info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Jefferson Morley: Irony Alert
143 views
Skip to first unread message
Dave Reitzes
Feb 20, 2014, 11:54:13 AM2/20/14
to
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/simkin-to-close-jfk-education-forum-citing-obnoxious-so-called-researchers/
<QUOTE ON>--------------------------
Simkin to close JFK Education Forum, citing obnoxious 'so-called
researchers'
February 19, 2014
jeffmorley Assassination
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.
<QUOTE OFF>-------------------------
I'll let someone else be the first to comment on whether Lisa Pease,
Sylvia Meagher, Joan Mellen, or other prominent women in the JFK research
community, past or present, have been prone to portray those they disagree
with as liars or disinformation agents.
I'm more intrigued by the fact that the guy lamenting the behavior of some
in the research community is the same guy who, only a few days ago,
refused to let John McAdams continue posting comments on his blog until
John assured him that he was not any sort of undercover operative (and he
takes a gratuitous swipe at John in the above article, although he's
careful to distance himself from the view being expressed, attributing it
to unnamed "others").
He's also the guy who likened Dale Myers and Gus Russo to accessories in a
CIA cover-up because they had the audacity to suggest that his published
claims about the CIA and the Kennedy assassination went well beyond the
evidence. (For example: "...Myers and Russo are determined to support the
CIA in its efforts to block release of [classified files Morley is suing
to obtain]. Their method is to pound the drums of conspiracy so as to
drown out discussion of the unnecessary and unjustifiable CIA secrecy
around JFK's assassination records.")
http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2013/09/fanning-wisps-of-smoke.html
Dave
<QUOTE ON>--------------------------
Simkin to close JFK Education Forum, citing obnoxious 'so-called
researchers'
February 19, 2014
jeffmorley Assassination
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.
<QUOTE OFF>-------------------------
I'll let someone else be the first to comment on whether Lisa Pease,
Sylvia Meagher, Joan Mellen, or other prominent women in the JFK research
community, past or present, have been prone to portray those they disagree
with as liars or disinformation agents.
I'm more intrigued by the fact that the guy lamenting the behavior of some
in the research community is the same guy who, only a few days ago,
refused to let John McAdams continue posting comments on his blog until
John assured him that he was not any sort of undercover operative (and he
takes a gratuitous swipe at John in the above article, although he's
careful to distance himself from the view being expressed, attributing it
to unnamed "others").
He's also the guy who likened Dale Myers and Gus Russo to accessories in a
CIA cover-up because they had the audacity to suggest that his published
claims about the CIA and the Kennedy assassination went well beyond the
evidence. (For example: "...Myers and Russo are determined to support the
CIA in its efforts to block release of [classified files Morley is suing
to obtain]. Their method is to pound the drums of conspiracy so as to
drown out discussion of the unnecessary and unjustifiable CIA secrecy
around JFK's assassination records.")
http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2013/09/fanning-wisps-of-smoke.html
Dave
olde...@gmail.com
Feb 20, 2014, 9:00:55 PM2/20/14
to
Jeff Morley doesn't need to ask you if you are a disinformation agent,
Dave; some of his readers told him you were when he let you post on his
website a few months back.
My question to you is: when are you going to publish a rebuttal to Jim
DiEugenio's online critique of you that's been online for many months now?
If someone pummeled me like that I'd get off the ground & get at least one
good punch in before I went unconscious, but that's just me. I'd like to
read your side of things. I believe in a fair fight online.
Brad
Dave; some of his readers told him you were when he let you post on his
website a few months back.
My question to you is: when are you going to publish a rebuttal to Jim
DiEugenio's online critique of you that's been online for many months now?
If someone pummeled me like that I'd get off the ground & get at least one
good punch in before I went unconscious, but that's just me. I'd like to
read your side of things. I believe in a fair fight online.
Brad
John McAdams
Feb 20, 2014, 9:03:06 PM2/20/14
to
On 20 Feb 2014 21:00:55 -0500, olde...@gmail.com wrote:
>Jeff Morley doesn't need to ask you if you are a disinformation agent,
>Dave; some of his readers told him you were when he let you post on his
>website a few months back.
>
I think you are addressing me.
>Jeff Morley doesn't need to ask you if you are a disinformation agent,
>Dave; some of his readers told him you were when he let you post on his
>website a few months back.
>
So some of his crackpot readers thought I was a spook, eh?
>My question to you is: when are you going to publish a rebuttal to Jim
>DiEugenio's online critique of you that's been online for many months now?
>If someone pummeled me like that I'd get off the ground & get at least one
>good punch in before I went unconscious, but that's just me. I'd like to
>read your side of things. I believe in a fair fight online.
>
DiEugenio.
But tell ya' what.
Post one issue from DiEugenio that you think is important, and I'll
answer it right here.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
David Von Pein
Feb 20, 2014, 9:34:21 PM2/20/14
to
Brad,
Along the same lines, I was surprised that Professor McAdams didn't
respond to DiEugenio's repulsive and far-fetched 2-part anti-McAdams smear
piece that's been online for a long time now.
It could be that .John did respond in some fashion and I just missed it.
But it could also be a situation where DiEugenio's accusations and slurs
against John are so outrageous (and downright hilarious--which they are,
of course) that Mr. McAdams felt no need to reply at all. Just a smile and
a shake of the head are enough.
However, in my own personal case of being attacked in print by Jimmy D.
four years ago, I could not resist getting in a few healthy swings in
rebuttal to DiEugenio's non-stop silliness....
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/dvp-vs-dieugenio-complete-series.html
I only wish Ruth Paine and Buell Wesley Frazier would step up to their
computers (if they have any) and type out something to put that silly
little man named James DiEugenio in his proper place. A nice little
slander suit against JD wouldn't hurt things one bit either.
I get a little sick of seeing Jimmy D. propping up his fantasies as if
they were rock-solid, proven facts. When, in point of fact, DiEugenio has
no PROOF of any wrong-doing on the part of Ruth Paine or Wesley Frazier.
But to a JFK conspiracy theorist like Jimbo, pure out-and-out speculation
is a perfectly reasonable substitute for something called "Proof".
Ruth? Wesley? You out there somewhere?
Along the same lines, I was surprised that Professor McAdams didn't
respond to DiEugenio's repulsive and far-fetched 2-part anti-McAdams smear
piece that's been online for a long time now.
It could be that .John did respond in some fashion and I just missed it.
But it could also be a situation where DiEugenio's accusations and slurs
against John are so outrageous (and downright hilarious--which they are,
of course) that Mr. McAdams felt no need to reply at all. Just a smile and
a shake of the head are enough.
However, in my own personal case of being attacked in print by Jimmy D.
four years ago, I could not resist getting in a few healthy swings in
rebuttal to DiEugenio's non-stop silliness....
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/dvp-vs-dieugenio-complete-series.html
I only wish Ruth Paine and Buell Wesley Frazier would step up to their
computers (if they have any) and type out something to put that silly
little man named James DiEugenio in his proper place. A nice little
slander suit against JD wouldn't hurt things one bit either.
I get a little sick of seeing Jimmy D. propping up his fantasies as if
they were rock-solid, proven facts. When, in point of fact, DiEugenio has
no PROOF of any wrong-doing on the part of Ruth Paine or Wesley Frazier.
But to a JFK conspiracy theorist like Jimbo, pure out-and-out speculation
is a perfectly reasonable substitute for something called "Proof".
Ruth? Wesley? You out there somewhere?
Message has been deleted
Robert Harris
Feb 20, 2014, 9:40:01 PM2/20/14
to
Dave Reitzes wrote:
> http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/simkin-to-close-jfk-education-forum-citing-obnoxious-so-called-researchers/
>
>
> <QUOTE ON>--------------------------
>
> Simkin to close JFK Education Forum, citing obnoxious 'so-called
> researchers'
>
> February 19, 2014
> jeffmorley Assassination
>
> 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 problem of course, is closed minds - people who refuse to be
> http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/simkin-to-close-jfk-education-forum-citing-obnoxious-so-called-researchers/
>
>
> <QUOTE ON>--------------------------
>
> Simkin to close JFK Education Forum, citing obnoxious 'so-called
> researchers'
>
> February 19, 2014
> jeffmorley Assassination
>
> 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.
objective.
There are plenty of them promoting conspiracy theories, but they aren't
the only ones, are they David?
Faced with ten times as much evidence that Oswald didn't fire all the
shots, than that he did, how many LN advocates around here have even had
the integrity to say, "maybe" ?
Robert Harris
olde...@gmail.com
Feb 21, 2014, 12:06:27 AM2/21/14
to
To Reitzes, McAdams, Von Pein, Harris:
All of you are talented authors that do a great public service with the
time you invest in explaining your take on the murders of President
Kennedy, Lee Oswald, J.D. Tippit & the attempted murder of John Connally
IMO. What you all have to say matters. Regardless of what anyone posts on
the Internet that is how I feel.
When it comes to bashing & person online I believe in a fair fight.
Otherwise, I see it as a case of bullyism. Nothing about a bully appeals
to me at all in any way.
Most, if not all of Jim DiEugenio's critiques are posted online at CTKA.
I've read David Von Pein's online rebuttal but haven't seen a response
from the good Professor or Mr. Reitzes yet. Each week I look for
something.
I am sure Jeff Morley has his hands full trying to maintain balance on his
website in an effort to be fair & objective. Those 2 words are drilled
into the mind of every professional journalist, along with the words 'who,
what, when, where & why'. It takes courage to write about people &
organizations that have the capacity to kill them once their piece is
publicized.
Just between us, I'd like to see all of you here working with Jeff
someday. Between all of you combined no stone would be left unturned. The
public couldn't ask for better IMO.
Brad
All of you are talented authors that do a great public service with the
time you invest in explaining your take on the murders of President
Kennedy, Lee Oswald, J.D. Tippit & the attempted murder of John Connally
IMO. What you all have to say matters. Regardless of what anyone posts on
the Internet that is how I feel.
When it comes to bashing & person online I believe in a fair fight.
Otherwise, I see it as a case of bullyism. Nothing about a bully appeals
to me at all in any way.
Most, if not all of Jim DiEugenio's critiques are posted online at CTKA.
I've read David Von Pein's online rebuttal but haven't seen a response
from the good Professor or Mr. Reitzes yet. Each week I look for
something.
I am sure Jeff Morley has his hands full trying to maintain balance on his
website in an effort to be fair & objective. Those 2 words are drilled
into the mind of every professional journalist, along with the words 'who,
what, when, where & why'. It takes courage to write about people &
organizations that have the capacity to kill them once their piece is
publicized.
Just between us, I'd like to see all of you here working with Jeff
someday. Between all of you combined no stone would be left unturned. The
public couldn't ask for better IMO.
Brad
Dave Reitzes
Feb 21, 2014, 10:19:31 AM2/21/14
to
On Thursday, February 20, 2014 9:00:55 PM UTC-5, olde...@gmail.com wrote:
> Jeff Morley doesn't need to ask you if you are a disinformation agent,
>
> Dave; some of his readers told him you were when he let you post on his
>
> website a few months back.
Changing the subject so soon, Brad? I don't blame you: I don't think I
> Jeff Morley doesn't need to ask you if you are a disinformation agent,
>
> Dave; some of his readers told him you were when he let you post on his
>
> website a few months back.
could defend Morley's conduct anymore than you could.
> My question to you is: when are you going to publish a rebuttal to Jim
>
> DiEugenio's online critique of you that's been online for many months now?
>
> If someone pummeled me like that I'd get off the ground & get at least one
>
> good punch in before I went unconscious, but that's just me. I'd like to
>
> read your side of things. I believe in a fair fight online.
violence, but perhaps these were just figures of speech. If you're saying
that you simply choose to consult as many alternative views as possible
before reaching any firm conclusions, that sounds admirable to me.
If you're sincerely interested in reading my side of things, as you say, I
would suggest you familiarize yourself with the works of mine that Jim was
criticizing in his piece, including my SKEPTIC article and my critique of
Oliver Stone's "JFK":
http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/jfk-conspiracy-theories-at-50-how-the-skeptics-got-it-wrong-and-why-it-matters/
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100menu.html
I also suggest you scrutinize my endnotes, verify the accuracy of my
sources, and avail yourself of the URLs provided for further study.
If, after doing so, you fail to see why Jim's criticisms are misguided,
I'll be happy to help.
I've tried to encourage others to do the same, but with no apparent
success. For example, I posted a link to Jim's article at several JFK
forums when it first appeared, including this one, Duncan MacRae's forum,
and the Education Forum. Granted, you won't be able to find my post at the
EF, unfortunately, because it has been deleted by the administrator, along
with everything else I ever posted there, as well as my membership.
Ironically, the offense that provoked my expulsion and the memory-holing
of all my posts was a question I asked about why Jim DiEugenio's posts at
that forum, as well as those of his CTKA associate Martin Hay, had
apparently been deleted by the site's administrators without explanation.
Some of Jim and Martin's posts over the years happen to have been highly
critical of my research, of course, and often quite insulting to me
personally, but -- as you would no doubt understand -- that's entirely
beside the point.
Someone once asked me a similar question to yours at Jeff Morley's forum
(it wasn't you, was it?), and I invited him to point out the criticisms in
DiEugenio's piece most deserving of a response. He explicitly declined.
Perhaps, if you have studied my work and still feel Jim's criticisms are
valid, you can do better.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Dave
olde...@gmail.com
Feb 21, 2014, 4:29:29 PM2/21/14
to
That was me, Dave. I don't remember if Jeff Morley published my comment or
not but I invited you to do a sentence by sentence, paragraph by paragraph
rebuttal. That I feel is fair. A one-sided 'critque' I don't feel is fair.
I've read all your published works including the footnotes.
The metaphor I used for 'online bashing' (a boxing match) may be a similar
vehicle Jim DiEugenio uses to drive whatever latest essay he publishes. If
it is, I really don't think it's necessary to bash you or anyone else
anymore than it's necessary to bad mouth a prosecutor or defense in a
trial. The trial needs both to be a trial.
I noted your expulsion from EF when it happened. I didn't quite get
exactly what your 'crime' was for such a harsh treatment. Asking a simple
question & getting kicked out of that Forum was extremely cruel &
unjustified IMO. Perhaps the man behind the curtain paying the bills is
having some personal demons he's dealing with? The public suffers when any
side of the complicated crimes of Dallas 50 years ago are not fully
explored & scrutinized.
You may be wondering if I am a LN, CT or whatever... I believe the truth
falls within 3 points of a triangle. Point A = Lee Oswald did it all
alone, Point B = Lee Oswald did it all with some help that escaped
detection, Point C = Someone other than Lee Oswald did it all.
In my mind I connect the 3 points with a line. The Truth is somewhere
inside that triangle. If my religious upbringing turns out to be true &
nothing I was told is a myth (as argued by Bugliosi), when my time is up I
will join John F., Jackie, John B., Nellie, Greer, Kellerman, Curry, Wade,
Fritz, Tippit, Ruby & all the others involved in that drama in knowing
everything about what happened.
not but I invited you to do a sentence by sentence, paragraph by paragraph
rebuttal. That I feel is fair. A one-sided 'critque' I don't feel is fair.
I've read all your published works including the footnotes.
The metaphor I used for 'online bashing' (a boxing match) may be a similar
vehicle Jim DiEugenio uses to drive whatever latest essay he publishes. If
it is, I really don't think it's necessary to bash you or anyone else
anymore than it's necessary to bad mouth a prosecutor or defense in a
trial. The trial needs both to be a trial.
I noted your expulsion from EF when it happened. I didn't quite get
exactly what your 'crime' was for such a harsh treatment. Asking a simple
question & getting kicked out of that Forum was extremely cruel &
unjustified IMO. Perhaps the man behind the curtain paying the bills is
having some personal demons he's dealing with? The public suffers when any
side of the complicated crimes of Dallas 50 years ago are not fully
explored & scrutinized.
You may be wondering if I am a LN, CT or whatever... I believe the truth
falls within 3 points of a triangle. Point A = Lee Oswald did it all
alone, Point B = Lee Oswald did it all with some help that escaped
detection, Point C = Someone other than Lee Oswald did it all.
In my mind I connect the 3 points with a line. The Truth is somewhere
inside that triangle. If my religious upbringing turns out to be true &
nothing I was told is a myth (as argued by Bugliosi), when my time is up I
will join John F., Jackie, John B., Nellie, Greer, Kellerman, Curry, Wade,
Fritz, Tippit, Ruby & all the others involved in that drama in knowing
everything about what happened.
John McAdams
Feb 21, 2014, 10:21:49 PM2/21/14
to
>I'm more intrigued by the fact that the guy lamenting the behavior of some
>in the research community is the same guy who, only a few days ago,
>refused to let John McAdams continue posting comments on his blog until
>John assured him that he was not any sort of undercover operative (and he
>takes a gratuitous swipe at John in the above article, although he's
>careful to distance himself from the view being expressed, attributing it
>to unnamed "others").
>
>He's also the guy who likened Dale Myers and Gus Russo to accessories in a
>CIA cover-up because they had the audacity to suggest that his published
>claims about the CIA and the Kennedy assassination went well beyond the
>evidence. (For example: "...Myers and Russo are determined to support the
>CIA in its efforts to block release of [classified files Morley is suing
>to obtain]. Their method is to pound the drums of conspiracy so as to
>drown out discussion of the unnecessary and unjustifiable CIA secrecy
>around JFK's assassination records.")
>
>http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2013/09/fanning-wisps-of-smoke.html
>
>
implies it's some sort of disinformation ploy from an intelligence
agency.
And he calls LNs "conspiracy deniers," which is intended to imply that
we are like holucaust deniers.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Dave Reitzes
Feb 22, 2014, 10:28:21 AM2/22/14
to
If you are the person I'm thinking of from the Morley blog (pardon me for
not bothering to check), then you did indeed decline to post even a single
criticism of my SKEPTIC article, which Mr. Morley was kind enough to
publicize, and felt it more appropriate, for whatever reason, to invite me
to do a line-by-line rebuttal of Jim's article, something I remain
confident would be a complete waste of my time. As I recall, I suggested
you select a few points of Jim's that you considered the most urgently in
need of a response, and you explicitly declined.
Why am I confident that a detailed response to Jim's attack would be a
waste of my time? Well, there are several reasons, but first and foremost,
there is a bit of history to consider: the article you reference is only
one of several hit pieces CTKA has run about me over the past 15 years;
and although I posted a rather lengthy response to the very first one they
published, I've seen absolutely no evidence to this day that even a single
one of my critics has read it.
In fact, there have been literally dozens of occasions when people have
reposted the hit piece in question at various blogs and forums in order to
attack me, and never once has any of these people even so much as hinted
that my website contains a very detailed response to the article they are
endorsing.
Given that history, it is highly unlikely I will waste more of my time
rebutting any of the other attacks CTKA has published about me (and may
well continue to publish about me in the future).
My earlier offer to you remains open, however. If indeed you have made a
good faith effort to familiarize yourself with my published work and my
sources, and you feel that nothing I have written explains why Jim's
criticisms miss their mark, then it is only reasonable that I make a good
faith effort to address some of your concerns.
So again I request that you choose what you consider just the two or three
most damaging criticisms Jim's article levels at my work (or "pummeled" me
most savagely, or seemed most likely to render me "unconscious," or
whatever terminology you consider most appropriate for the field of
historical inquiry).
I would prefer you start your own thread on the subject instead of
hijacking mine, of course, but I guess it's a little late for that.
Lurkers, I believe Brad is referring to this article of Jim's, which I
have referenced at this newsgroup before:
http://www.ctka.net/2013/flipflop.html
It criticizes such works of mine as my recent SKEPTIC article:
http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/jfk-conspiracy-theories-at-50-how-the-skeptics-got-it-wrong-and-why-it-matters/
I have previously invited interested parties to read my SKEPTIC article
and let me know what you think about it. Just as I've asked Brad to do,
you may also feel free to consult Jim's piece and see if you think any of
his criticisms requires a response.
Jim DiEugenio's CTKA has also previously criticized author and SKEPTIC
magazine publisher Michael Shermer on several occasions. I invite one and
all to consult an article of mine from a few years back that explains very
clearly why some of Shermer's teachings are relevant to the study of the
John F. Kennedy assassination:
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk-fringe.html
For a better understanding of where I'm coming from, I recommend reading
Shermer's book, WHY PEOPLE BELIEVE WEIRD THINGS, which I cite numerous
times in my article.
The DiEugenio piece referenced by Brad also criticizes my web article,
"The JFK 100: One Hundred Errors of Fact and Judgmenin Oliver Stone's
JFK":
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100menu.html
Again, anyone should feel free to let me know if you think my published
work fails to adequately address any of Jim's criticisms, or if others
have criticisms of their own. I have always had a policy of correcting any
demonstrable errors called to my attention, and I have made corrections
suggested by numerous researchers, including Robert Harris, Ken Rheberg,
Stuart Wexler, Thomas Graves, and surely quite a few others I am
overlooking. The rules are perfectly simple: Be specific and cite your
sources.
Thanks in advance for your kind assistance.
Dave
Anthony Marsh
Feb 22, 2014, 7:31:46 PM2/22/14
to
claiming that Watergate was an Agency operation. Nixon working for the
CIA? That's daft.
PRESIDENT: You think, you think we want to, want to go this route now?
And the--let it hang out, so to speak?
DEAN: Well, it's, it isn't really that--
HALDEMAN: It's a limited hang out.
DEAN: It's a limited hang out.
EHRLICHMAN: It's a modified limited hang out.
PRESIDENT: Well, it's only the questions of the thing hanging out
publicly or privately.
> And he calls LNs "conspiracy deniers," which is intended to imply that
> we are like holucaust deniers.
>
> .John
> -----------------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
0 new messages