Kathy Becket is the head man at the Education Forum...

[Mike]

Well it has taken a year but little by little details of who exactly are
the new owners of the Education Forum are beginning to trickle out.

Kathy Becket, John Simkins right hand man, has emerged as the head man
at the Education Forum.

Many thought it was James Gordon but this post from DVP's site from
James Gordon clears that up.

It should be noted that Kathy Becket is a very strong defender of Gary
Mack.



JAMES R. GORDON SAID:

David,

You misunderstand the present administration: I am not the head man. When
this administration [at The Education Forum] came together, the leader
then and now is Kathy [Becket]. We do allow each member to act
independently and that is what you saw today [5/16/15]. And if truth be
told, I am aware I really did act before thinking. I was very angry and it
was maybe intemperate to act as I did.

However, this situation has raised issues that I had not thought about
which may - and stress may - not be fully covered by our guidance to
members. However, the administration see this guidance as more a work in
progress than fixed statutes.

I accept that you have a very firm understanding of the assassination, and
I do not expect that to change. However, the way you treat members - like
you have done with me - and humiliate and insult them has raised a serious
question. The thread on the SBT is one where members really do want an
open discussion. However, although members raised questions for you, you
simply brushed them away. One member of the admin team said to me that you
???will always make light of any "inconvenient" [to you] facts, and will
then ridicule anyone who supports those facts.??? I would hope that - even
if that is the case now - it would not always remain the case and that you
could be more positively involved in debate.

This forum needs someone with your grounding in and understanding of the
Warren Commission - but I have been wondering since I suspended your
privileges whether the EF needs someone who looks down on those who hold a
different opinion to the assassination that you hold. If you are just
going to inform fellow members of your opinion and those of the
Commission, as opposed to openly discussing issues that members really
want to discuss, then I am not sure what the EF benefits from this - let
alone what you benefit from it.

I would be interested in hearing your thinking on this issue.

James.

[Mike]

This explains why nothing really changed at the ed forum when the
ownership supposedly changed. People who were banned before remain banned
after, people who were on moderation before remain on moderation after.
All the wishes of John Simkin remain intack...Kathy Becket is John Simkins
right hand man...still.

[Mike]

> me that you “will always make light of any "inconvenient" [to you]
> facts, and will then ridicule anyone who supports those facts.” I would

> hope that - even if that is the case now - it would not always remain
> the case and that you could be more positively involved in debate.
>
> This forum needs someone with your grounding in and understanding of the
> Warren Commission - but I have been wondering since I suspended your
> privileges whether the EF needs someone who looks down on those who hold
> a different opinion to the assassination that you hold. If you are just
> going to inform fellow members of your opinion and those of the
> Commission, as opposed to openly discussing issues that members really
> want to discuss, then I am not sure what the EF benefits from this - let
> alone what you benefit from it.
>
> I would be interested in hearing your thinking on this issue.
>
> James.
>

The question now is who is providing the funds? That is a valid question.

Debra Conway gave rights to Lancer forum to the edforum ( Kathy Beckett?
) However the Lancer forum supposedly was hacked and needs a great deal
of software support to get it back into shape. The current estimate is
about 1 year.

A cheap software engineer would cost them $50,000 for 1 years worth of
work. A more reasonable estimate would be $100,000 for that work.

So where are they getting their funds? Who is financing this? What is
the relationship between Gary Mack and the education forum?

Since they are going to be in control of both Lancer and the edforum
these are valid questions.

[Mike]

> me that you ???will always make light of any "inconvenient" [to you]
> facts, and will then ridicule anyone who supports those facts.??? I would

> hope that - even if that is the case now - it would not always remain
> the case and that you could be more positively involved in debate.
>
> This forum needs someone with your grounding in and understanding of the
> Warren Commission - but I have been wondering since I suspended your
> privileges whether the EF needs someone who looks down on those who hold
> a different opinion to the assassination that you hold. If you are just
> going to inform fellow members of your opinion and those of the
> Commission, as opposed to openly discussing issues that members really
> want to discuss, then I am not sure what the EF benefits from this - let
> alone what you benefit from it.
>
> I would be interested in hearing your thinking on this issue.
>
> James.
>

Theoretically you should not have to come here, to alt.assassination.jfk
to find out who the head honcho at the education forum happens to be.

But this is consistent with a pattern of secrecy that exists at that
forum.

When they ask for money there should be no secrets!

[Mike]

> me that you “will always make light of any "inconvenient" [to you]
> facts, and will then ridicule anyone who supports those facts.” I would

> hope that - even if that is the case now - it would not always remain
> the case and that you could be more positively involved in debate.
>
> This forum needs someone with your grounding in and understanding of the
> Warren Commission - but I have been wondering since I suspended your
> privileges whether the EF needs someone who looks down on those who hold
> a different opinion to the assassination that you hold. If you are just
> going to inform fellow members of your opinion and those of the
> Commission, as opposed to openly discussing issues that members really
> want to discuss, then I am not sure what the EF benefits from this - let
> alone what you benefit from it.
>
> I would be interested in hearing your thinking on this issue.
>
> James.
>

Everyone thought it was James Gordon who was in charge. He wrote the
rules. He made the announcement of a change of ownership.

All of that was intentional. They did not want members to know who was
in charge. Who was calling the shots.

Kathy Becket determines who can join and who cannot join, who is on
moderation and who is not on moderation. She and she alone makes those
decisions probably with the assistance of John Simkin.

When the forum changed ownership and new rules came into effect everyone
should have been given the chance to start fresh under the new rules,
this did not happen and it was never supposed to happen it was probably
part of the change of ownership agreement.

[Mike]

This message from James Gordon really does not make sense.

It was James Gordon who wrote the pinned article on terms of forum use.
If was James Gordon who wrote the pinned article on membership behavior
and setting out the forum rules.
It was James Gordon who wrote the pinned article on process to donate to
the forum.
It was James Gordon who wrote the article on the lancer forum.


YET, we find out that he is not in charge. Were they ever going to tell
their members?

[pjsp...@aol.com]

This is pure nonsense, Mike. And quite childish. I suggest you email Kathy
and James via the Ed Forum and ask to be removed from moderation. Tell
them you will publicly apologize for all the nonsense you've spewed. Maybe
it will work. I told you that was your best option, and yet you refuse to
do so. So...I have to ask? On what planet do people behaving as you have
get rewarded?

Here are a list of some of your mistakes.

1. You assume there is a time limit on moderation. This is not true.
People on moderation normally get removed from moderation after
demonstrating that they can practice RESTRAINT. You have demonstrated, if
anything, a lack of restraint. Yeah, let's campaign for release from
moderation by making up a bunch of nonsense and posting it on other
forums. Brilliant.

2. You assume Gary Mack has a powerful influence over the forum. This is
quite silly. As a non-posting member of the forum, Gary's words carry even
less weight than...yours.

3. You assume John Simkin has retained substantial influence over the
forum. This is not true. While John remains a valued member, he has no say
on who gets accepted for membership or who gets removed from moderation.
Towards the end of John's reigh, a number of prominent members left the
forum--some were removed by John, and some left it in protest. To my
understanding, it remains the hope of the new team that many of those who
left will in time return. As John erased the old posts of some of these
members, however, their return seems most unlikely.

4. You insult Kathy without knowing much about her. Kathy is not a
theorist. She doesn't speak at conventions. No, she prefers to sit on the
sidelines. But that said, she strongly believes that the posts on the
Lancer and Ed Forums have historical significance. She then rose up to try
to save them from evaporation. Included within these posts are YOUR posts,
Mike. As a result she deserves your thanks, not your insults.

5. You assume people on the forum are disturbed by your theories, and want
to suppress them. This is a joke, right? If I recall, you refuse to read
much of the important source material one needs to read to have a valid
opinion on the case. And it's not as if you have anything new to offer.
You have not posted one bit of information anybody finds of interest, of
which I am aware, and your personal theories lead to a lot raised eyebrows
and shrugs. Much as they do here.

[Mark OBLAZNEY]

And they should still replace those posts they erased back on the board.
Book burners.

[pjsp...@aol.com]

It was not a "they", Mark, but John Simkin acting on his own. After
suffering through years of abuse at the hands of some members, he decided
to teach them a lesson. Several moderators and long-time members left the
forum in disgust. He then said "Fine. I'm sick of it all. I'll let the
whole place go down." James and Kathy et al then rose up to save what was
left. If there was any way to bring back the lost posts, I'm sure they
would have done so. But, alas, it appears they're gone forever.

The book burning analogy, btw, doesn't hold. The Forum was owned by Andy
and John. A better analogy, IMO, is a lending library. John owned a
lending library, where people could drop off stuff for others to read.
Some of the members started calling him a jerk or a liar every time they
came in. So he told them to stop coming in and threw away their material.
Now you might think this was wrong. The important distinction, however,
is that he didn't single these people out based upon their ideas (I mean,
DVP is still a member), but based upon their behavior.

[Bud]

On Monday, May 25, 2015 at 2:41:10 PM UTC-4, Mike wrote:
> Well it has taken a year but little by little details of who exactly are
> the new owners of the Education Forum are beginning to trickle out.
>
> Kathy Becket, John Simkins right hand man, has emerged as the head man
> at the Education Forum.
>
> Many thought it was James Gordon but this post from DVP's site from
> James Gordon clears that up.
>
> It should be noted that Kathy Becket is a very strong defender of Gary
> Mack.
>
>
>
> JAMES R. GORDON SAID:
>
> David,
>
> You misunderstand the present administration: I am not the head man. When
> this administration [at The Education Forum] came together, the leader
> then and now is Kathy [Becket]. We do allow each member to act
> independently and that is what you saw today [5/16/15]. And if truth be
> told, I am aware I really did act before thinking. I was very angry and it
> was maybe intemperate to act as I did.

He got angry because DVP was challenging his core beliefs. He needs the
SBT to be false because he needs Oswald to be a patsy.

> However, this situation has raised issues that I had not thought about
> which may - and stress may - not be fully covered by our guidance to
> members. However, the administration see this guidance as more a work in
> progress than fixed statutes.
>
> I accept that you have a very firm understanding of the assassination, and
> I do not expect that to change. However, the way you treat members - like
> you have done with me - and humiliate and insult them has raised a serious
> question. The thread on the SBT is one where members really do want an
> open discussion. However, although members raised questions for you, you
> simply brushed them away. One member of the admin team said to me that you
> ???will always make light of any "inconvenient" [to you] facts, and will
> then ridicule anyone who supports those facts.??? I would hope that - even
> if that is the case now - it would not always remain the case and that you
> could be more positively involved in debate.

Actually DVP was hammering these clowns with facts. They were getting
destroyed in the debate so they had to make it into something DVP is doing
wrong.

> This forum needs someone with your grounding in and understanding of the
> Warren Commission - but I have been wondering since I suspended your
> privileges whether the EF needs someone who looks down on those who hold a
> different opinion to the assassination that you hold.

These conspiracy hobbyists can`t wrap their heads around the notion that
their ideas are not worthy of respect.

And you can go to the discussion on the SBT on EF and see the number of
snide remarks and put downs DVP had to endure. The difference being he
didn`t cry about it. He made his bones in the nuthouse, and you`ll develop
a tough skin in that place.

> If you are just
> going to inform fellow members of your opinion and those of the
> Commission, as opposed to openly discussing issues that members really
> want to discuss,

See, this hobbyist is completely out of touch with reality. DVP was not
parroting the WC or just throwing out unsupported opinions, he was backing
up his contentions using the evidence. He was showing why he was right and
these folks were wrong. And man did they hate that.

> then I am not sure what the EF benefits from this - let
> alone what you benefit from it.

He admitted he made you angry, that alone is enough. It`s called
winning.

[Mark OBLAZNEY]

Well, I'm sure there are some former EF members no longer there that might
have a different view of things. So John just........ wiped them out,
huh? And what of Fetzer's posts over there ? Not fair.

[Anthony Marsh]

Does anything on the InterNet really disappear forever? You can bet
they're on an NSA server somewhere for reference.

> The book burning analogy, btw, doesn't hold. The Forum was owned by Andy
> and John. A better analogy, IMO, is a lending library. John owned a
> lending library, where people could drop off stuff for others to read.
> Some of the members started calling him a jerk or a liar every time they
> came in. So he told them to stop coming in and threw away their material.
> Now you might think this was wrong. The important distinction, however,
> is that he didn't single these people out based upon their ideas (I mean,
> DVP is still a member), but based upon their behavior.
>

Library? Do you understand the concept of a public forum?
When someone starts a public forum to discuss a controversial subject
they should not pretend to be shocked that people disagree.

[Anthony Marsh]

Does that make her a serious researcher when she know nothing about the
case?

> Lancer and Ed Forums have historical significance. She then rose up to try
> to save them from evaporation. Included within these posts are YOUR posts,
> Mike. As a result she deserves your thanks, not your insults.
>

So then she archived everything. So, where is the controversy?

> 5. You assume people on the forum are disturbed by your theories, and want
> to suppress them. This is a joke, right? If I recall, you refuse to read

I would hope if they are sane.

> much of the important source material one needs to read to have a valid
> opinion on the case. And it's not as if you have anything new to offer.

Mike doesn't do research. He theorizes.

> You have not posted one bit of information anybody finds of interest, of
> which I am aware, and your personal theories lead to a lot raised eyebrows
> and shrugs. Much as they do here.
>

I would hope that he's even more bizarre there.

[Mike]

Since I have been contacted by someone at the ed forum and it looks like I
may be able to post freely once again over there I will restrict my
response to your last comment...

5) I never said people were disturbed by my theories. I asked you why are
you censoring me. You responded to that question by accusing me of
thinking that my theories were somehow so dangerous that then needed to be
censored. That was the furthest thing from my mind at that time, but
obviously not the furthest thing from your mind.

I may not have many followers, but I have a few very important
followers. People who know. In fact one of my followers is one of the most
recognized name in the entire JFK research community!

I am the best photo analysts that is currently working on this case. I
have many discoveries.

I am also one of the best researchers working on the acoustic evidence
at this time.

You say I do not read the important source material.

What I actually said was that I do not read all of the myriads of books
from third party authors. I read the evidence. Not the 3rd party books.
That is one of the reasons that I know what I know.


I have stated many times that I believe the solution to this case
contained in the photographic evidence.

Here is a quote from Josiah Thompson...

"If you want to find out what happened in Dealey Plaza, start out with
the photographic record of what happened there." -Josiah Thompson

In stead of chastising me for not reading the third party books I suggest
that you become better at photo interpretation.


How people react to what I post, whether they find it new or not, I
cannot control. But the fact that you make that statement just shows how
bitter you are.

Here are few of the things that I did recently all of them a new
perspective. And if I had time ( and motivation ) I could bring up quite a
few more.

Keep your mic off
https://soundcloud.com/gknoll605/keep-your-mic-off

Video of Connally reacting to two closely spaced shots

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEwbtP_9lPY&feature=youtu.be

John Connally describes shot from hand gun

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daq36wOq_yA&feature=youtu.be