I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak (new book)

[Kathy Becket]

 Brian, if you must know, I don't know if PM is really PW or not.
But I do want you to know that there is no way in God's Green Earth you are going to come back to the Ed Forum, at least not for a good long while.  You say the nastiest things about the Admins there. I don't know how many times I have seen you called James a B*****d on FB, etc.  You say on here that you want to sue him, and I have no idea how the heck you'd pull that off.  You do not have a right to be a forum member--it is a privilege--you have no legal ground on which to stand. 

I wouldn't care if you believe the Man in the Moon shot JFK--if you were a nice civil person, you could have stayed.  You are one of the most narcissistic posters I've ever seen.  The way you talk about your research has me rolling on the floor.  And usu if somebody disagrees with you, you  call them names. It does not mean that the person disagreeing with you is a liar.  You just get bent out of shape when someone disagrees.  You really need to ask yourself honestly, why you have been kicked off so many forums--it's not because of your research.

And the part about cursed by God--as if God is going to step on folk because they don't agree with you. Wow!!!! What an ego!  Hey, God knows the difference between a lie and  an opinion.


So you may be presenting at Lancer next year? Bully! Try not to be so haughty when you go--you'll do a better job. 

[Tom Scully]

Kathy, since you have commented in your capacity of *d *orum "poobah" it seems appropriate to remind you of
the lack of sagacious or apologetic virtues exhibited by you and the rest of your "team". Ironically, your comments
directed in this thread at Albert/Brian/Ralph are of persuasively greater weight because they seem so out of character,
compared to what I have come to expect!

Those of comparatively larger pulpits may unite to magnify their version, but are no match for facts less loudly presented.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/07/peter-janney/the-autodaf-of-lisa-pease-and-jamesdieugenio-tomas-de-torquemada-and-the-spanish-inquisition-return-in-a-new-era-of-suppression-of-freedom-of-thought-and-adherence-to-a-rigid-dogma-namely-thei/
The Autodaf of Lisa Pease and James DiEugenio Tomas de Torquemada and the Spanish Inquisition return in a new era of suppression of freedom of thought and adherence to a rigid dogma - namely their own prejudices!
By Peter Janney

July 6, 2012
...It doesn't seem to matter to Pease that "Mitchell" has never been able to be located since the trial,..

Mary's Mosaic: The CIA Conspiracy to Murder John F. Kennedy, Mary ...
https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1510708936
Peter Janney - 2016 - ‎History
 ... written by a DiEugenio prot?g? whose name, I discovered, was Tom Scully, but ...

......I haven?t missed the point, Evan; I believe you may have missed mine.

There is much evidence open to debate, because it can be construed more than one way. That?s fair game. It?s a difference of opinion that makes a horse race, they say.

However, just as a recent example, Paul Trejo asserted that there were 20 witnesses to Oswald?s abuse of his wife Marina. Were he merely ignorant of the actual facts - which is a recurring pattern with him, as I?ve demonstrated - that doesn?t make him a xxxx; it merely means he?s wrong and needs to be corrected.

In order to correct his blatant misrepresentation of the facts, I meticulously searched through the testimony and demonstrated beyond doubt that most of the people Paul Trejo included in his ?20" figure had no such direct first-hand knowledge and did not testify as he said they did.

Nevertheless, and despite acknowledging the "20" figure was overstated, Paul Trejo thereafter still contended there were twenty witnesses. At this point, it is no longer a mistake - because he?s been shown and admitted the error of his ways - and is an outright falsehood. Fairly clear instance, wouldn?t you think? I raise the point because I think there is a parallel with the Janney episode.

A few observations which I?ll try to keep brief.

From the little bit of correspondence we?ve had during the eight years I?ve been a member here, I believe John Simkin to be a liberal egalitarian who felt he could construct the single best and most effective JFK site by inviting the best researchers and authors. A laudable goal, and one he achieved I think. (It is a measure of his liberalism that he has granted membership to persons such as Jim DiEugenio, who had written some unflattering things about John prior to joining here.)

Because authors were invited by John, he no doubt hoped that they?d be treated with civility by the Forum membership. Contrary to the analogy offered, I don?t think this is John?s living room, but his classroom. He has invited visiting lecturers, through whom we might benefit by learning more, and they might benefit by selling some books.

Unfortunately for some of those authors, the membership here proved to be as well versed - or more so - than the authors who presume to educate us. Fireworks is predictably inevitable, particularly if authors expected deference rather than civility. Haughtiness ensues, due to wounded pride. But whom should we fault for this? The authors, whose case has not been made beyond a reasonable doubt? Or the members who point out that failing on the authors? part?

This is multiply true in the case of Peter Janney?s book. John Simkin not only invited Peter here, but I believe provided him with some material aid in preparing his book (please correct me if I?m wrong on this), and subscribes to the book?s central premise that CIA murdered Mary Pinchot Meyer. (As it happens, I am inclined to concur with that assertion. That does not require me - or anyone - to accept Janney?s scenario for the crime if compelling evidence is not presented.)

Both the ousted members found reasonable fault with Janney?s book and demonstrated that some of the evidence presented was underwhelming at best, incorrect at worst. In fact, ex-moderator Tom Scully seemed to have located the man Janney accused of being Mary Meyer?s murderer, a man whom Janney himself claimed he was unable to find. Most of the comments made by the ousted members seemed fair game to me. But then, I don?t have a personal relationship with Peter Janney.

I believe that John has inadvertently admitted that he put his thumb on the scale in Janney?s favour:

?The main reason I did not act on this was because I was part of the argument. If I had tried to restrain these attacks I would have been accused of being biased and interfering with free speech. Even so, it was no real excuse for not protecting a friend.?

If a friend has been proved wrong, as I believe Janney had been by the ousted members, he doesn?t need protection; he needs correction. If he is unwilling to be corrected when shown persuasive evidence by forum members, a true friend shares some harsh truth with him. The alternative is to allow said friend to flail fruitlessly with a demonstrably flawed scenario, an allowance that does no favor to the friend, or the truth. Those who persist in pushing data they know to be wrong are no longer merely mistaken; they are trafficking in falsehoods. It is a disservice to this Forum?s raison d?etre to remain silent in such a case, irrespective of who the trafficker may be.

Those who refused to remain silent were the ones made to pay the price of excommunication, well after Janney ceased to post here.

I have written the foregoing to respond to something directed specifically to me. If DiEugenio and Scully are not re-instated as members, it will be my last post here, for reasons I think I have made sufficiently clear.

Edited June 16, 2013 by Robert Charles-Dunne

[Kathy Becket]

I couldn't figure out where I had called you a bully, so I reread my post:

So you may be presenting at Lancer next year? Bully! Try not to be so haughty when you go--you'll do a better job.

The "Bully" meaning  here is the same meaning Teddy R. gave to it.  I wasn't calling you a bully.     However, it was said sarcastically.

[Ray Mitcham]

I couldn't figure out where I had called you a bully, so I reread my post:The "Bully" meaning  here is the same meaning Teddy R. gave to it.  I wasn't calling you a bully.     However, it was said sarcastically.

Agreed, Kathy, as in "bully for you."

"A way of saying "Good for you!" or "Kudos." Also see bully.

It wasn't always used in a sarcastic tone, but considering how it's changed over time, people do use it in that way.

"In older times, the word 'bully' also had a couple of positive meanings, the only trace of which is left in the expression 'bully for you,' which is still occasionally used in British English - I can't comment on US English. I've mostly heard it used in a derisive or sarcastic way, along the lines of 'Well then, aren't *YOU* the clever one?'" "

[Thomas Graves]

Agreed, Kathy, as in "bully for you."

"A way of saying "Good for you!" or "Kudos." Also see bully.

It wasn't always used in a sarcastic tone, but considering how it's changed over time, people do use it in that way.

"In older times, the word 'bully' also had a couple of positive meanings, the only trace of which is left in the expression 'bully for you,' which is still occasionally used in British English - I can't comment on US English. I've mostly heard it used in a derisive or sarcastic way, along the lines of 'Well then, aren't *YOU* the clever one?'" "

Spot on, Old Bean.

Come to think of it, isn't the EF just James "Jumbo Duh" DiEugenio's, Michael "Gas-X" Clark's, and David "Mister Rude" Josephs' virtual bully pulpit?

-- Tommy 

[Rob Caprio]

Ray,

James DiEugenio?

You mean the high school history teacher who as recently as March 21st of this year stated on the EF that Alger Hiss was not a spy for the Kremlin?

The guy who idolizes intellectually-dishonest Jefferson Morley (see my 1-star review of Morley's "The Ghost" on Amazon, under the name dumptrumputin)?

The guy who refused to applaud at the conclusion of John Newman's "Spy Wars" presentation in San Francisco in March because Newman, having read Tennent H. Bagley's excellent book by the same name, is now convinced that Yuri Nosenko was a false defector, and Anatoliy Golitsyn a true one?

The guy who was sad that the Communist candidate lost the election to Yeltsin?

The guy whom Bill Kelley told me over the phone was a "cracker"?

The guy who is idolized on RT?

The guy who bemoans the demise of Alex Jones?

That James DiEugenio?

LOL

-- Tommy 

Why do LNers always mock instead of deal with the evidence?

[Rob Caprio]

Duncan,

That sounds about right.

Thanks,
-- Tommy 

PS  I just now did a little "research" and came up with this article, in which Cooper is mentioned, and Jumbo Duh is actually quoted for his "expert opinion."

LOL

How ironic!

https://www.thedailybeast.com/who-really-killed-jfk-experts-pick-the-wildest-conspiracy-theories

I've read where Cooper was attacked by self-proclaimed CTers like Lifton and Groden over the driver did it theory. This proves not everyone is what they claim to be.

I don't know if Greer shot JFK or not and that is the point. Due to no real investigation ever being done nothing, outside of the ridiculous SBT, can be ruled out. Cooper said in his book that he was viewing an enhanced version of the Zapruder film from Japan. Unless any of us have seen this, how can we say  he was bonkers?

Clint Hill and other witnesses said they heard a sound that was similar to a pistol. How do we explain this?

[Rob Caprio]

My earlier post, with the promised footnote added (my laptop ran out of juice).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Caprio wrote:

Telling people to read something is a copout. Five people can read something and come away with a different conclusion. *You* claimed on this board that the KGB and Russians killed JFK and still have NOT offered one piece of evidence for this claim.

Your opinion is duly noted.

...
...


Rob,

1) You're afraid to read one page in a well-sourced book I posted for you because somehow what's written on that page (paraphrasing here, Rob) "is open to five different interpretations by any five different people" (that's life, Rob), and yet you want me to post my (fact-based) opinions here (identical to what Bagley wrote in Spy Wars and Ghosts of the Spy Wars, and what Riebling wrote in Wedge (*with one exception so far; see below) so that you can .......... READ them?

How ironic.

2) I'm running away from my "opinion" that Khrushchev and / or Castro were responsible for the death of JFK, with or without a programmed-in-Minsk Oswald?

LOL!


-- Tommy   

PS  Whom do you believe killed JFK, Rob?

Got any uncontroverted "evidence" to back up your ....... opinion?

Did you form your opinions about the assassination by reading books, watching videos?

Are there any you think I should read / watch to bring me around to your way of thinking (whatever it is), or did your current "opinions" somehow spring automatically / mystically ... into your ..... mind?

LOL

* EDIT: On page 126 of the 1994 edition of Wedge, Riebling says Bedell Smith was U.S. ambassador to the Soviet Union when CIA officer Edward Ellis Smith (look him up) became the first CIA officer recruited by the KGB (in Moscow in late 1956), when in fact Charles Bohlen was ambassador at the time.

In case you're interested, Edward Ellis Smith (or someone HE helped KGB to recruit in the U.S.) was that great JFK researcher Peter Dale Scott's "Popov's Mole," the never-uncovered-during-his-lifetime traitor whom Angleton may have sent Oswald to Moscow to try to "dangle out," and whom false defector Yuri Nosenko successfully protected by giving false information to Tennent H. Bagley and George Kisevalter in Geneva in 1962.  You know, Yuri Nosenko, the KGB officer who "defected" to the U.S. six weeks after the assassination and swore up and down that the KGB hadn't  even interviewed Odwald during the 2.5 years the Marine Corps radar operator lived in The Workers' Paradise?

LOL

-------------------------------------

-- Tommy   

Thanks for expressing your opinion and other peoples' opinions. Give me a reason why the Russians would want JFK dead.