Do the under 60s need a new JFK forum?

[John Simkin]

We have lost Parker, Scully, Farley and Di Eugenio to maintain and support Trejo, Lifton, Janney and Albarelli.

I think we all need to drop some acid to understand this. Or perhaps the under 60s need a new forum for new ideas and new research.

It is possible that Gary is right that my recent actions are linked to my age. I will be 68 this month. When I was brought up by my parents after the war I was brought up with certain values. They were what sociologists have called respectable working-class. I was taught not to steal or cheat and to be polite at all times.

When I was eleven years old I was made a prefect at my junior school. I rushed home to show my dads prefects badge. Much to my surprise, my dad gave me a lecture on the dangers of being a prefect. In fact, he advised me to always question those in authority. I remember the conversation well because it was the last one we had. A few days later he was killed in a road accident.

My parents have obviously shaped my personality. Although I always question those in authority, I always try to do it politely. At times it has cost me a great deal (it was clearly not good to be a teacher in the school system with a belief that you should always question those in authority) but at least I can go to my grave believing I am upholding my parents values.

However, I suspect that Garys comments were not only directed against my old fashioned values. He is probably suggesting that I am suffering from mental deterioration. I suppose I am not the best person to judge if this is the case. However, I am willing to complain that somehow that when people reach the age of 60 their opinions must not be taken seriously. It is true that some of the people who have supported me have been over 60. But that is probably true of my critics such as Robert Charles Dunne.

It is an interesting idea that the under 60s need a new forum for new ideas and new research." Maybe you should actually do this. If you do, I promise that I will not react by only allowing members over 60.

[Guest Robert Morrow]

At (almost) every JFK discussion board that I have ever joined, I have expressed a well researched, if strong, opinion in JFK research. Then boom! I immediately come under savage personal attack and in many cases by the moderator!!

Seamus Coogan, who I have absolutely no respect, none whatsoever, did that at JFK Lancer.

Charles Drago (moderator), the epitome of dyspepsia over at DPF, behaved that way as well. As I always say, stupid is in session whenver Drago is at a keyboard.

Then there was the Scullinator (moderator) over here; a man who appeared to be freebasing on power & acting like an intolerant tyrannical jackass.

Multiply this by a 1,000 times in JFK research; it is rife with this, but that does not excuse it.

Actually, no, an "under 60" JFK discussion board is not needed.

The forum members and certain moderators need to quit acting like jerks & bullies. (Gee, how often in 7 years have you seen Pat Speer in an epic flame war?? Never.)

This behavior has plagued the JFK research community since Day 1.

John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Vincent Bugliosi & the Scullinator, with his whirring blender of autistic data dump gibberish, are not Ed Forum members so they are all fair game for analysis and some choice & well deserved remarks & opinions about their character or lack thereof.

Gary Mack, bless his precious little heart, is an Ed Forum member and must be treated with the utmost respect. I do have issues with the Sixth Floor Museum.

Sidenote: worship of the Kennedys as the risen Christ come to save the world is not the same thing as JFK research. In fact, examining the epic warts of the Kennedys is educational and informative. Gen. Curtis LeMay sure did - in his oral history he called them "cockroaches" with low morals.

My take: Curtis LeMay was a key player in the JFK Assassination. He was in on it. One of his Air Force generals Ed Lansdale was onsite in Dallas, supervising the execution.

Edited June 18, 2013 by Robert Morrow

[David Lifton]

It is possible that Gary is right that my recent actions are linked to my age. I will be 68 this month. When I was brought up by my parents after the war I was brought up with certain values. They were what sociologists have called respectable working-class. I was taught not to steal or cheat and to be polite at all times.

When I was eleven years old I was made a prefect at my junior school. I rushed home to show my dads prefects badge. Much to my surprise, my dad gave me a lecture on the dangers of being a prefect. In fact, he advised me to always question those in authority. I remember the conversation well because it was the last one we had. A few days later he was killed in a road accident.

My parents have obviously shaped my personality. Although I always question those in authority, I always try to do it politely. At times it has cost me a great deal (it was clearly not good to be a teacher in the school system with a belief that you should always question those in authority) but at least I can go to my grave believing I am upholding my parents values.

However, I suspect that Garys comments were not only directed against my old fashioned values. He is probably suggesting that I am suffering from mental deterioration. I suppose I am not the best person to judge if this is the case. However, I am willing to complain that somehow that when people reach the age of 60 their opinions must not be taken seriously. It is true that some of the people who have supported me have been over 60. But that is probably true of my critics such as Robert Charles Dunne.

It is an interesting idea that the under 60s need a new forum for new ideas and new research." Maybe you should actually do this. If you do, I promise that I will not react by only allowing members over 60.

John,

I don’t think being over 60 has anything to do with this. And I am largely in agreement with Robert Morrow’s post. Gary Loughran talks about who “we have lost.” What about the fact that the level of toxicity has been considerably reduced?

When it comes having decent values, I don’t see that age has anything to do it. There is nothing “old fashioned” about telling the truth, or standing up for what is right. And one’s age shouldn’t make a difference.

You said a mouthful in one of your recent post, and I would like to return to that statement, because it really goes to the heart of the matter. Quoting from your post on “The Future of the Forum”:

In the early days of the JFK forum authors of books on the assassination, were willing to discuss their material on the subject. I was aware that people held strong opinions on the assassination but I had no idea of the level of hatred that people had for fellow researchers. The real problem was not between those who believed in the lone-gunman theory and those who were convinced it was a conspiracy. The real conflict was between those who believed in different conspiracy theories. Sometimes they agreed on the overall theory but disagreed passionately on some minor detail.

Your statement about the “level of hatred” really struck a chord. Why is that? I do not have an answer. But I agree—that’s the key issue, and all I can say is that I have become acutely aware of that issue. Harrison Livingstone has left death threats on my answering machine; then he sued me for $50 million claiming I was part of a conspiracy to kill him. The late Roger Feinman wrote a scurrilous manuscript claiming my book was a hoax, that I made it up to get a book contract. And there are a number of other people I could mention.

Everybody’s theory about the assassination cannot be correct. As Sylvia Meagher used to say—the assassination happened only one way, once. And, as I have added: It did not happen once for the benefit of he Warren Commission, and another time for the benefit of its critics.

And, of course, there would have to be “multiple reruns” to accommodate the many different conspiracy hypotheses that have been offered to explain this event.

Of critical importance: People’s identity gets tied up with their views on this event. And that is the problem.

All I can say is thankyou for the forum, and I believe you have exercised proper judgment.

DSL

6/18/13; 2:30 AM PDT

Los Angeles, California

Edited June 18, 2013 by David Lifton

[Larry Hancock]

In the interest of transparency I just turned 66 so my remarks may be meaningless. I really don't think its a matter of age however but I do think its a matter

of "passion". This is a subject that brings out personal passions and to me many of the positions taken are very much a matter of personal world view

and even politics. It is also a subject that leads some to what I would term as "evangelism" in their points of view. Nothing wrong with a crusade for

truth and justice, its just a question of where you conduct it.

Whether or not that passion and evangelism is something the host of the forum wants to go with is obviously their call. As I said in another thread I think it

is possible to challenge posted information in a very brisk point-counterpoint fashion without it being a fight....lurkers and readers can make their own call.

Its a limited form of peer review. That's a lot different from personal crusades for truth and justice - which can go personal really quickly (not that it

doesn't happen in academia too...).

Whether or not that's good enough for everyone is the question and the answer is probably personality rather than age. I know both young and old

"evangelists". The thing is, there are other forums where passion prevails so there is an alternative there. And with blogs everybody can tell their own

view of things...if anyone wants to listen. Or, heaven forbid, you can always write your own book....

-- Larry

[Robin Unger]

I turn 60 in a few months time, hopefully i won't be put out to pasture just yet.

[John Simkin]

In the interest of transparency I just turned 66 so my remarks may be meaningless. I really don't think its a matter of age however but I do think its a matter of "passion". This is a subject that brings out personal passions and to me many of the positions taken are very much a matter of personal world view and even politics. It is also a subject that leads some to what I would term as "evangelism" in their points of view. Nothing wrong with a crusade for truth and justice, its just a question of where you conduct it.

Whether or not that passion and evangelism is something the host of the forum wants to go with is obviously their call. As I said in another thread I think it is possible to challenge posted information in a very brisk point-counterpoint fashion without it being a fight....lurkers and readers can make their own call.

I have always considered your behaviour exemplary. You understandably withdraw when it gets too heated.

It is true that there is conflict in the academic world. However, I have never encountered as much conflict as I have on JFK forums. As I said before, the real problem was not between those who believed in the lone-gunman theory and those who were convinced it was a conspiracy. The real conflict was between those who believed in different conspiracy theories. Sometimes they agreed on the overall theory but disagreed passionately on some minor detail.

In my case, I seem to have upset most people by my willingless to believe that JFK had numerous affairs. In reality, this has nothing to do with the conspiracy to kill JFK.

[Douglas Caddy]

I, for one, and I am unanimous in my opinion, am finding it a relief to go on the JFK Assassination topic without fear that Jim D. or Tom S. will be lurking here engaged in their never ending abuses of other members.

At age 75, I like less drama and more searching for the truth.Time has become the most valuable commodity as more and more sand in my hour glass can be found in the bottom half.

[Pat Speer]

I came to this forum BECAUSE it had many elder statesman, so to speak, from whom I thought I could learn something. And I did. Several of these statesmen remain and have posted on this thread.

But there's another side to research. If one approaches the case with an open mind, one finds all sorts of avenues one might follow. Many of these lead nowhere. Many of these have been explored by others, only to be rejected.

But some of them have not been fully explored, and deserve exploring. Sometimes new evidence has appeared since the last time they were explored, etc. In any event, whatever the reason, some of the "over 60" crowd gets all high and mighty when a newbie re-explores what they have been told is a dead end, and refuses to take the elder statesman's word on it.

As a result, a young researcher, leaning CT, is likely to encounter as much resistance from his fellow CTs as from those on the other side of the fence. That can be quite discouraging.

Edited June 19, 2013 by Pat Speer

[Guest Gary Loughran]

Oh groan. Here John goes again...

Days ago I explained to John Simkin, that the comment about over 60's and acid was tongue in cheek. .

John interpreted this as sarcasm, I thought it was more humorous.

For some reason John has chosen to refuse this simple explanation and then makes up a fictional story about me, questioning this and suggesting that, around this.

But then John's accusations against me become more insidious with his false assumptions and 'probably suggesting'; a tactic John uses often against people he has come to dislike on this forum. Now I am forced to defend myself about things John has invented to create negative association with me, even adding emotive elements to his script.

I made absolutely no reference to Johns mental faculty. Absolutely none. I meant the over 60's forum and on acid comments in good humour. Something John knew days in advance of concocting his story. He needs to disabuse himself of all suspicions. That is all you should need to know to consign John's fictional attributions to me to the dust bin.

But hey Johns a man of values. Lets continue then.

Then John makes reference to 'old fashioned values' whatever they are and whatever that means. Like making up stuff about people John, those values.

My dad taught me to always question those in authority (real authority) too. My dad taught me not to cheat or steal and never to lie. I cannot tolerate any one of these traits, especially people who lie.

My dad also taught me to always stand up for myself and to fight hard against injustice wherever it is found.

My dad taught me to have courage not fear.

I hold all these values true.

I had a wonderful Fathers Day with him. Good times.

I will also go to the grave upholding my parents values. My dad knows this too, because he told me so on Sunday.

You falsely accused Tom Scully and compounded, not lessened, that accusation recently by highlighting the text you originally read from incorrectly. I am a great believer in values John, more than you appear to understand. I am not a xxxx, I am not a cheat and I have never stolen.

Your rationale for removing Tom and Jim was not driven by good values, nor, more obviously, is your support of Robert Morrow. You have always made very personal choices driven by values I haven't yet worked out. Perhaps that is what 'old fashioned values' really are.

Your choice of Robert Charles-Dunne in your spiel, makes you suffer by comparison. Robert has chosen not to post here based on his own good values.

I could blindly follow you as others have chosen, but then I am true to my own values and don't just pay lip service. This is why, as you know, and you do know why this is John, I am so disappointed in you. Nothing to do with respect for authority more to do with respect for myself and my own values.

Can I look forward to waking every day to find you have based a story around one of my quotes; which you have surrounded with false assumptions and passed off as some sort of truth?

I promise if I were ever got the time or had the energy to start a forum you would be very welcome.

[Mark Knight]

John, I'm 58 years old. During the JFK presidency, I was perhaps a little more in tune with the political situation than most my age because of a project I began. I started collecting editorial cartoons about world affairs and presidential politics from the Louisville, KY Courier-Journal, drawn by the incomparable artist Hugh Haynie. Sometimes, at 9 years of age, my dad would have to explain one particular barb or another to me. But I knew who Adenauer and DeGaulle and Kruschev and Castro and Harold Macmillan and Golda Meir were.

I came here to learn from those who had done the research, as I hadn't the financial resources to do the research myself. I was "privileged" to have exchanged private messages and email with Gerry Patrick Hemming, and the content of some of those messages are still rather cryptic to me.

While I was taught courtesy, I was also taught to NOT let a xxxx get away with a lie when I knew the truth. Was the Warren Commission an "extension" of the United States Supreme Court simply because both were chaired by the Chief Justice? Or is that an outright lie? Rulings by the Supreme Court have the force of law; rulings by the Warren Commission did [and do] not...among numerous other differences. So I first pointed out the error of the original poster. When he persisted with the same falsehood, THEN I called him a xxxx, and made my case. And when the same poster continuously plays fast-and-loose with the truth, until what point is he NOT a "serial xxxx?"

I was taught to call a spade a spade, a man a man...and a xxxx exactly what he is. Yes, this is a violation of the "code" of the Forum; but I would rather violate the Forum's code, than to violate my own code of morality in the pursuit of the truth. Better that we build only a foundation if it is built upon the truth, than we build a tower to the heavens using falsehoods for the cornerstones.

[Michael Crane]

Nope,I`m 49 just 1 month old when Kennedy was assassinated.This forum is just right.I would just like to see more opinions on matters,instead of the need for facts in most cases that are hard to come by.

Edited June 19, 2013 by Michael Crane

[Thomas Graves]

Nope,I`m 49 just 1 month old when Kennedy was assassinated.This forum is just right.I would just like to see more opinions on matters,instead of the need for facts in most cases that are hard to come by.

I'm 63 and I wish there was something like a "tutorial" here showing us old f***ts how to do (sophisticated?) searches for CIA, FBI, ONI, State Department, etc documents at MF, History Matters, Baylor, the National Archives, etc. You know, how to use RIF numbers, Agency numbers, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc......

--Tommy

Edited June 19, 2013 by Thomas Graves

[Mark Wengler]

I say no having members her that remember what JFK was like and what they felt when news broke on the assassination is an asset to all

I was born in Jan 64 what i knew about JFK came from my mother.

The 1st books i learn to read from was on JFK

[John Simkin]

Oh groan. Here John goes again...

Days ago I explained to John Simkin, that the comment about over 60's and acid was tongue in cheek. .

John interpreted this as sarcasm, I thought it was more humorous.

This is untrue. Your email saying it was “tongue in cheek” was sent (18 June 2013 08:03). My post was an hour earlier at 7.02.

My reference to “sarcasm” was in reply to your email on 09th June 2013 10:11 when you said:

“Perhaps you will also be going to California to Jim Fetzers conference where Janney is appearing this summer. I suggest taking some acid before attending, proceedings will likely appear much more sensible and your policy making might also change as a result.”

[Guest Gary Loughran]

Oh groan. Here John goes again...

Days ago I explained to John Simkin, that the comment about over 60's and acid was tongue in cheek. .

John interpreted this as sarcasm, I thought it was more humorous.

This is untrue. Your email saying it was “tongue in cheek” was sent (18 June 2013 08:03). My post was an hour earlier at 7.02.

My reference to “sarcasm” was in reply to your email on 09th June 2013 10:11 when you said:

“Perhaps you will also be going to California to Jim Fetzers conference where Janney is appearing this summer. I suggest taking some acid before attending, proceedings will likely appear much more sensible and your policy making might also change as a result.”

Actually John it was true. I sent an email to he moderator group on 11th June stating exactly as I had written above. It appears, however, people have been using johnsimkin@ instead of John.simkin@ which meant when i replied all the post bounced. I have forwarded this on to you.

I accept then that you were unaware of me posting a response a week ago explaining my comments as tongue in cheek.

This still doesn't explain why you invented a story that I was attacking 'your old fashioned values' and your 'mental deterioration'.

Telling truth is a central pillar of my own value system, it is noticeably absent from your stated 'old fashioned values' in your opening post.