Is J Simkin 2000's Penn Jones? I am asking because LNs seem out to lunch?

[Tom Scully]

No worries, Tom!

Thanks for the link provided, I did poke around a bit and was delighted to see you had the cousin thing going (quoted out of context):

Anybody else discern a double meaning in Edward Baldwin's televised aside to his first cousin's, Liz Ziegler's husband, Jim Garrison?

Parnell's desire to share his "findings" when it comes to the WC seems to be wishful thinking on your part as I see no sign of Parnell returning from his CT bashing crusade any time soon.

Otto, researchers tend to present and focus their efforts on what they believe they have found irrefutable (persuasive) proof of. I agree W. Tracey Parnell indicates he has concluded the WC "got it right" in its Report. We all have biases. The key question is whether our biases (in approaching what we focus on as researchers) slant our presentations; film, book, lecture, or forum threads/posts to the degree the facts supporting them stand up to scrutiny of other researchers.

I spent several years as one of the Ed Forum monitors and, more recently, as the sole comments editor of jfkfacts.org for ten months, beginning in October, 2015. In that role, I read and approved, or not, every submitted comment continuing, today to appear on that site, during that time span. Day in, day out, that experience was an eye opener.

Can you agree with this observation.... the self censorship on the Ed Forum is more pronounced (creepy, see NBA coddling China) there than it is on this forum or on the DPF, and much more rigid than on the McAdams google newsgroup.

Facts that have not appeared on the Ed Forum but have appeared on this forum, on DPF and on McAdams newsgroup, to name just two examples.:

(I have a high regard for his work so I exposed Steve Thomas to the fact Garrison kept secrets from authors and a movie maker who thought highly of him, despite Clay Shaw keeping the identical secrets, even as his freedom was threatened by a criminal prosecution. Steve's only public response I have detected, since my private presentation to him.:

Posted 21 hours ago
Jim,

Congratulations Jim!
Two questions:

1) Did you enjoy working with Stone?; and,
2) Was he faithful to your work?
I hope the answer is yes to both.

Steve Thomas

)

Discovered/published in 2015:

https://jfkfacts.org/provocative-prolific-joan-mellen/#comment-869223
.....

...........

Discovered/published in July, 2019:

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?13456-John-Judge-on-Donald-Norton&p=125902#post125902
Tom Scully - 07-28-2019, 04:00 AM

Updated on 29 July, after reading Mr. Kovach's post. Thank you, sir. I am adding link to source of the 1968 photo below of Norton in army uniform.
The source article image also includes a contemporary photo of Lexie. I am trying to avoid displaying too many images in the same forum thread page due
to a monthly bandwidth limit on a VPS account hosting these images. Readers will understand after viewing the article image.:
......

2018 Article Image Link (Source link directly above, but link at left provides immediate viewing. I blacked out grandchildren names.)

Now, Otto, in order to avoid a double standard in your criticism of W Tracey Parnell's work, do you think it is reasonable for the community of posters on the Ed Forum to be more concerned about defending the published assertions of authors DiEugenio or Armstrong instead of freely discussing newer, irrefutable facts? It seems forced, artificial, anti "follow the facts wherever they lead us."

Otto, Hargrove and the posters of the Ed Forum seem to prefer readers consume this, instead of the facts presented nearly three months ago. You dismiss Mr. Parnell as agenda driven. I do not see him willfully misleading anyone in any specific presentation. His bias is a different story. I have a bias closer to yours. So what?

http://harveyandlee.net/Norton/Norton.html
Donald O. and Donald P. Norton
by John Armstrong
HARVEY Oswald and LEE Oswald (11/22/63)
......

Summary

There is something very strange about Donald O. Norton, his life, and his background. After all, why would someone send money to Mae Brussel for her research, appear to Mae and John to be nearly identical to Lee Harvey Oswald, talk for hours about Oswald's past life, and then all but disappear? Please understand that while there is good reason to believe that Donald O. Norton was/is the real LEE Oswald, there is no proof. Perhaps the only way to prove or disprove if Norton is LEE Oswald is with DNA testing.
......
All of my materials related to Donald O. Norton and Donald P. Norton are in the Baylor collection and available to anyone and everyone. I encourage people to learn more about Donald O. Norton, his wife Lexie, and his children. The 55th reunion of Norton's Stowe high school senior class is coming up in a few years (2021). It would be interesting to attend and ask 1966 classmates about Donald Norton--his height/eye color/hair color, if Norton entered the military after high school, if anyone saw him after high school, knew of his whereabouts, or if he ever attended any class reunion. Hopefully, someday, we may learn the truth about the man who introduced himself to John Judge and Mae Brussel as Donald Norton.

I'm not all that popular, Otto. I am unwilling to pay the dues because I refuse to be a hypocrite back slapping my hypocrite pals. These higher profile people "marketing" to the CT "community," with the possible exception of Larry Hancock and very few others, enable each others' misleading the readers they influence....the result is the blind leading the blind.

[Tom Scully]

.......

I’ll defend, however, the many other writers that are chastised above. The reading public at large wants the finished product, not ingredients. Tom is unique. I can’t blame others for not having his vision and talent. Furthermore, I want to thank the vast majority of writers who display great courage in pursuing what they do. I wish they all could likewise respect each other for that, even if they think the others are wrong.

Michael, and Ms. Krotsch, thank you. It would take a thread to explain the clash of thinking "dictating" the approach counter to mine. I'll try to present a brief outline with one "prime" example. I'm sure you've noticed how Lance has been posting lately. His frustration is similar to mine. I had a favorable opinion of him until he voiced his strong objection to the right of women to control what goes on in their own bodies.

I am convinced most prefer not to be informed of new, verifiable research details. In fact, exposure to it is resented, often angrily.

Background: Jean Davison and a poster named Brian with a brief, strong presence triggered my interest in November, 2015. The result was all of this research, in chronological order.

My research definitely hit a nerve.:
https://web.archive.org/web/20160419175050/http://jfk.education/node/11
Sorry Brian, Jean, and DVP, Banks Did Not Key-Punch 1963 P.O. Money Orders
Submitted by Admin on Tue, 11/10/2015 - 06:47
Updated November 19, 2015:....

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?6432-Armstrong-Of-Covert-Ops-Fake-Marines-of-Classifieds-of-Cabbages-and-Kings&p=104691#post104691
Tom Scully  11-18-2015, 11:24 PM

Is the creation of a second thread on this same topic, with a title calling out someone who is not a member here and who has quoted much of the research I came up with and presented in my last post on this thread, really necessary?

A theory is being defended, and we will see more of this defense in the coming days, as Jim DiEugenio is announcing the coming of, at least twice in the past two days. Why the eagerness? We were told that the money order diplayed in the image below was located by the government, in the wrong place....that Washington, DC was the wrong place....

When you have elected to apply the most sinister explanation for the research details you deem applicable, what happens when some of your claims just do not stand up; considering your methodology was originally prejudiced?
........
We were told that all postal money orders must display a Federal Reserve Bank endorsement stamp. We were told that the $21.45 postal money order issued in Dallas and date March 12, displayed a grossly out of sequence serial number, a "future" number indicating that the money order was only created after the JFK Assassination, that it was "faked" and "found" in the wrong place, i.e., not at the Postal Money Order Center in Kansas City, MO. I did my own research, just this past week, and now things have changed, and exciting "new" research details will be revealed by the same source that told us the "things" I described above..... I hope readers are wondering just what is fake, and what is not actually supported.

https://www.computer.org/csdl/proceedings/afips/1966/5068/00/50680479.pdf
(Lance Payette brought this to my attention, today.).......

Two pages of supporting research of discoveries outline above.:
https://web.archive.org/web/20160419152939/http://jfk.education/node/12

https://web.archive.org/web/20160419180202/http://jfk.education/node/13

I have never directly communicated with Lance but together, we inadvertently went to a "don't go there," territory that collided with "finished product".

Michael, even reading it four years later, it still seems so divorced from the way I think and the approach I take. It seems
a concrete overcoat with an anchor chain wrapped around any researcher's neck, for good measure.

MWT Graves had suggested Jim let up on Lance, in an Ed Forum post.

James DiEugenio - Posted November 19, 2015 (edited)
Tommy (Graves):

If you don't have anything of substance to say, then don't say anything. Just read and maybe you will pick up something. First it was a unified field conspiracy theory and now its deep breathing exercises. Whew. Almost makes me wish Trejo was here. :help

DVP's last is more of his patented sophistry.

This is a fact. Pure and simple: The rifle that the WC says Oswald ordered is not the rifle in evidence. Its the wrong rifle. Period. He can fulminate and stomp his feet and fall on the floor about it and throw his usual John Barrymore tantrums a la Bugliosi. He's been doing it for years, decades actually.

None of that will erase this fact. Its the wrong rifle by length, weight and classification.

And there is no credible evidence Oswald ever picked it up. And in fact, he could not have picked it up by postal regs. So the WC lied about this. And they used Harry Holmes to do so. For a very succinct treatment of this see Stewart Galanor's book called, appropriately enough, Cover Up. He deals with it in about four pages, and half of them are primary documents he got from writing the Postmaster General.

Harry Holmes' testimony contradicted that evidence. Either that or Galanor forged the letter he wrote and the documents he was sent. (Incredible the way these anti conspiracy guys end up embracing these fantastic solutions to their evidentiary problems.)

Now, my general point is this: how can an attorney (Lance) isolate one tiny part of this transaction and say its valid, based on that one point. When, in fact, everything about it--from A to Z-- is dubious. And the guy who started the whole MO mess is Holmes! Who he ignores.

By doing so, is he not then guilty of doing the thing he says is true about the people he criticizes?

James DiEugenio  - Posted November 19, 2015 (edited)
​I will repeat this for your benefit, I think everyone else got it:

Now, my general point is this: how can an attorney isolate one part of this transaction and say its valid, based on that one point. When, in fact, everything about it is dubious. By doing so, is he not then guilty of doing the thing he says is true about the people he criticizes?

​To make a point of comparison: its like saying Humes' beveling idea overrides all the problems with the autopsy.

Yeah, sure it does.

I had stumbled into and presented an evidence heavy, reasonable explanation of all Klein's postal money order Armstrong "outliers" and Lance had found the purpose for the numbers string (138....etc.) inked onto the front of the $21.45 money order.:


A "third" way is unappreciated and unwelcome.