What is going on at Spartacus?

[Charles Drago]

Well, over here at Deep Politics Forum, you can call forum members an "idiot son" and a "sap" ... especially if you are a moderator.

Dear Mr. Morrow,

I formally and publicly apologize for the insulting manners in which I have addressed and described you.

From this point forward, I shall take the high road thusly:

In my highly informed and Constitutionally-protected opinion, Phillip Nelson's "Mastermind" book amounts to an act of aggression in the wars for truth and justice regarding the JFK assassination. This act has been carried out on behalf of the Sponsors of the assassination -- willfullly or not, I cannot yet say, but I lean heavily toward the former.

Accordingly, I have taken an aggressive posture when confronting this disinformation.

Alas, like the little drummer boy at Isandlwana, you have been caught in the crossfire.

Again, in my highly informed and Constitutionally-protected opinion, you continue to evince not the slightest capability to see beyond the superficial regarding deep political analysis. I find your posts to be stunningly under-informed and absent all insight and erudition.

My considered choice of language when addressing you in the past now seems inappropriate as my colleagues and I who own and operate DPF move forward to enhance and expand our joint venture.

You have my word that if and when I respond to your posts, I shall do so in language that is respectful of DPF, its owners, and its contributors and viewers.

And in the process, I shall continue to respond in the affirmative when you ask, "May I have another?"

Charles Drago

[Jan Klimkowski]

In short, moderator Burton and the entity known as "Colby" - whose shiftworker status is exposed by frequent changes in speech patterns and literacy levels (one version can spell hypocrisy, another renders it "hypocracy" etc) - repeatedly disrupted serious informed debate in the Political Conspiracies section.

Techniques utilized included, but were not limited to: making posts invisible and inaccessible to the original poster; placing posters on moderation without seeking agreement from other moderators; diverting threads into blind alleys; engaging posters in endless debate on tiny, irrelevant points; baiting posters; trolling posters; and abusing posters.

Simkin was, as accurately described by Magda, routinely missing in action.

As were nearly all the alleged moderators and "forum leaders" whose virtual permanent absence left "moderation" of the board to Burton.

The Political Conspiracies section of the EF is now a deadzone.

Mission accomplished, Burton and "Colby" have now parked themselves in the JFK section - despite acknowledging zero knowledge or expertise regarding the subject in question.

The EF's treatment of Peter Lemkin, and destruction of his posts, was a disgrace.

[David Guyatt]

The EF's treatment of Peter Lemkin, and destruction of his posts, was a disgrace.

It was worse - it was malicious in the extreme and designed to wound and deeply hurt. And did.

And then the usual suspects took immense pleasure in crowing about it.

Nice.

[James H. Fetzer]

Robert,

Your answer to my earlier post and the questions Monk has raised are
extremely telling. I used to think that you were a serious student
of JFK. To fault the brilliant chapter by David Mantik on the film in
ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), for example, as you have done, tells
me that I have misjudged you. And to list THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM
HOAX (2003) on your list of the worst books on JFK is simply absurd.
Since MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000) also discusses the Zapruder
issue, I suppose you don't like it either. As a commentator on one
of your posts on amazon.com has observed, you excluded all three of
these books from a list you gave of "good books" on the assassination.
I expect that from Tink, but not from you. Even Bugliosi acknowledged
they are the only three "exclusively scientific" studies of his death.

Any student of JFK could learn more about the case--the serious side
of the case--from the Preface and the Prologue of HOAX by themselves
than from your collected works! The Prologue, for example, offers a
dozen or more examples of fraud in the evidence, which may be the key
issue for understanding the case. And for you to trash this book when,
by your own admission, you "have no studied the issue at length" is an
affront and an insult to those of us who have. At the very least, you
should acknowledge that you don't know enough to take a stand, not put
it on you list of "bad books". I am sorry to say that, on this basis, I
no longer regard you as being a competent scholar of the death of JFK.

For those who do "have time" to study one of the most contentions and
important issues in JFK research, here are some additional resources.
Over and beyond the articles cited below, I have several interviews
on the film with Rich DellaRosa on "The Real Deal", who, like Monk,
has seen "the other film" on multiple occasions. John Costella has
just done an interview with Len Osanic on "Black Op Radio" and a new
interview with Greg Burnham about the film will be broadcast on the
http://revereradio.net from 5-7 PM/CT, where the first hour features
Jesse Ventura discussing his new book, 63 DOCUMENTS THE GOVERNMENT
DOESN'T WANT YOU TO READ (2011), where the "63" was chosen because
1963 was the year in which JFK was taken out. Here are some links,
where anyone who studies EVEN ONE will know more than Robert Morrow:

ON THE FAKING OF THE ZAPRUDER FILM:

"New Proof of JFK Film Fakery"
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_...fk_fil.htm

"Mary in the Street - Revisited"
http://www.jfkresearch.com/Moorman/

"Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid"
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Zaprude...24-48.html

"US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication"
http://www.intrepidreport.com/archives/994

"The JFK 'Head Shot' Paradox"
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/fetzer1.1.1.html

"Who's telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?"
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/01/...ll-or.html

"Did Zapruder film 'the Zapruder film'?"
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/03/...-film.html

Plus John Costella has a nice tutorial into to Z-film fakery:

"THE JFK ASSASSINATION FILM HOAX: AN INTRODUCTION"
http://assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/

and there is a 66-part series about the Duluth conference I organized under
the title, "Zapruder Fakery", http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zSghy2TkIY

[quote name='Greg Burnham' date='03 April 2011 - 06:31 PM' timestamp='1301848300' post='222685']
Robert Morrow Said:

"I do not currently believe that the Zapruder film was significantly altered. I am in the camp of Robert Groden who I highly respect. I have not studied the issue at length."

Question Robert:

How would you regard a "researcher" who claimed the following:

"I do not currently believe that JFK was the victim of a conspiracy. I am in the camp of Bugliosi who I highly respect. I have not studied the issue at length."

What could you determine, if anything, about the value of such a researcher's methodology? Keep in mind, this is NOT about "the researcher's ultimate conclusion" at this stage. Rather, it is first about the soundness of the means employed to reach said conclusion. Moreover, how would you regard a researcher who further placed a book on the "best or worst of list" even though, by their own admission, they have not thoroughly studied the issue sufficiently enough to offer any rebuttal to the salient points raised in that book?
[/quote]

[Pamela McElwain-Brown]

In short, moderator Burton and the entity known as "Colby" - whose shiftworker status is exposed by frequent changes in speech patterns and literacy levels (one version can spell hypocrisy, another renders it "hypocracy" etc) - repeatedly disrupted serious informed debate in the Political Conspiracies section.

Techniques utilized included, but were not limited to: making posts invisible and inaccessible to the original poster; placing posters on moderation without seeking agreement from other moderators; diverting threads into blind alleys; engaging posters in endless debate on tiny, irrelevant points; baiting posters; trolling posters; and abusing posters.

Simkin was, as accurately described by Magda, routinely missing in action.

As were nearly all the alleged moderators and "forum leaders" whose virtual permanent absence left "moderation" of the board to Burton.

The Political Conspiracies section of the EF is now a deadzone.

Mission accomplished, Burton and "Colby" have now parked themselves in the JFK section - despite acknowledging zero knowledge or expertise regarding the subject in question.

The EF's treatment of Peter Lemkin, and destruction of his posts, was a disgrace.

It is diappointing that impartiality was not a criterion for selecting a mod. One has been in my shadow for years, disseminating misinformation.

John Simkin once said something to the effect that he wondered if CIA was trying to infiltrate the EF. I told him that with this new addition, the atmosphere had become so oppressive it was as though they had succeeded.

[Peter Lemkin]

In short, moderator Burton and the entity known as "Colby" - whose shiftworker status is exposed by frequent changes in speech patterns and literacy levels (one version can spell hypocrisy, another renders it "hypocracy" etc) - repeatedly disrupted serious informed debate in the Political Conspiracies section.

Techniques utilized included, but were not limited to: making posts invisible and inaccessible to the original poster; placing posters on moderation without seeking agreement from other moderators; diverting threads into blind alleys; engaging posters in endless debate on tiny, irrelevant points; baiting posters; trolling posters; and abusing posters.

Simkin was, as accurately described by Magda, routinely missing in action.

As were nearly all the alleged moderators and "forum leaders" whose virtual permanent absence left "moderation" of the board to Burton.

The Political Conspiracies section of the EF is now a deadzone.

Mission accomplished, Burton and "Colby" have now parked themselves in the JFK section - despite acknowledging zero knowledge or expertise regarding the subject in question.

The EF's treatment of Peter Lemkin, and destruction of his posts, was a disgrace.

At the time of the recent addition of new moderaters at the EF I was diappointed in one of the choices -- someone who has dogged me for years with innuendo and misinformation.

I emailed John Simkin who had once said something to the effect that he was afraid CIA was trying to infiltrate the EF. I told him that with this action, it seemed they had succeded.

If it has been penetrated, it was more by Walker than the moderators. His single-handed removal of me would be my prime bit 'o evidence. Simkin's refusal to back me up [he and I used to exchange significant information and emails off the forum] was a shock and smack in the face. The putsch to remove me was one year ago today. I was the only moderator to mention that I felt 'Mockingbird' actions were ongoing at the EF....so had to be done away with.

[Charles Drago]

"Nine Iron" Walker's patterns of lies and disruptions regarding my activity at the EF lead me to the informed opinion that he was knowingly active in an effort to drive me from that forum.

His motivations remain, for me, unclear. Was it a personal vendetta? A misguided and even perverted attempt to protect his turf? A campaign directed by deep political entities?

My posts too are gone -- not as many as those authored by Peter, but certainly numbering in the high three-figures.

But what gives away the Walker game is the manner in which he banned my Internet address and then denied he had done so.

As soon as I used a friend's computer to create a post in which I disclosed these actions, that address too was denied access.

When I posed the rhetorical question, "Why?", Walker replied with a single word:

"Think."

Next the "Colby" entity appeared on cue to call into question my truthfulness.

Through all of these transparently hostile acts, the great John Simkin remained silent.

Simkin gets "Colby" and Burton, and he richly deserves them.

Gifted scholars and investigators still post at EF. They would be wise to ask themselves if their support of what in my opinion is Simkin's thoroughly penetrated and controlled venture amounts to giving aid and comfort to the enemy -- including the killers of John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

What good has come from EF?

EF's greatest sin: It perpetuates debates on issues long settled, and thus powerfully supports the enemy's ultimate agenda item.

[Pamela McElwain-Brown]

In short, moderator Burton and the entity known as "Colby" - whose shiftworker status is exposed by frequent changes in speech patterns and literacy levels (one version can spell hypocrisy, another renders it "hypocracy" etc) - repeatedly disrupted serious informed debate in the Political Conspiracies section.

Techniques utilized included, but were not limited to: making posts invisible and inaccessible to the original poster; placing posters on moderation without seeking agreement from other moderators; diverting threads into blind alleys; engaging posters in endless debate on tiny, irrelevant points; baiting posters; trolling posters; and abusing posters.

Simkin was, as accurately described by Magda, routinely missing in action.

As were nearly all the alleged moderators and "forum leaders" whose virtual permanent absence left "moderation" of the board to Burton.

The Political Conspiracies section of the EF is now a deadzone.

Mission accomplished, Burton and "Colby" have now parked themselves in the JFK section - despite acknowledging zero knowledge or expertise regarding the subject in question.

The EF's treatment of Peter Lemkin, and destruction of his posts, was a disgrace.

At the time of the recent addition of new moderaters at the EF I was diappointed in one of the choices -- someone who has dogged me for years with innuendo and misinformation.

I emailed John Simkin who had once said something to the effect that he was afraid CIA was trying to infiltrate the EF. I told him that with this action, it seemed they had succeded.

Stephen Roy has hijacked this post of mine over to alt.assassination.jfk to claim that I am accusing Barb J of being a CIA agent. While I do feel I have freedom of speech here, and I definitely do not on aaj, let me modify my statement so that it will be more politically correct. Hopefully, the next time Mr. Roy takes offense at something I have said he will email me privately or post a reply on this forum first.

I feel that the environment on the EF has become something other than an open forum. I feel that the addition of any moderator with known biases, much less one who has a history of attacking the credibility of any other researcher, is a disgrace and can only hinder a rational discussion of controversial topics, even if we just know they are waiting in the wings.

My intent is to speak metaphorically. With the addition of any such unfit moderator, based on a history of attack posts aimed at me, it might as well have been completely infiltrated by CIA. In my eyes it is officially no longer an open forum.

[Pamela McElwain-Brown]

In short, moderator Burton and the entity known as "Colby" - whose shiftworker status is exposed by frequent changes in speech patterns and literacy levels (one version can spell hypocrisy, another renders it "hypocracy" etc) - repeatedly disrupted serious informed debate in the Political Conspiracies section.

Techniques utilized included, but were not limited to: making posts invisible and inaccessible to the original poster; placing posters on moderation without seeking agreement from other moderators; diverting threads into blind alleys; engaging posters in endless debate on tiny, irrelevant points; baiting posters; trolling posters; and abusing posters.

Simkin was, as accurately described by Magda, routinely missing in action.

As were nearly all the alleged moderators and "forum leaders" whose virtual permanent absence left "moderation" of the board to Burton.

The Political Conspiracies section of the EF is now a deadzone.

Mission accomplished, Burton and "Colby" have now parked themselves in the JFK section - despite acknowledging zero knowledge or expertise regarding the subject in question.

The EF's treatment of Peter Lemkin, and destruction of his posts, was a disgrace.

At the time of the recent addition of new moderaters at the EF I was diappointed in one of the choices -- someone who has dogged me for years with innuendo and misinformation.

I emailed John Simkin who had once said something to the effect that he was afraid CIA was trying to infiltrate the EF. I told him that with this action, it seemed they had succeded.

If it has been penetrated, it was more by Walker than the moderators. His single-handed removal of me would be my prime bit 'o evidence. Simkin's refusal to back me up [he and I used to exchange significant information and emails off the forum] was a shock and smack in the face. The putsch to remove me was one year ago today. I was the only moderator to mention that I felt 'Mockingbird' actions were ongoing at the EF....so had to be done away with.

I am so sorry for what happened to you there, Peter. It does seem as though Simkin has lost heart and does not have perhaps the time or energy to face the problems on the board and do the right thing for the members.

Right now on aaj I am being told that I (1) am not supposed to change the headers of my posts, even though the topic has changed, (2) must write my posts more cleanly and simply, and should, in fact, emulate Barb J,(this may be connected to the fact that she seems to pour over my archived posts looking for additional things to use against me) (3) "recant, and all this will go away"(meaning the harrassment, I guess) (4) apologize for things McAdams makes up. I am, however, choosing to keep myself in the crosshairs. If I leave, they will have won. But now, unfortunately, Steven Roy has opened up a new can of worms over there. That will just fuel the fire even more, I'm afraid.

[Pamela McElwain-Brown]

"Nine Iron" Walker's patterns of lies and disruptions regarding my activity at the EF lead me to the informed opinion that he was knowingly active in an effort to drive me from that forum.

His motivations remain, for me, unclear. Was it a personal vendetta? A misguided and even perverted attempt to protect his turf? A campaign directed by deep political entities?

My posts too are gone -- not as many as those authored by Peter, but certainly numbering in the high three-figures.

But what gives away the Walker game is the manner in which he banned my Internet address and then denied he had done so.

As soon as I used a friend's computer to create a post in which I disclosed these actions, that address too was denied access.

When I posed the rhetorical question, "Why?", Walker replied with a single word:

"Think."

Next the "Colby" entity appeared on cue to call into question my truthfulness.

Through all of these transparently hostile acts, the great John Simkin remained silent.

Simkin gets "Colby" and Burton, and he richly deserves them.

Gifted scholars and investigators still post at EF. They would be wise to ask themselves if their support of what in my opinion is Simkin's thoroughly penetrated and controlled venture amounts to giving aid and comfort to the enemy -- including the killers of John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

What good has come from EF?

EF's greatest sin: It perpetuates debates on issues long settled, and thus powerfully supports the enemy's ultimate agenda item.

This is simply devastating testimony to what you experienced at EF. I will certainly take it to heart. What difference does it make *who* is behind the control; the end result is the same if it is actually some formal group or simply the corruption of an open forum.