Theorist shamers should be ashamed of themselves.

[Benjamin Cole]

5 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

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.

 

Fair enough.

Perhaps the next time you see a post denigrating the GOP, Trump supporters, or "MAGats" and so on, you will remove the offending post. 

The EF-JFKA should extend a welcome to full spectrum of political views, with the exception of hate groups (IMHO). 

 

[Jonathan Cohen]

3 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

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

So?

3 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

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."

The same Robert Groden who tried to pass off a fake autopsy photo as real in his most recent book? The same Robert Groden who was humiliated on the witness stand in the O.J. Simpson case for his lack of expertise? I also cannot believe you would dare to imply Sylvia Meagher believed the idiotic "Harvey and Lee" theory, when in fact, her "Two Oswalds" section reaches no such conclusion whatsoever.

The rest of Jim's post is the exact same nonsense he has spammed this forum with for many years -- as if one random Amazon book review can be equated to the opinions of those who have studies this case for decades (and handily rejected the premise of "Harvey and Lee"). In fact, here's a thread from more than two years ago where he did the same thing. And here's Jeremy's astute takedown of the entire ridiculous enterprise.

[Benjamin Cole]

Sandy Larsen is deeply invested in, and convinced of his views of the EF-JFKA, and has stated he is a "left winger." 

So, it may be he moderates accordingly. 

So it goes. 

 

 

 

 

[Jonathan Cohen]

6 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Sandy Larsen is deeply invested in, and convinced of his views of the EF-JFKA, and has stated he is a "left winger." 

So, it may be he moderates accordingly. 

So it goes. 

Which is precisely the reason I started this thread. I don't think it's right that the forum membership at large has zero say in who is chosen as a moderator, and how.

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

So?

The same Robert Groden who tried to pass off a fake autopsy photo as real in his most recent book? The same Robert Groden who was humiliated on the witness stand in the O.J. Simpson case for his lack of expertise? I also cannot believe you would dare to imply Sylvia Meagher believed the idiotic "Harvey and Lee" theory, when in fact, her "Two Oswalds" section reaches no such conclusion whatsoever.

The rest of Jim's post is the exact same nonsense he has spammed this forum with for many years -- as if one random Amazon book review can be equated to the opinions of those who have studies this case for decades (and handily rejected the premise of "Harvey and Lee"). In fact, here's a thread from more than two years ago where he did the same thing. And here's Jeremy's astute takedown of the entire ridiculous enterprise.

If I'm not mistaken, the Two Oswalds theory and the Armstrong theory are not the same theory. I believe the Two Oswalds theory, as originally offered, was that someone was impersonating Oswald for the final months, perhaps even years, of his life. Armstrong's theory is that there were two Oswalds and two Marguerites etc, for a decade or more. Furthermore, while many have praised Harvey and Lee for the breadth of its research, few, and I'm fairly certain Groden is not among them, have signed off on its assertion there were two Oswalds even prior to Oswald's entry into the military. It is, in fact, a fringe theory. it doesn't mean it's wrong. But if there were to be a public debate between, let's say, an LN team of Gerald Posner, Dale Myers, Fred Litwin, and five other LNs, against let's say, Cyril Wecht, Robert Groden, Jim DiEugenio, John Newman, Jeff Morley, Gary Aguilar, Larry Hancock, and Malcolm Blunt,  and someone brought up Armstrong's conclusions, I think all 16 people on the stage would agree it's not worth discussing and move on to a new topic. 

Just a hunch. But I've met the 8 CTs I've listed, and I don't think any would want to defend Armstrong's claim there were two Marguerite Oswalds on the loose in the poor defenseless 1950's. 

 

Edited January 15 by Pat Speer

[Benjamin Cole]

3 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Which is precisely the reason I started this thread. I don't think it's right that the forum membership at large has zero say in who is chosen as a moderator, and how.

I probably agree, but I do not know how to fix the situation. 

It has gotten to point where even neutral posts on the JFK Records Act and Mark Adamzyck are booted offsite. 

I have suggested that some sort of political balance be sought among moderators, that is a mix of D and R, or left- and right. 

In truth, I do not have time to be a moderator. I spend too much time here as it is. 

On a positive note, Sandy Larsen has removed from the EF-JFKA 90% of the anti-Trump juvenalia. So give credit where credit is due. (BTW I favor neither party. Both parties tried very hard to lose by support, and they succeeded). 

I think we just have to live with the situation as it is. 

I enjoy your contrariness and I hope you keep posting. I see that over time most people fade away from EF-JFKA. So it goes. 

 

 

Edited January 15 by Benjamin Cole

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Which is precisely the reason I started this thread. I don't think it's right that the forum membership at large has zero say in who is chosen as a moderator, and how.

Well, this isn't a pay site, where everyone pays the same amount and everyone is entitled to an equal voice.

But you may be onto something. I was one of the main moderators for years, maybe even the main moderator, aside from John Simkin. But I never felt comfortable policing the posts that were personally insulting to me. And there were many. It just didn't feel right to use my position as a moderator to silence those wanting to yell at me. 

I don't know this for a fact, but I think this quandary led to John Simkin's departure. There were too many posts of an insulting nature both to his friends, and to himself. He eventually fought back, and deleted some accounts, and that led to defections, etc. And he then left himself. He knew he could no longer be neutral. And he no longer wanted to be. it just wasn't worth it to him. 

In any event, the thought occurs that moderators should be background people, like former moderator Kathy Beckett, or low-drama personalities, like the late Barb Junk, or Mark Knight. 

Sandy, like myself, is often in the fray. 

Perhaps there should be a panel, then, of five to seven long-time members, trusted members, who can offer guidance to the moderators on an unofficial basis, on how to handle members who have an issue with the moderators or with whom the moderators have an issue. Perhaps these members--the panel--can serve year-long terms and be selected by a democratic vote here on the forum.

Or maybe that's a bad idea, and an over-reaction to a passing problem. I mean, would we need to create a bigger panel, if some members took offense to the behavior of the smaller panel? 

 

Edited January 15 by Pat Speer

[W. Niederhut]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

I probably agree, but I do not know how to fix the situation. 

It has gotten to point where even neutral posts on the JFK Records Act and Mark Adamzyck are booted offsite. 

I have suggested that some sort of political balance be sought among moderators, that is a mix of D and R, or left- and right. 

In truth, I do not have time to be a moderator. I spend too much time here as it is. 

On a positive note, Sandy Larsen has removed from the EF-JFKA 90% of the anti-Trump juvenalia. So give credit where credit is due. (BTW I favor neither party. Both partied tried very hard to lose by support, and they succeeded). 

I think we just have to live with the situation as it is. 

I enjoy your contrariness and I hope you keep posting. I see that over time most people fade away from EF-JFKA. So it goes. 

 

 

What utter nonsense--posted by the same forum member who has repeatedly denied Donald Trump's historic, unprecedented crimes against the United States.

Nor is there anything "neutral" about a forum member starting multiple, redundant "Biden snuff job" threads on this forum-- in the guise of presenting new material related to the JFK assassination.  It's not new.  We've had multiple prior threads about the same material in recent months.

As for Ben Cole's confused, oft-repeated false equivalence tropes about "Donks" and "Phants," does any serious American history scholar think that JFK, himself, would have a favorable opinion of the proto-fascist, right wing Trump/GOP cult in America today-- or of the blatant disinformation propagated by the right wing media-- Fox, Newsmax, Breitbart, et.al.?

The notion is absurd.  

JFK and RFK would be utterly appalled to see an uneducated, racist demagogue and con man like Donald Trump ascend to the Presidency.  They would be similarly appalled to see the systematic, Koch-funded GOP suppression of voting in recent years -- by the SCOTUS, (Shelby v. Holder) and by red state legislators.

They would also be appalled, IMO, to see what has happened to the U.S. news media, following Reagan's abrogation of the Fairness Act.

As for reality-based criticisms of Trump and his proto-fascist cult-- they are the precise opposite of "juvenalia," as Ben Cole suggests.

On the contrary, they are a desperately needed reality check-- based on facts-- for America's shockingly prevalent Trump cult delusions.

A shockingly high percentage of Republicans today still believe that Trump won the 2020 election, and that he was not responsible for organizing his violent J6 mob attack on the U.S. Congress.

.

 

 

Edited January 15 by W. Niederhut

[Benjamin Cole]

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Well, this isn't a pay site, where everyone pays the same amount and everyone is entitled to an equal voice.

But you may be onto something. I was one of the main moderators for years, maybe even the main moderator, aside from John Simkin. But I never felt comfortable policing the posts that were personally insulting to me. And there were many. It just didn't feel right to use my position as a moderator to silence those wanting to yell at me. 

I don't know this for a fact, but I think this quandary led to John Simkin's departure. There were too many posts of an insulting nature both to his friends, and to himself. He eventually fought back, and deleted some accounts, and that led to defections, etc. And he then left himself. He knew he could no longer be neutral. And he no longer wanted to be. it just wasn't worth it to him. 

In any event, the thought occurs that moderators should be background people, like former moderator Kathy Beckett, or low-drama personalities, like the late Barb Junk, or Mark Knight. 

Sandy, like myself, is often in the fray. 

Perhaps there should be a panel, then, of five to seven long-time members, trusted members, who can offer guidance to the moderators on an unofficial basis, on how to handle members who have an issue with the moderators or with whom the moderators have an issue. Perhaps these members--the panel--can serve year-long terms and be selected by a democratic vote here on the forum.

Or maybe that's a bad idea, and an over-reaction to a passing problem. I mean, would we need to create a bigger panel, if some members took offense to the behavior of the smaller panel? 

 

I feel sorry for you, enduring the personally hostile posts. 

Some people seemingly just can't help themselves, like when travelers in a foreign land develop explosive uncontrollable diarrhea and flatulence.  

I don't understand it. A forum is a place to see other viewpoints and try to appreciate those viewpoints, not issue condemnation of all that disagree.

It is OK to say, "We are on different pages on this one," rather than "I am right and you are wrong." 

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Sandy Larsen writes:

Quote

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.

Sandy then names four people who do "present substantial evidence rebutting a so-called farfetched theory".

A lot depends on what we mean by 'far-fetched', of course. This came up in another current thread, and I've just given my opinion of how we ought to judge what's 'far-fetched' and what isn't, here:

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30064-moderators/?do=findComment&comment=526064

Quote

Presidential body-snatching squads, the mass alteration of photographs and films, and top-secret long-term doppelgänger projects are precisely the sort of claims any reasonable member of the public would define as far-fetched, or even outright crazy.

Of the four people Sandy mentions, Robert Charles-Dunne rarely posts these days, as far as I'm aware, and when he did post he was one of the most level-headed and respectful of commenters. Robert most certainly presented "substantial evidence rebutting a so-called farfetched theory".

Another of Sandy's "shamers" is Michael Walton, who is no longer a member (unless he has recently been welcomed back) since he was banned due to pressure from promoters of the same far-fetched theory. Greg Parker is another former member, banned for a similar reason.

What exactly is Sandy's objection? As Jonathan points out, a theory which the majority of JFK assassination conspiracy theorists consider to be far-fetched, but which Sandy himself has supported, has been taken to pieces numerous times on this forum and elsewhere. This particular theory has been buried under an avalanche of "substantial evidence". Would Sandy prefer that this far-fetched theory, or far-fetched theories in general, were given immunity from criticism?

Far-fetched and thoroughly debunked theories really ought to be criticised, because they are harmful to rational criticism of the lone-nut dogma. The media is always keen to equate rational critics with moon-landings deniers and the like, and it's the far-fetched theories which enable them to do so.

[Sandy Larsen]

17 minutes ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Sandy Larsen writes:

Quote

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.

17 minutes ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Sandy then names four people who do "present substantial evidence rebutting a so-called farfetched theory".

 

What? I did no such thing. I named four people who do quite the opposite.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

23 minutes ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Of the four people Sandy mentions, Robert Charles-Dunne rarely posts these days, as far as I'm aware, and when he did post he was one of the most level-headed and respectful of commenters. Robert most certainly presented "substantial evidence rebutting a so-called farfetched theory".

 

I watched RCD do plenty of his subtle shaming in a long Harvey & Lee thread, and yet not once offered any substantive argument countering those of Jim Hargrove.

 

23 minutes ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Another of Sandy's "shamers" is Michael Walton, who is no longer a member (unless he has recently been welcomed back) since he was banned due to pressure from promoters of the same far-fetched theory.

 

Are you saying that Michael Walton was banned for shaming believers of H&L theory? If so, who is this H&L promoter of which you speak that has the power of getting people banned?

 

23 minutes ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Greg Parker is another former member, banned for a similar reason.

 

He was banned because of his anti-H&L activities? I'm surprised because at least he tried to substantively argue against the theory. (At least he did so after he was banned.)

 

23 minutes ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

What exactly is Sandy's objection?

 

I carefully laid it out in my OP. I can't help you if you can't understand it.

 

23 minutes ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

As Jonathan points out, a theory which the majority of JFK assassination conspiracy theorists consider to be far-fetched, but which Sandy himself has supported, has been taken to pieces numerous times on this forum and elsewhere.

 

The theory has NOT been "taken to pieces numerous times on this forum." That is wishful thinking on yours and Jonathan's parts.

All Jonathan has done is shame the theory and those who believe it.

All you've done is 1) explained why you think it is farfetched, and then 2) shamed the theory and those who believe it.

 

23 minutes ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

This particular theory has been buried under an avalanche of "substantial evidence".

 

No it hasn't. I wouldn't believe the theory if it had.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

18 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

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 am a member of this forum Kirk, and I will state what I believe and will give my approvals and objections just like any other member can.

What I shouldn't do is moderate according to my personal beliefs. And I don't.

 

 

[Jim Hargrove]

9 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

If I'm not mistaken, the Two Oswalds theory and the Armstrong theory are not the same theory. I believe the Two Oswalds theory, as originally offered, was that someone was impersonating Oswald for the final months, perhaps even years, of his life. Armstrong's theory is that there were two Oswalds and two Marguerites etc, for a decade or more. Furthermore, while many have praised Harvey and Lee for the breadth of its research, few, and I'm fairly certain Groden is not among them, have signed off on its assertion there were two Oswalds even prior to Oswald's entry into the military. It is, in fact, a fringe theory. it doesn't mean it's wrong. But if there were to be a public debate between, let's say, an LN team of Gerald Posner, Dale Myers, Fred Litwin, and five other LNs, against let's say, Cyril Wecht, Robert Groden, Jim DiEugenio, John Newman, Jeff Morley, Gary Aguilar, Larry Hancock, and Malcolm Blunt,  and someone brought up Armstrong's conclusions, I think all 16 people on the stage would agree it's not worth discussing and move on to a new topic. 

Just a hunch. But I've met the 8 CTs I've listed, and I don't think any would want to defend Armstrong's claim there were two Marguerite Oswalds on the loose in the poor defenseless 1950's. 

 

Pat,

Thank you for the substantive post.  I agree that many of the early researchers who wrote about Two Oswalds or an Oswald impersonator were indeed referring to the few months prior to the assassination.  Sylvia Meagher is a perfect example.  Only a handful of researchers looked back a decade or so to see if the evidence extended back that far, but the evidence, nevertheless, is considerable.

For example, how did “Lee Harvey Oswald” acquire Russian language skills sufficient to enable him to score similar marks on English language and Russian language exams while in the USMC, before ever setting foot in the Soviet Union?  Why, when he was still in the Marines, did he have a long conversation in Russian with Rosaleen Quinn, who told the WC that “Oswald spoke Russian well.”  At the time this high school dropout was still a teenager.

Serious questions about the identity of LHO have permeated mainstream JFK research for decades.  For example, here’s a discussion by two of the people you mentioned above.  I’d argue against several of the specifics, but their openness to long-term impersonation of LHO is obvious.

Peter Dale Scott and John Newman on two Oswalds from the March 3, 2018 “Spy War” conference (emphasis added by me):

Above clip from 3 March, 2018 "Spy Wars" Conference, San Francisco, Part 2.

Speakers in this clip are:

Bill Simpich--BS
Peter Dale Scott – PDS
John Newman – JN

At approximately the 37:12 mark in the YouTube clip above:

BS: There’s two different genuses of false phone calls. 
PDS: Yeah, exactly.  One was a call with a lie in it, the other was an alleged call that did not, in fact, take place.
JN: The Tuesday call didn’t take place?
PDS: No, the Tuesday call did take place by a man, I’m sure, was not the Oswald we think of….
JN: Right
PDS: ... and then, by the way… this is just a question… are you absolutely convinced that the man who was “Lee Harvey Oswald” in Russia was, in fact, the man picked up in Dallas in 1963?
JN: Not at all.  And I’ve gone over to the view that in Mexico City that, maybe it’s him, maybe it’s not. So I’m not going to be dogmatic about it. He could have been there and impersonated or could have been not there at all.
PDS: ... There is a fragment of a release that says that the man who made the phone calls spoke horrible Russian AND English!  So, I do not think that was the man in Dallas….  This is completely anecdotal but I once had an hour long conversation with Marina where I was trying my hardest not to bring up the assassination.  We were talking about literature and I said did she like Henry James and she said she had never heard of Henry James, who was Henry James and I said, “Oh, he’s sort of like the American Turgenev.  And she said, “Oh, Turgenev, Alek really loved Turgenev.”  The man who checked out books from the New Orleans Public Library was not a lover of Turgenev.

[Paul Rigby]

2 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

The media is always keen to equate rational critics with moon-landings deniers and the like, and it's the far-fetched theories which enable them to do so.

But no more keen than you, for whom it is an apparently obligatory feature of just about every contribution to this forum that you make. An obvious question arises: why do you constantly share a legacy media strawman?

It’s particularly egregious in this instance as you’re replying to someone who had nothing whatever to say on the matter in the course of his posts in this thread. You, yet again, introduced it. Might not your putative “reasonable, intelligent member of the public who has no particular interest in, knowledge of, or opinion about the assassination,” considering your obsession, reasonably conclude that you are either disturbed, or worse, that your real function is to attempt to police a debate in the service of the perpetrators?

A second question occurs: Why on earth are you worried about the opinion of the legacy media? After all, it lied about the case long before Buzz Aldrin punched Bart Sibrel in the kisser, or Capricorn One hit cinemas. What exactly is the basis for your belief that if only other researchers fell into line with your strictures the legacy media would reverse its position on the assassination? The proposition is so full-moon unhinged that it brings nothing but discredit upon researchers of every stripe, gender, and headwear. Have a word with yourself - and bill for the full hour.