Jump to content
The Education Forum

Mark Knight

Admin
  • Posts

    2,362
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Mark Knight

  • Birthday 09/16/1954

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • Yahoo
    buzzman72

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Southern Indiana, USA
  • Interests
    Old Hudson and AMC cars, old International pickup trucks, JFK assassination discussions, self-improvement leading toward peace.

Recent Profile Visitors

17,960 profile views

Mark Knight's Achievements

Rising Star

Rising Star (9/14)

  • Conversation Starter
  • Dedicated
  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Posting Machine Rare

Recent Badges

  1. An absence of evidence does not equate to evidence of absence.
  2. As we approach November 2023, 60 years following JFK's assassination, I ask my fellow Education Forum members who are able to please contribute in order to fund the forum going forward. No, we are not exactly in DIRE financial straits, but I bring this up to prevent that from occurring. There is a sticky post on the first page of the EF JFK Assassination Discussion Forum that instructs members on how to donate to the forum. We appreciate each and every donation, no matter how large or small. Thank you.
  3. As we approach November 2023, 60 years following JFK's assassination, I ask my fellow Education Forum members who are able to please contribute in order to fund the forum going forward. No, we are not exactly in DIRE financial straits, but I bring this up to prevent that from occurring. There is a sticky post on the first page of the EF JFK Assassination Discussion Forum that instructs members on how to donate to the forum. We appreciate each and every donation, no matter how large or small. Thank you.
  4. I have had that suspicion for years. Probably the truth. Look at a list of JFK's enemies: * Pro-Castro Cubans. * Anti-Castro Cubans. * Mafia. * CIA factions. And likely others. Each could go to their sponsors after the assassination, claim credit, get paid, and disappear. And other than the ACTUAL assassin(s), evidence would lead to each of the factions. All but one , upon investigation, would be a trip down a rabbit hole. Which pretty much describes where we are today.
  5. Ben, Let's get back to dealing in facts, please. Richard Nixon was NOT impeached. The House was drawing up articles of impeachment, and the Senate was prepared to convict Nixon...Republicans as well as Democrats. But Nixon resigned. While you're entitled to form your own opinions, you are NOT entitled to conjure up "facts" not based upon evidence. Historically, William Jefferson Clinton was the first President since Andrew Johnson to be impeached. Nixon was no more impeached than Abraham Lincoln, James Garfield, William McKinley, and JFK were impeached. And I'm sure that information is widely available.
  6. "Idolizing a politician -- ANY politician -- is very much like believing the stripper really likes you." -- Some wise person, sometime in the past.
  7. When RFK Jr. is SPECIFICALLY discussing the JFK assassination, that would be relevant to this forum. When he mentions it peripherally in a general political speech, that speech is only peripherally connected to this forum and is better suited to the Political Discussions forum. Just because JFK was his uncle, that doesn't make HIS political speeches any more relevant to this forum than speeches by Trump, DeSantis, Biden, Christie, Haley, or any other politician. It's really a simple concept. It truly is.
  8. Revenge. It's the path to a multitude of rabbit holes. Mafia. Anti-Castro Cubans. Pro-Castro Cubans. "And the beat goes on; yeah, the beat goes on." Because, to a degree, all these revenge seekers have both motives and resources. If you want to tie up ALL the political assassinations on US soil in the '60s and early '70s in a neat little package, consider...Richard Nixon. After the '62 California gubernatorial election, "You won't have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore" was Nixon's pouty response. Yet 6 years later, he's POTUS. MLK's assassination didn't benefit the Democrats, but it helped Nixon's campaign by removing a charismatic pro-Democratic Party leader. RFK's assassination helped Nixon by...yep, you guessed it...removing a charismatic Democratic leader. After RFK's death, Gene McCarthy folded his campaign and the anything-but-charismatic Hubert Humphrey became the Democratic Party nominee, handing the Presidency to Nixon. Fast-forward to '72. Even though McGovern's campaign imploded, George Wallace's campaign as an independent raised the possibility that the three-way race might not be decided by the Electoral College, but by the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives. So George Wallace is shot. Cui buono? Who benefits? Nixon. But Watergate showed us that Nixon wasn't at the head of the pyramid. Once Nixon had served his masters' purpose, the skids under him were greased with the release of the flood of Watergate evidence, and Nixon's time as POTUS was done. Figure out who was behind all of Nixon's pre-Watergate "good fortune," and I believe you'll discover the persons behind not only the JFK assassination but the others as well. Because I don't believe that history occurs in a vacuum. I think the JFK assassination was their first "success" on US soil, and that emboldened them to continue right through '72, if not beyond.
  9. It's obvious to anyone who will open their eyes that the candidacy of RFJ Jr. is not SOLELY about releasing the JFK assassination records. If that was the case, then his candidacy would be a topic for the JFK assassination discussion forum. But he's not a single-issue candidate; nor should he be, if he expects to gain a wide swath of voter support. But as a candidate for the highest office in the USA, UNLESS he's directly discussing the JFK assassination, the discussion of his candidacy rightfully belongs in the Political Discussions forum area of The Education Forum. The Education Forum has areas to discuss many things, especially things important to teachers. The RFK Jr. candidacy is no more germain to the JFK assassination discussion than the discussions on teaching German or Spanish or French...which also have their own SEPARATE discussion forums on The Education Forum. That's really not such a difficult concept to grasp. For most of us.
  10. Seems everything needs a disclaimer these days. Oh...and "Objects in mirror may be larger than they appear." I suppose that includes chances of more war as well.
  11. As a kid in the 1960s, I was told that the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were "justified" due to the atrocities the Japanese committed against Allied POWs. I was told that they were justified to keep from fighting a war IN Japan with a projected heavy loss of Allied lives. But having lived through the Vietnam War years, I must question why the Allies were never caught committing any similar atrocities. Did they not happen? Or were they like Mi Lai in 'Nam, which only came out after someone "squealed" on Lt. Calley & Co.? THERE IS NOTHING MORAL ABOUT WAR. All the talk of the Geneva Convention aside, the entire point of war is NOT following rules and conventions. It's about "winning." Whatever that means. Most wars are begun about either territory, raw material access [sometimes the same thing], or about stealing some asset(s) from the region being attacked. Or it's about power over an adversary, as the Soviet missiles in Cuba would have given the USSR some knife-to-the-throat leverage over the US in '62. But wars are almost never begun to uphold a principle, although they're sold to the public as such. The possible exception to that might be religious wars, but even those have eventually ended up being about the spoils the winner may collect. Since I was a member of my high school's Class of 1972, I was one of those who questioned what we were being told "for our own good." Most of which, we've eventually determined, were lies, half-truths, or intentionally misleading statements meant to obfuscate what was really going on. [I wasn't a "dope-smoking hippie," but I sometimes could be found in the company of one or more of them.] And George Carlin was our guide through the BS, much as Jon Stewart is the guide for the current generation [at least those who will listen]. Is it ironic that a few of the comedians of a generation are the best at ascertaining the truth? I know that tradition goes back at least as far as Will Rogers in my grandparents' generation. If you can show me any war that was begun by the side that remained 100% morally right throughout the conduct of that war, I take my hat off to you. General Smedley Butler said, "War is a racket." "War; [good God, y'all!] What is it good for?" We all know the answer. It takes the lives of the strong young men of a nation, and it drains the treasuries of nations. It kills civilians as well as soldiers, because there has never, ever been a war without "collateral damage." So was dropping the bombs on Hiroshima any more immoral than any other aspect of war, which kills innocent civilians and destroys homes, schools, businesses, and hospitals? The photos we've seen of hundreds of bodies either burned or buried in huge trenches during war...have we established a scale of atrocities yet? NONE of it is good. We learned that 17 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Saudis...so we attacked...[checks notes]...Iraq. And for good measure we added another war in Afghanistan, urinating away billions of dollars down a rathole similar to what the USSR did in the 1980s...but using more sophisticated and expensive weaponry to do so.
  12. The Torbitt document has never been verified. Like the datebook, its provenance has never been established.
  13. Here's a link to EVERY area of The Education Forum: Forums - The Education Forum (ipbhost.com) It's also the EF home page.
×
×
  • Create New...