Comment of the week

James Feldman – June 3

What I’d like to know is why Hideji Okina and John McAdams are always able to get their pro-official lie posts published, no matter how absurd their “arguments” are, but I always have my posts “moderated” and then dismissed,

even though I provide detailed evidence and support for my statements? Is this just another one of those many “wild coincidences” associated with the JFK assassination and its cover up?

42 thoughts on “Comment of the week”

  1. “Vanessa, apparently you’re locked in cognitive dissonance with your alleged distaste for the antics at rokc while claiming they are ‘gentlemen’, all the while defending that the essence of a free society is the freedom to offend. You have no argument from me there, and I’m not advocating these individuals be silenced. I’m arguing that their vulgarity creates a hostile environment that in turn distracts from their research.” Leslie

    I’m not here to speak for Vanessa. She does a better job of it than I ever could.

    But I do want to address some the comments you’ve made.

    “Vulgarity” was defined at a time of distinct class structures. Those higher up the class pole who sought to offend during debate, would use the language of the “commoner”. The vulgarity was NOT the language itself, but that the language came from “common” people. People like you, in your ignorance, perpetuate this class structure. It is not much different to the ignorance that culminates in people blindly following religious instruction. Ask a person who avoids red meat on Good Friday why they did it – I guarantee most won’t be able to answer.

    You and Willy the other hand have

    insinuated ROKC members are all working with McAdams et al
    insinuated we are paid provocateurs
    Insinuated we are just trying to drive traffic to ROKC
    Insinuated we are just trying to sell books
    (imo) deliberately misconstrued what has been said in order to rebut it with even more insufferable and interminable lectures

    Willy has also accused me of being a pedophile by suggesting I look like one. Unlike anything said about you, that accusation, along with your other false accusations listed above, amounts to a sustained and libelous attack.

    Crying “vulgar” when your false allegations are responded to is the big distraction and shows the paucity of your “case” against us.

  2. While I can appreciate a “no name” policy for privacy reasons, it is sometimes abused – example referring to other posters as “lay persons” (is that an ad hominem attack?) when we don’t know the credentials of the unknown poster who hides behind an alias or pseudonym, and who pretends or implies to be a certified authority of a subject or area of expertise.

    Furthermore, and this happens more so with such unknown posters, they use straw man arguments to refuse to address the essence of the issue or reply to a direct question. This is disruptive to the discussion and this board.

    Such posters exhibit troll-like behaviour and there’s one in particular who I need not name but that you can guess.

    Trolls should be banned if not require more moderation.

  3. Dr. Judith Curry is a climatologist and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology who went from the “high priestess of global warming” to a “climate heretic” after realizing she had been duped by the IPCC. Today she joins us to talk about her recent breakdown of Michael Polanyi’s 1962 article “The Republic of Science.” Topics discussed include the science/policy nexus, the breakdown of the old norms of scientific research, and how the internet is helping to revolutionize science.

    This discussion has to do with conformity and it’s impact on “experts” – Something the indoctrinated mainstream mentality is loath to understand.

    1. This discussion has to do with conformity and it’s impact on “experts” – Something the indoctrinated mainstream mentality is loath to understand.

      It strikes me as an off topic, political statement.:

      Consider who is supporting what she says,as well as what she says.
      Curry’s dissent from this position is as much about the economics as about the science.

      …”Not easy finding jobs in this economy. Are we going to jeopardize their economic future, and we don’t know if they’re going to care and if this is going to matter?”

      Of course doing nothing to address climate change is actually doing a lot. Carbon dioxide levels are growing fast in the atmosphere and are destined to double or triple over pre-industrial levels. Curry acknowledges that….

      Willy, I think this 86 years old speech does great damage to what I perceive is at the heart of your politics.
      Franklin Delano Roosevelt
      Commonwealth Club Address
      23 Sept 1932

      ….So began, in American political life, the new day, the day of the individual against the system, the day in which individualism was made the great watchword of American life…. No one, who did not shirk the task of earning a living, was entirely without opportunity to do so. Depressions could, and did, come and go; but they could not alter the fundamental fact that most of the people lived partly by selling their labor and partly by extracting their livelihood from the soil, so that starvation and dislocation were practically impossible. At the very worst there was always the possibility of climbing into a covered wagon and moving west where the untilled prairies afforded a haven for men to whom the East did not provide a place. So great were our natural resources that we could offer this relief not only to our own people, but to the distressed of all the world; we could invite immigration from Europe, and welcome it with open arms. Traditionally, when a depression came, a new section of land was opened in the West; and even our temporary misfortune served our manifest destiny…..
      ….As long as we had free land; as long as population was growing by leaps and bounds; as long as our industrial plants were insufficient to supply our needs, society chose to give the ambitious man free play and unlimited reward provided only that he produced the economic plant so much desired….
      ….A glance at the situation today only too clearly indicates that equality of opportunity as we have know it no longer exists. …Our last frontier has long since been reached, and there is practically no more free land. More than half of our people do not live on the farms or on lands and cannot derive a living by cultivating their own property. There is no safety valve in the from of a Western prairie to which those thrown out of work by the Eastern economic machines can go for a new start….

    2. The issue is not Curry’s specific opinions on climate change. It is her illustrations of how science has been absconded by monetary and political power, which corrupts the science. As she points out the dogmatism of mainstream science and science reporting has a cultlike religious tenor to it…ergo, the term “Climate Heretic”.

      It is this aspect of what Curry has to say that has context to the JFK case and the so-called “experts” claimed by defenders of the Warren Commission. Again the issue of what is the distinction of an appeal to unbiased expertise, as opposed to an appeal to authority.

      1. Willy, Ms. Curry has enthusiastically embraced the “side” that has been heavily funded by electrical power, coal and “big Oil” corporations. The private business interests funding her message and her “science,” are aligned with Washington Times, Daily Mail, and Fox News. There is much more money to be made on the “side” she’s now pitching for, than on the other side.

        Who gets advances, research support, and are published by large media businesses, Posner, Epstein, Bugliosi, or Douglass, Talbot and Morley?

        I think your example is a poor one because Ms. Curry admits to NPR she’s put her short term, economic concerns ahead of science. She is not in a position to concern herself with what she can perceive today about economics. Climate change policy creates new economic opportunities. What is it worth to flood proof NYC’s 112 year old subway system, or portions of south Florida, compared to doing nothing?

        I’ve never heard of Curry. I don’t read Posner or Dale Meyers, either. I don’t get the point of using her as an example. She seems to present the best message money can buy.
        November 18, 2015
        Florida received a failing grade on its long-term preparations for coastal flooding, in a study released Wednesday that assessed how well the 50 states were gearing up for the impact of climate change.

        The study, called States at Risk, says Florida lacks a long-term plan for dealing with rising sea levels, despite being the nation’s most vulnerable state as oceans inch higher….

        Ms. Curry is being used by the political representatives of those who are best protected personally to deal with disaster and who largely invest for the short term. These representatives include nearly the entirety of one if the two major political parties, committed to breaking treaties already well settled and effect a resurgence of coal production, despite the damage it does to the air, landscape, and water, and the consequence of cheaply fracked natural gas making coal uncompetitivly priced. Will Trump bust the unions and force the miners back to work at lower wages, benefits, safety and environmental regulation?
        Senator Cruz brought in four witnesses to testify, mostly chosen from the usual suspects that have participated in similar hearings in the past. There were two of the very small handful of climate scientists who express doubts about human responsibility for climate change—Georgia Tech professor and blogger Judith Curry and John Christy from the University of Alabama in Huntsville. William Happer, a retired Princeton physicist and chairman of the George C. Marshall Institute, a conservative think-tank, was also invited to speak. The fourth person brought in to talk climate science was conservative radio host and columnist Mark Steyn. (The last two were keynote speakers at this year’s Heartland Institute conference for climate “skeptics.”)….

        1. Willy, Ms. Curry has enthusiastically embraced the “side” that has been heavily funded by electrical power, coal and “big Oil” corporations. The private business interests funding her message and her “science,” are aligned with Washington Times, Daily Mail, and Fox News. There is much more money to be made on the “side” she’s now pitching for, than on the other side.

          In the first place, this is an argumentum ad hominem.

          But in the second place, it’s simply wrong. There is a huge amount of money in “carbon credits,” and in taxpayer subsidized “green energy.” Think Solyndra.

          There is a huge amount of money in doing “climate research,” and if the climate scientists should decide that no global warming catastrophe is on the horizon, most of it would dry up.

          Then there are people like Tom Steyer, who promised to spend a $100 million dollars to support liberal candidates fighting “climate change.”

          Then, aside from money, there is the institution power of the U.S. government, the mainstream media, and transnational organizations.

          You are on the side of The Establishment, Tom. You are on the side of The Power.

          And your side is trying to shut up and silence dissent:

          1. You are on the side of The Establishment, Tom. You are on the side of The Power.

            And your side is trying to shut up and silence dissent: (Dr. McAdams presented a link to a piece he presented on his blog.)

            I’m not on a side. I pursue what is reasonable, what, all things considered, a reasonable person would discern.

            Your arguments reflect generally on your credibility, calling into question your discernment.
            Basically your asserting that nearly the entire, international scientific community is bought off.:


            You’re also making an argument amounting to the efficiency of the U.S. government’s “bang for the buck,”…. compared to the private investments and lobbying expenditures intended to strengthen support within the scientific community and government favorable to private corporations associated with mass emission of greenhouse gases.

            Your last comment is farcical. Are you really attempting to make claims about consensus of scientists in the various disciplines presented at the linked page above, with little or no support from actual scientists? Tossing in a reference to “Solyndra” is something I’d expect from “smokey joe” Barton (R-TX) or from Jim Inhofe (R-OK).


            Hunting Witches
            Saturday, July 23, 2005

            “THIS IS HIGHLY usual,” declared a spokesman for the House Energy and Commerce Committee when asked this week whether the request by committee Chairman Joe Barton (R-Tex.) for information from three climate scientists was out of the ordinary. He and his boss are alone in that view….

            Barton and Inhofe are talking the book of their campaign contributors. They will embrace whatever enhances their chances of getting re-elected. They are accountable to fossil fuel asset holders.

            You say the same unreasonable things they say, but it is not obvious why you do it.

            Have you ever seriously considered the sources that support your conclusions, and the integrity and reliability of those sources?

          2. John, Those familiar with your position on climate chaos and this hypocritical argument that money is behind the global concern: let’s not overlook the attorney representing you in your litigation related to the Cheryl Abbate incident, Mr. Rick Esenberg

            Richard Esenberg
            Professor, Marquette University Law School
            Rick Esenberg is the founder and President and General Counsel of the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, a rapidly expanding law and policy organization headquartered in Milwaukee. He is a frequent columnist in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and commentator in both the local and national media. . . . Esenberg is a frequent contributor to Right Wisconsin . . . Formerly on the faculty of Marquette University Law School . . . “

            The debate over climate continues; let it be understood that John McAdams has a clear, vested interest in towing the line of climate chaos deniers, unless of course we are to believe he is paying Mr. Esenberg out of his own pocket?

            Mr. Esenberg is listed as an expert on the website for Heartland Institute.

            Heartland Institute’s recent promotion of anti-climate chaos links to . . . excerpt:
            ‘Whereas the reports of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warn of a dangerous human effect on climate, NIPCC concludes the human effect is likely to be small relative to natural variability, and whatever small warming is likely to occur will produce benefits as well as costs. NIPCC is sponsored by three nonprofit organizations: the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), and The Heartland Institute . . . This volume, like past NIPCC reports, is edited and published by the staff of The Heartland Institute, a national nonprofit research and educational organization . . .”

            A bit more about Heartland from sourcewatch:
            ‘A public charity, *barely*
            Heartland barely misses being classed more restrictively as a private foundation – according to its 2009 Form 990, “public support” made up just 33% of contributions for 2009 and 36% for 2008. (The bulk of support would have come from large donors.) (If public support falls below 33 1/3% for 2 years, it becomes a private foundation.)’

            Top Five Heartland funders:
            • Barbara and Barre Seid Foundation $1,037,977 *
            • Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation $648,000 **
            • Exxon Mobil $531,500
            • Walton Family Foundation $400,000
            • Sarah Scaife Foundation $325,000

            *Donors Capital Fund, Seid Foundation:

            ‘DT and DCF made grants of over $148 million in 2011 and 2012, and according to a report by DeSmog Blog the two funds granted almost $311 million between 2002 and 2010.[5] The Koch brothers and other ultra-wealthy industrial ideologues appear to be cloaking an untold amount of their donations to conservative political outlets through DT and DCF.

            ** note that the Bradley’s were among the founding members of the John Birch Society.

          3. John, Those familiar with your position on climate chaos and this hypocritical argument that money is behind the global concern:

            This is all just ad hominem, Leslie.

            You are a leftist. So you consider anybody on the political right sinister.

            So what?

            This is a democracy. People are going to disagree with you. You need to accept that.

          4. Have you ever seriously considered the sources that support your conclusions, and the integrity and reliability of those sources?

            Tom, it’s bigoted to attack the “integrity” of people who disagree with you.

            You blow off Solyndra, because you can’t admit that there are big bucks in “green energy,” which would dry up if people were not terrified of global warming.

            Likewise you, who thinks the government is corrupt in all sorts of ways, believe the government is pure and pristine where global warming is concerned.

            No political agenda. No vested interests involved. No group think. No ideological bias.

            The global warming people are, in your world, pure as the driven snow.

            All the while they try to shut up and punish people who disagree with them.

      2. Willy, Ms. Curry has enthusiastically embraced the “side” that has been heavily funded by electrical power, coal and “big Oil” corporations.

        Translation: I don’t care about the actual evidence. I have chosen a side, and I’ll condemn anybody on the opposite side.

  4. Disinformation is impossible to moderate against, and is invaluable for what it tries to misinform about. Oswald in Mexico is the prime example. Multiple aliases only matter if you are relying on information from the alias. Relying on any source is highly risky in this game.

    I feel that any post that merely insults should be removed, but insulting posts with more to them should be included.

  5. Tom

    Perhaps now you’re ready to explain why posts from anyone from RoKC are on a 3 day delay (if they get posted at all).

    1. 2 day, not 3 days. You’re a moderator on a forum featuring a “caste” system, so you know the drill.

      We’re relegated to the bottom rung, the objects of scorn, insulted, debased.:

      You are on the top rung….access to the most secret sanctum, “the Vault”:

      As a moderator at that cesspool…. you could object to the abuse of those with no option to respond on
      that pathetic excuse for a forum. You’ve chosen not to, and instead bleat your incessant complaints here in
      the comments you submit.

      If you want the 2 day delay here removed, demote yourself to a plain ole member there, one step above Tom S., aka “the slit,” as described over at your cesspool. You have more cheek than I’m accustomed to. I’d prefer to put you on a 30 day delay, but I’m pleased you are irritated enough to exaggerate the length of this brief delay assigned to you. Bart and Jake are blocked in reaction to submitting comments via multiple ID’s. Would you be interested in viewing images of all of Jake’s invented aliases?
      While Tom is a bit of a slit, your initial statement is not a true one.
      –May 21, 2016 at 11:10 AM

      1. So let me get this straight… your bias is because you have no access to some areas of a site you call a cesspit?

        What sort of person cares about what the inhabitants of a cesspit think or do?

        Let’s return to the sporting analogy, Tom. You’re an umpire who has some players and coaches claiming you are biased against them. Your reaction to such claims is to… become even more stridently biased.

        That you don’t have the wherewithal to separate the external from the internal id obvious. That you continually use external factors as the reason for your biases is proof in itself that you are not fit for the job.

        I will be posting this at the cesspit so no one has to wait 2 days to read it.

      2. Tom

        I’m really not sure how to respond to this strange post of yours.

        Because you think I’m cheeky you think my posts should be banned for 30 days?? Are you for real?

        And the deal you are offering me is if I remove myself as moderator from RoKC you will stop delaying my posts? I’m speechless.

        My last post responding to Prof. McAdams has been on delay since 5 June. That’s more than 3 days.

        Why have you blocked Greg Parker responding to Russ Tarby on the Oswald thread?

      3. George and Vanessa, Leslie brought to your attention the abuse it is within the responsibility of both of you to respond to in a constructive and timely way. “Timely,” is now a lost opportunity, considering the date of her comment.:
        leslie sharp
        May 18, 2016 at 9:33 pm
        So, Vanessa and George: let’s do a bit of housekeeping here. Is Hasan Yusuf a moderator at RoKC? Vanessa, are you okay with the following from Yusuf at a site you moderate but you can’t hold up under the intellectual heat applied here at Greg, are you okay with Yusuf’s “Leslie is a …. ……”

        On May 23, five days after Leslie’s comment, a new thread went up on the forum “George” is the owner of and Vanessa is a moderator of, devoted to attacking and cursing Willy Whitten and Leslie.:

        On May 19, I informed George that his comments would be delayed 24 hours after he submitted them. His reply indicated he seemed to understand why I had made this decision and what was expected of him.:
        George – May 19, 2016 at 10:54 pm

        Yesterday a new thread devoted to protesting my bias along with many other grievances against me was created on George’s forum. The moans of my “victims” are heart rendering.:

        George, aren’t you submitting comments to JFKfacts under an alias? Why don’t you point that fact out to Mr. Farley? He seems to be as incoherent today as he was in reaction to being given space on the front page of to present his evidence and opinions.:

        Did I mention there are two other “protest” threads on your forum?
        “Jefferson Morley: Redefining Facts”

        I guess we should be grateful you’ve been able to make time, considering the demands of your mission and research, to thoroughly deal with us, thank you.

        Vanessa, responding to your latest complaint, I regarded your comment submitted on 5 June as repetitive. Dr. McAdams is well aware of your oft repeated point.:
        John McAdams
        June 8, 2016 at 9:50 am

        1. LHO told Fritz that he was “out in front with Shelley” or words to that effect.

        No, this is a biased reading of Fritz’ very cryptic notes. His written report is the best source about how to interpret the notes…..

        1. So, Vanessa and George and/or Greg. Where do you stand with this, as moderator/owner of a site alleged to be dedicated to exonerating LHO and elevating John Kennedy’s principles of democracy (and dare we say gentility) in the 20th century? Unless of course you intend to mock the latter.

          In full disclosure, I’ve read some of moderator Hasan Yusuf’s recent research and there are elements that strike me as insightful — although I’ve identified a number of factual errors in his latest essay Too bad that the site owned and moderated by Greg/Hasan/and evidently Vanessa is such an anathema that I wouldn’t’ consider contributing even to correct Yusuf’s essay, until I’m confident that Hasan et al are genuine in their effort to expose the bad guys. Recently I came across some interesting facts revealed by Marcel Petoit related to contract espionage agent Frenchy Grombach. There was a degree of verifiable fact in this macabre story. Do I trust Marcel? Hardly.

          I’m not comparing Hasan to Marcel, nor am I comparing either Vanessa or Greg to Frenchy Grombach, but I am recommending that if they want to be taken seriously, dispense with the theatrics; the drama is a distraction and there is a distinct cognizant dissonance in the protestations. What and on whose behalf are you protesting?

          1. Leslie

            So, you say we are not at all like The Pond but you would like us to behave differently just so you don’t think we are like them?

            Do you really think it’s reasonable for Tom to lock the “Mystery of Oswald in Russia” thread so that Greg can’t respond to Russ Tarby’s questions about Oswald?

            Do you really think it is reasonable for Tom to put me on a 3 day delay because he doesn’t like the fact that I’m ‘cheeky’.

            I made my point about free speech at RoKC in response to your other post – that is exactly what you get at RoKC. It may not be pretty but it’s free. None of us tells the other what to say.

          2. The thread is not “locked,” in fact I approved George/Greg’s replies to Russ Tarby the same day they
            were submitted, as a courtesy to Russ Tarby.:

            No comments that are approved are delayed more than two calendar days. Some comments are not approved, as per this site’s comments policy.:

            One can attempt to defend vulgar, abusive comments. Commentors on should not be “called out,” and subjected to vulgar, abusive comments as a consequence of submittinng comments to Endorsement of such retaliatory abuse is endorsement of intimidation against freedom of expression.

          3. Vanessa, are you cool with Hasan Yusuf’s comment as linked above? If you were still moderating the site would you have approved it and others of similar tone? In fact do you have a history of approving these assaults? Is there a way to research that?

            My understanding is that the moderator of this site is concerned that any form of intimidation on one assassination forum effects other related forums and given the fact that you were a moderator of a site that indulges verbal assault, you are being moderated here more closely. In the past, certain individuals have been placed on delay at jfkfacts as a method of exercising the rules of the house so you have not been singled out, and you’re hardly the victim here. I think all you have to do is denounce the antics over at the romper room. I once marketed a hotel property that required ‘coat and tie’, and while it would have been much easier to promote a more casual environment, I respected the owners’ investment and with it, their house rules. That’s what TomS is doing here.


          4. cont.
            You’re in someone else’s home; you are known to have indulged your fellow participants at rokc in their antics and for that reason, if I understand correctly, you’ve been asked by the moderator to publicly denounce the assaults that are in fact attempts at intimidation. What’s difficult about that especially if you are anxious to participate here? It’s sort of like a parent asking a child who has been out playing in a mud puddle to wipe their feet before coming into the house. As we have experienced in the last 48 hours here in the US, a violent language of hate is a precursor, an alarm system that physical violence might be around the corner. We’re now confronted with a presidential candidate who might be well suited to rokc. Perhaps we can identify a reason to deport him to Australia or Liverpool for that matter. His unrestrained mouth might be reason enough. Check out Ken Burns Stanford speech if you’re genuinely interested, as you intimate, in the survival of the United States of America as a democracy.

        2. So the Prof is allowed to raise this point as many times as he wants but you will not post my responses?

          And so we are left with the posts the Prof. makes as the last word.

      4. Just for you Tom, I’m no longer a moderator at RoKC.

        Will my posts receive the same treatment as everyone else’s now?

        1. Vanessa, I’ll take you at your word because I have no ability to verify your privilege level (displayed below your avatar) on George/Greg’s forum unless you post there several times per week.:

          You’ve still avoided responding to the issue that influenced me to delay your comments. When rotten descriptions of Leslie and Willy were repeatedly posted in threads on a forum you were a moderator of, you ingnored it, even when requests were put to you to use your influence to attempt to moderate what any reasonable person would regard as unconscionable slurs against commentors.
          The steady stream of slurs seems in reaction to objection to what they’ve included in comments they’ve submitted here.

          I still observe that you ignore any responsibility, refuse to condemn this abuse, offer no apology to Leslie or Willy for your defence via silence, and still pretend you are some sort of victim.

          Why comment here, considering how you’ve positioned yourself? I’ve only attempted to slow you down. The controversy you’ve brought on yourself will probably continue to escalate.

          1. Okay Tom (part 1 of 2)

            So now I’m not a moderator at RoKC anymore you’d now like me to:

            1. Explain why I ignored rotten descriptions of Leslie and Willy.
            2. Apologise to Leslie and Willy for the statements of others.
            3. Condemn the abuse.
            4. Use my ‘influence’ to make the RoKC guys behave.
            5. Stop pretending I’m a victim.
            6. Explain why I comment on JFKFacts.

            If I do all that will you stop delaying my posts or will there be more demands?

            1. I believe in genuine freedom of speech which means we have to tolerate words and statements we may not like and publications that cross the line like Charlie Hebdo and even downright offensive organisations like white supremacists. Not to mention the myriad of other offensive views and behaviours that make up a free society.

            Do I engage in any of that myself? No, I don’t. But I support others right to do so. It’s the basis of free society.

            2. I’m fond of Leslie and would be upset if she were upset by any of the comments made about her and for that I genuinely apologise. I’m not so fond of Willy but nevertheless am kinda sorry if he’s been upset by any of the comments made about him. He, however, gives as good as he gets.

            3. The guys know what I think about this sort of commentary and also that I believe they have the right to do it.

            4. Fat chance of that and nor would I ask them. They are adults responsible for their own behaviour and I am not their mother (even though I am old enough to be Hasan’s mum).

            5. I’ve asked for explanations of your moderating rules as they seem to keep changing. My real concern is that you are using this inter forum fighting as an excuse to distract from the Prayer Man discussion and to limit RoKCers ability to contribute to that debate on JFKFacts. To that end you have given Jean Davison and John McAdams favourable treatment in the PM debate. Their posts are not delayed and some of their comments are allowed to go unanswered.

            6. I’ve always liked JFKFacts as there’s a range of views but I mainly turned up on here and other sites because I was disturbed that no progress appeared to have been made in the Prayer Man debate and wanted to contribute to that in some way, if at all possible.

          2. Part 2

            7. Just to add my two cents – in person Hasan is a genuinely lovely young man who along with Greg Parker and Lee Farley has been described by Jim de Eugenio as the ‘next generation’ of JFK researchers. Greg is also a fundamentally decent man and complete gentleman. As are all the other RoKCers I’ve met in person and all the RoKCers I’ve met online.

            8. I think this whole inter forum hoo-ha is a waste of JFKFacts time and the time of everyone on here.

            9. And if I may make this final point JFK was known for his earthy language in private, Lincoln was known to tell off-colour stories and Shakespeare is full of vulgarity. Was that the most important thing about them? Heck no.

            If you’re wondering why there is so much emotion over the PM issue then imagine it from our perspective.

            We think PM is Oswald and is provably innocent.

            The response from a select few in the research community is “let’s talk about RoKC’s bad language” or let’s continue to talk about the same topics we’ve been over a million times and still can’t resolve.

            So you can see why people might get frustrated.

            Now can we get back to discussing Oswald on the 1st floor and standing on the TSBD steps?

          3. Vanessa, apparently you’re locked in cognitive dissonance with your alleged distaste for the antics at rokc while claiming they are ‘gentlemen’, all the while defending that the essence of a free society is the freedom to offend. You have no argument from me there, and I’m not advocating these individuals be silenced. I’m arguing that their vulgarity creates a hostile environment that in turn distracts from their research. Why should they be indulged at jfkfacts; they know that the PM theory can only be truly advanced by going to George’s site. Anyone with any sanity will recognize it as a cesspool of harassment and intimidation directed at anyone who challenges the theory. It’s more related to a bear trap than a free exchange of ideas.

            Robert Morrow is a laughing stock in many circles, not limited to his research but his antics and association with the original dirty trickster, Roger Stone. Some people find Trump entertaining, but do they go to him for the facts on any issue and does his association with Alex Jones persuade you that he knows anything at all of any substance?

            Lest this be construed as my being thin-skinned, I assure you that I’m quite capable of using offensive language– but not over public airways where it might be construed as harassment or attempt at intimidation; the Commonwealth of Virginia agrees.

          4. Cont.
            Vanessa, further, why play the First Amendment card in defence of rokc when an attorney au fait with Internet liability could argue that deliberate bullying and harassment is evident (unless those specific instances have been withdrawn in the last some weeks?). Search this forum beginning last fall to read my challenges to a comparable defence argued by John McAdams – that his free speech rights have been abridged adjudicated evidently as we speak. The US Department of Labor has weighed in to differentiate between ‘free speech’ and a hostile work environment; ‘Free Speech’ experts have weighed in that not all profanity/vulgarity is protected under the constitution but fall under laws prohibiting threat to cause harm or incite others to cause harm.

            It’s tempting to argue McAdams’ actions were tantamount to ‘yelling fire in a crowded theatre’ but implementation of Oliver Wendell Holmes’ famous phrase has been challenged successfully; however according to an article in “The Atlantic” ‘. . in what would become his second most famous phrase, Holmes wrote in Abrams that the marketplace of ideas offered the best solution for tamping down offensive speech: “The ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas — that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out.”

            Isn’t that what we’re attempting here, to allow the marketplace to decide?

            Thus far on this site, the PM theory has been reasonably challenged. If the theory can stand on it’s own merit then it should; instead it seems to have become more a cause célèbre and a disgraceful excuse to harass and intimidate – via an inter-forum vehicle – those who question it. How much more powerful your advocacy would have been had you not been directly associated as moderator with the history of these verbal thugs; your efforts to sweep the seriousness of the issue of bullying, harassment and intimidation under a carpet of “boys will be boys” falls flat.

            Presumably our host is the one to determine whether or not the possibility that Oswald was outside the building merits further analysis on this site beyond what it has already consumed. Taunting the moderator is a foolish and adolescent tack, imv. Could anyone force George to introduce a thread focused on their pet theory?

            I anticipated you would introduce John Kennedy to this discussion. Did he employ that earthy language over the airways, did he use it to intimidate and harass? I think not.

  6. I don’t really understand why anyone would want or need to use multiple aliases. The use of such makes me suspicious. Why? To stir up those with opposing opinions?

  7. Link to prior “Comment of the week.” –

    I selected this week’s comment to spur a discussion about comment standards and moderation bias. I’ve been opposed to a “real name” policy. A courtesy has been extended permitting the use of an alias by submitters of comments, but a functioning email address should accompany each comment.

    I have also been enforcing a restriction on comments submitters using multiple aliases. If you’ve commented in the past using a different alias, please share this in your latest comment.

    Some submit comments only for the purpose of generally criticizing another submitter.

    I would like to drastically reduce the all too common, “yes it is,” and, “no, it isn’t,” unsupported exchanges because they do not inform, pleasing only the submitter. If your comment is not approved and it includes more than four words and less than 501 words, is not only an unexplained link, consider if it amounts to merely, “I disagree with you,” or, “you’re wrong,” or, “I really don’t like you.”

    As far as bias, I have them, we all do. I’m trying to understand (be more tolerant of) opinions I disagree with.

    Do you prefer to “know” who you are replying to, or regularly reading the comments of, or should I overlook multiple aliases submitting from the same source and simply approve their comments?

    Should some points of view not appear in comments? Which ones, and why?

    1. Having only a single moderator is cause for concern for a site that is based on a sea-changing topic that has broadly reaching subject matter. Having more than one moderator could loosen up the feeling of moderation bias.

      On another note, I still have a benign comment or two that have yet to be approved here and elsewhere; maybe, my comments just weren’t important enough for the biases of the day. Is it possible that biases are endemic for moderators that have been involved in this discussion for a long period of time (e.g. >10 years)?

    2. “I have also been enforcing a restriction on comments submitters using multiple aliases. If you’ve commented in the past using a different alias, please share this in your latest comment.”

      Any other groups or individuals you’ve been enforcing a restriction on, Tom?

      Yes, we all have biases… but we are not all put in charge of moderating forums.

      Can you imagine a sporting competition where the umpires can simply allow any biases to rule their decisions?

      No? I sure hope not. Umpires and referees are supposed to be able to biases aside and be even-handed in interpreting the rules and handing out penalties.

      You volunteered for this, Tom. You should have had your biases in check from the get-go.

      Better late then never.

        1. (This comment, at the time it was submitted, appears on the top of the list in the “recent comments” sidebar.)

          George’s comments are delayed two days, and he has commented that the delay is intended to keep alerts of his latest comments off the “recent comments” sidebar list. This comment is intended to alert readers that George’s latest comment is now available, appearing above this comment!

      1. George,

        It cannot be pointed out too often that it seems your only purpose for posting on JFKfacts is to bitch and moan about the moderator Tom Scully.

        If you don’t like it here, you don’t have to attend. If you have something of substance to say; say it. If not why don’t you just go your own way?

Leave a Comment

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

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

Scroll to Top