Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Author Topic: Forum 2.0 a resource? Is focus primarily on knowable or obviously unresolvable?  (Read 1104 times)

Offline Tom Scully

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 235
I have not started a new thread on this forum since I read this.:
Tom, I think everyone's getting a little tired of you telling other members what they can and can't post. Ever thought of starting your own forum, a forum where YOU make the rules..because you don't make them here.
I am starting this thread because I have not given up on the hope that this recent rebuild of this forum can develop
into a useful resource. Are forum posters for the most part reacting reasonably to provable facts, or for the most part,
seemingly reacting to something else?


I still hold out a diminishing expectation that this place can be something better than currently presented to readers.
There are three prominent influences here, and I do not regard presentation and discussion of practical, (IOW, facts
likely to become undisputable or to resolve any issue) provable details as a prominent focus of forum posters.

LNs exhibit an unbelievable level of incuriousity. CTs do not impose upon themselves the very deficiencies they identify
and criticize the DPD, FBI, WC, and LNs for.... accuracy, transparency, sincerity, open mindedness, pursuit of truth wherever
such pursuit leads. The third prominent influence in this forum is ardent focus and emphasis on the obviously impractical.
It is obvious to me it is pointless to rewrite, impeach, reverse the 55 year old testimony of literally all witnesses in the
record for the purpose of attempting to establish consensus of unprovable observation of who was or wasn't present on
TSBD's entrance way.

Instead of attempting reinvention of the wheel or dismissing every curiousity as irrelevant or engaging in hypocritical
double standard with regard to commitment to actual pursuit of truth, is there an actual appetite here for focus on
what we know, and what it means?

One example is Sam Mike Newman? Is he important? Is his name even recognized? The record indicates he owned
544 Camp Street in NOLA in 1963 and that he had a good deal to say....superficially.... about the cast of characters
Jim Garrison was investigating.
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/G%20Disk/Garrison%20Jim/Garrison%20Jim%20New%20Orleans%20To%20File/Item%2006.pdf
Does it come as a surprise and does it matter that Newman immigrated from the same
region as the parents of John Shaheen? Shaheen happened to be extremely close to William Casey, Richard Nixon,
and the employer of defector Robert Webster, H James Rand of Rand Development Corp.


https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1314&dat=19710604&id=ZR1OAAAAIBAJ&sjid=2ewDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6080,1110710
"...while H James Rand of Cleveland, Ohio was best man."

https://www.nytimes.com/1986/12/15/opinion/essay-casey-at-the-source.html
« Last Edit: August 10, 2018, 03:29:22 AM by Tom Scully »

JFK Assassination Forum


Offline Tom Scully

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 235
On the Ed Forum, there is deep concern in reaction to the hoary claims of DMN staffer Coley...
...is the red liquid blood or soda pop? Coley claimed FBI agents confiscated film negative and
print of red liquid pool photographed by DMN staffer Jim Hood. Claims of Coley more than a dozen years
old presented by Simkin....that Jim Hood died soon after in a mysterious or unsolved plane crash
are accepted at face value and repeated to this day.
Quote
LINK DELETED: Links To websites which contain materials or links to materials which are unsuitable for viewing by minors is forbidden/topic/6108-jim-hood-photograph-why-did-the-fbi-confiscate-it/?tab=comments#comment-54638
John Simkin Posted February 12, 2006
......In 1990 Coley told the story to Wallace O. Chariton. He was convinced that Coley was telling the truth (by this time Hood and Mulkey were dead). Aynesworth was interviewed and he confirmed the story but claims that he was convinced that it was some sort of dark drink had been spilt on the steps....

How do these details favorably impact Coley's story? (IOW, is no one else weary of this 55 years long blizzard of disinfo?)
As a result of an assinine new Ed Forum prohibition, if the following debunking evidence is mentioned on that forum at all,
it cannot be attributed to my effort. Does it occur to anyone else this area of interest is not mostly attracting truth seekers?
Quote
https://www.news-journal.com/news/local/breakfast-with-jack-ruby/article_2af970be-b494-5c68-9ac1-e0889c4abc3f.html
Breakfast with JACK RUBY
By GARY EDWARDS The Monitor Staff Oct 25, 2011

.....Today, the 78-year-old Coley lives with his wife Bonnie and son Scott, just East of Mineola, far from the life he knew at the newspaper.

He's comfortable speaking about the unspeakable and from time to time he shares his memories with civic clubs and church groups.

But always there will be unanswered questions relating to that November day in 1963.

His photographer friend died in the next year or two after the president's death in what Coley describes as questionable circumstances in a plane crash.



Quote
https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/119778609
James B Hood, Sr
BIRTH   19 Dec 1933
DEATH   4 Aug 2010 (aged 76)
BURIAL   
New Hope Garden of Memories
Spiro, Le Flore County, Oklahoma, USA

https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/120336487
Edna Eddie Smock
BIRTH   11 Sep 1934
DEATH   14 Apr 2004 (aged 69)
BURIAL   
New Hope Garden of Memories
Spiro, Le Flore County, Oklahoma, USA
Edna "Eddie" Smock, 69, of Fort Smith died Wednesday, April 14, 2004, in Fort Smith.
Graveside service will be 2 p.m. today at New Hope Cemetery in Spiro under the direction of Mallory Funeral Home of Spiro.
She is survived by three daughters, Sandy Rodriquez of Cedar Falls, Iowa, Elizabeth Grandt of Murphysboro, Ill., and Lisa DeBoer of Inola, Okla.; a son, James Hood of Pensacola, Fla.; two sisters, Gloria Underwood and Beth Johnson, both of Fort Smith; three brothers, Paul Underwood of Kibler, Dale Underwood of Charleston, and Jim Underwood of Tahlequah, Okla.; 13 grandchildren; and four great-grandchildren.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2018, 07:21:55 AM by Tom Scully »

Offline Brian Doyle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1021
Are forum posters for the most part reacting reasonably to provable facts, or for the most part,
seemingly reacting to something else?

If they were I would not leave it to the particular person who wrote this to decide...In debates about Peter Janney's book 'Mary's Mosaic' this person wrote that Janney was an uncredible source and his thesis wasn't valid...To me that shows seriously bad judgement and the inability to determine valid black operation assassinations from invalid...In my debates with Mr Scully I posted several events from Janney's book where he posted what I consider to be valid proof of his claims...DiEugenio has a particular style where he comes in and trashes a work or source but then ignores the counter arguments of others and doesn't respond to them...Jim enjoys a rogue double standard from certain moderators because of his being an author and his generally above par excellent good works that I myself do credit...However in this particular instance I wrote a list of the genuine evidence in Janney that vindicated his book and thesis...I posted this evidence at least 4 times over several years on another forum and the anti-Janney tag-team of Scully and DiEugenio ignored it and refused to answer it...These men are responsible for denying a very significant and important Kennedy-related black ops assassination of a key JFK-related figure...A serious offense according to the rules of that other forum that they were not held responsible for...Instead the moderator did not make them answer, like it was his rules-defined job to do, and banned the person who presented the good evidence on a garbage "ethos violation" charge made by a person who was obviously below the standard the site rules set and preserving his own status instead of honoring his rules...So I totally agree with what Tom says here, the only problem is the person it applies to the most is himself...And the only answer to it is to preserve and obey those same site rules that protected free speech and more importantly its purpose...   

It is obvious to me it is pointless to rewrite, impeach, reverse the 55 year old testimony of literally all witnesses in the
record for the purpose of attempting to establish consensus of unprovable observation of who was or wasn't present on
TSBD's entrance way.

I seriously disagree with the "unprovable" part and have shown reason why in the "Prayer Woman" thread (that Tom judges but has never participated in himself)...This is important because a certain group has made power moves in the community based on this Prayer Man nonsense where, like Cinque, they have gained notoriety and acceptance from major assassination research figures who haven't checked their claims before giving them recognition...Though I do agree that the persons in question have entered a ridiculous amount of self-revised testimony to make their bogus claim that Prayer Man was Oswald work...So much so that major figures who back them should see it for what it is and realize its bogusness...

I think I can safely claim that I have reasonably proven Prayer Man is Depository employee Sarah Stanton so we can move to restoring legitimate research and accepting that the evidence is likely showing that Oswald was in the 2nd floor lunch room at the time of the shots...Another forum now has the individually-targeted rule that a majorly important new discovery I made of a second witness seeing Oswald by the lunch room with a Coke cannot be mentioned because I was the source...Apparently the community now values petty vindictiveness and subjectively-targeted censorship over good research and evidence, while making speeches over the importance of free speech, while violating those same principles when it comes to me (in order not to admit Murphy was wrong)...Not to mention that my 6 paragraphs of proof went unanswered by the same persons who got the moderator to shut the topic down with new rules instead of answering them...
« Last Edit: August 12, 2018, 04:08:58 PM by Brian Doyle »

Offline Paul May

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 84
Tom, quite simply, 55 years out there is nothing left to discuss.  Every blog, every forum, every day, same discussions.  Same threads.  Same arguments. Everything released by NARA. So what’s the point at this point?

Offline Brian Doyle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1021
I guess what Tom is really saying here is when you can get moderators to ban the person with the evidence you can't answer you can then ignore them while still attacking them when they can't defend themselves...

JFK Assassination Forum


Support The Forum - Make A Small Donation