Mark Knight

Wikipedia says it's Manuel Artime.

As an administrator, there is one point I would make. If a moderator/administrator does issue a disciplinary action to a forum member -- and we have instituted a point system, although we are still fine-tuning that system -- that disciplinary matter will remain between the mod/admin and the member being disciplined. Thus, if Vinnie Barbarino is assessed a five-point penalty, for example, Arnold Horshack has no right to know that. This is adherence to the business management policy of "praise in public, reprimand in private." If you CHOOSE to make a reprimand public, that is your prerogative. NOW...to correct a mistaken impression...forum member Robert Montenegro was NOT "banned" from posting on the forum. Another admin had placed him under a one-post-per-day limitation, but he was NOT "banned" from posting. Because of the value of the recent information that Robert sent via Paul Brancato, the administrators reviewed Robert's status, and removed the one-post-per-day restriction. With the new points-based system, we are attempting to work out a system under which points assessed to a member eventually expire, so that their reprimand doesn't fall through the cracks, as Robert's had. Bear with us, as we attempt to make this system as fair and equitable as possible.

Well said, Pat.

As an administrator, there is one point I would make. If a moderator/administrator does issue a disciplinary action to a forum member -- and we have instituted a point system, although we are still fine-tuning that system -- that disciplinary matter will remain between the mod/admin and the member being disciplined. Thus, if Vinnie Barbarino is assessed a five-point penalty, for example, Arnold Horshack has no right to know that. This is adherence to the business management policy of "praise in public, reprimand in private."

I'm starting a new topic on EF moderation issues that forum members may have. All questions, comments, and criticisms of EF moderation should be addressed in this thread. If they are not, moderators will exercise the option to move threads related to forum moderation to this thread.

I don't watch anything from FOX News or MSNBC, as both seem biased, but in opposite directions. I get news summaries in my email every morning from Reuters and The Associated Press. I get twice-daily news briefs from Axios, which I also consider less biased than most. I receive Raw Story updates to stay informed on the "tabloid" style news releases, but I don't completely trust this source for accuracy. I don't have PBS on my list because they have a pro-liberal REPUTATION. When I studied journalism, reporting the news wasn't meant to be political; you simply reported the facts, and let the chips fall where they may.

I believe that the [perhaps injudicious] use of "identical" in the context provided is meant to convey that the bullet in evidence was "conclusively" fired from the weapon in question, "to the exclusion of any other firearm." That level of evidentiary certainty might be interpreted as being "identical."

Yes. The so-called JFK assassination rifle was a 6.5mm Mannlicher-Carcano rifle. The bullet was nominally 6.5mm in diameter [actually slightly larger]. The 7.92 rifle was primarily a Mauser caliber. [Wasn't the Carcano allegedly "Mis"-identified as a Mauser? Interesting coinky-dence, isn't it?]

My antennae went up when I saw "Rifle, 7.92 ." I'm familiar with a 7.62 rifle; that's the standard .308-caliber NATO rifle. So what's a 7.92? 7.92×57mm Mauser - Wikipedia Cartridges: The Often Overlooked 8mm Mauser - Gun Digest

I have suspected for several years that, if Lee Oswald was indeed connected with government intelligence, perhaps his files might be found under ARMY intel. WHY? Because, as an ex-Marine, those searching for Oswald docs would go to ONI [Office of Naval Intelligence] first. If he was involved in something clandestine -- and I have no idea whether he was or he wasn't -- what better place for Oswald's records to be hidden than in the Army Intel files? You might think ONI, you might think CIA, you might even think of Oswald as an FBI informant...but nobody would suspect that a check of Army intel files might turn up something on Oswald. So using an Army backstop for Hunt would be right in line with such a pattern...if it exists.

I had no problem accessing the entire Twitter thread. But I have a Twitter account. Lack of a Twitter account may be the difference in your ability to access the entire thread.

I worked at a radio station in Jeffersonville IN in 1977. During the spring racing meet at Churchill Downs, a machine was brought in which was used to receive race results from the track. We were on a dedicated network that only other media outlets had during the racing meet. I'm assuming this was essentially a telex machine. It was rather antiquated at the time, and the machine at the station had its own keyboard. It was nothing like the AP or UPI teletype machines we used in the newsroom, which were receive-only printers [one used a thermal printer with special paper, and the other used newsprint-type paper]. After midnight, it wasn't uncommon for someone at a media outlet on the [I assume] telex network to send out a message to whoever might be at another terminal. Since no one wanted to be held responsible for sending the unauthorized messages, none were formatted like the official race results from Churchill Downs. The system worked much like Larry described above. Manually-input messages were received character-by-character at the speed they were being typed...unlike the race results, which printed much more quickly. If someone was monitoring the machine, they could likely tell if the message was "official" or not. If they instead found the message after it was sent, whether in seconds or minutes, it might not be obvious as to whether it was manually input or not.

Joe Biden has only been President since January 20, 2021. So spare me the "six decades later" reference to Biden. It doesn't wash. Until 2-1/2 years ago, he wasn't in a position to deal with the JFK records. That doesn't excuse what he just did. But to say, "Biden agreed to make public a majority of assassination records, but thousands remain secret six decades later" sounds like an attempt to place the responsibility for 60 years of secrecy on Biden. "...six decades later" from when "Biden agreed to make public a majority of assassination records"? A quite disingenuous phrasing there.

My opinion of the United States of America is one of pride tempered by realism. Slavery was a part of our history, and until we're ready to discuss it openly, and not ban teaching it in our classrooms, we will never be able to fully appreciate how we got to where we are today. We mouth the words "...and liberty and justice for all," but those words ring hollow until every citizen enjoys the same rights as those around them. Indigenous people on reservations don't have the same access to clean, running water as citizens elsewhere. Native Americans often must drive or be transported long distances to exercise their right to vote...while many whites have polling locations much more convenient to where they live. Until all US citizens truly have equal rights, we are still in pursuit of that "more perfect union" of which the preamble to our constitution speaks. And lately, it would seem that the US is regressing in that regard. My love of the nation requires that I do what I can to promote progress toward that "more perfect union" that the Founding Fathers saw as a worthwhile goal for our country. Repairing the flaws hasn't been, and will never be, painless. But the first step to fixing the problem is to acknowledge that the problem exists...no matter what the problem is. Certain US citizens weren't free on July 4, 1776. Some weren't nominally free until June 19, 1865. Some weren't free to exercise the full rights of citizenship before 1965. And some are still seeking equality. So, like Columbus Day, July 4 also has a different meaning to certain citizens than to the white majority. And rightly so.

Several US Presidents over the years have promised transparency regarding the JFK records. But once elected, their positions changed. Which begs the question: what changed their position? CIA arguments? Pressure? Threats? If so, where's the guarantee that RFK Jr. wouldn't also succumb to such tactics if elected? I fail to see any such guarantee. After all, "they" [whomever "they" might be] have already killed more than one Kennedy; to "them," what's one more? Until there's a bulletproof Kennedy, my opinion on this won't change.

I have not. I have read a great deal about this vehicle in years past, and I am nearly convinced that it indeed has significance to the JFK assassination and the late 1963 travels of Lee Oswald.

By your comments, it's becoming quite apparent that you really don't understand the breadth of The Education Forum. The Education Forum is MUCH more than just the JFK Assassination Discussion Forum. The Education Forum is a VERY broad-spectrum forum, with MANY subforums. While maintaining order on the JFK Assassination Discussion Forum consumes the majority of the time of the moderators and administrators, it is certainly not the ONLY area of The Education Forum. See this link: Forums - The Education Forum (ipbhost.com) Let's get to the logic behind the moving of the RFK Jr. discussions to the Political Discussions Forum. First and foremost, as a political candidate, RFK Jr. discussions do fall under the Political Discussions category. The same as a discussion of Ron DeSantis, Donald Trump, Joe Biden, or any of the other announced candidates for the US presidency. Here's a link: Political Debates - The Education Forum (ipbhost.com) The fact that RFK Jr. has talked of making public the JFK files doesn't make EVERY statement by or about RFK Jr. related to the JFK assassination. For example, say RFK Jr. gets elected, and on Day 1 of his presidency he makes the JFK-related files public. What then? Does his entire presidency revolve around the JFK assassination? I would argue that it does not. As president, he would have responsibility for domestic and foreign policies related to the CURRENT state of the world, not necessarily tied to events of 1963. Currently, not every statement made by or about RFK Jr. relates to the JFK assassination. His position on vaccines, for example, I find totally unrelated to the JFK assassination. And here at The Education Forum, we also have a separate Deep Politics Forum. So, while VERY peripherally connected to the JFK assassination, since there is a separate forum set up by the predecessors of the current Education Forum administrators, any discussions on "the deep state" not DIRECTLY related to the JFK assassination should -- and will -- be moved to that appropriate forum. Even the JFK Assassination Discussion Forum here at The Education Forum is but a sub-forum: Controversial Issues in History - The Education Forum (ipbhost.com) . Within the Controversial Issues In History header, there is a separate JFK Deep Politics discussion forum: JFK Deep Politics - The Education Forum (ipbhost.com) . Most of the political discussions are getting moved to Political Discussions - The Education Forum (ipbhost.com) , as opposed to the Political Debates discussion forum. As I pointed out earlier in this topic, these areas of The Education are NOT a recent invention of the current administrators. And to a degree, since the current administrators were part of a rather abrupt transfer of The Education Forum to our hands in 2014, we probably have been a bit lax on moving threads to the proper topics from the JFK Assassination Discussion Forum. Most of us were, after all, primarily familiar with the JFK Assassination Discussion Forum and very little else about The Education Forum. If you choose not to visit the other areas of The Education Forum when a particular thread is moved, that's not some sort of "punishment" being handed down by administrators. When you CHOOSE not to visit the other areas of the EF, you're exercising your own free will. No one is forcing you to visit, or not visit, any section of the EF. And ultimately, by definition, it is the responsibility of the ADMINISTRATORS of The Education Forum to ADMINISTER The Education Forum in the best interest of the entire Education Forum. In this post, I have posted links to every part of The Education Forum, strictly for your convenience. The other administrators and I are attempting to administer The Education Forum in the same manner as our predecessors. To a degree, it's been a slow learning curve for us...and I have no problem admitting that. If you disagree with the administrators, then we will simply need to agree to disagree. The previous Education Forum administrators, John Simkin and Andy Walker, chose us to administer this vast Education Forum that they built, and we are attempting as much as possible to follow in their footsteps and with the same intent.

That's an often-overlooked point. Ruth Paine never owned a Rambler. And there are all kinds of falsifications involving the records of the alleged bus trip to Mexico. While I question a lot of what Plumlee said, I think the Rambler station wagon is a clue.

From a comment I made elsewhere: Moving a thread to POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS isn't a "punishment" if that's where it belongs. Let's face it, if we follow the logic of John Cotter and Roger Odisio, among others, EVERY topic can be peripherally connected to JFK. Example: Current US foreign policy > NATO > JFK. Current US tax policy > JFK's tax cut. SCOTUS ends affirmative action > Civil Rights Act > LBJ > JFK. Gun control > Firearms Act of 1968 > JFK. CIA > JFK. Mafia > JFK. Hispanic immigrants > JFK. ANYTHING "Deep State" > JFK. In their minds, all roads lead to JFK. Except not all roads do. We need to change the mindset of the members [if possible] that having a thread moved to the correct forum ISN'T a punishment; rather, it's good forum management. The Education Forum takes up a lot of bandwidth that possibly 99% of the members don't even realize. Just the history portion of the forum is quite broad. Remember, we're not "The JFK Assassination Forum"; we're "The Education Forum," and it's time our members understood that. Doug Caddy's latest posts on Watergate are QUITE educational. Even Doug knew to post them in the appropriate forum. I'll bet a lot of EF members haven't seen them due to their tunnel vision about what is and is not a JFK assassination-related topic. Because, quite frankly, not everything is.

This is a disingenuous statement on your part. Once you bookmark the link to the POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS forum, as you obviously have the link to the JFK Assassination forum, the amount of time to go there is precisely the same. As far as your interest in going there...once the topics which engage your interest are moved there, why does your interest in going there disappear...unless it's not the topic you're actually interested in, but only in seeing that topic on THIS forum. RFK Jr.'s candidacy has as much connection here as a discussion of the current direction of General Motors on an International Harvester antique truck discussion board. Just because IH used Delco-Remy electrical parts doesn't make GM's current direction germane to the discussion. Yes, there's a connection, but it's not related to the topic at hand. And the posts are being MOVED, not censored. So if you simply bookmark the POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS forum, an action that's quite easy, your grievance essentially disappears. For your convenience, here's the link so you can bookmark: Political Discussions - The Education Forum (ipbhost.com) Once you do, you can go there as quickly as you can come here.

Mr. Cotter, Nothing in my previous post is directed toward you in any way. I was addressing an "elephant in the room" situation. If NATO has never previously attacked another nation's sovereignty, then upon what grounds would Russia feel threatened by any expansion of NATO, particularly at that nation's request? I'm sorry to disappoint you if you're seeking a reason to take personal offense at my post. You were among the furthest people from my mind when I posted. So I ask again: When has NATO taken the military offensive in a neighboring non-member nation without invitation by that nation? It truly is a simple question, and the answer should be just as simple.

I've been away from the EF for a couple of weeks to try to not lose my objectivity. For those who have advanced the idea that Ukraine joining NATO is "provocative" toward Russia, I ask: On what occasion has NATO been an OFFENSIVE military operation in Europe, before Russia invaded Ukraine? It's a simple question, and the answer should likewise be simple. Just name a country that NATO has invaded.

Leo Block is not Leo B. Blocker.

Relevance to the topic?