The Education Forum new ownership: (for now,at least) is an undisclosed "group."

[GuestGuest]

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21289#entry288370
James R Gordon
Posted Today, 04:00 PM
It is a fair request Douglas, but we still need - to use that overused phrase - to "get our ducks in a row"
 
This is a massive undertaking and one that we need to think through and consider very carefully. 
 
I am aware I am visible having made the announcement, but to allow the group time space to work out how to develop this site: to make it even better that it is now and to preserve the investment that has been made in the site - for the moment the group's identity is being reserved.
 
James.

There are no longer any ads displayed on the pages of JFK Debate, a good indication that a transfer has taken place. Odd that neither SImkin or Andy Walker made an initial announcement. Ad revenue
had covered one third of the expenses of hosting and forum software support.



There are other indications I was led to believe the offer I had made to "save" the Ed Forum had been
accepted. I seemed to be the first of several who were led to believe the same things.  I am not part of this undisclosed group. I do not think a group is a workable structure, unless it is passive except for
one designate. At any rate, I wish them success, more so if this lack of transparency is brief. I strongly believed the Ed Forum's most valuable asset was google visibility that had the potential to pay for itself
if the ads displayed were more carefully managed.  I have experience and some success with the ad service Andy Walker was using.

I also saw the content of the forum as an archive worth preserving instant accessibility to.

Today, 05:54 PM #71
Albert Doyle

Now that the Education Forum has been saved maybe they can relax their requirements and allow moderated voices like DiEugenio back on.

[GuestGuest]

#1 Andy Walker

Administrator

Posted 14 July 2014 - 09:34 AM
Today the ownership of the Education Forum was successfully transferred to the Board administrators. Good luck with it I hope you make it a great success

Well, they seem to have succeeded already! When I was contemplating contacting Andy, I did a number of google searches and several other search sites for terms like Kennedy Assassination and the Ed Forum was coming up on the first page of search results. Kathy explained that they were not interested in maintaining an ad program. I told her the ads were an integral component of what influences the strong search results. Currently searching goofle and yahoo, the Ed Forum no longer appears in search results for the term Kennedy Assassination. CTKA.net fares pretty well, and of course, wikipedia and McAdams.

[GuestGuest]

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?13107-Education-Forum-closing-yet-again&p=90530#post90530
Today, 04:33 PM #73
Jim DiEugenio

   Evidently Simkin is out now.

   And I guess a small committee of backers, including James Gordon--who seems like a good guy--is now paying the bills to keep it alive.

   But that forum has lost so many of its best contributors over the last few years, I just wonder if its worth it.

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?13107-Education-Forum-closing-yet-again&p=90537#post90537
Yesterday, 09:00 PM #74
Albert Doyle

   Maybe you should try to sign back up. The site needs you.

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?13107-Education-Forum-closing-yet-again&p=90543#post90543
Yesterday, 11:54 PM #75
Jim DiEugenio

   Maybe, I will think about it.

   But if you ask me, it needs a lot more than just me.

   To call the roll of all the good people they lost, I mean it is a long list.

Tom Scully
Sr. Member

Re: Just so you know who you are dealing with....
« Sent to: James Gordon on: July 18, 2014, 09:33:37 PM »

James,

Thank you for responding. The images of the two messages I shared with you display information that seems
to conflict with you response.
(re:

)
I will make it clearer, if this effort to do so is successful.

I made a proposal to Andy Walker to assume financial and adminstrative responsibility for the forum.
The dates of my message to him and his response are visible.

The date of Kathy's message to me is five days later. She indicates she was referred to me by Andy, a second
indication that supports the details in Andy's June 10 response to me.

Kathy claimed in her message that she had received directions from David, originating from Andy, to attempt
to negotiate with me. We had a series of message exchanges. Kathy cannot separate John Simkin from the forum.
I reminded her that John had himself made a series of disparaging comments about the forum and its members, and
about the waning popularity of forums in general.

I exchanged this series of messages with Kathy as a courtesy. I conceded to all of the demands she made,
hoping to achieve a working relationship with her, since I thought it was best for the form going forward.
I told her that I was committing to be financially obligated for the expenses of the forum and the only stipulation
was keeping the authority John Simkin had as to approval of new members.

Kathy did not negotiate in good faith, or at all. She simply made a series of demands and objections.
I told her it was obvious she intended an "end run" around the deal her approaching me in the first placee
confirmed the existence of.

I waited for further communication from Andy. It never came. As I said, your announcement came as a complete
surprise. Indications are that my deepest concerns are playing out already. No ads display anymore, and search
placement on google results are affected. So far, no transparency, no communiication about member registration,
despite Simkin's request for an announcement. No communication aside from member Dolva's.

A giraffe is a horse designed by commttee.  I messaged you to give you a friendly warning. The difficulties you
say I had are not mine. They are a result of the people you are now dealing with. They exhibit now ethical or
sense of right and wrong personal standards.

I ask nothing of you. I expected that you were not advised that Kathy was making an end run around an agreement
I had already reached with Andy. Please check in at some future date after your education in the behind the scenes
politics at the Education Forum is more complete. As I outlined to Kathy, the future of the forum hinges on its financial
stability. She made it plain she did not understand what I was telling her about advertising management and stated
she was not interested in advertising and building a revenue stream from it that would permit both growth and long
term stability.

You are in the honeymoon period, enjoy the ease in raising donations, while it lasts!

In an addendum, I added:
Btw, I discussed my proposal to Andy Walker with no one, except Kathy, before reading your announcement
posted on the Education Forum, the other day. This is how I know that she approached me at the direction
of Andy.

You were of the opinion I had alternatives. I beg to differ. The only two people I had contact in this matter
are proven to be unethical and untrustworthy. I try to be as good as my word, as I am sure you do, as well.

Best Regards,
-Tom

I hope Jim DiEugenio does not lose sight of the fact that James and nearly everyone else DiEugenio is "thinking about" rejoining either stayed silent, openly supported, or even supported and defended the Simkin autocratic outbursts and the disappearing of the posting archives of select members akin to a campaign of book burning.

James Gordon replied to my initial PM in which I shared the message images I have posted in this thread. He acted as if he did not understand what information in the message images meant.

James Gordon
Super Member
Re: Just so you know who you are dealing with....
« Sent to: Tom Scully on: July 18, 2014, 09:49:23 AM »
..........We moved fast because time is running out. We were not aware you had a preferred interest and indeed were aware that you could bid before us. ....

Moved fast? As the date and time in the email image above
shows, James was in the first stage of attempting to create the
"we" while I was submitting a proposal for the forum to Andy Walker.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21241&p=287571
James R Gordon Posted 09 June 2014 - 09:28 AM

Are there any members who would be interested in grouping together in both sharing the cost as well as administrating the site? It would be a real pity to see this site go.

.

He has not replied to my recent response and I doubt that he will. But, he knows....he has been made aware of everything I know. He has joined what to some extent is a soulless cult of personality.

Kathy, Evan, or Pat Speer could have authored this.:

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/1315043/53975940#
 Greenwald's work is full of lies and hyperbole. (17+ / 0-)

NSA is a given and has existed for decades. He exposed the process of a very sophisticated system with checks and balances. He told the world our classified business for his aggrandizement. His description of mass surveillance and a security state are hyperbole. He exposed nothing illegal or unconstitutional, unlike Bush's illegal wire taps. He exposed the wire taps on Merkal and others which were again done under Bush and laid them at Obama's feet. He is intent on embarrassing the country and the administration. There have been numerous comments on this site gleefully chirping that the country and Obama are going down because of the doc drop. We have lost esteem and credibility with the rest of the world. Obama and the federal government are blamed for this but the truth is the fault and the pleasure are with Snowden and GG. I also think the country and the government will survive this puerile nonsense.

by melanctha on Sat Jul 19, 2014 at 09:41:10 AM PDT

[GuestGuest]

An undisclosed group will attempt to shine light on a feasible undisclosed group who assassinated the subject of their forum. Less transparency is seemingly not the answer in my view.

[Martin Hay]

So if that spiteful arsehole Simkin is gone, is there any chance of my posts being restored? Or are the new management bound to uphold the appalling decisions of the old?

[StanDane]

Maybe they'll institute a policy of Glasnost and open things back up.

[TerryWMartin]

So if that spiteful arsehole Simkin is gone, is there any chance of my posts being restored? Or are the new management bound to uphold the appalling decisions of the old?

We will have to wait and see is going to be any changes or if it will be another case of "meet the new boss, same as the old boss".

There are plenty of people ousted from the EF whose threads and posts should be restored.

If they reverse Simkin's decrees it will be great. If not, at least we are no better worse off than we are at present.

[James DiEugenio]

Who exactly are the new owners and management?

And why did they keep the same moderators?  They should have thrown that open to anyone in the starting over mode.

Why would Simkin have any influence at all over who now joined?

I agree about the ads.  Without those it is going to be difficult to keep the tab low.

Thanks for the stats Tom.  Last year, CTKA got well over 3 million hits, actually closer to 4 million.

[GuestGuest]

Good questions, Jim. The "new" Ed Forum is a shrine devoted to the memory of a man who did not like forums, and certainly did not like forum contributors....

http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/simkin-to-close-jfk-education-forum-citing-obnoxious-so-called-researchers/
Simkin to close JFK Education Forum, citing obnoxious ‘so-called researchers’

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20259&page=2&#entry275230

Robert Charles-Dunne, on 09 Jun 2013 - 1:16 PM, said:
If a lie posted here cannot be called a lie here, irrespective of who posts it, then the Forum has outlived its usefulness anyway. 
 
Rather than forbidding the posting of outright lies, what is forbidden is calling a lie a lie.  Orwell is spinning.  

There is much outright crap posted here by dilettantes, agenda-driven shills and the historically-challenged - all considered fair game by moderators who fail to act - yet those who draw attention to the fact that it is outright crap are the ones “moderated.”.......

.....And the same black line that was drawn on you
Was drawn on me.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4269&p=288715
Moderator Kathy Beckett Admin Posted Today, 07:05 PM
"Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers. Most importantly, the motivations of the poster should not be questioned. At all times members should concentrate on what is being said, rather than who is saying it. It is up to the reader to look at the biography submitted by the poster, to judge whether they are telling the truth or not. The word liar is banned from use on the forum"
 
We have had too much of this, and are receiving complaints.  Since the new forum Terms of Service and Forum rules have not been posted as of yet, I am relying on you two, Paul and Ernie, to go clean up your posts.  I realize both of you feel that your view is correct, but it must be expressed in other ways.  I am hoping that there are no further complaints, because that may result in a locking of the thread.


Ernie Lazar  Posted Today, 09:08 PM
...............
When a poster DELIBERATELY misrepresents or misquotes the clearly stated beliefs and statements made by another person, THEN what is the appropriate response in your judgment?  
 
Do you expect there to be no candid response which draws attention to what is being done no matter how egregious the misrepresentation or how outrageous the falsehoods?
 
FOR EXAMPLE:  Suppose, Kathy, that I research what YOU have posted on this website and you have repeatedly made very clear and very precise comments about some subject matter.  
 
BUT, suppose that I come along and DELIBERATELY misrepresent or misquote what you have written by ripping your comments out of their context so that I change your obvious meaning -- and I do that not just one time, not just twice, not just three times, not just four times, BUT repeatedly and incessantly?   Then what would be YOUR appropriate response to me? 
 
Kathy -- the problem here is NOT just a difference of opinion between two people.  
 
Nor is it (as you wrote) that two people believe their particular view is correct.  
 
We ALL have our personal opinions---and that is totally ok.  
 
BUT...there is such a thing as OBJECTIVE TRUTH -- which DOES NOT DEPEND upon my opinion, or yours, or anybody else's.
.....

NOBODY wants to be on the receiving end of the word "liar" or "dishonest" or "biased" or "irrational" --- or any such descriptive terms.
 
However, those words do exist in the English language.  They have a meaning.  AND if someone can demonstrate through evidence and direct quotation that those words are applicable (AFTER first politely and repeatedly correcting the offending party) , then nobody should be offended because the adjectives used are defensible and reasonable....

Precisely !

[greg_parkerAdmin]

Tom,

I trust you will disabuse Kathy of the notion I "approve" anyone before they can join here.

That would be John. John initially only wanted "known" researchers and authors and personally sounded them out about joining. This was about building a credible resource for students - but the reality is, it was also "bait" to get members and traffic.  At that time, you could just sign up. But after a while, it was decided you had to use your real name and provide a photo of yourself. Then further along, when membership became quite large, you could only join by contacting John directly.

I do not "vet" anyone. Anyone can join. Anyone can use any damn name they like. Anyone can use any avatar they like - or not use one at all.

I mean, the whole idea of "vetting" and IDing members is ill-considered. Is "Tom Scully", Tom's real name? How the fuck am I supposed to know? Is the photo he provided at the ed forum really him? How  the fuck am I supposed to know? What am I supposed to do? Hire a private detective to trace the real identity of each member? Members can and do make up their own minds about each other.  

To compare this place in any way on any level with DeepFooFoo is just as loony as the very busy loyer's pronouncement that you can't read this forum unless you're a member.

[steely_dan]

My real name is Alan Dixon, but the forum tells me that's already taken by some dumb fuck who quit.

[StanDane]

Hey, steely, good to see you!

[dwdunn(akaDan)]

Tom,

I trust you will disabuse Kathy of the notion I "approve" anyone before they can join here.

That would be John. John initially only wanted "known" researchers and authors and personally sounded them out about joining. This was about building a credible resource for students - but the reality is, it was also "bait" to get members and traffic.  At that time, you could just sign up. But after a while, it was decided you had to use your real name and provide a photo of yourself. Then further along, when membership became quite large, you could only join by contacting John directly.

I do not "vet" anyone. Anyone can join. Anyone can use any damn name they like. Anyone can use any avatar they like - or not use one at all.

I mean, the whole idea of "vetting" and IDing members is ill-considered. Is "Tom Scully", Tom's real name? How the fuck am I supposed to know? Is the photo he provided at the ed forum really him? How  the fuck am I supposed to know? What am I supposed to do? Hire a private detective to trace the real identity of each member? Members can and do make up their own minds about each other.  

To compare this place in any way on any level with DeepFooFoo is just as loony as the very busy loyer's pronouncement that you can't read this forum unless you're a member.

Greg, I think she (and Tom) is referring to Greg BURNHAM and his forum, not you and this one. We're not nearly stand-aloneish enough to garner that kind of attention, probably

[GuestGuest]

Tom,

I trust you will disabuse Kathy of the notion I "approve" anyone before they can join here.

That would be John. John initially only wanted "known" researchers and authors and personally sounded them out about joining. This was about building a credible resource for students - but the reality is, it was also "bait" to get members and traffic.  At that time, you could just sign up. But after a while, it was decided you had to use your real name and provide a photo of yourself. Then further along, when membership became quite large, you could only join by contacting John directly.

I do not "vet" anyone. Anyone can join. Anyone can use any damn name they like. Anyone can use any avatar they like - or not use one at all.

I mean, the whole idea of "vetting" and IDing members is ill-considered. Is "Tom Scully", Tom's real name? How the fuck am I supposed to know? Is the photo he provided at the ed forum really him? How  the fuck am I supposed to know? What am I supposed to do? Hire a private detective to trace the real identity of each member? Members can and do make up their own minds about each other.  

To compare this place in any way on any level with DeepFooFoo is just as loony as the very busy loyer's pronouncement that you can't read this forum unless you're a member.

My real name is not Paul Klein and my avatar looks nothing like me (although I do own a similar vest). I've made Greg aware of this (not the vest part) and I'll let other forum members decide whether they interact with me or not based solely on what I write and contribute here. I can take a hint or take a hike. No big deal. I won't be vetted by anyone let alone by a few fuckwits that hang around the JFK debate. I've had my fair share of threats and accusations and I ain't giving Google anything. I decide what I do with my privacy. I am thankful that Greg gets it.
P.S Welcome back, Steely Dan!

[greg_parkerAdmin]

Tom,

I trust you will disabuse Kathy of the notion I "approve" anyone before they can join here.

That would be John. John initially only wanted "known" researchers and authors and personally sounded them out about joining. This was about building a credible resource for students - but the reality is, it was also "bait" to get members and traffic.  At that time, you could just sign up. But after a while, it was decided you had to use your real name and provide a photo of yourself. Then further along, when membership became quite large, you could only join by contacting John directly.

I do not "vet" anyone. Anyone can join. Anyone can use any damn name they like. Anyone can use any avatar they like - or not use one at all.

I mean, the whole idea of "vetting" and IDing members is ill-considered. Is "Tom Scully", Tom's real name? How the fuck am I supposed to know? Is the photo he provided at the ed forum really him? How  the fuck am I supposed to know? What am I supposed to do? Hire a private detective to trace the real identity of each member? Members can and do make up their own minds about each other.  

To compare this place in any way on any level with DeepFooFoo is just as loony as the very busy loyer's pronouncement that you can't read this forum unless you're a member.

Greg, I think she (and Tom) is referring to Greg BURNHAM and his forum, not you and this one. We're not nearly stand-aloneish enough to garner that kind of attention, probably

You are quite right, Dan - and probably on both counts. Kathy got in touch via FB earlier today and I have apologized to her.

[GuestGuest]

It causes me considerable distress to resort to posting images of messages I have received from individuals who demonstrate a belief that they can communicate such dishonest, unethical, and hypocritical statements to me without being made to account for their offenses.

It seems absurd that an unintended result is Greg apologizing to Kathy. I will not hold my breath waiting for Greg's good example to have any reciprocal effect on her.

Meanwhile, DiEugenio, Dunn, Hay, and I will continue to wait another century or two before Kathy Beckett understands any obligation to apologize to any of us for anything, or to exhibit any inclination of setting anything right. She defends the indefensible and now sets her sites on Ernie.

In good faith, I attempted to "save" the Ed Forum. Kathy then approached me bent on extending the mistakes, injustices, and censorship that have reduced that forum to the state it is in today. She assured me she was not competing with me or attempting an end run around the understanding I thought I had reached with Andy Walker, ironically reinforced by Kathy contacting me, since no one other than Andy knew I had contacted him. I want nothing from these people. I will continue to expose their shortcomings but as they seem to increase exponentially, I recognize the futility in continuing.

[dwdunn(akaDan)]

Tom, Kathy Becket doesn't owe me shit. And Greg got understandably confused because he read it the same way I did initially, that he was the "Greg" she had in mind. Once I realized it was more likely she was thinking of the "Greg" associated with her mentor and his/her forum, and that it was more than obvious there are no such restrictions here, I figured she must've meant Burnham and not Parker.

Sure got this Greg goin' though, didn't it?

[GuestGuest]

Dan,

It is not okay to vanish hundreds and even thousands of a forum
member's posts with no prior notice and there is no excuse for
defending such abuse or continue to obsess about how wonderful a person the abuser is.

I forgot to include Tom Fairlee. Tom made the mistake of posting this, and poof! He was disappeared.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20259&p=275342
Posted 11 June 2013 - 06:43 AM
quote from Tom Fairlie:
 
"Even the trolls occasionally post something worthwhile."....

I've figured out why my posts were not disappeared.  I must have started too many threads. If you delete posts that happen to be opening posts, the entire threads become unreachable.

Kathy is still devoted to this lying, slurring, manipulator. He can do no wrong because he has not done it to her, yet.:

Note the dates:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19016&p=275187
Hank Albarelli, on 29 May 2013 - 07:37 AM, said:

....[My source knew Mr. Mitchell quite well and indeed still communicates and occasionally visits with him; that I passed this on to peter was entirely appropriate.} There is far more to the Mary M. story than has been released thus far. I expect that will come out soon. If Tom has info he should it out in the proper places. [Few read this forum.] .......

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20259
Started by John Simkin, Jun 09 2013 08:24 AM
..........
The main reason I did not act on this was because I was part of the argument. If I had tried to restrain these attacks I would have been accused of being biased and interfering with free speech. Even so, it was no real excuse for not protecting a friend.
...........
I had not read the thread before and would have assumed it would have been dealt with by the moderators. In fact, the main offender was one of the moderators, Tom Scully, where he breaks the Forum rules by calling Albarelli a liar.....

Simkin knew for six days that he had no justification to do more than privately criticize me. Kathy knows that. She also knows he had six days to make up a justification that was a fabrication, a lie, before he posted his thread on 9 June. I know I am preaching to the choir, Dan, but apparantly we enjoy a wider audience, so why not lay it out, again.

Yesterday, Kathy continued the admirable Ed Forum tradition of defending unrepentant liars. Ernie was directed to washout his prior posts with soap, on an 84 pages long thread, or else. The thread is that large because liars know they are welcome there and those who object to their intentional lying will be
stopped from interfering.

[Hasan Yusuf]

My real name is not Paul Klein and my avatar looks nothing like me (although I do own a similar vest). I've made Greg aware of this (not the vest part) and I'll let other forum members decide whether they interact with me or not based solely on what I write and contribute here. I can take a hint or take a hike. No big deal. I won't be vetted by anyone let alone by a few fuckwits that hang around the JFK debate. I've had my fair share of threats and accusations and I ain't giving Google anything. I decide what I do with my privacy. I am thankful that Greg gets it.
P.S Welcome back, Steely Dan!

I honestly could care less whether or not a person uses their real name or not. What I look at is whether or not the poster is talking crap. For those of you who might not be aware, my full name is Gokay Hasan Yusuf (and my avatar is indeed a photo of me). However, I prefer to go by my middle name on the forum. Now maybe certain paranoid nut cases such as the Fez, Bertie Doyle, and psycho Bob might think that's evidence that I am a CIA agent, or that there are really two of me, but I know that's not how a sane person thinks.

[Hasan Yusuf]

P.S. I too would like to welcome back Steely Dan to the forum.

[dwdunn(akaDan)]

It is not okay to vanish hundreds and even thousands of a forum member's posts with no prior notice and there is no excuse for defending such abuse or continue to obsess about how wonderful a person the abuser is.

I can agree with that. I'm not even sure it would've been okay with prior notice, since there's a high probability that Cesar Chavez never did anybody any real harm, so a thread about him shouldn't either.

I forgot to include Tom Fairlee. Tom made the mistake of posting this, and poof! He was disappeared.........

I've figured out why my posts were not disappeared. I must have started too many threads. If you delete posts that happen to be opening posts, the entire threads become unreachable.

Kathy is still devoted to this lying, slurring, manipulator. He can do no wrong because he has not done it to her, yet.:
Note the dates......................

Simkin knew for six days that he had no justification to do more than privately criticize me. Kathy knows that. She also knows he had six days to make up a justification that was a fabrication, a lie, before he posted his thread on 9 June. I know I am preaching to the choir, Dan, but apparantly we enjoy a wider audience, so why not lay it out, again.

Yesterday, Kathy continued the admirable Ed Forum tradition of defending unrepentant liars. Ernie was directed to washout his prior posts with soap, on an 84 pages long thread, or else. The thread is that large because liars know they are welcome there and those who object to their intentional lying will be stopped from interfering.

Several points to reply to, which I can either do or not spend still more of my time doing. I choose the second option. Take care of yourself, Tom

[GuestGuest]

I will, Dan...and a few other individuals, as well. I have to think that if we make the consequences too dear, change we can believe in could break out....

And it’s important for us not to feel too sanctimonious in retrospect about the tough job that those folks had.....

August 8, 2014 at 5:02 pm

Jeff Morley:
“I haven’t watched this video yet. Based on the people involved (O’Sullivan, Horne, and Brugioni), I have no hesitation about posting.”

Douglas Horne on Aug 19, 2012: “…..Your attempt to suggest otherwise, via your citations, conveniently ignores this vital fact. Peter Janney has not identified Mitchell as Meyer’s murderer “because Mitchell could not be found,” as you claim; rather, he has identified Mitchell as Meyer’s murderer because Mitchellconfessed this to Damore. All the citations in the world will not erase
this fact…”

H.P. Albarelli, Jr. on May 29, 2013: “…[My source knew Mr. Mitchell quite well and indeed still communicates and occasionally visits with him; that I passed this on to peter was entirely appropriate.}…”
Peter Janney in paperback edition of his book, “Mary’s Mosaic:” pub. October 1, 2013: “…attorney James Smith’s notes….reflected Damore’s statements that William Mitchell had been married with five children and was now living under another name in Virginia. None of this appears to be true. In addition, the real William L. Mitchell was not seventy-four years old in 1993, but fifty-four. There has also been, so far, no indication that Mitchell had any liason with the FBI…”

Shane O’Sullivan claimed Gordon Campbell was one of three CIA officials at the Ambassador Hotel. Campbell’s great-niece: “He died of a heart attack in September, 1962; he couldn’t have been at The Ambassador where RFK was assassinated in 1968.”

Jeff, you gave John Simkin space here after he suddenly deleted more than 4600 posts by Jim DiEugenio on the Education Forum.

Why not have more hesitation, Jeff?

[Sponsored content]