I just spent the last few hours catching up on the final death throws of the EF. It is a great shame that such could not wait until after the 50th - that is almost in 'unspeakable' territory, whatever I feel about some there. Dunne's facial identity was allowed to be hidden, I only wondered if his name was too - its really not important. He thoughtfully speaks the truth, and although very highly respected by Simkin, and they exchange some private messages, as well [as I once did with JS, back in the 'old days], he is not afraid to call JS 'out' and call a spade a spade. He never posted often, but when he did all of sound mind read his words carefully, as they were crafted carefully and thoughtfully. One does have to question, however, the fact that certain people were dismissed for what JS perceived as crossing the line, while other clowns who have almost never made a post that did not, are allowed to remain. Dunne's brilliant piece on those who call out the liars getting harsher treatment than those who simply lie is true and enlightening. Evenhandedness was never a EF strongpoint..
"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws. - Mayer Rothschild
"Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience! People are obedient in the face of poverty, starvation, stupidity, war, and cruelty. Our problem is that grand thieves are running the country. That's our problem!" - Howard Zinn
"If there is no struggle there is no progress. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and never will" - Frederick Douglass
There were two fine posters over there on this issue and several others, and their names sounded alike.
Daniel Wayne Dunn is the first guy Peter linked to.
Robert Charles Dunne is the second guy.
Per The Future of the Forum thread, both of them offered brilliant posts. THey were so good that I congratulated them via proxies on the PM system there.
You know, its funny, but a JFK blogger named Hasan Yusuf emailed me when he saw that Simkin had banned Tom and myself. He said words to the effect, You watch, this will hurt him more than it will hurt you and Tom. Guess he was right.
Its a shame really. There is a lot of valuable information there and some really good people: Dunn and Hogan and Dunne for example. Let us hope that like Martin Hay, they migrate over here. I really hope to see Lee Farley here soon for example.
What are the Military Censor and the Boys from Brazil going to do now?
Don'tcha just luv these C21st animated hieroglyphs?
"It means this War was never political at all, the politics was all theatre, all just to keep the people distracted...."
"Proverbs for Paranoids 4: You hide, They seek."
"They are in Love. Fuck the War." Gravity's Rainbow, Thomas Pynchon
"Ccollanan Pachacamac ricuy auccacunac yahuarniy hichascancuta." The last words of the last Inka, Tupac Amaru, led to the gallows by men of god & dogs of war
From what I understand, taking a cue from Charles, Simkin has now decided to leave up his forum until the 50th.
I wished Charles had not said that.
I just looked over there at a thread started by Stephen Roy aka David Blackburst. It was about his meeting with Gordon Novel. Absolutely worthless except as an ad for his never ending book on Ferrie. So it makes sense that Lifton, who has a never ending book on Oswald, jumps on.
He wants to know: Geez Steve, but I want t know, was Gordon part of a covert op against Garrison?
Do you believe this stuff? No David, Garrison indicted him and he fled to Ohio because of a traffic ticket.
In my book, this is the evidence I mount in this regard:
1. Novel's own admission he wired Garrison's office for sound.
2. Novel's own admission that he was trying to bribe officers for evidence from Garrison's files.
3. Novel's own admission that he gave some copies of his tapes to Walter Sheridan.
4. Novel's inside knowledge that certain officers would be transferred to Garrison BEFORE THEY DID.
5. Novel's knowledge of Shaw's location after indictment when Garrison could not find him for 11 days.
6. Novel's sale of his bar after Garrison indicted him and his hiring of two lawyers.
7. Novel's safe housing under guard in Columbus--from the guy who safehoused him.
8. Novel's admission that he now began to work with over a dozen CIA media asset to smear JG.
9. Novel's own admission that Sheridan arranged a phony polygraph for him.
10. Novel's discussions and letters to Dulles about escaping JG's extradition request.
11. Novel's letter to Helms about Garrison while he was in New Orleans.
12. Novel's reference to his four attorneys being "clandestinely renumerated" to fight JG's extradition.
13. Novel's admission under oath that once Shaw was acquitted, he was able to trade in his 7 year old car for a brand new super luxury Lincoln. I could have added that he also bought a beautiful estate with a pool when he returned to New Orleans after Garrison was indicted.
14. Novel's own admission that Dulles hired him to wire Garrison's office.
I think that 14 sources and admissions kind of shows that Gordon was on some kind of covert mission against Garrison. And I think most would agree with that 14 pieces of evidence is enough for a conclusion. BTW, I left one piece of bombshell evidence out also.
I mean maybe that's not enough for Ray Carroll and Lifton. But that is why the EF is the EF.
Sadly i see that as of probably an hour and a half ago John Simkin has posted that he is discontinuing that JFK forum.
I say sadly as I am worried that the archive of that forum may not remain online as an archive for the educational purposes that the site is.
I was a follower and a reader of that forum so much more than a participant. When i first encountered it, i was amazed at the quality and quantity of material presented and discussed. I have been totally in respect for the effort made to present this quality material for the education of many.
I just hope that those here and on other forums continue in the great spirit of this investigation and are mindful of the mistakes which have caused so much stress and strife.
I just hope that John Simkin respects that wonderful contribution to the history of the subject he has achieved and it remains for reference as part of that Education Forum.
May this and other forums remain forever, as they are absolutely vital to the investigation.
Jerry Ellis Wrote:Sadly i see that as of probably an hour and a half ago John Simkin has posted that he is discontinuing that JFK forum.
I say sadly as I am worried that the archive of that forum may not remain online as an archive for the educational purposes that the site is.
I was a follower and a reader of that forum so much more than a participant. When i first encountered it, i was amazed at the quality and quantity of material presented and discussed. I have been totally in respect for the effort made to present this quality material for the education of many.
I just hope that those here and on other forums continue in the great spirit of this investigation and are mindful of the mistakes which have caused so much stress and strife.
I just hope that John Simkin respects that wonderful contribution to the history of the subject he has achieved and it remains for reference as part of that Education Forum.
May this and other forums remain forever, as they are absolutely vital to the investigation.
I share your hopes Jerry that the posts there are left intact as a historical reference for every one to access. Though history there does not bode well. John had a habit of periodically deleting pictures because in his opinion they took up too much bandwidth. Plus several thousand of Peter Lemkin's posts were deleted along with his membership under very unjust circumstances. EF members might be able to use a downloading tool such as this: http://www.httrack.com/ which is free and easy to use.
We certainly plan on being here for the long haul. And we have noted the mistakes of other forums and are seeking to learn from them as well as our own past mistakes. We have tightened up our moderation procedures to make it a better place for members to interact and explore ideas and research. We welcome diversity but do not provide a home for lone nuttery or bad intent. The vast majority of EF members would be very welcome here.
"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it." Karl Marx
"He would, wouldn't he?" Mandy Rice-Davies. When asked in court whether she knew that Lord Astor had denied having sex with her.
“I think it would be a good idea” Ghandi, when asked about Western Civilisation.
24-06-2013, 10:51 PM (This post was last modified: 24-06-2013, 11:16 PM by Thomas Graves.)
Martin Hay Wrote:[...] When it came to Tom Scully, I asked John to show us where Tom had called Albarelli "a liar" which was the very reason he said Tom's account had been deleted. He did not respond until today when he offered this quote:
"Now that Janney is in the business of making claims misleading to the point that they are deliberate lies, Albarelli's continued silence about what Janney has attributed to Albarelli in "Mary's Mosaic" is inexcusable."
Anyone with even the most basic of comprehension skills can see that nowhere in that sentence did Tom call Albarelli a liar as Simkin erroneously claimed he did. [...]
[emphasis added by T. Graves]
Dear Martin,
I respectfully disagree with your interpretation.
Of course Scully didn't come right out and say, for example, "Janney is a liar," or "Janney is in the business of telling lies." It would have been foolhardy of him to do so, wouldn't it?
IMHO, what Scully said was tantamount to calling Janney a liar, and he phrased it very cleverly in a long, convoluted sentence in an attempt to fly it under Simkin's radar, but, unfortunately for Scully, Simkin caught it.
What Scully said would be very similar to someone's saying, for example, "Janney deliberately makes misleading claims." In my book, that's the same as calling Janney a liar.
And for from the what it's worth department, Scully's phrase "deliberate lies" is a redundancy. All lies are, by definition, "deliberate" in that they are statements that are known to be false by the speaker, but the speaker goes ahead and says them anyway, in a non-joking or a non-story telling way. One can only wonder, then, why Scully would use the word "deliberate" with the word "lies," when using the former was unnecessary to the point of being redundant.
Tom, you are missing the point about the precipitating event.
The whole thing was precipitated by Albarelli. That is where the accusations of lying began.
Not with Janney. Janney, as you know signed off a long time ago. He posted that long and ugly diatribe against me and Lisa, calling us Nazis and agents of the Spanish Inquisition. Compared us to book burners.
I mean I think its still there. You didn't notice it? Or maybe you thought it was OK?
That was his parting shot. Scully was asking Hank if he stood by that stuff about Mitchell being a CIA assassin. Since Hank supplied info to Janney. The point Tom was making, which evidently many people, including yourself, missed is this: If Hank's info is accurate, it cannot refer to the guy Damore said he interviewed. Since that guy is not the guy Tom found, and Janney then claimed as his own.
Now, personally, I don't think Hank understands this point. That is why I gave him the benefit of the doubt. (A lot of people did not analyze exactly what Janney was saying in his book. Unless you took notes, it was not easy to follow.)
And that is what got misconstrued as calling Hank a liar. And that is when Hank got upset and logged on. And that is what caused it all. If Hank had not done that, and complained privately to Simkin, there would not have been a big event. Because Simkin now used Albarelli's complaint to bring it down, with Tom and me being the perps.
Ignoring the implicit message that it was OK for Janney to call me a Nazi, and Lifton to say I wrote fiction. But you cannot question Hank about his sources. Even if they do not jibe with what has been established.
25-06-2013, 04:19 AM (This post was last modified: 25-06-2013, 07:22 AM by Thomas Graves.)
Dear Jim,
Isn't it possible that Simkin meant to accuse Scully of calling EF member Janney a liar (Which Scully did in so many words), not Albarelli?
Sincerely,
--Tommy (aka "Thomas" aka "Tom")
PS: So what's the bottom line on "William L. Mitchell," the alleged CIA assassin who allegedly killed Mary Meyer and then testified that Crump was the killer? Has he been found, and if so, by whom? It's my understanding that the "William L. Mitchell" whom Scully found in California is not the same "William L. Mitchell" who testified in the Mary Meyer murder trial. So where's the latter one and what name is he going by now? Is he still living, or did he die, "up and die," or change his name and disappear?
Does anyone know where on the Net can I read Mitchell's testimony against Crump?
