The Simkin Spectacle

[Albert Rossi]

Jim, as I said in my review, I don't think anybody can come away from your book and still have doubts about all this. The evidence you muster is just too overwhelming.

[Jim DiEugenio]

I think you should amend that to "anyone objective".

For some people, no amount of evidence about Garrison is ever enough.

I should add, Phelan's daughter and widow, both became quite sensitive about all this after these new files were published in Probe.

They were probably alerted to it by Patricia Lambert. Lambert was a very close friend of Phelan's family, like a godmother to his daughter. Which, if I recall, she did not reveal in her trashy book.

Lambert subscribed to Probe by the way. But under her husband's name.

[Albert Rossi]

I think you should amend that to "anyone objective".

Granted. Presumption of reasonability.

[Dawn Meredith]

Yawn.

Ray Carroll is the symbol there.

The guy who said he taped Mark Lane scampering away in fright from him. But somehow he couldn't come up with the tape for years. To this day. Uh maybe because he didn't do it? But he would complain about this right. Therefore, its OK to libel Mark Lane but its not OK to call Ray Carroll what he is, a BS artist.

But they let him keep on saying it.

Now, he still conveys all that James Phelan BS about Perry Russo. Even though I tracked down Matt Herron, a guy he probably never heard of. So, in other words, with all this newly disengorged stuff about JG, here is Carroll back in Phelan/Aynesworth territory.

I guess this is the new regime there. Carroll and his BS rules. Figures.

Its incredible the people they lost: Greg Parker and Lee Farley especially.

That is most kind of you Jim to refer to Ray Carroll's garbage as "bs". I have a different name for it. Having read him lie about and trash Jim Garrison since 2004, I would say he's a man with an agenda. And not one that he would have us believe.
So now they have the likes of him, Von Pein, and all the lone nutters falling all over themselves in their efforts. No matter how much is unearthed to prove Garrison was right, Ray Carroll will fall bsck on his same old same old. Now he and David Lifton can pat each other on the back and trash Garrison. which tells us way more about them than it does Garrison and his case.

Of course Lambert got Probe, she had to keep up in order to tear down.

So intellectually dishonest. I could not read her trash book.

Dawn

[Jim DiEugenio]

Well, that probably is being kind.

Carroll was a friend of Dennis Ford's during the days that Jerry Rose's The Fourth Decade was under siege by people like Dave Perry, Mark Zaid, Ford etc. I thought many of these new authors, who appeared after Stone's film came out, were kind of spooky.

Anyway, from what I know, Ford was really chummy with Carroll. Ford has now written an online book ridiculing the critics based upon a fictional seminar in Dallas. Now, clearly, the timeliness of this-with the big upcoming shindigs--reminds us of how he first appeared after Stone's film. Which tends to indicate to me, that its not just the Power Elite in Dallas that is preparing for the 50th.

Maybe someone should ask Carroll for the inside story about that from his buddy Ford? I am almost tempted to read the book just to see how slanted it is.

But how about what he said about Marina Oswald. I explained how when I met her in 1993, she was all gushy about Garrison. She said he that, along with the Baron, he was the most charismatic man she ever met. He said he later corrected her when he met her. I should have asked Ray if this was before or after the mythical meeting which sent Lane scampering away from him in terror.

The other thing that is funny, Simkin is just discovering that Shaw knew Banister! Hey who knows, maybe they will soon admit that Shaw was with Oswald in Clinton/Jackson? I mean there were only about 24 witnesses who saw it.

[Rob Caprio]

Oops.

Simkin is closing the JFK forum down. See [URL="http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20284"]HERE
[/URL]

John Simkin

• 
  
• admin
  
• 
  
• 15,933 posts
  

Posted Today, 07:09 AM
On 9th June I started a thread on the Future of the JFK Forum. I explained the reasons why I established the JFK Forum in March, 2003 and why I was so concerned about the way it had deteriorated into a Forum of bullying and personal abuse. I said I would make one last effort to make it work.

http://educationforu...showtopic=20259

However, it soon became clear that I did not have the full support of my moderators. One of them, Gary Loughran, actually used the thread to carry out an attack on me.

In real life, I have surrounded myself with kind and supportive friends. They know who I am and act accordingly. My life is good and it is virtually without conflict. Yet on the Forum I have to take this abuse. I can no longer endure the stress this creates. Nor do I have the time or energy to try to keep people under control.

My original vision of JFK researchers coming together to share information in a collaborative and friendly way does not appear to be favoured by enough members to make it work. I have therefore decided to close it down and let members form the kind of Forum that is more to their liking.

Mr. Simkin has described perfectly what happens when WC defenders are allowed on your board. I am NOT for banning anyone as I believe in the right to voice your opinion, but if you have been a member of any board that allows WC defenders (for me it was ACJ and JFKAssassination Forum) this is eventually the kind of situation that will develop. By far the worse is ACJ where you can be attacked personally and slandered to the extreme. The message of the assassination is lost eventually and it becomes nothing but a contest of wills regarding who can insult better. Of course that is the goal of the WC defender since the evidence does NOT support the conclusions of the WC.

I understand the desire to be fair and allow WC defenders on your board, but you need rules for them. Unfortunately, they seem to be the ones that get the protection on some boards when they are causing the vast majority of the issues.

David Von Pein is like the WC Report--at first he sounds good, but once you check out and compare what he is saying with the actual evidence in this case then you quickly realize he is blowing nothing but hot air.

I have tried to join EF over the years, but they never seem to be accepting members, so how did you all become members?

[Jim Hackett II]

Why Bother?

For all the reasons you cite.
There is NO DEBATE. NONE re:LN.
It NEVER WAS.
LN is only the COVER UP.
I won't speak for others but I expect near unanimous agreement on Deep Politics Forum,
The Conspiracy is not a thing to be debated. It is fact and demonstrably so.
The LN Legend is obfuscation of reality.
The Federales in charge of the "investigation" were complicit in the coverup.
Demonstrably so.

In short no LN debate here.

I don't miss the stench of operatives and the Church Lady.

[Albert Doyle]

Anyone who bans the Garrison supporters in favor of his critics has dismissed their own credibility in my opinion.

[David Healy]

...

By far the worse is ACJ where you can be attacked personally and slandered to the extreme.
...
David Von Pein is like the WC Report--at first he sounds good, but once you check out and compare what he is saying with the actual evidence in this case then you quickly realize he is blowing
nothing but hot air.

I have tried to join EF over the years, but they never seem to be accepting members, so how did you all become members?

Regarding alt.conspiracy.jfk (ACJ): if I recall correctly, most of your JFK assassination conspiracy related posts (if not all) were challenged regarding case evidence. Thusly leaving you in the
unenviable position of defending not only yourself and motive but what could be construed as misdirection and excessive massaging of the Warren Commission Report. As Conspiracy
Theorist impersonators are wont to do on occasion. Further re ACJ: having posted on that specific USENET forum for many, many years, myself and others have seen alleged CT's who have over time not only "seen"the Warren Commission Report **light**, but went on to be -or- still are .John Mcadams - Mel Ayton - Ken Rhan sidekicks...

Regarding Ed Forum: perhaps the EF felt you were ALREADY a member there, utilizing an alias, perhaps?

And, folks are savvy here, not much debate and JFK's assassination does not make up the majority of discussion here...

[Rob Caprio]

...

By far the worse is ACJ where you can be attacked personally and slandered to the extreme.
...
David Von Pein is like the WC Report--at first he sounds good, but once you check out and compare what he is saying with the actual evidence in this case then you quickly realize he is blowing
nothing but hot air.

I have tried to join EF over the years, but they never seem to be accepting members, so how did you all become members?

Regarding alt.conspiracy.jfk (ACJ): if I recall correctly, most of your JFK assassination conspiracy related posts (if not all) were challenged regarding case evidence. Thusly leaving you in the
unenviable position of defending not only yourself and motive but what could be construed as misdirection and excessive massaging of the Warren Commission Report. As Conspiracy
Theorist impersonators are wont to do on occasion. Further re ACJ: having posted on that specific USENET forum for many, many years, myself and others have seen alleged CT's who have over time not only "seen"the Warren Commission Report **light**, but went on to be -or- still are .John Mcadams - Mel Ayton - Ken Rhan sidekicks...

Regarding Ed Forum: perhaps the EF felt you were ALREADY a member there, utilizing an alias, perhaps?

And, folks are savvy here, not much debate and JFK's assassination does not make up the majority of discussion here...

Mr. Healy,

You are entitled to your opinion, but if anyone reads the exchanges between me and your friend Ben Holmes they will quickly see it was HE who could NOT cite for his claims.

Since I have NEVER supported the WC Report I have no idea what you are talking about. I have a record on ACJ dating back to 2007 and one on JFKAssassination Forum dating back to 2010 so anyone can go search if they want, but they will NOT find one comment by me supporting the WC in anyway. So again, I am at a lost with your comment. Based on my debates with your friend Ben Holmes I had a clear vision of him either being totally confused and afraid to admit he did NOT know the evidence well, or he was a WC defender in hiding. Either way it really doesn't matter as ACJ is a place that is full of insults and slander anyway.

My series shows which side I am on and if you have an issue with any of the posts then let me know.

Regards,

Robert