The Ed Forum is having a total Meltdown and chicken bones!

[Peter Goth]

You don't get it at all, do you?

what don't I get?
you don't own this platform.

[Peter Kleinschmidt]

Sorry, it's the right wingers who are the fascists who try to silence the opposition through intimidation and false representation. When pro NFL Football players took a knee during the anthem to bring awareness to police brutality, it was Donald Trump and his racist hatemongers who falsely misrepresented what the players were doing  demanding boycotts of the NFL and trying to silence an individual's freedom of speech through direct intimidation. Learn what your're talking about before you post false comments.

his racist hatemongers who falsely misrepresented what the players were doing  demanding boycotts of the NFL

Who tried to silence him? He silenced himself. You can have it both ways and he did. The whole idea was to get attention so why are you complaining? You're just fueling the nonsense. Freedom of speech is what he got but you can't accept that his attempts to hide behind it wore off. If he wanted to play games why is he in retreat? Answer: Because freedom of speech doesn't apply where you are employed but he got his attention and you fell for the excuse of police brutality when it really was attention he wanted for himself. If he believed what he suckered you into believing, then why didn't the fraud do it when he was in the Super bowl instead of when he was playing his own fantasy football? He is a dysfunctional headcase. And don't be screaming racism just because you have nothing intelligent to say. Plus you may well be projecting. On the other hand,  I am German and I hate everyone equally, therefore, I do not discriminate

[David Von Pein]

To Dave VP,

I've always wanted to ask you this. You're obviously a staunch supporter of the official theories and their subsequent conclusions. That Oswald murdered Kennedy all by himself, that all shots were fired by him, that he murdered Tippit all by himself, and that Jack Ruby, also acting alone, went down into the basement and murdered Oswald because he was patriotic and wanted to spare Jackie Kennedy the turmoil of coming to Dallas and testifying at Oswald's trial.

You don't seem to be a Kennedy hater since you post all manner of radio broadcasts, TV broadcasts and such on your site. You've created a nice historical record of Kennedy. Now, I also know that you run ads on that site so I don't know if your motives are truly altruistic.

But anyway, back to that pesky question I wanted to ask you. Do you not find anything - anything at all - in this case that's just a tiny bit odd, that goes just a little bit beyond the pale of it being coincidental? Anything that just seems like it couldn't happen that way because it just seems ever so slightly implausible?

Now, I'm asking you this for an honest discussion and I'm not trying to stir any spombleprofglidnoctobuns with you here. And please don't post all manner of links to your site here. I'd like to hear it from you directly. Because, let's face it, there are plenty of LN crazies out there as well CT crazies. Like many CT crazies do, posting crazy spombleprofglidnoctobuns about Oswald's teeth and math formulas related to the Z film and the Russians did it, there are also LN crazies posting all kinds of crazy animated GIFs and such and often dodging genuine debate.

So I'd like to just hear your thoughts on this, about why you think it's 100% Oswald, all of the time.

Hi Michael,

The simple answer (which I still think is the best one) regarding why I think Lee Harvey Oswald was the one and only killer of President Kennedy and Officer Tippit is....

Because all of the evidence (plus Oswald's very incriminating actions on both November 21 and 22 of 1963) point to that "simple" conclusion.

And I've seen nothing produced by any conspiracy theorist over the years that would make me want to start to believe that ALL of the "Oswald Did It" evidence was phony, fake, or created from whole cloth by the authorities.

And if that evidence WASN'T faked or manufactured, then Lee Oswald is certainly a guilty double-murderer. (Everyone--even CTers--can surely agree with that last statement---right?)

As far as there being anything that gives me pause when it comes to believing in Oswald's sole guilt....

The biggest "mystery" (for me) in the whole JFK case, as I have admitted many times in the past, continues to be the one sub-topic that has had me scratching my head the most---and that is:

Why did so many witnesses at Parkland Hospital in Dallas (and even some witnesses at Bethesda) truly believe there was a large wound in the occipital area of JFK's head? It's rather inexplicable to me that many different medical professionals could say they saw something which the autopsy photographs and X-rays prove was simply NOT THERE at the back of President Kennedy's head.

But when assessing this "Back Of The Head" controversy, we must seek and find the BEST evidence to try and explain the contradictions....wouldn't everyone agree?

And, in my opinion, the photos and X-rays of the deceased President, taken at Bethesda Naval Hospital on the night of JFK's autopsy on 11/22/63 (which are pictures and X-rays that "had not been altered in any manner", per Page 41 of HSCA Volume 7), certainly would (and should, IMO) qualify as the "Best Evidence" when it comes to this topic concerning the important question of Where were the wounds located on JFK's head?

And since I have no better explanation than the one Dr. Michael Baden provided for author Vincent Bugliosi in a telephone call between those two men on January 8, 2000, I will continue to prop up Dr. Baden's explanation as the probable correct one:



[Click the Baden quote above for an Easter Egg link.]

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

I know you said you didn't want to be bothered with any of my ubiquitous website links, but I'm going to provide the link to my "BOH" series anyway. It can help to further explore and flesh out my thoughts about the strange "Back Of The Head" matter:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#JFK-Head-Wounds

[Steve Howsley]

what don't I get?
you don't own this platform.

Such an angry display from someone who has been here for just 3 days. 

[Peter Goth]

Such an angry display from someone who has been here for just 3 days. 

You hear a tone in that?
- it seems stance changes around here, pretty quickly.
I'm just trying to find what I'm missing..perhaps you can tell me.
How about this... David too...

If I owned a radio station, and you were one of my jocks.
One night, you had a bad dinner at Olive Garden, and the next day you went on the air bashing OG, and I fire you.

Would you have needed a rule for that in writing before you went on the air? 

[David Von Pein]

If I owned a radio station, and you were one of my jocks.
One night, you had a bad dinner at Olive Garden, and the next day you went on the air bashing OG, and I fire you.

Would you have needed a rule for that in writing before you went on the air?

But in that example, I'm not an employee of Olive Garden. So how is that situation analogous to the situation with me at the EF forum?

~shrug~

IMO, your above example would have been more akin to the "EF / DVP" situation if you would have had me (as a disc jockey) bashing my boss at the radio station, instead of bringing in a third party (Olive Garden) for me to bash.

~a second shrug~

[Peter Goth]

But in that example, I'm not an employee of Olive Garden. So how is that situation analogous to the situation with me at the EF forum?

~shrug~

IMO, your above example would have been more akin to the "EF / DVP" situation if you would have had me (as a disc jockey) bashing my boss at the radio station, instead of bringing in a third party (Olive Garden) for me to bash.

~a second shrug~

It has nothing to do with who it is you bash.
Do you think you can go on my air and bash Olive Garden?
 and yes you can say whatever you want and here's the key part, expect to come back to work tomorrow?

you can't. you don't get that?

[David Von Pein]

It has nothing to do with who it is you bash.
Do you think you can go on my air and bash Olive Garden? - and yes you can say whatever you want and here's the key part, expect to come back to work tomorrow?

After having thought about your "Olive Garden" example for a few more minutes....I'd say:

The radio station was definitely wrong to fire me for merely expressing my opinion about the bad experience I had at the OG restaurant. It's not a valid enough reason for firing a disc jockey (IMO). Not nearly valid enough. Again----it's Free Speech. As long as I didn't get TOO severe in my OG criticism (such as threatening to kill the lousy waitress or blow up the building), I'd say that my on-air criticism of the Olive Garden Restaurant located at 10206 North Michigan Road in Carmel, Indiana, would not be enough of a reason for being axed by the radio station (where I had been employed since 1971, btw).

Do you think my negative comments about a restaurant was the FIRST TIME in the radio station's history that an on-air personality went "off script" and said something of a "Negative" nature about a restaurant or another person or a Government or an automobile manufacturer or anything else? Come now, my good man. Let's get real.

Tomorrow (if I'm re-hired at the station), I'm going to bash O.J. Simpson, because I think he was a murderer. Will I be fired for a second time for expressing another of my opinions?