17-06-2013, 04:55 PM
I decided to stay quiet after John Simkin blew a gasket over at EF. I thought, well what is the point? If a guy who is supposed to be a teacher is that unfair in castigating people who cannot answer, then forget it.
But his latest blast at Tom Scully, who cannot answer since he is banned, really is something. And I think needs a reply.
In this one, Simkin uses a post by Martin Hay that is fairly old to revive his supposed reason for banning Scully and myself. Which is due to Albarelli's complaint to him. But here's the problem:
I, and others, like Martin Hay, still cannot find where Tom called Albarelli a liar.
And neither can Albarelli.
Let me delineate 2 points which I do not think many people understand. First, when Peter Janney published his book on the Mary Meyer case, he clearly tried to say that William Mitchell, a witness at the Crump trial and his new suspect, had passed from the face of the earth. He was trying to imply that since Leo Damore's meeting with him--in which Mitchell made all kinds of explosive admissions to nefarious CIA work during a long discussion with the late author--that since then, Mitchell either was retired into some top secret witness protection scheme, or he was offed for opening his mouth. Either way, the man had disappeared into the wind. We would see him no more. Janney had tried desperately to find him. He had moved heaven and earth to do so. But it was no use. The trail was lost somewhere....Mitchell.......... was...........gone.
Tom Scully, working with nothing more than a computer and his skill in using it, suddenly did what Janney and his so called team of researchers could not do. He found the CIA assassin that talked to Damore for hours on end...and then disappeared or was offed.
Except, he was neither offed nor did he disappear. He simply moved to California and was working in the UC system. Tom did all this by something that was neither expensive, nor very difficult. He did it by Google search.
This was quite embarrassing for Janney. After all, he said the guy was Pfft. But he wasn't. So Janney now tried to remove the creme pie from his face. After all, why trust a guy like that? His book had been in the preparation stages for years and years. And he flubbed something that easy? So in laboriously removing the pie from his face he tried to say that:
1. Mitchell had somehow shortened his first name.
2. Mitchell had somehow changed his social security number.
3. Google had changed its search modes. (How he kept a straight face on this last one is a miracle.)
All of this just to try and avoid the conclusion that he had, like others in this field, overstated something that should have been left wide open.
But what made it even worse is that when Tom Scully actually found the guy on Google, Janney would not give Tom the credit for doing what he could not do. Even though it was obvious to anyone that this is precisely what had occurred. (For comparison, in my books and articles, I always try and give recognition to people whose work has helped me. Sometimes, I actually give them too much credit.)
But there was a problem here that neither Janney, nor Albarelli, had faced. (In Hank's case, I don't think he is aware of it.) It's this: In reading Damore's detailed description of "Mitchell the CIA assassin", who he met with and broke bread with, Damore was pretty precise about things--even his age and family situation. And here is the rub: the guy Damore met with cannot be the guy Scully found in California. They clearly do not match. Any anyone can see that if you read Damore's memo in Janney's book and then read Tom's work. In other words, Scully's Mitchell is the historical Mitchell, but he is not Damore's Mitchell, the CIA assassin guy.
This leaves us with an unpleasant quandary. When I wrote my review of Janney's book, among other things, I criticized Janney's unskeptical acceptance of Damore's rendition of this meeting. I was very specific as to why, listing my points. Tom's work now delineates the problem in even greater relief.
Here is my question to Simkin: If you cannot pose these types of questions on a JFK forum, then what is the use or value of the forum? How is the "the education forum" then either a "forum" or "educational"? To me, its neither. Its censorship. Its the opposite of educational. Its making people accept bad and deceptive research as the truth, when its not. And then Mr. Janney had the nerve to call Lisa Pease and myself Nazis. And Simkin let him post that libel on his forum! Never bothering to ask Mr. Janney how Damore's Mitchell could be Scully's Mitchell.
And let me add this: Tom Scully is a class act. Because he has further inside info on Damore and Janney that is relevant, important and unbecoming to both men. Even in the face of Simkin tromping on him when he is not there to defend himself--the equivalent of punching someone with his hands tied--he has not gone the Gary Mack route and posted it by proxy.
Now, as everyone knows, Simkin had a horse in this race. He had been friends with Janney prior to all this. He had promoted his work to David Talbot, who unfortunately used it in his book Brothers. And since Tom had done this sensational work on the Meyer case, Simkin now started taking shots at him backstage. Even though Tom was one of the few mods trying to enforce some of the proper decorum on that forum! I mean we know how useful some of them are over there: the main preoccupation seems to keep non-member Gary Mack a member so he can pm newbies and delude them with his propaganda. Tom actually tried to enforce some rules.
Now at the EF, David Lifton actually did call me a liar and said that I was posting fiction on that board. Unlike with Albarelli, this was a clear cut case of a violation. I waited for one of the mods to do something. To my knowledge: they did not. Too busy protecting Gary Mack. To my knowledge: Simkin did nothing either. So I had to defend myself, since no one else would. I proved what I said was true. And warned him not to do it again.
Now I ask: Is that not a clear double standard?
The sheer and utter hypocrisy of that comparison is one reason I did not say anything about Simkin's decision to expel. Because it was clearly self-serving: Janney was his friend and colleague. Tom and I were not. And that was that. This was clearly reflected in his self indulgent and ill disguised blast at me in his New Regime annoucement: about people thinking John Kennedy was Jesus Christ. Before me, Simkin made all kinds of ignorant and simply wrong pronouncements about JFK's foreign policy beliefs. Like many people in this field, he was not even aware of what the guy had done prior to 1961. So I corrected these at length and defended JFK against the charge he was a Cold Warrior prior to 1962--which is what Janney said he was, even after I went through all this. Simkin says correcting the record with facts and documents is saying Kennedy is Christ. No its not John. Its showing how ignorant and biased you were and how you were misleading people.
I don't think Simkin realized the buzz he would create when he started his New Regime. But the buzz has been going on for several days now. So he tries to defend it by saying that with people like me and Tom gone, now people like Doug Horne will come on and discuss his book. The problem is this: he can't even get that right. Horne's book came out in 2009. I did not log in until a year later. If Horne would not come on at that time, it was not because of me.
But that's OK John, you have people like Trejo and Terri there to question Nixon's hatchet man Roger Stone when his book comes out. That should be plenty "educational".
But his latest blast at Tom Scully, who cannot answer since he is banned, really is something. And I think needs a reply.
In this one, Simkin uses a post by Martin Hay that is fairly old to revive his supposed reason for banning Scully and myself. Which is due to Albarelli's complaint to him. But here's the problem:
I, and others, like Martin Hay, still cannot find where Tom called Albarelli a liar.
And neither can Albarelli.
Let me delineate 2 points which I do not think many people understand. First, when Peter Janney published his book on the Mary Meyer case, he clearly tried to say that William Mitchell, a witness at the Crump trial and his new suspect, had passed from the face of the earth. He was trying to imply that since Leo Damore's meeting with him--in which Mitchell made all kinds of explosive admissions to nefarious CIA work during a long discussion with the late author--that since then, Mitchell either was retired into some top secret witness protection scheme, or he was offed for opening his mouth. Either way, the man had disappeared into the wind. We would see him no more. Janney had tried desperately to find him. He had moved heaven and earth to do so. But it was no use. The trail was lost somewhere....Mitchell.......... was...........gone.
Tom Scully, working with nothing more than a computer and his skill in using it, suddenly did what Janney and his so called team of researchers could not do. He found the CIA assassin that talked to Damore for hours on end...and then disappeared or was offed.
Except, he was neither offed nor did he disappear. He simply moved to California and was working in the UC system. Tom did all this by something that was neither expensive, nor very difficult. He did it by Google search.
This was quite embarrassing for Janney. After all, he said the guy was Pfft. But he wasn't. So Janney now tried to remove the creme pie from his face. After all, why trust a guy like that? His book had been in the preparation stages for years and years. And he flubbed something that easy? So in laboriously removing the pie from his face he tried to say that:
1. Mitchell had somehow shortened his first name.
2. Mitchell had somehow changed his social security number.
3. Google had changed its search modes. (How he kept a straight face on this last one is a miracle.)
All of this just to try and avoid the conclusion that he had, like others in this field, overstated something that should have been left wide open.
But what made it even worse is that when Tom Scully actually found the guy on Google, Janney would not give Tom the credit for doing what he could not do. Even though it was obvious to anyone that this is precisely what had occurred. (For comparison, in my books and articles, I always try and give recognition to people whose work has helped me. Sometimes, I actually give them too much credit.)
But there was a problem here that neither Janney, nor Albarelli, had faced. (In Hank's case, I don't think he is aware of it.) It's this: In reading Damore's detailed description of "Mitchell the CIA assassin", who he met with and broke bread with, Damore was pretty precise about things--even his age and family situation. And here is the rub: the guy Damore met with cannot be the guy Scully found in California. They clearly do not match. Any anyone can see that if you read Damore's memo in Janney's book and then read Tom's work. In other words, Scully's Mitchell is the historical Mitchell, but he is not Damore's Mitchell, the CIA assassin guy.
This leaves us with an unpleasant quandary. When I wrote my review of Janney's book, among other things, I criticized Janney's unskeptical acceptance of Damore's rendition of this meeting. I was very specific as to why, listing my points. Tom's work now delineates the problem in even greater relief.
Here is my question to Simkin: If you cannot pose these types of questions on a JFK forum, then what is the use or value of the forum? How is the "the education forum" then either a "forum" or "educational"? To me, its neither. Its censorship. Its the opposite of educational. Its making people accept bad and deceptive research as the truth, when its not. And then Mr. Janney had the nerve to call Lisa Pease and myself Nazis. And Simkin let him post that libel on his forum! Never bothering to ask Mr. Janney how Damore's Mitchell could be Scully's Mitchell.
And let me add this: Tom Scully is a class act. Because he has further inside info on Damore and Janney that is relevant, important and unbecoming to both men. Even in the face of Simkin tromping on him when he is not there to defend himself--the equivalent of punching someone with his hands tied--he has not gone the Gary Mack route and posted it by proxy.
Now, as everyone knows, Simkin had a horse in this race. He had been friends with Janney prior to all this. He had promoted his work to David Talbot, who unfortunately used it in his book Brothers. And since Tom had done this sensational work on the Meyer case, Simkin now started taking shots at him backstage. Even though Tom was one of the few mods trying to enforce some of the proper decorum on that forum! I mean we know how useful some of them are over there: the main preoccupation seems to keep non-member Gary Mack a member so he can pm newbies and delude them with his propaganda. Tom actually tried to enforce some rules.
Now at the EF, David Lifton actually did call me a liar and said that I was posting fiction on that board. Unlike with Albarelli, this was a clear cut case of a violation. I waited for one of the mods to do something. To my knowledge: they did not. Too busy protecting Gary Mack. To my knowledge: Simkin did nothing either. So I had to defend myself, since no one else would. I proved what I said was true. And warned him not to do it again.
Now I ask: Is that not a clear double standard?
The sheer and utter hypocrisy of that comparison is one reason I did not say anything about Simkin's decision to expel. Because it was clearly self-serving: Janney was his friend and colleague. Tom and I were not. And that was that. This was clearly reflected in his self indulgent and ill disguised blast at me in his New Regime annoucement: about people thinking John Kennedy was Jesus Christ. Before me, Simkin made all kinds of ignorant and simply wrong pronouncements about JFK's foreign policy beliefs. Like many people in this field, he was not even aware of what the guy had done prior to 1961. So I corrected these at length and defended JFK against the charge he was a Cold Warrior prior to 1962--which is what Janney said he was, even after I went through all this. Simkin says correcting the record with facts and documents is saying Kennedy is Christ. No its not John. Its showing how ignorant and biased you were and how you were misleading people.
I don't think Simkin realized the buzz he would create when he started his New Regime. But the buzz has been going on for several days now. So he tries to defend it by saying that with people like me and Tom gone, now people like Doug Horne will come on and discuss his book. The problem is this: he can't even get that right. Horne's book came out in 2009. I did not log in until a year later. If Horne would not come on at that time, it was not because of me.
But that's OK John, you have people like Trejo and Terri there to question Nixon's hatchet man Roger Stone when his book comes out. That should be plenty "educational".
