The Future of the JFK Forum

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Robert,

I think you miss the point. For instance, if I were to say that Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK, some might call me a xxxx. That would be based on my saying what they believe to be untrue. However if I were to say that beliving it to be the truth, I am not telling a lie, I am merely wrong.

John's rule regarding that is meant to, amongst other things, stop such an accusation. It is also meant to stop such an accusation when the two parties are in disagreement.

For example, if I were to say that President Obama was a secret agent for the forces of the antichrist and you believed he was a step forward for the forces of good, could you call me a xxxx when I said something that I said - untrue and misguided as it may be - beliveing it to be correct?

If you believe someone is incorrect then you say that they are incorrect and present your evidence to support your case; readers will make their own judgments.

If you believe someone is deliberately saying things they know to be untrue then you contact th moderators, present your case, and ask that you call accuse them. If you case is strong enough then an exemption will be made otherwise you just have to be satisfied with showing that what someone has said is wrong.

I haven’t missed the point, Evan; I believe you may have missed mine.

There is much evidence open to debate, because it can be construed more than one way. That’s fair game. It’s a difference of opinion that makes a horse race, they say.

However, just as a recent example, Paul Trejo asserted that there were 20 witnesses to Oswald’s abuse of his wife Marina. Were he merely ignorant of the actual facts - which is a recurring pattern with him, as I’ve demonstrated - that doesn’t make him a xxxx; it merely means he’s wrong and needs to be corrected.

In order to correct his blatant misrepresentation of the facts, I meticulously searched through the testimony and demonstrated beyond doubt that most of the people Paul Trejo included in his “20" figure had no such direct first-hand knowledge and did not testify as he said they did.

Nevertheless, and despite acknowledging the "20" figure was overstated, Paul Trejo thereafter still contended there were twenty witnesses. At this point, it is no longer a mistake - because he’s been shown and admitted the error of his ways - and is an outright falsehood. Fairly clear instance, wouldn’t you think? I raise the point because I think there is a parallel with the Janney episode.

A few observations which I’ll try to keep brief.

From the little bit of correspondence we’ve had during the eight years I’ve been a member here, I believe John Simkin to be a liberal egalitarian who felt he could construct the single best and most effective JFK site by inviting the best researchers and authors. A laudable goal, and one he achieved I think. (It is a measure of his liberalism that he has granted membership to persons such as Jim DiEugenio, who had written some unflattering things about John prior to joining here.)

Because authors were invited by John, he no doubt hoped that they’d be treated with civility by the Forum membership. Contrary to the analogy offered, I don’t think this is John’s living room, but his classroom. He has invited visiting lecturers, through whom we might benefit by learning more, and they might benefit by selling some books.

Unfortunately for some of those authors, the membership here proved to be as well versed - or more so - than the authors who presume to educate us. Fireworks is predictably inevitable, particularly if authors expected deference rather than civility. Haughtiness ensues, due to wounded pride. But whom should we fault for this? The authors, whose case has not been made beyond a reasonable doubt? Or the members who point out that failing on the authors’ part?

This is multiply true in the case of Peter Janney’s book. John Simkin not only invited Peter here, but I believe provided him with some material aid in preparing his book (please correct me if I’m wrong on this), and subscribes to the book’s central premise that CIA murdered Mary Pinchot Meyer. (As it happens, I am inclined to concur with that assertion. That does not require me - or anyone - to accept Janney’s scenario for the crime if compelling evidence is not presented.)

Both the ousted members found reasonable fault with Janney’s book and demonstrated that some of the evidence presented was underwhelming at best, incorrect at worst. In fact, ex-moderator Tom Scully seemed to have located the man Janney accused of being Mary Meyer’s murderer, a man whom Janney himself claimed he was unable to find. Most of the comments made by the ousted members seemed fair game to me. But then, I don’t have a personal relationship with Peter Janney.

I believe that John has inadvertently admitted that he put his thumb on the scale in Janney’s favour:

“The main reason I did not act on this was because I was part of the argument. If I had tried to restrain these attacks I would have been accused of being biased and interfering with free speech. Even so, it was no real excuse for not protecting a friend.”

If a friend has been proved wrong, as I believe Janney had been by the ousted members, he doesn’t need protection; he needs correction. If he is unwilling to be corrected when shown persuasive evidence by forum members, a true friend shares some harsh truth with him. The alternative is to allow said friend to flail fruitlessly with a demonstrably flawed scenario, an allowance that does no favor to the friend, or the truth. Those who persist in pushing data they know to be wrong are no longer merely mistaken; they are trafficking in falsehoods. It is a disservice to this Forum’s raison d’etre to remain silent in such a case, irrespective of who the trafficker may be.

Those who refused to remain silent were the ones made to pay the price of excommunication, well after Janney ceased to post here.

I have written the foregoing to respond to something directed specifically to me. If DiEugenio and Scully are not re-instated as members, it will be my last post here, for reasons I think I have made sufficiently clear.

(Edited for typo)

Edited June 16, 2013 by Robert Charles-Dunne

[Greg Burnham]

[ ... ]

If a friend has been proved wrong, as I believe Janney had been by the ousted members, he doesn’t need protection; he needs correction. If he is unwilling to be corrected when shown persuasive evidence by forum members, a true friend shares some harsh truth with him. The alternative is to allow said friend to flail fruitlessly with a demonstrably flawed scenario, an allowance that does no favor to the friend, or the truth. Those who persist in pushing data they know to be wrong are no longer merely mistaken; they are trafficking in falsehoods. It is a disservice to this Forum’s raison d’etre to remain silent in such a case, irrespective of who the trafficker may be.

Those who refused to remain silent were the ones made to pay the price of excommunication, well after Janney ceased to post here.

I have written the foregoing to respond to something directed specifically to me. If DiEugenio and Scully are not re-instated as members, it will be my last post here, for reasons I think I have made sufficiently clear.

(Edited for typo)

Very well said, as usual, Robert. The first sentence I quoted from you above is reminiscent of my relationship with Jim Fetzer. Although I understand and respect (more than you know) your decision to offer this ultimatum to John, I fear that "ego protection" could unfortunately come into play in this instance. I hope it doesn't. However, If it rules the day, I will miss the brilliance of your posts and contributions to this forum. We have been in contact since your first post on JFKresearch Forum nearly 15 years ago when you inquired via private email about Jack White, the details of the message to be left out here. Suffice it to say, I recognized a "brother-in-arms" in search of the truth ever since.

ALLER_SECURISE

moine

[Thomas Graves]

Evan, I agree completely. It is one thing to claim that a writer has made a mistake, and it is something entirely different to publicly accuse that person of being a xxxx.

Where I work, an executive will commonly use the phrase, "I lied," when correcting himself or herself about something trivial, i.e. a scheduling time. It is now common usage; people conflate a mistake with a "lie". Yet a lie means a "deliberate deception" with an intention to mislead. It is quite different from a mistake.

People who attack mistakes and try to pass them off as "lies" really waste everybody's time here. They have nothing substantial to contribute -- and this was my personal complaint about Tom Scully. Hours of wasted time with little constructive dialogue.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul,

How many mistakes is one allowed to pass off as mistakes or misstatement?

Some of the finest, most knowledgeable and most articulate members of the forum have been engaged in a concerted and prolonged campaign of correcting your mistakes, including subject matter specialists.

Hours of wasted time with little constructive dialogue, indeed.

How many mistakes can one reasonably make before the term xxxx is appropriate?

If not xxxx, then how many mistakes can one reasonably make before their posts are deemed too lacking in facts to be taken seriously.

If that person is one of the most relentless posters on the forum then what does, the constant mistake maker, do to the quality of the forum?

[emphasis added by T. Graves]

Why, thank you, Gary!

(LOL)

--Tommy

PS I don't think Paul is a xxxx per se. I just think that he writes way too much stuff "from memory" (because he's evidently always in a big rush to "counter" his opponents in "the grand debate" and therefore makes a lot of mistakes) and that he has a really, really, really hard time admitting that he even made a mistake in the first place, much less thanking anyone for pointing out said mistakes to him.

Edited June 16, 2013 by Thomas Graves

[Dawn Meredith]

Robert,

I think you miss the point. For instance, if I were to say that Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK, some might call me a xxxx. That would be based on my saying what they believe to be untrue. However if I were to say that beliving it to be the truth, I am not telling a lie, I am merely wrong.

John's rule regarding that is meant to, amongst other things, stop such an accusation. It is also meant to stop such an accusation when the two parties are in disagreement.

For example, if I were to say that President Obama was a secret agent for the forces of the antichrist and you believed he was a step forward for the forces of good, could you call me a xxxx when I said something that I said - untrue and misguided as it may be - beliveing it to be correct?

If you believe someone is incorrect then you say that they are incorrect and present your evidence to support your case; readers will make their own judgments.

If you believe someone is deliberately saying things they know to be untrue then you contact th moderators, present your case, and ask that you call accuse them. If you case is strong enough then an exemption will be made otherwise you just have to be satisfied with showing that what someone has said is wrong.

I haven’t missed the point, Evan; I believe you may have missed mine.

There is much evidence open to debate, because it can be construed more than one way. That’s fair game. It’s a difference of opinion that makes a horse race, they say.

However, just as a recent example, Paul Trejo asserted that there were 20 witnesses to Oswald’s abuse of his wife Marina. Were he merely ignorant of the actual facts - which is a recurring pattern with him, as I’ve demonstrated - that doesn’t make him a xxxx; it merely means he’s wrong and needs to be corrected.

In order to correct his blatant misrepresentation of the facts, I meticulously searched through the testimony and demonstrated beyond doubt that most of the people Paul Trejo included in his “20" figure had no such direct first-hand knowledge and did not testify as he said they did.

Nevertheless, and despite acknowledging the "20" figure was overstated, Paul Trejo thereafter still contended there were twenty witnesses. At this point, it is no longer a mistake - because he’s been shown and admitted the error of his ways - and is an outright falsehood. Fairly clear instance, wouldn’t you think? I raise the point because I think there is a parallel with the Janney episode.

A few observations which I’ll try to keep brief.

From the little bit of correspondence we’ve had during the eight years I’ve been a member here, I believe John Simkin to be a liberal egalitarian who felt he could construct the single best and most effective JFK site by inviting the best researchers and authors. A laudable goal, and one he achieved I think. (It is a measure of his liberalism that he has granted membership to persons such as Jim DiEugenio, who had written some unflattering things about John prior to joining here.)

Because authors were invited by John, he no doubt hoped that they’d be treated with civility by the Forum membership. Contrary to the analogy offered, I don’t think this is John’s living room, but his classroom. He has invited visiting lecturers, through whom we might benefit by learning more, and they might benefit by selling some books.

Unfortunately for some of those authors, the membership here proved to be as well versed - or more so - than the authors who presume to educate us. Fireworks is predictably inevitable, particularly if authors expected deference rather than civility. Haughtiness ensues, due to wounded pride. But whom should we fault for this? The authors, whose case has not been made beyond a reasonable doubt? Or the members who point out that failing on the authors’ part?

This is multiply true in the case of Peter Janney’s book. John Simkin not only invited Peter here, but I believe provided him with some material aid in preparing his book (please correct me if I’m wrong on this), and subscribes to the book’s central premise that CIA murdered Mary Pinchot Meyer. (As it happens, I am inclined to concur with that assertion. That does not require me - or anyone - to accept Janney’s scenario for the crime if compelling evidence is not presented.)

Both the ousted members found reasonable fault with Janney’s book and demonstrated that some of the evidence presented was underwhelming at best, incorrect at worst. In fact, ex-moderator Tom Scully seemed to have located the man Janney accused of being Mary Meyer’s murderer, a man whom Janney himself claimed he was unable to find. Most of the comments made by the ousted members seemed fair game to me. But then, I don’t have a personal relationship with Peter Janney.

I believe that John has inadvertently admitted that he put his thumb on the scale in Janney’s favour:

“The main reason I did not act on this was because I was part of the argument. If I had tried to restrain these attacks I would have been accused of being biased and interfering with free speech. Even so, it was no real excuse for not protecting a friend.”

If a friend has been proved wrong, as I believe Janney had been by the ousted members, he doesn’t need protection; he needs correction. If he is unwilling to be corrected when shown persuasive evidence by forum members, a true friend shares some harsh truth with him. The alternative is to allow said friend to flail fruitlessly with a demonstrably flawed scenario, an allowance that does no favor to the friend, or the truth. Those who persist in pushing data they know to be wrong are no longer merely mistaken; they are trafficking in falsehoods. It is a disservice to this Forum’s raison d’etre to remain silent in such a case, irrespective of who the trafficker may be.

Those who refused to remain silent were the ones made to pay the price of excommunication, well after Janney ceased to post here.

I have written the foregoing to respond to something directed specifically to me. If DiEugenio and Scully are not re-instated as members, it will be my last post here, for reasons I think I have made sufficiently clear.

(Edited for typo)

If John sticks to his guns on this he will have lost by far the most admired person on this forum.

And that is a damn shame.

Dawn

[Paul Trejo]

Not enough attention is given this argument -- that Oswald is both innocent (in a way) and guilty (in a way) at the same time.

Sorry, Paul, that sounds like double-think to me.

This antiquated and disproved theory is just a variation on the official story. Old wine in new bottles.

The Warren Commission could not find a motive for Lee, and neither could Garrison.

Have you had any better luck in finding a motive?

So, Raymond, allow me to explain a bit further about the complex nuances of the participation of Lee Harvey Oswald in the assassination of JFK. This will clarify my opinion about the motive of Oswald.

First, I maintain that Lee Harvey Oswald knew the people who framed him. Of course, this cannot mean that Oswald knew that he was being framed at the time. He was ignorant of that fact. But Oswald willingly endured all the many stages of the framing (i.e. the sheep-dipping) procedure.

Insofar as Oswald was a ignorant that he was being framed (while he was clearly being framed) Oswald was therefore also ignorant of the reason, that is, of the goal, of his being framed. That is, he did not know that his framers were planning to frame him specifically for the assassination of JFK.

Yet, Oswald went through all the steps of being framed -- ignorantly -- because he thought he was being groomed for some other plot. To the best of my knowledge today (and in harmony with the politics of 1963) I believe Oswald believed he was being groomed to enter Cuba through Mexico City to KILL FIDEL CASTRO.

Otherwise, there was little reason for Lee Harvey Oswald to spend most of the summer of 1963 in New Orleans, pretending to be an officer of an FPCC chapter in New Orleans -- a fake FPCC chapter, with only one member -- himself.

For that is the substance of what Oswald did in New Orleans. He didn't go there to find work, evidently, because he was fired from his job at the Reily Coffee Company after less than 12 weeks there. He was taken to Clinton (by David Ferrie and Clay Shaw) to apply for a job at a mental hospital, but he refused to apply!

Rather, Oswald spent much of his time fabricating a fake FPCC chapter in New Orleans, and getting filmed handing out FPCC handbills, getting arrested, calling the FBI to his jail cell, appearing in the newspapers, radio and TV with Carlos Bringuier and other Cuban Exiles.

This was the reason Oswald was in New Orleans. This was the activity of the sheep-dip itself. Oswald cooperated with his framers, his sheep-dippers, not because he wanted to be framed for killing JFK (although that is what his framers planned), instead, IMHO, Oswald cooperated with them because he thought it would benefit him personally.

One of the things Lee Oswald said to Marina in New Orleans was that he was going to be 'Prime Minister of the USA' one day. He was speaking to her in 'Russian' imagery, teasing her, probably, but he was probably promised by his handlers that if he was successful in his "Operation Mongoose" type of mission, that he could obtain (in addition to a lot of cash and a big parade in his honor) a chance to run for public office in the USA. (Probably, too, his Marine discharge would also be upgraded from "undesirable" as he desired.)

So, I see Oswald working closely and energetically with the plotters of the JFK assassination -- but not to kill JFK. Oswald planned to kill Fidel Castro. That would explain why the FPCC chapter he promoted was a fake chapter, with an address in the same building as Guy Banister (with kudos to Jim Garrison for highlighting that to the world).

Guy Banister probably told Lee Oswald that FPCC officers got easy passage to Cuba from Mexico City. That was true, actually, for genuine FPCC officers. But Guy Banister probably also told Oswald that the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City could be easily fooled with enough newspaper clippings "proving" he was an FPCC member.

Naturally it didn't work. Guy Banister probably laughed his head off along with David Ferrie about this. But the Cuban Embassy would turn down Oswald's request for instant passage to Mexico by slamming the door shut, so to speak.

That failure would dash Oswald's dreams of his big parade -- but it was also the crowning achievement of Guy Banister & Company. The sheep-dip of Lee Harvey Oswald was complete -- and Oswald willingly participated every last step of the way.

So, Raymond, this is why I say that Lee Harvey Oswald knew his framers, the killers of JFK, and cooperated with them, even though he himself had no personal animosity against JFK.

The actual motives of Oswald could never be told by the Warren Commission, because that would immediately identify his framers, the actual killers of JFK, namely, the leaders of the radical right in the USA in 1963. If they had been named, then there would have been blood in the streets of Main Street, USA.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited June 18, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

...However, just as a recent example, Paul Trejo asserted that there were 20 witnesses to Oswald’s abuse of his wife Marina. Were he merely ignorant of the actual facts - which is a recurring pattern with him, as I’ve demonstrated - that doesn’t make him a xxxx; it merely means he’s wrong and needs to be corrected.

In order to correct his blatant misrepresentation of the facts, I meticulously searched through the testimony and demonstrated beyond doubt that most of the people Paul Trejo included in his “20" figure had no such direct first-hand knowledge and did not testify as he said they did.

Nevertheless, and despite acknowledging the "20" figure was overstated, Paul Trejo thereafter still contended there were twenty witnesses. At this point, it is no longer a mistake - because he’s been shown and admitted the error of his ways - and is an outright falsehood....

Fairly clear instance, wouldn’t you think?

No, Robert, it's not a clear instance, because in fact there still remain 20 witnesses to the beating of Marina Oswald.

Now -- that doesn't mean they were all *eye* witnesses, and that number includes Marina herself.

As for *eye* witnesses to her bruises we counted seven (not counting Marina) including one *eye* witness to Lee in the act of striking Marina (in the face, hard, twice, while she was holding baby June in her arms). Three of those *eye* witnesses directly confronted Lee Harvey Oswald with his abuse, and all three were told by Oswald, in effect, to mind their own business.

That means that of the 20 witnesses I identified from Warren Commission records, 12 were only *ear* witnesses, that is, they reported hearing from their friends that Lee Harvey Oswald beat Marina Oswald. (And as you pointed out, at least one of those *ear* witnesses admitted he never even met the Oswalds.)

Although "hear-say" testimony would not hold up in a Civil Court, that is totally aside from my key point -- the abstract count of precisely 20 people named in the Warren Commission to the effect that in Texas (but not in Minsk or New Orleans) Lee Harvey Oswald beat Marina. The witnesses include Oswald's own mother, for pity's sake, who was his most rigorous defender.

Those are the numbers. Those numbers are facts. There is no lie whatsoever there -- nor is there any intention to deceive anybody in any of that accounting.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited June 17, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Guest Robert Morrow]

June Oswald, LHO's daughter, in June, 1995 in NYT Magazine: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=675

Q: Do you and Rachel [June's sister] argue much about this?

A: Yes. Just in recent years; but yes. We are very close - except when these kinds of things come up. See, this is the difference. We visited the set of "JFK" when it was going on, and somebody said, "Your father was a hero." Well, that's what Rachel wants to believe. Rachel loved listening to that. She got all caught up, because she wants so badly to have this identification with her father.

That didn't set well with me. If they could prove somehow that he was innocent, he'd still not be a hero, he'd be a martyr. I have to remind Rachel that this is the man who beat our mother, who didn't provide for his children. I tell her, "Rachel, for all we know, we could have been living in the streets." Because that's mostly what I think of when I think of Lee. As for what his exact role in the assassination was - well, he'll have to be judged for that before God.

[Paul Trejo]

June Oswald, LHO's daughter, in June, 1995 in NYT Magazine: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=675

Q: Do you and Rachel [June's sister] argue much about this?

A: Yes. Just in recent years; but yes. We are very close - except when these kinds of things come up. See, this is the difference. We visited the set of "JFK" when it was going on, and somebody said, "Your father was a hero." Well, that's what Rachel wants to believe. Rachel loved listening to that. She got all caught up, because she wants so badly to have this identification with her father.

That didn't set well with me. If they could prove somehow that he was innocent, he'd still not be a hero, he'd be a martyr. I have to remind Rachel that this is the man who beat our mother, who didn't provide for his children. I tell her, "Rachel, for all we know, we could have been living in the streets." Because that's mostly what I think of when I think of Lee. As for what his exact role in the assassination was - well, he'll have to be judged for that before God.

Well, Robert, here's another dialectical paradox about Lee Harvey Oswald.

Marguerite Oswald often claimed that her son was 'the greatest hero' because he died in the line of duty, working for one of the Intelligence Agencies.

In my theory, Marguerite Oswald was half-right. IMHO we know that Lee Oswald was not a full-time employee of any Intelligence Agency -- however, insofar as he was falsely but deliberately made into the Lone Assassin by the Warren Commission for the specific purpose of National Security, then we might easily argue that Lee Harvey Oswald single-handedly prevented World War 3.

So, June and Rachel can both be right, within these nuances. Oswald was a martyr -- because he was victimized by his own associates; and yet Oswald was also a hero, because without the "Lone Assassin" mythology, the USA might easily have plunged into a Civil War during the Cold War which would have ignited a World War.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Robert Prudhomme]

Mr. Trejo

Someone once worked out the actual capital outlay required to operate Oswald's one-man FPCC chapter in New Orleans. This involved the cost of printing handbills and hiring people to hand them out on the street. It worked out to be a sizeable amount of cash, far beyond what Oswald would have had access to at the time.

I read the article years ago, and have been unable to locate it since. Would this be within the realm of your knowledge?

Thank you in advance.

[Pat Speer]

Robert,

I think you miss the point. For instance, if I were to say that Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK, some might call me a xxxx. That would be based on my saying what they believe to be untrue. However if I were to say that beliving it to be the truth, I am not telling a lie, I am merely wrong.

John's rule regarding that is meant to, amongst other things, stop such an accusation. It is also meant to stop such an accusation when the two parties are in disagreement.

For example, if I were to say that President Obama was a secret agent for the forces of the antichrist and you believed he was a step forward for the forces of good, could you call me a xxxx when I said something that I said - untrue and misguided as it may be - beliveing it to be correct?

If you believe someone is incorrect then you say that they are incorrect and present your evidence to support your case; readers will make their own judgments.

If you believe someone is deliberately saying things they know to be untrue then you contact th moderators, present your case, and ask that you call accuse them. If you case is strong enough then an exemption will be made otherwise you just have to be satisfied with showing that what someone has said is wrong.

I haven’t missed the point, Evan; I believe you may have missed mine.

There is much evidence open to debate, because it can be construed more than one way. That’s fair game. It’s a difference of opinion that makes a horse race, they say.

However, just as a recent example, Paul Trejo asserted that there were 20 witnesses to Oswald’s abuse of his wife Marina. Were he merely ignorant of the actual facts - which is a recurring pattern with him, as I’ve demonstrated - that doesn’t make him a xxxx; it merely means he’s wrong and needs to be corrected.

In order to correct his blatant misrepresentation of the facts, I meticulously searched through the testimony and demonstrated beyond doubt that most of the people Paul Trejo included in his “20" figure had no such direct first-hand knowledge and did not testify as he said they did.

Nevertheless, and despite acknowledging the "20" figure was overstated, Paul Trejo thereafter still contended there were twenty witnesses. At this point, it is no longer a mistake - because he’s been shown and admitted the error of his ways - and is an outright falsehood. Fairly clear instance, wouldn’t you think? I raise the point because I think there is a parallel with the Janney episode.

A few observations which I’ll try to keep brief.

From the little bit of correspondence we’ve had during the eight years I’ve been a member here, I believe John Simkin to be a liberal egalitarian who felt he could construct the single best and most effective JFK site by inviting the best researchers and authors. A laudable goal, and one he achieved I think. (It is a measure of his liberalism that he has granted membership to persons such as Jim DiEugenio, who had written some unflattering things about John prior to joining here.)

Because authors were invited by John, he no doubt hoped that they’d be treated with civility by the Forum membership. Contrary to the analogy offered, I don’t think this is John’s living room, but his classroom. He has invited visiting lecturers, through whom we might benefit by learning more, and they might benefit by selling some books.

Unfortunately for some of those authors, the membership here proved to be as well versed - or more so - than the authors who presume to educate us. Fireworks is predictably inevitable, particularly if authors expected deference rather than civility. Haughtiness ensues, due to wounded pride. But whom should we fault for this? The authors, whose case has not been made beyond a reasonable doubt? Or the members who point out that failing on the authors’ part?

This is multiply true in the case of Peter Janney’s book. John Simkin not only invited Peter here, but I believe provided him with some material aid in preparing his book (please correct me if I’m wrong on this), and subscribes to the book’s central premise that CIA murdered Mary Pinchot Meyer. (As it happens, I am inclined to concur with that assertion. That does not require me - or anyone - to accept Janney’s scenario for the crime if compelling evidence is not presented.)

Both the ousted members found reasonable fault with Janney’s book and demonstrated that some of the evidence presented was underwhelming at best, incorrect at worst. In fact, ex-moderator Tom Scully seemed to have located the man Janney accused of being Mary Meyer’s murderer, a man whom Janney himself claimed he was unable to find. Most of the comments made by the ousted members seemed fair game to me. But then, I don’t have a personal relationship with Peter Janney.

I believe that John has inadvertently admitted that he put his thumb on the scale in Janney’s favour:

“The main reason I did not act on this was because I was part of the argument. If I had tried to restrain these attacks I would have been accused of being biased and interfering with free speech. Even so, it was no real excuse for not protecting a friend.”

If a friend has been proved wrong, as I believe Janney had been by the ousted members, he doesn’t need protection; he needs correction. If he is unwilling to be corrected when shown persuasive evidence by forum members, a true friend shares some harsh truth with him. The alternative is to allow said friend to flail fruitlessly with a demonstrably flawed scenario, an allowance that does no favor to the friend, or the truth. Those who persist in pushing data they know to be wrong are no longer merely mistaken; they are trafficking in falsehoods. It is a disservice to this Forum’s raison d’etre to remain silent in such a case, irrespective of who the trafficker may be.

Those who refused to remain silent were the ones made to pay the price of excommunication, well after Janney ceased to post here.

I have written the foregoing to respond to something directed specifically to me. If DiEugenio and Scully are not re-instated as members, it will be my last post here, for reasons I think I have made sufficiently clear.

(Edited for typo)

I wonder sometimes if my world experience is vastly different from that of my fellow forum members.

The reality, IMO, is that very few people EVER admit their mistakes, and that writers--once their brilliant words have been carved in gold--almost NEVER admit their mistakes.

The best one can hope for on a public forum, therefore, is to point out "Well, hmmm, look at this, I think you're wrong and here's why" and hope those following the forum come to believe you. Pushing the issue--and trying to make the writer or fellow forum member AGREE with you--is, IMO, a de facto form of harassment, designed to make that writer or member quit the forum.

I wish it weren't true, but 'tis so. We have many members, with a variety of opinions, and variety of approaches to the evidence. Whittling it down to a few whose facts are completely in order would lead to a very quiet forum, in which few ideas are explored, IMO.

People need room to breathe, and come to their own decision about their having made a mistake. Pressuring them to do so leads nowhere, unfortunately...which is why this case drags on...and on...and on...

Edited June 17, 2013 by Pat Speer

[David G. Healy]

Robert,

I think you miss the point. For instance, if I were to say that Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK, some might call me a xxxx. That would be based on my saying what they believe to be untrue. However if I were to say that beliving it to be the truth, I am not telling a lie, I am merely wrong.

John's rule regarding that is meant to, amongst other things, stop such an accusation. It is also meant to stop such an accusation when the two parties are in disagreement.

For example, if I were to say that President Obama was a secret agent for the forces of the antichrist and you believed he was a step forward for the forces of good, could you call me a xxxx when I said something that I said - untrue and misguided as it may be - beliveing it to be correct?

If you believe someone is incorrect then you say that they are incorrect and present your evidence to support your case; readers will make their own judgments.

If you believe someone is deliberately saying things they know to be untrue then you contact th moderators, present your case, and ask that you call accuse them. If you case is strong enough then an exemption will be made otherwise you just have to be satisfied with showing that what someone has said is wrong.

I haven’t missed the point, Evan; I believe you may have missed mine.

There is much evidence open to debate, because it can be construed more than one way. That’s fair game. It’s a difference of opinion that makes a horse race, they say.

However, just as a recent example, Paul Trejo asserted that there were 20 witnesses to Oswald’s abuse of his wife Marina. Were he merely ignorant of the actual facts - which is a recurring pattern with him, as I’ve demonstrated - that doesn’t make him a xxxx; it merely means he’s wrong and needs to be corrected.

In order to correct his blatant misrepresentation of the facts, I meticulously searched through the testimony and demonstrated beyond doubt that most of the people Paul Trejo included in his “20" figure had no such direct first-hand knowledge and did not testify as he said they did.

Nevertheless, and despite acknowledging the "20" figure was overstated, Paul Trejo thereafter still contended there were twenty witnesses. At this point, it is no longer a mistake - because he’s been shown and admitted the error of his ways - and is an outright falsehood. Fairly clear instance, wouldn’t you think? I raise the point because I think there is a parallel with the Janney episode.

A few observations which I’ll try to keep brief.

From the little bit of correspondence we’ve had during the eight years I’ve been a member here, I believe John Simkin to be a liberal egalitarian who felt he could construct the single best and most effective JFK site by inviting the best researchers and authors. A laudable goal, and one he achieved I think. (It is a measure of his liberalism that he has granted membership to persons such as Jim DiEugenio, who had written some unflattering things about John prior to joining here.)

Because authors were invited by John, he no doubt hoped that they’d be treated with civility by the Forum membership. Contrary to the analogy offered, I don’t think this is John’s living room, but his classroom. He has invited visiting lecturers, through whom we might benefit by learning more, and they might benefit by selling some books.

Unfortunately for some of those authors, the membership here proved to be as well versed - or more so - than the authors who presume to educate us. Fireworks is predictably inevitable, particularly if authors expected deference rather than civility. Haughtiness ensues, due to wounded pride. But whom should we fault for this? The authors, whose case has not been made beyond a reasonable doubt? Or the members who point out that failing on the authors’ part?

This is multiply true in the case of Peter Janney’s book. John Simkin not only invited Peter here, but I believe provided him with some material aid in preparing his book (please correct me if I’m wrong on this), and subscribes to the book’s central premise that CIA murdered Mary Pinchot Meyer. (As it happens, I am inclined to concur with that assertion. That does not require me - or anyone - to accept Janney’s scenario for the crime if compelling evidence is not presented.)

Both the ousted members found reasonable fault with Janney’s book and demonstrated that some of the evidence presented was underwhelming at best, incorrect at worst. In fact, ex-moderator Tom Scully seemed to have located the man Janney accused of being Mary Meyer’s murderer, a man whom Janney himself claimed he was unable to find. Most of the comments made by the ousted members seemed fair game to me. But then, I don’t have a personal relationship with Peter Janney.

I believe that John has inadvertently admitted that he put his thumb on the scale in Janney’s favour:

“The main reason I did not act on this was because I was part of the argument. If I had tried to restrain these attacks I would have been accused of being biased and interfering with free speech. Even so, it was no real excuse for not protecting a friend.”

If a friend has been proved wrong, as I believe Janney had been by the ousted members, he doesn’t need protection; he needs correction. If he is unwilling to be corrected when shown persuasive evidence by forum members, a true friend shares some harsh truth with him. The alternative is to allow said friend to flail fruitlessly with a demonstrably flawed scenario, an allowance that does no favor to the friend, or the truth. Those who persist in pushing data they know to be wrong are no longer merely mistaken; they are trafficking in falsehoods. It is a disservice to this Forum’s raison d’etre to remain silent in such a case, irrespective of who the trafficker may be.

Those who refused to remain silent were the ones made to pay the price of excommunication, well after Janney ceased to post here.

I have written the foregoing to respond to something directed specifically to me. If DiEugenio and Scully are not re-instated as members, it will be my last post here, for reasons I think I have made sufficiently clear.

(Edited for typo)

I wonder sometimes if my world experience is vastly different from that of my fellow forum members.

The reality, IMO, is that very few people EVER admit their mistakes, and that writers--once their brilliant words have been carved in gold--almost NEVER admit their mistakes.

The best one can hope for on a public forum, therefore, is to point out "Well, hmmm, look at this, I think you're wrong and here's why" and hope those following the forum come to believe you. Pushing the issue--and trying to make the writer or fellow forum member AGREE with you--is, IMO, a de facto form of harassment, designed to make that writer or member quit the forum.

I wish it weren't true, but 'tis so. We have many members, with a variety of opinions, and variety of approaches to the evidence. Whittling it down to a few whose facts are completely in order would lead to a very quiet forum, in which few ideas are explored, IMO.

People need room to breathe, and come to their own decision about their having made a mistake. Pressuring them to do so leads nowhere, unfortunately...which is why this case drags on...and on...and on...

you've spend too much time in Hollyweird, dude! "People need room to breathe..."? <sigh>

[John Simkin]

I had not read the thread before and would have assumed it would have been dealt with by the moderators. In fact, the main offender was one of the moderators, Tom Scully, where he breaks the Forum rules by calling Albarelli a xxxx.

I have scanned the relevant posts, John, and I cannot find where Tom calls Albarelli "a xxxx".

Can anyone else?

Are we to be told exactly when and how Tom and Jim broke forums rules in such a manner that earned them expulsion from the forum without fair warning?

Are we entitled to any explanation or under the "new regime" are we supposed to just knuckle under?

In my original posting on this matter I gave a link to:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19016

The quote I had in mind was the following

Tom Scully, on 27 May 2013 - 7:24 PM, said:

"Last year, when Peter Janney was prone to mistakes, exaggeration, and pomposity , I did not expect Hank Albarelli to speak out to distance himself from Janney and to account for the statements Janney attributed to Albarelli in "Mary's Mosaic".

Now that Janney is in the business of making claims misleading to the point that they are deliberate lies, Albarelli's continued silence about what Janney has attributed to Albarelli in "Mary's Mosaic" is inexcusable."

Remember, these are the words of a moderator, whose role is apparently to people from posting abuse of fellow members. I have had numerous complaints from members over the past few months pointing out that Tom continually flouted the rules that he was supposed to be enforcing.

Tom Scully and Jim DiEugenio were not removed from this Forum for any individual breach of Forum rules. My decision was based on what I considered a long-term campaign into bullying members into not posting on this forum.

It is a decision I will not revoke. I have received several emails from members who have thanked me for making this decision, admitting that in the past they have been intimidated from posting. As I explained earlier, this is my last effort at attempting to promote the idea of a reasoned debate on the JFK assassination.

[Robert Prudhomme]

As far as I can see, Tom has been removed completely from the forum, but Jim is still showing as an active member.

Mr. MacRae

I'm sorry but, the "best evidence" distinctly points to Mr. DiEugenio being removed from this forum. Please read the following document from Mr. Simkin:

"Tom Scully and Jim DiEugenio were not removed from this Forum for any individual breach of Forum rules. My decision was based on what I considered a long-term campaign into bullying members into not posting on this forum.

It is a decision I will not revoke. I have received several emails from members who have thanked me for making this decision, admitting that in the past they have been intimidated from posting. As I explained earlier, this is my last effort at attempting to promote the idea of a reasoned debate on the JFK assassination."

While there may be some "evidence" pointing towards Mr. DiEugenio returning to this forum, we have to always remember that some types of evidence are unreliable, especially eyewitness evidence.

[Guest Robert Morrow]

Simkin: "Tom Scully and Jim DiEugenio were not removed from this Forum for any individual breach of Forum rules. My decision was based on what I considered a long-term campaign into bullying members into not posting on this forum."

What really blew my mind re: Scully is that I was not allowed to call Bill Clinton a rapist & pervert when that topic came up. After all the documentation of Bill Clinton's long history of rape including several cases of biting lips, serial sexual assault, exposing himself, unwanted hard passes ... and yet in Scullyworld this was somehow a verbotten topic.

David Lifton says that in the 1992 Bill Clinton on the campaign trail (privately) revealed himself to be quite a conspiracy buff in the JFK assassination. Yet today in 2013 Bill Clinton is publicly a complete supporter of the Warren Reporter laugher. I think that says a lot about Bill Clinton.

Scully was an intolerant bully, a little man with a Napolean complex, who is psychologically unsuited to be a an impartial moderator anywhere. Yes, his efforts were to bully people into not expressing their opinions as *he* the Scullinator violated forum rules left & right with his personal attacks.

I do think Education Forum, especially when combined with the Spartacus enclyclopedia, is the best place to learn about the JFK assassination on the internet. Ed Forum was where I was introduced to the JFK assassination in spring, 2008 (reading, learning).

Edited June 17, 2013 by Robert Morrow

[Paul Trejo]

Mr. Trejo

Someone once worked out the actual capital outlay required to operate Oswald's one-man FPCC chapter in New Orleans. This involved the cost of printing handbills and hiring people to hand them out on the street. It worked out to be a sizeable amount of cash, far beyond what Oswald would have had access to at the time.

I read the article years ago, and have been unable to locate it since. Would this be within the realm of your knowledge?

Thank you in advance.

Mr. Prudhomme, I don't have details on the capital outlay. I do agree that starting even a small business requires a small capital outlay, and Oswald was earning around minimum wage (around $1.25 an hour in 1963) with a family to feed in New Orleans -- and was fired (or laid off) from Reily's in only a few weeks, so he took unemployment insurance to support his family -- a pittance. Where did the capital outlay come from?

I think Jim Garrison answered that question deftly when he identified Clay Shaw as one of the JFK conspirators in New Orleans. A millionaire would easily be able to cast about the $20 here, $40 there, as needed to rent office space, mimeographs, brochures, handbills, membership cards, stationery, stamps and so on.

It appears that Oswald also had pin money ready-to-hand -- for example, to help him hand out FPCC handbills near Canal Street (in front of Clay Shaw's Trade Mart buliding) Oswald hired two boys from the local unemployment insurance office at $2 an hour. (That's about $20 an hour adjusted for inflation today).

The boys jumped at the opportunity. (One boy, however, later found himself answering to the FBI and his father.) My point is that Oswald didn't even earn $2 an hour, so how could he afford to pay others $2 an hour? Obviously he couldn't -- but Clay Shaw could.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited June 18, 2013 by Paul Trejo