Update on Jean Davison

Here's Jim's update on Jean Davison:

http://www.ctka.net/2014/Davison%20update.html

Great article. The lone nut vanguard are almost as interesting as the assassination itself.


What a very odd cult. You think they actually believe the stuff they spew ?
My guess is its just a job to them. Since the arrb these guys have really had to put their fingers in their ears. There is so much rock solid evidence of conspiracy.

MovingMan wrote:Great article. The lone nut vanguard are almost as interesting as the assassination itself.


What a very odd cult. You think they actually believe the stuff they spew ?
My guess is its just a job to them. Since the arrb these guys have really had to put their fingers in their ears. There is so much rock solid evidence of conspiracy.

What pisses me off is that Jeff Morley allows shills like Davison, McAdams, Von Pein, and "photon" to post their bullshit at his website. Who the hell needs or wants them? Fuck the lot of them!

Book cover revised for clarity and accuracy by WCW press.

Stan,

Where can I order an advance copy?

Or are they already whored out? Oops, I mean SOLD out?

MovingMan wrote:Great article. The lone nut vanguard are almost as interesting as the assassination itself.


What a very odd cult. You think they actually believe the stuff they spew ?
My guess is its just a job to them. Since the arrb these guys have really had to put their fingers in their ears. There is so much rock solid evidence of conspiracy.

They only believe in still covering it up.
I wouldn't call them an odd cult. I'd call them deceitful.
These pricks aren't stupid. They're just pricks.

Hasan Yusuf wrote:

MovingMan wrote:Great article. The lone nut vanguard are almost as interesting as the assassination itself.


What a very odd cult. You think they actually believe the stuff they spew ?
My guess is its just a job to them. Since the arrb these guys have really had to put their fingers in their ears. There is so much rock solid evidence of conspiracy.

What pisses me off is that Jeff Morley allows shills like Davison, McAdams, Von Pein, and "photon" to post their bullshit at his website. Who the hell needs or wants them? Fuck the lot of them!

Yes indeedy. I was really surprised to hear Len Osanic mention that a few weeks back. Almost shocked since I haven't gone near the site in a long time so I lost track of what was going on over there. What a disaster

Paul McGurkenfarklein wrote:

MovingMan wrote:Great article. The lone nut vanguard are almost as interesting as the assassination itself.


What a very odd cult. You think they actually believe the stuff they spew ?
My guess is its just a job to them. Since the arrb these guys have really had to put their fingers in their ears. There is so much rock solid evidence of conspiracy.

They only believe in still covering it up.
I wouldn't call them an odd cult. I'd call them deceitful.
These pricks aren't stupid. They're just pricks.

Big Mac John is working his con out of Marquette College I believe. Just the other day I read that that was Senator Joe McCarthys school too.

They got some kind of right wing clan in control of that place ?

MovingMan wrote:What a disaster.

You can say that again. I hardly read anything posted at Morley's site anymore because of his bullshit policy of allowing these disinformation shills to post there. As I said above, who the hell needs or wants them? Certainly not me.

Interesting review. How LHO learned Russian is something of a mystery. Until 1963, the Army and Navy had separate language schools, the Army's in Monterey CA (which the AF also used) and the Navy's in DC (which the Marines used). There's no record of Oswald being enrolled in either school, nor should there be. Seeing as the Pentagon wouldn't want to mix its spy trainees with regular trainees (would raise too many questions from people without the necessary security clearance), the logical solution would be to provide private tutoring in Japan or wherever Oswald was stationed.

beowulf wrote:Interesting review. How LHO learned Russian is something of a mystery. Until 1963, the Army and Navy had separate language schools, the Army's in Monterey CA (which the AF also used) and the Navy's in DC (which the Marines used). There's no record of Oswald being enrolled in either school, nor should there be.  Seeing as the Pentagon wouldn't want to mix its spy trainees with regular trainees (would raise too many questions from people without the necessary security clearance), the logical solution would be to provide private tutoring in Japan or wherever Oswald was stationed.

I haven't got a complete answer, but I do have an additional tidbit to throw into the mix on this in volume 2. I will also be quoting Jean's bok on another issue which she (quite inadvertently) has helped resolve. She won't be happy.

Hasan Yusuf wrote:

MovingMan wrote:What a disaster.

You can say that again. I hardly read anything posted at Morley's site anymore because of his bullshit policy of allowing these disinformation shills to post there. As I said above, who the hell needs or wants them? Certainly not me.

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,11337.0.html
Duncan MacRae posted:

Do not add links to forums where only the CT side of the JFK Assassination is allowed to be discussed.
http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,10622.0.html

Forum Etiquette Updated and Applicable from 18th September 2014 Please All Read
http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,10622.0.html
Duncan MacRae posted:
..Do not add links to forums where only the CT side of the JFK Assassination is allowed to be discussed...

Do you see how this works? The Education forum allowed members of all opinions to join
and participate. Even though David Reitzes was disappeared there, along with all of his posts,
I can probably post links from pages of that forum on MacRae's forum because the Education Forum practiced a policy of disappearing members and their posts without regard to their
POVs, except for members who exploited the weakness of Simkin's admitted failure to protect
Peter Janney until after the truth came out, and the members who objected to Simkin's treatment of the members who exploited the weakness of Janney's Secret Service.....I mean...Simkin protection.

So the result is I cannot post on MacRae's forum, links from this site, from DPF, or from that
quiet little corner of the internets owned and well promoted by Greg Burnham.

I am not an outsider, but all of it seems a bit ridiculous to me. MacRae will certainly permit posting of links from Morley's website and from McAdams's newsgroup. Both are moderated and posting in real time is prohibited.

Despite all of this nonsense, I find myself posting mostly on MacRae's forum because it still
seems to offer the most exposure to an inner and to a wider readership, and because it has the most accomadating overall membership and posting policies.

I object to MacRae's recent restrictions because, to be fair, links to the Warren Report should also be prohibited. But, I do see his point. On his forum, anything posted is open to challenge without moderation. Simkin destroyed a similar dynamic that once existed on the Education Forum. I resist posting on Morley's forum because of the moderation, not because of my objection to who else posts there, although some are certainly unpleasant and inhibit or block potential discussion.

It may be that the best forum arrangement would be a three section forum. One for LNs, one for
everyone else, and one where LNs antagonize everyone else. In the meantime, I think it would be best for all forums to make at least a minimum effort to avoid being described as

where only the CT side of the JFK Assassination is allowed to be discussed...

Tom, if McRae thinks nutters are barred from here, he is sadly mistaken. 

If one goes through the membership list, it includes Len Colby. As a member, Len is free to post here, but chooses not to. 

It is true at least one nutter who joined and posted was banned. But that had nothing to do with him being a nutter. He got banned for the same reason some CTs have been shown the door. 

I'm not saying they will get an easy time - just like CTs do not get an easy time at his place - but they are welcome and can remain members by simply being a positive contributor. For a nutter, this would probably mean showing us where the weaknesses are in our arguments.

Greg,

I appreciate your pointing out these facts. I was concerned that if I posted a link on MacRae's forum to a post on your forum, I might risk being banned by MacRae. I expected Bill Brown might report my post if it displayed a link. I already had the opinion that an argument could be made that your forum's registration policy and procedure are incomparable to the rigid approach shared by the Burnham and DPF forums.

There seems no simple solution. The core problem is postings that are divorced or unresponsive from reasonable, supporting evidence (and then there is the challenge of defining what meets that criteria).

BTW, I am watching the two hour CBS program on Reel America/C-Span broadcast an hour before the WC report was released to the public. Highlights so far are Baker and Truly working out the timing of Oswald's movements without mentioning he was holding a soft drink purchased from the vending maching in the "snack bar," as Truly described it.
The officer at the theater is going over the "fact" that the meaty part of his hand absorbed enough of the force from the firing pin strike on the round in the pistol to prevent discharge. The FBI said the mark from the alleged firing pin strike appeared to be
from an attempt to imitate a mark from the firing pin.

Frazier states that Oswald wanted the ride to Irving on thursday afternoon with the intent to pick up curtain rods there to outfit the window in his rooming house room. Why did Frazier ask Oswald about the alleged package on Friday morning. Ruth Paine seems articulate and overly composed, considering the circumstances. From Bonnie Rae's comments about the ceiling dust falling in his hair, one would expect that the sixth floor, floor recovering work would have caused the ceiling of the fifth floor to rain down like snow.
I am assuming they were not gluing the new plywood covering to the existing floor?

:: The opinions expressed here are those of Stan Dane and not necessarily those of the administrators, moderators or the members of ROKC ::
 
What I've observed here is that liars, jerks, buttholes, and those bent on causing internal disruption are eventually sniffed out and given the boot. I call it the ROKC Equal Opportunity Policy. A litmus test of sorts. It applies equally to CTs as well as LNs.
 
In practice, I'd say the policy is harsher on LNs because they have to lie and deceive to support their positions (I've seen no exceptions so far). But if they avoid doing that, well...I've never seen anyone kicked out just for being stupid.
 
I can understand why others may choose to post elsewhere. It's a personal decision. But in the year I've been doing this, I've seen:

• Several researchers talk about the massive disappearance of posts over at the Education Forum simply because posters fell out of favor with management.
  
• Posts and threads (e.g., "Unhappy Campers") disappear at Deep Politics for no good reason.
  
• The disappearance of posts at Greg Burnham's forum, mainly to blot out embarrassing exchanges that don't reflect well on the wholesome image he wants to promote.
  
• A few days ago, I saw an entire thread deleted at MacRae's forum, which pointed out deceit by one of its members.
  

I wouldn't trust any these places as a repository for my research and comments.
 
And I'll say one more thing about Stinky's forum. For the life of me, I can't follow a particular line of thought very long. There's no continuity. There might be few good nuggets in one thread, then it gets hijacked, is forgotten, and rolls on down off the list. Similar questions are asked later in new threads and the good things discussed in previous threads are lost. Groundhog day again. Chaos and confusion. Barroom brawls.

When I do go there I only look for the comments of a few people (most of them members here), but that's about it. Oh, I'm always on the lookout for pinhead, Thought Police things like: "Do not add links to forums where only the CT side of the JFK Assassination is allowed to be discussed."

Hasan,

the fact is, he just took you in circles. He had no rebuttal to anything except to repeat the same discredited thing over and over. That doesn't meet our basic criterion and it served his agenda, not ours.

MacRae has added sites that only promote the LN view to his link ban and started this new thread.: Poll: Link Censorship 10 day Vote  He has gone about this in reverse order, but now it is in a corrective direction.
It is easy to decide how not to do it. I did not know that the Burnham forum was experiencing other issues.
Now it turns out there was no reason for me to post about
"this," in the first place.

There is no way to tell if the "all comers," policies at Morley's and McAdams's venues offer anything to learn from as far as forum management because no one knows what posts are not approved. Morley's site seems to achieve
well above average search result placement. I wish I did not have to put such an emphasis on trying to post to the widest potential audience, but isn't that a goal all of us have, or should have, at least for some of our posts and threads?

Hasan and a few others here post articles at CTKA, but everyone does not have that opportunity and some of us are already painted as DiEugenio puppets. BTW, where is he, lately, aside from at DPF?

A DiEugenio Protege wrote:Hasan and a few others here post articles at CTKA, but everyone does not have that opportunity and some of us are already painted as DiEugenio puppets. BTW, where is he, lately, aside from at DPF?

Just recently, he sent me a few paragraphs to add into his update on Jean Davison. I will try to get those up at CTKA tonight. I think he may also be working on Plaque 5 of his WC series before he leaves for the AARC conference, but I'm not sure.

The dickhead known as Tim Nickerson called me a Jim DiEugenio "mini me." I take that as a compliment.

These are the paragraphs which have been added into Jim's piece, after the paragraph beginning with "And we have this in her own words":

"I would be remiss if I did not comment on the first and last parts of her response.

First, there was little if any argument about "interpretation of evidence" in my critique. I was clear in my adverse comments. I critiqued her for her lack of new evidence, her lack of any field investigation, her use of highly controversial sources, her highly selective use of dubious pieces of evidence and testimony, and her consistent and almost rigorous avoidance of better evidence that would vitiate that dubiousness. To point up two examples of the last: She used Jack Ruby's Warren Commission polygraph test to attack Mark Lane. But she ignored the HSCA report showing that the FBI broke so many protocols of polygraph technique in that the test that it is worthless today. Second, she tries to say that since some witnesses say it was Guy Banister in Clinton/Jackson, and not Clay Shaw, that these witnesses are confused. If she had used the primary documents available to her at the AARC, she would have seen that this was a myth. The witnesses identified Shaw as the driver of the car, not Banister. Instead she was using James Phelan anti-Garrison spin.

Unlike her diversionary claim, these are not matters of interpretation. They concern the search for the best evidence about key parts of the case. Which is something, as I showed, she repeatedly failed to do."