Simkin to close JFK Education Forum, citing obnoxious ‘so-called researchers’

Simkin

John Simkin

John Simkin, moderator of the U.K.-based JFK Education Forum, writes that he plans to shut down the online discussion site, which he launched in 2004.

In an email Simkin blamed the self-centered and obnoxious behavior of commenters:

“I became very disillusioned with the behaviour of the so-called researchers. The degree of hostility they show towards each other is beyond me. The vast majority of researchers only appear to be interested in promoting their own theories and to rubbishing those who disagree with them. I will be closing down the JFK Education Forum when the subscription comes up for renewal.”

Simkin says he has abandoned JFK research to devote himself to writing about the British government and its intelligence services.

Who can blame Simkin for retiring from the field? Anybody who spends any time in the JFK research community knows exactly what — and who — Simkin is talking about.

The prototype is the egregious James Fetzer, a tenured professor and otherwise intelligent man, who does a superb job of embodying the stereotype of a crazed conspiracy theorist. I disagreed with him once on a minor point in 2007, and he still hectors me for my heresy. The language of his harangues has varied little over the years but his shamelessness has grown. Last I heard of him he was trying to peddle some contemptible sophistries about the Newtown School tragedy.

Then there’s Robert Groden, a nice man in person, certainly one of the world’s leading experts on the photographic record of November 22, and a citizen unjustly persecuted for exercising his First Amendment rights in Dealey Plaza. Maybe he doesn’t have anything to do with the trashing of the Education Forum but his certainties are the kind of thing that can wreck a discussion of JFK. For example, Groden informed me last August that anyone who believes the Warren Commission’s account of JFK’s assassination is a “liar.”

Really? Was it possible, I asked, that somebody might have considered the facts and sincerely reached a different conclusion? Or possibly that they were not being intentionally deceptive but had been misled by a government that fears transparency on the issue? “Is there no such thing as an honest mistake or difference of opinion?” I asked.

The possibility seemed not to have occurred to him before. Groden promised to think about it and get back to me. My phone has not yet rung.

Last week, I cited the the example of Charles Drago who declares that anyone who believes the Warren Commission is either mentally retarded or criminally complicit in JFK’s murder. I likened Drago’s intellectual style to that of former White House official Cass Sunstein, who once advocated Internet infiltration teams to disrupt those demonic online conspiracy theorists (i.e. me and you) whose informed conversation (in Sunstein’s paraoid view) endanger the fabric of American democracy.

Impervious to irony, Drago responded by doubling down on self-righteousness In a comment made to JFK Facts. He boasted that he had first used his line about the mentally retarded and criminally complicit at a JFK conference in 1999, where he said it had received a “prolonged, enthusiastic positive response.” The conference, he noted with pride, was sponsored by Jim Fetzer. Mercifully, Drago spared us his analysis of the second gunman at Newtown, and we thank him for that.

Some will say that the heinous nature of JFK’s assassination and the prolonged coverup requires such audacious “truth tellers.” Others will say that John McAdams or Cass Sunstein are even worse. This is a succinct expression of the odd theory that one needn’t have critical standards, merely adopt those of the enemy.

The reality is that this all-too prevalent intellectual style of the JFK crowd only serves to alienate the young student, the thoughtful newcomer, the curious MSM reporter, the undecided, and, most importantly, the female.

Not to be sexist but it is plain that almost all of the JFK jerks are male, and so are virtually all of their defenders. This isn’t proof of the inferiority of the male species (though a case can be made). It is evidence that these blowhards are out of touch with reality, at least as it is experienced by half the country.

In any case, they do not contribute to the JFK discussion. They stifle, discredit, and kill it. JFK Education Forum R.I.P.

 

 

 

 

78 comments

  1. Brad Milch says:

    What Jeff Morley & John Simpkin are describing are bullies. Bullies don’t belong in intellectual forums. Neither do they belong in a civilized society IMO.

  2. Thomas says:

    I give credit to Jeff here at JFK Facts and others like him who are raising the level of the debate. There are serious issues that must be addressed re the JFK assassination and we’re best served by engaging in professional conduct towards that goal.

    Passion is no excuse for foolishness and sloppiness.

  3. leslie sharp says:

    Months ago, having followed your occasional tally relating to ‘most watched threads’ on this site, I considered positing the possibility that the photo of Ruby’s former performer might have something to do with the frequency of hits on the thread. I opted not to respond. It is ironic that John McAdams ventured there.

    I refused to believe that in 2014 we are still battling a gender issue, let alone one in relation to the Kennedy assassination. Are we stuck in a time zone that includes dynamics of a titillating (pardon the pun) photograph relating to the Ruby story designed to draw visitors to a website? It’s intellectually insulting for men and women of good will.

    Obviously few females contribute to this site. I’m not a cowardly female, but I choose my battles so I’ve not challenged that reality and trust that I’m on a level playing field at jfkfacts. However and admittedly, I had hoped (now fulfilled) that Jeff Morley would finally connect the dots and draw attention to the fact that few women engage here. Why is that? Does it have anything to do with the hierarchical tone of this site? One commenter recently addressed: “guys … blah blah blah.” Maybe that has something to do with the estrangement; intelligent women have long ceased knocking on the door of the boys club.

    More seriously, my agenda is the Kennedy Assassination … if the “boys” from the ’60’s and ’70’s have the keys, I’ll suffer through the indignities … and if the boys retained the keys thru the 80’s-2000’s, all the more intriguing.

    re: James Fetzer. the tone of Jeff’s comments ridicule someone who has spent a lifetime investigating the assassination of Kennedy. I’m no student of Fetzer although I own one of his books that serves as a reference for photographic study of Dealey Plaza. This, Jeff, your attack on Mr. Fetzer and indeed Mr. Groden (born on November 22 as was my husband), is ridiculous. If you want to present the most up to date evidence in the assassination, I hope you will step down from the shoulders of those that kept the story, the inquiry, the quest alive rather than make personal jabs. I’m sure your 30 year investigation into the investigation of the assassination parallels Groden’s, but to be honest I read him long before I read “Our Man in Mexico.” Please address precisely what you find flawed in Fetzer’s and Groden’s research rather than attack the messengers; address the message lest the table is turned.

    I/we expect more from you. I hope that I’m wrong, but I detect a methodical tactic attempting to knock down the pins that hold hard core evidence of the conspiracy. Anyone following the trajectory of this site will recognize the possibility: Russ Baker, Lisa Pease, Jim diEugenio, Jim Fetzer, Robert Groden, Mark Lane, et al.

    I trust that experts, Peter Dale Scott and Bill Simpich for example, are not being seduced.

  4. Everybody feel sorry for good ole John-boy. He’s just a victim of the “hostility” of “so-called researchers”.

    Oh puh-leaze.

    This is the man who kicked Jim DiEugenio and Tom Scully off of his forum because he didn’t like the way they used facts to dismantle the theories of his buddy. He then lied and said they’d been kicked off for calling his buddy a liar. I asked John repeatedly to present the posts to prove it and he ignored me every time because he knew that no such posts existed. Disgusted, I gave up my membership to what I once thought was the best JFK forum on the web. And good ole honest John responded by deleting all of my posts. Then, when Dave Reitzes asked whether or not it was true that posts by myself and others had been deleted, he too was ejected from the forum.

    It’s perfectly clear to anyone willing to do a little research that the reason the Education forum has gone down the toilet has nothing to do with the “intellectual style” of its members and everything to do with the disgraceful behaviour of its owner.

    • Phil Dragoo says:

      Martin, the atmosphere of my-way-or-the-highway of the Simkin site is a phenomenon I’ve encountered elsewhere.

      Peter Lemkin was put into unperson limbo at the cost of his six thousand posts by that site.

      We have seen Charles Drago, Jim Fetzer, Jim DiEugenio, Robert Groden attacked above, their sins a call-back to some Tea Party in 1936 Wonderland.

      Drago and Evica examined the trail of the Dulles brothers. Stephen Kinzer is taking me there now–fascinating.

      Fetzer’s Assassination Science presents the success over the libelous attacks by JAMA on the reputation of Crenshaw. I have Crenshaw’s excellent book; Lundgren lost his editor’s billet.

      DiEugenio in Reclaiming Parkland is the final deconstruction of the Bugliosi-as-Queeg debacle; his Destiny Betrayed second edition reveals the cause of Helms’ and Hoovers’ unprecedented crusade to destroy an officer of the law in pursuit of justice.

      Robert Groden has contributed so much over the decades despite recurrent police harassment by an establishment much unchanged from the Wanted for Treason welcome fifty years ago. What next? The crying boy-playing-girl on a youtube whining, “Leave Arlen Specter alone!”?

      The Kennedy assassination is part of an ongoing sabotage of democracy. To interrupt its examination by randomly exiling those who stand and deliver confirms Salandria’s warning confusion is the goal of the coverup.

  5. But why delete the posts of old at his JFK forum ? That’s a lot like book burning. Very suspicious.
    Very sad. Selling books (paper & digital) is a dirty business, it be, no matter what the topic. Some authors, like Mr. McBride and Mr. Simpich have welcomed uneasy questions graciously, while others, well……… not so much. They know who they are.

  6. It is unfortunate that the childish behavior of two alleged adults, among others, can bring about this result. But the truly harassing behavior of the two worst-case offenders, for anyone who has suffered it, does constitute reason enough. They exist to act foolishly. Maybe it’s not an act, but it’s a damn shame.

    • KenS says:

      As a result of the democratic nature of the internet we are not only blessed with a wonderful diversity of information and opinion, but also with bullies, crackpots, and psychopaths with keyboards. I often wonder if some of these posters were speaking in person, would they be as venomous?

  7. TLR says:

    Unfortunately, it’s been like this since the mid-60s. The Garrison investigation worsened the split. It’s a very emotional subject, and the first generation of researchers were indeed being watched and harassed by government intelligence agencies, so that just reinforces the paranoia and self-destructive tendencies.

    You can find the same sort of emotion and anger over other controversial subjects (politics, religion, science, etc.)

  8. Mike Rago says:

    The real gender issue is the research community has yet to realize that two females where part of the conspiracy.

    The blinders that the males wear clouds their research as well.

    • John Q. Parvenu says:

      Re: Mr. Rago’s assertion that “The real gender issue is the research community has yet to realize that two females where part of the conspiracy.”

      What I call the distaff dimension of the JFK murder is one of several potentially productive sidebars that has garnered insufficient attention by the research community.

      Just off the top of my head the following personalities come to mind:

      — Ruth Paine;

      — Silvia Duran;

      — Mabel Sylvester;

      — Maria del Carmen;

      — the “CIA whore” alleged by attorney Dean Andrews to have been
      in contact with Lee Oswald on one or another of his Mexico City
      junkets (perhaps Maria del Carmen?);

      — the “well known communist attorney” observed by Robert Buick at
      the Hotel Luma in Mexico City circa July 1963;

      — A Springtime Miami meeting, chaired by a woman, for the
      expressed purpose of which was the murder of the President
      alleged by Garrett Trapnell;

      — the Red Bird Airport Incident of 20 November wherein two men
      and a woman sought to reserve an airplane rental for a
      November 22nt flight from Dallas;

      — a phone call, placed by a woman in New Orleans to the TSBD,
      also on 20 November, who sought to speak with Lee Oswald;

      — Richard Nagell’s female contact/control, apparently located
      in proximity to the Texas-Mexico border, referenced in a
      statement he made to the FBI; and

      — The “woman in Dallas who knows a great deal about the
      assassination…” referenced by journalist John Cummings
      and erroneously alleged in Ray and Mary Lafontaines’
      “Oswald Talked” to have been Silvia Odio.

      Cheers,

      JQP

  9. Robert Charles-Dunne says:

    Since Robert Groden has contributed a grand total of one post to the Simkin forum, inserting him here is inappropriate and unjust. He is not, and never was, the problem at the Simkin forum. If you have an issue with him, perhaps it is more rightly addressed elsewhere.

    Fetzer and Drago should have been enough to make the point. Yet even those two have long been absent from the Simkin forum, as they were banned, and promptly started or improved their own internet soapboxes. In fact, Drago was excommunicated from the forum he helped start after the Simkin ouster.

    However, if the Simkin Forum closes, it has less to do with mis-behaviour than mercantile considerations. In my nine years of membership at the Forum, John Simkin decided the membership required moderation, and then recused himself, allowing moderators he appointed to apply the rules inequitably.

    David Lifton was allowed to post any comment, now matter how low or gratuitous a slur, against another member, without sanction. One such lucky victim of Lifton’s wrath was told by a moderator that he should feel honoured to have so great a man call him mentally defective. Simkin has acknowledged keeping Lifton aboard, despite a lengthy record of childishness, in the vain hope it would result in increased site traffic. That’s no way to run a railroad.

    The gutlessness on display led a number of persons to self-exile, myself included. If one is to have rules, they must be applied evenly to all rule-breakers, or there are no rules. Equity is the cornerstone of all law, and it was sorely missing. The resulting banishments thinned the herd of some very bright and insightful contributors.

    With dwindling membership came decreased posts of interest, and decreased traffic. John Simkin has repeatedly stated the Forum has been costing him money, rather than be self-sustaining. It is no longer the cash cow John once hoped it would be.

    Nor does it deserve to be. The best and the brightest are absent; what’s left is largely dross, and people whose own ignorance of the central topic they post about is staggering in nature.

    That said, John Simkin had other, urgently pressing reasons to disengage himself from the operation of his Forum. It is tragic that his absence from the driver’s seat of his own Forum allowed others to drive it into the ground.

    Finally, you wrote:

    “The reality is that this all-too prevalent intellectual style of the JFK crowd only serves to alienate the young student, the thoughtful newcomer, the curious MSM reporter, the undecided, and, most importantly, the female.”

    The record shows none of these concern troll assertions is true.

    Some of the best work on this case has been done by women such as Sylvia Meagher, Mae Brussell, Shirley Martin, Martha Moyer, Mary Ferrell, et al, and they endured far greater hostility than mere flaming from self-appointed internet character assassins.

    “Young students” come to the topic, generation after generation, because they are clever enough to discern there are unresolved issues, despite the blandishments of those who condescend to assure them there’s nothing left to solve.

    “Thoughtful newcomers” read the adversarial arguments and come to their own thoughtful conclusions. Which is as it should be, for in the marketplace of ideas the best hypothesis should win, assuming a level playing field.

    If some of us misbehave in the process, it is lamentable, but is the direct result of the Warren Commission’s failure to achieve the goal set out for it, and the subsequent obstructionism by federal bureaucracies that have not lived up to the legal requirements imposed upon them by the Assassination Record Review Board.

    Do you really think the CIA is withholding the Joannides records because John McAdams, Dale Myers and their rearguard faction are correct? Or, in light of Antonio Veciana and Glenn Carle both admitting David Atlee Phillips used “Maurice Bishop” as one of his many aliases, do we see a far more viable and dangerous probability?

    In a world where “Maurice Bishop” is nows proved to have associated with Oswald, how can one conclude that McAdams, Myers, et al, are honest brokers, rather than propagandists for something other than the truth?

    • Charles R. Drago says:

      Dear Robert,

      Would you care to share with us your understanding of the circumstances that led to my “excommunication” from the Deep Politics Forum? Or are you content allow your implicit and wholly undocumented slur hang in the air?

      Charles

    • Charles R. Drago says:

      P.S.

      Robert, please make a more concerted effort to get the facts straight.

      I am not banned from the Simkin forum. When last I checked (24 hours prior to writing this post), I remain on long-standing moderation.

  10. vasilis says:

    I don’t think that Simkin will shut down his forum because of Charles Drago who does not post on ed forum. He used to post but many years ago. It was not the greatest of forums and i won’t be sad if it shuts down. Plus the manner by which he banned DiEugenio was dispeakable and cheap.

  11. vasilis says:

    I don’t get it. Afer 50 years of cover up, obfuscation, deceit and lies that continues to this day by the likes of the usual LN propapagandists, suddenly Charles Drago becomes the problem?

  12. anonymous says:

    “Fetzer does a superb job of embodying the stereotype of a crazed conspiracy theorist. ”

    Fetzer behaviour and crazed, off the wall, claims discredits everyone touching the same subjects. Peter Dale Scott is one of his victims:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zmu5daHO7ZQ

    “This isn’t proof of the inferiority of the male species (though a case can be made). It is evidence that these blowhards are out of touch with reality, at least as it is experienced by half the country.”

    Here is proof that these blowhards are out of touch with reality – 3 in 4 Americans think that the earth circles Sun:
    http://news.discovery.com/space/astronomy/1-in-4-americans-dont-know-earth-orbits-the-sun-yes-really-140214.htm

  13. Dr. Anderson is right it is a Damn shame debate discussion and the trading of facts ideas and theories are the very vehicles that have gotten us as close to the truth as we are now.
    The refusal to calmly and objectively consider others opinions and ideas will only hinder the search for the truth
    Good luck to you Mr Simkin……

  14. Douglas Caddy says:

    John Simkin is well justified in reaching his sound decision to close the JFK Assassination Topic on the Education Forum. I am an active member of the forum and will miss it but fully understand as to why he is doing so.

  15. Jonathan says:

    I’ve learned a lot from Fetzer’s site “Assassination Science”. The site contains some very well-reasoned articles, for example, by David Mantik and John Costella. I especially like Mantik’s writings.

    There’s wheat and chaff everywhere. Not having a dog in any of the researcher infighting, I simply look for the wheat where I can find it.

  16. “Maurice Bishop” is now proved to have associated with Oswald

    Uh, no. Even Veciana’s claim that Phillips was “Maurice Bishop” is something that he’s changed his story about.

    http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bishop.txt

    Also, Veciana’s claim to have seen “Bishop” in Dallas with Oswald in late August or early September of 1963 is absurdly lacking in credibility.

    • TLR says:

      “Absurdly lacking in credibility.” Please elaborate.

      • Why would Phillips meet Oswald in Dallas when Oswald was living in New Orleans?

        Phillips was in Mexico City. He could fly to New Orleans just as easily as he could fly to Dallas.

        And of course, the fact that Veciana’s story has changed over time (and the fact he served time for drug dealing in the early 70s) mean nothing he says is at all reliable.

        • mball says:

          How has Veciana’s story changed over time? As to the other questions you pose, they make little sense. Oswald moved back to dallas, and had lived there before. Phillips was from mthe Dalls-Ft. Worth area and had relatives living there. Home visit mixed with business? The reasons are endless. As far as I know, Veciana’s story about his encounter with Oswald in Dallas hasn’t changed.

    • mball says:

      Apparently you missed the parts of the story about the people who recollected, aside from Veciana, that Maurice Bishop was one of Phillips’ work names. I do believe that Ross Crozier (DRE’s case officer prior to Joannides) confirmed that. Also, didn’t veciana confirm, after Fonzi’s death, that Bishop was Phillips?

      • Even is Phillips ever used the name “Maurice Bishop” the notion that he might have met with Oswald in Dallas in late August or early September 1963 is nonsense.

        Oswald was in New Orleans. And Phillips in Mexico City.

  17. Photon says:

    Another factoid- an inaccurate statement posted and therefore accepted as fact. Just like Gordon Arnold, Cheryl McKinnon and the Carlos Hathcock lie. No real evidence to support any of them except the wishful thinking of Conspiracy buffs.

    • vasilis says:

      Photon and Professor McAdams

      You are both very lucky, since a great researcher and brilliant mind, Gaeton Fonzi, has passed away and he cannot answer back to you regarding the Venciana issue. And Photon please do the decent thing, stop hiding behind an alias, and use your real name as we all do.

    • Gerry Simone says:

      GA never profited or sought publicity. Maybe he’s not in photos because he hit the dirt like he said he did, and then got the hell out.

      In any event, there’s more circumstantial evidence for conspiracy than so called factoids.

  18. Flip de Mey says:

    Discussing facts about the case is indeed to tiresome and time consuming. I give some examples of my last experiences.
    Richard Charmin claims to have proven that there is only one chance in 37,000 trillion that there was no shooter on the grassy knoll.
    I tried to argue on this point: (a) mathematically based on the applicable Bayes Theorem in these calculations (eg. the possible alternative explanation a supersonic sound or the plaza being an echochamber must be taken into consideration). (b) Factual, pointing to the fact that the dent in the chrome, the crack in the windshield, the gouge in the grass on the south side of Elm, the fragment that hit Tague, the tiny fragments under Mrs Connally’s jump seat (and in my opinion also conn ally wrist wound) prove there was a shot at Z313 coming from behind. So what was the probability of a frontal shot at exactly the same 13th of a second? (c) I referred to Nate Silver’s book “The signal and the noise”. In a lot of data you have to try to see what is the signal, instead of focusing on what is apparantly “noise”. Instead of discussing this information Charmin became very arrogant, and said I was an insult to the intelligence of his readers. So it remained one chance in 37.000 trillion. I calcuated that there is 4700 times less chance that the sun goes up tomorrow than that there was no Knoll-shooter according to Charmin. Not only I was an idiot, Nate Silver was also crap.

    The shelter shooter. Guy Cooper and Leroy Blevins are sure they see on Moorman’s pic two men in the shelter behind Zapruder. They even see a blue line that is supposed to be the shot in the stills of the Nix-film. I explained that there are other such blue scratches, If these are shots, there were also shots from an helicopter. I made a map that shows that a shot from the shelter would exit JFK’s left ear. I pointed to the ‘pareidolia’ phenomenon, our strange capability to see human forms in random data. I showed some stills of films directly after the shooting where no man is seen in the shelter, and pointed to Zapruder and Sitzman who never saw these men leaving while they immediately after the shots descended from their position. The only effect was more pictures with beautifully added colors to the Moorman pic, and everyone agreeing that this is clear evidence of shooters in the shelter. You can not react to each new post of these pics. So I stopped arguing against it.

    The old lady in the Zapruder-film. Detroitbufalo posted an intiguing and well made youtube, comparing the Nix and Zapruder-film starting from the man diving and sitting down in the lawn in the grass on Elm. You see! The Zapruder film is altered, In Nix’s film we clearly see an old lady that is missing in the Zapruder film (and other discrepancies). I made a map and posted it, where everyone was standing, Nix and Zapruder in the first place, and showed that there is nothing strange with the old lady not being visible in the Zapruder-film. It took some time to figure it out, but there is no doubt that the Old-lady argument was disporved. Nevertheless the youtube-film goes viral and everyone keeps agreeing: the Zapruder-film is clearly tampered with!

    Point is we need John Simkins, and his JFK Education forum to have at least some places where serious discussion is possible, and where the important matters about the assassination can be debated in a civil way, and wit at least some hope to find common ground between believers and conspiracists. The final answer lies in between the two opposite theories. Re-inventing theories that are long rebutted or are contrary to the facts do not help the debate. Thanks John for your lifelog dedication. I hope the forum will survive in some way.

    • Mike Rago says:

      Many witnesses described the last two shots as being nearly simultaneous. This is corroborated by both the Zapruder film and A CORRECT interpretation of the acoustic data. In fact the those two shots were separated in time by about 270 milli seconds.

      The existence of two nearly simultaneous shots implies (to me) that those two shots were given in response to a signal. And if those two shots were given in response to a signal, then there must have been a signal giver.

      Not only that, but if those two shots were given as the result of a signal then we know when that signal was given because we know when the two shots occurred. So there are really three nearly simultaneous events…the signal and the two shots fired in response to the signal.

      That signal would have been give when the limo was about where the “X” is located in the street.

      https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-P3bqOyuqnlI/UweM3hkgf3I/AAAAAAAADCs/rWMbG_xCvhM/w1000-h750-no/the_x..png

    • Gerry Simone says:

      Pat Speer pointed out in another thread in this website that the HSCA found no distortion from echoes (or that DP is one big echo chamber, whatever that means) in the acoustical experiments conducted for them.

  19. Charles R. Drago says:

    My Dear Mr. Morley,

    I am buoyed and indeed honored by your derogatory remarks directed at me. Rife with flawed logic, inaccurate quotations, tortured comparisons, and prejudicial selectivity, they expose a subtext that is as troubling as it is long-anticipated. Thus I take great pleasure now in hoisting you on your own petard – a task, I might add, that does not rise to the definition of “Herculean.”

    For the purpose of clarification, here again is my declaration that so gravely offends you:

    “Anyone with reasonable access to the evidence who does not conclude that JFK was killed by conspirators is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.”

    Let’s begin with your characterization of my response to your initial criticism of the declaration. You write that “he [yours truly] doubled down on self-righteousness … [and] boasted that he first used [the] line about the mentally retarded and criminally complicit at a JFK conference in 1999, where he said it had received a ‘prolonged, enthusiastic positive response.’ The conference, he noted with pride, was sponsored by Jim Fetzer. Mercifully, Drago spared us his analysis of the second gunman at Newtown, and we thank him for that.”

    Your logic, such as it is, is as inescapable as it is shameful: As you would have it, the minds and motives of everyone in attendance at the 1999 conference hosted by Fetzer – who many (myself included) have sound reason to conclude has in recent years abandoned intellectual rigor and plain old common sense in favor of advocating some of the most preposterous conspiracy theories extant (the Newton fantasy among them) – must be as suspect as those of Fetzer himself.

    By your logic, then, the accomplishments and integrity of Fetzer’s Honorary Program Chair Robert B. Livingston, M.D., David Mantik, M.D., Ph.D, Douglas Horne, and Professor George Michael Evica, among other conference attendees, are to be ridiculed and dismissed.

    Guilt by association is an old and discredited game of scoundrels, sir.

    And to be clear, I do not equate the value of my own JFK work with that of so distinguished a group of scientists, historians, and JFK assassination researchers. So don’t even think about going there. My purposes in referencing the Fetzer conference were and remain to provide historical context for the evaluation of my declaration and to document just a bit of the positive reception it has received within the JFK research community over the years. Here again is my “self-righteous boast,” only this time in its entirety – which is to say, absent your self-serving and disinforming edits:

    “I first publicly shared the newly minted line at Jim Fetzer’s May, 1999 JFK conference in Duluth, Minnesota, at which I had been invited to offer formal commentary on presentations by George Michael Evica and Doug Horne. For whatever it may be worth to this exchange, I remember the prolonged, enthusiastic, positive response my words and their deeper meanings engendered from conference attendees in general and Honorary Program Chair Robert B. Livingston, M.D. in particular.

    “Since that event, I have used the line in essays (e.g. ‘In the Blossom of Our Sins,’ originally published in the journal ‘The Third Decade’ and now available online, in the company of works by James Douglass, Vincent Salandria, Gaeton Fonzi and others, at John Kelin’s marvelous ‘Fifty’ website [www.home.comcast.net/~jo”hnkelin/fifty/jump.html ]) and, most recently, in my Introduction to George Michael Evica’s book-length study, ‘A Certain Arrogance: The Sacrificing of Lee Harvey Oswald and the Cold War Manipulation of Religious Groups by US Intelligence’ (Trine Day, 2011).”

    Now I must draw readers’ attention to the manner in which you intentionally misquote my declaration by substituting “mentally retarded” for “cognitively impaired.” In so doing, you attempt to paint me as a verbal abuser of the handicapped. Why?

    It gets worse when you write, “The reality is that this all-too prevalent intellectual style of the JFK crowd only serves to alienate the young student, the thoughtful newcomer, the curious MSM reporter, the undecided, and, most importantly, the female.” Thus you obliquely imply that I am guilty of some form of misogyny because my declaration will alienate “the female.” Why?

    Because when you abandon the search for truth and logic fails you, Mr. Morley, you resort to a last-ditch attempt to inflame emotions.

    How Sunsteinian of you – if I may point out the sort of irony to which you claim I am impervious.

    If you wish to offer an alternative explanation for your choice of words and charges, then by all means have at it. I expect your response to be forthcoming at about the same time you answer the question I’ve posed to you on two previous occasions and now pose again:

    Do you agree, sir, that beyond all reasonable doubt and to the degree of metaphysical certitude, John Fitzgerald Kennedy was killed by criminal conspirators?

    Fifty years have passed since conspirators shot John Fitzgerald Kennedy in the street like some wild dog in Sochi. Yet while certain basic truths about the conspiracy have been established, justice for the victim and the countless millions collaterally damaged by his assailants remains undone.

    You would excoriate me for refusing to debate that which is long-established as truth … for exposing the JFK cover-up’s primary objective of sustaining within the electorate a state of permanent, debilitating uncertainty … for acknowledging that we of good conscience are at war with the killers of JFK … for declaring to the “young student, the thoughtful newcomer, the curious MSM reporter, the undecided, and, most importantly, the female” that conspiracy in the death of JFK is historical fact, that there exists not a scintilla of legitimate evidence to support the LN theory, and that, to paraphrase Harold Weisberg, the only way to defend the Warren Commission’s conclusion is through ignorance – a form of cognitive impairment – or by deception. For saying to the enemy, this far and no farther.

    Such is your right, Mr. Morley. Just as it is my right to demand that you answer my questions repeatedly posed to and the following newly posed query:

    Given that you seem perfectly content to argue the inarguable ad infinitum and thus to deny justice indefinitely, I wonder: In this war for truth and justice, whose side are you on?

    • jeffmorley says:

      To answer your last question first Drago, the answer is “No.” I can’t identify the conspirators so I don’t have “metaphysical certitude” about the causes of JFK’s death. I don’t think people come to this site for “metaphysical certitude.” They come for facts, and especially new facts and arguments.

      I welcome your comments on Fetzer. I’m glad we agree about that. But you are mistaken when you conclude that I impugning other people like Dough Horne and David Mantik for their past association with Fetzer. I didn’t write any such thing about them and I don’t believe it. I know enough about Horne and Mantik to know that they do not belong in the same category as Fetzer. Now I see that you don’t belong in that category either. That’s a good thing.

      Your views are always welcome at JFK Facts.

      • Charles R. Drago says:

        Thank you for the welcome, Mr. Morley.

        Permit me to reply, briefly and in the spirit of collegiality, to a couple of your points made above.

        1. True, you did not directly impugn Messrs. Horne and Mantik. I made no such claim. Rather, I pointed out the fatal flaw in your “logic” as you attempted to impugn my intellect and perhaps even my emotional stability by arguing, in effect, that since I attended and presented at a conference hosted by Fetzer, it follows that I and, by extension, every other attendee and presenter must share Fetzer’s looniness and other liabilities.

        2. I humbly yet strongly urge you to read what has come to be known as the Evica-Drago model for the JFK conspiracy. It presents three layers of involvement: Sponsors, Facilitators, and Mechanics. The top and middle layers are sub-divided into False Sponsors and False Facilitators respectively.

        If you do so, and if you find logic and value in its construction, you likely will abandon use of such non-specific and counter-productive descriptors as “conspirators.”

        I cannot with certainty name any of the Sponsors or Mechanics. Some of the Facilitators are more easily identified than others. Yet I KNOW that JFK died as the consequence of a criminal conspiracy.

        How do I know this fact?

        Because upon impartial, expert examination, the overwhelming preponderance of eyewitness, earwitness, photographic, medical, and ballistic evidence PROVES beyond all doubt and to the degree of metaphysical certitude that at least two gunmen fired at and hit JFK.

        I fail to understand your point that somehow the inability — yours, mine, and others — to identify the gunmen invalidates the evidence proving their existence and actions in Dealey Plaza.

        Sincerely,

        Drago

  20. I hope Walt Brown starts an education forum newsgroup of his own. His latest Chronology kindle series is excellent.

  21. leslie sharp says:

    This discussion is fascinating when considered in light of the mandate for this site. The worrisome aspect is the pattern that unfolds under scrutiny. Over the months, leading conspiracy researchers are being drawn in and so far, without exception the debate fizzles. I’m guessing that partially comes about because facts cease to be the focus, personalities are targeted, but mostly these experts recognize the impossible task of bringing new researchers up to speed, then find themselves in a sound bite kerfuffle with Jeff or specific commenters. Case in point is this particular thread. To reduce Grodon, Fetzer, and Drago to one or two bites is not only insulting to their body of work, it could be construed as calculated to incite. It seems that Jeff is already sidestepping the exchange with Drago just as he did with Pease and with diEugenio. We expect more. In fact, what is expected of this site if precisely what it claims to offer … a place to debate the facts of the assassination. Knocking down the bowling pins one by one is beginning to look calculated. Gentlemanly behavior is not always transparent behavior.

    • Charles R. Drago says:

      Dear Ms. Sharp,

      At the risk of being accused of quibbling, allow me to take issue with a construction within your post immediately above.

      You write, “To reduce Groden, Fetzer, and Drago to one or two bites is … insulting to their body of work … ” I would edit the passage to read, in part, “… their respective bodies of work … ”

      I did not and will not collaborate with Messrs. Groden or Fetzer.

      So that my position vis a vis Fetzer is clear: Over the past three years or so I have been painfully direct in my published negative criticisms of his work during that same period.

      I once cherished my personal friendship with the man I called Jim as much as I respected his early forays into the JFK research maelstrom.

      But when Fetzer began to embrace the lunatic fringe of JFK research — that Twilight Zone in which the likes of Philip “LBJ as ‘mastermind’ of the JFK assassination” Nelson and Ralph “LHO in the doorway” Cinque find asylum (pun intended) — I came reluctantly to the conclusion that a once-sharp mind had begun an irreversible plunge into some state of profound and deepening confusion.

      (Again for the record: Other former close friends and research associates of Fetzer offer a far more disturbing explanation of his foolhardiness as the hostile actions of an enemy sleeper agent. On this score I remain agnostic.)

      I do agree with you that Mr. Morley is “sidestepping” my points regarding what I’ve described and exposed as the “flawed logic, inaccurate quotations, tortured comparisons, and prejudicial selectivity” that run rampant through his attacks on me. But I’m content to allow his evasions to speak for themselves, and I’ll not address them again unless another outburst of similar quality is forthcoming from him.

      Thank you, Ms. Sharp, for your pointed (again, pun intended) commentary. As for Fetzer, I supposed we must agree to disagree.

      Best,

      Charles

      • leslie sharp says:

        Au contraire, Mr. Drago, I didn’t mean to suggest you share anything with Mr. Fetzer and Mr. Groden other than the planet and the conviction that a conspiracy was behind the assassination. What I know of Jim Fetzer’s recent activities you could rest on the head of a pin (pun intended).

        My contention is that the lungs if you will of this investigation have always been dependent on a variety of sources of excellent quality air; some air passages have been contaminated and or compromised with time, but the essence nonetheless continues to rely on the ferociously independent nature of the researcher who insists on finding their own airway. That’s a clumsy metaphor, but suffice to say I am well aware that you breathe your own air.

        Beyond that I refuse to engage in a divide and conquer, particularly one of my own making, let alone one that is being manipulated. That was not my intention. Better that those of us convinced of a conspiracy behind the assassination press on and strengthen any forum that adheres to the policy this one espouses: respectful deliberation of the facts.

  22. Frankie Vegas says:

    I am lucky enough to know plenty of women researchers who have an interest in this case. I think the reason that no-one knows about these ladies is because they spend their time reading and requesting files and building databases and not participating in endless arguments on forums such as Simkin’s. It has always had the feel of an ‘old boy’s’ club, and if you are a younger woman who expresses an interest you do open yourself up to some very inappropriate behaviour by some.
    And you are right about putting off the youth. I was almost completely put off this case 10 years ago reading through a particularly nasty fight on a forum somewhere.

  23. Don’t forget—-this was the problem imho

    “This forum led by John Simkin, John Geraghty, Stephen Turner, Antti Hynonen, Evan Burton, Kathy Beckett, Don Jeffries, David Butler, Pat Speer, Moderators, Barb Junkkarinen”

  24. Jonathan says:

    This thread has become mainly abo¨t Jim Fetzer, so I’d like to weigh in on his body of work.

    FIRST: Fetzer, Horne, Costella et al are correct, in my estimation, that the extant Z-film is a forgery. Costella, a Ph.D. in physics, has revealed technical anomalies in the film. Horne has established that there were two versions of the Z-film flown to Washington, D.C., on the weekend of the assassination; one from Dallas (copy of camera-original), the other from “Hawkeyworks” in Rochester, New York. Fetzer has pointed out obvious-to-the-viewer errors in the Z-film.

    This argument has divided the JFK research community bitterly. Fetzer et al may be in error, in which case reality is indeed bizarre. But at least he and his associates on this issue did serious research.

    SECOND: More recently, Fetzer, Cinque and some others have built an argument that Altgens #6 was altered so as to conceal the presence of LHO and certain others in the doorway of the TSBD at the time of the shooting.

    Their argument may not convince everyone the person the Warren Commission said was Billy Lovelady was in Fact Lee Oswald. But their work on Altgens #6 raises serious questions about its authenticity, especially given that there are are several “generations” or versions of Altgens #6.

    THIRD: Fetzer’s crew has done a good job, in my view, in analyzing the presidential limo, including the windshield.

    Fetzer is accused here of being an over-the-top conspiracy theorist.

    I’d like to point out to everyone here that if there was a conspiracy to kill JFK and if there was a separate conspiracy to cover up the first conspiracy, these were not puny, milquetoast conspiracies. Anything and everything was on the table, from forging Secret Service credentials to forging films and photographs. Any researcher or student who disputes this proposition is not taking into account the open and notorious willful misbehavior of the the Warren Commission and its staff, the FBI, the DPD, and the CIA.

  25. John Q. Parvenu says:

    The Unbearable Triteness of Being James Fetzer

    Those who choose to invest precious time and thought in subjects so jejune as the “Z-film forgery,” “Altegns #6” (whatever that is), and “analyzing the presidential limo” will, in short order, find themselves captured by its inevitable byproduct — a swirling vortex of pointless passions that only serves to trivialize — and to undermine — our quest for accountable government.

    Surely James Fetzer, more so than other individual, embodies the hollowed character of the soi-disant assassination research community, that fractious and cacophonous ensemble so often (and so effortlessly) seduced by a recondite Rosicrucianism wherein the separation of mite from mote, muon from gluon, becomes the be-all and end-all.

    The above poster quite correctly notes that “Fetzer is accused here of being an over-the-top conspiracy theorist.”

    The below referenced link tends to reinforce those accusations:

    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/12/28/six-jfk-shooters-three-tied-to-cia-named-oswald-not-among-them/

    Cheers,

    JQP

  26. “With dwindling membership came decreased posts of interest, and decreased traffic. John Simkin has repeatedly stated the Forum has been costing him money, rather than be self-sustaining. It is no longer the cash cow John once hoped it would be.” Robert Charles Dunne your comments are completely untrue. The Forum has never made money and it was never the intention to be a source of profit. The only income from the Forum comes from advertising. That is not paid to me but Andy Walker, who runs the Forum. I have only ever paid the bills.

    The Forum was originally set up by Andy and myself for teachers to exchange ideas on education. In 2004 I was asked to set up a section on the JFK assassination. I foolishly said yes. It was not long before the forum was attracting some very strange characters who were more interested in insulting people who did not share their views on the assassination than making constructive comments. When I tried to moderate these comments, I became the subject of the abuse. That is also true of the moderators who have tried to keep people in order. After nine years of this I have decided to pull the plug on it. I am now retired and am not willing to pay $1,000 a year for this service. If you are willing to pay this money you are free to take over the forum and you can delete David Lifton’s membership and abuse me to your heart’s content.

  27. I’m glad you foolishly said ‘yes’ back in 2004. There is(was?) a gold mine of info/discourse at your place, some veins richer than the others, with a smattering of plutonium that’s quite unhealthy for everybody. If everyone chipped in a few bucks each year and you put all the deleted posts back, well….

  28. Robert Charles-Dunne says:

    John:

    I fail to see how I’ve “abused” you, in my post above or anywhere else. I have said here and elsewhere that the lapses of integrity shown by moderators took place during your mandatory absence. I’ve always ceded you the benefit of the doubt.

    I picked Lifton as an example, only because his sins were among the most egregious, yet the response from moderators was fawning rather than punitive. Whereas Fetzer, Cinque and other such boorish blowhards were rightly shown the door, Lifton was coddled. By reputed adults who should know better. Inequitable application of the rules makes a mockery of having rules.

    It is self-evident that some moderator performance was unacceptable even to you, for you had a couple of them frogmarched out and summarily executed. Along with several members whose posts were then scrubbed from the Forum, as though they had never existed.

    As for whether the Forum was ever intended to turn a profit, I can only think back to your gleeful posts about being able to manipulate Google search results, in order to drive traffic, earn from the hits and click-throughs for advertisers, and sell more books. Irrespective of the end goal, the intention to accrue financial benefit was clearly evident in those posts. As it should be, for who in their right mind starts a website with an aim to failing?

    Finally, if you think I am among your abusers, you can no longer distinguish between those who mean you ill, and those who still admire you and your once-noble experiment. How did I go from one of your favored posters to one of your tormentors without me even noticing? Either I’ve become quite thick, or your skin has been rendered too thin.

  29. Ronnie Wayne says:

    Jeff, I don’t believe you are “alone inside the beltway” (11/22/13). I know you are not outside of it. Thank you for providing a place for the above posters to express their opinions, and a few facts. I’d also like to thank Mr. Simpkin for his years of service to this, ah, “community”. While I’ve read about the subject off and on for about 35 years I only started following it somewhat on the web about 3 years ago. This has proven very enlightening, and, often quite frustrating. The agendas and EGO’s of some combined with the obvious disinformation of others is the frustrating part. IMO, the enlightenment from time to time still make it worth it. Thanks also to the following websites (I know I’ll miss some), of course Mary Ferrell (Rex), CTKA, Lancer, Pat Speer (though I still believe in a back of the head blowout), and Greg Burnham’s new site looks very promising.
    Some of the posts on this thread do reiterate why maybe I should quit dreaming the impossible dream. That the researchers, commenters, websites could possibly focus on and support the one issue in my mind that at this time could shed some light on the big picture.
    FREETHEDAMNFILES!!! NOW!!!

  30. John Q. Parvenu says:

    Hello,

    Re: Internet Etiquette — “Why Trolls Start Flame Wars: Swearing and Name-Calling Shut Down the Ability to Think and Focus”

    I just happened upon this great article on a great blog…

    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/02/trolls-start-flame-wars-swearing-name-calling-web-shuts-ability-think-focus.html

    Cheers,

    JQP

  31. John Q. Parvenu says:

    Hello again,

    From the planet’s best English language website comes this tutorial
    describing a syllabus of tried and true methodologies employed by the Five Eyes to discombobulate online discourse.

    http://rt.com/news/five-eyes-online-manipulation-deception-564/

    Cheers,

    JQP

  32. Peter Benson says:

    The Education Forum was the best on JFK Assassination in its time.It is in decline now,but I hope that someone keeps the content available to all.

    There is a huge amount of information on that site,I often read posts from way back when the forum first opened.

    If John Simkin wishes to retire,I wish him well.My dealings with him have always been fair and I will not attack him or his integrity.

    Their are still some good sites re the JFL assassination still out their,Deep Politics and the JFK assassination and Vince Palamara,s blog come to mind.

    Will we ever know who killed JFK,I suspect a lot of us have our own answers,but one thing is sure.JFK was killed by more than one man and the Secret Service was deficient,to say the least on that day.

  33. Pat Speer says:

    The idea that the moderators drove the Ed Forum into the ground through inequitable moderation is ridiculous, IMO.
    In its early days, most of the forum’s members self-moderated.
    There came a time, however, when several extremely self-righteous people came to dominate the forum. They thought it was okay to insult others as long as what they were saying was “true.” A moderation team then became necessary.
    John tried to make the moderation team a reflection of the forum’s membership. This may have been a mistake. From having so many moderators, it became difficult to form a consensus. This led some abusers to get hand-slaps, or less. And this, in turn, led those voting to moderate the hand-slappee to vote against moderating others whom those defending the hand-slappee thought should be moderated.
    As a result,it became ever more difficult to suspend anyone who repeatedly insulted others. Several of the worst culprits took advantage of this, moreover, and grew more self-righteous and more insulting over time. This pushed John Simkin away. Several of the moderators sought to fill this void, myself included, but ultimately we had no power (or monetary incentive) to put up with all the abuse and steer the ship from the rocks. The worst culprits were often the best writers. As we (or John, acting on his own) forced some of these to take their insults elsewhere, we lost readers. Few new members came to the forum, and those that did come usually had little to offer beyond repeating what had already been discussed, and often dispensed with, years before.

    Now, that said, I still think the forum could have a renaissance of sorts. If Andy Walker was to give up ownership of the forum, would the advertising revenue come close to covering the costs? John?

  34. Robert Charles-Dunne says:

    “The idea that the moderators drove the Ed Forum into the ground through inequitable moderation is ridiculous, IMO.”

    Since you are one of those very moderators, Pat, your response is hardly surprising.

    But facts are stubborn things. The Deep Politics Forum was created, in large part, as a direct result of a group’s unhappiness with moderation policies, how they were applied, and who was applying them. This was exacerbated by the summary execution of Peter Lemkin, the deletion of his posts, and the whiff of Stalinism that it engendered. No?

    A half dozen other bright posters self-exiled as a direct result of inequitable moderation, including your own famous advice to one of them that they should feel honored to have a man of David Lifton’s alleged stature read their stuff and call them mentally defective. A real high-water mark, that was.

    Good grief, Pat. Even Dave Reitzes was shown the door for repeatedly asking a simple question about the deletion of posts written by past members. Coupled with the inequitable treatment shown to DiEugenio and Scully, one can see why the Forum now attracts fewer people with something to contribute.

    I’m a bit surprised by the knee-jerk defensiveness on display here. The Forum is being shut down because its members are obnoxious? Who allowed them to become members, and who was responsible for policing that obnoxious behavior? Or because they might imply there’s enough fault to go around are those questions out of bounds?

    But of course, citing these mere facts as being at the heart of the Forum’s downward spiral is a ridiculous assertion on my part. Got it. Thanks.

  35. Pat Speer says:

    Robert Charles Dunne: “The Deep Politics Forum was created, in large part, as a direct result of a group’s unhappiness with moderation policies, how they were applied, and who was applying them.”

    With all due respect, Robert, your memory appears to be slipping. Deep Politics Forum was created, in large part, because its creators resented the presence of “lone-nutters” on the Education Forum, and considered them a needless distraction to the work at hand. It was not a protest against the moderators of the Ed Forum, but a protest against the inclusion of alternate voices on the forum.

    Robert Charles-Dunne: “This was exacerbated by the summary execution of Peter Lemkin, the deletion of his posts, and the whiff of Stalinism that it engendered. No?”

    No. Peter was actually a moderator on the Education Forum. His political views were not suppressed. He was accused of harassment by a female member, however. As I recall, this led to his suspension as a moderator, but not as a member of the Forum. He took to complaining about this on the Deep Politics Forum, however, where his complaints received a more than receptive audience. Things got more and more heated. As I recall, Peter threatened to sue John and Andy and they said enough is enough, revoked his membership, and deleted his posts.

    Robert Charles-Dunne: “A half dozen other bright posters self-exiled as a direct result of inequitable moderation, including your own famous advice to one of them that they should feel honored to have a man of David Lifton’s alleged stature read their stuff and call them mentally defective. A real high-water mark, that was.”

    Not true. The poster in question did not leave because of David Lifton or inequitable moderation. He complained, but stayed. To my recollection, he left years later on his own accord after realizing that he himself had trouble controlling his anger, and making posts without insulting people.

    Robert Charles-Dunne: “Good grief, Pat. Even Dave Reitzes was shown the door for repeatedly asking a simple question about the deletion of posts written by past members. Coupled with the inequitable treatment shown to DiEugenio and Scully, one can see why the Forum now attracts fewer people with something to contribute.”

    While I can’t say I would have acted as John in all regards, I can say I understand his actions regarding these three.

    Robert Charles-Dunne: “I’m a bit surprised by the knee-jerk defensiveness on display here. The Forum is being shut down because its members are obnoxious? Who allowed them to become members, and who was responsible for policing that obnoxious behavior?”

    They were supposed to police their own behavior. That was the hope.

    Robert Charles-Dunne: “Or because they might imply there’s enough fault to go around are those questions out of bounds? But of course, citing these mere facts as being at the heart of the Forum’s downward spiral is a ridiculous assertion on my part. Got it. Thanks.”

    What “mere facts”?

    I am not denying anything. My friend, John Simkin, after it became clear to him that most people with an interest in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy only wanted to spout what they “know” and insult those who don’t “know” what they “know,” grew tired of a forum he’d created in the hopes people would share information and thereby add to the information available…

    It’s really very simple, IMO. A man started a conversation, grew tired of it, and now wishes to leave the conversation.

    As have I with this one…

    Best wishes,

    Pat

    P.S. It remains my hope that the forum’s threads will be archived somewhere.

    • leslie sharp says:

      re: Education Forum: it’s interesting that Jeff Morley has sparked this particular debate and provided this format for this exchange – that by the way comes across as little more than a “he said she said airing of dirty laundry.” Except that I have long respected the EF site, in spite of the mudslinging, I wouldn’t bother butting into this.

      One can view Mr. Morley’s choice to do provide this space as an altruistic act, or one can question an ulterior motive. How foolish otherwise serious researchers look caught in this imbroglio; therefore I am asking the latter queston … is there an ulterior motive in drawing the people who have spent years at EF into this faux wake that neither elevates the contribution made by EF nor celebrates those contributors, but instead mocks the dead?

      I do not see reds under every bed, nor do I think everyone always acts with an agenda … but I do wonder why many of the most credible efforts in the research of the assassination, flawed as they may have been, are being paraded at jfkfacts.

      The outrage, the focus now that the patient has expired, is the possible destruction of files. That is glaring to me, and I think it should alarm anyone following and/or contributing to any jfk site – the fact that ten years of data, contradictory in nature perhaps, but thousands of hours of research nonetheless by well-meaning in most cases individuals – may have been lost, summarily deleted, destroyed? That in my opinion is unconscionable. Can anyone clarify the status of the research collected at Education Forum so that those of us who care can calm down?

      I have an image of the bad guys smiling like that Cheshire cat in the Buster Brown television show of the 1950’s. Pass the whiskey and offer the Priest a glass of sherry.

    • Charles R. Drago says:

      As a co-founder of the Deep Politics Forum, I am in a most advantageous position to settle this matter.

      Robert Charles Dunne wrote: “The Deep Politics Forum was created, in large part, as a direct result of a group’s unhappiness with moderation policies, how they were applied, and who was applying them.”

      I would quibble with the “in large part” quantification, but otherwise Mr. Charles-Dunne is on target. As far as he goes.

      Mr. Speer wrote: “With all due respect, Robert, your memory appears to be slipping. Deep Politics Forum was created, in
      large part, because its creators resented the presence of “lone-nutters” on the Education Forum, and considered them a needless distraction to the work at hand.”

      Mr. Speer is, to be charitable, egregiously misinformed.

      First he mischaracterizes the nature of then-DPF owners’ shared objection to the presence on the EF of defenders of the LN lie. For us to have described them as “needless distractions” would have been tantamount to us describing Holocaust deniers as “oddball contrarians.”

      Sorry to have to bring this up again, but one of the guiding principles of DPF — at least its JFK assassination section — is expressed in my (in)famous declaration regarding the cognitive impairment and/or criminal intent of those who enjoy reasonable access to the evidence yet do not reach the conspiracy conclusion.

      That is, those who deny the established historical truth.

      Mr. Speer, still ignorant (or not) of the facts, adds, “It [the creation of DPF] was not a protest against the moderators of the Ed Forum, but a protest against the inclusion of alternate voices on the forum.”

      Wrong on the first count, Mr. Speer. Dead wrong.

      Wrong on the second count, Mr. Speer. Dead wrong. Slanderously wrong. For the DPF founders did not object to “alternate voices,” but rather to voices raised, knowingly or not, in support of the primary goal of the JFK assassination cover-up: to prolong the conspiracy/LN non-debate in order to nurture the uncertainty and sense of powerlessness that infect to the point of near-total paralysis the body politic to this day.

      Mr. Speer herein declares demonstrable misrepresentations of fact with the air of infallibility. In essence and for lack of a more precise term, he would disinform you.

      At least he’s consistent.

      FULL DISCLOSURE: After prolonged, agonizing, ultimately super-heated arguments with three of my five co-founders — some of which aired publicly — I was banished from DPF. At the same time, another founder voluntarily abandoned DPF. It is not my place to speak to the reasons behind his decision. Nor is this forum the place to go into detail.

      • Pat Speer says:

        Thanks, Charles, for proving my points in ways my words never could.

        • Charles R. Drago says:

          You’re quite welcome, Pat. And please know that I truly admire the courage it took for you to admit that your words have yet to prove a single point you’ve tried to make.

      • “Prolonged” does not even begin to describe the nightmare over what became the final banning of our co-founder Charles R Drago. His brilliance was loved but his misplaced anger at our co-founders reached such a boiling pint that we literally had no choice but to put it to an end. The level of hate directed at some of us-those he once claimed to love- was sad beyond reason. As a co-founder of DPF I must say we all appreciate the lack of intense discord that now exists.

        Dawn Meredith
        Deep Politics Forum

  36. Larry Schnapf says:

    The JFK assassination is a very emotional topic for millions of people. Many feel (rightly so IMHO ) that the country’s path was unalterably changed by the event and that all the bad things that have happened since then have their origins in the assassination.

    This is further complicated by the fact that many come to the assassination with a bias towards who probably committed the murder. It seems many are victims of confirmatory bias- looking to prove a pre-conceived outcome. This all results in a witches brew of emotions that when combined with some of the big egos may account for much of the tone of the conversation.

    then there are the people who believe in the Warren Commission because they cannot believe that their government would lie to them (despite numerous examples since then ranging from Golf of Tonkin to WMD) or what the implications of a coup would mean about who we are as a country. The lone nut theory lets us off as a nation. we are not required to look at what we have become as a nation, how far we have diverged from the original idea of a citizen democracy and that we are not as special as we think we are or alot more like the Europeans than we want to admit. For many people, this is too scary a thought to consider. It is so much more reassuring to think a lone gunman took down a president.

    I only wish the research community would realize that reasonable minds can differ on many important issues without being accused of being mentally or ethically challenged. This friendly fire is hurting the pursuit of the truth.

    • Charles R. Drago says:

      Reasonable minds by definition CANNOT differ on the conspiracy/lone nut “debate.”

      This being noted, scores of important JFK assassination-related questions indeed remain unanswered. And reasoned debate PREDICATED ON THE TRUTH OF CONSPIRACY remains the sine qua non for discovering those answers.

      As the creators and managers of the cover-up understand, an overwhelming consensus in favor of either the conspiracy truth or the lone nut lie is to be avoided at all costs.

      Absent a deep understanding of the full raison d’etre of the cover-up, one cannot make sense of official U.S. government endorsement of BOTH positions.

  37. Peter Lemkin says:

    As my name has several times been mentioned, I think it appropriate [along with other reasons] I weigh in here. I was, to my knowledge the first [of many subsequent] person on the EF to not only be expunged, but to have all my posts [about 7000 of them!] removed, as well. At the time I was a confident of John Simkin who often sent me private emails, some of them including ‘do not spread further’ type information. I was also a moderator. When John was logically away due to the death of his wife, Walker (who never saw a conspiracy he believed in and always was looking for ways to remove me and the JFK and 911 threads, generally) struck a secret false-flag attack at me – and John in a total lack of wisdom towards Walker and the EF, and in betrayal of me and the vast majority of EF members and silent readers allowed Walker’s treachery and lies to ‘carry the day’, resulting in me and my posts expunged in what Mr. Dunne [the best poster on the EF of all time, IMHO – his having ‘walked out’ itself speaks mega-volumes!] called a Stalinesque manner. My presence and my thoughts were airbrushed out of existance. The details are long and inappropriate here, now. Those interested in the facts and what Mr. Simkin can be like on his ‘bad-hairbrained’ streaks need only go look at my thread here: https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?3318-Just-Was-Removed-By-Walker-On-Other-Forum&highlight=education+forum+walker
    How can Simkin claim in any way to want his Forum to be a seeking of and struggle toward the Truth, if honest efforts at such truth seeking are expunged – and people removed without due process and often as the result of dirty-tricks by those who at best are anti-conspiracy; at worst working to cover-up real conspiracies? [much the way the evidence, documents, withness statements, and even witnesses were expunged/withheld/tampered with in JFK’s assassination/’investigations’ and cover-up – which continues apace to this very day!]
    I find nothing wrong in Charles Drago’s mantra that anyone who has studied the case and had access to the evidence who doesn’t conclude that there was a conspiracy in Dallas is either cognitively impaired or complicit in the cover-up [even if ‘unofficially’ complicit].
    I have studied covert operations from WWII to present and have found to my horror that most have a connecting thread – both in motive and in actors [groupings and persons]. They are too numerous to mention here, but a few were major and have changed the face of America and hence the World forever. If not set ‘straight’, I believe they will lead humanity to neo-fascism, endless wars, neo-feudal oligarchy, eco-destruction, loss of freedoms and democracy (what little the Plebs fought for over and gained over the centuries), and a panopticon of electronic eavesdropping on every action, word, movement, transaction, photo, email, et al. of everyone! [where we are now]!!!
    This is not a parlor game of who-done-it; it is war and a fight for survival – a fight against a dark and powerful enemy. Those major tipping points in recent history were the JFK Assassination, those of RFK and MLK, the two false-flag bombings of the WTC [and the events of 9-11 and 7-7 which were both false-flag]. All of the official versions of these [and many, many other ‘lesser’ events] are total and knowing lies spun by the powers that be and their propaganda apparatus. The disclosures by Snowden and others [things I have known about, as have others, for over 25 years] only confirm the existence of this propaganda apparatus – both sucking in total information and vomiting out totalitarian disinformation.
    Simkin is an intelligent man and knows much of history – but he is divorced/distanced from the emotion and urgency of the matters at hand he wants discussed on his Forum – and IMHO the lessons of history. Yes, many researchers are immature and egotistical and guard their ideas, work, and ‘turf’ in childish ways; but there are also fools that post and ‘Sunsteinian agents’ who post – see the latest proofs of this here: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/
    I, personally, will be damned if I’m not going to put the very last effort and breath I have in me to stopping the onslaught of fascism and repression [again!] now enveloping the Planet and centered in my own country [though with allies/co-conspirators Worldwide]. Exposing the TRUTH of Dallas or 9-11-01 can defeat these forces!
    This is getting long and I’ll end it here for now. Mr Morley, I have followed your work and lawsuit with interest. I’m slightly dismayed at your professed agnosticism re: Dallas and the reasons why certain documents are being ‘withheld’. It is to deny We The People the Truth, so that the nefarious plans of manipulation, theft and removal of our flawed democracy can proceed unimpeeded. This is obvious. We have a secret level of governance, unaccountable to the People – and always have. New technology has made them stronger – and the dumbing down of the populace with lack of teaching of truthful history plus a constant hum of disinformation and distraction – recently state-sponsored terror have made the populace largely lambs ready for the total slaughter of their freedoms and democracy.
    The demise of the EF will not bring a tear to my eye – the captain of that ‘ship’ did not have the best intentions of ‘history’ and ‘polity’ [changing it for the better, not just reporting on it!] in his ‘mission statement’. For Simkin it is a parlor game and should only be done in a ‘gentlemanly’ fashion – as if our/my/your life didn’t hang in the balance on these matters! His unbalanced handling of perceived problems and problem posters on the EF were its death knell…..and no flowers should be placed on its grave. NB – for all those who seek to retrieve the posts Mr. Simkin in his authoritarian/Stalinesque/unfair lack-of-wisdom removed, there is a program called Warrick which can recover them. Over and out. For now.

  38. Raymond Carroll says:

    I just discovered this thread last night. I think the Education Forum is the most valuable JFK forum since the demise of the The Fourth Decade and The Assassination Chronicles. Reasonable people
    (who are uninformed) can believe the Warren Report without being retarded, and the Ed. Forum never discriminated based on anyone’s point of view.

    I note from John Simkin’s post above that the forum can be kept open for $1000 a year (is that 1000 US $?)
    I would gladly contribute 1/5th of that amount if 4 others would join me in sharing the cost (the more, the merrier).

  39. Peter Lemkin says:

    Just a brief addendum to my comment above re: Warrick for the recovery of deleted content from websites. The program is NOT user-friendly; takes someone very computer savvy to set it up, works on both Windows and Linux, but better on Linux – and…..drum roll…takes SEVERAL years to assemble the missing data and put it in the correct place with the new [which also gets downloaded, if requested]. In fact, due to the strange way the internet is set up, Warrick will pick up more of the materials the longer it is since they were deleted. Just wanted to make it clear that recovery is not easy – and the removals of posts that persons felt were to be archived on the Forum/internet is a serious breach of faith.

  40. leslie sharp says:

    “the removals of posts that persons felt were to be archived on the Forum/internet is a serious breach of faith.”

    Can Mr. Simkin or anyone else explain why the files were arbitrarily removed? Why wasn’t each serious/dedicated/well-meaning poster notified to retrieve their comments within a designated time frame prior to closing the forum if the files were not to be archived? I recognize the site was not legally responsible for preserving research, but as Mr. Lemkin suggests there surely was a degree of faith placed in the professionalism of the forum leaders.

    Two disturbing aspects: the site folds for what appears to be the last time shortly after the 50th Anniversary; the strength of much of the research was the context within which it could be read .. an exchange, a debate over the facts (albeit oftentimes very heated and raw, and yes personal) rather than recitation of individual theories, not to mention frequent presentation of new/fresh research. That material is lost?

  41. Gerry Simone says:

    I was never a member of the EF but wished I was.

    On McAdam’s site, Reitzes tried to brow beat me lol when he disagreed with a general view that I had expressed.

    I spend my time on other boards such as this one because I feel I learn more aspects of the assassination that call the official version into question as well refute the pro-WC spin that purports to debunk conspiracy.

    • JSA says:

      Does McAdams allow dissent on his site, other than things he posts as dissent, which he then “debunks” on his site? Here we are free to post dissenting opinion, which is healthy for inquiry and the free flow of information. The sites that try to control or stem the free flow may be a bit more tidy, but also become less credible and more on the level of propaganda.

      • Gerry Simone says:

        Yes, he allows dissent.

        He’s had conspiracy-oriented moderators like Barb Junkkarinen and Peter Fokes (near my home of Toronto) too.

        Anthony Marsh is a pro-conspiracy gladiator there, but he also will correct or criticize conspiracy theories that don’t meet the usual rigors of accuracy or plausibility.

  42. steve kasarsky says:

    Holy Cow! Can anyone out there issue a challenge to debate Bill O’Reilly on his recent book and documentary on Fox News?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

In seeking to expand the range of informed debate about the events of 1963 and its aftermath, JFKFacts.org welcomes comments that are factual, engaging, and civil. more

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.