Deletion of valid JFKA thread by mods

[Gerry Down]

1 minute ago, Mark Knight said:

The ensuing discussion MADE it a political discussion.

Had your thread stayed on its original subject, I would wholeheartedly agree with you.

And if i had picked the winning lottery numbers, I would be a millionaire.

But neither occurred.

Ban the people who hijack threads. Don't ban the thread itself. 

[W. Niederhut]

38 minutes ago, Gerry Down said:

Ban the people who hijack threads. Don't ban the thread itself. 

Hey, look, it's a new definition of "hijack."  🙄

Hijack: (v) to debunk a thesis on social media.

Example:  "He hijacked the thread comparing Oswald to Crooks by pointing out that the thesis made no sense."

[Gerry Down]

5 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Hey, look, it's a new definition of "hijack."  🙄

Hijack: (v) to debunk a thesis on social media.

Example:  "He hijacked the thread comparing Oswald to Crooks by pointing out that the thesis made no sense."

You've never heard of hijacking an airplane?

[Gerry Down]

That's why they call them the 9/11 hijackers.

They took over a plane.

Like one would take over a thread. 

[W. Niederhut]

26 minutes ago, Gerry Down said:

You've never heard of hijacking an airplane?

That's the old definition, Gerry.

This is the Age of Double Speak and Disinformation in the mainstream and social media.

When I was a lad, a t-r-o-l-l was a creature living under a bridge in fairy tales.

Edited 13 hours ago by W. Niederhut

[W. Niederhut]

3 minutes ago, Gerry Down said:

That's why they call them the 9/11 hijackers.

They took over a plane.

Like one would take over a thread. 

Gerry,

Since you just hijacked your own thread, I'll respond.

What evidence do you cite in support of the official U.S. government's 9/11 "Muslim hijackers" narrative?  Do tell.

Any photos, CCTV, or flight manifest evidence of Muslim terrorists boarding the planes?

Surely, you're not citing the fake cell phone calls from Boeings, describing "Muslims with boxcutters," or the planted photos of Saudi "hijackers" in the Logan Airport rental car?

Perhaps you're thinking of the two unscathed, paper Muslim passports that miraculously survived the vaporization of the planes, passengers, luggage, and seats at the WTC and Pentagon?

Or, perhaps, you simply haven't learned that the U.S. military and CIA didn't need human pilots to fly and maneuver Boeing jet liners with great precision by September 11, 2001.

They had successfully tested Raytheon's GPS-guided remote-piloting technology for Boeings in August of 2001.

 

[Gerry Down]

3 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Gerry,

Since you just hijacked your own thread, I'll respond.

What evidence do you cite in support of the official U.S. government's 9/11 "Muslim hijackers" narrative?  Do tell.

Any photos, CCTV, or flight manifest evidence of Muslim terrorists boarding the planes?

Surely, you're not citing the fake cell phone calls from Boeings, describing "Muslims with boxcutters," or the planted photos of Saudi "hijackers" in the Logan Airport rental car?

Perhaps you're thinking of the two unscathed, paper Muslim passports that miraculously survived the vaporization of the planes, passengers, luggage, and seats at the WTC and Pentagon?

Or, perhaps, you simply haven't learned that the U.S. military and CIA didn't need human pilots to fly and maneuver Boeing jet liners with great precision by September 11, 2001.

They had successfully tested Raytheon's GPS-guided remote-piloting technology for Boeings in August of 2001.

 

I'm too busy studying the JFKA to have time to study the 9/11 attacks. 

[W. Niederhut]

1 minute ago, Gerry Down said:

I'm too busy studying the JFKA to have time to study the 9/11 attacks. 

Fair enough.  Hopefully, in time, you and David Von Pein will learn that Oswald wasn't a Lone Nut, like Crooks.

[Gerry Down]

4 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Fair enough.  Hopefully, in time, you and David Von Pein will learn that Oswald wasn't a Lone Nut, like Crooks.

I never said Oswald was a lone nut. I think he's still a mystery 60 years later. 

[Roger Odisio]

20 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Roger,

     I'm responding to your post in red (below.)

Roger Odisio wrote: 

I didn't see the thread.  But it looks like it wasn't about Trump.  You and others have a real problem turning so many threads into being about Trump or the red vs blue nonsense, when they have other important things to say.

Incorrect.  The threads were about the assassination attempt on Trump, and included multiple posts from various social media sources promoting the popular MAGA theory that the assassination attempt was a Deep State plot.  It's a corollary of the alleged similarities between Oswald and Crooks.

As for your odd concept of "red vs blue nonsense," what, pray tell, is "nonsensical" about the current, stark public policy differences between the Trump GOP and the Democratic Party?  No informed person could believe such rot.

Have you studied Project 2025?   The GOP committee proposals to cut Social Security?  The GOP SCOTUS agenda on Citizens United, voter suppression,  rolling back Roe v. Wade, and blocking prosecutions of Trump's historic insurrection? 

Trump's debt-mushrooming additional proposed tax cuts for his billionaire base?

Trump's proposed sabotage of climate change mitigation and the EPA?

Trump's proposed sabotage of NATO and support for Ukrainian sovereignty?

If you think these major issues aren't "important," I can't help you.

More important, William, here you are imposing your answer to the question posed --Oswald and Crooks are nothing alike, you say, and can teach us nothing--as a basis for removing the thread from this forum.  And not allowing other opinions to be heard. 

Nonsense.  First of all, I didn't move those threads, although it was the correct decision.  Secondly, those threads are still on the forum.

If you want to read them and express your opinions, do so-- on the designated non-JFKA board.

I said *re*moving because as I just explained, this *is* censorship to everyone who doesn't follow it to politics.  Which I don't, and no one is obliged to do. 

If you can't be bothered to peruse the correct boards, that's your choice.  No one here is obliging you to do anything, other than following the forum rules.

And moving threads to the correct boards, certainly, doesn't constitute "censorship."

A new mod, huh.  Then perhaps you, or one of the others, or all of you can get together and offer a consensus answer to the points I made earlier, which I have made several times before.

Have you even bothered to read the numerous explanations from the moderators about why various threads have been moved?

*Shouldn't the test of whether a thread gets moved or stays be whether it is relevant to understanding the murder.  Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the answer a poster offers, if he does offer an answer?

What murder are you referring to?  JFK's?

You're begging the same question.

What do Crooks' AR-15 shots at Trump have to do with JFK's murder? 

*Claiming a post is relevant to another forum is no basis for moving it there, if it is relevant here.  Can't it be pasted to there while remaining here? 

You're begging the question again.

Forum members should make an effort to post their threads on the correct boards.

I'm going to skip over your phony explanation that the threads moved from the JFKA forum are still on "the forum"

And your insulting question about whether I have bothered to read the "numerous explanations" from the mods about why various threads have been moved.  The moves have been many and seem to be increasing; explanations have been few and decidedly unsatisfying.  FYI, I have "bothered" to be involved in many of those discussions. 

Typically I raised the points about the policy as I have here.  And have gotten no answers.

Once again you did not answer my points.  Your answers were that I'm begging the question, whatever that means.  Followed by an assertion of something irrelevant.  Apparently done with such dismissiveness to make the point you don't have to answer any questions about what the mods do.

I think it's your job as a mod to answer members' questions.

So I ask again.  The criterion for removing a thread from the JFKA forum:  shouldn't it be that thread is not relevant to or helpful for understanding the murder, regardless whether it also is relevant to other forums in the system?

If you think such a thread also belongs in another forum in the system, why can't you paste it there while leaving the thread here?  Is there a problem having the same thread in more than one forum?

[Gerry Down]

8 minutes ago, Roger Odisio said:

I'm going to skip over your phony explanation that the threads moved from the JFKA forum are still on "the forum"

And your insulting question about whether I have bothered to read the "numerous explanations" from the mods about why various threads have been moved.  The moves have been many and seem to be increasing; explanations have been few and decidedly unsatisfying.  FYI, I have "bothered" to be involved in many of those discussions. 

Typically I raised the points about the policy as I have here.  And have gotten no answers.

Once again you did not answer my points.  Your answers were that I'm begging the question, whatever that means.  Followed by an assertion of something irrelevant.  Apparently done with such dismissiveness to make the point you don't have to answer any questions about what the mods do.

I think it's your job as a mod to answer members' questions.

So I ask again.  The criterion for removing a thread from the JFKA forum:  shouldn't it be that thread is not relevant to or helpful for understanding the murder, regardless whether it also is relevant to other forums in the system?

If you think such a thread also belongs in another forum in the system, why can't you paste it there while leaving the thread here?  Is there a problem having the same thread in more than one forum?

Agreed. We should be able to discuss the Trump assassination attempt in relation to the JFKA. 

We are not.

Why?

Because Trumps would-be assassin was a registered Republican, and left-wing individuals on this forum want Crooks to be a LN as a result. They don't want to entertain the idea that he was a patsy framed by left-wing entities. 

The JFKA assassination is a different matter. Left-wing individuals on this forum are happy to endorse the idea that the left-wing LHO was a patsy framed by right-wing entities. 

I've got a feeling that if LHO was a registered republican, alot of people who currently view LHO as a patsy would insist he was a LN. 

Its a shame politics comes into the JFKA like this. We should be able to study and research the JFKA independent of political viewpoints. 

[W. Niederhut]

Roger,

     Once again, I'm responding to your comments in red.  This is now my third response to your persistent complaints on this thread.

Roger Odisio wrote:

I'm going to skip over your phony explanation that the threads moved from the JFKA forum are still on "the forum"

Got it.  So, the forum isn't "the forum."  Makes a lot of sense.

And your insulting question about whether I have bothered to read the "numerous explanations" from the mods about why various threads have been moved.  The moves have been many and seem to be increasing; explanations have been few and decidedly unsatisfying.  FYI, I have "bothered" to be involved in many of those discussions. 

Have you read the explanations?  Please answer the question this time.

Typically I raised the points about the policy as I have here.  And have gotten no answers.

Seek and ye shall find.  A number of threads have been consolidated or moved during the past year because they were redundant, veiled polemics about contemporary politics, as the moderators have explained.

Once again you did not answer my points.  Your answers were that I'm begging the question, whatever that means.  Followed by an assertion of something irrelevant.  Apparently done with such dismissiveness to make the point you don't have to answer any questions about what the mods do.

I think it's your job as a mod to answer members' questions.

My job?  I'm retired.

First you said that you hadn't even read the threads in question.  Then you complained that they shouldn't have been moved from the JFKA board.

How would you ascertain that they shouldn't have been moved if you hadn't even read them?  Explain.

As for my comment about "begging the question," it was a specific comment about whether the thread likening Oswald to Crooks was a "valid JFKA thread," as the author claimed.

So I ask again.  The criterion for removing a thread from the JFKA forum:  shouldn't it be that thread is not relevant to or helpful for understanding the murder, regardless whether it also is relevant to other forums in the system?

I'll ask again.  Are you referring to JFK's murder?

And, if so, how does the Crooks shooting incident help you better understand JFK's murder?

Do you think Crooks was involved in a Deep State plot against Trump, similar to the Deep State plot against JFK?  This MAGA narrative has inundated the internet (and the Education Forum) in recent days.   Karl Kinaski is keeping us up-to-date.

Or was Crooks one of the numerous angry, bullied, young white males with guns who have shot people in modern U.S. history?

If you think such a thread also belongs in another forum in the system, why can't you paste it there while leaving the thread here?  Is there a problem having the same thread in more than one forum?

I believe the objective is to de-clutter the JFKA board, by moving polemical non-JFKA threads to non-JFKA boards.

Edited 12 hours ago by W. Niederhut

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Gerry Down said:

I'm too busy studying the JFKA to have time to study the 9/11 attacks. 

Your study appears to have fallen short in the crucial area of physical evidence.  You claim that JFK's shirt and jacket were "crumpled" up several inches each so that the bullet holes in the garments aligned with the SBT in-shoot, but you haven't explained why the jacket collar remained in a normal position.  You also claimed that when JFK sat in the limo his clothing was "wedged" against the limo seat, which caused it to rise significantly.  To "wedge" an object is to fix its position -- so how do you reconcile these contradictory observations?

[Cliff Varnell]

This was in the moved thread under discussion.

I made a mis-characterization of Brennan's WC testimony and Von Pein copped a self-righteous attitude.

I stood corrected, and asked David to correct his stand on the SBT given his stipulation to the following facts:

1)  JFK's jacket collar dropped into a normal position in Dealey Plaza.

2)  JFK's jacket was elevated "a little bit."

These observations are corroborated by the Dealey Plaza photo evidence, and the location of the bullet holes in the clothes which show the jacket was elevated 1/8th of an inch.

These observations destroy the SBT.  David seems to think that his on-going denial equates to actual evidence.

 

 

 

Edited 11 hours ago by Cliff Varnell

[Gerry Down]

10 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

These observations are corroborated by the Dealey Plaza photo evidence, and the location of the bullet holes in the clothes which show the jacket was elevated 1/8th of an inch.

You're not suggesting you can decipher 1/8 of an inch off blurry Dealey plaza photos are you?