Education Forum closing yet again...

[Albert Doyle]

Fetzer must be an agent provocateur. Why else does he get invited on TV every time the MSM wants to interview a "conspiracy theorist"? He can always be counted on to push the most ludicrous theories (EVERYTHING was faked!).

Unfortunately, the research community doesn't need agents to get people fighting with each other. They've been doing it since 1965 or thereabouts. Look through some of the letters in Harold Weisberg's archives and see how much snail-mail fighting there was back in the 60s and 70s.

He might be a genuine researcher who didn't have a good reality governer in his mental software. The mainstream media would be anxious to invite such persons on their own without the person being an agent provocateur.

[David Guyatt]

I've found Simkin's profiles of the various people named in the JFK assassination at Spartacus International
a convenient quick-stop place to get info.

I think you'll find the files here, especially those in the "Players, organizations and events of deep politics" folder here at DPF (placed just slightly above the JFK folder) to be more comprehensive and superior in its detail to John's Spartacus section. We have Magda to thank for the fantastic work she has done on this over the years.

[Mitchell Severson]

"He might be a genuine researcher who didn't have a good reality governer in his mental software. The mainstream media would be anxious to invite such persons on their own without the person being an agent provocateur."

That's exactly what I think about the Fetzer issue. When lower level producers get the job to run a "JFK Mystery" story, they know how it's supposed to play out for the public - expert vs. loon (and in this case, "Dr." loon). It reminds me of Chomsky's Propaganda Model. The people most successful in attaining a seat of power are the ones who have been most successfully propagandized. I can't imagine it's hard for the community college graduates at Fox News to realize that the sooner they absorb Roger Ailes opinions, the better. The higher you move up through the ranks, the more you know what not to talk about, and the more you believe the Thomas Friedman One World-One Market Right-Wing Propaganda. The strength of this conception is that it does not require manipulation by the Intelligence Community. Those at the top could have been approached at some time in their career (a la Mockingbird at Life, the NY Times, etc.), but not all "journalists" and reporters that we think are so obviously not in tune with reality. In fact, if that Mockingbird contact was made in a major decades ago, you'd have to think that servicing the interests of the US Government (aka "stability", winning the Cold War, avoiding Nuclear War, etc) became an informal part of our media culture. The end result being, of course, that we get to hear about sexual affairs and bridge closings, but nothing about domestic political assassinations, economic warfare, Geopolitics, etc.

I could actually learn to live with this, IF our ruling class didn't ensconce themselves within this system of maintaining order. And, it's not even that much order anyway.

[Marc Ellis]

I've found Simkin's profiles of the various people named in the JFK assassination at Spartacus International
a convenient quick-stop place to get info.

I think you'll find the files here, especially those in the "Players, organizations and events of deep politics" folder here at DPF (placed just slightly above the JFK folder) to be more comprehensive and superior in its detail to John's Spartacus section. We have Magda to thank for the fantastic work she has done on this over the years.

I didn't even know about these. Thanks.

[David Josephs]

Interesting...

I've spent the last few days discussing with Pat Speer his contention that the Bethesda Autopsy Evidence directly reflects the condition of JFK in Dallas

That nothing, I repeat, NOTHING was done to JFK's head between Dallas and the volume of Medical Evidence we have before us.

He refuses to address the 6:40 thru 8pm timeframe and offers THIS to the Ed Forum readers:

"Humes peeled back the scalp and the skull at the back of the head fell to the table.
The x-rays shows that the top and back of the head were fractured and likely to fall to the table once the scalp was peeled back.
There is no real contradiction between the report and what the witnesses remembered. The pictures didn't always reflect what the witnesses remembered, as is expected in all cases where witnesses are grilled on something that happened years and sometimes decades before.
But the majority of the witnesses signed off on the authenticity of the photos and x-rays once shown the originals.

and

You still refuse to appreciate one of the most basic aspects of the medical evidence, David. The "official" story is that Humes reflected the scalp early in the autopsy, before Finck's arrival, and that when he did so the shattered right side of the skull, including the back of the head, fell to pieces. Humes then removed Kennedy's brain, which came out rather easily due to the dura's being torn at the top, and (possibly) some damage being done to the brain stem. It follows from this that for the vast majority of the autopsy, there was a gaping hole on Kennedy's head.
"

THIS is the state of "quality research" presented about JFK at this point in time? We are talking AUTOPSY EVIDENCE in a thread called: "Did the autopsy doctors think the fatal bullet exited the back of the head?" what do you suppose his conclusion is?

An intact left side, intact left brain which simply FALLS OUT OF HIS HEAD... just extend the EXISTING LACERATIONS that form a craniotomy, and lo-and-behold, nothing is holding the LEFT SIDE of the scalp to the skull or skull to the brain...

and we're just supposed to sit there and nod approvals? or be called TROLLS for callin him out on it?


When a "respected researcher" cannot even address the simplist of question regarding their work...
Can ignore any and all the evidence offered
and just dismiss and change subjects.... we have a name for that, don't we?


There is a remarkable group of very serious people who have amazingly good discussion at Ed Forum... and it's been MUCH MORE CIVIL since the reopening, so I must not be privy to these ongoing attacks being discussed.

But to expect us not to challenge the accepted conclusions of "accepted" researchers is crazy.
Charles would have been all over this like white on rice... and thankfully so. I picked up his mission yet do it with evidence, example and illustration...

Promoting that the WCR autopsy evidence is an authentic representation of what occurred in Dallas, and then to offer this conclusion in the face of the evidence of a frontal shot blowing out the right rear of his head is simply a direct insult to JFK, his memory, everyone who understands the truth and to all of us here... but since Pat Speer says it, it must be true, cannot be challenged and those that do ought to be scolded?

http://www.patspeer.com/chapter20%3Aconc...fusions%3A
Sound or Shot #4.Approximate firing time: Zapruder frame 320-327.
Missed or possibly not even a shot. Quite possibly a loud firecracker used as a diversionary device.

[Jim DiEugenio]

Simkin did not do a very good job running the site I think, and Jeff Morley is offbase in attributing why.

People like RC Dunne, Duane Dunn, and Martin Hay all saw what happened.

Its not that Simkin did not allow the lone nut trolls. He did to an extreme degree e.g. DVP, and Reitzes and Carlier were all there at one time.

What they contributed utterly escapes me. I thought they were a complete waste.

It was the purges that really cut into the quality of the work there. And then when he would ban someone he would eliminate their posts, no matter how good they were.

Retzes got banned for just asking about this policy.

[Magda Hassan]

It was the purges that really cut into the quality of the work there. And then when he would ban someone he would eliminate their posts, no matter how good they were.

Yes I could never understand this at all. Especially for an historian and so called free speech advocate to wipe all traces of it existing. Peter Lemkin alone had thousands of posts and images there.

[Lauren Johnson]

It was the purges that really cut into the quality of the work there. And then when he would ban someone he would eliminate their posts, no matter how good they were.

Yes I could never understand this at all. Especially for an historian and so called free speech advocate to wipe all traces of it existing. Peter Lemkin alone had thousands of posts and images there.

\

What would make you think he wasn't a disinfo? I mean really.

[Magda Hassan]

It was the purges that really cut into the quality of the work there. And then when he would ban someone he would eliminate their posts, no matter how good they were.

Yes I could never understand this at all. Especially for an historian and so called free speech advocate to wipe all traces of it existing. Peter Lemkin alone had thousands of posts and images there.

\

What would make you think he wasn't a disinfo? I mean really.

It has been suggested by others iirc. Was certainly a welcome forum for it despite some very good people there.

[Albert Doyle]

Retzes got banned for just asking about this policy.

Well, there's always an exception to the rule.