THE ONLY THING TO FEAR ABOUT INEVITABILITY IS THE INEVITABLE ITSELF or A PORTRAIT OF THE HOLLOW MEN IN MOTION

First topic message reminder :

Mistah Koch he brain dead


A kopeck for Old Pigby and Little Barnie 


We are the hollow men


The over stuffed men


With our empty heads hanging down like invisible titties 


 our headpieces bleed straw an' you tube ditties


Seeking the consolation of a dead man's hand


A leader misunderstood,  save for our noble band


The hollow men 


The over stuffed men


With halos atop our heads all rich with straw


Dazzled with dreams dead with full spectrum awe


A prickly pear shaped like a pair of pricks


A pair of pricks, 


Licked by a dick with a waistline  


        At least two Zapruder thick


The driver? , he wear a hat , singin' " kill me quick "


As he fired his gun with a lazy flick


Of the  wrist


What's this?


What's this?


A pear of pricks for a prickly pair?


Hey! Mistah Fezzo sir, quick! Looky over there!


Master Jimbo say a couple of doppels jus' went a bopplin'


                            Outa the very thinnest air!


I do declare!


A prickly pear or just a pair of pricks?


At least thirty three Zapruder thick


A fake mom in a doorway?


You don't say?


                                Quick then,  before the photo man he come an' blimp 'er 




This is how a 13 inch head explodes


This is how a 13 inch head explodes 


This is how 60 years of dreams corrode


Not with a trump but with a whimper 


Apologies for the ( thankfully) brief visit to the Burnham/ Drago/ Dragoo 2nd Floor Lunchroom of Disembodied Poetics ( Curator/ Poetaster in Residence Jim Hackett II,  author of Deep Political Haiku of the Century,  " The troof it shines/ like a diamond/ in a goat's behind " Check out our upcoming exhibit,  an audio video installation by the pioneer of minimalist gibberish,  Fezzo da Fez  partly inspired by Artauds Theatre of Cruelty and by Oscar the Grouch goes fingerpainting)

But, after perusing the latest horrors in the grotesque mass psychotic breakdown , otherwise known as the " Inevitable....56 years thread " , currently a whopping 1210 pages long,  it was either start a thread, book a one way ticket to Sanibel Island or dig out great uncle Smither's trusty service revolver,  gorge myself on the " nutritional supplements " I ordered from infowars, and  metaphorically speaking at least,  drink a last glass of Chateau Pereguey 1856, throw my last gold rubles into the prettiest dancers shoes and step outside,  into the unforgiving arms of the cold grey dawn....

The likes of Koch,  little Barnie and the newly reinvigorated Pigby ( and never has a nickname been so perfectly apt- Raul, echoing the shadowy eminence grise , deeply implicated in setting up James Earl Ray,  and Pigby,  a devastatingly accurate,  onomatopoeiac almost,  name for the puce faced porcine snouted would be provocateur, flushed with a totally unwarranted sense of intellectual self satisfaction. As if HE and HE alone has the wit and the insight to unravel the riddles of the ages, exposing the dark secrets at the very heart of the hellish consumerism playground called freedom) and their jaw dropping antics are a perfect microcosm for the deep malaise that has transformed the good ship assassination research into a rotting parasite infested hulk. 

Saying that,  the opposite side, rather the , oooh and how beautifully fucking apt,  the near identical doppelganger ( albeit reflected back via a succession of distorting fun house mirrors,  after all the trick is,  and has always been,  control BOTH sides of the faux debate,  while making both sides believe that they,  and they alone are the noble heirs of the sons and daughters of Freedom,  carrying the tattered banner, stained with the blood of heroes into battle against the forces of oppression and tyranny) ain't much better. 

Ms Sharp , unwittingly or not,  is acting as the standard bearer for an archaic regressive approach to so called " conspiracy research " , an approach that ultimately failed,  and failed quite catastrophically. 

Fizzling out,  and becoming a bastardised form of genealogy,  getting hopelessly entangled,  then lost in an interlinking warren of seemingly bottomless rabbit holes. 

Tom Scullyitis,  mingled with a hefty dose of revisionist fantasy and,  I'm afraid to say,  a bias driven determination to remain stubbornly ignorant of the actual,  empirical,  factually based history of WW2. 

Including the myriad causes and effects.

If so and so knew so and so and if so and so once took a dump back in 1936 in the club so and so bought , 20 years later,  and if so in so was in Dallas....you get the picture..

Some people just refuse to learn,  rather their predispositions and deeply held beliefs allow them to convince themselves that each new mistake is actually some sort of progress 

The miraculous LaFitte " datebook ", complete with coyly worded publishers disclaimer,  was just the latest in a long line of iron pyrite nuggets,  no amount of frantic polishing ( and fevered speculation) could turn to gold. 

A conspiracentric riff on the old medieval alchemists fable of the Philosopher's Stone. 

I'm only slightly exaggerating when I say I wouldn't have been all that surprised if the late Mr Albarelli and his amanuensis in chief,  didn't try to link Flamel,  or even the Count of Saint Germain' to the assassination. 

Maybe Fulcanelli helped storyboard the Z fake, what say you, Master Pigby?

This ill disciplined,  ideologically driven school of assassination research,  which,  arguably reached its apotheosis on Deep fOO- with its almost fanatical intolerance for opposing views,  and seeming predilection for toying with the trappings of authoritarianism ( a mania for " outing "those who dare speak out against the Orthodox gospels, oft repeated fantasies of punishment,  legal accountability and,  not to mention,  the frequent use of banning) combined with the rise of the oxymoronically called alternative media,  encouraged the trickle of tin foil hatted zanies,  bigots, alt right  hatemeisters,  who use the trappings of conspiracism to mask far darker agendas,  to become a virtual torrent. 

Encouraged by " mainstream conspiracy figures " almost unbelievably myopia and lack of discernment. 

Saying all that,  their missteps pale into insignificance next to the insidious hate filled garbage,  gleefully disgorged by the appalling Master Koch and his wannabe psychologist sidekick. 

Although Little Barnie did manage add a little much needed  humour to the otherwise  depressing  humourless  farrago. A depressingly predictable and insipid character,  intoxicated by the fact he has an actual IDEA rattling around his futuristically minimalist pied a terre of a head( ie it's absolutely empty,  save for the chic black wallpaper,  single chair,  a modernist pine reproduction of a Louis Quinze,  naturallement and the lone light bulb, swinging hungrily from the ceiling,  like a newly constructed gibbet,  no wait,  it was a goalpost, duh) and enamoured by his feat,  actually managing to read A WHOLE FUCKING BOOK,  now , not only considers himself an intellectual,  but some sort of subversive anarcho philosophical/ psychological wunderkind. 

A sheepeler on the hunt for a flock of sheeple ( in the old days he would have been forced to scrawl his manifesto on lavatory walls,  or place discreetly worded ads in, er,  " specialist " magazines,  the sort I can imagine Ben Cole idly flicking through, under the dim red light in his steamy Bangkok pad,  waiting for more inspiration to strike....Egad,  I wonder if Jim would let me write a panygeric for Mr Buffalo Horns for K and K? )

Anyhoo,  Little Barnie did manage to ( inadvertently) come up with a nugget of pure 24 carat comedy gold..

Lately he's been singing the praises of a certain 19th century French doctor cum embryonic psychologist,  in particular,  his book " The Crowd" - influenced primarily by his experiences in the Franco Prussian War, specifically the ill fated Paris Commune. 

Gustav Le Bon ( and,  no, Mr Scully, before you start wondering,  he wasn't the 6th cousin,  twice removed,  of the mother, of the uncle,  of the sister of the chihuahua who formed Duran Duran)

In its day Le Bon and his book were influential,  dissecting crowd mentality and discussing methods of possible control/ manipulation. He was ( a marginal) influence on both Hitler and Mussolini.  The former being far more impressed,  and inspired by Gobineau,  Chamberlain, Wagner and his cult of Gerrmanism,  and the anti semitic populist mayor of Vienna,  Kurt Lueger,  who understood the crucial importance of mobilising a strong working class base for the Far Right nationalists. Reading Hitler's Political Testament,  dictated to Frau Junge,  approximately 72 hours or so before he jumped in a flying saucer and headed for Antarctica,  via Bariloche,  with Eva, his daughter,  Bormann,  Fegelein and all his chums,  no wait,  my Zionist mind kontrol implant has been playing up of late, of course what I meant to say was , just 72 hours or so before he committed suicide in his sitting room,  in the Bunker,  deep below the ruins of Berlin,  you can still easily see the profound impact of the German nationalism of the old Austro Hungarian Empire. Fundamentally,  politically and ideologically speaking,  the Hitler who left Vienna was the Hitler who died beneath Berlin. 

His mind, poisoned by Morrell's drugs, megalomania, Parkinson's disease etc, narrow and littered with a hodge podge of half digested ideas, remained curiously ossified. 

Anyhoo,  one of Le Bon's main interests was Celaphometry....THE MEASURING OF HEADS

Perfect!! He would have been in head measurin' nirvana!! 

Barnie and his chum Koch, who is, quite simply a loathsome human being,  lacking any sort of compassion,  reason or understanding. An over entitled semi literate psuedo reactionary  thug, ( the latter , despite his claims of " reading over 250 books ") quite clearly don't really give a fuck about the assassination. 

Their knowledge is somewhere between superficial and non existent. 

They have hijacked the subject for their own malign ends. Koch, for political motives,  spreading his warped narrative to,  what he obviously assumed would be, a receptive audience. I suspect Little Barnie is more interested in the mental masturbation angle. A loathsome character,  who has unsurprisingly resorted to labelling his self declared enemies , using terminology that would have made Julius Streicher himself weep prophetic tears...

Terms of endearment like " animals " and " intellectual vegetables" , echoes of another intellectual titan, Michael Clark. 

Little Barnies " 20 reasons thread" , designed,  no doubt,  to further underline his ineffable unsurpasseable moral and intellectual superiority,  as he peers down from his private jet, Triumph of the Will like, at the hapless masses cowering beneath his mighty eagles shaped shadow  was , in reality, little more than a testament to colossal smugness,  impenetrable ignorance 

Designed,  no doubt,  to emphasize his sophistication and superiority.. it was like Hello!magazine,  mixed with The Physicians Desktop Reference,  with a smattering of pseudo Mein Kampf like subtlety. 

Just horrendous brain rotting bilge

His " ideas", superficial and passe as they are,  and filtered through a lumpen shroud of cliche and stilted penmanship,  amounted to little more than a novice conspiracists attempt at self justification. 

Not once, in between the clumsy pastiche,  about as fresh and modern as the wilting plastic leaves of a exotic potplant,  perfect for a swinging 60s scenesters bachelor pad,  the inevitable cliches and unwieldy attempts at cod psychoanalysis,  did he mention the word " fact"

Or stipulate exactly WHAT conspiracy he meant. 

Little Barnie sez : if you don't want to be a sheeple,  act like a sheep. Don't bother your woolly little minds with stuff like facts, evidence, taking each on it's own specific merits,  everything is a conspiracy!! If you don't realise this you're obviously a dumb over emotional vegetable...

Pigby is a different story entirely. From Greer shot JFK,  every film was altered,  he's graduated to the heady heights of propaganda conduit...but maybe, in a way,  he always was. As if he's determined to associate " assassination research " with the most horrendously harebrained dreck. I can't believe he's actually serious,  his sporadic seriocomedic spurts of verbal diahorrea, are surely a lame attempt at humour? Some sort of gadfly,  using Ken Dodds old diddy stick to tickle the funny bones of a crowd of sour faced self righteous fucking buffoons. 

If he IS serious then Armstrong have mercy on him. 

Apart from this forum -well almost,  Greg Doudna seems determined to turn casuistry into an artform. His frenetic defence of the Quaker Charity lady was bad enough,  but his latest foray into advanced sophistry,  trying to argue LHO was responsible for the Walker shooting ( I note in passing  his fellow casual casuist,  and Twat for All Seasons,  Ben Cole,  wrote a similar piece for K and Ks)- and a handful of serious researchers, who keep their biases firmly under check,  and respect the subject, ive lost any lingering respect I had for the capabilities ( seriously questioning the motives of a not inconsiderable minority) of the research community at large. 

Most especially their po faced sanctimony,  self righteousness,  lack of genuine analytical skills,  their sometimes shocking lack of knowledge,  their dogmatism and most of all this seeming mania to transform the abyss into a mirror,  reflecting their own biases and fixations. 

Imho Prayerman is last chance saloon. The blade of Alexander's sword poised to slice through the Lord Gordian knot, and finally free the case from decades of dead weight and bullshit 

My biggest fear is any potential breakthrough will be politicised and hijacked. 

One of the bitterest ironies is the fact that JFK became such a threat to the entrenched system,  then in the process of coalescing into the multi faceted supranational monstrosity , because he understood tribalism,  nationalism,  organized religion,  class and ethnic based divisions are the cancers of the modern post industrial age. As they were in ages past, and in ages , as yet unborn, The most effective means of control, because,  essentially division means control. 

And, yet, here we are,  nearly 60 fucking years, half a century plus 10 , down the road,  and characters,  purportedly researching the truth behind his assassination,  are helping to perpetuate these very same divisions. 

No fucking wonder I choose sometimes to seek out the low door in the wall, that takes me to the enchanted kingdom , on the other side of the Looking Glass,  where I can lounge around in the doorway with a hookah smoking doppelganger or three, or wander through a magical Potemkin village,  with a bulbous headed grey insectoid alien,  a shapeshifting Hungarian polyglot,  who can change into a dumpy fake mom,  or a plump grey haired woman...

We are the hollow men 

The stuffed men 

Our lunchroom filled with straw

Believin' in shit

                          Nobody ever saw

Just because 

Just because 

And Hitler he had two fuckin' baws 

This is how a 13 inch head bursts

This is how a 13 inch head bursts

Like a doppelgang'd Dealey Plaza blimp'er 

Not with a bang...but with a whimper





     
       

Roger, I genuinely don't understand what you mean by " gatekeeping "

Larry was giving his opinion,  based upon the results of his own research. 

Yes, I respect both Larry and Steve Thomas,  but that doesn't mean I agree with everything they write. Larry, for example,  is a supporter of Richard Case Nagell. I disagree with him,  but I don't allow this to diminish the respect I have for his research,  and his methodology. 

Imho the search for the identities of those who were,  ultimately behind the assassination isn't enhanced by the repetition of proveable falsehoods. 

My main problem with Coup is it attempts to present a wholly spurious unrealistic portrayal of Skorzeny's wartime ( and postwar) record 

I have to be completely honest and candid here, the instant I read the words " Priory of Sion " I stopped taking the book seriously. 

As for the datebook? Until and unless a fully independent,  transparent examination is carried out by a properly accredited expert I will remain deeply sceptical. 

To me, it just seems like an all too convenient,  way too coincidental Macguffin,  descending,   deus ex machina. 

I'm sorry Roger, the stuff regarding Skorzeny and WW2 is just flat out wrong. It's not a matter of belief or even gatekeeping. There's just no excuse for anyone,  in this day and age,  with the vast trove of primary and secondary research materials available,  to claim Skorzeny was the tactical mastermind behind the Gran Sasso raid.

That was one of several,  equally egregious examples I found,  but,  perhaps the most infamous,  and certainly the most easily debunked. 

I don't want to divert the thread, maybe Greg it might be a good idea to start a new thread,  over on the Northern Hemisphere history section. There was, going by my memory,  at least a dozen serious mistakes I noticed,  plus several others relating to Franco's Spain and the OAS.

To safety negotiate the murky history of the post war European fascist milieu,  you need an incredibly sure step,  not to mention a firm grasp on the actual facts. It's pitted with booby traps and dead ends,  often a single mis step can lead you down an ever deepening rabbit hole to nowhere.

Even IF it was proven,  beyond all reasonable doubt,  that someone calling themselves Michel Roux was in the Dallas/ Fort Worth area, to extrapolate,  no, to make the wild leap,  to claiming this , within itself is prima face evidence of Soutre's involvement in the assassination...

....well imho that's a leap, no , make that,  several leaps too far..

EDIT

Another brief thought: Project Lancelot. Obviously referring to the mythology of Camelot. King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table. A sly reference,  as due to his infatuation with Guinevere,  Lancelot,  Knight of the Cart,  the most trustworthy of all Arthur's paladins, helped hasten its inevitable demise. 

One slight problem. The term Camelot,  first coined by Jacqueline Kennedy in a post assassination Life interview,  wasn't used to describe the Kennedy White House until AFTER the assassination. 

Wait, I'm sure Otto must have had access to the Die Glocke time travelling technology. Or maybe the cousin of the niece of the brother of Lucien Sarti's chiropractor was involved with the Philadelphia Experiments...

It seems, Greg, you didn't get what I meant by saying Larry and Steve overreached the evidence.  The evidence I am referring to was that it was established that Roux *was* in the Dallas area. Evidence which you strangely acknowledge as the only evidence to come out of the French inquiry, and which you laboriously repeat like its something new to point out to me.
 
The question is, what was done with that evidence both by the CIA and FBI and  Larry and Steve.
 
That evidence was used first by the FBI to try to misdirect the inquiry from Souetre to Roux. The Americans did not want to talk about Souetre, and in particular what they knew about him.  I doubt if the French were amused.
 
Then Larry and Steve come along to claim the fact that Roux was in Dallas means that Souetre was *not*. They overreached. They reached a conclusion not supported by the evidence.
 
The fact that Roux, a real person, was in Dallas tells us nothing about where Souetre, a different real person, was, notwithstanding the fact that Souetre was known to use Roux's name on occasion.  By discussing Roux, the FBI was trying to distract the French from any information the CIA and FBI had on Souetre.
 
Larry and Steve simply misused the evidence of Roux in Dallas to claim it showed the Souetre was not in Dallas.  I don't know why.  It does no such thing.
 
GP:  Souetre's involvement with the OAS was as an infiltrator for French intel. From memory, he saved de Gaul from one attempt rather than played any part in one or more failed attempts.
 
RO:  Never heard this claim before.  Souetre was not a legit member of the OAS?  He was some kind of double agent that in fact once saved DeGaulle from a murder attempt?  Even DeGaulle didn't realize Souetre was on his side, so he had his people check in March, '64 on the Souetre-in-Dallas-report and his subsequent expulsion (to where?) before he went to Mexico?  Do you think someone eventually explained to DeGaulle that Suetre was on his side to avoid further embarassment?  Don't find this credible but am all ears if you want to add further substantiation.
 
GP: This was internal job. Why hire anyone from the OAS with their pathetic record of attempts to assassinate de Gaul.
 
RO:  Internal to what?  Actually the CIA had an official policy from the Bill Harvey papers, of seeking assassins from other countries for "operating security reasons". Fly them in, do the job, send them back to their safe haven. The JFKA was the most important job so far ever undertaken by the CIA.  They had world wide access to the top killers. If they didn't use Souetre it was because they chose someone else.

AW:  Roger, I genuinely don't understand what you mean by " gatekeeping "

Larry was giving his opinion,  based upon the results of his own research. 
 
RO:  It was gatekeeping because by saying the idea that Souetre was in Dallas had already been "put to rest" in the negative, Larry was trying to cut off further discussion.  So much so that he didn't even offer anything new but merely posted two links to his earlier conclusion. Which I find not to be conclusive at all. 

AW:  My main problem with Coup is it attempts to present a wholly spurious unrealistic portrayal of Skorzeny's wartime ( and postwar) record 
 
RO:  That is not dispositive of other parts of the book that may have value. (see below)

AW:  As for the datebook? Until and unless a fully independent,  transparent examination is carried out by a properly accredited expert I will remain deeply sceptical. 
 
RO: Yes, the authenticity of the datebook has not been established.  Even Sharp acknowledges that.  But neither am I willing to conclude Coup is garbage.  It makes many connections between many people who might have been involved in the murder.  Some may be correct, some may not.  I think it's an outline of things to pursue, if you see possible value there.  Or ignore if you don't.
 
AW: I'm sorry Roger, the stuff regarding Skorzeny and WW2 is just flat out wrong. It's not a matter of belief or even gatekeeping. There's just no excuse for anyone,  in this day and age,  with the vast trove of primary and secondary research materials available,  to claim Skorzeny was the tactical mastermind behind the Gran Sasso raid.

That was one of several,  equally egregious examples I found,  but,  perhaps the most infamous,  and certainly the most easily debunked. 

I don't want to divert the thread, maybe Greg it might be a good idea to start a new thread,  over on the Northern Hemisphere history section. There was, going by my memory,  at least a dozen serious mistakes I noticed,  plus several others relating to Franco's Spain and the OAS.

To safety negotiate the murky history of the post war European fascist milieu,  you need an incredibly sure step,  not to mention a firm grasp on the actual facts. It's pitted with booby traps and dead ends,  often a single mis step can lead you down an ever deepening rabbit hole to nowhere.
 
RO:  You think the role COUP assigns Skorzany is likely wrong, based on other things about Skorzany you say they got wrong.  They think Skorzany was the mysterious figure QJ/WIN, a principle asset to the ZRRifle project whose primary task was "spotting agent candidates" for the project.  The Harvey papers even specify a '62 salary of $7,200, subject to renewal, for QJWIN. Based on what we know about Skorzany in Spain and his relationship with Souetre, debunking other details Coup says about Skorzany doesn't eliminate the possibility that Skorzany was QJWIN, unless you can make the connection.  *Someone* was QJWIN.  Ultimately for me it's not crucial whether or not it was Skorzany.

AW:  Even IF it was proven,  beyond all reasonable doubt,  that someone calling themselves Michel Roux was in the Dallas/ Fort Worth area, to extrapolate,  no, to make the wild leap,  to claiming this , within itself is prima face evidence of Soutre's involvement in the assassination...

....well imho that's a leap, no , make that,  several leaps too far..
 
RO: I'm saying the opposite of what you claim here.  The fact that Roux, a different person than Souetre, was in Dallas is *not* evidence the Souetre was *not* there as well.  It tells us *nothing at all* about Souetre's whereabouts.  Greg seems to have missed what I'm saying too.  Is it that difficult?

Greg seems to have missed what I'm saying too.  Is it that difficult?

No, I got it, Roger.

Anyone can be anywhere when you have an evidence vacuum.

What I am saying is 

1. that Souetre was the Michel Roux in Fort Worth - who was a real and separate person who eventually obtain US citizenship and was never tied to the OAS or to any intel agency.

2. that no one named Michel Roux, Jean Souetre, or Michel Mertz was expelled from the country on or or shortly after the assassination.

3. That there is evidence of someone named Dominique Roux departing Houston for Mexico by plane on Nov 24 - and that there was a Frenchman named Dominique de Roux who had extensive ties to European and US fascists and fascist movements.  

4. Souetre had infiltrated OAS for the SDECE.

5. There is zero evidence placing Souetre in the US during this period - except his own claim of using Michel Roux as an alias. 

6. That using anyone from an organization that had a string of failures is Europe to its name is counterintuitive.

7. That all evidence as far as I can telll, says this was a domestic plot.

No, I got it, Roger.

Anyone can be anywhere when you have an evidence vacuum.

What I am saying is 

1. that Souetre was the Michel Roux in Fort Worth - who was a real and separate person who eventually obtain US citizenship and was never tied to the OAS or to any intel agency.
 
RO:  No. The real Michel Roux, the 5'8" guy, was the Michel Roux who was in Ft Worth.  That has been established.

2. that no one named Michel Roux, Jean Souetre, or Michel Mertz was expelled from the country on or or shortly after the assassination.
 
RO:  We don't know that.  If the CIA brought Souetre in to do the job, they would have had a plan to send him back.  They had their own planes.  The INS would not have known about it. No one else in officialdom would have either.

3. That there is evidence of someone named Dominique Roux departing Houston for Mexico by plane on Nov 24 - and that there was a Frenchman named Dominique de Roux who had extensive ties to European and US fascists and fascist movements.
 
RO: Distraction. 

4. Souetre had infiltrated OAS for the SDECE.
 
RO:  Can you elaborate?  Where did you get this?  How do you know?  Why didn't DeGaulle know this in March '64 when the French asked the FBI for information on Souetre's whereabouts before his trip to Mexico?  The CIA was also after DeGaulle, as well as Kennedy.  If what you say is true, it means the CIA would have been less likely to use Souetre in the job.  I have been proceeding under the notion that the CIA and Souetre were on the same page regarding Kennedy and DeGaulle (e.g., Kennedy was also a strong proponent of Algerian independence).

5. There is zero evidence placing Souetre in the US during this period - except his own claim of using Michel Roux as an alias. 
 
RO:  Of course there isn't, at least not readily available so far.  It has to be pieced together. We know Souetre *did* use Roux as an alias (not just a claim).  But we also know it was the real Roux who was in Texas, so that fact provides no evidence that Souetre was or was not there.  Obviously.  (Seems like I said this 4 or 5 times now and it doesn't seem to be getting thru.).   

6. That using anyone from an organization that had a string of failures is Europe to its name is counterintuitive.
 
RO: The jobs were different.  The question is was Souetre thought to be a good choice as a stationary assassin catching Kennedy in a cross fire in a slow moving vehicle. Above all, was he an experienced and reliable shooter in that situation?  If the murder was to be tried it must not fail.

7. That all evidence as far as I can telll, says this was a domestic plot.
 
RO: The CIA was prohibited from acting on US soil.  Does that mean you think they weren't involved at all?  Or just that they used only domestic shooters?  The Bill Harvey papers show that the CIA had a preference for foreign assassins "for operational security reasons" that I already mentioned.

Roger, let's start at the start.

Here is part of a document concerning the orginal French request.



So it was the French telling the US that Souetre had been "expelled" from the country. On what grounds were they making that claim? Well the answer may be below.

What we do know...

Michel Roux had met some Fort Worth people in France while he was working as a hotel clerk. As he spoke English, he acted as a tour guilde for them and they invited him to visit if he ever came to the States. Then lo and behold, he contacts them from Houston and they invite him to come stay with them in Fort Worth.

In fort Worth, he expresses a desire to stay in the US and and open a restaurant, but in the meantime  wants to get similar work to what he did in France. They suggest hotel work was more readily available in Houston so he goes back there, but at some stage must have run into visa issues regarding employment and goes to Mexico to work until he is able to undertake employment in the US. 

I guess it is possible that he was "expelled" from the US because of the lack of the right visa to be employed. But whatever the case, he ends up back in the US, obtaining US citizenship and living in an expensive area of New York, and does not appear to be employed. 

But we also have to note here that the French did not seem sure if he was expelled to Mexico or to Canada. That is important. How do they know he was expelled but not where he was expelled to? Canada suggests the French have no idea if they are dealing with the real Roux or the real Mertz. That is the only logical reason to throw Canada into the mix. Mertz had close connections in Canada. 

You say my mention of Dominique Roux flying from Houston to Mexico on November 24 is a diversion. Why? They were looking for anyone named Souetre, Roux or Mertz leaving for Mexico or Canada at around that time and Dominique is a uniquely interesting individual in his own right, who mixed in with milieu of interest to you Coup-ers. 

But at this point, my best guess is that  the French someow got wind of the possibility of Michel Roux being "expelled" to Mexico where de Gaul was headed, understood that to be an alias of Souetre and requested whatever information to clarify all this that the US would give them.

As to why the French would be concerned about Souetre being in Mexico with de Gaul if Souetre was with SDECE, I can only state that it is not the SDECE making the inquiry. No different to the State Dept making inquiries about Oswald unaware of his true affiliations.

The SDECE heavily infiltrated the OAS - which is how they thwarted all the assassination attempts. A lot of that infiltration happened in the Algiers detention camp. Among the known infiltrators was Michel Mertz.
I thought that I had some info showing that Souetre was also infiltrated into it, but all of that research goes back about 20 years and I may have been conflating Souetre and Mertz due to their propensity to use each other's name. 

I do think Souetre being an SDECE agent makes sense in that  it is another reason for all the failed attempts on de Gaul. 

And I do think that what started all of this was information that Michel Roux was "expelled" from the US shortly after the assassination and that if his exit to Mexico was indeed an expulsion, it was simply over not having a proper visa for work.

Roger, I think understanding Skorzeny's true wartime role , and the way it was misrepresented,  is an absolutely critical factor to take into consideration when evaluating the validity  of the claims mmade in Coup.

It's not a question of what I think, several of their central claims were just flat out wrong. And proveably so.

Surely the whole question rests upon his alleged proficiency,  why would he even have been considered for QJWIN,  or a similar role?( if, in fact he was) 

Because of his ( alleged) expertise in the field of black ops. 

If the authors distorted,  inflated or otherwise misrepresented his wartime career ( facts that are widely available and easily accessible) surely that must reflect negatively on their other claims?

Especially , if those later claims, to a greater or lesser extent,  rely upon the veracity of their earlier claims. 

Surely you can accept this? If , say a certain O S Steinbauer had been proven to be a brave,  charismatic but lacking in initiative and rudimentary tactical/ leadership skills,  who was widely regarded as an " asphalt soldier " and a propaganda creation by his peers, and,  crucially,  who had little or no knowledge/ experience,  much less proven ability in the narrow , often  incestuous black ops/ special forces sphere,  then why would Herr Steinbauer even register on the CIAs radar? Much less be considered suitable as QJWIN,  much less as the mastermind of the riskiest most high profile black op of the 20th century?

The authors of Coup had a clear agenda 

Their agenda was to present Skorzeny as a highly experienced highly successful black operative. Their earlier claims were included ( imho) to inflate Skorzeny's record,  increasing the likelihood he would have been hired as the " lead tactician " of " Project Lancelot "

Thus, since Skorzeny's notoriety rests primarily on 3 or 4 wartime operations ( excluding the supposed 1943 " Tehran Plot" to kidnap the Big Three- Stalin,  Roosevelt and Churchill,  which is pure hokum,  and very possibly disinformation) , if necessary these operations must be " retconned ", giving Skorzeny a role appropriate to the future " tactical mastermind " of " Project Lancelot "

1 the Gran Sasso Raid. Far from being a " tactical mastermind " his role was, in actuality, subsidiary,  far less important. More chorus line than lead  hoofer. His Jagdverband 502 ( I can't remember if they were still called the Sonderband Freidenthaler at this point in late summer 43) were primarily included for propaganda purposes,  to raise the profile of the SS " special forces " Compared to the highly effective battle hardened Luftwaffe Fallschirmjagers, and the Brandenburgers,  the SS were viewed with some derision by the Wehrmacht. A wary derision though,  as the rumours of dark doings in the torture cellars of PrinzAlbrechtstrasse and elsewhere had permeated into the very highest echelons. No one,  not even the haughty scions of the old Prussian Junker aristocracy,  or the General Staff,  since the days of Yorck and Gneisenau,  the very backbone of Prussia,  and later the Hohenzollern Empire ( many of the more reactionary minded members of the various ill defined anti Nazi resistance groups  spoke wistfully of restoring the monarchy,  Prince Louis Ferdinand,  grandson of the Old Kaiser being the preferred candidate) had no illusions,  knowing full well their rank was no defence against the fanatical emissaries of Himmler's sprawling police empire 

2 Operation Grief,  during the Battle of the Bulge, utilising English speaking German commandos in Allied uniforms,  to cause chaos in the rear. Whilst an undeniable psychological/ propaganda coup( famously Eisenhower himself was evacuated from his HQ, bundled out by over zealous guards when wildly over dramatised rumours ( but , when are they ever not? especially in wartime) of highly trained SS assassins dropped by parachute infiltrating the immediate  environs of SHAEF Supreme Headquarters)
However the actual tangible gains were legible,  as was Skorzeny's alleged role

3 Operation Rosselsprung ( Knights Leap) the attempt to kidnap Tito from his almost impregnable mountain fortress. Low( or high) farce depending on your views, sensibilities and sense of the absurd. 
An unqualified disaster 

4 Operation Panzerfaust. The successful abduction of Regent Horthys son from Budapest. Simple, crude but effective. Relying on brute force more than stealth and tactical ingenuity. 

Of course he was involved in the aftermath of the failed July plot, hauled off a train,  heading for Vienna and ordered to help round up the " traitors "

Admittedly this was not an area I studied closely,  thus I'd have to do some serious revision before reaching any sort of conclusion. The SS/ SD / Gestapo  didn't really specialise in sophisticated assassination, they were far more brutal and direct. The closest thing to a black ops expert would be someone like Naujocks ( of Operation Canned Goods/ Himmler infamy) or Schellenberg,  one of the disillusioned intellectuals Heydrich cultivated assiduously. He co ordinated the Venlo incident,  where two British MI6 officers and their Dutch liaison were duped then kidnapped. 
The Soviet OO( special section) of the NKVD, and the partisans most definitely had a highly organised network of assassins, specialising in targeted assassination. The Polish Armii Krajowa ( Home Army) also utilized similar tactics,  most notably after Operation Arsenal,  targeting specific SS officers 

And, of course not forgetting the Western Allies,  the British SOE, and the various London based Governments in exile and the OSS had similar programmes 

I don't think you can dismiss the way the authors of Coup attempted to portray Skorzeny. I think their (mis) representation cuts out the very heart of their thesis 

If Skorzeny's wartime record was portrayed accurately ( especially his SS personnel file which directly contradicts most of their central claims) then they would have been faced with an almost impossible task,  trying to convince anyone of Skorzeny's eligibility for the role of " tactical mastermind "

Regarding Ms Sharp's opinion of the datebook,  surely i, f she herself has reservations, its highly irresponsible,  not to mention disingenuous of her to constantly rely upon the contents?

Referring to them continuously,  as if they carry real evidentiary weight? Surely , if she harbours such doubts,  she is obliged to,  at the very least,  add a disclaimer. Instead of simply repeating their contents,  ad nauseam,  as if there weren't,  at the very least,  serious questions about the datebooks provenance and authenticity?

If a lurker, or even a member,  not aware of the simmering controversy,  were to read Ms Sharp's various posts they would be left with the impression that the datebook had been authenticated and/ or universally accepted as legit. 

Both impressions would be highly misleading. 

I still don't follow your reasoning Roger. Are you saying Larry shouldn't have given his opinion? I don't have the privilege of knowing Larry Hancock personally but he doesn't strike me as the sort of person who would try to somehow limit,  or close down the debate 

He was simply offering his opinion, based upon his own research. I don't know how you can possibly call that " gatekeeping "

Imho there needs to be a hell of a lot more of such " gatekeeping " , far too many theories have been given a relatively free pass, simply because they happen to coalesce with certain preferred narratives. Thus, the evidentiary pool becomes polluted with worthless theories. Not because the theories themselves are particularly worthwhile,  but because they fit into the Orthodox Conspiracy template. 

The idea of someone as notoriously indiscreet,  a veritable publicity whore in fact,  recognisable and crucially,  unqualified as Skorzeny being involved in such an operation,  much less being the " tactical mastermind " belongs in the realm of fiction. 

The ZRRifle notes are without doubt highly suggestive,  " blaming the Sov or Czechs " and there's no question they could have been provided suitable inspiration for the actual planners. 

And , when taking the specific time frame,  context and characters involved into consideration,  it would be indeed churlish,  not to mention foolish,  to dismiss them ( the notes) out of hand 

As for foreign assassins? Here we move into the realm of pure speculation.  

To me,  the on the ground mechanics of the plot,  as it went ahead,  looks like a military style ambush,  of course it could have been designed to look like that,  whilst being something else entirely!!!

With ( relatively speaking) so few real proveable facts at our disposal,  that's why I think it behooves us all to be mindful of what has actually been proven,  and extremely careful not to dismiss such facts,  or sacrifice them on the altar of a pet theory. 

Could  foreign assassins have been involved? Certainly 

Could Skorzeny have been involved,  either as participant or as tactical mastermind?

Almost certainly not 

I'll have to do some serious revising before I feel half way qualified to comment on his post war career ( focusing especially on pre 63) but,  going purely by my admittedly vague memories,  I seem to recall evidence existing, linking him to the OAS, Egypt ( by far the easiest to confirm) , some sort of involvement in pan European arms dealing and,  of course,  the inevitable links with Mossad and CIA ( the former being,  imho,  the more plausible,  as the Israelis are known to have dealt with ex Nazis in their ongoing attempts to neutralise the various Arab missile/ rocket programmes)

The whole subject is a veritable minefield...

I start at a different point, Greg and see a very different picture than the one you painted. 
 
The French inquiry was about Souetre, not Roux. It's right there in the document you posted:  "Subject is believed to be identical with a Captain who is a deserter from the French army and an activist in the OAS."   That's Souetre, not Roux. Roux was just an alias the French appended to the inquiry because Souetre used it, in case it could help the Americans answer their question. (in case Souetre used it in Dallas).   
 
I repeat, it was the FBI (no doubt in consultation with the CIA) who tried to shift the inquiry to be about Roux because they didn't want to talk about Souetre.  And because they found out that Roux was in the area.  They could claim Roux's appearance answered the French inquiry and showed that Souetre wasn't there.  It was all a misunderstanding they could claim. In fact their report was misdirection.
 
Roux was *not* expelled from the US, as he explained when the French caught up with him after they got the FBI report.  No one ever thought he was. Even the FBI when they were misdirecting the inquiry to Roux, never claimed he was expelled. That was supposed to be part of the misunderstanding. In fact, Roux stayed in the area for a few weeks around the time of the JFKA and left of his own volition.
 

How did the French know about Souetre's appearance and expulsion?  The answer to that is a whole area you left out or maybe don't know about. 
 
Bud Fensterwald traveled to Paris several times in the early 80s looking into Souetre and some of this is from his notes.
 
Louis Assemat-Tessandier published a Feb 19, 1964 article in the Cote-Basque Soir newspaper that came to the attention of French authorities.  It was based on a Jan 20-21 meeting in an apartment in Montreal with a drunken Frenchmen who claimed to have been in Dallas at the time of the JFKA and been deported 18 hours after the murder.  Louis apparently thought that person was Roux, but he described him as tall, tanned and handsome. That describes Souetre who is 6'1", not Roux who is 5'8".  The man kept calling Louis back, probably to find out what he told the journalist in a drunken stupor.  But Louis found him menacing, was afraid, and avoided further contact.  When authorities later tracked down Roux, he said he had indeed been in the Dallas area at the time but denied saying anything of the sort in Louis' article.  Roux said he had talked to Louis, but only by telephone. 
 
After the article, Louis was interviewed by Police Intelligence in Bayone, who relayed the information on Feb 29, 1964 to Intelligence in Paris (and presumably the Legal Attache who started an investigation because of DeGaulle's scheduled March 15 trip to Mexico).  Apparently that interview was the first time Louis had named Roux; he did so , probably because Souetre used that name with him.  But French intelligence knew Souetre and his aliases well, so they weren't thrown off by that.  They focused on Souetre, thought to be an enemy of DeGaulle, in their March 5, 1964 request (5 days after the Bayonne interview) to the New York office of the FBI for more information.
 
The French stonewalled Fensterwald in '82 when he wanted to see the details of their investigation of Souetre in '64.  Just as the CIA, FBI, and INS stonewalled the French when they asked about Souetre in '64.  At that time, US intelligence wanted the French to drop their Souetre investigation.
 
DeGaulle suspected the CIA was involved in attempts on his life, and Kennedy acknowledged he couldn't control them. When the French closed their inquiry to the FBI two days before DeGaulle's trip, it's likely they realized the FBI's "answer" was all they were going to get from the Americans.
 
We're left with:  the closing of the case without resolving Souetre's whereabouts provides nothing to disprove the possibility that Souetre was in Dallas for the murder.
 
I don't doubt that the SDECE infiltrated the OAS to try to thwart the murder of DeGualle.  The question is was Souetre a part of that?
 
 
 
 

AW: I still don't follow your reasoning Roger. Are you saying Larry shouldn't have given his opinion? I don't have the privilege of knowing Larry Hancock personally but he doesn't strike me as the sort of person who would try to somehow limit,  or close down the debate 

He was simply offering his opinion, based upon his own research. I don't know how you can possibly call that " gatekeeping "
 
RO:  Did it sound like I was saying Larry shouldn't give his opinion?  He had already given it and recorded it on his site.  His opinion was the French inquiry had resolved the question of Souetre in Dallas in the negative, to the satisfaction of both the French and the FBI.  When the issue was raised on EF, after coming up over and over and over again (his words) he posted a link to two articles he wrote showing his conclusion.  And offered nothing new.
 
Briefly summarized, Larry made these points.
 
(1) The newspaper story that kicked off the inquiry didn't name the person who was the source, but the reporter later told the police it was Michel Roux. So Larry categorically states that Roux was the source and proceeds to detail Roux's travels from the Dallas area to Mexico to Canada around the time of the JFKA to show that the Souetre inquiry was all a mistake.
 
But to believe that you have to ignore the reporter's description of his source--6'1" and handsome, which describes Souetre, not the 5' 8" Roux.  Stop for a minute.  If ever there was a time for Souetre to use an alias, (which he did at times) it was when, drunk, he blurted out his Dallas story to a stranger.  According to the reporter the person he had talked to subsequently tried to reach him several times, but he avoided further contact.  Sounds to me like that person was trying fairly desperately to find out what he had told the reporter in a drunken stupor.  If so, that doesn't comport with the person being Roux.
 
The most plausible explanation of the incident with the reporter is that It was a confession by Souetre, and if so, it changes everything,  No more diversionary talk about Roux for one of the smaller effects.
 
(2) Larry says the only connection between Souetre and Texas was correspondence--Christmas cards and letters.  But he can't know that because, as he admits, once the FBI diverted the focus of the inquiry to Roux, Souetre's whereabouts were never investigated.  I think that was the FBI's intention.
 
(3) After interviewing Roux, the French were satisfied the whole thing was a mistake.  I don't think so. DeGaulle suspected the CIA was part of the gang after him. The French realized the FBI report focused on Roux was all they were going to get from the Americans. They probably recognized it for the diversionary tactic it was.  But they were running out of time before the DeGaulle trip. They beefed up security and DeGaulle survived.
 
As to gatekeeping, I should make a distinction between intent and effect.  I'm not saying that Larry was trying to protect his research by discouraging others from looking at the question. In fact, he said he posted the link to his stuff so others can decide for themselves.  Rather, when a researcher of his caliber says a question was settled long ago, it does discourage others from looking at it, intended or not.  Perhaps I should have been more careful in my choice of words. 
 
You should gather up your analysis of how Coup got Skorzeny wrong, including the possibility of him being QJWIN, and send it to Leslie Sharp.  I, for one, would be interested in her reaction.

Leslie will be leaving the EF today.

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/28924-oswald-and-the-shot-at-walker-redressing-the-balance/page/8/#comments


I was just sharing with a friend that I'll be leaving the forum today.  It's the last day of Women's History Month, somewhat an auspicious milestone considering the experience. It happens that we plan to publish a facsimile of the Lafitte datebook with a brief narrative per entry so the time spent here will be better applied to that project.  As I told the friend, this isn't a fight or flight scenario, nor is it a taking my toys and storming home drama but instead, "I did what I came to do." 

Someone else suggested that those behind Hank's investigation 100% are  "well meaning" and "best intentioned".  That's something one might say about a poor performance or a debate gone awry.  We will continue to argue the facts revealed in Lafitte's records, not bullets, window sills, not distance from Lee Parkway to the church. The Lafitte datebook and records are fact and represent possibly the most significant breakthrough in decades. 
As even the team of examiners have noted, authentication can often become a canard. In our case, "I won't take anything seriously Hank uncovered, regardless of the revelations, because I haven't seen a document saying I can trust the datebook."  A red herring?
We also discussed what will likely happen when the datebook is authenticated. We predict the authenticator will then be vilified for at least a year by an element within this community.  The examiner working on the db said to me, be prepared because whoever "loses" will cry foul no matter what.  It's a racket. Hank knew it was a racket, I've learned it's a racket, and I suspect some of these people including you, Greg, know it's a racket.
 
I'll close out with explaining, again, that the du Berrier entry in the datebook is three days before the shots at the Walker house ... the theme of this thread. I guess the fact fails to prompt the slightest curiosity in you? It's always been my understanding that curiosity is a prerequisite for a committed investigative journalist.

I just finished writing a satire based on the Anthem of Doomed Youth, but the ever vigilant ZOG censors must have let loose their internet Cerberus to devour it.

If I summon up enough energy tomorrow I'll try and remember it.

I felt as if I had to say something. The precipitous decline of the 13 inch head forum is increasing,  markedly. The few remaining real researchers/ historians are in danger of being swept away by a tsunami of pure and utter shite. 

Here's an idea for Messrs Barnard,  Cotter and Koch, you triumphantly trroofilicious triumvirate,  why not use the Law Codes of Ine as a basis for rewriting the fundamental concepts of Anglo Saxon jurisprudence?

Or how about buying a couple of cases of lager and three plastic horned helmets,  getting steaming drunk before flying to Newfoundland,  you can pretend to be Vikings discovering Vinland ( hey Pete,  how's Raff's latest blockbuster doing,  why don't you ask for a cameo role? I wouldn't need to suspend much disbelief if I saw you grunting and dribbling through a cask of mead,  and hey, at least there were no jews in Ainse L' aux Meadow( so?))

Or why don't you ask those nice chaps at Porton Down to let you party like its 1399 in a hermetically sealed chamber full of bubonic plague,  smallpox,  cholera,  polio and typhoid fever? Who needs stupid old medical science anyway? They're all just Big Pharma stooges anyway!! If Jenni McCarthy,  RFK jnr and some giggling incel on YouTube say vaccines suck then that's good enough for me!!

You guys seem to be operating under a very basic( well, several actually) misapprehension,: you don't study history merely to learn about the mistakes,  and you most definitely don't want to use these mistakes as the blueprints for your horrific notions of progress. 

All rhetoric and melodrama aside,  the 13 inch head forum is becoming a genuinely scary place  to visit. 
The levels of wilful ignorance,  blindness and a self destructive urge to try and replicate or somehow resuscitate as many failed/ discredited conspiracy theories as possible is turning the place into a grotesque parody.

Look at the first page or two: some illiterate halfwit masturbating in public,  rambling on about Hickey,  why shots, ( for the sake of Ms Beckett , Ms Sharp and the constitutions and the digestions of the more delicate habituees of Lord Gordo's Ye Olde Tea Shoppe I pray to Armstrong he doesn't start blubbering about g spots) and how he's 100% sovlid teh asinattion and elektrons to ( sic  In fact siccer than Raul Pigby after gorging himself on 1.2 metric tonnes of Ukrainian sausage) , the fearless iconoclast and anarcho psychologist wunderkind,  Little Barnie,  the Bard of Tooting Bec, raising the moth eaten funeral shroud of Ben  Gurion and the Jewsdidit fairy tale , plus Dr Neiderhut ( Harvard Medical School class of 83 you filthy serfs) acting as Don Jeffries understudy, a menopausal conspiracist hausfrau in an overstarched white pinny,  throwing a hysterical hissy fit because someone had the temerity to disagree with him. 

Dr Neiderhut is the absolute personification of the Dunning Kruger theory. His Harvard medical school education endows him with the preternatural power,  not to mention the unfailing judgement to dismiss anything he disagrees with as " bunk"

A pretentious patronising bastard to boot. Anyone who has to resort to resting upon the rotten spectre of 50 year old laurels can fuck right off.  Imho it's a sure fire sign they don't really know what they're talking about. Desperately trying to hide their ignorance behind a musty old academic gown 

Cognitive Infiltration my CIA probed arse. These fucking trumpets and their tuneless warbling do more damage to the way this case is perceived outside the tiny, claustrophobic conspiracy bunker than any number of disinformation peddling stooges. 

Professor Sanford graciously left his mountaintop  descending from the Olympian heights of his self regard to bless the feeble minded hoi polloi with the ever ripe fruits of his bountiful intellect 

Declaring,  after his obligatory period of study, His Porcine Snoutedness finds Prouty credible. 

Gee, what a surprise. 

The contortions he performs,  trying to rationalise Prouty's highly dubious behaviour is a sight to behold. 

Having him as a moderator squandered the few remaining measly drops of credibility left in the tank

I didn't know he had turned up here. Sticking his snout briefly round the door. Blessing us poor unworthy disbelievers with a learned snuffle or two. I'm pretty certain no one here hates you,  I know I don't.  I find your ridiculously unfounded arrogance mildly irritating,  like the buzzing of a particularly persistent fly
, but largely irrelevant. Anyone who attempts to salvage a failed theory by declaring their detractors are just too dumb to understand it, can fuck right off too.

Jimbo Baggins had you dancing like a polygamous puppet on several strings,  simultaneously.  Using your pigheaded stubbornness and impenetrable denseness as perfect vehicles to maintain his nonsensical double doppelganger charade. 

The place is now,  more or less,  a bonafide freakshow. Catering to fringe zealots,  wannabe rabbits trousers ( sic rabble rousers but I like rabbits trousers better, thanks CIA predictive spelling) a handful of serious whackjobs. Maybe it's just me, but I find it disappointing ( to say the very least) that not one of these self described warriors for truth and justice, compassionate souls , or so you would have thought,  have ( apart from Jonathan) said anything about the tragic spectacle that is unfolding in their very midst. Permitting an elderly woman to,  more or less,  have a nervous breakdown in public. 

On a slightly more whimsical note  lets not forget the Monstrous Mound of Mediocrity  himself,  Jim DiE,  the one man demolition ball, and his dwindling band of amiable dolts and milquetoast simpletons.

About the most effective Greek chorus since John Butler forgot to add the ruhypnol to the after show ouzo , the time the short lived experimental Kentucky communist/avant garde naturalist theatre collective " Red Raw Balls " put on " The Frogs". Having put it all into his own Ribena he showed up,  backstage,  in a ferociously stained chiton,  screaming aggressively,  " I is called sloppy seconds on them Frogs,  none of you commie New York ponces better not have busted them like they was your kid sisters hymen "

" See, I had already demolished Freddie Boy's mildewed polemics before he had ever written them. "

The difference between ROKC and the 13 inch head forum is chillingly simple 

We occasionally use comedy to make a serious point: while their attempts at seriousness invariably end up in a mound of comedic mush...

Ms Sharp is STILL at it, like the Duracell bunny banging her drum, marching round and round the Grassy Knoll. Peddling the " datebook " and laying down trails of dung pellets for the eager little rabbits to follow..

OTTO AND THE RABBI

Otto and the Rabbi up on the Grassy knoll 

One with a Carcano,  the other,  a curtain  pole

With Lee Bowers up in his tower busily keeping score

" Say" said the Rabbi " ain't I seen you before?"

" In Tel Aviv,  Bariloche or Rio by the shore?"

Otto just  grinned,  and counted to four

" I smuggled you into Belsen,  wrapped in a carpet roll"

As Lee shouted out the odds at three to one 

" Three more years? One car? Won't that be fun"

As the  limo it  slowed  until the deed it  got done

Greatest magic trick they said,  under the sun,

" But what about the moon?"

Cried the whale to his friend the harpoon 

" I think I can sing it,  if you whistle the tune"

Said the rabbi before floating  off like a Roswell spyin' balloon 

" I guess we"ll all find out very soon" Otto smiles,

As he hands his curtain pole to James Files 

" The moral of our little tale "

Said the whale,  as Jean Hill's coat grew pale,

" Is not about truth or justice or right or wrong 

For it's been left now for far too long, 

An' in  the footprints of truth lies they grow too  strong 

Its just about not letting  the pet theories we all crave 

Ending up getting us  deeper than our best friends grave

And by  crowning the lies with the sleep of the brave

As like nightmares on Elm street they will assuredly pave"

Copyright 1897 Judyth Vary Macgonnigal

The EF is steadily veering away from JFK research. Many of the new posts there are about other topics like Israel, Vaccines, RFK jr, Biden, Trump, Fox News etc.

Also the JFK stuff there with a few exceptions is quite pathetic.

Jim DiE has transmorgified into the ( who ate all the) Pies Piper,  lumbering along the primrose path, with all the grace and aplomb of a rhino in a tutu,  tootling away as his diminishing flock of conspiracy lemmings leap obediently over the cliff...

" Don't worry folks, see, ive already demolished Freddie Boy's baloney, George Joannides isn't dead, he's down there, with Fletcher Prouty , and a Liberty Lobby sponsored bouncy castle..."

Jim as the pied piper and Little Barnie as some 4th rate end of the pier ham actor,  playing Dr Frankenstein,  with Dr Neiderhut as Igor, pronounced Ey-gor,  the only Harvard educated hunch backed factotum this side of the Carpathians...

With Ben Cole as the monster...

Professor Sanford as the stiff necked heel clicking Habsburg bureaucrat/ moderator,  and Messrs Koch, Cotter and Pigby as the enraged pitchfork wielding yokels...

The monster: assembled from decomposing chunks of conspiracies past- Michael Collins Piper's arse, Fletcher Prouty's head, Chauncey Holt's Adonis like torso,  and Roscoe White's arms and legs.

Strapped to the slab.

Outside the winds howl, like a horde of Babushkaed banshees along Elm Street,  the rain pounds,  the thunder roars, then finally there's a fork of crackling lightning 

Gazing up Dr Barnenstein ( pronounced gullible twat) sees the luminous tongue caress the tip of his fearsome electric erection,  sending a ferocious ejaculation of fiery sparks bursting upwards into the turbulent depths of the tormented night ( like the time John Butler was arrested and ultimately sectioned after gate crashing a Tokyo AI exhibition,  attempting to noisily suck the inert titanium crevice of a highly complex android geisha.." Listen up you Hong Kong Phooey rockers, my daddy cut off his own balls instead of fighting you Tojo cocksuckers,  the bitch was getting wetter than a Kentucky raccoon's rear end,  no one can resist getting dipped by dis here minge meister ")

" Quick,  Igor, hit the switch,  HIT THE SWITCH!"

" Listen my daddy was dogsbody to Crown Prince Rudolf's piles doctor so a little respect please Master "

" Yes, I know you were voted the hunchback most likely to be lynched by a posse of irate villagers and Harvard medical school wants me to preserve your twisted carcass for medical science,  just HIT THE FUCKING SWITCH,  PLEASE "

Igor hits the switch

A bolt of searing blue flame shoots out of the bulbous glans like nozzle of the machine.....hitting the monster square in his ( hopefully) still dormant midships...

The monster gives a clumsy jolt, its limbs twitching , perhaps through friction,  or some deep instinct that lingers,  even after death..

It sits up..

" Not now Beverley,  Sparky is just along in the office,  playing with Sheba and Ozzie"

Its slumps back on the slab, as flaccid as Lord Gordo,  when he showed up late for a Lyle and Scott knitwear sale, and ended up with a pair of woolly mitts. 

Dr Barnenstein ( pronounced cliche loving dolt) collapses in disappointment 

" All that work,  all that effort,  what will I say to my fiancee,  and all my high flying financier/ psychologist/ jet set friends , next time we meet at May week? Or out in Monte Carlo?"

" Look Master,  it's alive, its alive "

Its true!! The monster sits up, a dull vacuous expression on its greenish semi decomposed face,

In a slow pedantic monotone,  the monster begins,  " Egads , speaking without any overly feculent circumspection, I think it's reason to assume the police mixed up a copper jacketed bullet with the one in evidence,  or Oswald could have used another gun. Beverley Oliver said she saw my new legs running up the grassy knoll,  and if my new mouth made a few anti semitic remarks,  so what? This is the JFKA and I love talking out this new squishy arsehole "

Dr Barnenstein ( pronounced barely literate wannabe poseur) shrieks in triumph 

" They said I was mad , but I showed them,  wait until the Royal Academy hears about this!! Ive managed to singlehandedly resurrect some of the lamest most passe poorly sourced and offensive conspiracy theories EVER "

Its becoming embarrassing to read some of the utter guff that is being spouted. Having Professor Sanford as a moderator is an insult to the intelligence and the integrity of the few remaining rational thinking members. 

Instead of serious research,  the place has become a retirement home/ repository for failed conspiracy theories. Little Barnie's 20 reasons thread was seriously frightening,  on so many different  levels. 

If you approach a subject with a predetermined conclusion, ANY fucking conclusion,  then you are committing a ( arguably THE) cardinal error. Historical enquiry is not about confirming preexisting biases or lopsided illogical worldviews,  or, perhaps most disturbing of all,  to use whatever knowledge gained as some sort of ideological weapon. 

I can't take Little Barnie and his cotorie of po faced pissants remotely seriously because they cheerfully mimic and celebrate the negative. They aim to emulate that which any unbiased reading of history should teach one to avoid. 

It's not one of the sides that are at fault,  but the whole structure of the game. Attempting to counter propaganda with more propaganda is not debate,  and God knows its not research,  it's the antithesis of intellectually honest enquiry. 

Weaponized stupidity is not only enshrined its positively celebrated. Asking one of these fucking clowns to give you a serious appraisal of mid 20th century history is like asking a blind mute to describe the wonderful views.

The Jim DiE school of non research should  hand out obligatory eyepatches to new students. Because to buy their peculiar myopic close minded interpretation requires you to,  at all times,  keep one eye firmly closed. 

Honestly,  I'm going to have to stop going over there, the more I read, the more hopeless and disenchanted I become. 

Is this really supposed to be it? The culmination of 60 years of work?

Wilful blindness,  wishful thinking and subservience to an ideologically driven agenda?

The fact that someone like Judyth Baker,  a provable con artist, who profits from telling ridiculous lies about the assassination,  can attract a myriad of so called research luminaries to speak at her conferences just about says it all 

To try and revive the hollow old Jewdidit canard,  attempting to use Dimona as some sort of historical top trump just displays the depth of ignorance and dearth of knowledge. And that's being polite.  Try reading some actual fucking history books for a change. Find out about who was really the main supplier  for the Israeli nuclear programme. James Angleton was the Mossad liaison officer,  like Kim Philby was the liaison to the CIA. This sort of lazy one dimensional,  let's look for dots to join, thinking should be anathema. 

Unfortunately,  the reason why so much of mainstream conspiracy thinking is at best mediocre,  is because it accurately reflects the majority of the minds involved. 

Some of these characters should give sleuthing and polemicising a little break. Before you go about throwing stones st glass houses,  you should really make sure your own windows are intact..

Dr Neiderhut  ( Harvard's answer to Walter Mitty)  has graduated from pretentious gasbag to idiotic buffoon ( 7.5 millidonnies on the trusty ROKC cuntometer) 

In his hapless attempt to salvage the reputation of fallen conspiracy icon,   "Honest"Fletcher Prouty , he's edging perilously close to flirting with full blown Holocaust denial. 

At the same time,  once again,  displaying his lack of basic knowledge. Having a father who fought in the Italian campaign is indeed something to be proud of,  but it does not grant one instant expert status 

Eisenhower , aware of the unprecedented horrors and displaying an uncanny prescience,  made damn sure the full story was recorded in full graphic, uncensored detail. To ensure the truth of the holocaust could not be denied by later generations. 

Overseeing the filming of Ohrdruf,  one of the camps the Americans liberated,  and forcing the local German citizens to bear witness to the fruits of their 1000 year Reich,  by marching them past the piles of emaciated corpses. 

The historiography of the holocaust is not in the slightest bit " convoluted " What a thoroughly preposterous comment for a supposedly educated man to make. 

It is only convoluted for those who choose to make it so. Especially when you rely upon " Harvard educated intellectuals like Ron Unz " for your information. 

Little Barnie, as lucid,  insightful and illuminating as ever, piped up,  accusing Prouty's detractors of " guilt by association " You quite literally cannot buy such perceptive commentary. 

Rarely are hypocrisy and lack of self perception so perfectly distilled. First of all it is in no way " guilt by association " to highlight his own fucking words and his undeniable links with such a loathsome organisation. 

Plus,  you and your confreres make a virtual cottage industry out of attempting to smear people, due to their associations. " Ex government/ CIA/ FBI M$M" etc etc. 

The holocaust is a proven historical fact. Any outstanding questions,  for example functionalism v intentionalism are caused not by the dearth of evidence but the overwhelming amount of evidence. 

Whole warehouses full of primary source material. Even 80 years later a considerable fraction remains unexamined.

Oh, wait, these are US government warehouses,  so the documents are probably fake, right?

The toxicity,  the utter lack of self awareness or humility,  the overweening self righteousness, the laughable paranoia ( I'm sure the No 1 priority up in the Deep State compound on Iron Mountain is monitoring David Josephs and Dr fucking Neiderhut) not forgetting the absolute intolerance for dissenting viewpoints,  has, apart from a tiny handful,  chased away the kind of people this case desperately needs to thrive and move forward-young,  talented,  perceptive,  creative and driven- attracting the dross. The gullible,  the lost and,  occasionally the genuinely disturbed. 

Orphans from the ever turbulent storm of belief,  desperate for something to believe in. Fools hunting for the best method of amplifying their foolishness. For conspiracy theories offer hope and succour,  allowing the fool to believe his or her folly is actually wisdom. Filled with the vicarious thrill of forbidden knowledge. Sneering back at those who have spent a lifetime sneering at them 

For,  if history has taught us anything,  it's the horrible truth: all too often the tormented becomes the tormentor. Slipping on the kapo's tunic,  even if its still wet with the blood of their own family. 

Hating those who hate the jews the way the jews themselves are still hated is not progress. It only guarantees us all, that in due course we will know what it's like to hate and be hated 

The 13 inch head forum,  allegedly the leading mainstream research site,  has, with notable and noble exceptions regressed into the primordial swamp of tabloid hungry conspiracism,  in the process exceeding the very worst mainstream excesses. In its own little way becoming a repository and willing soil for the poisonous seeds,  that so often sprout into hatred

Fletcher Prouty,  Dr Steven fucking Greer,  Otto Skorzeny,  the banalisation of serious research and informed debate..

You're not historians,  and God knows you most certainly ain't researchers,  youve transformed the forum into the pulpit of an oddball sect,  full of cranks and cross eyed messiahs. 

The historiography of the holocaust is convoluted, George Bush, pere et fils,  were snapped taking leisurely strolls through Dealey Plaza,  Fletcher Prouty is a misunderstood much maligned prophet of conspiracy,  and last but not least,  the HARVEY and LEE doppelganger fantasy is credible...

Just some of  the eminent Dr Neiderhut's sterling contributions .....

Our realpolitikin' plastic peacenik chums over on the intellectual graveyard ,that once was the Education Forum seem determined to keep on politruking along the road to nowhere...

Pedants Corner : note to Cliff Varnell,  Finland was part of the Swedish Empire ,  from  the 12th century ( at the very latest) to 1722, when Old Finland was ceded to Peter the Great's expansionist Russian Empire, as part of the treaty that ended the Great Northern War 

The remainder ( rump) of Finland coming under Tsarist control in 1809. Named the Grand Duchy of Finland it enjoyed a peculiar,  anomalous status within the Tsarist Empire. Granted de facto independence in 1917, after a civil war, the  German backed Whites defeating  the Soviet Red Guards in 1919, it became a Western style parliamentary democracy. Sort of.

I'm only aware of Professor Meersheimer through his work on WW2 armoured tactics. Especially the much lauded " blitzkrieg ". Specifically deconstructing the mythology built up by Liddell Hart and Guderian. 

On this pretty narrow technical issue I happen to agree with him. As for his other work? I don't know enough to offer an informed opinion 

The notion that Putin is some heroic figure,  the Father of His People , waging a just war against the rapacious forces of US inspired NATO hegemony,  is not only fantastical bullshit,  it's offensively fantastical bullshit. 

Likewise the idea that criticising Putin is akin to foaming at the mouth irrational Russophobia 

Due to their location,  the smaller states of mitteleuropa have always been vulnerable to the predations of their larger,  more powerful neighbours. 

If it was simply a case of Oliver Stone presenting a neutral balanced portrait of figures vilified as bogeyman by the establishment then I would applaud him. 

But acting as a mouthpiece for grotesque propaganda is a whole other matter. 

Arguably,  the most prescient meditation upon the Great Implosion,  as the Dream of the American Century subsides into bottomless abyss,  choked with the bile of doomsayers, prophets and gun totin' saviours,  determined the road to salvation will be lined with the stinking carcasses of the disbelievers and the apostates, is Gibbon's Decline and Fall. 

All great empires eventually collapse from within.  

And due to its unrivalled dominance of popular culture , certainly since the end of WW2, America is the first great empire of the within, colonising souls and minds the way the redcoats once claimed malaria ridden swamps in the name of His Glorious Britannic Majesty 

Mind you,  if you were to mention Gibbon to Little Barnie and his subversive chums they'd probably start dancing up and down, making faces and peculiar animalistic grunts,  like John Butler,  the time a " specialist " dating agency paired him up with Oscar,  the Humanzee. 

" Do the funky Gibbon, the Goodies,  right?" 

I heard Bill Oddie was involved with some pretty heavy MI6/CIA MK/ULTRA intel spookery back in the day. 

If you play " The Goodies" theme tune backwards, you given instructions on how to make a dirty bomb and directions to Denis Thatcher's drinks cabinet...

Incidentally where is John Butler? I'm starting to get worried about him..

He hasn't been since he set off to the Big D, armed with his hand drawn map of Dealey Plaza 

I'm half expecting to switch on the TV to see footage beamed from a local Peruvian TV station..

A bewildered bedraggled hillbilly,  wearing a handmade coconut shell codpiece and the rags of a filthy TJ Hooker t shirt,  was discovered wandering around Machu Picchu,  clutching the decomposing remains of an incoherent children's cartoon scribble..

" I is sure the 2nd Zapruder is hiding around someplace, hey, boy? You related to Joe Molina? You communist? You got a sister, what's happening,  get them dang cameras outa my face,  the Kentucky Sex Offenders Bureau ain't got no jurisdiction round these parts "

alex_wilson wrote:The precipitous decline of the 13 inch head forum is increasing,  markedly. The few remaining real researchers/ historians are in danger of being swept away by a tsunami of pure and utter shite. 

Vinny wrote:The EF is steadily veering away from JFK research. Many of the new posts there are about other topics like Israel, Vaccines, RFK jr, Biden, Trump, Fox News etc.

On the subject of 9/11, I followed a link to an Ed Forum discussion from years ago. I was pleased to see Josiah Thompson putting Master Pigby in his place (for Master Pigby is, of course, a 9/11 truther):

Josiah Thompson wrote:No, Mr. Rigby, you're not funny... you're not witty... you're just sad. Like Fetzer, when you lack facts you clutter up the bandwidth with invective and attempts at character assassination. But I have hope for you. Maybe if you watch what adults do here, after awhile you might learn what it's like to carry on a discussion with argument, counter argument, etc. So keep watching what the adults have to say here. You too can learn to be one. Maybe.
(https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/5594-fbi-the-mob-and-911/?do=findComment&comment=149127)

Elsewhere, I noticed that our favourite fez-wearer is back! What, I hear you ask, are the latest fruits of his magnificent intellect? Well, apparently there was an 'other' Zapruder film (see https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/29053-a-defect-in-the-moorman-photo/?do=findComment&comment=500277). Yup, he takes the 'other' film stuff seriiously. And why not? If a couple of people claimed they saw something, it must be true, mustn't it?

He has to be the most gullible of all the everything-is-a-conspiracy theorists. On the previous page of that thread, he even seemed to be repeating the old idea that Greer's head-turn was impossibly fast. Oh dear.

Is there any conspiratorial claim so far-fetched that he wouldn't swallow it uncritically? I recall that, not too long ago, he regurgitated the thoroughly debunked claim about Oswald's 13-inch head, only for Professor Larsen to tap him gently on the shoulder and mutter: hey, Dave, please stop, no-one in their right mind believes that nonsense any more, you're just making the rest of us look stupid by association.

I wonder what his opinion is about that well-known alien autopsy, or what really happened to Princess Di. When it rains, does he blame the CIA?

At least the fez wearer is interested in the JFK assassination, unlike the brigade of RWNJs who descended on the Ed Forum not long ago. Lilttle Barnie has now made more than 2500 comments, very few of which have had any connection with the assassination, as far as I can tell. I'm surprised the powers that be haven't told him to find a more suitable home for his rather juvenile ideas.

Like death, taxes and Armstrong's holy toupee on a particularly windy day,  Fezzo the Fez's quaint,  antiquated notions of grand all encompassing conspiracy are one of those never changing features in an ever changing world 

His methodology is,  well,  how shall I put this?, somewhat idiosyncratic. Make a huge fuss about authenticating the evidence,  but,  if the evidence in question then happens to contradict his fantasy du jour,  he turns round and starts squealing,  " It's FAKE FAKE FAKE , I tells you IT'S FAKE,  as FAKE as the horse's hair on my guru's head "

The guiding principle of the offshoot Fezzian sect - an obscure extremist uber conspiratorial branch of Orthodox Conspiracism,  think the Society of St Pius X in gaudy fezzes instead of Bishop's mitres,  who believe in literal truth of HARVEY and LEE,  and are staunch advocates of Quasar 2003 absolutism.  Basically,  the original 2003 Quasar Books edition of HARVEY and LEE was divinely inspired and beyond disputation. The more fanatical members are known to practice mortification and self flagellation,  wandering around their desert compound for days on end, without sustenance,  wearing sackcloth and the black fez of doom, whipping themselves into " divine ecstasy "with leather straps,  each tassel topped with an icon,  moulded in iron, with sharply serrated edges,  depicting the Holy Faces- seems to be it's up to the disinfo agents/ provocateurs/ stooges/ COINTELPRO infiltrators ( delete as appropriate) to disprove the arguments they haven't come close to proving 

If they can imagine it, then it happened. Until it's proven otherwise. 

But, when it IS proven,  we reserve the right to scream " IT'S FAKE "

The " other" Zapruder film,  for fucks sake. Why not look for the " other" Noah's Ark on Splash fucking Mountain?

30 plus years of this self defeating onanistic shite has all but alienated an entire generation. The absurd antics of the most vocal high profile conspiracy theorists managed to make the original Warren Report lie seem like the less ridiculous option.

Quite an achievement!!

Relegating what should be a serious issue to the murky netherworld of tabloid media trooferism. 

Think about that.

I wonder if the mythical sponsors foresaw this particular phenomenon? A crowd of self obsessed delusional yahoos making the fucking bullshit jet effect theory seem semi rational by coming up with a crock of cross eyed  mumbo jumbo,  believing every 2 bit hustler , with a song in their heart and a tale to tell ,who came slouching ,with the wild beasts towards the Grassy Knoll...

Apart from a handful of genuinely talented researchers,  acute observers, knowledgeable historians etc, who managed to brave the noxious stench, this scattergun " everything is a conspiracy " attitude has, by and large,  attracted the lost, the desperate , the disenfranchised,  the discontented and the hopeless. 

Hungry for easy answers 

It doesn't get much easier than sitting back and screaming " IT'S FAKE "

And the really fucking worrying thing is they don't seem to realise how utterly preposterous they look .

David Josephs shrieking about COINTELPRO every time someone disagrees with him. Repeating the same mistake over and over again whilst expecting a different result isn't progress,  it's the textbook definition of insanity...

Clinging onto Fletcher Prouty, fake films, omnipotent near godlike sponsors with the capacity to tear aside the veil of time,  enabling them to foresee and preempt minds and souls as yet unborn,  shadowy cabals of wizened ex nazis and cigar chomping good ole boy racists...

Is like a middle aged person clinging on to their childhood safety blanket 

Their senses dimmed by the rosy glow of nostalgia. 

Ironically enough it was none other than Jim Garrison himself who warned about the danger of believing in fairytales. Prouty, Project Lancelot,  swarms of doppelgangers permeating Dealey Plaza , everything I need to be fake IS fake, Bodysnatchers on Main Street,  Dangerous Dan, Even more Dangerous Doug Horne...
 
..they're all nothing more than fairytales ..

How can you possibly hope to build the truth upon a framework of lies, talltales and rumours?

As for Little Barnie and his chums? The assassination is merely an accessory,  a vehicle, a platform,  no , a pulpit,  to preach their agenda, to, what they mistakenly assumed would be an overwhelmingly receptive audience. 

It's like reading the ever so serious disjointed ramblings of some intense 6th form wannabe poet,  in between lugubrious sighs ,anger sodden unrequited sobs and the inevitable lamentations,  " Why does no one understand me?" there's the angst ridden political diatribes

The assassination is just more fodder to feed their belief systems/ worldviews 

The Diary of Chris Barnard aged 43 3/4...On the other hand,  the Diary of John Cotter would probably make Mein fucking Kampf look like the Mr Men. Mr Cotter sounds like one humourless self important angry individual. 

It's all just turgid cliche filled mush,  limpid wannabe contrarian verbosity,  never more than a sentence deep. I'm always slightly wary of characters who use other people's words to express their deepest thoughts.  Quoting or paraphrasing is one thing,  but endless fucking YouTube " lectures "??

Some of sources Raoullie of Pigbie dredges up makes Jerome Corsi or Alex fucking Jones sound like that bastion of Anglo American imperialism,  the Encyclopedia Brittanica. 

Like claiming everything is a conspiracy,  believing every war/ disaster is the result of nefarious machinations of multinational elites/ Pentagon military industrial congressional cabals is as wrongheaded as believing nothing is. 

At least with Fezzo and the everything is fake gang you are pretty much guaranteed a laugh. As for this lot? I don't know if I'm watching the "Supreme Leadership Troika" of some militant mid 80s student union pretending to be the Politburo of some tinpot dictatorship,  or the Politburo of some tin pot dictatorship pretending to be a bunch of gauche student Marxists...

So, Fezzo,  about this defect on the Moorman photo? D'ya reckon it was the same alterationists who altered the Zapruder film?...

I saw the other other OTHER Zapruder film last night...a cross eyed hillbilly with his trousers round his ankles,  hopping down the middle of Elm Street,  shaking his fist,  chasing after a gaggle of agitated forest dwelling varmints,  who had managed to gnaw their way out of their wire mesh prison,  however one poor squirrel was somewhat impeded by the semen drenched sports sock still stuck to his bushy tail..

Come back to the 5 and dime Johnny Butler,  Johnny Butler. 

All is forgiven. Facemask wearing doppelettes and fake cars with two rear ends were absolute fucking paradise compared to adenoidal rants from a shower of middle aged Rik from the Young Ones impersonators..

I see you have woken the UnWoke, Sir Alex.

I am sorry to burst any bubbles (well, not really, but it is ever so polite to say that, isn't it?) but for the Newly Woken UnWoke I have the following news: Sir Alex has something of a fanbase out there. I know this because I get PMs from them. 

As an added bonus, the gist of what he says is irrefutable. Which is why none of the Newly Woken UnWoke have attempted to refute it.

The once semi-respected Education Forum has been over-run with political agendas. 

Don't get me wrong. It was always a bit of a farce underneath the stiff-upper lip facade, but it did veer occasionally into some halfway decent debates - and Christ Almighty - those debates were actually on the subject of the forum!

Now I die a little inside every time I see one of the bozos on that forum spelling out NAZI or LIAR. FFS. Treated like kids, they act like kids. Yapping about total shit from shitty books and shittier youtube channels. Big Brave Freedumb Loving Libertarians all kowtowing to the rulz and running to the mods every time they get there widdle feelings hurt. 

"Propaganda all is phony". Some Jew guy said that. 

And the irony is, at various times, they have ALL denired ever coming here to read what we have to say. But we all know they do. The latest comments are just further proof of that. Not bad for a forum that is apparently the "smallest, most fringe forum in the known universe."   Which is just more irony coming a forum that tolerates / encourages such batshit crazy stuff as multiple Oswalds (including at least one with a 13 inch head), multiple Marguerites, Tucker Carlson as Flash Gordon, Savior of their Puniverse, Reincarnations of Mozart, UFO secrets in the fucking walls of the White House, and who the fuck knows or cares what else. 

Makes perfect sense that you guys would try and paint a site dedicated to having the case reopened using EVIDENCE as a bit far fetched.  But the reckoning is coming. 



The Angels "Am I ever gonna see your face again?"

Audience: "No way. Get Fucked. Fuck off."

 ps

Just for the record...in reply to the comment "For a guy to put so much effort into his writing to post"

I know your tiny brains can't comprehend that the output could take anything except many many hours of blood, sweat and tears. But the truth is Alex is a bona fide wastrel , and as such is lazy to the point of almost qualifying as a Royal.  I know exactly how much time he takes with these. Fuck all.  I know this from his rapid-fire email exchanges with me.  I think you should all thank your lucky stars he doesn't really apply himself as he could.

Thank you Greg,  for a very fair even handed appraisal. I can't really complain,  can I? Fair play and all that,  having dished it out myself it's only fair I get paid back in kind..

I only wish it had been in blood soaked yankee dollars or good old fashioned British sterling silver,  instead of circa 1920s Hungarian pengos or pre WW2 Italian lire. 

You're absolutely correct. I am a lazy cunt,  one of His Brittanic Majesties brave legions of wastrels,  in the old days I'd have been propping up the bar at Raffles,  trying to charm the price of a pink gin out of the pretty young wife of the newly arrived military attache. As Evelyn Waugh wrote in Brideshead,  speaking  through the aged philanderer and exiled Marquis,  " I am everything the socialists would have me to bs"

By trying to reveal hidden truths about others the unwise or unfettered often succeed in exposing unwanted truths about themselves. 

Of course you are perfectly correct,  the irony ( and the hypocrisy) of such dyed in the wool anarcho libertarian would be instigators, running to the mods, shrieking about " ad hominem " every time someone has the temerity to question their beliefs,  or point out the inherent circularity of their arguments,  those brave warriors for troof, happily joining hands with enablers of con artists and shysters who profit( or at least attempt to profit  from) the assassination) and playing their little make believe games. 

Mr Cotter,  I agree Dr Neiderhut's " joke" about poteen was in incredibly poor taste. How can you recognize this but yet,  at the same time,  indulge in gratuitous national stereotypes about Brits? Attempting to portray me as some Chtrchill worshipping little Englander? Lost in sepia tinted daydreams of the " Land of Lost Content ", listening to our Vera on the wireless,  sipping my tea with my tin hat jammed on my head 

Believe me,  I am fully cognizant of the idolised,  no, mythologised history of WW2- the Dunkirk spirit,  the Few, Churchill's bulldog tenacity,  a little Island fortress standing alone etc- served up to the British people,  from the early 50s onwards,  to help soften the loss of Empire and Great Power status. This faux history was as potent as it was long lasting. I'm fully aware of the mediocre performance of the British and Commonwealth forces( with some notable exceptions) , the poor tactical and strategic choices and the unwillingness to accept their " junior status " in the Grand Alliance. 

WW2 in Europe was largely decided in the East. The Red Army tearing the heart out of the Wehrmacht. 

I am no more obsessed with Hitler and the Nazis than I am with Revolutionary France,  or Medieval History, or Russian history. If I have an abiding historical obsession it is with factual accuracy as opposed to ideological/ political contamination. 

This is why I find what you self proclaimed " serious JFKA contributors" so objectionable. 

Incidentally,  openly admitting to taking pleasure in laughing at those whom you consider less fortunate than you, pretty much sums up your mentality. Bleating about ad hominem when your contributions are nothing more than one long mean spirited ad hominem. Speaking as if you are a lonely ever vigilant sentry in some shining outpost of moral probity,  whilst resorting to cheap national stereotypes and even taking pleasure in finding humour in those you deem somehow less fortunate. 

I don't know you, and going by the persona you project,  to be honest,  I don't think I'd want to know you.  If you don't find what I write funny , witty or informative,  then that's your opinion , I'm simply trying to lampoon the image YOU YOURSELF PROJECT.  All too often this sneering aggressive know all arrogance masks a deep insecurity and lack of knowledge. 

I probably deserved their brickbats and a lot more besides. Meant in jest or not words still have meaning,  they can hurt and cause offence. 

If I have offended anyone personally I apologise. My little skits are meant purely in jest. However I don't apologise for criticising certain posters/ theories. 

Greg,  you have my permission to post my log in times,  I spend an hour or so a day on line, sometimes less. You also have my permission to post the numerous emails I sent ( inflicted upon you!) when I excoriated myself for wasting my time on irrelevant nonsense. 

For me, the Ed forum,  by and large ( there are still some genuinely talented researchers/ historians who post there) a comedy show. 

For various reasons I would never join,  mainly because I would never join a forum that welcomes people who have actively enabled the likes of Cinque and Judyth Baker. Also because of the shameful way Greg and Barto were treated. But,  with Greg's permission of course,  I'd gladly debate/ discuss the assassination/ cold war history/ Russian history/ 19th / 20th century history/ medieval history/ European history from 800 to 1945, Chinese history,  American history,  Chinese history,  literature, in fact any topic you care to choose. I have absolutely no problems with your criticisms,  hell,  some may even be accurate,  although what my poor mother would think if I turned up in her basements I shudder to think,  but I'll be damned if I'm going to be patronised by individuals who have evinced absolutely zero knowledge of the subjects. 

I chose to post here because the folks hereabouts have integrity as well as talent and an unflinching honesty. If you think indulging in interminable YouTube duels,  exchanging ad hominem fuelled posts,  political squabbles etc etc is seriously contributing to JFKA research then I'm going to have to disagree. 

As is eternally gnawing on the reheated husks of decades old conspiracy fables

John Cotter @ the Ed Forum wrote:ROCK [sic] bashers of this forum bang on a lot about the supposed irrelevance of the political dimension of the JFKA and its consequences, while extolling their own purported forensic rectitude.


The irony of this self-righteousness is lost on them. If the JFKA was not political and is of no political consequence, why all the fuss about it? Why have a ROKC forum at all, if the JFKA was just another murder? 

John, you're not right there, matey.

What we bang on about is the political FILTER you guys use to view what happened before you go about fashioning your conspiracy du jour. That is when not banging on about current politics like a bunch of warring paint ballers. 

No one here, as far as I know, denies a political motive behind the killing, even if that is using the broadest possible meaning of "political".

If I didn't know better, I'd say you "confused" those two separate concepts deliberately.

Speaking of which, Greg Parker’s scoffing at our observing the rules of this forum is ironic, given the sycophancy of Sir Alex and others towards him. There’s an element of the gang mentality about ROKC as evidenced by the need to have external enemies to constantly pillory for the sake of maintaining gang cohesion.

What we have here is mutual respect.  That has always been the case for members past and present, with the exception of those very few who came here with ill-intent to start with.

But what that has to do with a bunch of Freedumb Fighters and their attraction to a forum that won't even allow them to call a spade a spade... (no no no... you must find a way around it "s-p-a-d-e" or "implement for manual earth removal" may be acceptable until the mods decide otherwise), I have no idea. But it is fuckin sad to watch grown men treated like 2 year olds AND LAPPING IT UP. 

We had no enemies, John, until we started demolishing conspiracy shiboleths. Few have been maligned as much as I have - even down to being accused of molesting my own children, hacking computers and Christ knows what else. I don't take myself too seriously. I have way too many flaws for that. But I do take my reputation seriously. It is the only currrency I have. So no fuck you., John. We don't "need" external enemies. That is just a byproduct of the research. I expect better than this made up garbage from you. 

But that aside, I am genuinely glad to see that you have overcome your trevails. I assume you have anyway, given you are using your true name. 

Your secrets remain safe. I keep my word.

In the highly unlikely event of the JFKA question ever being resolved, it can only happen in the public arena, and it’s only figures of the stature of Carlson and RFK Jr in the realms of the media and politics respectively who can make it happen.

It won’t be resolved by interminable analysis and debating of minutiae in obscure internet forums.

Funny. I'm on record as saying that this won't be reopened by anything posted on a forum.

But this forum has served its purpose, bringing together an eclectic group - working individually and in unison, on and off the forum. You have no idea what the results have that have been.

But please do carry on about Carlson like he is relevant to anything except having the best deer-in-the headlight-look in the business. 

Chris Bernard @ the ed forum wrote:am not sure if this correct but, isn’t Greg Parkers forum? I suspect he was more offended by the insignificance of ROKC being pointed out. As he is under the illusion that his septic space is the Hiram Key of the whole JFK assassination. The fact is that he is responsible for the culture. If he wants it to be a space taken seriously, then he probably needs to bin the “Debunked” section (or offending threads) and encourage more sensible posting. Of course, if he wants it to be a heap of rambling verses of ad hominem with limited traffic, then he should carry on as he is. Imagine a congressman/woman who is thinking about supporting the release of remaining documents, and he/she happens to come across that toxic space. It’s going to confirm most stereotypes about CT’s. Its not a recruitment tool, its repellant. Each to their own. 

I am offended by lies and liars, propagandists, grifters, wreckers and stooges. 
 
I am under no illusions. Though I admit I most certainly was when I first stumbled into this morass.  Not only was the internet new to me, so was the concept of so many acting in bad faith.  I found that a very hard pill to swallow because it is virtually an alien concept to the world I grew up in.

But I am a quick learner.

You're offended by what is done here? Don't come here. 

You guys engage in political theater than mirrors the present day buffoonery of US and UK political houses and discourses, whle tiptoeing around certain words and phrases that offend the mods far more than does the fucked-up politics being espoused. 

Serious polititians hate that shit. Given the chance to speak openly and honestly, given the chance to laugh at themselves and the world around them, given the chance to take in the ramifications of things like Oswald's provable alibi, they would love it here. 

If there were no adverse consequences to themselves or their career, that is. 

And fwiw, you keep mentioning "limited traffic" here, yet at certain times of day, we have more on here reading than the Ed Forum. But I don't give a rat's arse about the traffic.  Are you serious? What makes 80 readers at any given time, better than 50, FFS?  What I do care about is the quality of the output. Unlike the ed forum when it runs out of money amd marks, this forum will remain for all to see as long as the host exists. 

And at this stage, I am planning on the forum no longer needing to be anything more than an archive when all the work done offline is released. Because if that does not get the populace and the media motivated to force action, nothing ever will. I had making the forum redundant in mind from the start. Unlike all the others who want the wheels spinning into eternity.

So... good luck with Carlson! It has classc satire fodder written all over it.

They keep on harping about irrelevant stuff like Harvey and Lee, Zapruder film alteration etc while ignoring the real breakthrough in the case namely Prayer Man They fail the litmus test.

Chris Bernard @ the ed forum wrote:It would seem to me the little house of diatribes is quite a sensitive place when a little truth is called out.


Just a quick check to corroborate your numbers vs here at the time of my posting. 
 


Education Forum 44


ROKC 16 


Never let the facts get in the way of a good story, right Greg? 

Thank you for providing a text book example of debating in bad faith and asa  bonus - proving once again that you and like-minded souls mistake whatever shit comes out of your mouth or pours from your keyboard,must be true. 

Here is what the above was a reply to:

"And fwiw, you keep mentioning "limited traffic" here, yet at certain times of day, we have more on here reading than the Ed Forum. But I don't give a rat's arse about the traffic.  Are you serious? What makes 80 readers at any given time, better than 50, FFS?" 

And that is true. When I checked last night after reading your reply, we had 41 online, the Ed Forum had 39.

The larger point is why you think the overall slightly higher figures for the ed forum are somehow any more significant than the traffic here. Both veiwerships are negligable. And unlike you - I really do not give a rats arse about it. I posted what I did to correct your fucking bullshit. 

You’re happy to support ‘ad hominem’, and have your forum showcase the etchings of something akin to Ted Kaczynski on methamphetamine, but, a little criticism your way and you’re up in arms about it. You obviously don’t see what a poor advert it is.    

LOL. 

"One of the most widely misused terms on the Net is "ad hominem". It is most often introduced into a discussion by certain delicate types, delicate of personality and mind, whenever their opponents resort to a bit of sarcasm. As soon as the suspicion of an insult appears, they summon the angels of ad hominem to smite down their foes, before ascending to argument heaven in a blaze of sanctimonious glory. They may not have much up top, but by God, they don't need it when they've got ad hominem on their side. It's the secret weapon that delivers them from any argument unscathed.

In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person's arguments.

Therefore, if you can't demonstrate that your opponent is trying to counter your argument by attacking you, you can't demonstrate that he is resorting to ad hominem. If your opponent's sarcasm is not an attempt to counter your argument, but merely an attempt to insult you (or amuse the bystanders), then it is not part of an ad hominem argument."
https://laurencetennant.com/bonds/adhominem  

It has taken a bit of time for the admissions, but your comrades are one by one now admitting what every one else knew. Alex is one funny cunt. *




*Everyone in Australia is both a mate and a cunt. Both can be used as a friendly greeting (as in g'day ya old cunt. Long time, no see. how's tricks?), as another word for "bloke" or pal or whatever - and as a reprimand, or in the case of the c bomb, also as an insult. Take note also, John. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cunt

I would also note that it is etymologically more accurate a descriptor than vagina. 

PS I don’t think you have the first clue what gets the “populace and media motivated.” I would be the first to celebrate it if you do produce your magnum opus and achieve more than some of the finest researchers here. The clock is ticking. 

LOL. Now you're being a funny cunt.

John Cotter wrote:“Ad hominem” is the key term here. The attacks in question were by definition personal, derogatory and illogical and no amount of self-serving obfuscation and excuses should be allowed deflect from that.

Yep. There it is again. Of all the abused Latin terms in all the gin joints and forums of this world, ad hom is the single, most abused. Unfortunately it is not a get out of jail free card. Nor does it mean what you want it to mean.

John Cotter wrote:So no xxxx you., John. We don't "need" external enemies. That is just a byproduct of the research. I expect better than this made up garbage from you. 

But that aside, I am genuinely glad to see that you have overcome your trevails. I assume you have anyway, given you are using your true name. 

Your secrets remain safe. I keep my word.

End quote.

The contradiction between the opening “felicitation” and what follows speaks for itself. What follows though is quite insidious.

Contrary to what Greg proclaims, my “secrets” do not remain safe, by dint of his mentioning them. For all that any reader of that passage knows, the secrets alluded to could be some heinous crimes committed by me.

I therefore have no choice but to disclose that what’s being alluded to is my having to engage in expensive and protracted legal action in the Irish High Court as a result of my being seriously wronged and my being eventually vindicated by a settlement in my favour.

Since the settlement involved my signing a non-disclosure agreement, I cannot describe my “trevails” (sic) in any more detail.

Everyone has secrets, John. Yours ceased to be secret when you told me. I was merely letting you know that despite your carrying on like a
pork chop over Alex and ROKC, I have not and will not pass on anything you told me. 

That you assume that the mere mention of you having secrets (as everyone does) may lead some to think you guilty of some "heinous crime" is yet another massive over-reaction and possibly a sign of poor self-esteem. 

But now that you have said you won a settlement - I am happy for you. Genuinely.  You can hopefully get on with your life.

In fairness to him, Alex Wilson is a talented writer. It’s just that you can’t be denigrating people left, right and centre and expect there to be no consequences.

Thank you for the albiet very late and qualified admission re his writing ability. I do believe he has said anything coming back his way is "fair play". 

But you are still mischaracterizing what he does as "ad hom". It isn't. It is satire of the mendset leading to the ed forum posts and threads that really are an abomination, and an insult to logic, JFK legacy, historical truth (when they deign to even touch on JFK) and a poor role model for younger readers. 

It’s a sad situation. I hope we can move on from this spat and that the ROKC and Ed forums can co-exist in a more harmonious fashion looking ahead.

LOL. Yeah. Let's hold hands and sing Kumbeyah while we sacrifice logic and reputation on the altar of the Great Wizard, Tucker Carlson. 

I can't speak for Alex, and despite the lie that continually rises like shit does to the top, I do not direct anyone here to do anything. So I can't and won't speak for Alex.

What I can tell you is I have no intention of giving up on calling bullshit where-ever it is spread. Nor will I ignore attacks on me or ROKC that have no basis in reality. 

Criticism of me and ROKC is fine - and is welcome - if fact-based. Go beyond that, and prepare for war.

Chris Bernard @ the ed forum wrote:As for your divulging of personal circumstances; this really is an example of Greg’s character. I have zero curiosity about your personal business, John, but, it was an obvious veiled threat from Greg, and a reflection of his poor character. 

We grew up in completely different worlds. In the world I grew up in in, people said what they mean and mean what they say. That is ingrained in my DNA. That you see it as a "veiled threat" is just a reflection of the world you grew up in and now endorse the natural outcome of that - a post-truth world. Ideally I would have notified him privately but could not find his email address (although I confess, I have since found it).   Bottom line, my sole intent was to reassure him that despite being a bit pissed off with him, I would not break my promise.

A couple of questions for you, Chris... 

Does your character assesment of me mean that you think John is a poor judge of character? Maybe he will agree with you on that, maybe not.

Did it enter your mind at any time that his "secret" involved some "heinous crime"? 

Let's look at character a bit more. A selection of the many lies of Tucker Carlson:

"Far more children died last year drowning in their bathtubs than were killed accidentally by guns." 2014

"The United States ended slavery around the world, and maybe we should get some credit for that, too." 2017

"John Bolton fundamentally is a man of the left." 2019

"The Potomac River has gotten dirtier and dirtier and dirtier and dirtier. I go down there and that litter is left almost exclusively by immigrants." 2019

“According to a recent CDC report, "almost everyone — 85% — who got the coronavirus in July was wearing a mask, and they were infected anyway. So clearly (wearing a mask) doesn’t work the way they tell us it works.” 2020

“Unbeknownst to most people, the Green New Deal came to Texas; the power grid in the state became totally reliant on windmills.” 2021

"There's no evidence that white supremacists were responsible for what happened on Jan. 6. That's a lie.” 2021

“In Texas, the power companies have automatically raised the temperature of people's thermostats in the middle of a heatwave without their permission." 2021

“It now appears there actually was meaningful voter fraud in Fulton County, Georgia, last November. That is not a conspiracy theory. It's true.” 2021

"Federal agents directly incited people on Jan. 6, 2021, and intentionally entrapped American citizens." 2021

“Not a single person in the crowd on January 6 was found to be carrying a firearm. Not one.” 2022

"The United States is "about to run out of diesel fuel ... by the Monday of Thanksgiving week." 2022

“Electronic voting machines didn't allow people to vote” in Maricopa County, Arizona." 2022

"The election in Brazil “was very clearly a rigged election.” 2023

"Capitol Police officers “helped” QAnon Shaman Jacob Chansley and “acted as his tour guides.” 2023

But his biggest was in 2022 with this: 

"I am trying my very hardest to tell the truth and when I screw it up I correct it immediately."

This is the man you and others in your Minsitry of Truth pin hopes on because he told yet another lie that happened to suit your preferred JFKA scenario that an informant told him that documents prove that the CIA "done did it".

Alex mischaracterising some of the posters here as anti-semitic or readers or subscribers to Mein Campf or worse 

I tried to source the cause of your angst in this thread. This is what I found based on your above description.

Alex Wilson wrote:Dr Neiderhut  ( Harvard's answer to Walter Mitty)  has graduated from pretentious gasbag to idiotic buffoon ( 7.5 millidonnies on the trusty ROKC cuntometer) 

In his hapless attempt to salvage the reputation of fallen conspiracy icon,   "Honest"Fletcher Prouty , he's edging perilously close to flirting with full blown Holocaust denial. 

At the same time,  once again,  displaying his lack of basic knowledge. Having a father who fought in the Italian campaign is indeed something to be proud of,  but it does not grant one instant expert status 

Eisenhower , aware of the unprecedented horrors and displaying an uncanny prescience,  made damn sure the full story was recorded in full graphic, uncensored detail. To ensure the truth of the holocaust could not be denied by later generations. 

Overseeing the filming of Ohrdruf,  one of the camps the Americans liberated,  and forcing the local German citizens to bear witness to the fruits of their 1000 year Reich,  by marching them past the piles of emaciated corpses. 

The historiography of the holocaust is not in the slightest bit " convoluted " What a thoroughly preposterous comment for a supposedly educated man to make. 

It is only convoluted for those who choose to make it so. Especially when you rely upon " Harvard educated intellectuals like Ron Unz " for your information. 

Little Barnie, as lucid,  insightful and illuminating as ever, piped up,  accusing Prouty's detractors of " guilt by association " You quite literally cannot buy such perceptive commentary. 

Rarely are hypocrisy and lack of self perception so perfectly distilled. First of all it is in no way " guilt by association " to highlight his own fucking words and his undeniable links with such a loathsome organisation. 

Plus,  you and your confreres make a virtual cottage industry out of attempting to smear people, due to their associations. " Ex government/ CIA/ FBI M$M" etc etc. 

The holocaust is a proven historical fact. Any outstanding questions,  for example functionalism v intentionalism are caused not by the dearth of evidence but the overwhelming amount of evidence.

And this:

The Diary of Chris Barnard aged 43 3/4...On the other hand,  the Diary of John Cotter would probably make Mein fucking Kampf look like the Mr Men. Mr Cotter sounds like one humourless self important angry individual. 

It's all just turgid cliche filled mush,  limpid wannabe contrarian verbosity,  never more than a sentence deep. I'm always slightly wary of characters who use other people's words to express their deepest thoughts.  Quoting or paraphrasing is one thing,  but endless fucking YouTube " lectures "??

You poor things. My heart fucking bleeds for you. 

Here. I've found a new theme song for you all.

As for Greg Parker, was he banned from the Education Forum for some reason?

Come on ed forum mods. Don't keep the good doc in suspenders. Tell him.

Note: It was never intended that Alex's posts remain in the Debunked forum. He simply didn't know where else to post them but did suggest to me more than once that I should move them. I finally got around to creating an appropriate space for them. Hopefully Chris Bernard;s mind is eased a little.

John Cotter @ the ed forum wrote:It’s interesting that Greg Parker cherry-picked a nonsensical internet article which suits his questionable modus operandi and ignores the standard definition of ad hominem.

The following sentence from the article is illustrative in that regard:

“Therefore, if you can't demonstrate that your opponent is trying to counter your argument by attacking you, you can't demonstrate that he is resorting to ad hominem.”

This is patent nonsense. The terms “argument” and “opponent” clearly imply that what’s involved is a debate, and that by attacking you, your opponent – by definition – is trying to counter your argument.

That’s borne out by the definitions of “ad hominem” in a number of independent sources, including Wikipedia and the Oxford Dictionary of English.

What I find interesting is you listing Wikipedia as a reliable source. I actually have no problem with with it. I don't see it as any worse than any other encyclopedia and I aways check their citations before using. But you John, should be aware that listing it like this is going to get you kicked out of the Deep Politics CT Club.

In any case, your sources are wrong for the reasons I previously cited. The attack has to be a fallacious rebuttal to an argument.

Your definition fails however before we even get to that point. The essential first hurdle is that Alex is in a debate with you and/or others. He clearly has not been involved in that fashion. His posts are reviews of ideas/beliefs/actions and done using the ancient art of satire. 

Your objections are akin to an actor/director/scriptwriter complaining that bad reviews at Rotton Tomatoes are ad hom. Hell, my favorite magazine growing uo was National Lampoon. It too would be full of ad hom by your definition.

Let me state further that I sense no malice in anything Alex says.  I cannot say the same for you. Even in your own attempts at humor, you sound like someone with barely cancealed anger bubbling underneath. Maybe I am wrong. Bit that is my honest impression.

Here is another source by the way on ad hom.

University of Winnipeg philosopher Douglas Walton proposes that fallacies such as the ad hominem are better understood as perversions or corruptions of perfectly good arguments. Regarding the ad hominem, Walton contends that although such attacks are usually fallacious, they can be legitimate when a character critique is directly or indirectly related to the point being articulated.

If Walton is right, distinguishing clearly between these cases is important to evaluating the validity of statements people make to us about others. Good or fair uses of ad hominem critiques should, in fact, persuade us, whereas unwarranted uses should not.

What types of ad hominems might then be justified? Walton argues that  an ad hominem is valid when the claims made about a person’s character or actions are relevant to the conclusions being drawn. 
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/character-attack/

I put it to you that even of Alex had been involved in your little politcal debates over there, his approach would have been less satirical and more analytical. And no less valid for it.

I won’t go into all the other self-contradictory and Humpty Dumptyesque nonsense Greg spews about his veiled threat to divulge secrets I confided in him, other than to note his deflecting from this malign behaviour by imputing a “possibly” pathological misperception of his behaviour to me. In other words, attempted gaslighing.

LOL. No groupthink here, No taking the cue from Chris about "veiled threats'.

But I see now you're on a roll with the modern era game of misusing terms. 

One definition of gaslighting
Psychologists use the term “gaslighting” to refer to a specific type of manipulation where the manipulator is trying to get someone else (or a group of people) to question their own reality, memory or perceptions. And it's always a serious problem, according to psychologists.

I am not trying to get you to question your own reality, memory or perceptions (even if you are using borrowed perceptions). You are entitled to all those.

Just as I am entitled to state a simple fact. I grew up in a world where no one gaslighted, paranaoia was not rampant, and people said what they meant and meant what they said. We are all products of the environments we grew up in. 

I do now think though that it would have made no difference if I had emailed you privately. It is becoming clear that you would have had the same paranoid response.