The Present state of the EF and how it can be improved

[James R Gordon]

The conduct of the Forum has come to my attention. I have spent a good part of today looking through the forum. There is a lot that concerns me  and I may - at some point - take action.

Though I have received numerous complaints - two recent complaints have truly shocked me. In case you are in any doubt I am talking to you as the owner of this site.

1 Pat Speer was a JFK researcher before David Butler, Mark Knight, Kathy Becket and I took this site over. I believe he is seriously ill at the moment

And he has been banned!!! According to the Moderarors Reminders Rules a member needs to infringe 50 points he or she is banned. Where are Pat’s 50 point infringements listed.

It used to be the norm that a moderator would inform the other moderators of his/her intention to ban a member. Was there discussion between the three remaining moderators before Pat was banned. I raise this because often through moderator discussion the said moderator was persuaded not to ban

I am bitterly disappointed that  Mark Knight - a founding member of the admin team from posting  -  has been banned. What astonished me is that Mark was informed that he was no longer a moderator. As owner of this site I inform all that Mark Knight is still a respected member of the admin team.

On page 1 is a topic Moderator Reminders. In that thread is a Penalty Chart. That chart speaks volumes about how this forum is presently being run. What is not listed is what kind of behaviour has to be conducted in order to be given a said penalty. If the EF is to have such a chart then is imperative that all members understand the infringements. A listing of the punishments is not sufficient.

Foolishly I had assumed all was well with the EF. I want to know what are the views of members about this forum. I would be pleased to know what are the present weaknesses of this forum and where and how the site can be improved.

I invite members to use this thread to both describe the present state of the site as well as suggest how the moderators can improve on it.

James Gordon
Owner

[Denny Zartman]

@James R Gordon Thanks for reaching out to forum members and for summarizing what's been going on from your viewpoint.

Let me please say that I've served as a moderator on another website, and I didn't enjoy it at all. It's a difficult job, made much harder if the moderator also wishes to engage in the same discussion and debate as the other regular members do. In sports terms, it's like being a referee and a player at the same time.

Regarding Pat Speer: I tapped out early from the most recent argument, so others may wish to get back in the weeds over who started it and who said what, because I don't. From what I understand, Pat claimed Bethesda autopsy witness James Jenkins made multiple statements locating the large head wound as being at the top of the head, but when pressed it seems Mr. Speer was unable to cite one example of Jenkins making this claim. When requested to edit his statements and add qualifiers to show that what he had previously stated as facts was instead his opinion, he apparently refused.

I believe people have a right to their own opinions, but they do not have a right to their own facts. In my personal opinion, I believe Mr. Speer's penalty was justified. In my view, it's not hard to qualify one's statements when stating facts as they are currently understood by that individual.

This is not an easy conflict to resolve, so again, I do not envy your job. I think most people would say facts are not a matter of opinion. Facts are facts. But, who is to say what is a definite fact or not, especially when discussing this particular case, where - after more than 60 solid years of intense research - some of the most basic and elemental questions are still total mysteries?

Regarding Mark Knight: I only saw a few of his recent posts so I'm not sure what's going on. He really seemed angry, from what I've read.

As for my opinion on the present state of the site, I'm unhappy with it, but I've long since come to accept that the forum just is the way it is. There are people in this world that can look at the same set of facts and come away with vastly different takeaways. Takeaways so vastly different that at times it's unbelievable - and unbelievably frustrating.

And as for my suggestions at improving the forum, I'll have to give it some more thought. My suggestions might not be good ones anyway. I've been resigned to the fact that the forum is what it is for so long that I haven't devoted much time thinking about what should be changed or how it could be improved. I'll try to get back to you on that.

Thanks again.

[James R Gordon]

If you look at the photographic evidence you will find numerous images of Jenkins pointing to an upper head wound. I looked at some today. That said whether these images are historically accurate is another matter.
Not being able to verify a claim I never considered a banning issue. There were less than 5 members banned when I was an active moderator. Thjat is not the case today

The EF was once the premier JFK forum and the present state of the forum bothers me. It is not going to be done overnight but I do intend to improve this site. I have been absent for too long and I can see much that shouyld be dealt with.

 

[Robert Morrow]

2 hours ago, James R Gordon said:

Not being able to verify a claim I never considered a banning issue.

If that were the case, everyone who ever said that JFK was killed "because of his move to peace and because he was not going to prosecute the Vietnam War" would have been banned a long, long time ago.

I am not for heavy handed banning in the case of Pat Speer or Mark Knight. If Pat Speer was so obviously wrong about some thing then put your argument and let the readers decide who is right. If Speer were so obviously WRONG then it would be super easy to debunk him in front of the reading audience.

A great way to kill a discussion board is to start banning people who you "disagree with the facts" on and presume you are the arbiter of all facts.

Pretty soon after Cambodian style Khmer Rouge genocide banning you are left with 2 or 3 moderators who all agree with themselves and no one reads the discussion board because there is no debate going on.

And, yes, moderators should talk confer with one another before someone is officially banned.

The Education Forum almost died because no one knowledgeable or intelligent was posting here. There were no skilled debates doing on.

If you want Education Forum to thrive you should start recruiting and pulling in people and having debates/discussions on the topics. THIS INCLUDES DEBATING OVER WHAT AN ACTUAL FACT IS.

 

 

 

Edited June 5 by Robert Morrow

[Denny Zartman]

6 minutes ago, James R Gordon said:

If you look at the photographic evidence you will find numerous images of Jenkins pointing to an upper head wound.

When did I mention photographs? We're not talking about photographs. We're talking about multiple statements. Pat said Jenkins made multiple statements that the wound he saw was in the top of the head.

Prove it. Show us two statements and then we can all agree that Pat was right. Pat couldn't provide the proof. I'm sure you can.

Read and listen to the statements Jim Jenkins has given over the years. I think you will find no statements where he says in the in the top of the head. That's the claim Pat made and it sure looks like it's completely false.

[Denny Zartman]

17 minutes ago, James R Gordon said:

If you look at the photographic evidence you will find numerous images of Jenkins pointing to an upper head wound. I looked at some today. That said whether these images are historically accurate is another matter.
Not being able to verify a claim I never considered a banning issue. There were less than 5 members banned when I was an active moderator. Thjat is not the case today

The EF was once the premier JFK forum and the present state of the forum bothers me. It is not going to be done overnight but I do intend to improve this site. I have been absent for too long and I can see much that shouyld be dealt with.

Why did you bother to ask for feedback if you've already made up your mind? Why waste everyone's time?

[Jonathan Cohen]

James,

Thank goodness you are now up to speed on what's really been going on here and have opened a direct line of communication to address these important issues. In my OPINION, Sandy Larsen has flagrantly, repeatedly abused his position as a moderator to suspend and punish members with whose opinions he disagrees, while constantly moving the goalposts for the "rules" of what he alone considers acceptable decorum.

For context, I have been researching this case for more than 30 years, have written multiple articles for JFK publications, have spoken and given presentations at several JFK symposiums around the world and have befriended/worked alongside some of the most respected figures in the field. I've also been a member and regular contributor here since 2009 and was never subject to "disciplinary" action by an admin until August of 2023, when Larsen suspended me for the first of 13 (!?) times since then. I am only returning here to post now so as to underline what is in my OPINION a dire need to remove Larsen from his forum moderating responsibilities and to decry the abusive treatment at his hands of members such as Pat Speer, Greg Doudna and Jean Paul.

This forum once thrived with original research. Today, in my OPINION, it is a barren wasteland of the same tired, long-debunked nonsense rehashed over and over and over again. A change in forum moderation would go a long way towards encouraging serious researchers in this case to contribute here and foster productive debate. In my OPINION, the forum will never reach its potential with Larsen in charge and, in fact, his presence is actively driving people away to other places of discussion.

Thank you for making this forum possible.

[James R Gordon]

Jonathan,

Thank you for your support.

It will take quite some time to return this forum to what it once was. But I am going to attempt to return this forum to what it once was.

I have some ideas.

James

 

[Ron Bulman]

James, first, it's nice to know you're still alive and hopefully well.  One member recently wondered if something might have happened to you when I mentioned not having seen your name at the bottom of the page "looking in" in a long time or having posted.  I have come to understand that anyone trying to moderate this place long term might feel the need to take a break.

That said, as Jim DiEugenio has mentioned a couple of times in the last year, there is no place on the internet like this forum.  I look forward to your prior experience returning to the site and any improvements to it.

Regards,

Ron

[Roger Odisio]

1 hour ago, James R Gordon said:

Jonathan,

Thank you for your support.

It will take quite some time to return this forum to what it once was. But I am going to attempt to return this forum to what it once was.

I have some ideas.

James

 

 

You're on the right track, James.

 

Several months ago I was twice banned from posting for a few days.  The first one was the most egregious.  I had questioned the removal of a thread, saying it was relevant to an understanding of the JFKA and the mods had not offered sufficient reason to remove it.  I was banned for *lying*.  Yes, came the answer in a personal note to me, the mods had indeed given *a reason* for the removal. They made no attempt to discuss the sufficiency of that reason, which was my point, or answer any point I made in questioning the removal.

 

My banning was done in secret and I was required to accept it without a response or I would be banned further.  The ban was not acknowledged to the group, nor of course was the claim I was lying subject to any scrutiny. When I asked about the secrecy, at that time the mods claimed it was necessary to avoid embarrassing the member being banned.  I'm not sure if they still claim that.  But it's important to pursue the secrecy now existing and ponder the benefits of openness and accountability going forward. 

 

As you look into this, I think you will find that secrecy and the lack of accountability of the mods to be at the heart of the problem.  

 

The mods have said EF is not a democracy and they are right about that. It would not be possible or wise to poll the members to decide what to do about every issue that comes up. But with the right to decide comes the responsibility to explain a decision when questioned by a member. The current mods have abjectly failed to do this.  We are not supposed to be a dictatorship where the mods face no accountability either.

 

Let's be clear about the mods' current penchant for removing threads and sending them to another forum. In terms of this forum that it is a form of censorship.  Sandy Larson has acknowledged that when a thread started here is sent elsewhere and can receive no further comments here, it typically dies. That makes it incumbent on the mods to explain why it was necessary to move it from this forum in the first place, why it is not relevant to the JFKA.  As far as I can tell they have never even tried to  explain that.

 

Of course topics can be relevant to more than one forum in the system.  But if a topic is relevant to the JFKA, I have asked repeatedly why the thread can't simply be pasted to another forum, while leaving it here.  And gotten no answer.

 

Today, the mods removed the thread, "LAPD  Tests Confirmed Near Point-Blank Shot on RF1". It was discussing the little known fact that, besides Naguchi's autopsy that showed the fatal shots were fired at close range from behind Kennedy, the LAPD had done a study confirming that.  This added further weight, if any was needed, to Naguchi's autopsy that showed Sirhan couldn't have killed Kennedy. The conclusion, inescapable to me, is that it is likely the same powerful forces who murdered JFK were not going to let Bobby become president and reopen the JFKA. Had the thread remained, it could have led to further exploration of that point.

 

Yet somehow the mods decided even that possibility was not worth discussing on this forum and removed the thread without comment so far.  I'm pretty sure I would get no answer if I ask them about that.  Perhaps you can get an answer.

[James R Gordon]

Roger,

Your treatment isexactly why the EF needs to changed and be returned to what it once was.

Being required to take yor banning in silence is outrageous.

I am learning a lot of what has been going onunder the surface.

None of it reflects well on the EF. The only positive point is that it will never be allowed to happen again.

James

 

[W. Niederhut]

24 minutes ago, James R Gordon said:

Roger,

Your treatment isexactly why the EF needs to changed and be returned to what it once was.

Being required to take yor banning in silence is outrageous.

I am learning a lot of what has been going onunder the surface.

None of it reflects well on the EF. The only positive point is that it will never be allowed to happen again.

James

 

James,

     In your opinion, should threads about the RFK Assassination be posted on the RFK Assassination board or on the JFK Assassination board?

      IMO, Roger Odisio is being a bit disingenuous here.

      For example, one common problem on the forum in recent months has been the recurrent posting of threads on the JFKA board for the purpose of promoting the 2024 Presidential candidacy of RFK, Jr.

       90% of these RFK-promotional threads on the JFKA board have consisted of old, rehashed material, ending with a sales pitch about RFK, Jr. releasing the JFK records, and/or "finishing what his father started."

       It's contemporary political advertising in the guise of JFKA scholarship.

 

P.S.  People in the UK may not know that RFK, Jr.'s 2024 third-party candidacy has been funded and supported by right wing billionaires and political strategists for the purpose of re-electing Donald Trump.

Edited June 5 by W. Niederhut

[Charles Blackmon]

2 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

his presence is actively driving people away to other places of discussion.

 

Like where?

[Sandy Larsen]

James,

I'm afraid that you've been receiving fallacious information.

First, nobody has been banned. And the forum is running fine. There are just a few members who are disgruntled because I gave Pat Speer a penalty.

The problem began when a particular forum member pointed out, and then proved, that Pat Speer had posted false information on what an autopsy witness (James Jenkins) had said. I asked Pat to correct his post because it is against forum rules to post false information.

Pat refused to do that, and instead doubled down on his claim. Not only that, but he began additionally claiming that his accuser actually agreed with him (Pat)! Which of course is ridiculous. (It felt like Pat was taunting me for having the nerve to question his post.)

So at that point in time Pat had posted TWO falsehoods... one about James Jenkins and one about his accuser. I asked Pat again to correct them. This time, I suggested that he merely add a qualifier to what he was saying -- something like "I believe that ..." or "my interpretation of that is ..." -- so that what he wrote wouldn't be a falsehood. For example, instead of saying, "Jenkins said that the wound was on top of the head" he could say "It is my belief that Jenkins said the wound was on top of the head." (The former is demonstrably false, whereas the latter is true.)

Pat again refused. So I gave him a 8-day penalty. (That is to say, he couldn't post for eight days.) Pat will be posting again in three days.

 

As a result of my penalizing Pat, two members became angry with me. One treated me disrespectfully (for which I gave a 2-day penalty) and the other said a number of lies about me and what I was doing. I gave him an 8-day penalty.

 

The next thing I knew, Mark Knight came in late to the thread and proceeded to lambaste the guy who originally accused Pat. But what really took me by surprise is that Mark accused me -- right there publicly -- of being some kind of accomplice or puppet of the guy who had accused Pat. Mark said that he knew that the accuser guy was going to get me to ban him (Mark), and that he (Mark) would enjoy it! Here are Mark's exact words:

As an administrator of The Education Forum, I can't wait for you to direct Sandy Larson to suspend my posting priviliges or to ban me from the forum, simply for questioning your techniques when dealing with Mr. Speer. As of 6/2/2024, I am the last remaining administrator from the transfer of ownership of The Education Forum from John Simkin to the group of four new owners they selected in 2014. It seems I am the "last man standing" of that group of four post-Simkin owners unless James Gordon decides to return. Absent that return, I am the senior "owner" of the forum.

Mr. Hofeling [the accuser of Pat] , I eagerly await your anticipated attempts to have me suspended or even banned from the forum (This is gonna be a hoot!)

When I'm suspended, maybe DVP can go by his former business and pick up a bucket (extra crispy, please, David!) and deliver it to me. I'm 25 miles west of Louisville, David...the same latitude as the first turn at Churchill Downs, and the same longitude as the exit of pit road at Talladega Speedway. I'll supply the drinks as long as you drink decaf cola.

[Emphasis added.]

What an utterly outrageous post to make! About me! And made in public (not PM)!

And then Mark warned another member to be careful agreeing with him (Mark), for he might thereby suffer the same fate. (Implying the I might ban him too!)

I couldn't let Mark get away with that without being penalized. So I gave him a one-day penalty, which expired yesterday. (Note that you can't penalize an admin member. So I temporarily removed admin status from Mark's account in order to issue the penalty.)

 

[Jonathan Cohen]

9 minutes ago, Charles Blackmon said:

Like where?

Greg Parker's late, great forum (which thankfully still exists in read-only form), Duncan MacRae's forum (which authoritatively dispels a lot of the nonsense peddled around here), Reddit discussions, Tony Krone's forum, etc.