Opinions on Roscoe White story?

[Albert Doyle]

Also, point 4 is just plain obnoxious.

If White was part of a greater conspiracy and had more of an active part in the mechanics of Dealey Plaza then so be it. My point was that we already know DPD was involved and some element of CIA/DPD crossover was involved through many vectors including the Carousel. If Roscoe White was part of the hit team in the Plaza and CIA monitor of the DPD after the assassination that wouldn't conflict with some of the other similar known things about the assassination. I think the point is it isn't worth creating schisms that lose sight of the bigger Deep Political picture. While a precise understanding of the assassination is ideal the next best thing is maintaining a general understanding of the assassination and its motives without getting stuck in endless conflicts over details that then perpetuate the mystery forever at the expense of more productive understanding.

[Keith Millea]

other than the notion that i may or may not "suck"

Nick,

Did you or did you not delete a post where YOU Yourself wrote "I suck" as the reason for posting it?

[Nick Rose]

other than the notion that i may or may not "suck"

Nick,

Did you or did you not delete a post where YOU Yourself wrote "I suck" as the reason for posting it?

Uh. No.
I wrote a post (that I actually thought was quite good) regarding Oswald's letter to Connally, and then realized after submitting it that Mr. Lemkin had already addressed the issue (in his "Was Oswald Bottlefed by NANA Thread") and i then attempted to delete the thread so that i would not be accused of stealing Mr. Lemkin's own ideas, or otherwise cursed and ridiculed repeatedly.

In the area entitled, "Reason for EDITING" i wrote "i suck".

Not really even sure where the fuck you are going with this.

ALBERT DOYLE:
I take your point that Roscoe White is but just one of countless points of confusion \ "the world may never know" events, but I would still maintain that it is no more or less worthy of pursuit than just about any other point in the case that remains outstanding. If our criteria for discussion worthy material is "points we can all agree upon, that directly point to the highest level conspirator and lead to an immediate arrest" I am in the unfortunate position to have to tell you that we should go ahead and close this forum down as entirely inactive.

Further, I would argue that the very reason I (and many others) are drawn to this forum is precisely TO DISCUSS SUCH ISSUES.
You claim we should stay away from discussing heavily contentious issues involving the specifics of ground level operational assets, and only stick to the "bigger Deep Political Picture". Frankly, I'm not sure I even understand what the hell that means. Do you want to discuss NSAM 263 endlessly, and nothing else, or what?

Jim Garrison was keenly interested in the geopolitical motivations that lay back of the Kennedy assassination, just as any eager researcher surely must be, but his case was against ONE MAN, and his proofs and evidence were pretty mundane little tidbits picked from the landscape.

If mentioning that a person whom is in Oswald's own personal collection of photographs, labeled as "FRIENDS OF OSWALD" by his wife, and whom went over on the same ship with Oswald (indicating his training likely ended at the same time), and ended up employed by the police department responsible for allowing the murder of Oswald, arrived there very shortly before said murder, and further bares striking physiological resemblances to alleged-by-Oswald-himself-to-be-fake BYP ... if mentioning this person and trying to bring up discussion on such is considered not "worth creating schisms" THEN CAN YOU PLEASE PROVIDE ME WITH THE SHORT LIST OF SPECIFIC AREAS OF THE KENNEDY ASSASSINATION THAT ARE APPROVED FOR DISCUSSION ON THIS BOARD so that I may save us all some time, and my self some quite specific public embarrassment?

Thank you.

[Albert Doyle]

There's an unspoken premise on this site that, yes, you are free to steal home without any signs from the dugout but you better be safe if you do.

[Keith Millea]

Not really even sure where the fuck you are going with this.

Because I thought I had read it(tried a search)that's why I used it in my reply to you.

Just tryin' to verify I wasn't hallucinating...

It's not a phrase I would normally use but,yeah,you suck!

I think,generally,you're here to disrupt and ultimately discredit this forum.

That's only me.Try not aiming at the whole forum for a change.

'nuff said,I'm done!!!

[Lauren Johnson]

In the fourth post of this thread, the currently absent Jan Klimkowski said this to the new member who started this thread:

Edwin - welcome to DPF.

Please be aware that the Deep Politics Forum and the research community as a whole has recently been subject to enemy manoeuvres.

Infiltrators will be exposed and banished.

Truth seekers will be welcomed and embraced.

Folks, welcome to Groundhog Day --OK, it's about a movie where Bill Murray re-lives the same day over and over until he gets it right.

When it comes to the JFK Forum any new poster is ALWAYS under suspicion. ALWAYS. Jan explained it very well.

Make the JFK Forum a members only subject to approval by ... well, who knows. You just can't keep letting every new person with some thought or other to start in posting. I favor an automatic stance of mistrust toward new members to the JFK Forum. Trust should be earned in some way. There just has to be a better way than the method we have now.

[Peter Lemkin]

In the fourth post of this thread, the currently absent Jan Klimkowski said this to the new member who started this thread:

Edwin - welcome to DPF.

Please be aware that the Deep Politics Forum and the research community as a whole has recently been subject to enemy manoeuvres.

Infiltrators will be exposed and banished.

Truth seekers will be welcomed and embraced.

Folks, welcome to Groundhog Day --OK, it's about a movie where Bill Murray re-lives the same day over and over until he gets it right.

When it comes to the JFK Forum any new poster is ALWAYS under suspicion. ALWAYS. Jan explained it very well.

Make the JFK Forum a members only subject to approval by ... well, who knows. You just can't keep letting every new person with some thought or other to start in posting. I favor an automatic stance of mistrust toward new members to the JFK Forum. Trust should be earned in some way. There just has to be a better way than the method we have now.

I don't know what can be done. Aside from the few who formed this Forum [or those who were known from the EF or other established forums - or their books] all were newbees here once. All one can do is give 'em enough rope and see if they hang themselves or make a contribution. Some just have a very strange starting style; some have an agenda that doesn't fit with the Forum. It takes a little time to tell. This new member certainly isn't trying to win a popularity contest - but blames everyone else, rather than trying to civilly fit in. IMHO. Time will tell.

[Lauren Johnson]

In the fourth post of this thread, the currently absent Jan Klimkowski said this to the new member who started this thread:

Edwin - welcome to DPF.

Please be aware that the Deep Politics Forum and the research community as a whole has recently been subject to enemy manoeuvres.

Infiltrators will be exposed and banished.

Truth seekers will be welcomed and embraced.

Folks, welcome to Groundhog Day --OK, it's about a movie where Bill Murray re-lives the same day over and over until he gets it right.

When it comes to the JFK Forum any new poster is ALWAYS under suspicion. ALWAYS. Jan explained it very well.

Make the JFK Forum a members only subject to approval by ... well, who knows. You just can't keep letting every new person with some thought or other to start in posting. I favor an automatic stance of mistrust toward new members to the JFK Forum. Trust should be earned in some way. There just has to be a better way than the method we have now.

I don't know what can be done. Aside from the few who formed this Forum [or those who were known from the EF or other established forums - or their books] all were newbees here once. All one can do is give 'em enough rope and see if they hang themselves or make a contribution. Some just have a very strange starting style; some have an agenda that doesn't fit with the Forum. It takes a little time to tell. This new member certainly isn't trying to win a popularity contest - but blames everyone else, rather than trying to civilly fit in. IMHO. Time will tell.

I awakened in the middle of the night thinking about this. I think new members who wish to post in the JFK Forum be placed on automatic moderation. The new poster is assigned to someone who is a long time expert in JFK studies. His posts are critiqued for tone, style, frequency, responses to criticism, as well as content. New posters would be assigned in a positive spirit of creating good contributing members for years. My suggestion is to stay away from a moderation by committee because it is so unwieldy. The title for the person responsible for the moderation process could be New Member Sponsor.

New members wanting to post in the JFK Forum tend to come in wanting to demonstrate how much they know then saying something like, "What does everybody else think." This of course gives a bad first impression. New members on moderation should demonstrate they are competent, not disinformation agents and reasonably agreeable.

Who would do this? Well, I am proposing that our current moderators certainly can do this and that they can assign this task to other trusted and competent members at times, such as yourself, Peter.

Easy peasy.

[Tracy Riddle]

We don't exactly have millions of people trying to get on this forum. Maybe because we appear to be hostile cranks? The little activity there is comes from a few regulars. Then newbies get put up against the wall and strip-searched. Old-timers have periodic meltdowns and get banned.

I think we all need to loosen up a little and allow the forum to function more naturally. Let newbies say what they want and if they reveal themselves to be obvious trolls then show them the door. A troll is not someone who doesn't agree with your particular theory about the Zapruder film or controlled demolition.

[Peter Lemkin]

No one [founders or regulars] are looking for more time and trouble of vetting posts, I'm sure. I have enough problems keeping my life literally above water and would refuse the offer, as I think would most all others. In theory it sounds OK, but with such a small forum and we all have busy and/or stressed lives. While we have few posters, we have MANY watchers....why they don't post, I can't speak to. I recently was PM'd by one who said they'd avidly followed for years, but never posted. I suggested they do so and that I didn't want to keep up a back and forth via PM...they said they'd do so after the New Year, but haven't surfaced. Some are intimidated by others that have worked on this much longer [some of us full time for some long parts of our lives], etc. Others may prefer the shadows or not like the grumpiness sometime shown [I think not all that often, and that has been exaggerated.]

Whatever, when someone joins, one would hope the slowly ease into the Forum - looking at past posts on subjects of interest to them; who is who and what the general consensus is or disagreements on points of interest to them. They might even research how the Forum came to be and the many problems we've had with infiltrators or freak outs and why, therefore, reception can sometimes be frosty...sometimes not. What I wouldn't suggest is someone coming and on day one posting a lot of threads, all asking questions.....or being careful with sensitive topics. Both coincide with some techniques of provocateurs.....while they may not be....they should be aware that it can seem so. On very large Forums, usually anything goes. Not so here...but I think most who have joined have found it an informative and friendly place. Not all. One thing CD often said that I believe is true. This is not a parlor game nor a 'who done it novel'. This is WAR! [against the lies, promoters of those lies, and consequences of the lies, of certain forces within our rotten system]. To wax personal, I lost all my money, had all my property seized for many years, death threats, bugs on my car, had guns placed against my head, was arrested [and much more!]; and to this day have problems all because I decided to work in these 'cotton fields'.....some who just dabble in this as a puzzle hobby or have not had such problems [and glad they didn't] would not react in the same was as I or Jack White sometimes did [having been stabbed, and nearly dying from that...et al.]...as well as others who have come within an inch of their lives, wits, ability to work, or ability to live for doing this kind of research. One can even name a few who lost their lives apparently connected to such Deep Political research....so for some it really is NO game...very real...and sometimes raw. Of course one shouldn't blame someone not responsible for past problems, but sometimes one senses patterns that make one worry.....and sometimes one is wrong about those....and sometimes not.

Anyway, this thread on R. White now has been totally gone off topic...and I suggest it go back on topic and the 'other' matters be on a separate thread, if they need more dead horse beating, at all.