Mark Knight

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.

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.

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)

That's a great summation. Well-said!

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.