Hidden Threads

[James R Gordon]

Today I have hidden a number of threads. Although all threads were begun by Greg Parker - the hiding of threads was not a reference to him per se.

As another admin member questioned why the "case closed." As implied these topics were not case closed.

In one thread was the following observation. "But just don't post them [ being opinions etc ] here. No on is interested. There is a comfort zone. Don't go outside those boundaries." That is a totally inaccurate description of the present membership of this forum.

From my perspective - and the reason why I hid them - these were [ as far as I was concerned ] not threads but statements.

All of them were viable topics for discussion but that was not how they were presented.

And that was the reason I hid the threads.

James

[Greg Parker]

In one thread was the following observation. "But just don't post them [ being opinions etc ] here. No on is interested. There is a comfort zone. Don't go outside those boundaries." That is a totally inaccurate description of the present membership of this forum.

Sadly I cannot agree.

The lack of interest in the new material I have presented here says it all.

I should have perhaps passed it all on to Douglas or Scott and let them publish it as their own work just to get it some attention.

And I was not advising Brian to post his opinions. I was advising not to bother posting new research. Why bother?

List the people presenting NEW research here.

[James R Gordon]

I believe this is an issue about which we will have to disagree.

I actually do not know what you mean by "new research." If , for example your recent book could be considered as "new research" then I should say that one eminent member observed that actually in their opinion there was nothing new in your book. I refrain from giving that member's name because I do not want to embarrass the said member.

Whether true or not, what - for me - is far more pertinent is your broad statement about the entire membership of this forum. In using the idea that this forum has no new research you are effectively saying that that - aside from your work - nothing that has been posted on this forum is worthwhile: the basis of being worthwhile being whether what is posted is new research.

The administrators would love it if every thread was a item of new research. But sadly that is not the case. But to imply that everything that is posted is irrelevant because it is not new research is an insult to the membership.

And the point "But just don't post them [ being opinions etc ] here. No on is interested. There is a comfort zone. Don't go outside those boundaries." That is a totally inaccurate description of the present membership of this forum" is a point we will never agree on. I believe the membership of this forum is alert to important and challenging research and is eager to debate it.

James.

[Larry Hancock]

Well I don't know who the eminent member was but if he has seen the CAP material Greg presented as well as a number of other new points then its something I've surely missed. I might not totally agree with Greg on whether the CAP intelligence collection program was structurally tied to any formal OSI or CIA defector programs but it raises a lot of new thoughts about the extent to which civilians, corporations and groups were taking it on themselves to do counter intelligence work, domestically and overseas. To some extent that just adds to the confusion because we know that often people claimed CIA connections or claimed to be on CIA projects when they were actually working on their own - or even with at best tacit knowledge from someone. Regardless of that, it opens up a very important window into how Oswald might have been "launched" and to to what he himself might have thought was going on around him.

I will also agree with Greg that there seems to be a real tendency to visit and revisit the same subjects which have been argued for ages.

[James R Gordon]

I retract the comment about whether Greg's book was new research. It was Larry I was commenting on and the point originated from a report he made. However I misread what Larry had said in his report. I thought he was referring to the content of Greg's book whereas he was referring to what was suggested was a book review. His comment was not focus on Greg's book, but what considered itself to be a review.

I apologise for that.

[Larry Hancock]

Thanks James, that's absolutely right. I was concerned about a review that was not really a review.... I'd encourage everybody to comment and discuss books per se in the books forum, that might help keep things discrete. Perhaps there should be a thread on Greg's new CAP research. Its pretty important to think an organization like CAP, which is officially linked to the Air Force and quite active even today, was taking it upon itself to essentially begin performing domestic intelligence and even counter intelligence. Quite a sign of those times. It just so happens I have a collection of Steve Canyon cartoons (yes I am that old) which all focus around Steve as an active Air Force officer and missions involving CAP cadets. Greg's research really rang a bell there because almost all those cartoon strip stories involved Communist spies and agents actively trying to collect information and the CAP cadets were often involved in helping thwart them.

[Cliff Varnell]

I will also agree with Greg that there seems to be a real tendency to visit and revisit the same subjects which have been argued for ages.

"JFK experts" like Dr. Cyril Wecht, Dr. David Mantik, Dr. Josiah Thompson, Stuart Wexler, Pat Speer, John Hunt, Anthony Marsh all put the back wound at T1.

Larry, you yourself have said that you leave it to your friends to figure out trajectories.

Your friends have let you down savagely.

The murder of Jack Kennedy is a poorly researched subject -- the "how," the nature of the wounds, what actually ended his life.

The vast majority of discussions on how JFK was killed involve endless debates over the head wound/s.

But the FBI report on the autopsy indicates possible pre-autopsy surgery to the head, rendering all head wound/s evidence suspect.

The murder of JFK is thus a poorly researched subject.

No one can say how many times he was struck in the head -- once? twice? thrice? -- so all the research oxygen is sucked out by somehing intrinsically unknowable short of exhuming the body.

When the back and throat wounds are discussed many experts have it brutally wrong.

The bullet holes in the clothes are 4 inches below the bottom of the collars -- aligns with T3, where the witness statements and verified medical documents put it.

"JFK experts" are the single largest impediment to achieving any degree of clarity regarding the murder of JFK.

Edited September 13, 2015 by Cliff Varnell

[Greg Parker]

I believe this is an issue about which we will have to disagree.

I actually do not know what you mean by "new research." If , for example your recent book could be considered as "new research" then I should say that one eminent member observed that actually in their opinion there was nothing new in your book. I refrain from giving that member's name because I do not want to embarrass the said member.

Whether true or not, what - for me - is far more pertinent is your broad statement about the entire membership of this forum. In using the idea that this forum has no new research you are effectively saying that that - aside from your work - nothing that has been posted on this forum is worthwhile: the basis of being worthwhile being whether what is posted is new research.

The administrators would love it if every thread was a item of new research. But sadly that is not the case. But to imply that everything that is posted is irrelevant because it is not new research is an insult to the membership.

And the point "But just don't post them [ being opinions etc ] here. No on is interested. There is a comfort zone. Don't go outside those boundaries." That is a totally inaccurate description of the present membership of this forum" is a point we will never agree on. I believe the membership of this forum is alert to important and challenging research and is eager to debate it.

James.

You have taken my quote out of context, added words not said or intended and made the whole thing disappear so your interpretation can't be disputed.

[Jon G. Tidd]

Cliff,

I agree, for the reason there are so few verifiable, uncontroverted facts pertaining to JFK's and J.D. Tippit's murders.

Some here like to write about the "evidence". What is touted as evidence is stuff about which there is no common agreement, no uncontroverted facts. This "stuff" ranges from the nature and location of JFK's wounds, to Oswald's routes of travel on the afternoon of November 22, to the description of Tippit's killer(s); from whether Oswald ordered the rifle, to whether Marina took the BYP, to whether Oswald spoke or wrote Russian well. In other words, as to key issues, there is an absence of uncontroverted fact. Something for which JFK researchers should not be blamed.

Furthermore, as to certain facts such as "Harvey's" school attendance, there is central disagreement over interpretation. Which is unavoidable given the lack of a trial of Oswald.

As to the absence of key facts, I blame the U.S. Government, past and present.

As to disagreements among JFK researchers, I'll simply observe that pet theories die hard.

[Greg Parker]

Thanks James, that's absolutely right. I was concerned about a review that was not really a review.... I'd encourage everybody to comment and discuss books per se in the books forum, that might help keep things discrete. Perhaps there should be a thread on Greg's new CAP research. Its pretty important to think an organization like CAP, which is officially linked to the Air Force and quite active even today, was taking it upon itself to essentially begin performing domestic intelligence and even counter intelligence. Quite a sign of those times. It just so happens I have a collection of Steve Canyon cartoons (yes I am that old) which all focus around Steve as an active Air Force officer and missions involving CAP cadets. Greg's research really rang a bell there because almost all those cartoon strip stories involved Communist spies and agents actively trying to collect information and the CAP cadets were often involved in helping thwart them.

Thanks Larry.

I wasn't concerned about the "review". Anyone who can't tell it's not genuine isn't worth reaching. From his activity on FB, he is evidently a friend or "agent" on behalf of Roger Stone.

The CAP was formed IIRC, under the National Security Act and was originally attached to Civil Defense. In fact, as shown in my book, one of the IMSUs (Internal Mobil Security Units) joined forces with their local Civil Defense office after a few years operating underground.

But the CAP material is not the only new material in the book. Both volumes are full of new material - as future volumes will be. This case can be, is in the process of being, and will be solved. Not by me alone. But by a group effort.

This place is fast dealing itself out has having any relevance. It is just you and very small band of others giving it any credibility at all.

Otherwise it is just becoming a receptacle for doppelganger theories, and endless discussions about bunched shirts and Badge Man, topped off by whatever tabloid excrement Caddy has managed to scrape off the soles of his shoes.

[Greg Parker]

Furthermore, as to certain facts such as "Harvey's" school attendance, there is central disagreement over interpretation. Which is unavoidable given the lack of a trial of Oswald.

You talk about the looseness of usage around here with regard to the term "evidence", but then begin talking about an unproven character as if his historical existence is set in concrete.

There is no disagreement with regard to the school attendance of LEE HARVEY OSWALD. There are the facts on one side and the deliberate and complete abortion of them on the other for the purpose of maintaining the myth.

[Ed LeDoux]

Seems this thread is nothing more than a statement and should be deleted.

Why not do us a favor and hide all the threads here...

Edited September 13, 2015 by Ed LeDoux

[John Dolva]

It seemed to me that the posts. (I read them as they were being posted), were promotional padding slanted with a double purpose that is reasonably taken as yet another attack on the forum which I can understand the management reacting to. This is nothing new. People have done it before.

Regarding rehashes of things. This is not a scientific journal. With new members and new ways of looking at old stuff it's inevitable that things will be repeated. That's nothing new either. To what extent other members encopurage, and do so themselves, referencing older threads sorts that out.

There are sections to the education forum that are specifically for members to post their particular research.

I'd just take these subtle and not so subtle attempts to control the forum from outside the admin as something that's happened before and will happen again.

[Cliff Varnell]

This place is fast dealing itself out has having any relevance. It is just you and very small band of others giving it any credibility at all.

Otherwise it is just becoming a receptacle for doppelganger theories, and endless discussions about bunched shirts and Badge Man, topped off by whatever tabloid excrement Caddy has managed to scrape off the soles of his shoes.

Hostility to the physical evidence!

JOB #1 of the cover-up. suppression of the physical evidence.

Someone hip Mr. Parker to the fact that all murder cases start with examination of the physical evidence.

What happened to the bullets causing the back and throat wounds?

All the posers hate that question. .02% of research material addresses the central issue of the case.

They'd rather go chasing red herrings like Oswald...

[Cliff Varnell]

Mr. Parker,

I understand that you are frustrated over the inattention to the new material you bring to the study of the murder of Oswald.

Me, I'm a student of the death of Jack Kennedy.

"Experts" have done next to nothing with the old information regarding the murder of JFK.

Very few "experts" address the actual murder in a competent manner.

"What happened to the bullets causing the back and throat wounds?"

No, that's not a question that's over asked.