Jump to content
The Education Forum

Mark Knight

Admin
  • Content Count

    1,958
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Mark Knight

  • Rank
    Super Member
  • Birthday 09/16/1954

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • Yahoo
    buzzman72

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Southern Indiana, USA
  • Interests
    1950's International trucks, Farmall tractors, 1946-47 Hudson automobiles, JFK assassination, pre-1980 rock 'n' roll...more later when I have time to think about it.

Recent Profile Visitors

16,584 profile views
  1. ...the Warren Omission report was released.
  2. That, too, was an oddity. In Texas, the customary welcoming gift of flowers was usually a bouquet of YELLOW roses. [Think of the song, "The Yellow Rose of Texas."] But this time, Jackie was given RED roses.
  3. Bronson appears to show the presidential limo slowing, in relation to the motorcycle escorts, the Queen Mary, and the VP car. That conflicts with what the existing Zapruder shows: a constant limo speed in relation to the background. I'm sure the LN'ers will conclude from this that Bronson has been altered.
  4. The blood pattern appears to reflect what would have happened if Jackie -- AND CLINT HILL -- had never returned to the rear seat of the limo after Jackie's excursion out onto the trunk lid. Refresh my memory: where/how did Jackie and Clint sit on the ride to Parkland so as not to have blood and brain matter on their backsides?
  5. So the gist of the argument here is...that first-day testimony is most reliable. Except when it's not. What do I mean? In DVP'S world, anything that contradicts the WC conclusions is unreliable, whether it's first-day testimony or not. Never mind that the first-day testimony is far less likely to be tainted by something the witness read, saw, or heard. If it conflicts with the WC conclusion, then the witness is either a liar or simply wrong. IOW, first-day testimony is "gospel" when it fits his preconceived notion of the truth...and when it conflicts, it's just wrong. The idea of challenging his preconceived notion of truth is beyond the lengths to which DVP is willing to go. Kinda like flat-Earth adherents.
  6. If you post to an older thread, it brings that thread back to "the top of the deck." Some like to check these older threads so they can refresh their memories about the previous discussion before replying.
  7. I'm one of the administrators of the forum. I've been here quite a few years. I used to visit daily, now it's less often due to the demands of life, with an older parent and I being the only family member living in close proximity...and with Medicare about to start for myself, while I'm hoping to last another 22-1/2 months on my day job so I can qualify to keep my insurance when I retire. As an admin, I don't participate in the discussions as much as I once did. I enjoyed the discussions and the email exchanges with the late Gerry Patrick Hemming and the late Tom Purvis. Truth is, many of the older folks who either knew something (Hemming) or did extensive research (like Purvis purchasing his own 6.5 mm Carcano rifle) have either passed on or have developed health issues. I bought Larry Hancock's SOMEONE WOULD HAVE TALKED in 2010, and I appreciate Larry sticking by the forum and clarifying details for members who may have a lack of clarity on some of the stuff Larry has researched and has written about. Personally, I still believe that asking WHO BENEFITTED from various aspects of the case can help us find the truth. In the broader 1960-1974 context, I still think the political assassinations, assassination attempts (George Wallace) and figurative assassinations (Chappaquiddick) all are elements leading to the rise and fall of Richard Nixon. I think the "bungled" assassination attempts on the life of Gerald Ford were warning shots, to keep Ford "on-script." I think it all ties back to the Warren Omission and "the Bay of Pigs thing." But my available time to research is limited, in more ways than one. Ask questions. You'll seldom find the answer to an unarmed question. Mil Intel...even though Oswald was an ex-Marine, could he have been working for Army Intel instead of the more obvious ONI? I think that's an under-researched area of investigation.
  8. It can be convincingly argued that the person who benefitted most from the JFK assassination, the MLK assassination, the RFK assassination, Chappaquiddick, and the shooting of George Wallace...was Richard Nixon. What are the odds that this is all coincidence? I would think the odds of all these Nixon-benefitting events occurring unrelated is microscopic. But you draw your own conclusions.
  9. I just donated, and I'd like to put a CHALLENGE out to the other FORUM members: If we could all donate a minimum of $10 by Friday, we could go a long way toward paying the bill that's due on Saturday the 11th. If your circumstances allow you to donate more than $10---say, on the order of a $35 "subscription"--I would encourage you all to do so. Only YOU know what your current means will allow. But we can NOT let this FORUM go down without a fight. $130 a month equals $1,560 a year. Surely we can round up enough donations to ensure the next 12 months of operation, can't we? If 45 members would donate $35 a year for a subscription, that would cover 12 months of operation.
  10. I "met" him on a JFK assassination discussion board right after my wife and I got our first computer in 1998. The depth of his knowledge amazed me at the time.
×
×
  • Create New...