Mark Knight

So you think the "Deep State" is behind this article? Do you think this article is "propaganda"?

I'm not as familiar with Ty, but I would generally second Kirk's nomination of Chris Davidson or Sandy.

Since this thread is ostensibly about the Deep State...Just who IS the "Deep State"? In MY mind, the Deep State has to do with keeping power in the hands of the entrenched. Power = Money = Power. To me, then, and reference to the "Deep State" is a reference to the oligarchy, or near-oligarchy. Who, other than the rich, has the money to grease the wheels and pull the strings to make events happen? By that yardstick, Trump wasn't going to upset the Deep State; he was [and is] a big part of it. The Deep State took us to war in Vietnam, back when it was Viet Nam [two words]. They took us to war in Iraq and in Afghanistan as well. They jettisoned Richard Nixon when he became an albatross to them. I would argue that they were behind the assassination attempts on Gerald Ford; none of which were meant to be successful, but which were to simply remind him who was in charge. And I would argue that, despite all the Jody Foster claims, the Deep State had Reagan shot, just so he knew better than to cross them. And George Bush was ex-CIA [as if anyone who WAS CIA is ever "ex-CIA], so the Deep State directly took the wheel after Reagan. Bill Clinton? He grew up a poor kid but by the time he was Governor of Arkansas, he knew who to answer to in order to keep that Mena airport drug-smuggling op from getting busted. When Clinton won the Presidency, he had debts to the Deep State already. And I'd wager that Vince Foster was "offed" and the suspicion was pointed toward BOTH Clintons in order to keep Hillary in line as well as Bill. It all culminated in the 2016 election, which featured Deep State Clinton against Deep State Trump. The Deep State didn't care which one won. When Trump won, he decided to join in the grifting that the rest of the Deep State was doing. The difference for Trump was, he didn't give a damn about the mechanics of the government, he just wanted the money. The rest of the Deep State was after the money as well, but they also wanted to make sure the structure remained in place for them to actually RUN the government. Trump's proximity to Putin was a problem, though, for the oligarchs. Trump was not as deep a thinker as most of the Deep State, so Trump saw Putin as a source of more money; Putin saw Trump as a useful idiot who could do more to destroy the US from inside than a hundred nuclear weapons could. Trump's evolution toward emotional maturity ended when his dad sent him to military school at age 13. He's frozen in time there, unable to speak and act diplomatically because 13-year-olds don't do that. The Deep State didn't deep-six Trump primarily because they were too busy looting the government coffers themselves. And they haven't disavowed Trump because the division he sows has also become a profitable side business for the Deep State, providing cover for them in the headlines because the press repeats his every word...drawing attention from what is TRULY going on in the world. For the Deep State, Trump is the magician's assistant, drawing the audience's attention while the sleight-of-hand occurs. He's the orange clown who taunts us at the dunking booth, because that keeps our eyes off the pickpockets in the carnival midway. He's not the enemy of the Deep State; he's their sidekick.

Gary Mack was helpful to me in my meager research, but eventually I grew tired of being a "sock puppet" for him. Eventually I stopped reposting the information he was emailing me because I was tired of being used in that fashion. After that, I called him out on the "sock puppet" aspect. Quite often, in fact. My problem with being a conduit for Mack's information was that, if/when someone disagreed with Mack, they attacked ME because I was the one who had posted Mack's information. I realized I was giving Mack a free pass to spread the information he wanted to put out there without dealing with the consequences of facing the doubters himself. To this day, I consider that a chickensh*t position on Mack's part. I got tired of drawing the fire that should've been aimed at his position, not mine.

As one of the administrators, I will stress that we seek someone trustworthy, obviously. But we also need the person to be able to track the financial situation of The Education Forum. I think we could pin a post in which you could make a monthly report on income, expense, and balance on hand, to create a level of transparency for the members and guests who contribute to the Forum. Once the PayPal account is set up and the withdrawal arrangement with InVision is established, and once we post a pinned link to the new PayPal account, the rest should more or less work on "autopilot."

Trump says "stole," FBI says [implies] "confiscated to prevent international flight to avoid prosecution." Po-TAY-to, po-TAH-to...

I agree with your take, Chris. I think Nixon was the primary beneficiary on the POLITICAL side, but he never got rich. When he'd served their purpose, he was discarded...like Rosselli, Giancana, Hoffa and others. But others were bankrolling Nixon. Hell, CREEP was so flush with cash that Watergate was done as a third-rate burglary. Had there been less money, I'd wager that the Watergate burglary idea would've been nixed. But the money was there, and it was going to be spent somewhere...so... When Nixon went to "inspect" Mar-a-Lago when it was about to become a government property, Bebe Rebozo went with him. I still don't think we know all about Rebozo that we should, but that's only ONE person...and there were many, many others. I think if we can do a timeline on Mar-a-Lago, we might accidentally learn more about the big players. But that's just opne segment of the past that's coming back around today.

Chris, Your point is quite valid. I was 9 years old when the JFK assassination occurred. My son is now 42, and a couple of years back he explained to me why the JFKA wasn't a big deal to him. "It's been almost 60 years, Dad. If you do figure out who did it, what then? There won't be anyone left to prosecute; they'll all be dead. So, other than simply knowing the truth, what is gained by knowing the truth? That your time wasn't wasted, maybe? My generation just doesn't care." And I realize he's right. I'm just here not to sell any particular theory, but to hopefully finally discover the truth. These days, that and a $10 bill will get you a mighty fine cup of coffee.

Ben, I'll see your bet on Donald Trump, and I'll raise you a pair of Rosenbergs [Julius and Ethel].

Tom, your most recent post has some of the same information that I got from the late Gerry Hemming. Hemming wasn't exactly known for telling the WHOLE story on ANYTHING, but he told me that the key to the Carcano rifle had NOTHING to do with Klein's Sporting Goods, but that it entered the US from Montreal. Hemming also hinted that there was a connection to OAS, the group that had tried to assassinate Charles DeGaulle earlier in the 1960s: "To cut this short, I will simply state that: (1) The F.B.I. had a couple of "Legat" U.S. Embassy (Ottawa) Special Agents working with the "Mounties" et al. -- but the U.S. participation grew quickly once the "usual suspects" starting moving into New York City and its environs; (2) "Empire" and other weapons importers were originally set up by the Brits, and this: because the law in Canada permitted the importation of weapons without serial numbers stamped on the frame of the firearms. The U.S. State Department's "Office of Munitions Control" prohibited any importing of guns with numbers not on the frame, i.e., the barrel or stock. [See the then extant regulations published in the C.F.R. -- "Code of Federal Regulations"); (3) The alleged "LHO" Mannlicher-Carcano (and many others) came directly from Montreal, as did the "snub-nose" .38 cal. revolver; (4) A large batch of Mannlicher-Carcanos were scheduled for use in the coup d'etat planned against Sukarno's Indonesia regime during 1958, an operation that LHO, Roscoe White, et al. participated in; (5) About 200 Mannlicher-Carcanos found their way into the hands of then President of Costa Rica Jose "Pepe" Figueres, and were later flown to Fidel's rebels in Cuba during 1958. The Curtis C-46 "Commando" transport aircraft was flown into the Sierra Maestra area by pilots Guillermo & Roberto Verdaguer, but the plane had to do a "wheels-up" landing, was damaged -- and had to be destroyed. Fidel was highly pissed that there was little ammunition for the Italian rifles and the Mexican "Mendoza" machine-guns; (6) During 1960, the Miami anti-Castro leader Rolando Masferrer inherited some 100+ Mannlicher-Carcanos, which were useless to him because of the "No Ammo" situation, and; (7) During the "time-window" that LHO was allegedly in Mexico City, he was actually in Montreal, attempting to penetrate the "hostiles" forming up for travel down south. --------------------------------------------------------- Some more clues: LHO never possessed that revolver, and it was to be used as a "throw-down" gun as he was shot to death inside the theater (or elsewhere). LHO saved his life by grabbing the gun away from the cop, which forced the scuffle instead of a shooting. Chairs, Gerry" Regarding "the "hostiles" forming up for travel down south," Hemming said: "Just after the "Cuban Missile Crisis", Robert Emmett Johnson was sent to Montreal by his bossman at I.S.I. ("International Services of Information") former O.S.S. Colonel Ulius Amoss. I.S.I. was based in Baltimore, and published a right-wing intelligence bulletin styled as "Inform". Shortly after his arrival, he joined with the R.C.M.P. OC/Task Force. By then the "Mounties" et al. were surveiling and penetrating a cluster of devious groups which included Castro-Cubans, Nicaraguans, etc.; and who were being directed by K.G.B., G.R.U., StD (Czech), Stasi (GDR) case officers. Amongst said groups were people being recruited purportedly for sugar cane cutting ("Volunteers") and a caravan march from Montreal through the U.S. to Key West, on to Havana, and with a final destination being the U.S. Naval Base at Caimanera, Oriente Province, Cuba. (N.B. & N.A.S. Guantanamo Bay - GITMO)" Since this IS Gerry Hemming's information, take it for what you will.

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.