Jump to content
The Education Forum

Anyone know what is up with Nathaniel Heidenheimer?


Recommended Posts

Looking for Nathaniel Heidenheimer. His account seems to be gone. Is any one in contact with him off line? Seem unlikely he would close his account. His facebook account is gone. He was very active there.

He disappeared there two days ago. I was told his forum posts here are also gone but I have not looked myself. Have to get to work, but am worried, as this is totally unlike him.

Thanks,

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 35
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

He seems to be still here Dawn.I don't know about Facebook but his posts are still here.

http://educationforu...p?showuser=3785

Bizarre that she didn't invest the few seconds it would have taken to check on his status here before starting this thread. I suspect his leaving FB had something to do with the IPO. Supposedly for $0.95 one can get his unlisted number and address.

http://www.peoplefinders.com/checkout/reportoffer.aspx?type=people-name&item-id=OP-260942511&item-count=2&fn=Nathaniel&mn=&ln=Heidenheimer&city=Brooklyn&state=NY&sfn=Nathaniel&smn=J&sln=Heidenheimer&searchtype=people-name

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did not have time to check, some people have to be at work on time. I am one of those.

Since pasting his name into the search box and doing a member's search would have taken far less time than writing either of your posts on this thread that lame excuse won't wash.

I was told his forum posts here are also gone

Well now you know never to believe anything that person ever tells you again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He seems to be still here Dawn.I don't know about Facebook but his posts are still here.

http://educationforu...p?showuser=3785

Thanks Malcolm. I am attempting to obtain a phone number for him, thus far w/o success. I just want to know he's ok. Messsages via this forum are not going through. His box is probably full. Messages via DPF are unreponded to. His computer may have crashed or been hacked. He has been unrelenting on fb educating on JFK assassination and left wing gate keepers. Of course the fear is that he was silenced (online) for his views.

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He seems to be still here Dawn.I don't know about Facebook but his posts are still here.

http://educationforu...p?showuser=3785

Thanks Malcolm. I am attempting to obtain a phone number for him, thus far w/o success. I just want to know he's ok. Messsages via this forum are not going through. His box is probably full. Messages via DPF are unreponded to. His computer may have crashed or been hacked. He has been unrelenting on fb educating on JFK assassination and left wing gate keepers. Of course the fear is that he was silenced (online) for his views.

Dawn

Weirder yet, when I clicked on Nate's bio just now I got this:

I have deleted the thread “Death of a Great Idea, when bad moderation kills a forum”. I will also delete any other thread that attacks the administrators or moderators of this forum.

It is my opinion that a small group of members are intent in severely damaging this forum before they go off to form their own forum. I am not going to allow them to destroy what I believe is important.

I have attempted to run this form in a way that would provide the maximum of freedom for members. It was the way I tried to teach my classes in school. However, I did realize as a teacher that some groups were too immature to benefit from this approach (this had nothing to do with age).

Most members have responded well to this approach. However, a small minority have always caused problems by their attacks on other members. Recently, when moderators tried to protect those being attacked, they have themselves been the target of their venom. So much so, that they have resigned from the job.

One of the ways that this group has been “rebelling” is to remove the link to their biography. Unless this is put back the member’s posts will be made invisible and they will be placed on moderation. Eventually, all their posts will be deleted from the forum. The same goes for those who do not have an identifiable photograph as an avatar.

This forum receives a large number of page views. It is an excellent resource for people who wish to publicize their opinions, books, websites, etc. because of its search-engine ranking. Members are still free to use it in this way. What they do not have the freedom to do is to make personal attacks on other members. If you do this in the future, you will be immediately dealt with. They can then go away and talk amongst themselves, convinced that they are victims of a CIA conspiracy.

John Simkin

Biography: http://educationforu...?showtopic=1365

General Website: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk

JFK Website: http://www.spartacus...uk/JFKindex.htm

Watergate: http://www.spartacus...k/watergate.htm

Operation Mockingbird: http://www.spartacus...mockingbird.htm

Spartacus Travel Guide: http://www.spartacus...travelguide.htm

#2Jack White

Super Member

  • av-667.jpg?_r=1165534103
  • Members
  • bullet_black.pngbullet_black.pngbullet_black.pngbullet_black.png
  • 8,640 posts

Posted 25 August 2008 - 04:00 PM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dawn thanks for the concern, and I hate to clog the forum with my laborious false, though richly deserved, humility.

What happend was this, which I just posted to someone on an email

"Internet weirdness of the sort to leave one of my ilk head-scratching. First my FB account suddenly had the wrong email address to contact me by It had my name @ Yahoo when I have never had an account there. Then at the exact same time I cant get in my hotmail account, because my password no longer worked there. Weird that that should happen at the same time. It was shortly after I made a post mentioning the Strategy of Tension in Italy, ( in a casual kind of way, which is a unique ability of mine) Just speculating, but given my earlier censorship after being removed from the very high volume stl today site POSSIBLY because of posting the 12/1/63 article by their lead Washington reporter, Richard Dudman* about the hole in the windshield.

Regardless, I remain convinced that the proverbial they remain most concerned with "wide angle' posting and less concerned with specialist niche-site posting, 2) that the internet can take pressure of the really big media and allow it to get even worse because the very people who should be pointing out its faults are off in false-"alternative" sites, and 3) the way to solve this is by posting JFK specific back into the wider media circulatory system, because this can begin to impose a COST on the larger audience MSM and the specialized decoy Chris Mathews like shows, for being so bad. "

I post this here because I think the communications aspect might have greater relevance. At any rate I have now lost 5000 FB friends. Admittedly, my posts were too frequent so probably I was one of the most blocked citizens since Casandra went on FB, but I think some of my posts, at least were more accurate.

Our media environment has changed so fast, that there is not enough analysis of how this effects power in a "medium is the message" sort of way. And it is, more than ever, promise.

I do not consider myself a researcher, but a spreader of some provocative aspects of the case to new audiences. That, IMO, is what we need more of.

*In this instance, I was removed from the St. Louis Post Dispatch website, after being a member of that VERY LARGE AUDIENCE site for ten years. It was the day after I posted the 12-1-63 Dudman windshield article. Dudman is still alive, and I wonder if my posting it may have irked him. This was certainly not my intention. The reason I think it matters is because I have noticed an increasing pattern of censorship lately , especially when posting CIA history material on non-specialist, full spectrum sites.

At any rate I have now lost 5000 friends and a means of spreading JFK history that I had worked a long time on. Another medium seems to be closing. Specialized sites are great, but if they do not reconnect back into broader oceans of the internet they lead to extinction.

Edited by Nathaniel Heidenheimer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nat, good to see you're okay. And I agree with your strategy. I try and comment on mainstream sites whenever they touch on these or related matters. Just haven't the time to do it as often as I'd like... but why I do it all is for the very reasons you point out here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Robert Morrow

Dawn thanks for the concern, and I hate to clog the forum with my laborious false, though richly deserved, humility.

What happend was this, which I just posted to someone on an email

"Internet weirdness of the sort to leave one of my ilk head-scratching. First my FB account suddenly had the wrong email address to contact me by It had my name @ Yahoo when I have never had an account there. Then at the exact same time I cant get in my hotmail account, because my password no longer worked there. Weird that that should happen at the same time. It was shortly after I made a post mentioning the Strategy of Tension in Italy, ( in a casual kind of way, which is a unique ability of mine) Just speculating, but given my earlier censorship after being removed from the very high volume stl today site POSSIBLY because of posting the 12/1/63 article by their lead Washington reporter, Richard Dudman* about the hole in the windshield.

Regardless, I remain convinced that the proverbial they remain most concerned with "wide angle' posting and less concerned with specialist niche-site posting, 2) that the internet can take pressure of the really big media and allow it to get even worse because the very people who should be pointing out its faults are off in false-"alternative" sites, and 3) the way to solve this is by posting JFK specific back into the wider media circulatory system, because this can begin to impose a COST on the larger audience MSM and the specialized decoy Chris Mathews like shows, for being so bad. "

I post this here because I think the communications aspect might have greater relevance. At any rate I have now lost 5000 FB friends. Admittedly, my posts were too frequent so probably I was one of the most blocked citizens since Casandra went on FB, but I think some of my posts, at least were more accurate.

Our media environment has changed so fast, that there is not enough analysis of how this effects power in a "medium is the message" sort of way. And it is, more than ever, promise.

I do not consider myself a researcher, but a spreader of some provocative aspects of the case to new audiences. That, IMO, is what we need more of.

*In this instance, I was removed from the St. Louis Post Dispatch website, after being a member of that VERY LARGE AUDIENCE site for ten years. It was the day after I posted the 12-1-63 Dudman windshield article. Dudman is still alive, and I wonder if my posting it may have irked him. This was certainly not my intention. The reason I think it matters is because I have noticed an increasing pattern of censorship lately , especially when posting CIA history material on non-specialist, full spectrum sites.

At any rate I have now lost 5000 friends and a means of spreading JFK history that I had worked a long time on. Another medium seems to be closing. Specialized sites are great, but if they do not reconnect back into broader oceans of the internet they lead to extinction.

Could you post the "12-1-63 Dudman windshield article" on this thread - or a link to it - so folks can read it. I know exactly what you mean about censorship. It has happened to me several times on Education Forum, hardly a MSM vehicle, just because I point out the sexual dysfunctions of John Kennedy and posit that LBJ had a big role in the JFK assassination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tom Scully

Remember the Secret Service in December, 1963, sent an agent over to Parkland to tell the doctors to shut up talking about the JFK murder. This agent was basically threatening them. No wonder many of them kept their silence for years.

A big THANK YOU to my old friend Mr. Morrow for pointing this out. I had forgotten it. THIS IS FURTHER EVIDENCE THAT NO BACK WOUND EXISTED AT PARKLAND.

The SS men who interviewed Parkland personnel were trying to persuade them that JFK was shot from behind, but it seems nurse Bowron resisted their pressure at the time, since she testified to the Warren Commission that she saw only one wound, namely the massive wound in the head.

Someone more knowledgeable in the medical evidence will correct me if I am wrong, (or confirm me if I am right) but as I recall nurse Bowron testified that she washed the body. If I am remembering correctly, then it would be virtually IMPOSSIBLE for her to miss a back wound, if one actually existed at that time.

Even if I am wrong about Bowron washing the body, her sworn testimony that she saw no other wound besides the gaping head wound easily TRUMPS anything she might say in later years.

ABOUT A VERY IMPORTANT NEWS STORY PUBLISHED ON 12/18/63 in the St Louis Post Dispatch (and probably elsewhere, as well):

The visit of one or two Secret Service agents to the Dallas doctors, armed with a copy of the Bethesda autopsy report, and with the message "this is the way it happened, and we'd appreciate it if you fellows would stop making public statements to the contrary," occurred on December 11, 1963. (It is discussed in detail in the last few pages of Chapter 3 of Best Evidence).

The story—written by St. Louis Post-Dispatch White House based reporter Richard Dudman—was published on December 18, 1963, and ran under the headline: "Secret Service Gets Revision on Kennedy Wound," and had the subhead: "After Visit by Agents, Doctors Say Shot Was From Rear."

Quoting from Best Evidence (pp 63-64):

Dudman reported: "Two Secret Service agents called last week on Dallas surgeons who attended President John F. Kennedy and obtained a reversal of their original view that the bullet in his neck entered from the front."

"The investigators did no by showing the surgeons a document described as an autopsy report from the United States Naval Hospital in Bethesda. The surgeons changed their original view to conform with the report they were shown."

" 'There was no coercion at all,' Dr. Robert N. McClelland told the Post-Dispatch. 'They didn't say anything like "This is what you think, isn't it?"

"The surgeons' earlier description of a wound in the front of the President's throat as an entry wound had caset doubt on the official belief that Lee Harvey Oswald was the only assassin. . . . The surgeons now support the official view that both bullets that struck the President were from behind. . . . The now believe that the bullet in the neck entered from the back . . . and passed out through the hole in the front, about two inches below the Adam's apple."

Why had the doctors been so persuaded? McClelland, reported Dudman said that the Bethesda autopsy report shown the Dallas doctors "told of an entry wound which the Dallas doctors had NOT seen in the back of the neck", and it described the throat wound as the corresponding exit. . . .

From Dudman's account, it seemed clear that what persuaded the Dallas doctors was the official autopsy report's description of a rear entry wound they had not seen. "Dr. McClelland," reported Dudman, "said that he and Dr. Perry fully accept the Navy Hospital's explanaton of the coure of the bullets. . . . 'I am fully satisfied that the two bullets that hit him were from behind,' [McClelland] said. 'As far as I am concerned, there no reason to suspect that any shots came from the front.'"

* * *

This should make clear the power of a false autopsy report as evidence, in a homicide investigation; and the importance of the rear entry wounds (one in the head, and one in the neck) in completely changing the direction of the shots.

The Warren Commission relied on the autopsy report to link the body of JFK with the sniper's nest at the TSBD; and it's the rear entry wounds—not observed by anyone at Parkland Hospitao—that are the key to that medico-legal record.

As I wrote in Best Evidence (p. 65); The Dudman dispatches cast the testimony of the Parkland doctors in an entirely different light and, when read in conjunction with several other New York Times stories, revealed a distinctly evolutionary quality in the official position regarding the wound at the front of the throat.

DSL

5/12/11; 3:15 AM PDT

Los Angeles, CA

Scratch Dudman..... He's age 93, and 23 years ago, he wrote the article in the image below, blaming his total capitulation on CT belligerence. At the top of the last column in his article, he is enough of an LN to enhance the sale of advertising on the two local, Maine radio stations he and his wife, Helen own. Honored in St. Louis earlier this month, he was sharp enough two years ago to write this.

Dudman does not explain in his article how his anecdotal experience of behavior of CTs could influence him to sell out his own credibility and professional reputation. Don't believe what he reported when he was a journalist, an eyewitness at the scene in Dallas, believe instead what he writes, as a local businessman, so many years after the events he witnessed and reported on in near real time.

There is a pattern to these capitulations. The usual result is enhanced reputation and an increase to the bottom line, the exact opposite of what should happen to people who assert they were mistaken when they spoke on the record to journalists, or when they were journalists reporting the details of the events, but now when they declare the opposite, it is the truth, is what does happen. In almost every instance, they enhance their reputations by trading away their credibility. They leave the few who stick by what they originally said, to be harrassed, scorned, and labeled as unreliable, experiencing less career opportunity and wealth than that enjoyed by the capitulators.

http://bangordailyne...richard-dudman/

Richard Dudman

Senior Contributing Editor

rdudman@gwi.net

Sawyer, Dudman featured at Millstone Lecture

St. Louis Beacon - Oct 2, 2011

Revered American journalist Richard Dudman (right)will be honored at the lecture for a lifetime of distinguished contributions to American journalism and ...

6267268972_2535ec1d09_b.jpg

I am very sorry to see this "switcheroo" on Dudman's part; but none of it changes one iota the importance (and validity) of what he wrote at the time.

Perhaps, in the same way he decided he should stop driving, Dudman should stop re-writing and opining on what he originally saw (and reported), and instead rely on the time-worn statement (whose Latin translation escapes me just now): Let the record stand.

There's very little question in my mind that JFK's throat wound was an entry--and that was just one reason why the Secret Service agents visited the Dallas doctors around December 11, 1963, showed the Bethesda autopsy report, and basically told them to stop talking to the press.

These are not the fantasies of a conspiracy theorist; its what the record clearly shows.

DSL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dawn thanks for the concern, and I hate to clog the forum with my laborious false, though richly deserved, humility.

What happend was this, which I just posted to someone on an email

"Internet weirdness of the sort to leave one of my ilk head-scratching. First my FB account suddenly had the wrong email address to contact me by It had my name @ Yahoo when I have never had an account there. Then at the exact same time I cant get in my hotmail account, because my password no longer worked there. Weird that that should happen at the same time. It was shortly after I made a post mentioning the Strategy of Tension in Italy, ( in a casual kind of way, which is a unique ability of mine) Just speculating, but given my earlier censorship after being removed from the very high volume stl today site POSSIBLY because of posting the 12/1/63 article by their lead Washington reporter, Richard Dudman* about the hole in the windshield.

Regardless, I remain convinced that the proverbial they remain most concerned with "wide angle' posting and less concerned with specialist niche-site posting, 2) that the internet can take pressure of the really big media and allow it to get even worse because the very people who should be pointing out its faults are off in false-"alternative" sites, and 3) the way to solve this is by posting JFK specific back into the wider media circulatory system, because this can begin to impose a COST on the larger audience MSM and the specialized decoy Chris Mathews like shows, for being so bad. "

I post this here because I think the communications aspect might have greater relevance. At any rate I have now lost 5000 FB friends. Admittedly, my posts were too frequent so probably I was one of the most blocked citizens since Casandra went on FB, but I think some of my posts, at least were more accurate.

Our media environment has changed so fast, that there is not enough analysis of how this effects power in a "medium is the message" sort of way. And it is, more than ever, promise.

I do not consider myself a researcher, but a spreader of some provocative aspects of the case to new audiences. That, IMO, is what we need more of.

*In this instance, I was removed from the St. Louis Post Dispatch website, after being a member of that VERY LARGE AUDIENCE site for ten years. It was the day after I posted the 12-1-63 Dudman windshield article. Dudman is still alive, and I wonder if my posting it may have irked him. This was certainly not my intention. The reason I think it matters is because I have noticed an increasing pattern of censorship lately , especially when posting CIA history material on non-specialist, full spectrum sites.

At any rate I have now lost 5000 friends and a means of spreading JFK history that I had worked a long time on. Another medium seems to be closing. Specialized sites are great, but if they do not reconnect back into broader oceans of the internet they lead to extinction.

And I guess some nefarious forces were responsible for changing your bio link to thread on this forum? So what exactly happened to your FB account. Loosing your log in would prevent you from updating but would not lead to closure of the account.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dawn thanks for the concern, and I hate to clog the forum with my laborious false, though richly deserved, humility.

What happend was this, which I just posted to someone on an email

"Internet weirdness of the sort to leave one of my ilk head-scratching. First my FB account suddenly had the wrong email address to contact me by It had my name @ Yahoo when I have never had an account there. Then at the exact same time I cant get in my hotmail account, because my password no longer worked there. Weird that that should happen at the same time. It was shortly after I made a post mentioning the Strategy of Tension in Italy, ( in a casual kind of way, which is a unique ability of mine) Just speculating, but given my earlier censorship after being removed from the very high volume stl today site POSSIBLY because of posting the 12/1/63 article by their lead Washington reporter, Richard Dudman* about the hole in the windshield.

Regardless, I remain convinced that the proverbial they remain most concerned with "wide angle' posting and less concerned with specialist niche-site posting, 2) that the internet can take pressure of the really big media and allow it to get even worse because the very people who should be pointing out its faults are off in false-"alternative" sites, and 3) the way to solve this is by posting JFK specific back into the wider media circulatory system, because this can begin to impose a COST on the larger audience MSM and the specialized decoy Chris Mathews like shows, for being so bad. "

I post this here because I think the communications aspect might have greater relevance. At any rate I have now lost 5000 FB friends. Admittedly, my posts were too frequent so probably I was one of the most blocked citizens since Casandra went on FB, but I think some of my posts, at least were more accurate.

Our media environment has changed so fast, that there is not enough analysis of how this effects power in a "medium is the message" sort of way. And it is, more than ever, promise.

I do not consider myself a researcher, but a spreader of some provocative aspects of the case to new audiences. That, IMO, is what we need more of.

*In this instance, I was removed from the St. Louis Post Dispatch website, after being a member of that VERY LARGE AUDIENCE site for ten years. It was the day after I posted the 12-1-63 Dudman windshield article. Dudman is still alive, and I wonder if my posting it may have irked him. This was certainly not my intention. The reason I think it matters is because I have noticed an increasing pattern of censorship lately , especially when posting CIA history material on non-specialist, full spectrum sites.

At any rate I have now lost 5000 friends and a means of spreading JFK history that I had worked a long time on. Another medium seems to be closing. Specialized sites are great, but if they do not reconnect back into broader oceans of the internet they lead to extinction.

And I guess some nefarious forces were responsible for changing your bio link to thread on this forum? So what exactly happened to your FB account. Loosing your log in would prevent you from updating but would not lead to closure of the account.

No it was friendly forces who screwed with all his accounts. Gee, isn't it obvious? .

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...