JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Tom Scully on July 24, 2019, 03:14:06 AM
-
In the recently resurrected Kilgallen thread, I proved Kilgallen "biographer" Lee Israel, had crapped all over Simkin's forum. (If the poster Simkin introduced as Lee Israel, was in fact, Lee Israel!)
My warnings were ignored, at the time in 2012, and since, despite Lee Israel's exposure as a criminal forger. There is no policy at that
forum or the Spartacus biography pages to update or to disclaim. The result is nurturing of suspicion by misinfo. The stated goal is steady turn out of new Spartacus pages.... content to attract eyeballs at the expense of accuracy. Penn Jones was motivated to create and sell content via his local newspaper and book authorship BUSINESSES. The result of both of these prolific authors of successive generations is evident in every CT oriented forum and website. (whowhatwhy.com recently featured misinfo presented by author Peter Janney...)
I have volunteered as a moderator of comments submitted to both the Simkin and the jfkfacts.org forums. I got "sucked in" late, not until 2008.
My firsthand experience included being old enough to react to assassin Ruby, on the 24th, with profound concern. My only bias beyond that was the emotional shred from seeing JFK in person in 1962, riding by in an open car illuminated by a brilliant autumn sunset. It was not hard to plug that memory into the nightmare visuals of the Z film, a year later. When you are on the cusp of teenhood, a year is more like a decade seems, in the current stage of life. Almost five years passed; the losses of RFK and MLK, Jr descended in quick succession. Resistance to the war detoured me until 1977. Career and family life delivered me finally into the lap of the affordable PC, dial-up modem, gopher, Alta Vista, Lycos, and Excite search portals. 2008 and yet another election hinging on the outcome of illegal, avoidable war. An article was published, titled "Mr. Obama's Neighborhood".
Mr. Obama's neighborhood - Magazine - Jerusalem Post (Originially published in 2008 in Jerusalem Post.)
https://www.jpost.com/Magazine/Features/Mr-Obamas-neighborhood
Feb 15, 2010 - Traveling from the soaring skyscraper of Crown's General Dynamics .... "I said to him, 'Mr. Obama, someday you will be vice president of the United States. .... committed Jews support him, Lester Crown and Alan Solow among ...
Quite familiar with General Dynamics, I was entirely unfamiliar with Lester or his father, Henry.
I dove in, probably much too deeply, in hindsight. In 1957, Earl Warren's daughter, Virginia, was associated closely enough with dramatically older (than her) Henry Crown partner, Conrad Hilton, there was speculation in print that marriage was looming. A year later, Virginia married the middleaged host of "What's My Line" John C Daly.
A Simkin authored excerpt.: (preceded by a section with an emphasis on sexual themed gossip about DC pols generally and JFK particularly.)
This is sourced from a directly competing business (5 - NY Post quote) of the business Dorothy worked for.....
https://spartacus-educational.com/JFKkilgallen.htm
Famous Crimes > Dorothy Kilgallen
.....
(13) Lee Israel, Kilgallen (1979)
During one of her (Kilgallen’s) visits - sometime in March, before the verdict – she prevailed upon Joe Tonahill to make arrangements through Judge Brown for a private interview with Jack Ruby......
..........
(5) New York Post (28th April, 1960)
In recent months she (Dorothy Kilgallen) has often been in the company of singer Johnnie Ray, a troubled young man whose career suffered serious setbacks in the past few years. Her relationship to Ray has been described - there has never been a hint of anything else - as "maternal and protective," and sometimes her maternal instinct is positively fierce.
"I saw her at the Waldorf with Ray," a friend recalled. "She left the table for a moment and some young, pretty girl usurped her chair and proceeded to tell Ray how good she thought he was. Dorothy came back, flew at the girl telling her to 'Keep your hands off my escort and leave the table.' It was the only time I ever saw her lose her temper in public."
"It's an odd relationship - but it's certainly antiseptic," said society photographer Jerome Zerbe. "Ray is rather an insecure person and she gives him security and companionship. And he's an excellent escort for her - her husband is busy so many evenings. It's one of those relationships that is mutually satisfactory."...
(21) Donald Nolen, review of Lee Israel, Kilgallen, Amazon (14th January, 2004)
So posterity needs to evaluate each mysterious death according to how plausible the murder theory is. Lee Israel puts in this book some evidence that a broken love affair with Johnnie Ray and the fall of the Hearst newspaper empire gave Dorothy Kilgallen trouble sleeping, and she could have mixed barbiturates with booze. But Lee also details the strange circumstances of Dorothy's death.....
.....
(15) William Penn Jones, The Midlothian Mirror (November 25, 1965)
I have a concern for the strange things happening in America in recent months....
.....
(16) William Penn Jones, Volume I: Forgive My Grief (1966)
Now we can add to that list of strange deaths that of Miss Dorothy Kilgallen...
......
(18) William Penn Jones, Volume II: Forgive My Grief (1967)
Tom Howard knew too much from Ruby and he knew too well how the Dallas power structure and Police Department worked. Howard had to die....
VS
http://gaycultureland.blogspot.com/2016/10/johnnie-ray.html
Thursday, 27 October 2016
Johnnie Ray
After Frank Sinatra, and before Elvis and the Beatles, there was an unlikely pop idol - gangly, effete and adorned with a clumsy hearing aid who was met at airports by screaming girls who tore the clothes from his limbs. This man was gay and his name was Johnnie Ray.
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-0CGC8fd0u58/WBFRFmmTg1I/AAAAAAAABary KampM/ASasf3obQ7MWvurxJb1gXWGNhaVPTLdCQCLcB/s400/168%2BJohnnie%2BRay.jpg)
.....Despite her knowledge of the solicitation arrest, Marilyn Morrison, daughter of the owner of West Hollywood's Mocambo nightclub, married Ray at the peak of his American fame. Aware of Ray's sexuality, Morrison told a friend she would "straighten it out." The couple separated in 1953 and divorced in 1954.
Ray went to trial following the second arrest in 1959, also in Detroit, for soliciting an undercover officer in a bar called the Brass Rail, which has been described variously as attracting traveling musicians and attracting gay people.
Dorothy Kilgallen, a close friend of Johnnie, who was nationally known for her syndicated newspaper column, The Voice of Broadway, and her role as panelist on the television game show "What's My Line", was a strong support for Ray during the solicitation trial in Detroit in December 1959, possibly communicating by telephone with the district attorney or judge.
Ray's fate was decided by a jury composed entirely of older women, one of whom ran to Ray to console him when he fainted upon hearing the 'not guilty' verdict. In the 60s, Ray had a long-term relationship with his manager, Bill Franklin.
Eventually the success waned, helped along by the ugly rumors and the bad publicity. One of his most loyal audiences was found in England, where he appeared many times. When Elvis arrived and eclipsed everything before him, Johnnie Ray returned to the bars and lounges, making a comfortable living.
In 1960, Ray was hospitalized after contracting tuberculosis. He was also battling with alcoholism, but in the mid 60s he made a real attempt to sober up. In 1965, he was 38 years old when he was emotionally devastated by the death of close friend Dorothy Kilgallen, but managed to stay sober despite his grief.
He began to regain his health. Shortly after he returned to the United States from a European concert tour that he headlined with Judy Garland, an American doctor informed him that he was well enough to drink an occasional glass of wine. Ray resumed drinking heavily and his health quickly began to decline. He continued touring until he gave his final concert, a benefit for the Grand Theater in Salem, Oregon, on October 6, 1989. In early 1990, poor health forced him to check into Cedars-Sinai Medical Center. On February 24, 1990, he died of liver failure at Cedars-Sinai in Los Angeles. He is buried at Hopewell Cemetery near Hopewell, ...
Two very short Johnnie Ray (diplomatic, classy) interview clips...near the end of the second one seems (to me) a man close to coming out of his closet, on camera,
What's My Line? - Johnnie Ray; Ozzie Nelson [panel]; Janet Blair [panel] (Jun 9, 1957)
-
In the recently resurrected Kilgallen thread, I proved Kilgallen "biographer" Lee Israel, had crapped all over Simkin's forum. (If the poster Simkin introduced as Lee Israel, was in fact, Lee Israel!)
My warnings were ignored, at the time in 2012, and since, despite Lee Israel's exposure as a criminal forger. There is no policy at that
forum or the Spartacus biography pages to update or to disclaim. The result is nurturing of suspicion by misinfo. The stated goal is steady turn out of new Spartacus pages.... content to attract eyeballs at the expense of accuracy. Penn Jones was motivated to create and sell content via his local newspaper and book authorship BUSINESSES. The result of both of these prolific authors of successive generations is evident in every CT oriented forum and website. (whowhatwhy.com recently featured misinfo presented by author Peter Janney...)
I have volunteered as a moderator of comments submitted to both the Simkin and the jfkfacts.org forums. I got "sucked in" late, not until 2008.
My firsthand experience included being old enough to react to assassin Ruby, on the 24th, with profound concern. My only bias beyond that was the emotional shred from seeing JFK in person in 1962, riding by in an open car illuminated by a brilliant autumn sunset. It was not hard to plug that memory into the nightmare visuals of the Z film, a year later. When you are on the cusp of teenhood, a year is more like a decade seems, in the current stage of life. Almost five years passed; the losses of RFK and MLK, Jr descended in quick succession. Resistance to the war detoured me until 1977. Career and family life delivered me finally into the lap of the affordable PC, dial-up modem, gopher, Alta Vista, Lycos, and Excite search portals. 2008 and yet another election hinging on the outcome of illegal, avoidable war. An article was published, titled "Mr. Obama's Neighborhood".
Quite familiar with General Dynamics, I was entirely unfamiliar with Lester or his father, Henry.
I dove in, probably much too deeply, in hindsight. In 1957, Earl Warren's daughter, Virginia, was associated closely enough with dramatically older (than her) Henry Crown partner, Conrad Hilton, there was speculation in print that marriage was looming. A year later, Virginia married the middleaged host of "What's My Line" John C Daly.
A Simkin authored excerpt.: (preceded by a section with an emphasis on sexual themed gossip about DC pols generally and JFK particularly.)
This is sourced from a directly competing business (5 - NY Post quote) of the business Dorothy worked for.....VS
Two very short Johnnie Ray (diplomatic, classy) interview clips...near the end of the second one seems (to me) a man close to coming out of his closet, on camera,
What's My Line? - Johnnie Ray; Ozzie Nelson [panel]; Janet Blair [panel] (Jun 9, 1957)
Oh, Henry !!
-
John Simkin Posted October 2, 2012
On 9/30/2012 at 4:47 AM, Tom Scully said:
I believe strongly that assassination related articles/pages on the wikipedia site and on John's Spartacus site should be reviewed and edited in preparation for heightened interest in the 50th anniversary year commencing as early as this coming 22 November, little more than 50 days from now.
I've wondered why more of what is posted in these threads does not appear in revisions of related Spartacus pages and I believe it is mostly because John's focus is on creating new articles.
In a few days time I plan to publish a series of e-books. This will include the title, “The Assassination of John F. Kennedy”. The book will be made up of my current website pages plus a few extras. This will enable students and researchers to study the subject offline. Unlike with traditional books, it is now possible to publish new editions immediately without extra costs. I therefore plan to publish a revised edition in time for the Christmas market.
The JFK assassination section is only a small part of my website. The Spartacus Educational Encyclopaedia has over 11,000 articles (apparently this is the word count of 23 copies of “War and Peace”). It has not been possible to keep my pages updated with the latest evidence. As people like Greg Parker have pointed out, I have not always kept to my intentions of providing in one place the different interpretations of people and events. Although I have expressed strong opinions about the case on the Forum I have tried on the website to provide a balanced view (as an historian I am aware that complete objectivity is not possible).
Over the next couple of months I am giving members the opportunity to suggest changes to the content of my web pages. This is quite an undertaking and therefore I would like your emails to take the following format:
(1) URL, for example: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKoswald.htm
(2) A brief description of why you think the page needs changing.
(3) Number the paragraph and provide the suggested edit or write the paragraph that should be added. This will be more acceptable if you include a quotation, for example: Larry Hancock has argued in his book, Nexus: The CIA and Political Assassination (2011), that “….”
(4) I will be more sympathetic to adding additional interpretations than in removing interpretations that you disapprove of.
(5) You are also free to provide additions to the sources section.
I will notify the member by email if and when the page has been updated. This will be the page that will appear in the new edition of the ebook.
Seven years have passed. Is this frozen information source better than nothing? Of course! But, what kind of standard is that? People post as if the Simkin content, and still, Penn Jones authored 50 year old books and newsletters, all were gospel. Assumptions are difficult things to overcome with more recent, more reliable research results.
-
Question for Bill Brown.:
Removing your Sandinista (sourced from Carol Hewett as retold by DiEugenio or perhaps Bill Kelly? ) suspicions,
This is what remains. (quoted below):
....I shared the following details with Jim DiEugenio on November 15, 2015. It appears since then DiEugenio preferred to keep you from awareness of these facts.
Could it be because these facts are less prejudicial to Ruth Paine's rep?....
-
I have to believe that Simkin would appreciate critical review of his entries; it may be what it is all about. Would he change and update his entries if he could copy and paste a suitable replacement? I think so. He is indefatigable in his pursuits. He has created a vast archive of information, that is https://spartacus-educational.com . There is no way that he can amend it all. I am thinking that you have a great distaste, possibly rightfully (I don’t know the details), but perhaps you could take a risk at being really big, offering your best revision of some element of that catalog. You may find yourself refreshed, and perhaps an amendation with fortuitous results might arise.
I am sure that he lacks time to look back. One of the most important things that could happen at the EF, IMHO, is that all of his Spartacus Scoolnet links could be fixed. It would be huge for him and the forum; but it doesn’t get done, almost certainly for lack of time.
-
I lost your optimism a long time ago. He had an opportunity, well before the 50th anniv., but he did and does consider constructive criticism to be personal attack, even when it came from one of his own moderators (me), and later, from his friend and forum admin. (Gary)
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/19554-assassination-of-john-f-kennedy-e-book/?tab=comments#comment-261091
John Simkin Posted October 8, 2012
....
Greg Parker and Tom Scully have both made recent attacks on me for not being more critical of journalists or reporters who have written about JFK's relationship with women. For example, C. David Heymann. I have also been criticised for accepting Peter Janney's account of JFK's relationship with Mary Pinchot Meyer. Although I am not willing to remove these claims I am willing to add to these pages alternative points of view so the reader can make up their own mind.
If people send me their "edits" I suggest that they also post them on the Forum so they can see what I do and do not accept.
https://jfkfacts.org/roger-stone-touts-conspiracy-theories-trump/#comment-860994
Tom S. March 3, 2016 at 12:38 am
Ronnie, imagine trying to moderate this person’s posts, when the site’s owner is supporting him, and not you, the moderator
the site owner appointed to support the site’s rule of keeping the posted content suitable for reading by school children.:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20259&p=275635
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-BHx0yDp_j7Q/VtfIoCNJxZI/AAAAAAAADDk/UHIpIpti6ZQ/s640-Ic42/MorrowProtest061713.jpg)
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20282&p=275702
Gary Loughran – (forum administrator as he posted this….”guest”, days later) Posted 18 June 2013 – 08:32 PM
Oh groan. Here John goes again…
….
You falsely accused Tom Scully and compounded, not lessened, that accusation recently by highlighting the text you originally read from incorrectly. (see http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/20259-the-future-of-the-jfk-forum/page/9/ )
I am a great believer in values John, more than you appear to understand. I am not a xxxx, I am not a cheat and I have never stolen.
Your rationale for removing Tom and Jim was not driven by good values, nor, more obviously, is your support of Robert Morrow. You have always made very personal choices driven by values I haven’t yet worked out. Perhaps that is what ‘old fashioned values’ really are…
The situation and outcome presented above was a direct result of objections to learning verifiable facts because the facts conflicted with personal relationships dynamics.
And... if you accept Simkin's later claim that his emphasis was on maintaining a cordial, inviting atmosphere for prominent book authors, i.e., the experts, I have a bridge to sell that you absolutely must consider buying!
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/4641-nina-burleigh-a-very-private-woman/?tab=comments#comment-37491
Nina Burleigh Posted August 19, 2005
John Simkin said:
(5) What do you make of this passage in C. David Heymann’s book, The Georgetown Ladies' Social Club (2003)
Asked to comment on the case, by the current author (C. David Heymann), Cord Meyer held court at the beginning of February 2001 - six weeks before his death - in the barren dining room of a Washington nursing home. Propped up in a chair, his glass eye bulging, he struggled to hold his head aloft. Although he was no longer able to read, the nurses supplied him with a daily copy of The Washington Post, which he carried with him wherever he went. "My father died of a heart attack the same year Mary was killed , " he whispered. "It was a bad time." And what could he say about Mary Meyer? Who had committed such a heinous crime? "The same sons of As I was walking a' alane, I heard twa corbies makin' a mane. The tane untae the tither did say, Whaur sail we gang and dine the day, O. Whaur sail we gang and dine the day? It's in ahint yon auld fail dyke I wot there lies a new slain knight; And naebody kens that he lies there But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair, O. But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair. His hound is to the hunting gane His hawk to fetch the wild-fowl hame, His lady ta'en anither mate, So we may mak' our dinner swate, O. So we may mak' our dinner swate. Ye'll sit on his white hause-bane, And I'll pike oot his bonny blue e'en Wi' ae lock o' his gowden hair We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare, O. We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare. There's mony a ane for him maks mane But nane sail ken whaur he is gane O'er his white banes when they are bare The wind sail blaw for evermair, O. The wind sail blaw for evermair.'es," he hissed, "that killed John F. Kennedy."
Absolute utter hogwash. Cord Meyer was apparently enraged at my well-researched book, and I cannot believe he would sit down with Heymann, no matter how near death.
At the end of his life, Cord had a very disfigured visage from mouth and jaw cancer - you would think Heymann would have mentioned that fact if he had seen him in the flesh.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/18326-mary-pinchot-meyer-case-said-to-be-solved/?tab=comments#comment-237509
John Simkin Posted November 7, 2011
One of the important aspects of this book is that it will show that Nina Burleigh's book on the subject, "A Very Private Woman: The Life and Unsolved Murder of Presidential Mistress Mary Meyer" (1998) was a CIA limited hangout.
Here is an excerpt from the second, (Autumn, 2013) face saving, edition of the book Simkin was touting.:
Mary's Mosaic: The CIA Conspiracy to Murder John F. Kennedy, Mary ...
https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1629143162 (https://books.google.com/books?id=-Cv8DQAAQBAJ&pg=PT365&lpg=PT365&dq=mary%27s+mosaic+georgia+law+professor+scully+identified+himself&source=bl&ots=xsObAsUQUC&sig=ACfU3U3hIJPjc1YR5XSc9xR6IlHXGN-TaA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiX1JK14tHjAhWoneAKHdTuCWwQ6AEwAHoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=mary's%20mosaic%20georgia%20law%20professor%20scully%20identified%20himself&f=false)
Peter Janney - 2013 - History
Discussing his critical post of Mary's Mosaic in an email to a University of Georgia law professor, Scully identified himself as “a moderator at the Internet forum, ...
Author Janney sidekick, Doug Horne, wrote a glowing Amazon review of Janney's book. In the second page of comments in reaction to my FACTS SUPPORTED, negative Amazon review (August, 2012) Horne resorted to shooting the messenger.:
(http://jfkforum.com/images/JanneyDouglasHorneAmazon.jpg)
-
I lost your optimism a long time ago. He had an opportunity, well before the 50th anniv., but he did and does consider constructive criticism to be personal attack, even when it came from one of his own moderators (me), and later, from his friend and forum admin. (Gary)
The situation and outcome presented above was a direct result of objections to learning verifiable facts because the facts conflicted with personal relationships dynamics.
And... if you accept Simkin's later claim that his emphasis was on maintaining a cordial, inviting atmosphere for prominent book authors, i.e., the experts, I have a bridge to sell that you absolutely must consider buying!
Absolute utter hogwash. Cord Meyer was apparently enraged at my well-researched book, and I cannot believe he would sit down with Heymann, no matter how near death.
At the end of his life, Cord had a very disfigured visage from mouth and jaw cancer - you would think Heymann would have mentioned that fact if he had seen him in the flesh.
Here is an excerpt from the second, (Autumn, 2013) face saving, edition of the book Simkin was touting.:
Acknowledged. My comment about being big had no basis or reference to Simkins contrary characterization. I had never seen it or have no recollection os having seen it.
-
Acknowledged. My comment about being big had no basis or reference to Simkins contrary characterization. I had never seen it or have no recollection os having seen it.
Of course, Michael, I took for granted you were unaware. I hope I have presented a fair presentation of what happened when self importance influenced by a taste of celebrity and some cash benefit resulting from publishing reacts to the proverbial nobody posting from a bed in his mother's basement, so to speak.
From Oct., 2015 to Aug., 2016, every reader comment appearing at jfkfacts.org was read and approved by me. I got an even better appreciation for the fallout caused by sloppily written, CT authors. I corrected comments after approving them intact and then replying to them. Needless to say, the reaction, according to Jeff Morley when he suddenly ushered me out in August, 2016, was that visitor traffic had dropped by some undisclosed degree. Actual facts do not attract to the same degree sloppily documented or long assumed to be accurate, LORE attracts.
When I found appreciable comment submission under many names originating from just a few IP#s linked to Toronto, CA, I informed all readers who might be interested, which past comment strings were infected/distorted. The trolls were debating each other and generating artificial jfkfacts.org visitor stats, but probably not to a relevant extent.
(It is always about the Benjamins, sad to say....)
Michael, Larry Hancock and Denis Morisette are your friends.... judging from how they present. I advise this despite my deep discomfort with the cooperation Larry and Rex have offered to the Boston hedge fund millionaire (a now dormant EF poster, first name, Oliver) (introduced to Mary by her friend, the late Robert Chapman) who bought the maryferrell archive (and Rex) and who sponsors the web services resulting in the existence of the jfkfacts.org website, but all of that is for another day.... I have a bigger mouth than most because I have no rep. or commercial interest or salary from that millionaire, to protect, first and foremost. Once in awhile, I help Mom change the sheets on my wellworn bed!
(My research resulted in the fact that Oliver's dad was prominent in the Kodak film research lab by the early 1960s and was very close (at least in 1963, he was) to a claymation pioneer, FWIW...)
The VC Way: Investment Secrets from the Wizards of Venture Capital
https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0786745274 (https://books.google.com/books?id=0sGlSV_bb70C&pg=PA17&lpg=PA17&dq=curme+kodak+research&source=bl&ots=AS5f4o8waV&sig=ACfU3U1kgAs1zb4pKTTh_woiY9RV5u5tSg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwinzIav7dHjAhWGhOAKHa9vD00Q6AEwBXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=curme%20kodak%20research&f=false)
Jeffrey Zygmont - 2009 - Business & Economics
They've always been inefficient," says Curme, though he nevertheless gives ... Besides, his own dad worked for thirty-five years in research for Eastman Kodak....
Understanding Animation
https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1136158804 (https://books.google.com/books?id=bEEYAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT87&dq=leonard+tregillus&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjDvPLm8tHjAhUPRa0KHacvAOEQ6AEIKjAA#v=onepage&q=leonard%20tregillus&f=false)
Paul Wells - 2013 - Preview - More editions
With the exception of experimental efforts by Leonard Tregillus in the 1940s, and the emergence of Art Clokey's 'Gumby' in the earlydays of American television,it was not until Will Vinton's Oscarwinning Closed Mondays (1974) and the
-
Of course, Michael, I took for granted you were unaware. I hope I have presented a fair presentation of what happened when self importance influenced by a taste of celebrity and some cash benefit resulting from publishing reacts to the proverbial nobody posting from a bed in his mother's basement, so to speak.
From Oct., 2015 to Aug., 2016, every reader comment appearing at jfkfacts.org was read and approved by me. I got an even better appreciation for the fallout caused by sloppily written, CT authors. I corrected comments after approving them intact and then replying to them. Needless to say, the reaction, according to Jeff Morley when he suddenly ushered me out in August, 2016, was that visitor traffic had dropped by some undisclosed degree. Actual facts do not attract to the same degree sloppily documented or long assumed to be accurate, LORE attracts.
When I found appreciable comment submission under many names originating from just a few IP#s linked to Toronto, CA, I informed all readers who might be interested, which past comment strings were infected/distorted. The trolls were debating each other and generating artificial jfkfacts.org visitor stats, but probably not to a relevant extent.
(It is always about the Benjamins, sad to say....)
Michael, Larry Hancock and Denis Morisette are your friends.... judging from how they present. I advise this despite my deep discomfort with the cooperation Larry and Rex have offered to the Boston hedge fund millionaire (a now dormant EF poster, first name, Oliver) (introduced to Mary by her friend, the late Robert Chapman) who bought the maryferrell archive (and Rex) and who sponsors the web services resulting in the existence of the jfkfacts.org website, but all of that is for another day.... I have a bigger mouth than most because I have no rep. or commercial interest or salary from that millionaire, to protect, first and foremost. Once in awhile, I help Mom change the sheets on my wellworn bed!
(My research resulted in the fact that Oliver's dad was prominent in the Kodak film research lab by the early 1960s and was very close (at least in 1963, he was) to a claymation pioneer, FWIW...)
Amazing how few individuals are aware of all the new evidence concerning 'Team Janney', Tom. Yet, they just go on, pretending the facts do not exist. Cognitive dissonance at its finest, oui?
-
I lost your optimism a long time ago. He had an opportunity, well before the 50th anniv., but he did and does consider constructive criticism to be personal attack, even when it came from one of his own moderators (me), and later, from his friend and forum admin. (Gary)
The situation and outcome presented above was a direct result of objections to learning verifiable facts because the facts conflicted with personal relationships dynamics.
And... if you accept Simkin's later claim that his emphasis was on maintaining a cordial, inviting atmosphere for prominent book authors, i.e., the experts, I have a bridge to sell that you absolutely must consider buying!
Absolute utter hogwash. Cord Meyer was apparently enraged at my well-researched book, and I cannot believe he would sit down with Heymann, no matter how near death.
At the end of his life, Cord had a very disfigured visage from mouth and jaw cancer - you would think Heymann would have mentioned that fact if he had seen him in the flesh.
Here is an excerpt from the second, (Autumn, 2013) face saving, edition of the book Simkin was touting.:
Author Janney sidekick, Doug Horne, wrote a glowing Amazon review of Janney's book. In the second page of comments in reaction to my FACTS SUPPORTED, negative Amazon review (August, 2012) Horne resorted to shooting the messenger.:
(http://jfkforum.com/images/JanneyDouglasHorneAmazon.jpg)
The patience of goin' fishin'. It's all about the bait, mate !! Reel her in !! The Old Man & The Sea+
-
The patience of goin' fishin'. It's all about the bait, mate !! Reel her in !! The Old Man & The Sea+
Mark, it seems the personal price of authoring a book is thin skinned defensiveness and a closed mind. According to Janney, in reaction to presentation of facts
he firmly asserted in his book were unavailable, I am a "DiEugenio protégé." According to DiEugenio, in reaction to presentation of the fact that "CIA people" David Baldwin, and his brother Edward are first cousins of Garrison's wife and David Baldwin disclosed to Clay Shaw in a March, 1967 letter, that he was also Garrison's wife's godfather, and the fact is that David Baldwin's wife was step-sister of "CIA paymaster in NOLA." Stephen B Lemann, and of his brother, Thomas Lemann (father of Nicholas B Lemann) I must be a stooge of Shaw biographer, Donald Carpenter.
The truth seems as often as not, a poor stepchild in the eyes of those who find it to be inconvenient.
Lord Gordon has issued a new edict, aimed at David von Pein. It is now "enshrined" at this link, that Gordon himself does not consider David von Pein to have
committed any offense prompting his banning.: http://archive.is/pAbhg
NordVPN recently offered a three year deal via Rakuten.com that rebates $43 of the $107.99,
three year fee that would be a more convenient option for David than two other options Mr. Gordon indicated unfamiliarity with. www.archive.org and the more recent and more useful, www.Archive.is , offering a snapshot, complete with working links on the web page image captured and archived. It was conceived to solve the problem of disappearing, linked cites included in Wikipedia articles. Here is an example of the latter.: http://archive.is/Fu9hl (the newly obsolete, Hargrove description and status of Donald O. Norton.) E-Zee P-Zee! Unlike Hargrove, von Pein does not, (to the best of my knowledge) appropriate, without attribution, the original research of others.
-
Mark, it seems the personal price of authoring a book is thin skinned defensiveness and a closed mind. According to Janney, in reaction to presentation of facts
he firmly asserted in his book were unavailable, I am a "DiEugenio protégé." According to DiEugenio, in reaction to presentation of the fact that "CIA people" David Baldwin, and his brother Edward are first cousins of Garrison's wife and David Baldwin disclosed to Clay Shaw in a March, 1967 letter, that he was also Garrison's wife's godfather, and the fact is that David Baldwin's wife was step-sister of "CIA paymaster in NOLA." Stephen B Lemann, and of his brother, Thomas Lemann (father of Nicholas B Lemann) I must be a stooge of Shaw biographer, Donald Carpenter.
The truth seems as often as not, a poor stepchild in the eyes of those who find it to be inconvenient.
Lord Gordon has issued a new edict, aimed at David von Pein. It is now "enshrined" at this link, that Gordon himself does not consider David von Pein to have
committed any offense prompting his banning.: http://archive.is/pAbhg
NordVPN recently offered a three year deal via Rakuten.com that rebates $43 of the $107.99,
three year fee that would be a more convenient option for David than two other options Mr. Gordon indicated unfamiliarity with. www.archive.org and the more recent and more useful, www.Archive.is , offering a snapshot, complete with working links on the web page image captured and archived. It was conceived to solve the problem of disappearing, linked cites included in Wikipedia articles. Here is an example of the latter.: http://archive.is/Fu9hl (the newly obsolete, Hargrove description and status of Donald O. Norton.) E-Zee P-Zee! Unlike Hargrove, von Pein does not, (to the best of my knowledge) appropriate, without attribution, the original research of others.
Lord Gordon's edicting...... he mentored well under ol' King John, eh Robin Hood?
-
If there is ever a nationwide competition to play the Kevin Bacon game, you would be hard pressed to team up with anyone more suitable than Tom. His penchant for wedding announcements linking folks in some unspecified but presumably sinister manner can only be marveled at. This tireless information tsunami in every post borders on the surreal.
-
Mr. Parnell, when I saw the Ed Forum thread about a fairly recently debunked Armstrong "myth" speculating as to whether or not an actor who later played a detective on the Barney Miller Show, sitcom, resembled Oswald, or not, I wondered how the dying embers of that "lunacy": could be fanned back into a flame.
Although I played a part in supporting your rebuttal and dismantling of that particular "two Oswald" tale and know much more than the average reader about the "nuts and bolts" of it all, your treatment of it gave me a new appreciation of the effort you put in to wrest the actual truth out of such a intricate mess.:
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/armstrong-evolving-landesberg-theory.html
My first reaction to John Butler's near blind faith in the reliability of John Armstrong's assertions, especially after you provided both links to your research and several patient explanations, was annoyance, especially Butler's resistance to the overwhelming evidence Landesberg (not the actor) was insane, but by the time I got to the end of your page, I linked to above, I no longer was critical of John Butler.
I learned something about myself. Although the details are nearly impossible for me to wrap my mind around, I discovered and contributed what I did to your gargantuan effort, I think now, because of the KISS approach. I am not capable of thinking like Armstrong or even reading his "feed" without my eyes glazing over as my mind wanders. It just does not seem worth it.
In you, however, John Armstrong has definitely met his match! Where I look for a key vulnerability and pursue it, more often than not finding what I am after, inside of a week, or not, and then I put it down, moving on, sometimes coming back to it at a later date, you manage to master and address the entire, steaming pile!
The Ed Forum is definitely getting worse, suspicion rising, informative posts or threads, declining, and the institutional core of the place is disappearing. Butler mentioned how impressed he was with the 2004 threads he was reading.
In my experience, much of what was assumed reliable in the majority of those early threads has been debunked or revised/refined to a degree that makes them nearly useless reads.
In closing, reading just that single page of your work makes me feel I have been lazy, superficial. I cannot even suggest how you could pare or simplify your presentation. You are addressing Armstrong's pile, so far-fetched, intense, elaborate, who could respond to it all, adequately.
W. Tracey Parnell, please do not give up! Yes, readers are unappreciative to the point of resenting the proof put in front of them. They are looking to confirm their biases and react with frustration and disappointment, while all you are doing is helping them put aside what you've proven to be a complete waste of time. They resist moving on. The work needs to be done, but the satisfaction arising out of doing it is mostly self satisfaction. "I wish you hadn't told me the well supported truth," is not the reaction I hope for, but you certainly, too, have come to expect it. Our present political divide seems made of similar stuff. Forty percent "Hargroves" and fifteen percent, "undecided".
-
Reading an over-the-top endorsement like this should make everyone's BS detector max out.
It does not take state-of-the-art research, like tracking who's cousin supplied the icing for the Oswald's wedding cake, but just a five minute look at the Parnell postings to come up with this one:
Scully endorsing a Warren Commission fanboy who calims to know "the facts in the JFK case" is hard to beat -- ROFL
What does Tracy Parnell's opinion on the Warren Commission have to do with his research/information dispelling Armstrong's claims of "two Oswalds"? Parnell's work on the "two Oswalds" theory stands or falls on its own and isn't contingent on his views on who shot JFK or whether there was a conspiracy.
If he suddenly became a conspiracy believer and said he rejected the WC conclusions then does his work on the "two Oswald" claim suddenly become valid? Why?
-
What does Tracy Parnell's opinion on the Warren Commission have to do with his research/information dispelling Armstrong's claims of "two Oswalds"? Parnell's work on the "two Oswalds" theory stands or falls on its own and isn't contingent on his views on who shot JFK or whether there was a conspiracy.
If he suddenly became a conspiracy believer and said he rejected the WC conclusions then does his work on the "two Oswald" claim suddenly become valid? Why?
Yesterday, on Dr. McAdams's Google Newsgroup, he posted the announcement of a new documentary series based on
author Jim DiEugenio's "Destiny Betrayed". McAdams put the word "Documentary" in his post's title, in quotes.
This morning, Dr. McAdams was kind enough to approve my reply, critical of Jim DiEugenio's work on the topic of Jim Garrison, his investigation, and his prosecution of Clay Shaw.:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/alt.assassination.jfk
Otto, Mr. Parnell is smarter than I am and works much harder than I have, and is more polite to those who disagree with him than I am able to be. I saw no harm in letting him, and everyone else who reads this thread, know that. I am very confident that Mr. Parnell would share any exculpatory evidence he finds, related to Oswald, as well as any malfeasance committed by the WC or about errors in the WCR.
Put this in perspective. In June, 2013, Mr. Simkin bounced me from his forum, along with Jim DiEugenio, posting that he, Simkin, had failed to protect his friend, author Peter Janney, from the criticism of Jim and I. In September, 2013, author Janney issued a second edition of his book, naming me and describing me as a "DiEugenio protege". Earlier this year, Jim DiEugenio posted this in a thread on DPF.....
Tom Scully posted 09-01-2019, 08:51 PM
Originally Posted by Jim DiEugenio
Tom, I like you personally and I think you usually do good work and I defended you when people were attacking your approach at EF.
But I am at a loss to explain how you fell for Carpenter. This is a guy who writes for Max Holland.....
IOW...
I'll Do the Thinning Around Here, Baba Looey
Well, enough time has passed now to reliably observe that Jim did a "drive by" on me. (Imagine how different this might have gone down if he did not like me....)
Isn't another way of saying what Jim conveyed to me?
Tom, I like you personally.... unfortunately you are stupid enough to fall for the pronouncements of Max Holland's lackey, Donald Carpenter...
Otto, do not take any of this more seriously than it deserves.
-
No worries, Tom!
Thanks for the link provided, I did poke around a bit and was delighted to see you had the cousin thing going (quoted out of context):
Anybody else discern a double meaning in Edward Baldwin's televised aside to his first cousin's, Liz Ziegler's husband, Jim Garrison?
Parnell's desire to share his "findings" when it comes to the WC seems to be wishful thinking on your part as I see no sign of Parnell returning from his CT bashing crusade any time soon.
Otto, researchers tend to present and focus their efforts on what they believe they have found irrefutable (persuasive) proof of. I agree W. Tracey Parnell indicates he has concluded the WC "got it right" in its Report. We all have biases. The key question is whether our biases (in approaching what we focus on as researchers) slant our presentations; film, book, lecture, or forum threads/posts to the degree the facts supporting them stand up to scrutiny of other researchers.
I spent several years as one of the Ed Forum monitors and, more recently, as the sole comments editor of jfkfacts.org for ten months, beginning in October, 2015. In that role, I read and approved, or not, every submitted comment continuing, today to appear on that site, during that time span. Day in, day out, that experience was an eye opener.
Can you agree with this observation.... the self censorship on the Ed Forum is more pronounced (creepy, see NBA coddling China) there than it is on this forum or on the DPF, and much more rigid than on the McAdams google newsgroup.
Facts that have not appeared on the Ed Forum but have appeared on this forum, on DPF and on McAdams newsgroup, to name just two examples.:
(I have a high regard for his work so I exposed Steve Thomas to the fact Garrison kept secrets from authors and a movie maker who thought highly of him, despite Clay Shaw keeping the identical secrets, even as his freedom was threatened by a criminal prosecution. Steve's only public response I have detected, since my private presentation to him.:
Posted 21 hours ago
Jim,
Congratulations Jim!
Two questions:
1) Did you enjoy working with Stone?; and,
2) Was he faithful to your work?
I hope the answer is yes to both.
Steve Thomas
)
Discovered/published in 2015:
https://jfkfacts.org/provocative-prolific-joan-mellen/#comment-869223
.....
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-knckgt3ASNI/Vrd2i7xQ1aI/AAAAAAAACvc/m_y25b9LkuA/s512-Ic42/BaldwinFirstCousinCarpenter.jpg)
...........
Discovered/published in July, 2019:
https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?13456-John-Judge-on-Donald-Norton&p=125902#post125902
Tom Scully - 07-28-2019, 04:00 AM
Updated on 29 July, after reading Mr. Kovach's post. Thank you, sir. I am adding link to source of the 1968 photo below of Norton in army uniform.
The source article image also includes a contemporary photo of Lexie. I am trying to avoid displaying too many images in the same forum thread page due
to a monthly bandwidth limit on a VPS account hosting these images. Readers will understand after viewing the article image.:
......
2018 Article Image Link (http://jfkforum.com/images/OswaldDonaldOnorton51stAnniv021419.jpg)(Source link directly above, but link at left provides immediate viewing. I blacked out grandchildren names.)
Now, Otto, in order to avoid a double standard in your criticism of W Tracey Parnell's work, do you think it is reasonable for the community of posters on the Ed Forum to be more concerned about defending the published assertions of authors DiEugenio or Armstrong instead of freely discussing newer, irrefutable facts? It seems forced, artificial, anti "follow the facts wherever they lead us."
Otto, Hargrove and the posters of the Ed Forum seem to prefer readers consume this, instead of the facts presented nearly three months ago. You dismiss Mr. Parnell as agenda driven. I do not see him willfully misleading anyone in any specific presentation. His bias is a different story. I have a bias closer to yours. So what?
http://harveyandlee.net/Norton/Norton.html
Donald O. and Donald P. Norton
by John Armstrong
HARVEY Oswald and LEE Oswald (11/22/63)
......
Summary
There is something very strange about Donald O. Norton, his life, and his background. After all, why would someone send money to Mae Brussel for her research, appear to Mae and John to be nearly identical to Lee Harvey Oswald, talk for hours about Oswald's past life, and then all but disappear? Please understand that while there is good reason to believe that Donald O. Norton was/is the real LEE Oswald, there is no proof. Perhaps the only way to prove or disprove if Norton is LEE Oswald is with DNA testing.
......
All of my materials related to Donald O. Norton and Donald P. Norton are in the Baylor collection and available to anyone and everyone. I encourage people to learn more about Donald O. Norton, his wife Lexie, and his children. The 55th reunion of Norton's Stowe high school senior class is coming up in a few years (2021). It would be interesting to attend and ask 1966 classmates about Donald Norton--his height/eye color/hair color, if Norton entered the military after high school, if anyone saw him after high school, knew of his whereabouts, or if he ever attended any class reunion. Hopefully, someday, we may learn the truth about the man who introduced himself to John Judge and Mae Brussel as Donald Norton.
I'm not all that popular, Otto. I am unwilling to pay the dues because I refuse to be a hypocrite back slapping my hypocrite pals. These higher profile people "marketing" to the CT "community," with the possible exception of Larry Hancock and very few others, enable each others' misleading the readers they influence....the result is the blind leading the blind.
-
.......
I’ll defend, however, the many other writers that are chastised above. The reading public at large wants the finished product, not ingredients. Tom is unique. I can’t blame others for not having his vision and talent. Furthermore, I want to thank the vast majority of writers who display great courage in pursuing what they do. I wish they all could likewise respect each other for that, even if they think the others are wrong.
Michael, and Ms. Krotsch, thank you. It would take a thread to explain the clash of thinking "dictating" the approach counter to mine. I'll try to present a brief outline with one "prime" example. I'm sure you've noticed how Lance has been posting lately. His frustration is similar to mine. I had a favorable opinion of him until he voiced his strong objection to the right of women to control what goes on in their own bodies.
I am convinced most prefer not to be informed of new, verifiable research details. In fact, exposure to it is resented, often angrily.
Background: Jean Davison and a poster named Brian with a brief, strong presence triggered my interest in November, 2015. The result was all of this research, in chronological order.
My research definitely hit a nerve.:
https://web.archive.org/web/20160419175050/http://jfk.education/node/11
Sorry Brian, Jean, and DVP, Banks Did Not Key-Punch 1963 P.O. Money Orders
Submitted by Admin on Tue, 11/10/2015 - 06:47
Updated November 19, 2015:....
https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?6432-Armstrong-Of-Covert-Ops-Fake-Marines-of-Classifieds-of-Cabbages-and-Kings&p=104691#post104691
Tom Scully 11-18-2015, 11:24 PM
Is the creation of a second thread on this same topic, with a title calling out someone who is not a member here and who has quoted much of the research I came up with and presented in my last post on this thread, really necessary?
A theory is being defended, and we will see more of this defense in the coming days, as Jim DiEugenio is announcing the coming of, at least twice in the past two days. Why the eagerness? We were told that the money order diplayed in the image below was located by the government, in the wrong place....that Washington, DC was the wrong place....
When you have elected to apply the most sinister explanation for the research details you deem applicable, what happens when some of your claims just do not stand up; considering your methodology was originally prejudiced?
........
We were told that all postal money orders must display a Federal Reserve Bank endorsement stamp. We were told that the $21.45 postal money order issued in Dallas and date March 12, displayed a grossly out of sequence serial number, a "future" number (https://web.archive.org/web/20161220002627/http://jfk.education/images/SuspicionsVsFacts.jpg) indicating that the money order was only (http://jfk.education/images/1963DallasPostalMoneyOrderSerialNumbersIIIofIII.jpg) created after the JFK Assassination, that it was "faked" and "found" in the wrong place, i.e., not at the Postal Money Order Center in Kansas City, MO. I did my own research, just this past week, and now things have changed, and exciting "new" research details will be revealed by the same source that told us the "things" I described above..... I hope readers are wondering just what is fake, and what is not actually supported.
https://www.computer.org/csdl/proceedings/afips/1966/5068/00/50680479.pdf
(Lance Payette brought this to my attention, today.).......
Two pages of supporting research of discoveries outline above.:
https://web.archive.org/web/20160419152939/http://jfk.education/node/12
https://web.archive.org/web/20160419180202/http://jfk.education/node/13
I have never directly communicated with Lance but together, we inadvertently went to a "don't go there," territory that collided with "finished product".
Michael, even reading it four years later, it still seems so divorced from the way I think and the approach I take. It seems
a concrete overcoat with an anchor chain wrapped around any researcher's neck, for good measure.
MWT Graves had suggested Jim let up on Lance, in an Ed Forum post.
James DiEugenio - Posted November 19, 2015 (edited)
Tommy (Graves):
If you don't have anything of substance to say, then don't say anything. Just read and maybe you will pick up something. First it was a unified field conspiracy theory and now its deep breathing exercises. Whew. Almost makes me wish Trejo was here. :help
DVP's last is more of his patented sophistry.
This is a fact. Pure and simple: The rifle that the WC says Oswald ordered is not the rifle in evidence. Its the wrong rifle. Period. He can fulminate and stomp his feet and fall on the floor about it and throw his usual John Barrymore tantrums a la Bugliosi. He's been doing it for years, decades actually.
None of that will erase this fact. Its the wrong rifle by length, weight and classification.
And there is no credible evidence Oswald ever picked it up. And in fact, he could not have picked it up by postal regs. So the WC lied about this. And they used Harry Holmes to do so. For a very succinct treatment of this see Stewart Galanor's book called, appropriately enough, Cover Up. He deals with it in about four pages, and half of them are primary documents he got from writing the Postmaster General.
Harry Holmes' testimony contradicted that evidence. Either that or Galanor forged the letter he wrote and the documents he was sent. (Incredible the way these anti conspiracy guys end up embracing these fantastic solutions to their evidentiary problems.)
Now, my general point is this: how can an attorney (Lance) isolate one tiny part of this transaction and say its valid, based on that one point. When, in fact, everything about it--from A to Z-- is dubious. And the guy who started the whole MO mess is Holmes! Who he ignores.
By doing so, is he not then guilty of doing the thing he says is true about the people he criticizes?
James DiEugenio - Posted November 19, 2015 (edited)
I will repeat this for your benefit, I think everyone else got it:
Now, my general point is this: how can an attorney isolate one part of this transaction and say its valid, based on that one point. When, in fact, everything about it is dubious. By doing so, is he not then guilty of doing the thing he says is true about the people he criticizes?
To make a point of comparison: its like saying Humes' beveling idea overrides all the problems with the autopsy.
Yeah, sure it does.
I had stumbled into and presented an evidence heavy, reasonable explanation of all Klein's postal money order Armstrong "outliers" and Lance had found the purpose for the numbers string (138....etc.) inked onto the front of the $21.45 money order.:
(https://web.archive.org/web/20160419175050im_/http://jfk.education/images/WarrenMoneyOrderC.jpg)
A "third" way is unappreciated and unwelcome.