Theorist shamers should be ashamed of themselves.

[Sandy Larsen]

I am talking about forum members who shame theories and the people who believe  them, only because they themselves find the theories to be farfetched.

I am NOT talking about those people who present substantial evidence rebutting a so-called farfetched theory. But I AM talking about those 1) who shame a theory off-the-cuff, or 2) who explain why they find the theory to be farfetched, but offer no substantial evidence against it, or 3) who claim the theory has been rebutted when in fact it hasn't.

Here are some offenders I can think of:

@Jonathan Cohen

@Jeremy Bojczuk

@Robert Charles-Dunne

@Michael Walton

 

I know of people who won't post on certain topics because of the shaming they know they will get in response. This is the reason that shamers should be ashamed of themselves.

 

Quoting John F. Kennedy:

"We welcome the views of others. We seek a free flow of information across national boundaries and oceans, across iron curtains and stone walls. We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people."

--John F. Kennedy: "Remarks on the 20th Anniversary of the Voice of America.," February 26, 1962. (Posted by Paul Rigby on 1/18/24.)

 

[Sean Coleman]

[Sandy Larsen]

I just added Michael Walton to the list, FWIW.

 

[Kirk Gallaway]

Sandy, I don't think it's your place as a moderator to start a thread to be  an advocate on this issue, or give permission to direct or thwart conversation in either direction,.Or to declare shame and single out other forum members.

I personally think some of these fringe issues are discrediting to the forum as well. But I see no point in arguing with advocates for the 1000th time. You can find many such arguments here if you look at past threads.

But I don't find these advocates are overbearing and you can usually see from the titles of  their threads what their views are and choose to ignore or get involved.

There's a certain give and take on a forum like this and everyone must be willing to grant directions of research that are not mainstream. If you don't like these pursuits you can just blow it off if you don't agree or get involved and challenge it. If you hold these beliefs, time has told you, you're going to somewhere along the line have to defend them. And that comes with the territory. It needn't be a traumatic event.

[Jonathan Cohen]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I am talking about forum members who shame theories and the people who believe  them, only because they themselves find the theories to be farfetched.

I am NOT talking about those people who present substantial evidence rebutting a so-called farfetched theory. But I AM talking about those 1) who shame a theory off-the-cuff, or 2) who explain why they find the theory to be farfetched, but offer no substantial evidence against it, or 3) who claim the theory has been rebutted when in fact it hasn't.

Here are some offenders I can think of:

@Jonathan Cohen

@Jeremy Bojczuk

@Robert Charles-Dunne

@Michael Walton

 

I know of people who won't post on certain topics because of the shaming they know they will get in response. This is the reason that shamers should be ashamed of themselves.

 

First of all, you cannot possibly be serious by claiming that we have not offered substantial evidence against "Harvey and Lee" ? There are dozens upon dozens of threads here and extensive research papers published elsewhere that prove what you say is completely bogus.

On a larger level, how is your post not construed as outright harassment of other forum members by you? Guess we'll just have to reciprocate by calling out people like yourself by name for constantly pushing the most idiotic, long-debunked nonsense to be found in this case.

[Jonathan Cohen]

I will just say again, for the umpeenth time, that there are basically ZERO credible JFK assassination researchers who take "Harvey and Lee" seriously, and just as few who believe in massive fakery and deception as it pertains to the Dealey Plaza photo record. That should tell Sandy Larsen something, but clearly it doesn't ...

[Sandy Larsen]

30 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

I will just say again, for the umpeenth time, that there are basically ZERO credible JFK assassination researchers who take "Harvey and Lee" seriously, and just as few who believe in massive fakery and deception as it pertains to the Dealey Plaza photo record.

 

Prove it.

 

[Paul Cummings]

Keep up the great work Sandy along with the other moderators!

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Paul Cummings said:

Keep up the great work Sandy along with the other moderators!

 

Thanks Paul.

 

[Jonathan Cohen]

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Prove it.

I have already proven it, numerous times. You are perfectly capable of searching the forum archives, where you will find, for example, a poll of members which revealed far more non believers in the theory than those who agree with it.

[Jim Hargrove]

2 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

I will just say again, for the umpeenth time, that there are basically ZERO credible JFK assassination researchers who take "Harvey and Lee" seriously, and just as few who believe in massive fakery and deception as it pertains to the Dealey Plaza photo record. That should tell Sandy Larsen something, but clearly it doesn't ...

Our own Joseph McBride has often said that John Armstrong convinced him there were two Oswalds.  

David Mantik, David Josephs, Robert Groden, James Norwood, among many others, have held Harvey and Lee in the highest regard.  If memory serves, Mr. Mantik once said it was his favorite book on the subject.  There's a whole section in Groden's "The Search for Lee Harvey Oswald" entitled "Too Many Oswalds."  In her renowned book "Accessories After the Fact" Sylvia Meagher had pages and pages under the heading "Two Oswalds."

Two YouTube movies by “MrChrillemannen,”presenting John Armstrong interviews with accompanying graphics, have been viewed more than 700,000 times!

Captain Westbrook, officer Tippit and Oswald's double

and

Who impersonated Lee Harvey Oswald?

John’s work has spawned, not counting “The Other Oswald,” which is somewhat different, at least four different books in recent years.

The JFK Assassination and the Uncensored Story of the Two Oswalds

 The Two Oswalds

From an Amazon review: “I'd read a good chunk of Armstrong's Harvey and Lee, but Shannan provided clarity for me on the matter of Marguerite Oswald in particular and the whole thesis in general. So much easier to read this digest than the master's unedited tome.”

DOPPELGANGER: The Legend of Lee Harvey Oswald

Dr. Schwimmer’s best-seller is already in it’s fifth edition.

From the publisher’s blurb: “More than 300 sources, including many sworn testimonies & affidavits, were consulted, as well as John Armstrong’s massive research project HARVEY AND LEE. One fact led to another, until a coherent picture began to emerge from the immense pile of puzzle pieces…. That picture includes the background of Harvey as a juvenile immigrant fluent in Russian, and the creation of the second ‘Lee Harvey Oswald’ and the second ‘Marguerite Oswald.’ The picture continues with the recruitment of both Lee Oswald and Harvey Oswald by the ONI and the CIA, followed by Harvey’s assumption of Lee’s identity, his ‘defection’ to Russia, and Lee’s involvement with the Cuban revolution and the CIA..…”

Mistaken Identity

From the publisher’s blurb:  "New forensic and evidentiary material not published, proves that two individuals known as "Lee Harvey Oswald" enlisted in the U.S. Marines in 1956 using the same birth certificate. Recent genealogical research identifies them as second cousins through intermarriage of second-generation French families in New Orleans. It created a nightmare of identity for the FBI." The Two Oswalds

A fourth major book including much information on the two Oswald's was just published by our forum's own Dr. James Norwood.  It is entitled, FORMER PEOPLE: John F. Kennedy, Nikita Khruschev, and Lee Harvey Oswald at a Crossroads in History. The last chapter, the longest in the book, is called "Turning Points in Understanding a Former Person: The Two Oswalds."

When people here tell you "Harvey and Lee" has all been debunked and that nobody believes it, don't believe them.

[Benjamin Cole]

Th forum should also not shame people for belonging to one or the other political party, or different ideologies.

In other words, moderators should make clear that Biden supporters, and Trump supporters, and RFK2 supporters, libertarians, liberals, socialists and Marxists are welcome to comment, and offer their perspectives, and are not denigrated for their views.

  

[Sandy Larsen]

22 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Th forum should also not shame people for belonging to one or the other political party, or different ideologies.

In other words, moderators should make clear that Biden supporters, and Trump supporters, and RFK2 supporters, libertarians, liberals, socialists and Marxists are welcome to comment, and offer their perspectives, and are not denigrated for their views.

  

 

Nobody, including moderators, should be commenting on the different political parties at all.

[Benjamin Cole]

3 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Nobody, including moderators, should be commenting on the different political parties at all.

Should commenters who make derogatory comments regarding GOP'ers,Trump supporters and "MAG-ites" and so on...be banned? 

[Sandy Larsen]

2 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Should commenters who make derogatory comments regarding GOP'ers,Trump supporters and "MAG-ites" and so on...be banned? 

 

So far the moderators haven't banned or even penalized anybody for writing political views. We've simple moved threads or removed offending posts.

IIRC we have penalized you for spamming, which probably was with your political rants.