Theorist shamers should be ashamed of themselves.

[James DiEugenio]

Sandy:

I could not agree more.

How does saying this:

"Because to WC apologists, all CTers promote far-fetched beliefs." 

On its own, relate to Armstrong?

[John Kowalski]

On 1/14/2024 at 1:27 PM, Kirk Gallaway said:

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.

The shamers should ignore threads that they don't agree with. They are the ones making the shaming comments.

Edited January 28 by John Kowalski

[John Kowalski]

On 1/14/2024 at 12:13 PM, 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.

Cannot agree more. I recently made a comment about Harvey and Lee only to have Jonathon make one of his caustic remarks.

[John Kowalski]

On 1/27/2024 at 12:45 AM, Robert Morrow said:

I find the theory of two Oswalds pushed by John Armstrong to be complete garbage which does not mean I do not think Armstrong is smart or that there are not valuable nuggets in his book Harvey and Lee.

Have you read the book?

[John Kowalski]

On 1/25/2024 at 6:35 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

All the moderators have penalized Jonathan. For good reason.

Why has he not been banned?

[Sandy Larsen]

On 1/26/2024 at 10:45 PM, Robert Morrow said:

I find the theory of two Oswalds pushed by John Armstrong to be complete garbage which does not mean I do not think Armstrong is smart or that there are not valuable nuggets in his book Harvey and Lee.

 

I'll bet you haven't even studied the evidence.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

On 1/26/2024 at 11:55 PM, James DiEugenio said:

Sandy:

I could not agree more.

 

Thanks Jim.

 

On 1/26/2024 at 11:55 PM, James DiEugenio said:

How does saying this:

"Because to WC apologists, all CTers promote far-fetched beliefs." 

On its own, relate to Armstrong?

 

Beats the heck out of me.

What I do know is that Jonathan likes to tell people they are wrong. Which would be fine if he then gave an argument or showed some evidence supporting his contention. But he rarely does.

That's been my observation.

 

 

[Jim Hargrove]

55 minutes ago, John Kowalski said:

Cannot agree more. I recently made a comment about Harvey and Lee only to have Jonathon make one of his caustic remarks.

Hi, John.  Good to run into you again!

I mentioned you just yesterday in THIS POST about the anonymous phone call to the Tippit's of Connecticut.  It's been awhile, and so I hope I got most of the facts right.  If you could take a quick look at that post and tell me if you recalled anything differently, I'd appreciate it.

[Sandy Larsen]

30 minutes ago, John Kowalski said:

On 1/25/2024 at 4:35 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

All the moderators have penalized Jonathan. For good reason.

Why has he not been banned?

 

My understanding is that banning is what the admin team used to do. I think they let things fester with the worst members till finally it got to the point where they wanted to ban the person. Mark Knight wrote something that gave me the impression that he (or they?) were unhappy with that method of punishment. That it was too drastic.

I came on as a new admin member around that time. I poked around the forum software and figured out a way of applying warning points that penalized gently in most cases, but would become exponentially more punishing for the worst offenders. We gave it a try and we all like it. It adjusts and enforces penalties automatically. All we have to do is select which rule a member broke, and it takes care of the rest.

I don't think we've banned anybody since then. Though one member was so bad that he got something like a 6 month suspension from posting.

I suspect that a time will come when we will vote on the worst offenders being banned. Just to save other forum members from having to deal with them.

 

[John Kowalski]

6 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Hi, John.  Good to run into you again!

I mentioned you just yesterday in THIS POST about the anonymous phone call to the Tippit's of Connecticut.  It's been awhile, and so I hope I got most of the facts right.  If you could take a quick look at that post and tell me if you recalled anything differently, I'd appreciate it.

Jim:

Its good to hear from you again. Read your post and would not change anything. If you know anyone who lives near her, maybe we can arrange for someone to pay her a visit.

Went to NARA last summer and did some research on Clay Shaw, Edwin Ekdahl and Marguerite Oswald. Was interested in ONI front companies that may have employed Ekdahl but did not find any companies that provided a front for him when he went to China.

[Jim Hargrove]

John: Is the family still in Connecticut?  I was born and raised in NYC and the northern ‘burbs and MIGHT be able to locate someone from the area, though it has been (gasp!) more than half a century since I was there for more than a day or two.

Sandy: What fun!  Does the software supply any public clues about each member’s warning points?  We could all compare notes and no doubt earn more warning points! Here’s hoping I’ve been reasonably polite lately. It isn’t always easy!

[Mark Ulrik]

On 1/27/2024 at 7:55 AM, James DiEugenio said:

Sandy:

I could not agree more.

How does saying this:

"Because to WC apologists, all CTers promote far-fetched beliefs." 

On its own, relate to Armstrong?

It was made by a poster who is a proponent of Armstrong's H&L theory, in response to another poster who clearly had that theory in mind when he cautioned against putting admin powers in the hands of people who promote far-fetched beliefs. Context matters.

PS: That all conspiracy theories appear far-fetched to "WC apologists" is a sweeping generalization that seems a bit unfair. Some "WC apologists" (a derogatory term for people who generally agree with the conclusions of the WC) are former conspiracy believers, and the more candid ones will cheerfully admit to being unable to completely rule out that some sort of conspiracy was afoot in the JFKA.

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Mark Ulrik said:

On 1/26/2024 at 11:55 PM, James DiEugenio said:

I could not agree more. How does saying this:

"Because to WC apologists, all CTers promote far-fetched beliefs." 

On its own, relate to Armstrong?

2 hours ago, Mark Ulrik said:

It was made by a poster who is a proponent of Armstrong's H&L theory, in response to another poster who clearly had that theory in mind when he cautioned against putting admin powers in the hands of people who promote far-fetched beliefs.

 

Mark,

First, I believe a number of things that Jeremy thinks are far-fetched, not just H&L.

Second, here is what I responded to:

Quote

Jeremy wrote:

Of course! And I have no reason to suppose that Sandy's actions against Miles, Jonathan and Pat were motivated by his disagreements with those members.

Caesar's wife comes to mind. A moderator must not only act fairly; he or she must be seen to act fairly. A moderator who actively promotes far-fetched beliefs will inevitably generate suspicion whenever he uses his moderator's powers against those who disagree with him.

If people suspect, rightly or wrongly, that they won't get a fair deal on this forum, they are unlikely to hang around or even join in the first place. Hence the paucity here of lone-nutters and non-paranoid conspiracy theorists. I'm aware of several ex-members who questioned one or more far-fetched theories and were either banned or left of their own accord as a result.

It's good that Sandy devotes time to the administration of this forum. The Watercoolers feature, which I assume Sandy had a hand in creating, was an effective way of defusing partisan political disagreements that had nothing to do with the JFK assassination.

But the power to suspend or ban members should not be in the hands of people who actively promote far-fetched or otherwise divisive beliefs, because at some point those people will act against members who disagree with them, and suspicion will be generated. Personally, I think the panel of moderators should be entirely (or, at worst, largely) comprised of people who do not actively promote such beliefs. Whether enough suitable members can be found is another matter.

 

And what Jeremy had responded to:

Quote

Bill Brown wrote:

For what it's worth...

I consider many of Sandy Larsen's posts to be of the "far-fetched" variety.

I also consider Sandy Larsen to be a fair Moderator.

Jeremy, one can't possess both characteristics?

 

And what Bill Brown had responded to:

Quote

Jeremy wrote:

As has been mentioned elsewhere, is it really a good idea to entrust the running of the forum to someone who actively promotes ideas that a reasonable person would consider to be far-fetched?

Members who have disagreed with some of Sandy's far-fetched views have already had their posts accidentally removed (Miles Massicotte), or been suspended (Jonathan Cohen), or been threatened with suspension (Pat Speer). No doubt such events are coincidental, but it's the sort of thing that might tempt serious researchers to stay away, or even to abandon study of the assassination altogether (the example of Lee Farley comes to mind). At some point, this forum may contain little other than propagandists trying to sell whack-job theories to gullible newbies. To be honest, it's not far from that state at the moment.

Ideally, moderators should be people who do not promote controversial ideas. Any volunteers?

 

That's four serial exchanges (when you include mine that Jonathan harassed me for), and there is not a single word mentioning H&L theory in any of them. Yet plenty of instances of "farfetched." Obviously the immediate topic was "farfetched beliefs," not H&L theory.

 

2 hours ago, Mark Ulrik said:

Context matters.

 

Third, yes context matters. As I said, the immediate context was "farfetched beliefs." The larger context was "theorist shaming," i.e. the subject of this thread. H&L wasn't the context of that exchange.

So no, Jonathan wasn't responding to what I said. He was just being annoying... because that is what he does.

 

2 hours ago, Mark Ulrik said:

PS: That all conspiracy theories appear far-fetched to "WC apologists" is a sweeping generalization that seems a bit unfair.

 

I was trying to keep the sentence pithy. But there's quite a bit of truth even in the way I phrased it.

 

2 hours ago, Mark Ulrik said:

Some "WC apologists" (a derogatory term for people who generally agree with the conclusions of the WC) ...

 

An "apologist" is just a person who defends something considered to be unpopular by the people using the term. If WC apologists were so inclined, they could refer to conspiracy theorists as CT apologists. I see no reason to take offense.

 

2 hours ago, Mark Ulrik said:

...are former conspiracy believers, and the more candid ones will cheerfully admit to being unable to completely rule out that some sort of conspiracy was afoot in the JFKA.

 

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Jim Hargrove writes:

Quote

But Messrs. Newman and Scott are clearly open to the concept of two men sharing the identity of Lee Harvey Oswald for years

The question I asked was:

Quote

Do Newman and Scott really believe that Oswald and his mother were part of a long-term double-doppelgänger scheme that began when Oswald was a boy?

John Newman and Peter Dale Scott may be "open to the concept" of two people sharing someone's identity, but do they actually believe the essential features of the 'Harvey and Lee' theory? Namely, that shortly after the end of the second world war the CIA set up a scheme in which:

• The boy Oswald was given an unrelated eastern European boy as a doppelgänger.
• Oswald's mother was given an unrelated woman (origin unspecified) as a doppelgänger.
• The doppelgänger mother was unrelated not only to the real Oswald's real mother, but also to the doppelgänger Oswald boy whose mother she pretended to be.
• The unrelated eastern European doppelgänger boy was chosen by the CIA specifically for his native ability to speak Russian.
• The geniuses at the CIA allowed this unrelated Oswald doppelgänger to forget so much of his native Russian that he had to learn the language all over again, thereby defeating the whole point of the scheme.
• The two households, one with a real Oswald and his real mother, and the other with a doppelgänger Oswald and a doppelgänger stand-in mother, were maintained for a decade or more.
• The intention was for the two boys to turn out, a decade or more after the scheme was set up, to be so close in appearance that they would be mistaken for each other, and for the two women to remain so close in appearnce that they too would be mistaken for each other.

And then:

• During the assassination, one of the Oswald doppelgängers was up on the sixth floor of the book depository, shooting at JFK, exactly as the Warren Report has it, while the other doppelgänger was elsewhere in the building.
• As soon as the real-life, one and only Oswald was murdered, one Oswald doppelgänger and one of the mother doppelgängers vanished without trace, almost as if they had never existed in the first place.

Are Newman and Scott even aware of these essential elements of the theory? I suspect not. If they are, have they offered an opinion about each of the elements? Did they burst out laughing?

Was it explained to Newman and Scott that the 'Harvey and Lee' story requires the official lone-nut narrative to be correct, single-bullet theory and all? They'd dismiss it out of hand if they knew that part, wouldn't they?

Did they ask to see the direct documentary evidence which such a long-term project would have generated: internal memos, progress reports, financial records, etc? If they did ask to see this evidence, what did they say when they were told that none of it exists?

[Jim Hargrove]

1 hour ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Was it explained to Newman and Scott that the 'Harvey and Lee' story requires the official lone-nut narrative to be correct, single-bullet theory and all? They'd dismiss it out of hand if they knew that part, wouldn't they?

I don't have time for protracted arguments right now, but this simply isn't true.  And do you seriously expect the Agency would release internal documents on the Oswald Project?  Really?