Mark Knight

I hope you're not dismissing Morley's post as false information.

It's time someone mentioned an "inconvenient" truth, at least for some EF members. The Political Discussions forum isn't a recent addition to the EF. It was a part of the EF that John Simkin and Andy [I can never remember his last name] set up when the EF was established. And moderators moving threads to their appropriate topics isn't a new concept, either. Neither is merging or splitting discussion threads. It's just that, when the ownership of the EF changed, the new administrators and mods weren't immediately familiar with using the mechanisms that are at their disposal. As time has gone on, the admins and mods have begun using these tools, as the admins and mods who came before had done. But there was a period of several years in which the new admins and mods mostly tried not to "rock the boat." Currently, there is a point system in play before a member loses their posting privileges. And points also expire. Admins and mods are trying to take an imperfect system and improve it. BUT...it helps if EF members would recognize that the EF is a huge site. While the JFK Assassination Discussion Forum gets the most activity, it is FAR from the ONLY area of the EF. Check out the breadth and width of The Education Forum here: Forums - The Education Forum (ipbhost.com)

Jeff Morley is all about getting to the truth behind the JFK assassination. I have the utmost respect for him.

50 years on, locals remember RFK's visit to Southern Indiana | News | newsandtribune.com 50 years on, locals remember RFK's visit to Southern Indiana BY ELIZABETH DEPOMPEI Apr 7, 2018 Right to Left: Sisters Marilyn Mattingly and Ellen Botkins, and their sister-in-law Sharon Wilder, recall their memories of planning for Robert F. Kennedy's visit to Jeffersonville in 1968. Mattingly was co-chair for the Clark County effort to get Kennedy elected. STAFF PHOTO BY TYLER STEWART SOUTHERN INDIANA — Marilyn Mattingly never wanted to "get into politics." But in early 1968, she had one goal in mind that put her into the midst of one of the most hotly contested presidential primaries. "I just wanted to get Bobby Kennedy elected president," Mattingly said. Little did she know that her drive to put another Kennedy in the White House would put her in a convertible riding from New Albany to the Youngstown Shopping Center in Jeffersonville, sitting right next to Kennedy himself. "It was just like a dream come true. It really was." Mattingly was the co-chairperson for the Clark County effort to get Kennedy on the Democratic ticket for president. The campaign to win Indiana was a tough one, with Kennedy having little support from the Democratic establishment that preferred Indiana Gov. Roger Branigan — the favorite son candidate who started as a surrogate for then-President Lyndon B. Johnson. The belief was if Kennedy could win Indiana in the primary, he could win the country in the general election. Pictures of Robert F. Kennedy's visit to New Albany and Jeffersonville on April 24, 1968 are spread across a table after being pulled from a photo album. STAFF PHOTO BY TYLER STEWART So it only made sense that Kennedy visited Floyd and Clark counties on April 24, 1968. Mattingly remembers standing on a makeshift stage next to Kennedy and other campaign volunteers in Jeffersonville. And while she doesn't remember feeling unsafe, she recalls that there was little to no security for Kennedy's visit, a result of behind-the-scenes political gamesmanship by those who refused to let Kennedy win Indiana. Kennedy won anyway, a testament to the grassroots efforts Mattingly was a part of. But 41 days later, it all came to a halt when Kennedy, like his brother John before him, was assassinated. Mattingly remembers getting the call from her sister, Ellen Botkins: "Bobby's been shot." "It was just devastation," Mattingly said. "I mean, I knew that I would probably never campaign like that again. ... It was just over for me." THROUGH THE LENS As the sole photographer for the New Albany-based Tribune newspaper, Don Beck was tasked with photographing Kennedy's 1968 visits. In his 46-year career, he photographed his fair share of exciting events and national figures, including Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton. But a Kennedy? "It was a big deal at the time because he was such a big figure, and of course ... it was after JFK was killed in Texas, so he was really carrying on the family name and well-recognized through his family," Beck, who was 31 at the time, said. Don Beck smiles as he pulls one of the many film cameras from his collection case in the basement of his home. A former photographer for the New Albany Tribune for 46 years, Beck was on scene for coverage when Robert F. Kennedy visited New Albany in 1968. STAFF PHOTO BY TYLER STEWART He remembers Kennedy at Pearl and Market streets in New Albany on an outdoor stage, surrounded by supporters. Beck described it as a scene out of Harvest Homecoming. He likely shot two to three rolls worth of film that day. Afterward, he would have headed back to the newsroom's dark room to develop the film and get it ready for print. Some of his work has been left behind in library archives and his own personal collection that decorates the walls of his basement. "Over my years I think I've taken photos of probably at least six presidents, and a lot of some of the national people," he said. "But it was exciting because we don't get that many people coming through here." Robert F. Kennedy visited Jeffersonville and New Albany in 1968 while campaigning for President of the United States. His last visit to New Albany came on May 5, two days before he narrowly won the Democratic primary. Photo courtesy of Marcy Wisman THROUGH A CHILD'S EYES Philip Hendershot was 8 years old when Kennedy came to town. He can't remember if he shook the presidential hopeful's hand on April 24 or during a second visit on May 5, two days before the primary election. But the date hardly matters for him. A portrait of Robert F. Kennedy, right, is displayed beside Presidents Nixon and Truman in the home of former Tribune photographer, Don Beck. STAFF PHOTO BY TYLER STEWART "What I remember is that I was with my father and this was like a grown-up event that he took me to, and he allowed me to actually walk out into the street and shake Kennedy's hand from a moving convertible," Hendershot recalled. "And I was never allowed to be in the street! So it was a big thing for a kid to be able to go out and do that." Now 58 years old, the thing that impresses Hendershot most is how aware he and his young peers were at the time. He remembers feeling the tension over the fight for Civil Rights and the country's involvement in Vietnam. "I can remember my friends and I playing our Wiffle ball games and stuff, we would talk about, you know, if Kennedy gets to be president maybe the war would stop. In a simplistic way, we were engaged." After doing some research, Hendershot said it's clear that Indiana played a big role in that year's primary, and for Kennedy. When Kennedy was killed, he remembers his parents being crushed and a haunting sense of "what might have been." As a child, having met Kennedy just weeks before, the loss struck him, too. "... From the mind of an 8-year-old, it's kind of hard to imagine that someone can be there one moment alive and shaking your hand, and then they're gone," he said. "It really was ... it was tough." MORE INFORMATION +5 Spring of '68 in Southern Indiana marked by visits from presidential candidates In April 1968, all eyes were on the presidential race. And Indiana seemed to be one of the battleground states that attracted those running fo… In 1968, Southern Indiana life goes on despite stresses of Vietnam War

I agree. JFK's "advisors" would've turned the Cuban Missile Crisis into WWIII had JFK not followed his own path. Thirteen months later, he was dead. Is this the leverage being used on Biden? Was it used on Trump? Likely we'll never know the full truth.

Presidents have advisors. So who is advising Biden to follow this course of action? I've never thought of Biden as a Langley fan, but only because I never thought about it until recently.

Open in app or online The Latest From JFK Facts Foundation Fights the Justice Department on CIA's JFK 'Transparency' Plan A made-in-Langley scheme tests America’s separation of powers. CHAD NAGLE MAY 3 SHARE The Mary Ferrell Foundation (MFF) is contesting the CIA’s “Transparency Plan” for JFK assassination documents while the Justice Department defends the scheme which revises how still-classified government records related to the assassination of the 35th president will be made public. The dispute is playing out in federal court in San Francisco, where Chief Judge Richard Seeborg presides over the Foundation’s lawsuit against President Biden and the National Archives (NARA) for failure to enforce the JFK Records Act. The Foundation, sponsor of the largest online collection of JFK assassination records, says the actions of Biden and NARA interfere with “MFF’s core mission” to educate the public about a fateful event in U.S. history. The court will hear oral arguments on June 29. In a brief filed in early March, attorneys for the Foundation called on the court to block implementation of President Biden’s December 2022 memo on JFK assassination files. That memo directs agencies to submit their “Transparency Plans” to the National Declassification Center (NDC) at NARA, and not to the Office of the President. In their 44-page brief, attorneys Bill Simpich and Larry Schnapf say the “Transparency Plans” use non-statutory criteria for postponing release of assassination records, and thus violate the JFK Records Act. As previously reported by JFK Facts, the “triggering events” in the “Transparency Plans,” authored by the Central Intelligence Agency and adopted by the other agencies, jettison all time constraints and deadlines that are written into the JFK Records Act, which was passed unanimously by Congress in 1992. In fact, these “transparency plans” look very much like a ploy to free these agencies from their obligations under the 1992 law. “The President authorized the government offices to issue Transparency Plans” for determining when assassination records may be publicly disclosed, the Foundation notes, arguing that he has “no right” to do so. The JFK Records Act, the Foundation adds, “does not authorize government offices to make the final determination of assassination records.” The President, in the Foundation’s view, cannot simply delegate the duties of his office to the NDC to get the matter “off his hands” (and off the hands of his successors) indefinitely (or forever). The Act, says the Foundation brief, requires agencies to show by “clear and convincing evidence” that the “identifiable harm” from disclosure is of “such gravity that it outweighs the public interest.” It is “the President himself” – and no other agency – who is required by law to certify that the agencies have done so. To do that, the President must examine each record, not rubber-stamp agency recommendations. DOJ Replies In papers filed on March 21, the Justice Department doubled down on the argument that the Foundation has no right to sue “the President himself,” only “the President’s subordinates” [emphasis in original]. By “subordinates,” the Justice Department means executive-branch agencies. The Office of the President, the government asserts in its brief, is exempt or immune from legal action, because that office is not an “agency” at all. This attempt to “cordon off” the Presidency creates an institutional barrier to judicial or legislative review of presidential actions related to JFK’s assassination, and it does so in contravention of the law itself. The JFK Records Act explicitly encompasses all executive branch agencies. The law defines “executive agency” as The Act does not exempt the Presidency in any way. The government’s argument for a special exemption for the Executive Office of the President thus corrupts the principle of three coequal branches of government under the Constitution by arguing that the judicial branch cannot hold the executive to account. A Remedial Law On April 21, the Foundation and two plaintiffs jointly filed an amended complaint, reiterating the core of the case against the government. The President has exceeded his authority in issuing the Biden Memoranda, which are ultra vires – or outside the constraints of the JFK Records Act – and therefore void. The “Transparency Plans” do not comply with the requirements of the Act, and NARA’s approval of them is “arbitrary and capricious,” the Foundation said, because it circumvents the mandatory, non-discretionary and ministerial duty of the President to review assassination records. The Foundation notes that the JFK Act charges the President with ensuring that agencies and custodians of such records establish by “clear and convincing evidence” that the “identifiable harm” to national security outweighs the public interest in disclosure. Under the “Transparency Plans,” the President simply has no such role to fulfill. The government’s argument that the President is “above the law” with regard to declassification flouts an ancient principle of the Anglo-American legal system that has long been recognized, namely, the canon of “remedial law.” The JFK Records Act is what is known as a “remedial statute,” and such a law “should be liberally construed to effectuate the beneficial purpose for which is was enacted by Congress.” The JFK Records Act was designed to remedy the problem of government secrecy, and in fact the ARRB described it as a “unique solution” in that regard. The problem was that 30 years of government secrecy concerning the assassination of President Kennedy had led the American public to believe that the government was hiding something. The solution (or “remedy”) was the JFK Records Act. DOJ Replies Again On May 1, 2023, the Department of Justice - on behalf of the President and NARA - filed its second “reply brief.” This brief repeats the government’s argument that the JFK Records Act imposes no duty on NARA to fulfill the responsibilities of the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB). In this argument, the remedial purposes of the law play no role. The government’s case depends on ignoring the history of the law. The JFK Records Act created the ARRB as a “statutory agency” to lead document declassification and the formation of the JFK Collection, to be housed at NARA. After the ARRB’s term expired, NARA was made the “successor in function” of the ARRB under federal law. The government’s lawyers avoid this reality even though it is written into law. Members of the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) with President Clinton in 1998. NARA is the successor in function of the ARRB under federal law. The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) is the codification of general and permanent rules under which agencies of the federal government, including NARA, must act. The CFR, as it pertains to the JFK Records Act and ARRB, reads in part: The Department of Justice neatly avoids this provision of federal law, whereby NARA (an executive-branch agency) is to assume the duties of the ARRB (an independent statutory agency) to assist researchers of JFK’s assassination. The Foundation has argued that NARA has shown itself unable to act as a truly “independent agency” vis-a-vis other executive-branch agencies, and thus cannot (or will not) carry out the functions of the JFK Review Board. Banana Republic? The bureaucratic machinations of the White House, the CIA, and NARA exemplify the opacity and non-accountability typical of banana-republic dictatorships, tin-pot absolute monarchies and other tyrannies from history. It makes a mockery of the very concept of “national security” as well. No nation can be truly secure without trust in its public institutions. By attempting to bury and abandon a law passed unanimously by the people’s elected representatives, then sidelining even the President – the only democratically elected official directly involved in the declassification process under the JFK Records Act – executive-branch agencies are subverting the constitutional order and sowing further mistrust. JFK Facts is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

https://open.substack.com/pub/jfkfacts/p/foundation-contests-the-justice-department?r=elbl1&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

Count me among those people.

Just an FYI: I have ended Matthew Koch's suspension from posting on the Education Forum. It was, after all, a suspension and not a ban from forum membership. I have also extended an apology to Mr. Koch for suspending him without a prior warning, and I have assured him that, going forward, that will not occur again. I am making this post in the interest of transparency. When a member of the Education Forum is warned, admonished, or punished by a moderator, that is strictly between the moderating team and that member, just as any reprimand between an employer and an employee should not be a public matter. And that is why I didn't respond to specific details about which I was asked in this matter. I have PMed Matthew Koch to make him aware of this change in his status.

Guilt by association. Where did I first learn of this tactic? As a child in Sunday School. The Pharisees in the New Testament used guilt by association in their attempts to turn their followers against Jesus of Nazareth. They accused this Jesus of hanging out with tax collectors [notoriously corrupt individuals], harlots [notoriously immoral people], and "winebibbers" [notoriously intoxicated people]. When you can't counter their arguments, go after their character. And if you can't determine their character, attack the characters of those with whom they stay in proximity. Because 100% of the time, contact with these people will convert everyone, without exception, to the character flaws of those in their orbit. [Sarcasm, in case you missed it.]

From a couple of pages back, I object to Mr. Griffith's inference that opposition to US subsidies to the NATION of Israel makes one "anti-semitic." How many nations does the US subsidize at the per-capita level of the NATION of Israel? Can anyone find and post that number? Apparently, Mr. Griffith strongly implies that one is REQUIRED to practice Judaism in order to be a citizen of the NATION of Israel. I wasn't aware of that requirement. But it MUST be a requirement in order for questioning subsidies to the NATION of Israel to constitute anti-semitism. Wikipedia states that non-Jewish persons can become citizens of the NATION of Israel by completing residency requirements, renouncing citizenship elsewhere, and demonstrating a knowledge of the Hebrew language. Yes, I'm claiming that Mr. Griffith's logic is faulty.

Right now, the MFF lawsuit is the most important tool in the arsenal to attempt to get these records released. NO ONE that I've seen on this forum wants to see anyone "deep-six" those documents...Ben's "partisan" accusations aside. I fully support what the MFF is doing. But UNLESS you're bringing us news about what the MFF lawsuit is accomplishing, as Mr. Schnapf is doing above, or unless you're bringing us news about a new move by the current administration that hasn't been reported on already, then the only thing you're doing is re-airing previous complaints. Since none of us on this forum, except the ones involved in the MFF lawsuit, can bring about the change we seek, and pushing a plethora of posts rehashing the same arguments accomplishes zero. There are two things you can do if you don't like the status quo: You can accept what you don't like, or you can take action to change the status quo. Anything else is wasted motion. That goes for anything that affects your life. The MFF is taking action. And I support them 100%. I think the Biden administration is wrong. But whining about what they're doing doesn't change a damn thing. Nor does opening 15 separate threads repeating the same complaints.

I'm not discounting the importance of the issue. I'm not taking a partisan point of view. Starting multiple threads on the same topic, in most forums, is called "flooding," and most forums have rules against "flooding."

In regular handgun and hunting ammunition, the term JHP is used to refer to a Jacketed Hollow-Point bullet, with it understood that these rounds are copper-jacketed. I have yet to see any current ads for STEEL-jacketed handgun or hunting rounds. Steel-jacketed bullets are most often found in specialty ammunition used for police and military purposes. Steel-jacketed bullets aren't common here in the US. "A lead core bullet with a steel jacket is not an uncommon feature for a foreign military surplus round, especially if it originated in the Soviet Bloc. (Steel’s lesser cost than that of copper makes such ammo more economical to produce, but the tradeoff is that harder steel can be harsher on a bore.) " -- What is Steel Core Ammo? - The Broad Side (targetbarn.com)

Ben, Please give me some justification as to why these multiple threads on the failure to release the JFK records should NOT be combined into a single thread. Sell me. Convince me. Because as of this moment, W's comment about redundancy is striking a chord with me. In fact, redundancy is the only reason I decided to view this thread. Persuade me it's not redundant...if you can.

Moderators here do NOT have access to PMs between forum members unless a member chooses to share them with a moderator. They are private messages, as the name implies. And Matthew Koch is encouraged to respond to the email Sandy and Kathy gave. Administrators giving out their private email addresses would set a bad precedent. The Education Forum business email goes to Kathy, and she will be more than willing to deal with the matter. If it requires a conference among the administrators, that will be handled privately, as such matters should be. Obviously, the Administrators do not condone members threatening other members. Nor do we condone members making charges against other members that are without factual basis. At this point, we are neutral in this dispute because we don't know the facts, if indeed they are knowable at all. If it comes down to a "he said/she said" situation without verifiable proof, then that's what it is.

Gerald Ford was a longtime member of the House of Representatives and a member of the Warren Commission. But his proximity to power and LEGISLATIVE experience didn't make him a good Chief Executive. So "proximity to power" isn't always the RIGHT kind of experience needed to be an effective President.

Proximity to power doesn't make one qualified for a leadership role, any more than standing in a garage for a long time makes someone a Buick. Gerald Ford was a longtime member of the House of Representatives, and yet he was mediocre at best as a President. And being a Washington "outsider" didn't serve Jimmy Carter as well as some imagined it would. In the case of Trump, both being a Washington outsider and being elected based upon grievances against Washington "insiders" didn't serve him as well as many voters anticipated. So what of the RFK Jr. candidacy? I've seen nothing so far to disqualify him from serving. But I've also seen little to recommend him for the job. Some will "disqualify" him because he IS a Kennedy, and in America, "dynasties" don't wear well. Some will "disqualify" him over his stance on Vaccines, while others will declare him MOST qualified based on his promise to open all the JFK records. Neither single issue, IMHO makes him more or less qualified than any other American considering a run for the Presidency. But to the American electorate, a Presidential candidate is, for the most part, just another "product," to either be "bought" or rejected. And RFK Jr.'s packaging, his marketing, if you will, at this point isn't convincing many to "buy" the product. Not because there's a huge problem with the product, but because for most Americans, RFK Jr. is pretty much an unknown quantity outside his home district. The national press is seizing his anti-vax stance only because that's the ONLY thing they know of him. Remember, JFK died nearly 60 years ago, and RFK 55 years ago. So to Americans under 65, the only Kennedy they can personally remember was Ted, and other than the RFK eulogy, the only memories of Ted most have are about Chappaquiddick and his general blustery style in his failed efforts to gain the nomination for the Presidency. But most voters DO remember George HW Bush and George W. Bush. And they know how THAT turned out. So they're understandably leery of anything even suggesting a "dynasty" candidacy. Personally, I'm open-minded about an RFK Jr. candidacy. But his PR staff is lagging WAY behind his announcement of his candidacy. Most candidates begin working on the PR side of the equation long before they announce. I don't see RFK Jr. dominating any of the news cycles. I don't see him on the Sunday morning political shows, or on the late-night talk show circuit. If anything, he's about the LEAST visible candidate I can recall over the past several years. He's nearly as MIA as Kamala Harris has been as VP. If anything, that makes the strength of the attacks on him by the mainstream press look VERY suspicious to me. I don't see him as the "clear and present danger" that CNN apparently does. In fact, I barely see him at all. But then, I don't watch CNN, FOX, or MSNBC. I get my news from The Associated Press, Reuters, Axios, and occasionally Raw Story just for some sensationalism. RFK Jr. just MIGHT have all the right qualities to make a great President. Or he might not. For now, I have too little evidence upon which to decide. His PR people need to get his "brand" out there front-and-center...where it ISN'T at this point.

You have formed your opinion based on a 2023 perspective. Those of us who were living in the US in 1963 and were aware of the conditions (or lack thereof) related to gun sales have no trouble with the concept of buying/selling a gun with no questions asked. In large cities, in many cases, it was a matter of "don't ask, don't tell". As in, "Don't tell me if you're planning to use the gun I'm selling you in a crime; I really don't want to know. Serial numbers weren't tracked, and there often wasn't even a paper trail. In 2023, that may seem incredible. In 1963, that was the norm. And it was not only in retail gun stores [in my small town, hardware stores sold guns], but many guns that changed hands in cities did so at pawnshops. And pawnshops were the kings of "don't ask, don't tell," unless you were pawning a gun. Of course, if you were pawning a gun in 1963, you could give a fake name/address, as it generally was assumed that you wouldn't be back to redeem the gun out of hock. [If you've seen any 1930s Hollywood portrayals of gangsters, there was more truth than fiction in how guns were obtained and disposed of through pawnshops.] In another vein, I recall how many people came into my family's farm equipment business and commented how "convenient" it was for US gun manufacturers that the alleged murder weapon in the JFK case was some unknown Italian rifle. It kept the stigma off Winchester, Remington, Savage, Marlin, and all the other major US rifle manufacturers. Imagine the black eye for Winchester if one of their .30-30 rifles had been used. Or Remington if the crime had been pinned on one of their famous Model 70 rifles. Some people expressed the idea that the Carcano being tagged as the murder weapon was a bit TOO convenient.

There was no requirement. Individual stores may have had their own policies, but in my part of the US, there never was an age requirement possess a firearm. Hunting rifles were routinely given to 10-, 11-, and 12-year-olds as birthday gifts. BB guns ["air rifles"] were given to 7- and 8-year-olds. My sister bought a new single-shot .22 caliber rifle when she was 12, and as a 12-year-old she had no ID to show the store. [Student IDs came along years later.]

In a word: NO. In the US in 1963, gun sales weren't tracked. Guns are not registered, so there is no federal database. The National Rifle Association, prior to becoming primarily a political lobbying organization, was simply a voluntary organization of people with an interest in rifles, hunting, and shooting sports. Membership in no way indicated that a person actually OWNED a rifle, as there is/was no ownership requirement to join. And since, to the best of our knowledge, Oswald wasn't an NRA member, his name wouldn't have been on the NRA's membership rolls, which was their "database" in 1963. Nor did the NRA, or anyone else, track the purchases and sales of any sort of firearms in the US. Prior to 1968, there was no requirement to show any form of ID to purchase a firearm in the US. Many sales of used guns occurred between individuals, often with no names being exchanged. So it was impossible to know which households in the US did or did not own firearms, or what firearms they possessed. And with the state of computerization in 1963 [like ZERO], had there been such a database, going through all of those PAPER records would have been so cumbersome as to have been completely ineffective.

By the very nature of his posts, Ben has (unknowingly?) argued that this thread is about the "deep state." Therefore, it's as much about JFK DEEP POLITICS as any on The Education Forum. Had this thread not mentioned the "deep state," and instead focused on the proposed policies of RFK Jr., and a promise to open the JFK records, there would be a better argument for keeping this thread on the JFK ASSASSINATION DISCUSSION forum.

Do you "live" on this forum? Because I and the other administrators don't. If the administrators "went a week [allegedly] tolerating political bias," it may just be because we haven't read the entire thread, or haven't visited the forum in days, or perhaps a week. The administrators all have lives elsewhere beyond this forum. We don't do this for profit. We don't derive any pleasure in getting several "Cleanup on Aisle Three!" notifications per day. Moving a discussion to its appropriate area of the forum is well within the purview of the administrators. It's NOT discriminatory to move a political discussion from the JFK DISCUSSION FORUM to the POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS area. Or to move a thread questioning how the forum is run to an area of the forum where that discussion is more appropriate. It's merely something the administrators should have done sooner, and I apologize on behalf of all the administrators for not moving more quickly. In the POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS area, there are now threads for discussing both Trump and Biden, so members of all political persuasions can discuss whatever political axe they have to grind. Conservatives, moderates, and liberals are all welcome to post in the appropriate forum areas. And not a single post was deleted during or after the move to the appropriate area of the forum. But please do go on about discrimination. As far as the discipline of other forum members goes, you're not privy to the private messages between administrators and forum members, with the possible exception of Matthew Koch. So with the exception of Matthew Koch, you have no idea who has been warned, restricted to a certain number of posts per day, briefly suspended, or dealt with in other ways. But please do go on about discrimination. You seem to be trying to make this a personal battle between me and Matthew Koch. I assure you it is not. I have spent a highly inordinate amount of my time on this forum working to see whose profiles lack bio information, so that there is no accidental "discrimination" against those who flaunt that rule, for whatever purpose. I have contacted many members about this, not knowing or caring about their political persuasion. Most have responded politely and have corrected the situation. NONE of them have claimed that this is some personal vendetta. And those who have not corrected the situation are subject to finding their posting privileges suspended until the situation is corrected...including one or more "heavy hitters" on the forum. It doesn't matter their politics, despite what you may believe.

From what I NOW know of police procedures and the reputation of police in and around Dallas, I probably would've stayed for the search in order to make sure that no evidence was planted. [I have seen no indication that the DPD or anyone else planted evidence at the Paine house. So I'm not making any accusations of such.] In 1963, it's likely I might've been just as trusting of the cops as Ruth Paine. So it's a hard call.