Mark Knight

By my count, that makes around 18 $5 donations. I was hoping to see twice that. So that would make the total donors of $5 or more at 22.

Thank you. That's much clearer. The absence of evidence [the radio station announcement prior to 1:35 PM doesn't mean that it didn't occur, but it also doesn't mean that it did. I just want to make sure that's clear in the minds of those reading the thread. People lie. People get confused. People get what's now known as "the Mandela effect." [Google it.] So Brewer's statements, while they may be intended as honest, may not actually reflect the things that happened in the sequence or timing that he believes they did. It doesn't make him a prevaricator. It might simply mean that not all his memories are exactly as events happened. In light of that, we must be careful how much weight we give to each element. Maybe KBOX had it on the air prior to 1:35 pm. But if the Tippit shooting occurred in the timeline DVP believes it did, as a former broadcaster myself I have trouble believing that a man declared dead at 1:25 pm would have an announcement made on the radio, even one NOT mentioning his name, within 5 minutes of the "official" time of death. [Had Tippit been declared dead at 1:15 rather than 1:25, which DVP doesn't believe occurred, a 1:30 announcement may have been possible on a day such as November 22, 1963.]

Had I even ONCE cited nonexistent evidence, as DVP does in the Brewer claim to have heard about the Tippit shooting on the radio, DVP would have trampled me with both feet for pushing a claim with no supporting evidence. I have [somewhere on CD] a LOOONNGG-running recording from KLIF on November 22, 1963, which came from the ReelRadio website over 15 years ago. But NO ONE, to date, has been able to produce a similar broadcast from any other radio station in Dallas announcing the shooting of Tippit within the timeframe Brewer claimed to have heard it. Nor is there such a transcript of a broadcast...to date. The lack of supporting evidence, once again, introduces something that DVP detests being raised in the Oswald case: REASONABLE DOUBT. Because, absent the evidence, there is REASONABLE DOUBT that Brewer heard what he claims to have heard. In the Oswald case, there is enough REASONABLE DOUBT behind much of the so-called "evidence" that, had Oswald lived to stand trial, a competent defense attorney [UNLIKE Alex Jones' attorney] might have gotten an acquittal on one, if not both, of the murders on November 22, 1963.

I, too, am NOT in favor of "pay to play." As James has pointed out, that would defeat the purpose of the forum, as established by John Simkin. I still correspond occasionally with John, and I have great respect for what he and Andy began here. As one of the administrators, I feel a strong duty to try to uphold the standards that John began here. I also have no trouble admitting that I have a problem with how some members address criticisms of their posts. BUT if they stay within the forum rules, a grit my teeth and allow the discussion to continue, Especially so if I disagree with the criticism, but understand that the criticism might bring about further clarity in a reply from the one who was criticized. I do NOT wish for The Education Forum to devolve into a "swamp," where profanity and personal attacks become the primary mode of communication. I [and the other administrators] continue to receive requests to rejoin the forum from people who have been removed for cause. Most of these requests are filled with invective against the forum itself and the administrators, and generally lack any promise to abide by the forum rules. To those for whom this may apply, who may be lurking since they no longer have posting privileges -- and posting here IS a privilege, not a right -- attacking the forum itself and the administrators is not the way to sway our opinions to your favor. We do NOT "censor" LNers. We do NOT "censor" adherents to the Harvey and Lee theory. We do NOT "censor" people on either side of the Prayer Man discussion. We do our humanly best to be even-handed in our moderation and administration of the forum. Sometimes we may be slow on the draw, because there are so few of us and we cannot be here on the forum 24/7. We try to "err," if that's what it is, on the side of promoting intelligent discussion, including those with which we personally disagree. A "pay-to-play" forum would run contrary to the way the forum currently operates. "Pay-to-play" would imply that the moderators would have little control, since "I paid for the right to say that!" would come into play. What about a no-refund policy? would that "discriminate" against those who might later get banned for failure to adhere to forum rules after paying? I believe that "pay-to-play" would have an overall negative effect on the forum. These Are just some of the thoughts and issues I'm dealing with today. I'm soon to be 68 years old, and if I could guarantee my health and mental acuity into my 90s, I would volunteer to take on the fiduciary duties of the forum. But I've already outlived my dad [heart problems at 61] and while my grandmother on Mom's side lived to be almost 101 and was sharp to the end, my mom had dementia and died at 88. So the only thing I can guarantee is today, and the only part of today that's guaranteed is right now. We have proven in the past that the forum CAN operate on donations. I think we can continue in that form. But we need to have a "chief financial officer" to ride herd on the Paypal account, and by posting a monthly financial report [income, disbursements, and account balance] I believe this CFO could easily perform the fiduciary duties with a minimum of effort.

But how could he have been armed? Ben has assured us that NONE of them were armed...except perhaps the imbedded G-men. [Where's that damn flashing "SARCASM" light when you really need it?]

My dad was 5-11 and he wore a size 8-1/2 shoe. I used to borrow his dress shoes for school dances in junior high. Now I'm 6-1 and wear a size 13. But a size 8-1/2 on a person 5-11 isn't out of line in my limited experience.

The Education Forum is MUCH more than the JFK Assassination Discussion Forum. We still have ALL of the education-related forums we had under the previous administration. So while this particular forum may occupy the most bandwidth, we are still an EDUCATION forum, as our name states. And educational nonprofits do qualify as 501(c)(3) organizations.

The Paypal account sounds like a great idea. We need one person to manage it for The Education Forum, but not to have income for the EF to show up as personal income for tax purposes. In Indiana, where I live, you can start a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation for a $50 filing fee. The corporation must have at least 3 directors, and a street address as a registered office within the State of Indiana. Here are the procedures: ttps://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/forming-nonprofit-corporation-indiana-36062.html#:~:text=You%20will%20need%20to%20create%20and%20file%20nonprofit,articles.%20Or%2C%20you%20can%20file%20your%20articles%20online. The current administrators can become the Board of Directors in the nonprofit corporation. That would likely be the quickest route to achieving incorporation, obtaining an EIN to open a business bank account, and getting the future of the Education Forum settled. If someone has a better idea, I'm open to hearing it. But it seems a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation would be the route to pursue. But we need to do it quickly, if we're going to do it.

I bought the Menninger book when it came out. I thought the theory put forth by Cunningham was plausible. But as time went on, and more facts came to light, I let go of that theory. An accidental shooting of the President WOULD make the conspiracy vs lone nut argument moot. If even ONE of the SS agents came forward, even with a deathbed confession, and confirmed the theory, it would have made the JFK assassination "industry" go away overnight. [And if you're selling books or other products, you're part of an industry.] The Sixth Floor Museum closes. David Von Pein and Jim DiEugenio become close friends. We all grab a Coke and sing in perfect harmony. [OK, those last two ARE stretches, even for a fantasy.] The trouble is, life is messy. Life doesn't happen that way. Sometimes, we NEVER know 100% of the truth. Sometimes, it's impossible to wrap things up in a perfect package tied in a perfect bow. The JFK assassination story is just such an event. Maybe once we die, if our theory is correct and we are THEN allowed to know the Great truths of All Things, we may learn the answer. But until then, there is REASONABLE DOUBT about the WC conclusions, the HSCA conclusions, and every conspiracy theory that I've ever heard. As Larry Hancock's book title states, "Someone Would Have Talked," even if JFK's death was the result of a horrific, one-in-a-hundred-quintillion chance of an accidental shot by the people who were guarding him. To date, NO ONE has talked. There's no Ricky White in the sons and daughters of the SS agents in Dallas that day who has mentioned anything that would validate this theory. Neither for love nor money has such a corroborative witness come forward. I'm guessing such a witness never will.

Tariffs paid, of course, by AMERICANS, not China. Want to place tariffs that will cost China? Make them EXPORT tariffs they must pay for American goods. Yes, I understand that would hamper US industrial production and sales to China. But that's the only way CHINA pays the tariffs. [Yes, I realize that Americans would pay for the CONSEQUENCES of export tariffs. I understand how it works.] Placing tariffs on IMPORTS from China costs AMERICANS more. China doesn't pay a damn dime. And YOU should know that. Since US consumers are addicted to cheap Chinese goods, that raises prices for the same goods. Y'know what THAT'S called? INFLATION.

From the news I saw all last week, Pelosi was bound and determined to make the visit to Taiwan, MUCH to the consternation of State Department "experts" who said that with Xi in a muscle-flexing mood, a Pelosi visit would be seen as a "provocation." In light of that, with one superpower mired in a war in the Ukraine, it doesn't seem prudent to "provoke" another one with China. I believe someone within the administration "prevailed" upon Pelosi to change her mind for the sake of world peace. So I don't see "a Pelosi fist-bump with Xi" occurring within my lifetime. But you're entitled to your own opinion.

That kind of act would bias me against the POSTER of the images, rather than the SUBJECT of the images. You seem to think that those who oppose Trump think Biden is the best thing since sliced bread. I can only speak for myself, but that's a LONG way from how I view the current POTUS. I simply think he's better than Trump. That's not a tall hurdle to leap. Oh, and just for the record...I voted for John Anderson, and I voted for H. Ross Perot [the first time he ran]. So don't assume that I'm some sort of hard-core Democrat. I think the "deep state" is owned by the oligarchy. From that perspective, Trump's acts as President favored the "deep state." But of course, you're entitled to your own opinion as well.

This particular thread seems to have gotten more leeway than most [ANY?] other, so since I'm not wearing an Admin or Moderator hat on this thread, I'm not going to make any judgements about what's already been posted. You CAN ridicule Trump's appearance here, but it does nothing to strengthen or support any other arguments. That was my point, nothing else. As far as informants go, I would suppose that there are two types: those with government ties who are embedded, and those who are part of an organization who, for whatever personal reasons, become whistleblowers. Until we know differently, we cannot assume into which category Person 1, Person 2, and/or Person 3 fall. To attempt to do so without supporting evidence falls into the SWAG category, as far as I'm concerned [SWAG = "Scientific" Wild-A** Guess]. Making such an assumption bears the risk of being completely wrong.

I'm no fan of Trump. I believe he belongs behind bars, upon conviction. That said, I don't think criticizing his appearance makes him any more or less guilty. Let his actions themselves convince you of innocence or guilt. But that's just the way I think. The link Douglas Caddy posted clearly shows that Matt Goetz was involved in witness tampering with Roger Stone. If Goetz wasn't doing so on his own volition -- and there's no reason that he would -- then he was speaking as a representative of Trump, who indeed did make Stone's conviction "go away." They have video to go with the hot mic recording. Someone should be arrested based upon that evidence. My fear is that BC and others who think as he does believe the person responsible for the hot mic and the video should be arrested instead of the actual perps.

Apparently the FBI was pushing the "commie" angle quite hard in the MLKjr case.

I find it quite telling that those who call the testimony taken by the January 6th Committee "lies" aren't as willing to testify under oath about what they claim the "lies" are. They go to Twitter and other social media, but don't volunteer to swear an oath that they will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."

And THIS is what prevented a constitutional crisis that was planned to subvert our democracy. The killing of Pelosi and Pence were, in constitutional terms, of small concern. The insurrection planners would have allowed those murders to pass as "collateral damage" had the state-certified Electoral College votes been captured. The murders weren't their priority; usurping our democracy was the priority. And I'm shocked at how few people realize that. Or care.

Tom Purvis and I pursued this, but we could find no evidence that Oswald was left-eye dominant.

Cory, without asking Ruth Paine or Marina, no one else can possibly answer your question without reverting to speculation. I can look at this from several sides. After a kid goes to the dentist, they can be very cranky. So taking the kids downtown for a parade might not be something Ruth wanted to do. As far as Marina and the baby, my experience dealing with very small children was that we always had a "diaper bag" packed and ready to go at a moment's notice, except for fresh formula for the baby. So if Marina was doing the "suburban mom" thing, the bag would have been set to add a bottle for the baby and go. There are several plausible scenarios on both sides of why Ruth and Marina might have chosen to go, or might have chosen not to go. UNTIL one or both get asked, the answer is "blowin' in the wind."

What is escaping MOST of those who are following the January 6th hearings is a little-noticed detail. The MOST RANSACKED office in the Capitol was the Senate parliamentarian's office. WHY? Because that's where the insurrectionists supposed they would find the box containing the state-certified Electoral College vote tallies. While the attack itself derailed and delayed the Congressional certification of the state-certified electoral vote totals, had the box been found and absconded with, the Congressional certification of electoral votes could NOT have continued. THAT would have created a constitutional crisis. There is no provision in the constitution for dealing with missing state-certified electoral votes. NONE. So that would leave TWO possible routes to determine the winner of the Presidential election. ONE would be a ruling by the Trump-heavy Supreme Court. The other would have been to use the constitution's mechanism for deciding an election that's too close to call. By a vote of the then-Republican-majority House of Representatives. THAT is how close America came to having our democracy stolen from us. It all came down to the security of that box of state-certified Electoral College vote tallies. Had the insurrectionists captured and absconded with that, it would have been "game over" for our democracy. THAT is why Trump failed to call off the insurrectionists until it was certain that the box with the state-certified Electoral College vote tallies was out of the insurrectionists' reach. THEN Trump acted. And most people MISSED THAT POINT. The MOST IMPORTANT POINT about the insurrection. Had Trump really believed that Antifa was behind the insurrection, he would have acted with VIGOR, not RIGOR. Capitol insurrection: Jonathan Karl reveals Senate Parliamentarian office was ransacked the most during riots - EconoTimes

Not necessarily. That particular sight mount offset the scope to the left of the barrel/action, leaving the iron sights unimpaired. The particular mount would have been GREAT for a shooter who was left-eye dominant...and not so good for anyone else.

"That arraignment was held at 1:35 a.m., November 23, 1963, in the identification bureau of the Dallas Police Department, and once again I appraised him [Oswald] of his constitutional rights, read the affidavit, and advised him again that I remanded him to the custody of the sheriff, Dallas County, denying bond as capital offense." -- D. Johnston; WC Testimony So Oswald was remanded to the custody of the Dallas County Sheriff...yet he never was in the custody of the Dallas County Sheriff, was he? A mere 36 hours later, Oswald was dead, having NEVER been in the custody of the Dallas County Sheriff. I still don't understand why Oswald wasn't transferred in the early morning hours, with no public notice, and surrounded by enough officers to form an impenetrable wall of bodies, shortly after this order was issued. Yeah, hindsight is 20/20, but had the custody of Oswald been handed off to Decker early Saturday morning, odds are we'd never have known who Jack Ruby was.

I believe the rules against ad hominem attacks cover that. However, I also noticed that no particular member was called out on that one. The fact that Kathy has had to come in and break up this schoolyard scuffle shows that EF rules have been violated. I would caution that personal attacks of ANY kind are prohibited here, and that ALL members should take note when an administrator has to step in on a thread, and see that as an "opportunity" to examine their own behavior here. We like to promote discussion here. But by that, we mean the discussion of ideas and evidence. I would hope no one here would tell another member to "go to Hell," but if one does that, at least try to be Churchillian and "do it in such a way that they will be looking forward to the trip." Obviously, several have missed that mark on this thread.

Can you show me where OSWALD HIMSELF is saying that he refused a lawyer? If not, this bit about refusing a lawyer is hearsay. I know you don't believe Chief Curry when he said in 1969 that he could never place Oswald in the SE window of the 6th floor with a rifle in his hand...yet you believe Curry when he says Oswald refused a lawyer. Show me ONE scene on film where OSWALD was speaking and he refused a lawyer. Just ONE. There is plenty of film with Oswald asking for a lawyer to come forward and represent him. Of course, I suppose in your mind, Chief Curry is 100% honest in 1963-'64, but 100% lying in 1969. What reason would Curry have to lie in 1969? It's not as if Oswald was going to come back and gun him down if he stuck to his story from '63-'64. It's not as if Curry was going to get rich by changing his story, either. And he already had his "15 minutes of fame" [and then some] in '63-'64. So why would Curry have a reason to lie in 1969? What possible gain was in it for him?

As one of the moderators here, I'm going to speak for myself only. The other mods may agree, or they may disagree. My personal opinion is that the JFK assassination, the MLKjr assassination, the RFK assassination, the George Wallace shooting, and Watergate are all related. We have a separate board here for Watergate. I do read every post from Douglas Caddy that I can, because he was an attorney involved in the case. But I often move his posts about Watergate to that specific forum because...that's what that forum is about. I don't particularly want a significant Watergate-related post to get "lost" here on the JFK forum. As far as the "deep state" posts, I generally leave those alone. I have opinions that might make me biased in my judgements, so I defer to other mods on that topic. [I think MANY of us may agree on a "deep state," but we likely disagree on which political side they represent. For all I know, they may not represent ANY particular political side, but may instead simply be two sides fighting over the steering wheel while the car is speeding ahead.] As moderators, we try not to restrict free speech. But we do expect a level of decorum. Often that level of decorum is violated. Honestly, there are several threads here that I purposely avoid because they deteriorate to two or three members repeating the same things over and over, interspersed with snark and the frequent ad hominem. While our official policy is to not allow ad hominem attacks, it's often difficult to determine who's responsible, or "who fired the first shot," and who then responded in kind. Some of the other mods may not tell you this, but the fact remains that we do attempt to be fair and even-handed. Limiting the length of posts will invariably simply cause some to make their statement in multiple consecutive posts. And limiting the number of daily posts is generally only done as a disciplinary move, if it seems a certain member is "flooding" the forum. I'm sure the other mods will see this thread, and if one or another decides we need to discuss a policy change, we will discuss it.