Mark Knight

1 hour ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

If Trump was still president, we would have sued him. It is about compliance with the law, not who sits in the oval office.

This is the part to hold onto tightly.

The black-and-white imagery is truth.

Can we know that the colorization would be 100% accurate? Or would it be simply a best computer-generated guess?

This thread was moved from the JFK ASSASSINATION DEBATE section of the forum because it has ZERO to do with the JFK Assassination and is instead more of a diatribe against the forum administrators. As such, the current location is the more correct place for the thread. The FORUM INFORMATION, DEVELOPMENT, AND COMMUNICATIONS section was where the administrators [as a group; not just one administrator] decided such threads belong.

Let it be noted that the title change on this thread was NOT the action of the forum administrators, lest there be any confusion as to WHO changed the title of the thread. The originator of the thread changed the title.

You are entitled to your opinions; notice that not a single post has been deleted from this thread. Nor will it be. So please do rail on about censorship. 

Notice also that the "56 years" thread exists in its entirety in the POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS area of the forum.

Take note that the Trump discussion threads have also been moved to the POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS area of the forum, intact.

In fact, in the interest of fairness to all political perspectives, I even opened a Biden Discussion Thread in the POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS area of the forum, so that members can make political posts for and against Biden as well as Trump.

All viewpoints are welcome here. Since the forum rules mention that disciplinary action by the forum administrators CAN be taken without issuing a prior warning, depending upon the administrators' perceived urgency of the disciplinary action, the forum rules were not violated by the administrators.

I would challenge Ben to answer a question:

How many people of the group you call "Donks" or "the left" even read The Daily Beast?

There are some members of this forum who would call me a leftist [I'm actually a centrist, for the most part], and the only time I hear from or about The Daily Beast is when someone with their knickers in a bunch uses The Daily Beast to illustrate just how crazy "the left" actually is.

I consider The Daily Beast to be as unreliable as the National Enquirer. So I don't subscribe to their junk, and I don't seek out their junk.

But apparently Ben thinks all the people on "the left," including every "Donk," read them religiously and believe every word they publish.

Here's some news for you, Ben: it ain't necessarily so.

9 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Well, maybe I am out of school.

My view is there were four presidential regime change-ops in postwar US history. 

JFK, Nixon, Carter, Trump. 

We should be examining the perma-intel state, and setting aside partisan politics. Anti-Trump and anti-Biden rants are misplaced in the EF-JFKA. 

Actually, I forget how Trump become involved in this thread. But initially, It wasn't me.

All threads lead to Trump, I something think. You know how that goes. 

Hey, you are the moderator, and so place this thread wherever it belongs, and I will happily abide by your decision and all your decisions. 

Thanks for doing the thankless task of moderation. 

This thread is specifically about the de Gaulle assassination attempts and possible connections to the JFK assassination. 

Show me that you can link the OAS or others who attempted to assassinate Charles de Gaulle to Donald J. Trump, and I will consider your comments germane to this thread. At the moment, I fail to see a connection.

I will point out that there is a wide range between "giving up your guns" and allowing every numbskull, idiot, and mentally/morally bankrupt person to have access to firearms.

There is such a thing as "reasonable restrictions." Fully automatic weapons fall under that category, and they ARE regulated. 

It's NOT an all-or-nothing proposition.

Fast-forward to 2023, and the anti-vax movement has exploded since COVID-19 hit.

Ben,

I'm still struggling to understand how you're linking ex-President Trump to the attempted deGaulle assassination. 

The attempted assassination of deGaulle...That's the topic of this thread...right?

If you insist there's a "deep state" connection to Trump, then you should be posting that in either the POLITICAL DISCUSSION area or the JFK DEEP POLITICS area of the forum.

**********           ***********           **********

For the most part, the possible OAS/CIA nexus should probably also be in the JFK DEEP POLITICS section, but Skorenzy et al aren't the only actors being discussed...so on another level, the possible connection to the OAS or a rogue member or two makes this the appropriate forum for this discussion, IMHO.

There sure are a lot of non-shooters on your list.

If you're looking for a definitive answer, you need to separate the shooter(s) from the planner(s), and perhaps even the planner(s) from the facilitator(s).

Why is this topic not more appropriate for the JFK DEEP POLITICS section, since it has zero to do with the actual assassination? Ben, if you're convinced this is part of a "Deep State" operation, then you're actually making my point that it belongs in the JFK DEEP POLITICS section.

Now...do your best to convince me that's NOT what you're saying.

I believe that the reins of the Education Forum changed hands in 2014.

A problem in this discussion is that bullet trajectory hasn't been considered.

While I haven't found trajectory information for the Winchester-Western cartridges, according to this source, the trajectory is likely somewhere between 2.8 inches to 3.1 inches HIGH at 100 YARDS. This suggests that at 100 FEET, the bullet trajectory is still rising. So at 100 feet, the bullet will undoubtedly be higher than the point of aim.

Source: 6.5x52 Carcano (chuckhawks.com)

1 hour ago, Guest said:

This reminds me of the many debates in which I've participated concerning religious epistemology. Barring an unequivocal divine revelation that all rational persons would recognize and accept, a Christian theist can't be sure that any god actually exists or that Christianity is actually true while other religions and atheism are false. An atheist likewise can never be sure that no god exists. We all engage in abductive reasoning - i.e., we reason to what seems to be the best explanation on the basis of what seems to be the best evidence and inferences. Depending on how diligent and thorough our quest has been, we reach some level of conviction. In almost every religious discussion that spirals out of control, the problems arise because people claim knowledge or certainty when what they are really talking about is deep conviction (or they claim deep conviction when the underlying quest has been far from diligent and thorough).

I can never be sure there was no conspiracy associated with the JFKA, even if it was one that only met the barest technical definition of a conspiracy. I can never conclusively disprove that possibility. Likewise, it would require unequivocal evidence, convincing to all rational persons, that a particular conspiracy did occur and that the Lone Nut explanation and all other conspiracy theories must be discarded. Such evidence is the Holy Grail for conspiracy theorists, of course, but after 60 years it's unlikely to surface.

So we all engage in abductive reasoning and reach our respective levels of conviction based on whatever level of diligence and thoroughness we've devoted to the quest. Anyone who has participated on religious forums would recognize how similar the discussions here are to religious ones, as I've pointed out many times. The parallels between the various conspiracy communities here and religious ones are striking. Also as within religious communities, we see positions asserted here that seem pretty clearly to be based largely on factors other than diligence, thoroughness, solid evidence and reasonable inferences.

So the only "failure" I see is a failure to recognize that deep conviction is the best that is likely to be achieved by anyone in regard to the JFKA and that intelligent, rational people may strongly disagree as to what constitutes the best evidence, the most reasonable inferences and the most plausible explanations. Just as within religious circles, people may hold very different, very deep convictions.

If one reads through the comments here, what I'm talking about stands out pretty starkly. People claiming certainty they don't and can't have, people attempting to explain away the fact that other intelligent and rational people have reached very different convictions, and all the rest.

(If you're interested, this was my attempt to deal with the issue on a Christian forum: https://christianforums.net/threads/do-we-know-christianity-is-true.91503/. Don't look for a lot of other threads by dear old Runner, because I was summarily banned. On that forum, they KNOW Christianity is true, dammit, and that's all there is to it.)

That's a great summation. Well-said!

25 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Which is why the moderators have carved out spaces for political discussions. Go to the designated threads and post with a full-throated roar! 

Ben,

The POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS forum area was "carved out" long before the current crop of administrators/moderators came along.

And around a week ago, you were complaining that the JFKA forum NEEDED a Biden discussion thread IN ADDITION to a Trump discussion thread, You also stated that you had no intention of going to another section of The Education Forum to discuss Trump, Biden, et al. 

You might have a short memory. I do not.

You have a right to change your mind. But you don't have the history of the POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS area of The Education Forum correct. John Simkin and his partner Andy [I can't recall his last name at the moment] "carved out" that area long, long ago [relatively speaking].

Simkin et al also set up a JFK Deep Politics discussion area way back when. It's still available. 

If you are going to give someone a history lesson, make sure your history is correct.

I like the "water cooler" concept.

Now, may "cooler heads" prevail here.

I like the "water cooler" concept.

Now, may "cooler heads" prevail here.

I like the "water cooler" concept.

Now, may "cooler heads" prevail here.

1.) In general, no public announcement is made when a forum member has had their posting privileges suspended. And that includes the mods/administrators. So you actually have no clue whether any mods, administrators, or any other members have had their posting privileges suspended or not -- be it for a day, a week, or whatever length -- without checking on that member's profile while the suspension is in force.

2.) "Note that Section 230 of U.S. Code provides liability protection for 3rd party content posted on a website."

Brushing up on what is stated in USC Section 230 might enlighten you as to what liabilities a forum such as this does and DOES NOT have for USER-posted comments. While the US Congress is discussing whether or not to change Section 230, until or unless they do, those who post here are legally liable for the content of their comments to a MUCH greater degree than the forum itself.

Ben,

This topic has been moved to the Political Discussions area of the Education Forum, where it belongs.

I have begun a Biden Discussion thread...in the Political Discussions area of the EF, where it also belongs.

BOTH are now linked and pinned at the top of the JFK Assassination Discussion forum, in order to direct members to the appropriate areas.

And you were unable to send me a message because my inbox is full, NOT because I am refusing messages. I have no control over who or how often the inbox gets filled. I am not notified when it's full unless someone mentions attempting to send me a message that wouldn't go through...as you did.

Personally, I don't give a damn who anyone voted for. But I posted the Biden Discussion Link in order to demonstrate my [and the other administrators'] commitment to keeping the JFK assassination as nonpartisan as possible. If we continue the partisan bickering on the JFK assassination forum, how will that serve the purpose of exposing the truth? In all honesty, it won't. 

So that content has been moved.

Since there have been more Trump discussions begun on the JFK Assassination Discussion board, for the moment I am moving them all to this particular thread so we can lock our "signpost" thread directing you to the Trump discussions.

I have begun this Biden discussion thread because there has been a request for one on the JFK Assassination Forum. 

Since Biden's presidency is only peripherally connected to the JFK assassination, via the JFK Records Act, any discussion of Biden's presidency belongs HERE, in the Political Discussions area of The Education Forum.

Ladies and gentlemen, you have your spot. Fire away!

Ben:

Other than the JFK Records Act, Biden has ZERO connection to the JFK assassination.

If you wish to discuss current politics. you are MORE than welcome to start a Biden discussion thread...which will then be moved, like the "56 years" thread, to the Political Discussions part of The Education Forum, where it belongs.

It's still PART of The Education Forum, it's just not part of the JFK Assassination Discussion. IT'S WHERE IT BELONGS.

Political Debates - The Education Forum (ipbhost.com)

Bookmark that link. Because I'm pretty sure that's where this thread, which is ONLY supposed to show links to where the Trump discussion threads are to be found, will end up.

We welcome people of every political persuasion to discuss the JFK assassination here. But we have areas to discuss other political issues in OTHER parts of The Education Forum. I don't give a damn if you're pro-or anti- Biden, pro- or anti- Trump, or a thousand other political persuasions. But the JFK Assassination Discussion forum is the place to discuss the JFK assassination ONLY.

WE PROVIDE OTHER DISCUSSION FORUMS FOR THOSE OTHER TOPICS. USE THEM.  

Here's the MAIN link to The Education Forum: Forums - The Education Forum (ipbhost.com)

(I'd wager you've NEVER been there before...it's a big house, check out the other rooms.)

12 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

@Mark Knight said:

 

There are a few points I'd like to make here.

1. Contributing to the Education Forum is voluntary. It is not a membership fee. But contributing does not "buy" anyone an exemption from the forum rules. The only thing a contribution to the EF funding does is pay for the continued existence of the EF. There is no quid pro quo, no "pay to play," and no exemption from forum rules.

2. If Mr. Cotter chooses to make me the bogeyman and the "source of all evil" on this forum, he can do that. I'm an old guy with broad shoulders. I'm tempted to say, "I've been called worse by better," but I have no idea whether Mr. Cotter IS worse or better. I would bet that, away from this forum, we would likely find some common ground in a discussion over a beverage of choice.

3. While I have my own political viewpoints, they have no bearing on how the forum is moderated. The primary driver of moderation is the reports made by forum members themselves. I don't generally act unilaterally. I usually consult with the other administrators, and many times I simply ignore the reports that seem to be about literally nothing.

4. If I see a post that angers me [few do], I generally refer them to the other administrators to ensure that I'm not acting out of anger and that someone else can make the decision whether the post deserves moderation. In that way, I'm doing my humanly best to remain as impartial as I possibly can.

5. The suspension of Matthew Koch's posting privileges was not the decision of only one administrator. The deliberations involved took place over a considerable length of time.

6. The "56 Years" thread has not been deleted. Don't take my word for it, see for yourself.

 

————————————————————-

I replied:

 

 

Hi Mark, 

I mean the following with all due respect. I know you guys do this on a volunteer basis and it has eaten up peoples time lately, which must be frustrating. I also know that there is a great deal of political nettle and friction in the USA. With that taken into account, I will point out the following:

 

1) I agree that voluntary contributions are not a contract and they do not give a person special privileges or rights here. However, people do contribute not only on the basis of wanting the forum and its treasure trove of information and discussions to be preserved but, also so they can participate.
Without any caution or warning, or direct message/email, @Matthew Koch has been suspended or banned. You have also cited a reason for this banning in the public post, though not naming Matthew per se. Stalking was mentioned. I have no problem with there being a rule for that, which prohibits publicly available information about a person being shared or referenced about a person without their permission. But, there was no such rule for that at the time of you suspended Matthew. Jim Di also shared something about Lance, and he isn’t banned for the same thing. Why? Can we have one rule for the goose and another for the gander? I witnessed the fracas between Ron and Matthew, however, there was previous vitriol which started with Ron using a play on words with Matthews last name. Ron did also respond breaking rules and as far as I am aware, he isn’t suspended either.

I am not seeking that anyone is banned or suspended here, I would like equality, a level playing field, a sense of fairness. And a situation where we all are clear where the line is.
 

2/3) I know it won’t be popular for me to say but, I can see where John is coming from. I have never had any truck with you, Mark. Our exchanges have always been rather cordial. If we go to page 865 or 866 of the thread in question: you did have some nettle with Matthew and I don’t think your response was fair, kind or impartial:

 

 

Mark Knight

Posted October 1, 2022

   On 10/1/2022 at 8:40 PM,  Sandy Larsen said: 

   On 10/1/2022 at 8:40 PM,  Sandy Larsen said: 

Just pondering my new surroundings...

The difference between Matthew and Ben is that Matthew is all-in Trump, whereas Ben is all-in what he wants Trump to be. Matthew believes all MAGAverse alternative facts, whereas Ben believes only the ones he can fit with his True Trump.

 

I think Matthew's last name tells us where his loyalties lie.

Whether he's related to them or not.

—————————————————-

Does the above sound ok? Look, we’ve all said things that in hind sight may have been regrettable.

What it looks like is that perhaps you should have recused yourself in this case, as it may be argued that there is a conflict of interests or a conscious or unconscious bias present. I don’t know if all moderators are fiercely loyal Democrats but, it certainly seems like a majority, Kathy has been quite pointed at times too IMO (not impartial). Is this analogous to having an white jury try Emmett Till? It doesn’t seem fair at all. I would think differently if others had been held to account for doing the same things as Matthew. 
 

4) Makes sense. 

5) It may be a consensus but, it doesn’t make it better if it looks like a witch-hunt. There is a moral responsibility to make a fair decision. The thread was seen to be deteriorating for days and nothing was done. People on one side of the debate were defamed (mostly, not exclusively), all sorts of heinous terms were used or insinuated, the worst insults and then there was some retaliation. At any point in time mods could have said; enough us enough, any ad hominem directly or indirectly will be a weeks ban, no matter how big or small, and it would have diffused the situation IMO. It would have been much quicker to fire out 6-8 copy paste messages to offenders. Instead it was allowed to rattle on, with tensions building. Was what Matthew did worse than being called fascist, far-right, anti-semitic, and whatever else? There are no grounds for this. I am on the left and libertarian, but, I have also been much maligned and called some of these things. I have retaliated as sometimes its been the only way to stop the culprits and put them in retreat. It shouldn’t be that way if we desire a decent discourse. Yes, we are all human and we often fail to live up to our high ideals. Democrats are supposed to have much higher ideals than Republicans (or at least I was led to believe), the party of FDR and JFK. Would either of those two be banning Matthew right now with no explanation or forewarning? Would they choose to censor? 
 

6) I think moving the thread was the right thing to do. I think the Trump thread at the top should also be moved. 
 

In conclusion, I would ask you guys to review your own decision. As I think standards/criteria haven’t been met. I think we have to demonstrate them if we are to justify action against an ideological enemy. Of course that’s just my opinion, you can do as you wish, its your prerogative. At least in my eyes this doesn’t seem fair or equitable. We can all do better. 
 

Chris 

———————————————

If you guys are justified as per your own rules, why are you hiding from a free and open dialogue on the matter? Why are you failing to justify your positions? 
 

 

 

From Terms Of Forum Use, posted in 2014:

"Suspension of members, privileges, reinstatement of those privileges, or removal from membership shall be at the sole discretion of the owners of The Education Forum."

This is not some newly-concocted rule. Nor is it hidden from Forum members, as it's pinned to the opening page of the JFK Assassination Forum. I'm simply pointing that out.

To find the last page in this thread...click on the double arrows following the page numbers at the top of the thread.

Also, I want to remind you that this link from the JFK Assassination forum will expire after 30 days. So you may want to bookmark the link once you come to the "56 years" thread.

37 minutes ago, John Cotter said:

Mr Bulman, please explain precisely what was wrong about any comments that I made.

Mr. Cotter, I will step in for Mr. Bulman and explain "precisely what was wrong" with the comments he cited.

In the pinned topic MEMBERSHIP BEHAVIOUR, administrator James Gordon posted the following:

"In addition I have noted that some members have been playing with word structure to avoid using offensive language. That will no longer be tolerated."

This is NOT some new rule. This post dates back to 2015. And it covers what you did twice with a word beginning with "f" and again with a word beginning with "p". [I won't repost the words, because I don't want to give you the opportunity to call me a hypocrite for demonstrating the offensive behaviour in order to point out examples of the offensive behaviour.]

I would suggest you take a couple of moments to reacquaint yourself with the forum rules.

The Education Forum is NOT ROKC. The administrators, though we are human, are attempting to continue the standards established by our predecessor, John Simkin.

References:

MEMBERSHIP BEHAVIOUR - JFK Assassination Debate - The Education Forum (ipbhost.com)