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

[W. Niederhut]

45 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

I hope an effort is made to diversify the moderator team, so that the full range of the political spectrum is represented, barring overt hate groups (unfortunately now embedded into the fringes of both major political parties).  

You can see from comments made on this thread that staunch partisanship, and related rank biases and petty rancor, are alive and well. 

Good luck to what I hope is a totally new, refreshed and relative unbiased moderator team. No one is perfect, but we can do better. 

 

 

Geez, folks... It's not about political opinions, partisanship, bias, or the political spectrum.

We've heard this same erroneous argument repeatedly, from Benjamin Cole since he first joined the forum-- confusing matters of opinion with matters of fact.

Should there be a process for Education Forum moderators to set limits on forum members who repeatedly post clearly proven falsehoods, in the interest of limiting the posting of redundant disinformation?

Hopefully, James Gordon and/or Mark Knight will eventually answer my question (above) about forum management.

 

 

Edited June 7 by W. Niederhut

[Paul Cummings]

I think Sandy has been doing an outstanding job. I thought being a commissioner in fantasy football league was difficult but this place takes the cake.

[Sandy Larsen]

53 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

This is supposedly a Jenkins quote from High Treason 2. I do not have the book: 

Everything from just above the right ear back was fragmented…there was (an absence of scalp and bone) along the midline just above the occipital area…this (wound) would not have been low enough to have gotten into the cerebellum.”

The definition of “occipital” is:

“of or relating to the back part of the head or skull or to the occipital bone.” 

53 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

So a literal reading of Jenkins’ statement places the absence and scalp and bone “above the back of the head”. 

 

Nonsense.

James Jenkins ALWAYS said that the wound was on the back of the head. He NEVER said it was on the top of the head. Never!

When David Lifton told Jenkins that the autopsy photos showed an intact scalp on the back of the head, Jenkins replied, "That's not possible, That is totally--you know, there's no possible way. Okay? It's not possible." ( Best Evidence , p. 617)

 

Following is what Dr. Aguilar documented on his head-wound witness list. I've highlighted the pertinent parts:

11) JAMES CURTIS JENKINS: the other laboratory technologist who worked with the autopsy team on JFK, Jenkins was at that time in a Ph.D. program in pathology. (High Treason II , p. 226) The HSCA's Jim Kelly and Andy Purdy reported that Jenkins "said he saw a head wound in the "...middle temporal region back to the occipital." (HSCA interview with Curtis Jenkins, Jim Kelly and Andy Purdy, 8-29-77. JFK Collection, RG 233, Document #002193, p.4) He told author, David Lifton, "I would say that parietal and occipital section on the right side of the head--it was a large gaping area...It had just been crushed, and kind of blown apart, toward the rear." (Lifton, Best Evidence ", p. 616) When Lifton told Jenkins that photographs showed that the back of the head was essentially intact, except for a small bullet entry wound at the top, he responded, "That's not possible, That is totally--you know, there's no possible way. Okay? It's not possible." ( Best Evidence , p. 617) Jenkins told Livingstone, "Everything from just above the right ear back was fragmented...there was (an absence of scalp and bone) along the midline just above the occipital area....this (wound) would not have been low enough to have gotten into the cerebellum." ( High Treason II , p. 228). Jenkins' views, whether as given by the HSCA, Livingstone, or Lifton, are noteworthy by their consistency, and as Jenkins was in a Ph.D. pathology program, his anatomic specificity is of value.

 

53 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

I do not have this interview, but Pat’s website says this: 

While speaking at a 1991 video-taped conference in Dallas, Harrison Livingstone handed Jenkins a mannequin head marked on the low back of the head and said "This area, when the head came in, you said was opened up." Jenkins responded "Yes, the tissue was attached and the scalp was attached to bone fragments in all of this area." Note that Jenkins insisted that scalp was attached to the bone in "this area," and that there was thereby no blow-out wound in "this area." "This area," as claimed by Jenkins, moreover, is shown below. It is the back of the head, precisely where most conspiracy theorists assume there was a blow-out wound.

Pat has a screen cap of Jenkins pointing to the back of a rubber skull. He continues: 

Jenkins was then asked to show where the wound was when he first saw the body. He put his hand on the top right side of his head, above his ear, and said "If I place the palm of my hand a little superior and anterior to the ear, it would encompass the circle of fingers." (This is shown at left below.) He then moved his hand back three inches or so and curled up his fingers to approximate the size of the "silver dollar or half-dollar" sized wound he said remained after reconstruction, and said "It was in approximately in this area, is where the final hole was--after everything had been drawn back and the body had been prepared for burial."  (This is shown at right below.)

Now, should that be too hard to make out, a GIF of this sequence of the interview was put online by a daft person, who insisted I was somehow misrepresenting what Jenkins had told Livingstone. So here it is... Note how Jenkins' hand drops dramatically at the end when showing where the hole was at the end of the autopsy. It is inches below where he first places it, exactly as I've claimed.

The first (left) image is of Jenkins holding his hand entirely above the right ear, with the circle of fingers right behind it i.e. on the back part of the TOP of the head. 

Is there some ambiguity? Sure, but that’s multiple statements from Jenkins that a reasonable person might interpret as him placing the wound on the back part of the TOP of the head. 

Are you saying that unless someone literally says the word “top”, it doesn’t matter that their statements and gestures suggest a wound ABOVE the occipital area of the head? Even Kevin Hofeling admitted this: 

It's true that James Jenkins places the blow out wound slightly higher than the occiput on the back of the head, but in recent years this has evolved into Speer saying that the large gaping head wound was on the top and not the back of JFK's head.

The literal definition of occiput is: 

The back of the head or skull.

 

Tom, you are a perfect example of a researcher who has been duped by Pat Speer lies.

Had you read Keven Hofeling's post, you would now understand that Pat cherry-picked and mischaracterized what James Jenkins said, to make it look like Jenkins placed the wound on top of the head, when in fact he didn't.

The reason I penalized Pat Speer was to try and prevent other researcher from being duped like you've been.

 

53 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

Kevin egregiously broke forum rules over and over in his crusade to censor Pat ...

 

Keven broke no rules.

 

53 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

...yet Sandy justified it by breaking the rules himself and openly calling Pat a liar...

 

That is absolutely not true. I have never called Pat or any other member a liar. If I have, prove it!

What I did do was say that Pat lied about two things. And what I said is true... Pat did lie about those two things, and I penalized him because he wouldn't correct it.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

46 minutes ago, Paul Cummings said:

I think Sandy has been doing an outstanding job. I thought being a commissioner in fantasy football league was difficult but this place takes the cake.

 

Thank you Paul.

Fact is, while it is true I can handle Pat's lies and the bogus claims of people like Tom Gram... I am discovering that certain people are above the law on the forum.

The forum rule needs to be rewritten as:

No member, with the exception of Pat Speer, shall use this board to post any comment or material which is demonstrably false.

 

[Mark Knight]

Mr. Niederhut,

I have said in my previous comment that I think the administrative TEAM should decide on what the policy is. So I really don't have room to opine on what I think the policy should be until tha admin team discusses it. My opinion alone and a $20 bill will generally buy a cup of coffee and an equally to-be-disregarded opinion.

Mr Cole,

There are plenty of places on the internet today to discuss current politics. Just because, for example, one candidate saw JFK on television one time does NOT make such a discussion JFK-assassination related. And of course I expect you to "collegially" disagree.

To this point, I stand by my recommendation that a set of moderators SEPARATE from the administrators be established. Then the moderators can moderate, and the administrators can administrate. 

When a single moderator or administrator starts changing EF rules without input from the other administrators -- such as making the word "liar" permissible when it formerly was automatically censored to "xxxx," incidents like the one that precipitated the recent brouhaha occur. The team system, however cumbersome it might have seemed, always prevented a single mod or administrator from turning the EF into his or her personal fiefdom and a single person becoming "lord of the manor," or "king of the hill.

Just my opinions.

[Mark Knight]

41 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

K

That is absolutely not true. I have never called Pat or any other member a liar. If I have, prove it!

What I did do was say that Pat lied about two things. And what I said is true... Pat did lie about those two things, and I penalized him because he wouldn't correct it.

 

You're arguing semantics, Sandy. If you say someone lied, you ARE calling him a liar. Check the dictionary. A liar is one who lies. Therefore you DID call Pat Speer a liar when you said he lied, according to the definition of the word on the English language.

If you don't believe ME, look up the definition of "liar" and get back to me.

[Benjamin Cole]

18 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Thank you Paul.

Fact is, while it is true I can handle Pat's lies and the bogus claims of people like Tom Gram... I am discovering that certain people are above the law on the forum.

The forum rule needs to be rewritten as:

No member, with the exception of Pat Speer, shall use this board to post any comment or material which is demonstrably false.

 

Sandy:

"Fact is, while it is true I can handle Pat's lies and the bogus claims of people like Tom Gram... I am discovering that certain people are above the law on the forum."---SL

This is not the type of comment a moderator should make.

In fact, I do not think any member of EF-JFKA should refer to other, earnestly held view-points as "lies." 

You are a man of very firmly held convictions regarding your politics and interpretations of JFKA events and episodes. That is fine. 

But you should always remember that---

1. You may be incorrect or biased.

2. Other participants earnestly believe in their views as well. It is not necessary to speak in a disparaging manner about other earnestly held views. 

You are likely a very smart guy, but perhaps you are miscast as moderator. Some people should be plaintiffs lawyers and not judges. Different personalities. 

[Benjamin Cole]

2 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

This is supposedly a Jenkins quote from High Treason 2. I do not have the book: 

Everything from just above the right ear back was fragmented…there was (an absence of scalp and bone) along the midline just above the occipital area…this (wound) would not have been low enough to have gotten into the cerebellum.”

The definition of “occipital” is:

“of or relating to the back part of the head or skull or to the occipital bone.” 

So a literal reading of Jenkins’ statement places the absence and scalp and bone “above the back of the head”. 

Where exactly in your interpretation of anatomy does the back of the head end and the top of the head begin? Mark Knight was right. This ludicrous “argument” over back vs. top is just semantics. 

Pat’s website also has a screencap of a 1991 interview with Livingstone showing Jenkins with his hand on his head entirely above the right ear, on the back part of the TOP of the head.

I do not have this interview, but Pat’s website says this: 

While speaking at a 1991 video-taped conference in Dallas, Harrison Livingstone handed Jenkins a mannequin head marked on the low back of the head and said "This area, when the head came in, you said was opened up." Jenkins responded "Yes, the tissue was attached and the scalp was attached to bone fragments in all of this area." Note that Jenkins insisted that scalp was attached to the bone in "this area," and that there was thereby no blow-out wound in "this area." "This area," as claimed by Jenkins, moreover, is shown below. It is the back of the head, precisely where most conspiracy theorists assume there was a blow-out wound.

Pat has a screen cap of Jenkins pointing to the back of a rubber skull. He continues: 

Jenkins was then asked to show where the wound was when he first saw the body. He put his hand on the top right side of his head, above his ear, and said "If I place the palm of my hand a little superior and anterior to the ear, it would encompass the circle of fingers." (This is shown at left below.) He then moved his hand back three inches or so and curled up his fingers to approximate the size of the "silver dollar or half-dollar" sized wound he said remained after reconstruction, and said "It was in approximately in this area, is where the final hole was--after everything had been drawn back and the body had been prepared for burial."  (This is shown at right below.)

Now, should that be too hard to make out, a GIF of this sequence of the interview was put online by a daft person, who insisted I was somehow misrepresenting what Jenkins had told Livingstone. So here it is... Note how Jenkins' hand drops dramatically at the end when showing where the hole was at the end of the autopsy. It is inches below where he first places it, exactly as I've claimed.

The first (left) image is of Jenkins holding his hand entirely above the right ear, with the circle of fingers right behind it i.e. on the back part of the TOP of the head. 

Is there some ambiguity? Sure, but that’s multiple statements from Jenkins that a reasonable person might interpret as him placing the wound on the back part of the TOP of the head. 

Are you saying that unless someone literally says the word “top”, it doesn’t matter that their statements and gestures suggest a wound ABOVE the occipital area of the head? Even Kevin Hofeling admitted this: 

It's true that James Jenkins places the blow out wound slightly higher than the occiput on the back of the head, but in recent years this has evolved into Speer saying that the large gaping head wound was on the top and not the back of JFK's head.

The literal definition of occiput is: 

The back of the head or skull.

So according to Kevin, Jenkins placed the wound slightly “higher” than the back of the head, but still entirely on the back of the head… 

Give me a effing break. This nonsense has led to how many people getting censored…cough… I mean suspended? I’m glad James is intervening. Kevin egregiously broke forum rules over and over in his crusade to censor Pat yet Sandy justified it by breaking the rules himself and openly calling Pat a liar (and others “bootlickers”) for having a different interpretation of a confused old man making ambiguous statements and pointing to his freaking head. 

Incoming 75 pages of repetitive nonsense and images of Parkland doctors touching their heads. Brace yourselves. 

I know Tom Gram to be an earnest and talented JFKA researcher. 

Gram may come to different conclusions than me, on occasion.  If so, I would check my conclusions for accuracy.

There would be no need to speak disparagingly about Gram''s conclusions.

 

[Benjamin Cole]

9 minutes ago, Mark Knight said:

Mr. Niederhut,

I have said in my previous comment that I think the administrative TEAM should decide on what the policy is. So I really don't have room to opine on what I think the policy should be until tha admin team discusses it. My opinion alone and a $20 bill will generally but a cup of coffee and an equally to-be-disregarded opinion.

Mr Cole,

There are plenty of places on the internet today to discuss current politics. Just because, for example, one candidate saw JFK on television one time does NOT make such a discussion JFK-assassination related. And of course I expect you to "collegially" disagree.

To this point, I stand by my recommendation that a set of moderators SEPARATE from the administrators be established. Then the moderators can moderate, and the administrators can administrate. 

When a single moderator or administrator starts changing EF rules without input from the other administrators -- such as making the word "liar" permissible when it formerly was automatically censored to "xxxx," incidents like the one that precipitated the recent brouhaha occur. The team system, however cumbersome it might have seemed, always prevented a single mod or administrator from turning the EF into his or her personal fiefdom and a single person becoming "lord of the manor," or "king of the hill.

Just my opinions.

All fine with me. 

I recommend the moderators be selected for diversity in their viewpoints and political beliefs. 

If a trio, then one D, one R and one independent. 

Or, if you prefer, one leftie, one rightie, and one middle-of-the-roader. 

[Sandy Larsen]

11 minutes ago, Mark Knight said:

You're arguing semantics, Sandy. If you say someone lied, you ARE calling him a liar. Check the dictionary. A liar is one who lies. Therefore you DID call Pat Speer a liar when you said he lied, according to the definition of the word on the English language.

liar

(ˈlaɪə)

n

a person who has lied or lies repeatedly

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014

 

 

I made bold the definition I am using.

 

But if you want us to say that anybody who has lied is a liar, then we are ALL liars!

 

Okay, so according to you we are all liars. Explain to me why the word "liar" should be banned. We're all liars.

 

-----------------------------

 

Obviously the word "liar" should be banned because it makes it sound like a person lies a lot!

 

 

[Matt Allison]

12 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Or, if you prefer, one leftie, one rightie, and one middle-of-the-roader. 

Please provide an example of such a scenario working in any facet of current American life.

[Tom Gram]

26 minutes ago, Mark Knight said:

You're arguing semantics, Sandy. If you say someone lied, you ARE calling him a liar. Check the dictionary. A liar is one who lies. Therefore you DID call Pat Speer a liar when you said he lied, according to the definition of the word on the English language.

If you don't believe ME, look up the definition of "liar" and get back to me.

Exactly. I pointed out how Kevin was repeatedly breaking the rules by calling Pat a fraudulent liar, and Sandy defended it by saying it was fine because Pat actually lied. How is agreeing with and defending someone calling Pat a liar, and making comments including some stupid meme about listening to Pat’s “lying ass” somehow different than literally using the word “liar”? It’s not. 

It was a difference of opinion on ambiguous evidence and ultimately boiled down to semantic BS over what constitutes the back vs. the top of the head. Then Jean Paul became a bootlicker. Personal insults are another forum rule violation. 

Edited June 7 by Tom Gram

[Sandy Larsen]

52 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

1. You may be incorrect or biased.

 

Yes, moderators can always make the wrong call. So should we quit moderating to prevent that?

 

52 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

2. Other participants earnestly believe in their views as well. It is not necessary to speak in a disparaging manner about other earnestly held views. 

 

I merely made a relevant observation.

 

52 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

You are likely a very smart guy, but perhaps you are miscast as moderator.

 

A lot of people here think I'm a good moderator.

 

Edited June 7 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

33 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

I pointed out how Kevin was repeatedly breaking the rules by calling Pat a fraudulent liar...

 

I don't believe that Keven ever called Pat a "fraudulent liar." Prove your allegation.

And BTW, I recall once asking Keven to be careful not to use the word "liar" because doing so was against forum rules.

 

33 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

...and Sandy defended it by saying it was fine because Pat actually lied.

 

No, I never said that.

What I said is that if a member posts a demonstrable falsehood, but refuses to correct it upon being notified, that that could be called a lie. Because that in fact would be a lie.

 

33 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

It was a difference of opinion on ambiguous evidence and ultimately boiled down to semantic BS over what constitutes the back vs. the top of the head.

 

No, it wasn't an opinion. It was a lie. James Jenkins NEVER said the hole was on top of the head. He ALWAYS said it was on the back of the head.

You have used Pat Speer as a source to prove that Pat Speer didn't lie.

 

33 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

Then Jean Paul became a bootlicker. Personal insults are another forum rule violation. 

 

Well kettle, meet pot. As you continue to misrepresent what both Keven and I have said and done.

 

 

[W. Niederhut]

1 hour ago, Mark Knight said:

Mr. Niederhut,

I have said in my previous comment that I think the administrative TEAM should decide on what the policy is. So I really don't have room to opine on what I think the policy should be until tha admin team discusses it. My opinion alone and a $20 bill will generally buy a cup of coffee and an equally to-be-disregarded opinion.

 

 

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

All fine with me. 

I recommend the moderators be selected for diversity in their viewpoints and political beliefs. 

If a trio, then one D, one R and one independent. 

Or, if you prefer, one leftie, one rightie, and one middle-of-the-roader. 

The criteria should be erudition, sound judgment, and intellectual honesty.

We, certainly, don't want people who think that January 6th was a mere "scrum," or a Deep State "Patriot Purge," moderating the Education Forum.

Those guys belong on 4Chan or Truth Social.

 

Edited June 7 by W. Niederhut