Jump to content
The Education Forum

Article on JFK researchers in the UK in the Times (18/11/2006)


John Simkin
 Share

Recommended Posts

The Education Forum is indeed fortunate to have a moderator of the calibre of John Simkin. Due in large part to John's efforts, this part of the Forum has attracted many intelligent individuals - researchers, authors and truth-seekers. John has an encyclopedic knowledge of an incredibly wide variety of subjects. In addition, he demonstrates an enquiring and open mind, as evidenced in virtually all of his posts.

Is John always right? Probably not. Is he ever mistaken? I suppose the answer is yes. But he remains one of the most intelligent and informed and level-headed individuals I have ever encountered anywhere. I tip my hat to John for his involvement and his efforts.

John Simkin does not need my flattery or praise. His work speaks for itself. However, as I have in the past, I just want to thank John for the way he conducts himself here. I want to thank him for all the information he shares, and for all I have learned from him.

To me, John fits the description of an Educator. But more importantly, he fits the description of a man that would make a trusted friend and an invaluable ally.

There's a vast difference between this forum and others on the Web. Sometimes people post on both sites and it's fascinating to see how the discourse quickly deteriorates there. Sometimes it dips a bit here too (same people) but this site is light years beyond.

Thank you for these kind comments. However, I think I should post these comments that I received this morning from Maureen Melody:

“I am very disappointed in your presentation of Bush and Blair on your website. As a long time history teacher I have used your site and have advised students to use your site for many years. i was confident of your professionalism and objectivity. I was obviously very mistaken. The purpose of a history site is to present data not to air political views. The anti-American tone is disrespectful and biased. I will no longer use this site as a reference and fully intend to point out to other people the attitudes expressed in your attacks.”

I will of course invite Maureen to join the forum and join the debate.

You will be pleased to know that the Times newspaper (yes the one owned by Rupert Murdoch) on 18th November, will be running an article on people in the UK who are involved in the research into the JFK assassination. They will include the work of this forum. Other members of this forum interviewed for the article include Ian Griggs, Barry Keane, John Geraghty, Tony Basing, Russell Kent and Mark Bridger.

Hopefully it will also appear online. If it is, I will post the URL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 31
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The Education Forum is indeed fortunate to have a moderator of the calibre of John Simkin. Due in large part to John's efforts, this part of the Forum has attracted many intelligent individuals - researchers, authors and truth-seekers. John has an encyclopedic knowledge of an incredibly wide variety of subjects. In addition, he demonstrates an enquiring and open mind, as evidenced in virtually all of his posts.

Is John always right? Probably not. Is he ever mistaken? I suppose the answer is yes. But he remains one of the most intelligent and informed and level-headed individuals I have ever encountered anywhere. I tip my hat to John for his involvement and his efforts.

John Simkin does not need my flattery or praise. His work speaks for itself. However, as I have in the past, I just want to thank John for the way he conducts himself here. I want to thank him for all the information he shares, and for all I have learned from him.

To me, John fits the description of an Educator. But more importantly, he fits the description of a man that would make a trusted friend and an invaluable ally.

There's a vast difference between this forum and others on the Web. Sometimes people post on both sites and it's fascinating to see how the discourse quickly deteriorates there. Sometimes it dips a bit here too (same people) but this site is light years beyond.

Thank you for these kind comments. However, I think I should post these comments that I received this morning from Maureen Melody:

“I am very disappointed in your presentation of Bush and Blair on your website. As a long time history teacher I have used your site and have advised students to use your site for many years. i was confident of your professionalism and objectivity. I was obviously very mistaken. The purpose of a history site is to present data not to air political views. The anti-American tone is disrespectful and biased. I will no longer use this site as a reference and fully intend to point out to other people the attitudes expressed in your attacks.”

I will of course invite Maureen to join the forum and join the debate.

You will be pleased to know that the Times newspaper (yes the one owned by Rupert Murdoch) on 18th November, will be running an article on people in the UK who are involved in the research into the JFK assassination. They will include the work of this forum. Other members of this forum interviewed for the article include Ian Griggs, Barry Keane, John Geraghty, Tony Basing, Russell Kent and Mark Bridger.

Hopefully it will also appear online. If it is, I will post the URL.

Congratulations on some long overdue attention to your efforts here.

The timing of the article, after a Democrat Party return to power, may be an encouraging sign of things

to come.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Gary Loughran

John, have you been provided with a preview copy or have you been able to determine if there is an angle being presented in the article?

Thanks

Gary

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John, have you been provided with a preview copy or have you been able to determine if there is an angle being presented in the article?

No, but I trust this journalist to be fair in his reporting.

Do you know who he or she is? Did the Times contact you or did you find out some other way?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for these kind comments. However, I think I should post these comments that I received this morning from Maureen Melody:

“I am very disappointed in your presentation of Bush and Blair on your website. As a long time history teacher I have used your site and have advised students to use your site for many years. i was confident of your professionalism and objectivity. I was obviously very mistaken. The purpose of a history site is to present data not to air political views. The anti-American tone is disrespectful and biased. I will no longer use this site as a reference and fully intend to point out to other people the attitudes expressed in your attacks.”

Oh please, she obviously has completely missed the point. Typical of some people - they mistake criticism of Bush for being 'anti American' which is total rubbish.

The most scary thing though is that she says she is a history teacher?! What is she teaching her students? That the government is to be respected whatever its leaders do and we the 'little' people shouldn't question?

The value of his forum imo is that you can read a whole host of different viewpoints, people that agree with John and people who don't, and a whole host of differing opinions in between. How she can say that it is biased to one viewpoint is beyond me.

Maybe she's still a little sore over the elections...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for these kind comments. However, I think I should post these comments that I received this morning from Maureen Melody:

“I am very disappointed in your presentation of Bush and Blair on your website. As a long time history teacher I have used your site and have advised students to use your site for many years. i was confident of your professionalism and objectivity. I was obviously very mistaken. The purpose of a history site is to present data not to air political views. The anti-American tone is disrespectful and biased. I will no longer use this site as a reference and fully intend to point out to other people the attitudes expressed in your attacks.”

Oh please, she obviously has completely missed the point. Typical of some people - they mistake criticism of Bush for being 'anti American' which is total rubbish.

The most scary thing though is that she says she is a history teacher?! What is she teaching her students? That the government is to be respected whatever its leaders do and we the 'little' people shouldn't question?

The value of his forum imo is that you can read a whole host of different viewpoints, people that agree with John and people who don't, and a whole host of differing opinions in between. How she can say that it is biased to one viewpoint is beyond me.

Maybe she's still a little sore over the elections...

Yes... I'm hoping this history teacher is opening her students' eyes to the real nature of "history":

-"History is written by the winners." (Paraphrasing Napoleon?)

-"History is written by those who have hanged heros." (Braveheart)

-"The very ink in which history is written is merely fluid prejudice.”-- Mark Twain

-"All the ancient histories, as one of our wits say, are just fables that have been agreed upon." --Voltaire

-"History is no place for truthiness." (Myra Bronstein with acknowledgements--but no royalties--to Stephen Colbert. B))

http://www.quotegarden.com/history.html

Otherwise she might as well teach a class in fiction. This forum is devoted to real history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes... I'm hoping this history teacher is opening her students' eyes to the real nature of "history":

-"History is written by the winners." (Paraphrasing Napoleon?)

-"History is written by those who have hanged heros." (Braveheart)

-"The very ink in which history is written is merely fluid prejudice.”-- Mark Twain

-"All the ancient histories, as one of our wits say, are just fables that have been agreed upon." --Voltaire

-"History is no place for truthiness." (Myra Bronstein with acknowledgements--but no royalties--to Stephen Colbert. :))

http://www.quotegarden.com/history.html

Otherwise she might as well teach a class in fiction. This forum is devoted to real history.

Unfortunately, "history" is truthiness, people arranging facts and interpretations into an order that suits their purposes and fits their world-view. The recent film "Flags of our Fathers" does a good job demonstrating this. The film shows how the US government, in order to ignite public (and financial) support for the Pacific war at the end of WW2, elevated some men performing a routine task, replacing a flag on a hill, into national heroes, "conquerors." The truth, in the process, took a back seat, to the point that the identities of the men in the famous Iwo Jima photo were misrepresented to the public. When one of the "heroes," out of guilt, tells the family of one of the men who was really in the photo that it was indeed their son in the photo, the government then does a 180, and honors him, while ignoring the family of the man who was incorrectly purported to be in the photo, even though he was one of the men who'd actually fought his way up the hill to raise the original flag!!! The government was therefore honoring men for being in a photo representing a heroic act that had actually occurred days before, while ignoring the men who'd actually performed the act! Ultimately, however, the film makes the point that all the men were heroes, and that we should honor them all.

Adding a level of irony to the whole matter is that, according to the memoirs of General Douglas MacArthur, the invasion of Iwo Jima was totally unneccessary. When one reads up on the matter, one finds that, yes indeed, the battle was conducted largely for psychological purposes, to send a message to the Japanese that we would come onto their soil and conquer their land if they didn't admit defeat. As this message was not received, and as the US ultimately decided the only way to go was to drop the atom bomb, Iwo Jima was little beyond an appalling waste of life. So, what feels true? Were the soldiers on Iwo Jima "heroes" or "victims," or both?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for these kind comments. However, I think I should post these comments that I received this morning from Maureen Melody:

“I am very disappointed in your presentation of Bush and Blair on your website. As a long time history teacher I have used your site and have advised students to use your site for many years. i was confident of your professionalism and objectivity. I was obviously very mistaken. The purpose of a history site is to present data not to air political views. The anti-American tone is disrespectful and biased. I will no longer use this site as a reference and fully intend to point out to other people the attitudes expressed in your attacks.”

I will of course invite Maureen to join the forum and join the debate.

My reply to Maureen Melody:

Please provide more information on what you object to. Could you give me examples of my "anti-American tone". Do you mean my website (Spartacus Educational) on the Forum that I post on? It is true that I have criticized both Tony Blair and George Bush for corruption. The American public seem to agree with me (exit polls show that 44% voted the way that they did because of government corruption). Tony Blair faces similiar problems in the UK and is likely to be charged over the loans for honours scandal.

If you disagree about the way I write history, join the Forum and we can discuss it. Maybe your students can watch and then make up their own minds about your views that the "purpose of a history site is to present data not to air political views." Or if "the anti-American tone is disrespectful and biased."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Turner

"The purpose of a history site is to present data."

This is a description of a Robot, not a history Teacher. Then there is the question, just where does all this "pure" data that is to be presented come from, Fox news perhaps?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for these kind comments. However, I think I should post these comments that I received this morning from Maureen Melody:

“I am very disappointed in your presentation of Bush and Blair on your website. As a long time history teacher I have used your site and have advised students to use your site for many years. i was confident of your professionalism and objectivity. I was obviously very mistaken. The purpose of a history site is to present data not to air political views. The anti-American tone is disrespectful and biased. I will no longer use this site as a reference and fully intend to point out to other people the attitudes expressed in your attacks.”

I will of course invite Maureen to join the forum and join the debate.

My reply to Maureen Melody:

Please provide more information on what you object to. Could you give me examples of my "anti-American tone". Do you mean my website (Spartacus Educational) on the Forum that I post on? It is true that I have criticized both Tony Blair and George Bush for corruption. The American public seem to agree with me (exit polls show that 44% voted the way that they did because of government corruption). Tony Blair faces similiar problems in the UK and is likely to be charged over the loans for honours scandal.

If you disagree about the way I write history, join the Forum and we can discuss it. Maybe your students can watch and then make up their own minds about your views that the "purpose of a history site is to present data not to air political views." Or if "the anti-American tone is disrespectful and biased."

John...Maureen is like lots of my Republican friends...she cannot stand to hear

unpleasant truths. It is not disrespectful to write about the Crimes Of George

Bush if it is the truth. It is not biased or disrespectful to question what actually

happened on Sept 11. It is not unpatriotic to question the motives behind the

war in Iraq. It is not "conspiracy lunacy" to search for truth in the JFK murder.

I have read virtually every word you have written on the two Spartacus sites

I monitor. It is historical writing at its best...well researched and well written.

I have seldom found any untruths in anything you have written. You seldom

inject personal bias although you sometimes express your viewpoint. You

manage to keep your facts and opinions separate. What really irritates

Maureen is your CHOICE OF SUBJECT MATTER.

Your research is mainly focused on political implications of historical events,

which is important. I would like to see additional forums on "fringe" subjects

historians are reluctant to discuss for fear of upsetting the "establishment".

This is especially true in the US, though you Brits may not have the same

problem (govt funding of education) of saying anything that offends funders

from Washington.

I am speaking of "sensitive" issues like:

...evolution vs creationism vs intelligent design

...unidentified aerial phenomena like UFOs and chemtrails

...mysterious crop glyphs

...space exploration pro and con

...wars and their causes

...secret societies

...immigration of "foreigners"

...international banking

...harmful secret govt projects (MKULTRA, etc)

...govt propaganda to support varied agendas

...govt mind control (like bird flu, swine flu, mad cow, etc.)

...control of media outlets

...terrorism...real or bogus

...mysterious deaths of important people

...etc .

Back to Maureen...you are just discussing things she does

not want to hear, and her criticisms are off target. Keep

up the good work. It is appreciated by those of us who

search for TRUTH in history.

Jack

Edited by Jack White
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Education Forum is indeed fortunate to have a moderator of the calibre of John Simkin. Due in large part to John's efforts, this part of the Forum has attracted many intelligent individuals - researchers, authors and truth-seekers. John has an encyclopedic knowledge of an incredibly wide variety of subjects. In addition, he demonstrates an enquiring and open mind, as evidenced in virtually all of his posts.

Is John always right? Probably not. Is he ever mistaken? I suppose the answer is yes. But he remains one of the most intelligent and informed and level-headed individuals I have ever encountered anywhere. I tip my hat to John for his involvement and his efforts.

John Simkin does not need my flattery or praise. His work speaks for itself. However, as I have in the past, I just want to thank John for the way he conducts himself here. I want to thank him for all the information he shares, and for all I have learned from him.

To me, John fits the description of an Educator. But more importantly, he fits the description of a man that would make a trusted friend and an invaluable ally.

There's a vast difference between this forum and others on the Web. Sometimes people post on both sites and it's fascinating to see how the discourse quickly deteriorates there. Sometimes it dips a bit here too (same people) but this site is light years beyond.

Thank you for these kind comments. However, I think I should post these comments that I received this morning from Maureen Melody:

“I am very disappointed in your presentation of Bush and Blair on your website. As a long time history teacher I have used your site and have advised students to use your site for many years. i was confident of your professionalism and objectivity. I was obviously very mistaken. The purpose of a history site is to present data not to air political views. The anti-American tone is disrespectful and biased. I will no longer use this site as a reference and fully intend to point out to other people the attitudes expressed in your attacks.”

I will of course invite Maureen to join the forum and join the debate.

So far Maureen has refused to take up the offer. However, I have received an email from one of my major website sponsors to tell me there is a campaign to get them to stop advertising on my site. At the moment they are resisting the campaign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Education Forum is indeed fortunate to have a moderator of the calibre of John Simkin. Due in large part to John's efforts, this part of the Forum has attracted many intelligent individuals - researchers, authors and truth-seekers. John has an encyclopedic knowledge of an incredibly wide variety of subjects. In addition, he demonstrates an enquiring and open mind, as evidenced in virtually all of his posts.

Is John always right? Probably not. Is he ever mistaken? I suppose the answer is yes. But he remains one of the most intelligent and informed and level-headed individuals I have ever encountered anywhere. I tip my hat to John for his involvement and his efforts.

John Simkin does not need my flattery or praise. His work speaks for itself. However, as I have in the past, I just want to thank John for the way he conducts himself here. I want to thank him for all the information he shares, and for all I have learned from him.

To me, John fits the description of an Educator. But more importantly, he fits the description of a man that would make a trusted friend and an invaluable ally.

There's a vast difference between this forum and others on the Web. Sometimes people post on both sites and it's fascinating to see how the discourse quickly deteriorates there. Sometimes it dips a bit here too (same people) but this site is light years beyond.

Thank you for these kind comments. However, I think I should post these comments that I received this morning from Maureen Melody:

“I am very disappointed in your presentation of Bush and Blair on your website. As a long time history teacher I have used your site and have advised students to use your site for many years. i was confident of your professionalism and objectivity. I was obviously very mistaken. The purpose of a history site is to present data not to air political views. The anti-American tone is disrespectful and biased. I will no longer use this site as a reference and fully intend to point out to other people the attitudes expressed in your attacks.”

I will of course invite Maureen to join the forum and join the debate.

So far Maureen has refused to take up the offer. However, I have received an email from one of my major website sponsors to tell me there is a campaign to get them to stop advertising on my site. At the moment they are resisting the campaign.

John, did they reveal who is behind this campaign?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...