Jeff and all, I have indicated earlier that I will refrain from further discussion of the TJ-SH conversation but upon seeing an announcement that Annette Gordon-Reed is in a race for a great award at one of the "great award" groups, I find that I must forward more information to the concerned VA-HIST reader. You and I and certain other readers, several who have contacted me personally, WISH to hear more and you DESERVE to hear more. Yes, regarding this particular controversy MUCH censorship, false reporting, denial of publishing of letter-to-editor, is an everyday occurrence for those of us who oppose slanted, biased and a refusal to publish "the other side of the story." Many letters-to-editor have been sent to the Charlottesville community newspapers but not published for "for some reason", couldn't be that the former editor of the daily paper is a public relations director at Monticello, could it???? Could it be that the whole Charlottesville area is a victim of CENSORSHIP? 1. Dr Foster started this whole misunderstanding by testing a KNOWN carrier of the Jefferson DNA, John Weeks Jefferson, per Eston Family long tradition that they descended from "A Jefferson uncle" meaning Randolph. THEN he WITHHELD (deception or censorship, you decide), this fact from Nature and others. 2. Nature did NOT know of any other Jeffersons available, he didn't tell them, thus they wrote the false headline, "Jefferson fathers slave's last child", they could write it because he never told them of other suspects (censorship or deception)...you fill in the blanks? In the later Jan 7, 1999 issue of Nature he did clarify his findings and ADMIT that other Jeffersons were suspect also. 3. Dr Foster appeared at a Monticello media event WITHOUT my comments on the Jefferson DNA or family genealogy, even though I pleaded to be present, (censorship, denial or deception indicated)...you determine? 4. Dr. Daniel Jordan, Monticello President, grabbed the study with Dr Foster's NON historical (he's a retired pathologist) NOT a historian and has told me so, explanation that "the simplest explanation" was that it may have been TJ who fathered Eston Hemings. (Is this censorship or deception and denial of another point of information?) 5. Many Washington Post writers were completely "burying" Mr. Jefferson in unproven and biased reporting and I complained to the Post ombudsman. It took this accurate and truthful lady six months to study my complaints and finally issue a long and great article, "blast" 8 of that paper's reporters for bias and misreporting and identified them by name. 6. Certain reporters at NYT do the same thing and I have complained also to that paper's ombudsman (they use another name), but after many, many months there is yet NO reply. One reporter, Brent Staples, continuously writes unproven statements and lately has appeared with Annette Gordon-Reed at a book signing event. I have sent him articles.no publishing of my letters and equally true of letters-to editors there. (Is this censorship and the denial of opposing views?) 7. When A&E Biography and PBS Frontline wanted to produce a Sally Hemings special they called me to participate and sent a crew to interview me. For about an hour I was interviewed (Biography in my home) and PBS at the Monticello Cemetery) and neither ever allowed a word to get to the public. (Is this censorship or is this political correctness in an attempt to revise history?) 8. I asked Dan Jordan, Monticello President, to assist in the Monticello study, he chose all Monticello employees, and I sent him many of my research papers and a video of the entire study. I am informed that the researchers never saw these important study materials. (Censorship and biased denial of research that could have resulted in a much different evaluation?) 9. One of the above employees, Dr. Ken Wallenborn, a long time guide there, saw bias and pre-determined determined to find Mr. Jefferson guilty at any cost and he wrote a Minority Report that "was swept under the carpet" by Dan Jordan. Even some of the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation Board members were not aware of this most undesirable and detestable action. When I raised a vigorous complaint then Dr. Jordan apologized to Dr. Wallenborn. (Is this censorship by those in command, is it a deceitful attempt to stifle oppositional research from the "other side?" 10, Shortly after Dr Foster turned the DNA Study results over to Dr. Jordan and he launched his study, Chaired by an African-American oral family history specialist, (they only convened for a short period of about three months), there was a slavery conference held at UVA. The usual "friendly book authors crowd", Dr Foster, the Monticello representatives, including Dianne Swann-Wright, Chairman of the biased Monticello Study, Annette Gordon-Reed, Prof. Peter Onuf, owner of the Monticello History Chair at UVA, Prof. Jan Lewis, co sponsor of the forum and historian at Rutgers (where Annette Gordon-Reed now holds forth as a historian), some Hemings relatives and others. I was denied a seat at the panel even though Prof Onuf had invited me down there. Upon arrival I was embarrassed and asked to sit among the large audience and express my views in ONE question or statement when asked to approach the open mike by moderator, NAACP Chairman, Julian Bond, who is one of 10 prominent African-Americans on the Monticello Getting Word Project. It is this project that had input to the official Monticello DNA Study by Chairman, Dianne Swann-Wright who also headed the study. (Anyone note any censorship, or denial of access to be seated?) Many members at this UVA Slavery Forum traveled around to various campuses at Randolph-Macon Women's College, University of Richmond, Yale and others to dispense this "one sided and biased information. Please remember that these "authorities and experts" were NOT DNA Study experts, I and Dr Foster were. At the Randolph Macon Women's College a thoroughly disgusting professor of history, Prof. d'entremet was most unkind and degrading to those of us who would "DARE oppose their thoughts" and he even, in a most unprofessional manner, accused us of believing in the "flat earth policy, whatever that means. Someone mentioned that we were "CRAZY" but Annette Gordon-Reed did disagree with that statement but added her own unflattering assessment of us. Yes, I have the video of both the UVA and RMWC forums. Jeff, I have tried to be as brief and informative as possible here but there is MUCH more to this agenda being played out on the unsuspecting public. Herb Barger Jefferson Family Historian -----Original Message----- From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008 1:45 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Moderation I would be pleased to hear more. I get sick of the character assassination of a great American who is not available to defend himself, and who few seem willing to defend in this PC world we are in. Jeff Southmayd In a message dated 10/16/2008 1:31:50 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [log in to unmask] writes: Mr. J. South, You are entirely correct. He or she who holds the mike, camera or pen controls the public's image as I have found in the ten years of trying to get the truth of the TJ-SH out to the public. The same holds true for those who control "POISON" mikes, cameras and pens. If anyone is interested in hearing more please advise. Note the earlier post about the Annette Gordon-Reed book award being proposed......AND she will win....in my opinion. Herb Barger Jefferson Family Historian -----Original Message----- From: Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of [log in to unmask] Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 3:22 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [VA-HIST] Moderation Let's be honest, censorship is what is being sought. What is the problem with admitting that? Censor 1: a person who supervises conduct and morals: as a: an official who examines materials (as publications or films) for objectionable matter b: an official (as in time of war) who reads communications (as letters) and deletes material considered sensitive or harmful ; Censorship 1 a: the institution, system, or practice of _censoring_ (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censoring) b: the actions or practices of _censors_ (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censors) ; especially : _censorial_ (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censorial) control exercised repressively J South **************New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination. Dining, Movies, Events, News & more. Try it out (http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000002) ______________________________________ To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html ______________________________________ To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html _____ New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination. Dining, Movies, Events, News & more. Try <http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1211031713x1200669822/aol?redir=htt p://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000002> it out! ______________________________________ To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html