The Simkin Spectacle

[Jim DiEugenio]

I didn't read it that way. And if you follow the thread you will see that it was Hank who was upset about having his credibility threatened.

He then complained to Simkin about anyone questioning his sources or him having to defend his sources. Which I really do not understand.

I myself, opened up a thread on my book which had over 21, 000 views. And I would have been glad to answer questions as long as anyone wanted to ask them.

Hank did not like that and complained. And that was that.

FYI Tom:the guy that Janney wants everyone to think he found after all these years is the guy Tom found. And Janney found him through Tom.

Now, please follow: if you read Janney's book, Damore wrote a memo on his meeting with this CIA assassin. Said he talked to him for like four hours. Got tons of info on him. Vivid description.Which is all in the book.

The problem is this: That description does not jibe with the guy Tom found. And the guy Scully found fits the trial witness like a glove.

Now, if that is the case, then something is wrong somewhere. And I pointed out some of the problems in my review of that book. I did not spell them out since Damore is dead and canot defend himself or explain himself. But Janney never has explained this problem. In fact, he never has even acknowledged it.

If you don't understand these basic points, and your post indicates you do not, then you are behind the learning curve. And you should read up on these things before you pop in here and defend Simkin for doing something he should not have done.

[Martin Hay]

Dear Jim,

It's seems obvious to me that Simkin meant to accuse Scully of calling EF member Janney a liar (Which Scully did in so many words), not Albarelli.

So then why, after I repeatedly asked John "Man of Principles" Simkin to prove his charge that Scully called ALBARELLI a liar, did he not correct himself?

[Jim Hackett II]

Magda said,
"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...."
[End quote from Magda]

Thanks and again thanks to all the founders and mods for making sure there is one place where conspiracy does NOT have to be debated.
Progress enabled by this simple choice, the quagmire eliminated.
Think of the hours wasted on useless debate in that topic alone over the last 50 years. Define the lexicon, define the reality ---
a tactic of the Enemy.

[Albert Doyle]

Simkin allowed Von Pein to counter the progress of points with regressive form-type generalities. When the posts forced Von Pein into defending his denial of the evidence he would revert to some overly general rhetoric instead of living up to what was shown. Simkin then defended Von Pein as having a right to a contrary opinion. But that wasn't intellectually honest and Von Pein should have been censured for not living up to the progress of proven points. In short, Von Pein's arguments failed but he was allowed to keep making them under counter-productive and wrongly-invoked free speech rules.

[Magda Hassan]

Thanks and again thanks to all the founders and mods for making sure there is one place where conspiracy does NOT have to be debated.
Progress enabled by this simple choice, the quagmire eliminated.
Think of the hours wasted on useless debate in that topic alone over the last 50 years. Define the lexicon, define the reality ---
a tactic of the Enemy.

You're welcome Jim. Can't remember who said it but it goes "If you can get them asking the wrong questions it doesn't matter about the answers" One reason we don't give space to the nutters.

[Phil Dragoo]

"If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers."
Thomas Pynchon, Gravity's Rainbow

And a resonance of the thunderclap by he whom Janney called such awful epithets, Jim DiEugenio above:

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.

The destruction of Garrison was a product of a coven including Dulles, Helms, Novel et al.

The Famous Forum of John Potemkin allowed the Lilliputian assault on every lucid and therefore dangerous poster.

Mickey the Dope provided the "I'll hold your coats" arena.

As Magda notes, that's not how DPF rolls.

[Jim DiEugenio]

Thanks Phil.

That's what I mean. See, IMO, any author should be able to defend their work, thesis by thesis. Especially in the wake of the ARRB releases.

So therefore, I was open to any question, of any type, concerning my book. And I still am open to any questions.

I mean, I thought that this idea was rather elementary. Its one reason that people join forums.

If you cannot ask questions without being worried that someone will complain, I mean, what is the point? Or if you cannot criticize a book without someone calling you a Nazi and comparing you to Torquemada and book burning, I mean, give me a break.

And like I said, I like Hank. I think he is a good guy. And I like a lot of his work. But if you cannot question anything about an author's work, then count me out.

[Jim Hackett II]

I hope more authors will choose to update works with the ARRB data as Jim did.
Or write new ones incorporating the current data and methodology.
I have both editions of Destiny Betrayed and The Assassinations.
Recently I bought the PROBE disc.
I did this for a reason and that reason is that I value the product(s).

I don't agree 100% with any one single author/researcher, but I vote with my dollars.
I know Jim doesn't expect me to agree with him to be able to discuss his works in a civil manner.

Mr. Douglass' books and a few others I esteem as much as Jim DiEugenio's work.

[Jim DiEugenio]

Thanks. Glad you have all three, and if I see you this fall in Pittsburgh or Dallas, will be glad to sign all of them. And i agree that more people should update their books in light of the ARRB.

As many people have noted, its like Night and Day now with all the new info. The second edition of Destiny Betrayed is over 90% rewritten. I think Jim Marrs is redoing Crossfire.

I am really glad that people are buying the Probe CD.

I mean there is so much great stuff on that. I could not have written the book without it.

I will never forget when we suspended doing Probe. I got like 60 letters, notes, e mails, faxes. It was like people had just had a death in the family.

BTW, when Jim Douglass sent me his book to review, he had it inscribed, I would have never written this if I had not subscribed to Probe.

Well, that makes two of us.

[Dawn Meredith]

Jim: What makes you think John will be keeping the forum until after the 50th? Do you mean just leaving the content?
His post certainly never indicated that. Then there was an update from Burton but I don 't see that now.
Perhaps whoever told you this misunderstood?

Dawn
.