Mark Knight

Here's a link to EVERY area of The Education Forum: Forums - The Education Forum (ipbhost.com) It's also the EF home page.

Ben, You raise some very valid points here. Does anyone remember the Torbitt Document?

RFK Jr. says he’s not anti-vaccine. His record shows the opposite. It’s one of many inconsistencies | AP News

This video could stand a major edit. There is nothing essential going on until 52 minutes, 8 seconds into the video. And the news conference ends at 2 hours, 8 minutes, 8 seconds in. So out of a run time of 2 hours, 13 minutes, and 35 seconds, there are 57 minutes and 35 seconds of NOTHING. The actual information is contained in 1 hour, 16 minutes of this 2-hour, 13-minute, 35-second video. [I feel as if I've wasted a lot of time figuring out how much wasted time is in this video. That 57 minutes wasted is 42.67% of the run time of the video.] So, let's cut to the chase: How does this tie into the JFK assassination?

So what "biological agents" were we talking about in the early 1960s? Perhaps something as simple as corn rootworms that were bred to be pesticide-resistant? Remember, it took a couple more decades to get to the point of genetically-modified organisms we have today. Sugar was a major Cuban export, as well as tobacco in the form of cigars. I know very little of organisms that attack sugar cane, but having neighboring farms with a "tobacco base" in the 1960s and '70s, I know there were creatures that could kill your tobacco crop that might have been collected and bred in sufficient quantities to have been dropped into Cuba and overwhelmed normal eradication measures. In my mind, those are the kinds of "biological agents" that may have been proposed, or used, in Cuba.

We all can fantasize about what we'd do, given the constraints. 48 hours prior: that's 12:30 pm CST on November 20, 1963. Going back to Dallas, Texas. With 1963 money in the pockets of your 1963 clothes. But what clothes? Blue-collar work clothes? White-collar? Would you have a car? Or would you have to buy one? If you bought one, what would it be? Would you want to stand out or blend in? Would it be a '58 Rambler or a '60 Chevy? Assuming you had money, a car, and clean working-class clothes to begin with, what would you do? Maybe get a "lay of the land," by driving in and around Dallas and Oak Cliff, so that you had a better context of the places involved. That might get you to dinnertime on Wednesday the 20th. What then? Maybe you stop at a phone booth [for privacy, so you won't be overheard] and anonymously call the FBI office in Dallas. But what do you say? Maybe something like, "I was in a park today [give them the name of a local park...just NOT Dealy Plaza] and I overheard two men talking. There were bushes between me and them, so I don't know what they looked like. But one of them said that someone was going to shoot President Kennedy on Friday when his parade [nobody would say "motorcade" until the media started using that term] went past Dealy Plaza. The other guy said that it seems like all hell would break loose if that happened, and the first guy said, 'That's the point.'" But then you tell the FBI that you want to remain anonymous because you're not sure if the two men saw you when you were leaving or not. Then hang up the phone. Then call the SS office in Dallas with the same message. You need somewhere to sleep, so you get a motel room. Then find somewhere to have dinner. After dinner, maybe visit the Carousel Club and see if you could get some sort of vibe about Jack Ruby...discreetly, of course. On Thursday, maybe do a walk around in Dealy Plaza, checking out the pergolas, and maybe even eyeballing the Grassy Knoll and the South Knoll areas. See if you can detect any signs of heightened security as a result of your phone calls. In the afternoon, park on Houston Street so you can watch Frazier and Oswald drive by on their way to Irving. You can't try anything too "vigilante" because 1) you might end up in jail yourself, and 2) whomever you choose to "stop" might not be the actual assassin. Maybe late at night, you break out one of the windows on the SE corner of the 6th floor of the TSBD, and then hightail it out of Dealy Plaza...?? [A BB gun [air rifle] might work...not too loud, and several well-placed shots would take out a pane or two.] Maybe that would cause the alleged sniper's nest to move elsewhere; maybe not. On Friday morning, try to position yourself in a place where you could see what Lee Oswald carries, if anything, into the TSBD. Then buy a movie camera and film, and find a spot in Dealy Plaza to view the motorcade passing. If the FBI and/or the SS change up their security measures through Dealy, you'd have it on film. And be ready to GTFO of Dealy afterward, in case your warnings weren't heeded, hiding your movie camera to make sure your film didn't get confiscated. The huge problem is, we don't know for sure from which direction the shots originated. we suspect this or that, but because the WC investigation wasn't as thorough as it could've been, we can't be 100% certain. So we don't know where any prevention measures might be effective. You might still witness the assassination in Dealy Plaza. Or the SS may have rerouted the motorcade. It's all still speculation on what might happen; there is no 100% sure "if/then" scenario we can play out.

I'm agnostic as to whether there's any "there" there in the Harvey and Lee story. Here's why. I was born and grew up in a county in southern Indiana. I married a girl from the next county to the east, and we lived most of our married life in the second county to the east of my home county. A few years into our marriage, my wife was a patient in the local hospital. When I was getting her registered, the registrar asked me if I'd ever been a patient in the same hospital. I had not, and when I inquired why she was asking, I discovered that there was ANOTHER Mark Knight, down to the same middle initial, who had a substantial outstanding bill. Only after giving her my Social Security number did I establish in her mind that I was a different Mark Knight. So I started asking questions. I discovered there was another Mark Knight, same middle initial, who had graduated high school the same year I had graduated, but in the county in which I was then living. We had grown up 25 miles apart, we weren't related as far as I'd been able to determine to date, and neither of us has ever met the other. But his credit problems came up every time I applied for credit, and I've had to dispute numerous items on my credit report over the years. So as far as Harvey and Lee go, perhaps there's nothing nefarious involved. Maybe there are just a lot of coincidences such as what I discovered with my own "namesake" in southern Indiana. To this point, I remain unconvinced that the Harvey and Lee case involves a great depth of subterfuge.

[Redacted by Request] was not banned from the Education Forum by the forum administrators.

As far as Oswald's rights, Miranda v. Arizona wasn't decided until 1966. That meant that, prior to 1966, many defendants had their rights violated during police questioning because those rights weren't specifically enumerated until Miranda. Interrogations in 1963 were quite different. Remember, DPD tried to get Buell Wesley Frazier to sign a confession against his will, and when he refused, there was nearly a fistfight.

Does anyone besides me find it odd that a resident of Ireland [or any other nation NOT called the United States of America] is involved in debating who should become President of the US? I don't begrudge anyone from having an OPINION, but actual advocacy for a particular candidate on a forum not meant to be a debate on current politics? It would be akin to someone from the US inserting their preference for a particular political candidate to become the Irish head of state...which, as a US citizen, I consider to be "not my concern." As a moderator, I somewhat object to references to a temporary suspension of posting privileges as a "ban." A ban would be if your membership in the EF was revoked. And after more than one moderator has explained the thought process behind a suspension, to say that the moderators have never explained why they took the actions they did is a blatant untruth. You may disagree with the actions of a moderator; that is your prerogative. Just don't say that, because a moderator wasn't swayed by your reason for disagreement, that the moderator failed to explain why they took action. When the mods finalize and fine-tune the penalty point system, I have suggested that the guidelines be posted in the pinned Forum rules. For now, I will advise you that 10 penalty points results in a 1-day suspension of posting privileges; 20 points results in a 2-day suspension; and so on. We're trying to fine-tune the system so that we can have a system with consistency and parity. HOWEVER, "frequent fliers" in the penalty box do tend to accumulate higher point values when they are penalized. But we also are setting up a mechanism under which points do expire. So if a member has a five-point penalty from 2014, for example, and none since, the 2014 penalty will go away if no other offenses occur. The EF has never been a democracy. Moderators have always had authority to enforce forum rules. And that will continue into the foreseeable future.

My PERSONAL take on RM's post here is simple. The information, as released, is like a 2,000-page bill before Congress. RM is reporting what's actually IN the bill. And I consider that a HIGHLY valuable service.

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.