"Prayer Man" on the Education Forum

[ianlloyd]

First topic message reminder :

As I am not a member of the EF, I cannot post there but there is an interesting discussion going on there at the moment regarding a figure in the TSBD doorway generally referred to as "Prayer Man" due to the apparent position of his hands, seemingly clasped in front of his chest as if in prayer.
 
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20354
 
I recall this person being discussed somewhere many years ago and was referred to as "Prayer Man" pretty much from the outset but I cannot recall where it originated, maybe on Lancer?
 
Anyway, the reason for this post is that, upon looking closely at the various photographs and movie clips presented as part of the discussion, it struck me that his hands don't seem to move from the "prayer" position for what seems to be quite some time. Was he holding something, I wonder? If so, it seems an odd way to hold whatever it was.

[greg_parkerAdmin]

Okay. I see what you mean. I was possibly being too pedantic. Based on that testimony, he could also have been relying strictly on memory.

I agree with you on that. I get the impression that after Oswald got shot he had to get it all down on paper for the express purpose of covering his butt. I also think he relied more on his own detectives that were present than anyone with any other agency. Agencies are cliquish.

The FBI withheld information from the DPD before 11/22, and from the WC and everyone else after 11/22. I don't see them really caring if Fritz and his bunch were singing from the same sheet music.

That may have been the case for a little while - but Washington came down on the DPD like a ton of bricks for shooting their mouths off to the press. They would only have done that because they were not singing from the same songbook. FBI/SS may have thereafter, been ordered to ensure the same songbook was being used. The normal rules of engagement between local police and federal agencies got tossed on this one.

I only just read your reply to beowulf. I know you've got your back up. But without interjections, necessary or otherwise, there would be very little discussion happening at all. I don't think he meant to be offensive. Could you please just cool it? We need dissenting voices to drive better research. If you are going to provide that dissenting voice, that's great... but judging by your reaction to beowulf, you're being a bit too hypersensitive in that role. Anyone who has taken a mallet to squash a flea like you have with Ralph really doesn't seem like the hypersensitive type.

[Colin_Crow]

An interesting aspect for me was the use of the positive paraffin tests to the media and yet no mention of a result put to Oswald under interrogation. The main use of this test was psychological, to be used to gain confession, similar to the use of polygraph. Yet the psychological use of Oswald's test was for the public it would seem.

Fritz had no need to take interrogation notes most of the time, the vast majority (upwards of 90%) of American criminal convictions result from a confession and guilty plea, its what the suspect writes downwhich is important. The other 10% or so require officer testimony but in 1960s Texas, accurate interview notes would all too often conflict with what the officer was actually going to say under oath, so why bother?  This was an unusual murder case, which are ordinarily investigated only by local police, because Fritz's interrogations was witnessed by federal agents (to say nothing of the worldwide media scrutiny). Only after the fact did someone (one suspects an FBI agent) tell him he needed to be singing from the federal hymnal. Thus the note copying.

Thanks for that perspective, Mr. B.

And seemingly supported by Wade in regard to the Ruby trial: "...We couldn't get a thing, couldn't put Fritz on the stand because he couldn't remember anything that was helpful. I mean, he could remember Ruby rambling around the situation, but I don't know of any transcript like that that I have that you don't have."  

The DPD was too used to working within a system which required next to no accountability. That led to all sorts of sloppy police work and even sloppier setting up of innocent people. 

But that aside, it appears there was nothing particularly unusual for that time and place, nor sinister, in Fritz not taking interrogation notes - a sore point with so many...

Another "keeper".

[GuestGuest]

I'm still skeptical of Shelley being in the backseat of a car when the person sitting next to him testifies that Shelley was somewhere else.

Skepticism isn't evidence. Unless you're Dave Reitzes.

You are in agreement that the ID of the following people is cast iron:

Danny Arce - back seat right side
Bonnie Ray Williams - middle back seat
Unidentified Patrolman - front driver seat
Detective Brown - front right seat

And I'm sure you are in agreement that there is a guy in a suit in the front middle who is
more than likely Detective Senkel.  




Therefore we have a guy in a suit in the back left seat who almost everybody following this (although having reservations initially) now have to conclude is Bill Shelley.  And we have Tom Scully's yearbook photo to shore things up on the Shelley ID.

Trying to ID Shelley has gone on for years.  This is as good as it gets given the available evidence and hanging onto thin strands that don't fit simply wastes time and energy.  Each and every jigsaw piece connected to the case has these strands and the key is to minimise them so there are less and less.  As a fully paid up member of the "Sean Murphy Fan Club" I think he's minimised them regarding the Shelley issue to the point of being able to leave them behind.

We have to accept that on occasion some things won't fit the overall picture - especially testimony.

P.S. I hope the level of "discourse" has improved.  Wouldn't want it to slip into what we see on some blogs out there now, would we?

[GuestGuest]

I'm still skeptical of Shelley being in the backseat of a car when the person sitting next to him testifies that Shelley was somewhere else.

Skepticism isn't evidence. Unless you're Dave Reitzes.

You are in agreement that the ID of the following people is cast iron:

Danny Arce - back seat right side
Bonnie Ray Williams - middle back seat
Unidentified Patrolman - front driver seat
Detective Brown - front right seat

And I'm sure you are in agreement that there is a guy in a suit in the front middle who is
more than likely Detective Senkel.  




Therefore we have a guy in a suit in the back left seat who almost everybody following this (although having reservations initially) now have to conclude is Bill Shelley.  And we have Tom Scully's yearbook photo to shore things up on the Shelley ID.

Trying to ID Shelley has gone on for years.  This is as good as it gets given the available evidence and hanging onto thin strands that don't fit simply wastes time and energy.  Each and every jigsaw piece connected to the case has these strands and the key is to minimise them so there are less and less.  As a fully paid up member of the "Sean Murphy Fan Club" I think he's minimised them regarding the Shelley issue to the point of being able to leave them behind.

We have to accept that on occasion some things won't fit the overall picture - especially testimony.

P.S. I hope the level of "discourse" has improved.  Wouldn't want it to slip into what we see on some blogs out there now, would we?

The crop you're looking at is from footage of the police leaving the Texas Theater.

I believe Sean's use of it was to illustrate that 3 people could ride in the front seat.

You can see the footage here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8-m7-W5pJ0

P.S. Apparently the level of reasoning is the same as we see on some blogs out there. Your continued "disengagement" is duly noted.

And on that note I bid you adieu. Between the continued apologetic stance for participants by Greg, the inability for said members to take what they dish out and the weak attempts at sarcasm by a Mr. Lee Farley, I see that discourse is not the intent of gathering here, but instead just sycophantic gesticulation described much like an earthquake rattling a store shelf full of bobblehad dolls.

[GuestGuest]

I'm still skeptical of Shelley being in the backseat of a car when the person sitting next to him testifies that Shelley was somewhere else.

Skepticism isn't evidence. Unless you're Dave Reitzes.

You are in agreement that the ID of the following people is cast iron:

Danny Arce - back seat right side
Bonnie Ray Williams - middle back seat
Unidentified Patrolman - front driver seat
Detective Brown - front right seat

And I'm sure you are in agreement that there is a guy in a suit in the front middle who is
more than likely Detective Senkel.  




Therefore we have a guy in a suit in the back left seat who almost everybody following this (although having reservations initially) now have to conclude is Bill Shelley.  And we have Tom Scully's yearbook photo to shore things up on the Shelley ID.

Trying to ID Shelley has gone on for years.  This is as good as it gets given the available evidence and hanging onto thin strands that don't fit simply wastes time and energy.  Each and every jigsaw piece connected to the case has these strands and the key is to minimise them so there are less and less.  As a fully paid up member of the "Sean Murphy Fan Club" I think he's minimised them regarding the Shelley issue to the point of being able to leave them behind.

We have to accept that on occasion some things won't fit the overall picture - especially testimony.

P.S. I hope the level of "discourse" has improved.  Wouldn't want it to slip into what we see on some blogs out there now, would we?

The crop you're looking at is from footage of the police leaving the Texas Theater.

I believe Sean's use of it was to illustrate that 3 people could ride in the front seat.

You can see the footage here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8-m7-W5pJ0

P.S. Apparently the level of reasoning is the same as we see on some blogs out there. Your continued "disengagement" is duly noted.

And on that note I bid you adieu. Between the continued apologetic stance for participants by Greg, the inability for said members to take what they dish out and the weak attempts at sarcasm by a Mr. Lee Farley, I see that discourse is not the intent of gathering here, but instead just sycophantic gesticulation described much like an earthquake rattling a store shelf full of bobblehad dolls.

Yes, I know it's from the footage outside the Texas Theater.  It says so in Sean's post.  I was waiting to see your reaction to my newest schoolboy error to compare it to the way in which my schoolboy error was pointed out concerning the Redfern Dougherty issue earlier in the week by some of our more level headed members.  You haven't disappointed me, or anyone else here.  The difference is night and day.  And then, to top it off, instead of levelling your criticism where it is deserved, AT ME, you instead level it at everybody by claiming we are "bobblehad [sic] dolls."

I'm not walking on eggshells around people like you in the vain hope that the reputation of the forum is maintained.  The reputation is stained when any of us even contemplate walking on eggshells around the likes of you.  

Your reputation is set.  It is online, for all to see, at your blog.  A blog that contains some of the most disgusting trash talk and obscene filled material ever to use the assassination of JFK as its topic.  You think this serves this community?  And then you come here and complain about the level of "discourse."  

I can give as good as I get and I don't mind getting down and dirty on occasion to do so.  Yet I do it with my real name attached to my words.   I don't hide behind some pseudonym when doing so.  I stand by my comments and I stand by calling you out on day one of your arrival.  I've seen many like you come and go.  I've seen many of you off.  You are ten a penny.  I don't mind people using pseudonyms.  But with the likes of you we begin to see the underhanded way in which they can be used.  

Good riddance.

[StanDane]

As self-appointed marketing director of the Sean Murphy Fan Club, I would like to announce the first three in a series of Sean Murphy bobblehead dolls!
 
To some, he's a saint! To others, he's a rock star! Others see him as Superman! Whatever you think of Sean Murphy, we gotcha covered!
 
Check 'em out:



And for those who hang out over at that other place (you know who you are), we got a special bobblehead in the works just for you:



They look great on the dashboard of your car, and if you put them on your favorite shelf, they can provide early warning of seismic events.

[greg_parkerAdmin]

 Between the continued apologetic stance for participants by Greg,

Sure... that's why I was critical of Lee for his comments regarding your username.

My latest comments to you were made AFTER I had explained that benefit of the doubt was the Golden Rule until such benefit became untenable. You gave no such benefit to beowulf.

I fully understand what it's like swimming against the tide, but you've got to demonstrate thicker skin than this if you're going to do it.

[beowulf]

Sean's eternal flame of thread at EF keeps rolling along (to mix metaphors).

Interesting hypothetical the HSCA questioner (no doubt a committee counsel and not a congressman):

HSCA: If a movie camera showed you farther in the centre of the doorway than that person there [i.e. Lovelady in Altgens, who appears, due to the deceptive angle, to be well over to the left/west of the entrance] would you still identify that person as being yourself?
LOVELADY: Sure would. I would say the other picture was not taken at the split second as the one to the left is.
HSCA: Okay, alright. If it showed two figures in that doorway at the same time, and you could positively identify one as yourself, would that have any bearing on your identification of that other figure?
LOVELADY: No, that’s still me at the left [of the] doorway.
----
Other than Sean correcting a typo that in America is no typo (we spell it "theater"), what catches the eye is that the Prayer Man scenario is mentioned by HSCA but then just dropped and never up again. I think what happened here is exactly what happened with Gerry Spence's cross of ML Baker at the London mock trial; the Altgen image of Lovelady looks so much like Oswald that its the white whale that CTers pursue all the while ignoring the fellow standing next to Lovelady "in that doorway at the same time" in the Wiegman film.

Interesting too Sean's theory the story couldn't switch from the day one story of Oswald being stopped as Baker entered TSBD to 2nd floor lunchroom story until after Lovelady IDed himself in Altgen for FBI. It raises the age-old question: Was Baker's 4th floor confrontation with tan jacket man the first draft of the coverup or did it really happen?  If the answer is coverup, then its odd Baker was so ready to jump into 4th floor cover story but so slow to jump into Oswald on 2nd floor cover story.  If the answer is it really happened, then its odd Truly would ID someone as an employee when there doesn't seem to be an actual employee it could have been.

[greg_parkerAdmin]

If the answer is it really happened, then its odd Truly would ID someone as an employee when there doesn't seem to be an actual employee it could have been. 

It's only odd because not all the facts about Truly are "known". But they will be and then it won't seem so odd at all.

[dwdunn(akaDan)]

forgot to underline "Truly" as in original note)

Go and stand in the corner.

I've always been suspicous of Truly ever since, for whatever that's worth.

While you're standing over there, contemplate that however suspicious you are of Truly - it isn't enough. He is the last link in the chain and it stretches way back...

Ok dad I give up.

Good luck to good people.

Dan,

Your suspicion of Truly is well-founded. And if your suspicion was based in just gut instinct, then you have good instincts, compadre. 

Sorry about my late night attempt at humor.

I see part of your value here as keeping us all honest and on our toes. And occasionally scratching our heads or smiling at/with your undercurrents... so don't go disappearing anywhere, okay?

Sorry Greg, I can no longer account for how my mind works and frankly, I thought that if the only replies I'm gonna get are from you, and if those replies are gonna seem like patting me on the head and different variations of "You're almost getting somewhat closer to what I already know but have yet to reveal, grasshopper," then I might as well hit the road without getting pissy about it. I even thought it might be your way of telling me to stop screwing around trying to make jokes and get to work on the RFK stuff. (Which I've done, even though I'm aware that hardly anyone is interested in the subject and that there's an enormous amount of outright hostility in these circles towards Robert Kennedy. But so my path is laid.)

Then too, there's the larger issues of who and what you can trust in the Conspiracy Research Community; what kinds of games are being played; whether Team Colby has morphed into a sham CT carrying on a sham fight with Cinque & Fetzer (I just wish he/they would pick one personality and stick with it); and blah blah blah. At that point, after all I've been through, my only inclination is to drop out entirely and be finally done with it. To say nothing of the s****y workplace environment I have to put up with almost every evening.

But anyway, I thought I'd post those old notes I'd made after first reading Truly's and Baker's testimonies as they were indeed my initial gut reactions: Truly being treated as a "friendly witness," Truly leading the search party, and Baker repeatedly referencing the TSBD OR the Dal-Tex building (his estimation of where shots had been fired from the roof of), with the WC completely ignoring any suggestion of issues about the Dal-Tex building.

Thanks for saying you think I have part of a value here.

Oh, and I'm dropping my avatar, since it seems hardly anyone else is using one. I'm not making any kind of "stand" about anything by doing so.

[greg_parkerAdmin]

Sorry Greg, I can no longer account for how my mind works and frankly, I thought that if the only replies I'm gonna get are from you, and if those replies are gonna seem like patting me on the head and different variations of "You're almost getting somewhat closer to what I already know but have yet to reveal, grasshopper," then I might as well hit the road without getting pissy about it. I even thought it might be your way of telling me to stop screwing around trying to make jokes and get to work on the RFK stuff. (Which I've done, even though I'm aware that hardly anyone is interested in the subject and that there's an enormous amount of outright hostility in these circles towards Robert Kennedy. But so my path is laid.)

Dan, like I said, it was a late night attempt at humor - and in hindsight I can see what you're saying. I feel like a prick. It took me a little while to get my head around your writing style. I frankly didn't know what to make of you at first, but somewhere along the way, it clicked. When it did, I really began to appreciate that style. Not to mention you personally - or maybe online, the two things are indistinguishable. Whatever. You're honest, and not afraid to say what needs saying. I was unaware of any hostility to RFK around the traps? That surprises me a lot.  

Then too, there's the larger issues of who and what you can trust in the Conspiracy Research Community; what kinds of games are being played; whether Team Colby has morphed into a sham CT carrying on a sham fight with Cinque & Fetzer (I just wish he/they would pick one personality and stick with it); and blah blah blah. At that point, after all I've been through, my only inclination is to drop out entirely and be finally done with it. To say nothing of the s****y workplace environment I have to put up with almost every evening.

There is no "team Colby" here. 

But anyway, I thought I'd post those old notes I'd made after first reading Truly's and Baker's testimonies as they were indeed my initial gut reactions: Truly being treated as a "friendly witness," Truly leading the search party, and Baker repeatedly referencing the TSBD OR the Dal-Tex building (his estimation of where shots had been fired from the roof of), with the WC completely ignoring any suggestion of issues about the Dal-Tex building.

All I was trying to say was that they were also my gut reactions. If you felt the same way in reading the same material, that tells me my own gut reaction was pretty good. Yes, I have since gathered material on Truly that helps substantiate and support that initial reaction, but I was not trying to be condescending about it - just affirming that we both had very good instincts in this instance.

Thanks for saying you think I have part of a value here.

Dan - what I said was that "part of your value here is..." I didn't say you only had a part value here. I read your research and it reflects those qualities of honesty and intellect that shine through in most of your musings.  

Oh, and I'm dropping my avatar, since it seems hardly anyone else is using one. I'm not making any kind of "stand" about anything by doing so.

Maybe not. But you WERE making a kind of stand by having that avatar. 

Sorry you have a shitty workplace. I've had my share of those. I'm sorry if you get few responses except from me - and some of my efforts are less than your posts deserve. I understand that, too. When I started posting at the Ed Forum, I was one of the few posting new research. But just about nobody read it and fewer replied. That was okay in and of itself - what made it hard to take is that someone would post something about "Badgeman" (as an example) and the thread would end up 50 pages long. 

Bottom line: I didn't mean to offend you. I understand that I did. I apologise for that unreservedly. 

[dwdunn(akaDan)]

Well I appreciate that, Greg, and I thank you for the compliments and the thoughtful reply; but no apology was necessary, as no real offense was taken. I can live with the fact that you and many others do know far more than I do about President Kennedy's assassination, or even about Robert Kennedy's. But when I got a "You are getting dangerously close to the facts about Sirhan" reply, followed by my computer hard drive going kaput and the brief uncertainty whether its files could be saved & transferred, followed by your response on my old Truly notes ...... well, I wasn't sure if you weren't just messing with my head a bit, and I was in no mood to find out, much less get into any kind of fight with you. Given the circumstances of my arrival here, and the gratitude I feel for being given "sanctuary," the last thing I want is for there to be any antagonism whatsoever on my account. If that should ever happen, as I hope I made clear from the first, I will thank you for the hospitality and the chance to recover and be on my way.


I'd leave it at that, mainly because this thread is supposed to be about Sean Murphy's outstanding work, but I would like to address some other things you said, to clear up any misunderstandings there might be.

Dan - what I said was that "part of your value here is..." I didn't say you only had a part value here. I read your research and it reflects those qualities of honesty and intellect that shine through in most of your musings.

That was meant to be a self-deprecating joke. But since it didn't come off that way to you, I received a very nice compliment. Sorry for "tricking" you into that, but thank you for the compliment.

There is no "team Colby" here.

Evidently not, since bpete is now known as "Guest" after Lee performed the exorcism to drive him off, the swine. After reading Lee's posts I checked out the blogs and after skimming through them I thought, "Colby. Taking on yet another identity. But still in a fight with Fetzer & Company." I was only referring to how much time many of us have spent at one time or another applying our analytical skills & energies to people like Colby, Cinque, Trejo, etc, etc, ad infinitum; not necessarily wasted time, but still its time spent on dealing with "games being played" ("blah blah blah") instead of research, honest debate, and so on. Very tiresome old story, especially for those of us who aren't as young as Hasan, who is younger than many of my socks. (Belated Happy Birthday, Hasan)  

Dan, like I said, it was a late night attempt at humor - and in hindsight I can see what you're saying. I feel like a prick. It took me a little while to get my head around your writing style. I frankly didn't know what to make of you at first, but somewhere along the way, it clicked. When it did, I really began to appreciate that style. Not to mention you personally - or maybe online, the two things are indistinguishable. Whatever. You're honest, and not afraid to say what needs saying. I was unaware of any hostility to RFK around the traps? That surprises me a lot.

I've been wanting (needing) that kind of feedback for about a decade now; I didn't fathom that my "writing style" could be impenetrable and just assumed that what I write just isn't that interesting to people. About this time last year I suddenly started getting pageviews from Russia on my book posted on a blog; I initially figured it must be some English speaking Russians who happened upon it. After 2 months and 200 Russian pageviews I had to conclude that evidently it reads well in the Russian transliteration; so maybe I should have everything I write translated to Russian. (Apparently not a book that appeals to the godless Brits, Canadians & Australians, who may have a misguided [in this case] but otherwise healthy suspicion about someone trying to throw religion on them.)


The "hostility to Robert Kennedy" issue would take way too long to go into, as it would need to be, especially for those outside the US. I'll only state my impression (opinion) that "conspiracy theory" in general, and the JFK assassination in particular, has tended to attract many people who have decidedly right-wing orientations (speaking here of Americans); mostly they call themselves "Libertarians," to distinguish themselves from the mainstream Republican Party and set themselves off as "radical." When the subject of Robert Kennedy comes up, and without being afforded the opportunity to be negative on the subject, they are entirely mute, as apparently they can never forgive his association with the civil rights movement, student protests, the "radical Left" or progressive politics of the late 1960s in general. And then there's the confused political stance of Joan Mellen, who was evidently really upset about the Kennedy Administration not keeping campaign promises to issue executive orders for open housing (for black Americans), as if that were a bigger matter than beatings and lynchings; and many years later finds her best sources are rightwing misinformation specialists like Sam Halpern, et al....... As I said, too much to go into, especially here.


So anyway, I'll leave it at that, and I apologize for the digression(s) in this thread. Please don't feel like a prick, Greg; there are no problems between us and all water under the bridge as far as I'm concerned. Thank you again for the thoughtful reply and for the compliments.


Dan

[Albert Rossi]

The "hostility to Robert Kennedy" issue would take way too long to go into, as it would need to be, especially for those outside the US. I'll only state my impression (opinion) that "conspiracy theory" in general, and the JFK assassination in particular, has tended to attract many people who have decidedly right-wing orientations (speaking here of Americans); mostly they call themselves "Libertarians," to distinguish themselves from the mainstream Republican Party and set themselves off as "radical." When the subject of Robert Kennedy comes up, and without being afforded the opportunity to be negative on the subject, they are entirely mute, as apparently they can never forgive his association with the civil rights movement, student protests, the "radical Left" or progressive politics of the late 1960s in general. And then there's the confused political stance of Joan Mellen, who was evidently really upset about the Kennedy Administration not keeping campaign promises to issue executive orders for open housing (for black Americans), as if that were a bigger matter than beatings and lynchings; and many years later finds her best sources are rightwing misinformation specialists like Sam Halpern, et al....... As I said, too much to go into, especially here.

Dan, thank you, thank you, thank you for this.  This business about RFK and the Castro assassination attempts dies a hard death.  Then there is the business that he was controlling the autopsy.  It doesn't trouble me so much that the mafia-did-it clan or those still proposing that Castro "turned them around" continue along this line, but when people who otherwise do good and interesting work on the case are nevertheless willing to lend credence to this stuff, well, my jaw drops and my heart sinks.


In that regard, Lisa Pease implored the public at the Wecht conference to stop contributing to disinformation by reporting what some CIA agent said another CIA agent said as if it were established fact.

[dwdunn(akaDan)]

Hi Albert. You're welcome, you're welcome, you're welcome 

As some here will recall, I tried to tackle the "Let's Blame Bobby" phenomenon head-on in Gary Loughran's "Blame It On The Bobby" thread at the Simkin Forum. Nice to know all the work I put into that went down the poop hole. I understand that Joan has done excellent work, particularly on Garrison; but evidently her animosity towards RFK (even 35 years after he's safely dead) has completely skewed whatever critical and analytical skills she surely must have. It's a shame.

Nice to hear from you. Take care of yourself,
Dan

[GuestGuest]

Hi Albert. You're welcome, you're welcome, you're welcome 

As some here will recall, I tried to tackle the "Let's Blame Bobby" phenomenon head-on in Gary Loughran's "Blame It On The Bobby" thread at the Simkin Forum. Nice to know all the work I put into that went down the poop hole. I understand that Joan has done excellent work, particularly on Garrison; but evidently her animosity towards RFK (even 35 years after he's safely dead) has completely skewed whatever critical and analytical skills she surely must have. It's a shame.

Nice to hear from you. Take care of yourself,
Dan

Hello Dan,

Your posts on the thread you described do exist:
https://web.archive.org/web/20130607122529/http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=10323&page=6

...and the thread exists, minus the posts in it that were disappeared:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=10323

BTW, why does anyone still post on a forum in which members and or posts are suddenly and arbitrarily disappeared. Ernie Lazar is blissfully describing his past posts, by number in a disaster of a thread "over there," by post #. As you can see, post # changes after a thread receives "the Simkin treatment." There are seven pages in the first link above and only six pages in the current thread (second link, above)  of the same title.

In case you're wondering how they "soldier on," over there, here is an excerpt of "counseling I received from the newest Ed Forum administrator.:

Never Thought I'd say this, keep up the good work
« Sent to: Dave Reitzes on: November 12, 2013, 12:43:09 AM »
« Bcc: Kathy Becket »

........In addition to being forced to backtrack on his reason for banning me, Simkin also advised other forum moderators and administrators
that he had received a complaint about me. The complaint he specified in the email image at the link below, was about an incident in which
I attempted to moderate the incoherent posting of the person Simkin said had complained about that very incident.
As you can see in the email image, Simkin at the time of the event had said he thought Carroll had psychological problems as he supported
the action I had taken to moderate Carroll.:
https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t468-shooting-damage-communications#4747


.......Simkin has deleted at least 10,000 posts from the Ed Forum since June 9, half of that number were posted by Jim DiEugenio.
My posts were not deleted from the Ed Forum because I initiated enough threads to discourage deleting all of my posts.
When the first post in a thread is deleted, the entire thread disappears. Tom Fairlie and his posts were disappeared because
he questioned Simkin's sudden bannings.:
https://web.archive.org/web/20130510104821/http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showuser=6241

vs. .... gone....
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showuser=6241

I share all this with you, Ernie, to provide you with background about me and to ask you to consider why you are spending your time
debating the dysfunctional and dishonest Trejo on a forum in which members are suddenly taken out and shot if they displease the forum's master,
and their posts deleted. The first link displays the total number of post on the Ed Forum in May, and the second, the current number of total posts.:

https://web.archive.org/web/20130510083653/http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?act=idx (Bottom of Page= 246,360 Total Posts)

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?act=idx (Bottom of Page= 243,689 Total Posts)

DiEugenio's 4,500+ posts and posts in all threads he authored, were deleted by Simkin.:
https://web.archive.org/web/20130510105035/http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showuser=6329 vs. gone=

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showuser=6329

An entire thread authored by Jim DiEugenio:
https://web.archive.org/web/20130423025408/http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20070 vs. gone=

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20070

To help put the size of the post deletion in perspective,

Just in one thread, "Oswald Leaving the TSBD") which was begun in August, 2013, there are more than 1,150 posts.:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20354&page=78

You have been much more blatant in one of your posts but you appear not to be risking
your ED Forum membership because you are not taking to task a friend of Simkin.

To his credit, David Reitzes has been pressing the Ed Forum's "leaders" for an explanation and justification for the mass deletion of posts.
The dishonesty in reaction is obvious.:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2243&page=25#entry280680

If there is no credible and timely response to Reitzes's reasonable questions, why risk your time and effort to post on this forum,
not to mention the futility of debating the dishonsest, manipulative troll, Paul Trejo?

Best Regard,
Tom Scully


Kathy Becket  Sent to: Tom Scully on: November 12, 2013, 06:59:41 AM
Tom,
..............I may be incorrect, but I believe if Duncan bans someone,he removes their posts. I know when Rich Dellarosa banned someone, he removed their posts as well.

As for you suspecting Brancato being Trejo, I have wondered for awhile if you and Mark O'Blazney were one and the same. People always, I guess, think stuff like that when one is in total agreement with another.  Just a fluke, i guess.

You did many things in the past that we argued over in emails. And you did cross the line when it came to what someone else did as opposed to what you did. You broke the rules you tried to enforce, and you know this. As a moderator, you should've been harder on yourself in keeping the rules than you were on others. It wasn't fair. I couldn't ever figure out why you couldn't see that, and you continued even when it was pointed out to you.

 
I don't want to discuss things any further. At some point in time, you are going to have to let this go, and move on.


Kathy

If someone had told me, before this recent experience with Mr. Simkin and his team, that I would one day stoop as low as publilcly sharing the contents of PMs and emails, I would have vehemently denied that I would ever do such a thing. When you share the contents of an email or a PM with a third party, just as when you delete the memberships and posts of those who post in your forum, it tends to discourage others from taking your into their confidence, or joining your forum and exerting the time and effort to ever post on it. I have no excuse. It is fair to consider me a scoundrel but I am not a hypocrite.

[Mark A. O'Blazney]

The 'Wayback Machine' shows who the REAL scoundrels are.  There IS a difference between 'edit' and 'delete', isn't there?  If not, we haven't got a prayer.  If a screenshot of an e-mail is used to defend one's integrity, then so be it, but make darned sure you can prove its provenance.  This is most extraordinary.  Five days.

[GuestGuest]

I am you, and you are me, and we are all together..... you wanna be the egg man, Mark, or the Walrus? It is kind of a let down not to be your, during these brief, heddy days of remembrance. I am a bit surprised you did not comment on Kathy Becket;s suspicion about who we actually are.

Does this name ring a bell with you at all? Tilbury O Freeman. It tells me that a lot of his Princeton classmates had knowledge to hold close.....

http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/26/2689-010.gif

[dwdunn(akaDan)]

Hi Albert. You're welcome, you're welcome, you're welcome 

As some here will recall, I tried to tackle the "Let's Blame Bobby" phenomenon head-on in Gary Loughran's "Blame It On The Bobby" thread at the Simkin Forum. Nice to know all the work I put into that went down the poop hole. I understand that Joan has done excellent work, particularly on Garrison; but evidently her animosity towards RFK (even 35 years after he's safely dead) has completely skewed whatever critical and analytical skills she surely must have. It's a shame.

Nice to hear from you. Take care of yourself,
Dan

Hello Dan,

Your posts on the thread you described do exist:
https://web.archive.org/web/20130607122529/http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=10323&page=6

Thanks Tom, but my complaint is really more about the principle of the thing.

I personally don't much care what goes on over at the Simkin Forum; if they're happy with the entire first page of the only section that matters full of threads started by Dave Reitzes and serial spammer Doug Caddy, then I'm okay with that. Likewise, Kathy's rationalizations and Evan's silence speak for themselves. If you find it fruitful to continue to engage in discussions with or about them, that's up to you obviously, but since they said nothing when it all went down I can't imagine they're going to change their ways now.

I will however take this opportunity to clarify the truth about Simkin's email claim/supposition, found here:

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t468-shooting-damage-communications#4747

"I see Daniel Wayne Dunn has removed his avatar. I have placed him on moderation until he replaces his photograph. He has clearly done this in an attempt to undermine the efforts of the moderators. I would .... give me some support instead of backing him up. Unless you do this I think you should consider resigning as a moderator."

I don't know whether that last part, the "support me" ultimatum, was directed at Gary Loughran, you, or the "moderating team" as a whole. But I can say that I removed my avatar after making what turned out to be my last post there because I intended it to be my last post there; it had nothing to do with "an attempt to undermine the efforts of the moderators," whatever the hell that might mean, and was only my way of saying, "Fuck this" as I walked out the door. Lord Simkin just can't tolerate honest criticism, so had to hide behind the rationalized excuse of "rule-breaking" and "undermining the moderators" to justify himself. Life goes on.

[Frankie Vegas]

I have an account at the Ed Forum. I asked for it to be pinned to the start page. The quality of posts that are making it lost are insane. "No chance of new investigation into Kennedy murder" Kennedy curse killing all it's members", and my personal favourite "We will NEVER know what happened"....

[Colin_Crow]

From Frazier's HSCA interview courtesy of Richard's collection. An interesting answer. 

[Goban_Saor]

That’s a great find, Colin.
 
Frazier let the cat out of the bag there.
 
And his disjointed comments following his disclosure betray a loss of composure that would be explained by his dismay at his mistake.

[John Mooney]

"Billy was about two feet closer to the situation".

The obvious interpretation is the extension "... than Oswald".

That is indeed a VERY interesting find.

How could Frazier live with himself?

[ianlloyd]

Might another interpretation of the "extension" be "...than me."...???

[ianlloyd]

Does Moriarty suggest that Oswald was standing on the stairs?

[John Mooney]

Might another interpretation of the "extension" be "...than me."...???

Possibly, but the context of the question can be read as Oswald and perhaps Frazier heard it that way.

It's a strange answer whatever. His position to the "situation" has nothing to do with his looking like Oswald.

[Sponsored content]