JFK Assassination Forum

Yes, I see the difference. For what it is worth, I found the following at this web page: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

According to fellow worker, Dave Noel, Michael Paine discussed the "character of assassins" a few hours before President John F. Kennedy was killed. He also returned to his home in Irving at 3.00 p.m. to find Dallas police officers searching the premises. He told the police: "As soon as I found out about it, I hurried over to see if I could help."

It isn't clear to me whether he is referring to the time Michael Paine left work, or the time he arrived at his home. My guess is that he left work at 3:00. How would a coworker know what time he arrived at home?

What did Michael say to the WC? When did Ruth and Marina say? Buddy Wathers testified too. When did the first cops arrive at 1026 North Beckley? Are these times all consistent with 3.30 entry for Rose and the others? I believe that time to be too late because there never was a 40 minute delay waiting for Walthers, Weatherford and Oxford.

Posted @ 13:31:23(pm)...

So? 

I remain committed to not say anything with a keyboard that I would not say in person.

Sure you would. I don't believe you. I believe that in person, it would all be bunnies and rainbows with you. 

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 agree.

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.: )

Discovered/published in 2015:
Discovered/published in July, 2019:

You now digress into how specific forums are run. I neither agree nor disagree with your observations and basically don't care who is invited in or kicked out. If a forum owner decides to run his (or her) forum into the ground so be it. I don't see how your perception of facts RE Garrison is relevant to how Parnell's work is to be judged.

I hope it wasn't a false appeal to authority...

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."

Again, I don't see said avoidance to rely on anything coming out of the Ed Forum. There is a double standard or there isn't.

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?

Again, I don't know Hargrove or what "facts" may or may not have appeared on the EF, sorry.

What the Parnell thing boils down to is that this guy is not on my short list as anyone endorsing the WC report must have a distorted view on "facts".

"Agenda driven" is a very precise description, check out this book review:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Then view the video of the author presenting his book and note his view at the very end. Can you guess his view on the WC?

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Do you know of any of these guys who also can deal with the fact that the WC was sunk by their own evidence?

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.

Well, I hope you stay unpopular!

Oh, now I remember... it was Oswald's pubes that were green

Another irrelevant Chapman contribution