How Important is Bill Kelly's Thread?

[John Dolva]

re pinning. The points pro are balanced against protocol. It has never, on this forum, been a practice of pinning member topics. Important admin topics are. Start pinning one and where to stop? During some changes, at one point, the numner of pinned admin topics grew to the point that there was much less room for topics on the front page.

As this is now a community forum there is an argument for members making decisions.

Perhaps a compromise.

Either an ed forum jfk-subforum pinned subforum which lists all pinned member topics so as to not push topics off page one

ie ed forum > jfk forum > pinned member topics. As these would be few as say only a consensus or significant majority decision would move topics to there the most importanrt ones would always appear as topic one and appear to readers as a main topic while avoiding long-winded arguments about same.

or that and an expamnded number of topics on pages, say 15. ?

Perhaps something like that would satisfy all?

[John Dolva]

I'm a bit stunned at the praise. Thank you, I don't think of myself that way. Without being dismissive of you personally at all I'll quote 7of9 : 'That is irrelevant.'

What I'm suggesting is that as one visits the front page (of the jfk sub-forum one has first a few pinned admin topics then a subforum that would appear just like any other sub-forum on the main ed-forum page with the heading of pinned member topics or something like that. If the admin chooses to pin any topic that topic would always be shown there without having to go into the subforum unless one chooses to. ie it would appear as a topic above all other member topics and not move as new member topics are made. If the topics are choosen according to the concept of consensus then, in this case, I think it probably safe to say there will be no objection, ie consensus. Furher, that which is pinned can always be unpinned. Also I've long thought that the number of topics shown on any forum page should be increased to say 15. Whatever, the admin has a final say on any such things. I don't make decisions, I'm an ordinary member just like all others.

[Robert Prudhomme]

"Could you name one other thread that exists on this forum that has the ability to COMPLETELY DISMISS the case against LEE OSWALD in the way in which pursuit of the identity of Prayer Man COULD?"

Hi Lee

I'm not requesting that this thread be pinned but, I believe the thread I began, "Who saw Baker enter the TSBD?", has the potential to destroy not only Marion Baker's testimony, but the testimony of Roy Truly and a number of others. If it could be established that Baker never entered the TSBD, or at least not in the manner he testified he did, I believe the biggest cornerstone of the case against Oswald will have been kicked out from under the building.

It's a pity the thread did not generate much interest. I guess, as Mr. Mady stated, thinking about such things hurts the head too much.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Lee,

If you cannot see the evidentiary problems, there is no need to speak further. I cannot help you. So no need to carry on with me.

JEEZUS.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS MAN? THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

CAN SOMETHING BE DONE TO PREVENT THIS?

About the only thing I could recommend is gouging one's eyes out, making it impossible to read Mr. Savastano's posts, but that is rather a drastic step, and somewhat irreversible, or so I am told.

[Robert Prudhomme]

And then he said goodbye, but we knew he'd be back. His kind always comes back.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Told you so.

[James R Gordon]

On March 18th Robert Prudhomme opened this thread basically asking how members feel about Bill Kelley’s thread on Oswald leaving the TSBD.

It was a serious question he was asking and, like other current threads on the forum, was looking for debate and discussion on an issue of real importance.

Guys I have read the last three pages and what I have read is truly embarrassing. Carmine there is no question but that you are winding members up. And Lee, and Robert I would prefer you to ignore Carmine’s taunts and not give further food for his taunts.

The question Robert raised is an important question and is worthy of serious adult debate.

Please lets get our acts together, I have no wish to close this thread and Robert's question does deserve serious debate. However what I read is so embarrassing that if it continues I have to close the thread.

James.

[Greg Parker]

On March 18th Robert Prudhomme opened this thread basically asking how members feel about Bill Kelley’s thread on Oswald leaving the TSBD.

It was a serious question he was asking and, like other current threads on the forum, was looking for debate and discussion on an issue of real importance.

Guys I have read the last three pages and what I have read is truly embarrassing. Carmine there is no question but that you are winding members up. And Lee, and Robert I would prefer you to ignore Carmine’s taunts and not give further food for his taunts.

The question Robert raised is an important question and is worthy of serious adult debate.

Please lets get our acts together, I have no wish to close this thread and Robert's question does deserve serious debate. However what I read is so embarrassing that if it continues I have to close the thread.

James.

James, the net result of closing the thread would be a victory to the member you yourself identify as the problem. There is only one real, lasting solution. You and everyone who has been following this, knows what that solution is.

[Thomas Graves]

Randy,

I have been insulted repeatedly by those with no evidence. That is why. I have high standards of evidence that is a good thing. Why because I care about progress in the case and not wasting time. That is why. Because I want to actually prove something, not just demand my ideas receive respect without a shred of evidence. As some others do.

Evidence, Evidence, Evidence.

It all depends on what one considers "evidence," doesn't it.

Let's face it -- there's a lack of "provable, verifiable evidence" in this case.

Nearly every bit of "evidence" is contradicted by another piece of "evidence," rendering both impossible to "prove".

If this case is going to ever be solved, I believe it will be by the accumulating of an overwhelming amount of (non-provable) circumstantial evidence.

--Tommy

[Terry Martin]

Randy,

I have been insulted repeatedly by those with no evidence. That is why. I have high standards of evidence that is a good thing. Why because I care about progress in the case and not wasting time. That is why. Because I want to actually prove something, not just demand my ideas receive respect without a shred of evidence. As some others do.

Evidence, Evidence, Evidence.

It all depends on what one considers "evidence," doesn't it.

Let's face it -- there's a lack of "provable, verifiable evidence" in this case.

Nearly every bit of "evidence" is contradicted by another piece of "evidence," rendering both impossible to "prove".

If this case is going to ever be solved, I believe it will be by the accumulating of an overwhelming amount of (non-provable) circumstantial evidence.

--Tommy

Tommy,

I agree completely.

It has been the contention of one member that the Prayer Man contains no "verifiable evidence" as to the identification of the mystery man/woman on the steps.

The question has been asked repeatedly exactly what is the threshold required for "verifiable evidence" and no suitable answer has been forthcoming.

"Verifiable evidence" is a meaningless label. Evidence that exists is verifiable because it exists. Unverifiable evidence would be any evidence that does not exist. If it is evidence, in its very existence is the verifiability to be found.

Evidence is defined in legal terms by the judiciary system of the country. It has been pounded together from its long and continued use since the Anglo-Saxon things and continues to be modified even today.

The most recent Rules of Evidence published by the Department of Justice (Dec.1, 2014) states:

"Evidence is relevant when it has any tendency in reason to make the fact that it is offered to prove or disprove either more or less probable. Evid. Code § 210; Fed. Rules Evid. 401. To be relevant, a particular item of evidence need not make the fact for which it is offered certain, or even more probable than not. All that is required is that it have some tendency to increase the likelihood of the fact for which it is offered."

Quite boldly it states that "a particular item of evidence need not make the fact for which it is offered certain, or even more probable". Using this test, I find the vast majority of the material presented in the "Oswald Leaving the TSBD?" thread by Sean Murphy and others as "evidence". Even most of the responders were of the opinion that it was evidence of something even if not the long awaited opening of the heavens.

The tautological reiteration against using any of the thread because of the "verifiability" constraint has no standing. I believe what is being looked for, rather than verifiability, goes even beyond mere corroboration. What the thread is being attacked for is lack of proof.

Most members of the research community know what a chimera truth can be in this investigation. In most matters dealing with anything involving the intelligence community, truth is the rarest element of all. After fifty years plus of researching the case I can state with some conviction that proof and truth are on a plateau far higher than we can envision from the trenches in which we dig.

A golden nugget - here and again - are all we really ask. Signposts leading us further toward the goal of understanding the mangled threads of the case, a bone to whet our appetite to continue digging.

Truth and proof are not going to be found by comparing testimonies one against the other, checking maps and floor-plans for cubbies somehow overlooked, as these tools have been used and exhausted since November 1963.

Thinking out of the box, taking leaps of faith, applying quantum chaos to the much-raked-over mundane, seems to be where we should be headed in order to create some sense of order in this case.

The cover-up and coup d'état are mighty puzzles to be sorted out and solved and I am certain there are droves of people spending many happy hours connecting the dots and building massive Evica/Draco models in their basements. I do not concern myself with that portion of the case. I am concerned with the assassination of the President and the cloaking of the alleged assassin in a monster costume.

The conspiracy, coup d'état, and the ever-widening circles of power and madness can be solved later, I assume, but the crux of the case is and always has been the murder of a human being. The accused's subsequent execution was another crime but I would even put that aside as it is not germane to the present case, IMO.

Once the central crime has been solved, the conspiracy should be revealed by necessity. Attempting to uncover the conspiracy and work it backward to the crime I find counterproductive.

Now we have one golden nugget before us with which we might be able to solve the largest question in the entire case. I have never seen anything better in fifty years of searching and I do not know that we can find anything else which could offer as much leverage as this one piece of evidence. Verifiable or not.

After fifty years, how can we ignore the chance?

[Vanessa Loney]

On March 18th Robert Prudhomme opened this thread basically asking how members feel about Bill Kelley’s thread on Oswald leaving the TSBD.

It was a serious question he was asking and, like other current threads on the forum, was looking for debate and discussion on an issue of real importance.

Guys I have read the last three pages and what I have read is truly embarrassing. Carmine there is no question but that you are winding members up. And Lee, and Robert I would prefer you to ignore Carmine’s taunts and not give further food for his taunts.

The question Robert raised is an important question and is worthy of serious adult debate.

Please lets get our acts together, I have no wish to close this thread and Robert's question does deserve serious debate. However what I read is so embarrassing that if it continues I have to close the thread.

James.

On March 18th Robert Prudhomme opened this thread basically asking how members feel about Bill Kelley’s thread on Oswald leaving the TSBD.

It was a serious question he was asking and, like other current threads on the forum, was looking for debate and discussion on an issue of real importance.

Guys I have read the last three pages and what I have read is truly embarrassing. Carmine there is no question but that you are winding members up. And Lee, and Robert I would prefer you to ignore Carmine’s taunts and not give further food for his taunts.

The question Robert raised is an important question and is worthy of serious adult debate.

Please lets get our acts together, I have no wish to close this thread and Robert's question does deserve serious debate. However what I read is so embarrassing that if it continues I have to close the thread.

James.

Dear James

I'm a newby on here so I'm probably not understanding the rules and protocols correctly. Apologies if I'm talking out of turn.

It's not that clear to me why a thread should be closed on the basis of one member's lack of genuine engagement. If that is the basis for locking a thread then what is to stop any member deciding to block a thread by constantly disrupting it?

I think if the EF adopt that policy then the integrity of discussions will be weakened to the point where they are all under threat from these sorts of tactics.

I don't understand why a member cannot simply be asked not to contribute to a thread if they are being viewed as disruptive. If the member continues to be disruptive then can't they be dealt with in some way that:

1. does not reward them for their behaviour; and

2. does not block discussion on a thread.

I would have thought that stopping discussion due to disruptive tactics would seriously impact on the integrity of all forum threads in a way that should be unacceptable to everyone on here.

Thanks for your views.

regards

Vanessa

Edited March 24, 2015 by Vanessa Loney

[Mark Knight]

James,

If I decided, for whatever reason, to jump onto a cross section of threads containing content and themes that I did not want a continuity of reasonable discussion to take place about and I repeatedly and incessantly "taunted" the individuals having that reasonable discussion - - - are you telling me that the net result of my bizarre and strange behaviour would be the closing of the threads?

Is that really the official policy now here at The Education Forum?

The actual consequences of my repetitive and obstructive behaviour would be that the people having the reasonable discussion would have their threads closed?

I have been reading the same nonsensical messages from Savastano for almost a week now. Over and over and over again. The same mindless drivel each and every time he posts in reply to me. Prior to each and every exchange over the last few days I have not referred to or addressed this man directly until he has directly engaged me with his repetitive "taunts."

In the messages Mark Knight deleted from the last thread this man destroyed, Savastano claimed he would not interact with me if I did not interact with him. He could not adhere to his pledge.

I have little patience left. Long standing members know that it is taking every last piece of energy I have to deal with the frustrating behaviour of this man. If he addresses me directly again, if he mentions me again, or if he goads or "taunts" me again - - the last of my patience will snap.

How long would you be able to ignore a man who has been poking at you with a crap covered stick for more than a week, James? If I headed over to one of your John Connally threads and covered it with the following what would your response be?

"I feasibly contend you have no evidence"

"Evidence is required to prove your ideas."

"I have contended. I do not have to disprove the unproven."

"I disagree. Good luck. I will check back."

"Still no evidence I see. I'm not shocked."

"I feasibly contend you have no evidence"

"Evidence is required to prove your ideas."

"I have contended. I do not have to disprove the unproven."

"I disagree. Good luck. I will check back."

"Still no evidence I see. I'm not shocked."

"I feasibly contend you have no evidence"

Evidence is required to prove your ideas."

"I have contended. I do not have to disprove the unproven."

"I disagree. Good luck. I will check back."

"Still no evidence I see. I'm not shocked."

"You are opining about things you cannot prove."

"You have no evidence."

"Cite your claims, James."

"Evidence is required to prove your ideas."

"I have contended. I do not have to disprove the unproven."

"I disagree. Good luck. I will check back."

"Still no evidence I see. I'm not shocked."

"You are opining about things you cannot prove."

"You have no evidence."

"Cite your claims, James."

I doubt you'd close your thread.

These aren't taunts that I'm dealing with here - - this is a systematic effort by one individual to have threads closed and stifle discussion,

I agree with the logic of your argument here, Lee. Lately I've felt like a "kindergarten cop," until life circumstances outside the EF have required my attention to be turned in other directions for significant periods of time.

I have no idea what problems have "transferred" to EF from some other forum...and for my dime's worth, whatever has or hasn't happened on some other forum doesn't matter here. I have a suspicion that one participant in this thread--maybe more, but obviously one--is carrying a grudge here from elsewhere.

That's BS, and for my dime, I don't want to see that here.

If a member here doesn't want to interfere with a discussion here, it's simple: STOP POSTING ON THAT THREAD. It ain't brain surgery, it ain't rocket science, and it ain't rocket surgery. IT REALLY IS THAT SIMPLE.

Lee, I'm all for keeping the Oswald Leaving TSBD thread on the front page...and short of pinning it, I think the members here are doing a spledid job of doing just that. I have a few thoughts on that myself, but I'll post them on that thread, in the interest of doing my own part to keep that thread at or near the top of the page.

Let's all do our part to see the search for truth continue.

[Robert Prudhomme]

As always, Mark, you are a shining light of common sense in a sea of discord.

Edited March 25, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme

[Guest Mark Valenti]

It's a common (among some) misconception - when they demand evidence, they're really asking for proof.

Evidence is anything that can suggest, indicate, reveal or support a theory.

Proof is a solid, unassailable and rock-hard gathering of data that cannot be refuted.

The difference between the two - and the inability of some to understand this - is a source of most of the frustration on these boards.

[James R Gordon]

bumped