Ralph, gmack, dlifton, shake_aeffects, jerry, bmoore1242, john.costella, jwjfk, dmantik

All,

And it is just begging the question to assume that these witnesses "lied". They may have not notice him at the back of the crowd; they might have had their testimony changed; they may have been intimidated into not telling what they knew. I think most rational agents, possessing information that would disprove the government's account of the assassination of the President of the United States, might pause before stepping forward. Craig Roberts and John Armstrong have a book about those who did not.

Jim

I REPLY TO HIS ATTACK ON MADELEINE, WHICH HE DISMISSES CLAIMING SUPERIOR KNOWLEDGE:

James Fetzer

7:42 PM (12 hours ago)

to David, Gary, dlifton, jerry, bmoore1242, john.costella, jwjfk, dmantik, Ralph

To besmirch a courageous woman like Madeleine Duncan Brown is completely despicable. What she has to say in TEXAS IN THE MORNING has been corroborated by Billy Sol Estes, A TEXAS LEGEND, Barr McClelland, BLOOD, MONEY & POWER, E. Howard Hunt's "Last Confessions", and the final 9th segment of "The Men Who Killed Kennedy". When you start calling people phonys and frauds, you had better understand that the case against you is overwhelmingly stronger than any case against them. I had more than 100 conversations with Madeleine and interviewed her at Lancer. She was the real deal.

Gary Mack

8:22 PM (11 hours ago)

to me, David, dlifton, jerry, bmoore1242, john.costella, jwjfk, dmantik, Ralph

(Complaint by member. Permission not given for email to be published)

Gary Mack[/i]

I CHALLENGE GARY MACK TO A DEBATE ON THE ASSASSINATION, WHICH HE EVADES:

James Fetzer

8:54 PM (11 hours ago)

to Gary, David, dlifton, jerry, bmoore1242, john.costella, jwjfk, dmantik, Ralph

Let's put that proposition to the test. Let's have a two-hour, public debate, divided into 15 minute segments. I will take the first, you the second, and so forth, where if either of us is unable to fill up our allotted time, it shifts to the other debater as bonus. We could do it at COPA or at Lancer. I will bring my laptop and you can bring whatever you like. I will present my case and you can attempt to rebut it, where I have the first and you the last word. OK? All we need is a screen and an LCD projector. And if an audience shows up, so much the better. Deal?

Dr. Ralph Cinque 8:56 PM (11 hours ago)

Regardless of what the truth is about Madeline, and I don't claim to know, it...

Gary Mack

9:16 PM (10 hours ago)

to me, David, dlifton, jerry, bmoore1242, john.costella, jwjfk, dmantik, Ralph

(Complaint by member. Permission not given for email to be published)

Gary Mack[/i]

I OBSERVE THAT HE IS OFF-BASE AND SUBSTANTIATE MY POSITION:

James Fetzer

10:04 PM (9 hours ago)

to Gary, David, dlifton, jerry, bmoore1242, john.costella, jwjfk, dmantik, Ralph

Let's see. How many books have you edited on JFK? How many national conferences have you chaired or co-chaired? How many research articles have you published? How many interviews (not puff pieces)? We all knew that you would not dare to accept my challenge, Gary Mack. We all knew. No one had any doubt. There was no way you would accept. None.

James Fetzer

10:52 PM (9 hours ago)

to Gary, David, dlifton, jerry, bmoore1242, john.costella, jwjfk, dmantik, Ralph

Let me make it very simple for you, Gary. If what you claim about yourself were true, even remotely, you would be EAGER to demonstrate your superior knowledge. You are NOT, for the obvious reason that, as usual, you are faking it. Isn't your background in marketing and advertising? I taught courses in logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning for 35 years. Why are you such a phony? I would wipe the floor with you.

It is ironic I was doing an interview with a witness who was corroborating Madeleine's report about the social event at the home of Clint Murchison, Sr., when your post came up. And just now, in poking around about you, I came across this at Wim's web site, which I think pretty much sums up how most of us feel about you, just for the record:

Email received 28 june 2007:

I also happen to believe that Gary Mack is an apologist for the Lone Gunman Theory/Warren Commission Report. Here is the latest example I've discovered. Madeleine Duncan Brown has appeared in several interviews describing a party which occurred the night before the JFK assassination at which several powerful people were in attendance. The list includes LBJ, Hoover, Nixon, and many of Johnson's rich, Texas oil buddies.

Gary Mack is on record for doing his utmost to pick her story apart. For example, he claims that Hoover never had a black chauffeur - thereby proving that Brown's testimony was wrong. In fact, what Brown said was - and anybody can view it on Youtube in the latest "Men Who Killed Kennedy (The Guilty Men, segment 3) - was that "a" black chauffeur was present. Well, the above-mentioned TV show interviews one May Newman who corroborates that it was in fact oil tycoon Clint Murchison who had the black chauffeur and that it was he, the black chauffeur, who drove Hoover around that evening. Mack could have learned this in a second had he simply watched the program and not been drawn to distraction by picking at straws.

Here's what I think about Gary Mack. I remember him being featured extensively in the original Men Who Killed Kennedy back in 1988, and he appeared to be a JFK researcher who seemed to be sincerely interested in uncovering the obvious conspiracy of JFK's murder. Since then, however, he has done a complete about-face, and become a shill for the Warren Commission Report and all of its proponents. I wonder if his position as Curator of the 6th Floor Museum has only served to corrupt his honesty and objectivity. After all, he does spend most of his days rubbing shoulders with the very same power base which was responsible for JFK's death in the first place. He wouldn't want to lose that cushy, well-paying job by rocking the boat, now would he?

Frank

SITUATION SUMMARY:

As it happened, I was having a serendipitous conversation with Connie Kritzberg, who was a reporter for

and interviewed Mary Moorman, Jean Hill, Malcolm Perry, M.D., and Kemp Clark, M.D., the afternoon of the assassination. She and I were discussing her friend, Madeleine Duncan Brown, with whom she co-authored a book on the assassination, DALLAS DID IT!, and the social event at the home of Clint Murchison, Sr., at the very time Gary Mack was attacking Madeleine's credibility. Our hour-long conversation will be broadcast on "The Real Deal", revereradio.net, this Friday from 5-7 PM/CT, the second hour.

Gary Mack has asserted several times now that he possesses knowledge that is superior to mine about the JFK assassination. I have therefore challenged him to a two-hour, public debate, divided into 15 minute segments. I will take the first, he the second, and so forth, where if either of us is unable to fill up our allotted time, it shifts to the other debater as bonus. We could do it at COPA or at Lancer. I will bring my laptop and he can bring whatever he likes. I will present my case and he can attempt to rebut it, where I have the first and he the last word. All we need is a screen and an LCD projector. If an audience shows up, so much the better.

As I have made very clear during the course of this exchange, I regard Gary Mack as an apologist for the "official account" of the assassination. He is a very "big cheese" as the curator for The 6th Floor Museum, but I view him as a phony and a fraud who spends his time bamboozling the public about the who, the how, and the why of the death of our 35th president. He claims to possess superior knowledge. Let him therefore demonstrate it. Why should he duck and run from a public debate, especially on the occasion of the 50th observance of the death of JFK? Let's duke it out and see which of us is right. It's time for him to put up or shut up!

Edited by Kathy Beckett
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here we go again! With what I think is just a waist of time, but some may not think so and would defend what they think is Oswald standing outside the TSBD. So! If you don't mind I'll like to take a stab at it and say. It was Hemming with the revolver in the Library? Or was it Colonel Mustard with the rope in the Study? I'm really not sure.

NO wait! I think I see Robert Gordon! Whats he doing there?

Edited by Scott Kaiser
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

In case anyone has any questions about the republication of emails from this discussion thread,

I have just checked with Gordon Duff, the senior editor of Veterans Today, who has informed me

gordon duff 2:46 PM

anything on the internet is in public domain

no expectation of privacy

once written, it is published for resuse

James H. Fetzer 2:46 PM

Great! I appreciate that. Excellent. Thanks.

gordon duff 2:46 PM

and criticism.

Consider this a free tutorial on internet privacy and the lack of a right to privacy, complements of Gordon.

An expanded version has now been published on Veterans Today, "The Great JFK Non-Debate: Jim Fetzer

vs. Gary Mack", http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/03/06/the-great-jfk-non-debate-jim-fetzer-vs-gary-mack/ including more photos and several useful videos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In case anyone has any questions about the republication of emails from this discussion thread,

I have just checked with Gordon Duff, the senior editor of Veterans Today, who has informed me

gordon duff 2:46 PM

anything on the internet is in public domain

no expectation of privacy

once written, it is published for resuse

James H. Fetzer 2:46 PM

Great! I appreciate that. Excellent. Thanks.

gordon duff 2:46 PM

and criticism.

Consider this a free tutorial on internet privacy and the lack of a right to privacy, complements of Gordon.

An expanded version has now been published on Veterans Today, "The Great JFK Non-Debate: Jim Fetzer

vs. Gary Mack", http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/03/06/the-great-jfk-non-debate-jim-fetzer-vs-gary-mack/ including more photos and several useful videos.

anything on the internet is in public domain no expectation of privacy once written, it is published for resuse

This is exactly why I had to and was "told" to remove my father's content. I can assure you that no one has ever heard of my father, he made sure it was kept that way, however, in the next few months I'll make sure ALL of his content is released.

I know that many have been curious as to know who this Ed Kaiser was and why have we not heard of him? As Jim Phelps once told me, all that I have is my father's phone book just full of names, lets just say I'm glad he thinks that way.

I of coarse spent well over $2,000.00 in my travels back and fourth to Miami, proving my case and those who were associated with my father. I do not intend to release anymore information nor will I name any names. I believe that some of the information I have provided in the past is self evident to the facts.

The rest of the important information left to me by my father will be published in due time, then and only then will it become known, the information that the Mary Farrell Foundation provides on my father is that of informants and intelligence gathering from the FBI or CIA.

What they don't have nor will they ever have are my father's written confessions to each operation, infiltrations and assassinations. As I've said, all in due time. And you can take that to the bank... In fact, when I got back from my trip in Miami this last time around from attending the SFRG I provided them with certain information, but not any of my father's pertinent and impotrant written information that I can not afford to let loose.

Edited by Scott Kaiser
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dr. Fetzer,

According to Forum Rules, you must have permission to publish the emails from the sender.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2243&view=findpost&p=211947

Privacy Issues

Posting private information about forum users that is not available otherwise publicly will not be tolerated. Do not post private email you have gained access to without the express permission of the sender. There are legal and copyright reasons for this, not to mention that doing so is very impolite. The same caveat applies to private messages, whether they're from this forum or anywhere else. If you receive rude or abusive private messages on this forum, you can report them via the same mechanism as inappropriate posts.

Have you received permission to repost them? If not, they need to be removed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dr. Fetzer,

According to Forum Rules, you must have permission to publish the emails from the sender.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2243&view=findpost&p=211947

Privacy Issues

Posting private information about forum users that is not available otherwise publicly will not be tolerated. Do not post private email you have gained access to without the express permission of the sender. There are legal and copyright reasons for this, not to mention that doing so is very impolite. The same caveat applies to private messages, whether they're from this forum or anywhere else. If you receive rude or abusive private messages on this forum, you can report them via the same mechanism as inappropriate posts.

Have you received permission to repost them? If not, they need to be removed.

I have yet seen any of the information I have sent anyone posted, and I'm guessing its because of my disclosure in my email that makes it quite clear!

The information contained in this message is intended only for the recipient, and may be a confidential attorney-client communication or may otherwise be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, please be aware that any dissemination or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify me by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. Scott Kaiser reserves the right, subject to applicable local law, to monitor and review the content of any electronic message or information sent to or from Scott Kaiser e-mail addresses without informing the sender or recipient of the message.

Respectfully,

/srk

On the other hand, I have also received private email or mails that may have been sent out in "bulk" or copied to, but always asked the sender if I may use their information and reporting it allowing the proper credit to be given by its original sender. If I have allowed enough time to go by and I've received no answer to my request/replied as to whether their information can be used then it would be posted according to logical thinking and avoid any legal technicalities.

In short, its always good to get their permission to posts someones emails before stirring up any bee's nest. <Just saying>. And I'm no DR. :D

Edited by Scott Kaiser
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dr. Fetzer,

According to Forum Rules, you must have permission to publish the emails from the sender.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2243&view=findpost&p=211947

Privacy Issues

Posting private information about forum users that is not available otherwise publicly will not be tolerated. Do not post private email you have gained access to without the express permission of the sender. There are legal and copyright reasons for this, not to mention that doing so is very impolite. The same caveat applies to private messages, whether they're from this forum or anywhere else. If you receive rude or abusive private messages on this forum, you can report them via the same mechanism as inappropriate posts.

Have you received permission to repost them? If not, they need to be removed.

There is also the forum rule about posting disparaging remarks about other members that needs attention from Dr. Fetzer. Please go through your post, Dr. Fetzer, and edit all areas that do not conform to the rule (Revised forum rules, posted by Evan Burton, Nov 16, 2010, post #281), which reads:

"Civility and Decorum

Politeness is paramount. Of course, we expect to have spirited debates! That's fine, as long as the people involved extend one another basic respect. Disagreements are inevitable, but even in those situations you must still be civil.

Members are forbidden from questioning the motives of posters, nor should members research abilities be questioned.

At no time may a forum member call another forum member a xxxx, nor accuse them of posting / telling lies. Infraction of this rule will result in the immediate deletion of the offending post and the immediate moderation of the offending poster. The duration of moderation (or possible expulsion of the member) will be determined by consensus amongst moderators and / or administrators.

Attack the ideas, not the person(s) presenting them. If you've got concerns with what someone is saying, feel free to dismantle their arguments, but do not resort to ad hominem or personal attacks. Be mindful and respectful of others' feelings. If you feel that someone has crossed the line and insulted you, please contact one of the moderators, preferably via the reporting mechanism described here, or by PM or email. Don't write scathing posts in the forum to try and humiliate people publicly.

If these guidelines are not followed, the administrators/moderators will take appropriate action, so please behave accordingly."

These posted rules can be found here:

JFK Forum Rules

Thank you,

Barb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dr. Fetzer,

According to Forum Rules, you must have permission to publish the emails from the sender.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2243&view=findpost&p=211947

Privacy Issues

Posting private information about forum users that is not available otherwise publicly will not be tolerated. Do not post private email you have gained access to without the express permission of the sender. There are legal and copyright reasons for this, not to mention that doing so is very impolite. The same caveat applies to private messages, whether they're from this forum or anywhere else. If you receive rude or abusive private messages on this forum, you can report them via the same mechanism as inappropriate posts.

Have you received permission to repost them? If not, they need to be removed.

There is also the forum rule about posting disparaging remarks about other members that needs attention from Dr. Fetzer. Please go through your post, Dr. Fetzer, and edit all areas that do not conform to the rule (Revised forum rules, posted by Evan Burton, Nov 16, 2010, post #281), which reads:

"Civility and Decorum

Politeness is paramount. Of course, we expect to have spirited debates! That's fine, as long as the people involved extend one another basic respect. Disagreements are inevitable, but even in those situations you must still be civil.

Members are forbidden from questioning the motives of posters, nor should members research abilities be questioned.

At no time may a forum member call another forum member a xxxx, nor accuse them of posting / telling lies. Infraction of this rule will result in the immediate deletion of the offending post and the immediate moderation of the offending poster. The duration of moderation (or possible expulsion of the member) will be determined by consensus amongst moderators and / or administrators.

Attack the ideas, not the person(s) presenting them. If you've got concerns with what someone is saying, feel free to dismantle their arguments, but do not resort to ad hominem or personal attacks. Be mindful and respectful of others' feelings. If you feel that someone has crossed the line and insulted you, please contact one of the moderators, preferably via the reporting mechanism described here, or by PM or email. Don't write scathing posts in the forum to try and humiliate people publicly.

If these guidelines are not followed, the administrators/moderators will take appropriate action, so please behave accordingly."

These posted rules can be found here:

JFK Forum Rules

Thank you,

Barb

WOW! I sure wished this rule would have applied when I first posted about my dad and I was immediately under attack, both personally and with the information I provided, had some people accepted me with a warm welcome, they would've gotten more out of me. <Just saying>.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Robert Morrow

Scott, unfortunately, JFK research is an area that gets "personal" very quickly. Get used to it. Many JFK researchers are "lone wolfs" who treat their theories on the JFK assassination as if it were some sort of a religion. Often, if they don't like your analysis or the facts you present, they will attack you personally.

Personal attacks against Ed Forum members are against Education Forum rules.

However you can excoriate people who are not Education Forum members.

Over at "Deep Politics Forum" there is a joker known his calorie empty posts and his unrestrained and uninhibited personal attacks on a whole variety of DPF members. They let him do it because he is a "moderator."

Unfortunately, this kind of stuff goes on in JFK research all the time and has for decades. People let their egos get in the way of seeking the truth. Human nature, I guess.

Edited by Robert Morrow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scott, unfortunately, JFK research is an area that gets "personal" very quickly. Get used to it. Many JFK researchers are "lone wolfs" who treat their theories on the JFK assassination as if it were some sort of a religion. Often, if they don't like your analysis or the facts you present, they will attack you personally.

Personal attacks against Ed Forum members are against Education Forum rules.

However you can excoriate people who are not Education Forum members.

Over at "Deep Politics Forum" there is a joker known his calorie empty posts and his unrestrained and uninhibited personal attacks on a whole variety of DPF members. They let him do it because he is a "moderator."

Unfortunately, this kind of stuff goes on in JFK research all the time and has for decades. People let their egos get in the way of seeking the truth. Human nature, I guess.

Robert,

I wished that I could have been better prepared ahead of time, its kinda like what Frank Castro's wife told me the other day "I didn't know what I was marrying into". I now understand what she means, hopefully, and someday including myself with my stupid remarks may come to understand that nothing will get solved unless we work together, Mr. Fetzer or Dr. Fetzer, I think your doing a great job, please keep it up, I did not mean to insulate you or challenge you in anyway, the truth is everyone here has far more knowledge then I will ever have, I can only provide with a minute amount of information that may or may not birth or shed some light on the subject.

Thank you kindly Robert for breaking me in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rush Limbaugh causes a stir and calls attention to himself by calling a young law student a "slut" and a "prostitute." Likewise, Professor Fetzer, Ph.D., causes a stir and calls attention to himself by starting a thread about himself where he throws various insults at Gary Mack and publishes emails without permission. Yawn! A tempest in a teapot.

We've seen this movie before. It's kind of boring. If we just ignore Professor Fetzer, Ph.D.'s, efforts at self promotion, maybe he will go away or find something else to make outlandish claims about. Yawn a second time!

JT

Edited by Josiah Thompson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Gary Loughran

Jim,

I am proposing making this thread invisible. Outwith forum rules, it is my opinion that unsolicited use of emails is wrong, irrespective of whether it is legal or illegal.

It is also unclear whether you have the permission from all sources for these emails - irrespective of Gary's complaint. With this uncertainty deleting only Gary Mack's emails doens't actually resolve the 'rules' breach issue!

I am sure you can summarise these debates and positions in a much less inflammatory way and one which is line with Forum policies. If you must use private emails, can you state explicitly you have permission to do so and abide by any constraints the original author might ask for. Obviously if this permission is subsequently challenged we would have to apply retrospective moderation.

If you wish to start a new topic, I will make this one invisible.

Gary

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...