Page 1 of 8 1234 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 77

Thread: Education Forum closing yet again...

  1. Default Education Forum closing yet again...

    http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/si...d-researchers/



    "John Simkin, moderator of the U.K.-based JFK Education Forum, writes that he plans to shut down the online discussion site, which he launched in 2004.
    In an email Simkin blamed the self-centered and obnoxious behavior of commenters:
    “I became very disillusioned with the behaviour of the so-called researchers. The degree of hostility they show towards each other is beyond me. The vast majority of researchers only appear to be interested in promoting their own theories and to rubbishing those who disagree with them. I will be closing down the JFK Education Forum when the subscription comes up for renewal.”
    Simkin says he has abandoned JFK research to devote himself to writing about the British government and its intelligence services.
    Who can blame Simkin for retiring from the field? Anybody who spends any time in the JFK research community knows exactly what — and who — Simkin is talking about.
    The prototype is the egregious James Fetzer, a tenured professor and otherwise intelligent man, who does a superb job of embodying the stereotype of a crazed conspiracy theorist. I disagreed with him once on a minor point in 2007, and he still hectors me for my heresy. The language of his harangues has varied little over the years but his shamelessness has grown. Last I heard of him he was trying to peddle some contemptible sophistries about the Newtown School tragedy.
    Then there’s Robert Groden, a nice man in person, certainly one of the world’s leading experts on the photographic record of November 22, and a citizen unjustly persecuted for exercising his First Amendment rights in Dealey Plaza. Maybe he doesn’t have anything to do with the trashing of the Education Forum but his certainties are the kind of thing that can wreck a discussion of JFK. For example, Groden informed me last August that anyone who believes the Warren Commission’s account of JFK’s assassination is a “liar.”
    Really? Was it possible, I asked, that somebody might have considered the facts and sincerely reached a different conclusion? Or possibly that they were not being intentionally deceptive but had been misled by a government that fears transparency on the issue? “Is there no such thing as an honest mistake or difference of opinion?” I asked.
    The possibility seemed not to have occurred to him before. Groden promised to think about it and get back to me. My phone has not yet rung.
    Last week, I cited the the example of Charles Drago who declares that anyone who believes the Warren Commission is either mentally retarded or criminally complicit in JFK’s murder. I likened Drago’s intellectual style to that of former White House official Cass Sunstein, who once advocated Internet infiltration teams to disrupt those demonic online conspiracy theorists (i.e. me and you) whose informed conversation (in Sunstein’s paraoid view) endanger the fabric of American democracy.
    Impervious to irony, Drago responded by doubling down on self-righteousness In a comment made to JFK Facts. He boasted that he had first used his line about the mentally retarded and criminally complicit at a JFK conference in 1999, where he said it had received a “prolonged, enthusiastic positive response.” The conference, he noted with pride, was sponsored by Jim Fetzer. Mercifully, Drago spared us his analysis of the second gunman at Newtown, and we thank him for that.
    Some will say that the heinous nature of JFK’s assassination and the prolonged coverup requires such audacious “truth tellers.” Others will say that John McAdams or Cass Sunstein are even worse. This is a succinct expression of the odd theory that one needn’t have critical standards, merely adopt those of the enemy.
    The reality is that this all-too prevalent intellectual style of the JFK crowd only serves to alienate the young student, the thoughtful newcomer, the curious MSM reporter, the undecided, and, most importantly, the female.
    Not to be sexist but it is plain that almost all of the JFK jerks are male, and so are virtually all of their defenders. This isn’t proof of the inferiority of the male species (though a case can be made). It is evidence that these blowhards are out of touch with reality, at least as it is experienced by half the country.
    In any case, they do not contribute to the JFK discussion. They stifle, discredit, and kill it. JFK Education Forum R.I.P."

  2. Default

    I can't really disagree with Simkin, but he certainly made some mistakes that led to the downfall of his forum. It has been an absolute wasteland since the last purge. If it weren't for the likes of Pat Speer, Larry Hancock and James Richards, I wouldn't ever check out the site. Unfortunately, I doubt they'd post over here.

  3. #3

    Default

    Ah, god, tell me about it! We've had them both here. Both bring their considerable knowledge and both bring considerable baggage with them. Both can be charming and generous. Occasionally brillliant. But boy what damage they do too. And that is all that is remembered. My sympathies are with Simkin on this one for sure.
    "I think it would be a good idea." Mahatma Gandhi, when asked what he thought of Western civilization.

    The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.
    Karl Marx.

    "Well, he would, wouldn't he?" Mandy Rice-Davies, 1963, replied Ms Rice Davies when the prosecuting counsel pointed out that Lord Astor denied an affair or having even met her.

  4. #4

    Default

    James used to post here. The others are not members here but are welcome to if they wish to be.
    "I think it would be a good idea." Mahatma Gandhi, when asked what he thought of Western civilization.

    The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.
    Karl Marx.

    "Well, he would, wouldn't he?" Mandy Rice-Davies, 1963, replied Ms Rice Davies when the prosecuting counsel pointed out that Lord Astor denied an affair or having even met her.

  5. #5

    Default

    I also have sympathy for John Simkin about this seemingly ineradicable problem.

    The destructiveness of various researchers on these subjects often leaves me astonished. Intelligent men behaving like spoiled children bickering for the sake of it. For me it's a combination of arrogance, an over indulged ego and a love of drawing blood that lies at the root of it.
    The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge.
    Carl Jung - Aion (1951). CW 9, Part II: P.14

  6. Default

    The tone got pretty nasty there at times. Especially when a certain LN'er jumped in.
    I haven't noticed too much negativity around this forum.

    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.

  7. #7

    Default

    I totally concur. The absolute rancor in the JFK assassination community has saddened me since I jumped into the fray in 1973. In some cases it is because the researchers are really agents. I have long believed this to be true of Fetzer. He's a one note wonder on JFK. The Z film, now the foolish Oswald in the doorway. And on 9-11 he is lunatic. Now the Ct. school shooting. Ya, the kids were all fake, no none died. (Don't know if that is what he is saying).
    In other cases it is totally ego driven. I won't name names here. We all know who they are.
    But Groden? He is one of the nicest most sincere people in the community. I have known him since 73. He has devoted his life to this. At great cost, personally. So he believes non believers are "liars" so what? Most are. Or totally ignorant by choice.
    One researcher who is NOT driven by ego is John Armstrong. I saw a fb post a few days ago about Joan Mellen speaking in Los Vegas, where John lives part time. He was in the audience and she called him up to the stage. He and I had a conversation about it that night after I communicated with Joan about this. Also there was an allegation - on facebook-that he was "afraid to interview Judy Baker". Not so , he did a long time ago and caught her in some ...ah....troublesome comments. Then she hung up on him.
    At any rate he did NOT want to be acknowledged. He was there to listen to the speakers talk about Jim Garrison. He did his book for future researchers, not for fame or fortune.
    John is a great guy and I was so proud that he asked me to present for him his new evidence on Tippit etc., at COPA on the 50th anniversary.
    So there are the ego maniacs, the agents, and those who just dislike others. All very sad because this is a small group of world citizens who should be united in one goal. The truth. And getting it out to the public, so that then they can begin connecting the dots to how it is all connected to TODAY. How we got here.
    Dawn

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc Ellis View Post
    The tone got pretty nasty there at times. Especially when a certain LN'er jumped in.
    I haven't noticed too much negativity around this forum.

    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.
    Well we don't allow LN ers. So that omits that waste of time.
    While I too liked his pieces on various people, he also allowed one of his henchmen to edit the personal profile of one of our founding members. Jan.
    "Sad little man who could not make it in the real world". That Simkin allowed that is rather hypocritical on his part.
    Jan has done more in his life than Simkin or any of his minions could ever dream of accomplishing.
    Dawn

  9. #9

    Default

    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.

  10. Default

    I kind of agree with Groden and Drago. Anyone who has reached the Education Forum level has no excuse for not seeing the conspiracy. The sword cuts both ways and Simkin's site wasted too much time allowing major crooks like David Von Pein equal air time to offer their deliberate deception. So what did Simkin do? He booted good minds like DiEugenio and kept the crooks. This is a difficult wisdom of Solomon problem. There were good researchers and experts who went too far and started acting like lords who were simply correct by their own will. The true researcher or advocate will always practice true academic/democratic process and analyze each and every subject by its own merits. No researcher is above that and no researcher can simply refer to themselves instead of justifying their views by means of the normal truth vetting process. No advocate can bargain for a forum by threatening to remove themselves. The underlying principle is no matter how good or notable an advocate one is one is always willingly submissive and humble to this process.

    These forums have suffered not because of the conflicts between academics but because of the cost to overall research caused by the result of those conflicts. Simkin's move will only hurt what he pretends to promote more than anything as is true of those who removed themselves and their input from certain forums. While the personal barbs between researchers on the Education Forum may have been demeaning to the site they had the benefit of being accompanied by some very high quality information and arguments. Rancor between academics is nothing new and has been going on since its inception. When people have their reputation or word challenged they tend to defend themselves with their best stuff. I think the reason Simkin is shutting down the forum is because he realizes that best stuff isn't there any more. If there's a good and a bad here I think shutting the forum down is the worst of the evils in comparison to allowing a little acrimony. I think Simkin himself was not perfect either since he allowed obvious Lone Nut liars to offer disingenuous crap in response to clear facts while demanding they be treated equally (which, if you think about it, is actually preferential treatment). If Simkin was really in it for JFK he would keep the forum open.

    Like Drago said, this is a war. I don't think the argument that people be allowed the fairness of believing the Warren Commission is a very good or credible one seeing what is at stake. Also the who and the how of those who uphold the Warren Report isn't innocent. Come on, are you trying to say McAdams is a poor victim who doesn't understand? To be fair to them is only to give comfort to the massive support from FOX retards for O'Reilly's book. Those people are obvious liars and should be treated as such. They're defenders of the murderers of Jack Kennedy. To hell with them! There has to be a consequence for what they do.



    .
    Last edited by Albert Doyle; 02-20-2014 at 05:28 PM.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •