Why Mark Knight Should Never Be Allowed To Be A Moderator

[Brian Doyle]

Knight wrote:


" 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. "



Any person who is qualified to post on the Education Forum as a JFK Assassination researcher would understand what is wrong with the above statement and why Mark Knight should not be allowed to be an Education Forum moderator...Remember, the Education Forum is a website that goes out of its way to host Lone Nutters in some kind of dubious attempt at free speech...So right at the start it is a wheel-spinning forum where, no matter how strong a case of conspiracy evidence you present, the format of the forum is going to allow the deniers to ignore it and argue against it by structure...It is this kind of bogus format that generates moderators like Mark Knight and James Gordon...Why Mark Knight is a moderator or what qualifies him is unknown, but that doesn't stop him from having the final word without review or making self-exposing comments like the one above...To think that the brilliant, near-genius work of John Armstrong could be reduced to the moronic analogy Knight produces is an insult to the intelligence of any credible researcher...Armstrong's work on Captain Westbrook alone cracks the assassination...My brilliant work being reduced to "a shit-poster who doesn't work well with people" while ignoring my substantial, historical gains in JFK research, is also proof of Knight's lack of qualification and bias in favor of Gordon...All it really takes to be an Education Forum moderator is agreeing with Gordon all the time...

Jim DiEugenio also uses the exact same "I'm an agnostic" cop-out when asked to put some skin in the game on Harvey & Lee...He gets away with pretending he doesn't possess his usual expertise when it comes to certain issues...

It's time for a moderation shake-up in the research community...

[Brian Doyle]

It used to be against the DPF rules to side against a DPF member who was posting correct Conspiracy evidence in favor of an Education Forum moderator...

10 years ago it was clear that the Deep Politics Forum was created as a counter and sanctuary against unfair Education Forum moderation...The site rules spelled-out in clear black and white letters that if you were moderated unfairly at the Education Forum, and could back-up your evidence arguments with intelligent proof, that the Deep Politics Forum was the place where good evidence would be promoted and protected...

Whoever gave me a 1 star review for my protest against Mark Knight's corrupted moderation of myself is actually breaking the previous DPF board rules...I assume the moderators are the only persons with access to the star ratings...Which would mean an anonymous moderator is carrying out personal grudges under the guise of moderation while breaking the rules in the process...

[Brian Doyle]

Mark Knight wrote (Thusly proving the point of this thread):


    "As one of the forum administrators, I must point out that discussion forums such as this one are about discussing what one believes and why one believes it. The purpose is NOT to "ride someone out of town on a rail" simply because their interpretation of the facts differs from your own.
And THAT, my friends, explains why David Von Pein was reinstated to The Education Forum (pending his agreement to follow EF rules on discussion decorum).
So far as I can see, Pat and Keven are merely interpreting Jenkins' statement and the photos connected to them differently. 
Remember the "Mystic" paint Ford used on their Mustang a few years back? At different angles the car looked purple, green, or gold. So if two witnesses viewed an auto accident involving said Mustang, and one said the car was purple and the other swore it was green...which one is lying? Since they're directly contradicting one another, one of the witnesses HAS to be a liar...right?
To me, that sums up this entire thread so far. But I'll read on."
    


I never saw the hypocritical and sanctimonious Knight come in and defend me when I was being ran out of town on a rail from the Education Forum for posting the correct evidence on Prayer Man back in 2016...I was set upon and lynched by the Prayer Man mob that happened to have an abusive moderator (James Gordon) as one of their members without any such call for fairness coming from anyone...The two members who stood up for me, Richard Gilbride and Thomas Graves, were also banned by Gordon who was just banning anyone who pointed-out that Prayer Man was Sarah Stanton and that I just so happened to be correct...

Knight fails to realize that he, and his woefully inadequate moderation, are the problem here and not the solution that he seems to credit himself with...Pat Speer has been getting away with research murder on the Education Forum for decades because of Knight's feel-good agenda that substitutes for good moderation...The problem with the Education Forum is the attempt to allow Lone Nutter opinions has created an excuse for the moderators to neglect judging the quality of content and claims...As Knight shows here, this has led to the moderators self-excusing themselves from weighing judgment on bogus claims and false representations of evidence...In a situation where Speer is clearly guilty of lying and misrepresenting claims in order to come to his usual useless middle ground, like he does on every subject, Knight comes in and applies the EF's self-excusing equal access rule and completely fails to make the right call...The Prayer Man subject was the epitome of this syndrome and Gordon knew it, but being a power-abusing coward and incompetent, Gordon saved his own skin by banning the victim and making easier for himself with the Prayer Man majority...
 
When I applied for re-admission to the Education Forum Sandy Larsen told me it was denied because Mark Knight claimed I called Kathy Beckett a bad name on the McAdams website...What Knight is really saying there is that he is willing to run someone out of town on a rail for personal spite in order to maintain his 100% record on backing all of Gordon's wrongful moderator actions...What Knight is dishonestly dodging there is the fact I never broke any Education Forum site rules when I was a member in 2016 and posting the correct evidence on Prayer Man...Knight is refusing to address the real issue that my evidence was correct and no credible moderation could justify censoring it and banning its source in such an unfair way...Gordon is a real son of a bitch because he goes after his victims with defamation in order to make them look like they deserved to be banned - furthering his abuse of his moderator power...What Knight was indirectly saying there, in his denial of my re-admission, was that I had done nothing wrong on the Education Forum and that he had to desperately search for an excuse for not allowing the correct researcher back on the forum like his research had earned...Larsen, Gordon, and Knight are the problem here...They refuse to account for their censoring of the correct Prayer Man evidence and are the main reason why EF members are still allowed to claim Prayer Man is Oswald even though any competent oversight would have concluded by now that Prayer Man was a refuted theory and that I had proven Prayer Man was Stanton...Knight is a Gordon suck-up and isn't qualified for academic debate moderation...He is a guardian of the exclusion of competent Peer Review from the JFK internet as his tolerance and apology for Speer and his false evidence claims shows...

[Brian Doyle]

This man just doesn't get it...


He is obviously the reason why Speer has been allowed to mush up the evidence on the Education Forum:



"Mr. Hoefling, 
Since you are approaching this "discussion" as a "prosecution" of Mr. Speer, I must remind you that the burden of proof in an American court [no, this isn't a court, but I use the court as an example] is on the PROSECUTION, and not on the defense.
So can you PROVE that Mr. Speer actually used the word "liar" in reference to James Jenkins? To this point, I apparently have missed where you have posted that exact, direct quote.  One can say that another person's story has changed over the years and still not call them a liar. Memories fade, people don't express themselves well, people also sometimes are simply mistaken at one point or another in their lives.
As an administrator of The Education Forum, I can't wait for you to direct Sandy Larson to suspend my posting priviliges or to ban me from the forum, simply for questioning your techniques when dealing with Mr. Speer. As of 6/2/2024, I am the last remaining administrator from the transfer of ownership of The Education Forum from John Simkin to the group of four new owners they selected in 2014. Of that group of four owners, it seems I am the "last man standing," unless James Gordon decides to return.
Greg Doudna and I often disagree on the Forum. But I agree with Greg that when you accuse one party of calling someone a liar, it is incumbent upon you, as the accuser, to present evidence that the person you are accusing did what you have accused them of doing...that of calling someone a liar. Unless someone actually uses the word "liar," then you haven't proved your point.
And it is NOT the responsibility of anyone, including the person you accused, to prove they didn't do what you claim they did.  
If someone points to the upper back part of the head, at what specific point -- how many millimeters from what particular point of reference does the upper part of the head become NOT the top of the head? At what point on the skull does the "top of the head" begin and end? Yes, I'm asking for specificity in your response.
Otherwise, is the top HALF of the head still the "top of the head"? Or is it the top 25% of the head? Or only the top 2% of the head? If you cannot define your term with any degree of specificity, then perhaps Mr. Speer's interpretation of the term "top of the head" is slightly less specific than yours, which to this point seems quite subject to interpretation.
I eagerly await your attempts to have me suspended or even banned from the forum of which I appear to be the last currently active owner. This is gonna be a hoot.
When I'm suspended, maybe DVP can go by his former business and pick up a bucket [extra crispy, please, David!] and deliver it to me. I'm 25 miles west of Louisville, David...the same latitude as the first turn at Churchill Downs, and the same longitude as the end of pit road at Talladega Speedway. I'll supply the drinks as long as you drink decaf cola."



Knight is his best own condemner by his own words...


Is he a government agent?...

[Brian Doyle]

   And it is NOT the responsibility of anyone, including the person you accused, to prove they didn't do what you claim they did. 
 
If someone points to the upper back part of the head, at what specific point -- how many millimeters from what particular point of reference does the upper part of the head become NOT the top of the head? At what point on the skull does the "top of the head" begin and end? Yes, I'm asking for specificity in your response.
Otherwise, is the top HALF of the head still the "top of the head"? Or is it the top 25% of the head? Or only the top 2% of the head? If you cannot define your term with any degree of specificity, then perhaps Mr. Speer's interpretation of the term "top of the head" is slightly less specific than yours, which to this point seems quite subject to interpretation. 

Knight shows the problem with the Education Forum better than anyone...In a case where Pat Speer has been mushing up and distorting the evidence in order to muddy the waters in favor of the Warren Commission for decades what does Knight do?...He comes in and defends the violator as if he was an innocent victim falling prey to Keven Hofeling's attempt to get him...This one action right here by Knight shows the problem with the Education Forum in a nutshell and shows how that forum goes out of its way to protect Lone Nutters at the expense of the truth...

Knight seems oblivious to the fact that Speer has been dishonestly muddying the waters with claims that always bring doubt to the main conspiracy evidence...The answer to Knight's ill-considered attempt to confront Hofeling above is that we are not dealing with subjective degrees of interpretation...We are dealing with the main Parkland witnesses and Clint Hill witnessing a clearly-visible single avulsive exit wound in the rear Occiput that was evidence of a gunshot from the front...Lifton discovered evidence that a covert autopsy altered this wound in order to show wounds from Oswald's position...Commander Pitzer was murdered by CIA because he captured evidence of that covert autopsy on his remote filming equipment...There's no confusion about the terms of what is being argued here so Knight completely misses the boat on the issue that is being raised here and in doing so shows what the problem is with the Education Forum...Just the fact Knight needs this explained to him is evidence of why he should never be moderator...Keep in mind this same Mark Knight, who is defending what is basically a Lone Nutter traitor to Conspiracy research, is the same person who veto-ed my re-admission to the Education Forum...Knight does not have the personal ability to oversee dangerous political assassination evidence and is basically a social media feel good referee who lacks what it takes to moderate high level evidence debate...It is time for Knight to go in order for the Education Forum to finally gain some credibility, Peer Review, and fair moderation...

I eagerly await your attempts to have me suspended or even banned from the forum of which I appear to be the last currently active owner. This is gonna be a hoot.


When I'm suspended, maybe DVP can go by his former business and pick up a bucket [extra crispy, please, David!] and deliver it to me. I'm 25 miles west of Louisville, David...the same latitude as the first turn at Churchill Downs, and the same longitude as the end of pit road at Talladega Speedway. I'll supply the drinks as long as you drink decaf cola."

The clueless hypocrite Knight takes a sarcastic tone towards Larsen, however he hypocritically ignores that what he mocks is exactly what the Education Forum did to me for the crime of posting the correct evidence on Prayer Man...When Gordon lied about his reasons for banning me I did not see any such appeal to fairness and the right to post evidence from Knight...In fact, Knight responded to my banning by putting a knife in my back and calling me a shit-poster, even though he publicly admitted that he did not know why I was banned in the first place...Which just goes to show that Knight is one of the biggest supporting members of the lynch mobs he pretends to criticize...Right now Mark Knight, the same person who wrote the phony sanctimony above, is keeping one of the most important evidence discoveries in assassination history off the Education Forum because he says I called Kathy Beckett a bad name...But that doesn't stop him from sarcastically mocking wrongful moderation...The "shit-poster" Knight is persecuting and censoring happens to have discovered one of the most important evidence discoveries in research history that Knight is single-handedly responsible for the prevention of it being known on the Education Forum...Knight doesn't seem to care at all about his role in the prevention of that important evidence or its affect on JFK research...Which is why he's unqualified for moderator, is willing to carry out gang attacks, and needs to go...Mark Knight is doing the moderator version of what Speer is guilty of...

[Brian Doyle]

" Harassing and haranguing members whose interpretation of the evidence --  including witness testimony -- differ from some prescribed "orthodoxy," until they either leave the forum or "convert" to someone else's interpretation has never, IMHO, been the purpose of the Education Forum. 
You cannot verbally "beat" someone into submission. As a forum member, that's improper. As a moderator, that's inexcusable...IMHO. "



     Mark Knight is lying here and it is why Sandy suspended him...What he writes is exactly the purpose of the Education Forum as was proven in my case when James Gordon refused to objectively consider the evidence and rode my back on every post until he banned me...Gordon lied and said I was failing to follow the correct evidence procedures I had been told...Gordon was switching the subject to his false complaints against my methodology instead of doing his duty and seeing if what I was posting was valid...He was blatantly protecting his friends...What Gordon was posting was easily proven false because common sense tells you that the correct evidence cannot be accused of failing some sort of dishonestly-contrived call for methodology...You cannot be accused of failing correct methodology when you are posting the correct evidence...Gordon was just looking for an excuse and he was abusing his moderator power in the process...Knight is lying...It is exactly what the forum was designed for and exactly what happened to me...Just like Gordon, what Knight is doing is abusing his power, seizing control with a captive membership, switching the subject, and pronouncing his way in order to avoid accounting for his total lack of accountability in holding certain members accountable for their deliberately wrong information...Like Gordon, he is forcing acceptance for himself and Gordon never being held accountable for their delinquency in holding people accountable for their input...You can see Knight is self-excusing - as if asking him to do what his job description requires is some sort of offense...Knight is coming in right on cue and backing Gordon's wrongful, site-defeating, backwards judgments...This is the dirty trick Gordon and Knight commit...They set up a so-called "debate" forum and then snipe at people who actually follow the commonly accepted rules and premise of debate as if they had done something wrong...Then they divert attention from it by enforcing a snowflake level of conduct on what is supposed to be a debate board...

You're dead wrong Mr Knight only you have a dirty bastard protecting your wrong opinions...Fools should never be moderator and you are only hanging yourself by your own fatuous words that you seem to be oblivious to the degree by which they condemn you...What Knight writes is excuse-making and badly fails to account for Gordon and Knight's failure to honor facts and use them to guide an understanding of the issue...You would probably be better moderating a sensitivity training website rather than important political assassination board...

The members are not smart or brave enough to ask Mr Knight "What then is the purpose of the board?"...Mr Knight cannot explain that because there is no purpose other than using the threat of banning to perpetually justify Mr Gordon and Knight's inanities... 

[Brian Doyle]

" As Jim D. said, I also have never heard anyone who is a serious researcher state an "Israel killed KFK" opinion. Not the Mossad, not David Ben Gurion, not anyone connected to Israel. I personally consider anyone who subscribes to an "Israel killed JFK" theory a crackpot, making statements that cannot be supported by facts. "



     Knight follows DiEugenio's lead and bases his dismissal of Piper on the strawman of Israel planning the assassination...This dishonestly oversimplified device is then used to avoid discussing Piper's 500 pages of high quality research that exposes strong motivation for Israeli involvement...Knight talks about "the facts" and then avoids every single one of Piper's facts that make a strong case against Israel (Knight probably hasn't even read 'Final Judgment')...This is the advantage of "neutralizing"...You can ban your opponent and then make bogus arguments, and omit information, unopposed...This is the Jim DiEugenio school of research...

Knight fails to realize that his statement above is no different than the commonly-seen statement that no major media outlet ever says Kennedy was killed by US government conspiracy...

The research community continues to offer mediocre nobodies whose only credential is a moderator avatar who have the nerve to pose themselves as dismissing critics of a monster researcher like Piper, whose skills are beyond compare...

DiEugenio said Piper's material was "weak"...The truth is it is so strong that Jim D was literally unable to discuss it directly...Remember, Jim was afraid to debate Piper - not the other way around...Jim is so arrogant that he sees his own cowardly refusal to debate Piper as evidence of Piper's lack of credibility and not the other way around...Jim sees the act of him refusing to debate as refutation while he skips the part where he actually has to discuss Piper's evidence...

You see a good case here how the moderators on the Education Forum work with Jim D to get rid of good evidence...