Mark Knight

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?

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)