Mark Knight

Matthew, If you insist on invoking Frank Zappa, you must familiarize yourself with the epic BILLY THE MOUNTAIN. The length of the cut likely exceeds your attention span, but trust me, it is worth your time.

John, As an American, I have no stake in the Irish question. From the 1960s onward, we were told on our nightly news that the conflict there was between Catholics and Protestants, two "sects," if you will, of Christianity. It was never [or seldom] brought up that independence of ALL Ireland may have been the impetus for the violence. We were, for the most part, never told the truth. I have ancestors who were both Irish and Scotch-Irish. I also believe that Great Britain/England has no business having sovereignty over any portion of what should be a united Ireland. And now knowing that we have been fed half-truths, partial truths, and outright lies about Ireland, I'm of the opinion that the entirety of Ireland should be ruled by the Irish alone. On the Irish side of my ancestry, William de Burgh, Lord of Connacht, Governor of Wexford, and founder of the de Burgh/Burke/Bourke dynasty in Ireland, is my 21st great-grandfather. And Toridelbach O'Briain (c. 1009-1086), High King of Ireland, is my 25th great-grandfather. On the Scottish side of my ancestry, Robert I the Bruce is my 18th great-grandfather.

Domestic terrorism is a real threat. This simply shows how vulnerable to attack the US power grid actually is. Moore County, North Carolina remains in the dark after targeted attack on power grid - Axios Raleigh

So which billionaire is actually working on implanting microchips into humans, again? Exclusive: Musk’s Neuralink faces federal probe, employee backlash over animal tests | Reuters

Not an in-depth article, but interesting nonetheless: The alternative-media industrial complex (axios.com)

Steve, I believe you've summed it up quite well. Yesterday Ted Cruz posted those photos of Hunter Biden's genitalia online. I still don't understand why Hunter's "junk" is such a Republican obsession. But it apparently is, for some reason.

It's obvious that Elon Musk has a perverted understanding of the First Amendment. The First Amendment places restrictions on what THE GOVERNMENT can do regarding free speech. Ask anyone who has ever worked in retail if "free speech" rights are absolute, and that your employer cannot punish you for saying things that customers may find offensive. Since Twitter is not a government entity, they can legally reserve the right to ban comments they find offensive. And the last I heard, no one named Biden was part of the federal government of the US between noon on January 20, 2016, and noon on January 20, 2021. So Twitter [pre-Musk ownership] agreeing to remove content during that time period based upon a request by people representing the Biden interests has NOTHING to do with government restricting free speech. Therefore, a First Amendment violation did not occur in any such instance. However, if the Trump administration asked for restriction or removal of content during that same time period, when they WERE in charge of the Executive Branch of the government, it MIGHT be a First Amendment violation...if that content was otherwise NOT a violation of Twitter's terms of Service.

You're correct, of course. I retired in 2021 from the Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. There are strict laws regarding the disclosure of Title 13 [Census-related Personally Identifying Information, or PII] and Title 26 [IRS-related] data. While Census personnel CAN view Title 26 data, they can only do so on a job-related "need-to-know" basis...which almost NEVER occurs. And the nondisclosure laws carry stiff fines and jail sentences, and we are sworn to adhere to those laws FOR LIFE, not simply for the duration of our employment. While one MIGHT think the reason that Oswald's tax returns aren't available to the public is because Marina is still alive, the death of the persons involved does not remove the Title 26 data restrictions.

David, I became a member here on March 22, 2005, and I was a lurker for a few months prior to that. While I haven't agreed with all of your comments and conclusions, I do have a great deal of respect for your research. Hate to see you go, sir. I recall a couple of people that I believed [and still believe] were disinformation agents. But at this point I believe most of those people decided after the 50th anniversary that their "services" were no longer needed. Since 2005, there have been some relative newcomers who have begun their careers here by rearguing some long-ago disproven points. Unlike other forums, in which they might have been advised to review the archives before posting, the EF has been a bit more patient...probably due to the vast size of our archived threads. I have recently noticed some members calling disagreements on facts "ad hominem attacks," and I would suggest they occasionally review the definition of the term. As an administrator, I try to bend over backwards in not being heavy-handed in dishing out discipline, because I realize that I, too, sometimes crossed some lines in my early days here. The administrative team here is in email contact with one another whenever a situation arises in which may require administrative action. Usually action comes only after a consensus is reached, but occasionally an administrator may take immediate action if the situation seems to warrant immediate action. We can't be everywhere on the forum 24/7, as we also have lives in the "real world," just as most of you do. As Kathy pointed out, the "report" button helps you serve as our "eyes and ears" when we are tending to other matters and miss something. Even David Von Pein has been better lately about not making those "Only an idiot would believe that!" comments than he used to be...a backhanded ad hominem if there ever was one. So I must point out that even his level of discussion here has elevated the EF, and as long as he continues in that way, I have no problem with him even if I do disagree with most of his conclusions. And being able to disagree without being disagreeable is what makes the discussion forum great.

No way the door would affect bullet trajectories, Vince. Your "amateur" is grasping at straws.

Returning to the original premise of the thread... My 42-year-old son and I have discussed this at length. I believe he correctly relates the concern level of his generation as "WGAF?" Indeed, besides those of us who were alive when the assassination occurred [and our numbers decrease daily], who truly gives a flip? My son's point was that the perps, even if in their 20s in 1963, would be at least in their 80s now. A "life sentence" for an 85- or 90-year-old would mean exactly what? Or if someone is accused, and they point the finger at someone long dead who can't defend himself...to what end would we prosecute anyone? While I'd like to say that just knowing the 100% truth would be a value unto itself, how could we know at this point that what appears to be the truth actually IS the truth? I favor knowing the truth simply for knowing the truth. But would that in itself prevent a future assassination? Doubtful. Other than simply knowing the truth, where's the value? At this point, if it wasn't Oswald acting alone [of which I have STRONG doubts], then the person or persons who did it actually got away with their crime. In the 1880s, for example, the Democratic Party was pro-segregation. But by the 1960s they were leading the fight for civil rights. Do we punish the party for the 1880s after what they did in the 1960s? No, because it's not the same people. As far as the CIA, if we're still using the same sources and methods in 2022 that we did in 1962, shame on us! We all know that's simply not the case, and none of the spies from 1962 are still spying in 2022. I'm afraid it's up to our generation. Because the following generations have already shifted into WGAF? mode.,

Ben, The AR-15 comment was partially in jest. I have a Twitter account, and although I have NEVER followed Kyle Rittenhouse, his posts began showing up on my feed almost as soon as Musk reinstated his account. After thinking this was someone's mistake, I finally got more than enough Rittenhouse and I blocked his account from my feed. What I was trying to say was, if Musk believes that Apple doesn't have the right to cut their advertising on Twitter [or wherever else they may decide to cut their advertising], perhaps he can use the argument that he felt he was being "threatened" and could "justifiably" take some lives, just as Rittenhouse did. As I said before, that part was meant in jest. Do I believe that Musk would be exonerated in a public court of law? Stranger things have happened; Rittenhouse was found not guilty, after all. I suppose it would depend upon how "threatened" Musk felt at the time of the shooting, and how many tears Musk could show for the jury. [Still speaking slightly in jest.]

Regarding Musk and Twitter, he's complaining that Amazon opposes "free speech" and demonstrates it by withdrawing most of their advertising. Musk apparently has a poor understanding of "free enterprise." Advertisers are concerned with the cost-per-thousand [or million] views of their advertising. But sheer numbers aren't the only concerns for advertisers. Advertisers want media that deliver their message to the demographic they want to reach. And advertisers also don't want to have their message associated with antisemitism, racism, or other negative social types. By opening Twitter to all forms of speech, including hate speech, advertisers are hesitant to continue to spend their dollars on a medium with a highly negative public perception. Musk apparently knows this but doesn't care. He simply wants them to continue to spend as if nothing's changed. But that's not how free enterprise works. As far as Musk's complaints about Apple Store considering dropping the Twitter app, there again it seems to be a free enterprise issue. No supplier tells a retail outlet what products they "must" carry. If a retailer finds your widgets to be a product they don't want to carry, they reserve the right not to carry your widgets. If someone buys a buttermilk biscuit company and eliminates the buttermilk to replace most of it with rancid lard, they shouldn't be surprised if the retailers stop carrying your biscuits. Yet Musk seems surprised that his lard-filled Twitter biscuits seem to be repelling the retailers like the Apple Store and Google Play. Musk forgets [or doesn't understand; take your pick] that your "free speech" rights only guarantee that the GOVERNMENT won't suppress your speech. Radios, TVs, computers and phones have an OFF button. You may have a right to say whatever you want, but others have the right NOT to listen. And advertisers have the right NOT to sponsor your product if they think it conflicts with the image they seek for the products they advertise. BOYCOTTS have existed ever since commerce has existed. Consumers AND advertisers have the right to decide where and when to spend their dollars, and where and when to withhold those dollars. Now, if Musk decides to go into an office at Apple with an AR-15 and "defend himself," the verdict in the Kyle Rittenhouse case makes me wonder if Musk would actually be convicted if he took out half of Apple's staff. Maybe if he could get a change of venue to Wisconsin...he might.

On November 22, 1963, I was on the asphalt-covered playground at the old Corydon Grade School in Corydon, Indiana when I heard from a classmate, "President Kennedy's been shot!" All of us who heard this called my classmate a liar. But as we walked in line back to our 3rd-floor 4th grade classroom, we passed the principal's office and saw that he was watching the black-and-white TV on which we'd seen astronaut Gordon Cooper take the final Mercury flight barely six months earlier. The TV was rarely used, so we knew that something important must be happening. Not long after we returned to our classroom, Principal Art Crowley made the announcement: "May I have your attention, please? The President is dead. I repeat, the President is dead...", his voice trailing off as if he was at a loss for words beyond the essential. We were dismissed early from classes, and while riding the bus through downtown Corydon, I noticed a Civil Defense truck at the corner of Chestnut and Mulberry Streets, its driver talking on a 2-way radio. THAT scared me. When my dad got home and I told him about the CD trick, he explained that, at the time, no one knew whether the US was under attack by Russia of Cuba or somewhere else. So the Civil Defense crew was activated in case they needed to open the fallout shelter located under the 10-year-old high school. I was glued to the TV until time for bed. Dad said, "This is history unfolding before your eyes." When I got up on Saturday morning, the usual cartoons on TV had been replaced by nonstop news coverage. Since my family preferred NBC, besides Chet Huntley and David Brinkley, I became familiar with the faces of John Chancellor and Dallas-area correspondent Tom Pettit. On Sunday, we were just finishing our lunch of round steak and mashed potatoes when we witnessed the murder of Lee Oswald by Jack Ruby. It was at that point that nothing was adding up. Why did Ruby silence Oswald? To this day, I've never heard a satisfactory explanation On Monday there was no school, and we were again glued to the television for JFK's funeral. The parade of international leaders walking in the procession, DeGaulle and Adenauer, and so many others, drove home to me just how historic the assassination of John F. Kennedy actually was. And I have been seeking deeper answers to the questions that began in my 9-year-old mind that weekend ever since.

I prefer to have books in my hand, as opposed to a digital copy. I have a decent library on the JFK assassination. On the other hand, I purchased a copy of Rock Scully's LIVING WITH THE DEAD, on the adventures he shared with the Grateful Dead, from their formation in San Francisco until his firing as manager by Jerry Garcia and, ultimately, Garcia's death. I paid $1 plus sales tax for the hardcover book in a Dollar Tree store in the early 2000s. So how much of my $1 did Rock Scully get? Any?

You do realize that the NYT is part of the MSM...right? I purposely avoided MSM stories in my search, because that seemed to be part of your criteria.

Roger, I need to clarify something about the FCC. The FCC doesn't license networks; it licenses individual stations. So WNBC is a licensee, but NBC is not. Bottom line is that the FCC could pressure NBC by threatening the license of its flagship, WNBC, but as far as the network goes, there is little else the FCC could do.

How much of this [if any] is true? I don't know. But here's one more non-MSM report: The Trump to Willard War Room to Militia Connection - emptywheel

Yet another "not-the-MSM" report: On Jan 5th, Bannon Is In Trump's War Room At A Luxury Hotel Where, He Takes A Call From The President, And The Two Decide To 'Blow It Up'. - Towleroad Gay News

Another non-MSM story: Did Trump Officials, Senators Hold a Pre-Insurrection Meeting at Trump Hotel Before Capitol Riots? (ibtimes.sg)

Also not the MSM: New details emerge of the 'war room' meetings at DC's Willard hotel ahead of Jan. 6 | Daily Mail Online

Ben himself has concluded that the Socialists, since they're NOT the MSM, might be a reliable source: Who was who in Trump’s Willard Hotel “war room”? - World Socialist Web Site (wsws.org)

Here's a source about as reputable as those cited by Mr. Koch: Why Was Michael Flynn Meeting Roger Stone at the Willard Hotel One Day Before the Capitol Attack? (substack.com)

Just a point that MAY help your search: The Willard Hotel meeting was on January FIFTH, not the 6th. Carry on.

Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 of the US Constitution gave the right to set election rules to the states: "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators." The language is slightly confusing and seems a bit contradictory. It states that the state legislatures make the rules, BUT that Congress can pass a law overruling the state laws. That allowed for the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution, the Nineteenth Amendment, and several Voting Rights Acts of Congress to override some of the state laws. However, with the most recent Supreme Court justices being "strict originalists," no one wants to propose a law standardizing all election laws for fear that the current majority might use that "originalist" interpretation to strike down any such standardization as unconstitutional, as it would be deviating from the "original intent" of the authors of the Constitution. IMHO, standardized election laws would be an extension of the "equal protection" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. But I'm not a lawyer, so my opinion only carries the weight of a single citizen. A person I follow on twitter is a member of the Lakota Sioux tribe of Native Americans. He complains that in some instances, Native Americans living on the reservations must travel as far as 200 miles one way to their nearest polling location to vote. I believe that his complaint is valid, as most of us in America travel less than 1/8 that distance to vote. But because each state makes their own election laws, that "problem" is perfectly legal in the states where it occurs. IMHO, that;s another argument for uniform election laws nationwide.