Who would most effectively present to the world, via print and electronic media and other delivery systems, the true story -- as far as we know it to date -- of who killed JFK and why it matters?
It is almost as difficult to phrase the question sensibly and succinctly as it is to answer it.
Use of the word "effectively" begs the unavoidable basic question-as-response: What are the long-term and immediate objectives of the enterprise?
Having read the tens of thousands of words already written on this subject, I have yet to discover discussion of this core query, let alone acknowledgment of why it must be answered.
My preliminary thoughts follow. Your ideas are warmly solicited.
__________________________________________
1. LONG TERM OBJECTIVES -- To reveal and remove from power the assassination's Sponsors; to energize, protect, and empower the people, who comprise the "collateral damage" of the attack on JFK, to re-take control of their political and cultural systems.
2. SHORT TERM OBJECTIVES -- To appeal to the hearts and minds of the people so as to engender outrage and, quickly thereafter, righteous indignation, which in turn can be focused into coordinated national and eventually global campaigns of non-violent protest and political and cultural action.
3. HOW TO TELL THE TRUTH -- We must supplant the chaos that rules our "community" with the highest degree of operational discipline -- a simple (as opposed to simple-minded) strategic communications plan scrupulously adhered to and structured as follows:
STEP A -- HOW was JFK killed? In other words, agree upon and share unassailable evidence for CONSPIRACY. This must NOT be about exonerating Lee Harvey Oswald or anyone else. This must NOT be about inculpating any individuals or systems. Rather, it must be a sober, scientific presentation of evidence that demonstrates, beyond all doubt and to the degree of metaphysical certitude, that JFK was shot by two or more individuals acting in concert.
STEP B -- Provide and explain a working model of the conspiracy. For the purposes of this mini-essay, I propose the Sponsor/Facilitator/Mechanic model in its entirety (including sub-categories).
STEP C -- WHO killed JFK? This question is best answered by REVERSE-ENGINEERING the shooting. WHO could have done it the way it was done? Who could have stripped security? Who could have selected the motorcade route? Who could have selected the perfect patsy? Who could have covered up the conspiracy and protected its Sponsors and Facilitators? The best rhetorical device to answer these questions might be to ask, "Who could NOT have done these things as they were done?" Or, if you prefer, "Who did NOT have the means AND motive AND opportunity to do the deed as it was done?"
STEP D -- WHY was JFK killed?
STEP E -- How should we define "justice" in this case?
Daunting tasks? No doubt.
I'm proposing a multi-front attack.
So who among us would serve as our best generals?
FOR OVERVIEW -- James Douglass
FOR STEP A -- David Mantik, plus no more than two additional experts in the evidentiary record .
FOR STEP B -- A high-profile member of the community who endorses and fully comprehends the model (no, NOT me).
I asked this question over at the EF. It has started a slide a little as people argue over the evidence.
Here's the rub as I see it. Use a well known person from the research community and they will invariably be wedded to their own theory, which doesn't even get universal agreement on this side of the debate. Also, a good scholar/researcher is not necessarily effective in debate or on screen against the likes Fox News or VB.
A well known character with integrity from some other field (a recognizable brand, IOW) could be coached with the facts but would hold no weight against someone like Posner who has done their research.
Think of it like a sales pitch. In companies I've worked for we had the slick salesman who could talk the talk but not really capable of switching the product on, followed by the tech guy who knows the product inside out and can respond to questions of detail. I think it needs a well known personality with gravitas and integrity (I know, not too many of those about today) to sell the concept, and a person with a wide, deep knowledge of facts and sources. That guy, to me anyway, is Jim DiEugenio. A broader picture as to why would be Douglass but I have no idea what he's like on TV.
Presentation needs to be as watertight in regard to facts as possible. Use "new" (i.e. within last 20 years) stuff like the AARB but choose wisely and have corroboration to hand. Two brains etc?
If Hanks hadn't crossed to the "dark side" I'd have suggested him as your Jimmy Stewart character. Who is there in US culture these days with a high trust rating?
i hope the question was not to identify ONE such person. No one such person exists. However, I think we could come up with a 'short list' of 20 +/- persons who might be up to the task [whether willing is another matter]. In fact, such a huge task this is, a stable of persons, rather than a single one would be preferable for whatever you have in mind or is needed. I'll put on my thinking cap and try to mention some. One thing to consider is if they are to speak or write a few page article - as not all wonderful thinker/writers on this subject are also great speakers and vice versa. A few are both. Most, while having an excellent general knowledge on the subject have specialized in one or a few special aspects. That is yet another reason to have several, to cover all bases with whatever 'audience' you have in mind. I think a good idea, and still do-able with the short time available, would be a book targeting the 50th, but with each of MANY chapters written by one person on one aspect. It is just doable if a publisher were 'game'. If not, there is on demand off the computer printing - but distribution is problematic. Anyone want to contact Trine Day or similar to see if they are interested and geared up for such a quick product? One would need a 'conductor' in this case to choose the chapter topics, the persons writing them and the order and continuity, etc.
"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws. - Mayer Rothschild
"Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience! People are obedient in the face of poverty, starvation, stupidity, war, and cruelty. Our problem is that grand thieves are running the country. That's our problem!" - Howard Zinn
"If there is no struggle there is no progress. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and never will" - Frederick Douglass
Peter Lemkin Wrote:i hope the question was not to identify ONE such person. No one such person exists. However, I think we could come up with a 'short list' of 20 +/- persons who might be up to the task [whether willing is another matter]. In fact, such a huge task this is, a stable of persons, rather than a single one would be preferable for whatever you have in mind or is needed. I'll put on my thinking cap and try to mention some. One thing to consider is if they are to speak or write a few page article - as not all wonderful thinker/writers on this subject are also great speakers and vice versa.
Well reasoned, Peter.
I assure you that I am not seeking to identify one spokesperson.
My original post above does not meaningfully address methodologies, which will be discussed in due course.
I cannot overstate the importance of adhering to the 5-Step outline as I present it. I've witnessed enough media interviews -- others and my own -- to understand that reporters instinctively, pre-maturely, counter-productively, and in some cases obediently jump to the "Who did it?" question.
When -- not if -- they do so, the spokespersons must patiently walk them back from "Who?" to "How?".
As previously noted, spokespersons must exercise extraordinary message discipline under extraordinarily hostile conditions if the plan is to work.
This effort cannot succeed unless it is built upon the following statement of fact:
"Anyone with reasonable access to the JFK assassination evidence who does not conclude that the crime was committed by conspirators is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime."
In other words, we must make it crystal clear that WE ARE NOT DEBATING THE "HOW" WITH ANYONE!!!
Conspiracy in the death of JFK is established fact.
Charles Drago Wrote:As previously noted, spokespersons must exercise extraordinary message discipline under extraordinarily hostile conditions if the plan is to work.
Mr Drago's statement is so very true, and should never be underestimated. Very extraordinary hostile conditions against truth.
The clarity of your outline, Charles, is a captivating trailer:
1. LONG TERM OBJECTIVES -- To reveal and remove from power the assassination's Sponsors; to energize, protect, and empower the people, who comprise the "collateral damage" of the attack on JFK, to re-take control of their political and cultural systems.
2. SHORT TERM OBJECTIVES -- To appeal to the hearts and minds of the people so as to engender outrage and, quickly thereafter, righteous indignation, which in turn can be focused into coordinated national and eventually global campaigns of non-violent protest and political and cultural action.
3. HOW TO TELL THE TRUTH -- We must supplant the chaos that rules our "community" with the highest degree of operational discipline -- a simple (as opposed to simple-minded) strategic communications plan scrupulously adhered to and structured as follows:
I find the three primaries and subsequent secondaries to be the armature for the application of flesh to determine the identity.
1. LONG TERM OBJECTIVES
Requires realization that those in power and those who provide their propaganda matrix are subservient to the permasponsors--for the sponsors of the killing of the 35th president are not ad hoc arising in or about 1963 and fading from the battlefield as the guns were discreetly removed.
2. SHORT TERM OBJECTIVES
Twice have we seen this emotional mobilization; Rivera's Zapruder screening forced the HSCA; Stone's JFK (1991) forced the JFK Act. What is called for is another masterstroke of street theater where the street is the world.
3. HOW TO TELL THE TRUTH
This is the Dylan-Hendrix All Along the Watchtower the thief he kindly spoke/many here among us think that life is but a joke/but you and I we've been through that and this is not our fate/so let us not talk falsely now the hour is getting late
[ATTACH=CONFIG]4310[/ATTACH]
Some cross between Penn & Teller, Rod Serling, George Carlin, in a stark format viz Experts Speak Out on Collapse of Towers
For all of Babylon is in the hands of the sponsors
Twice have we seen this emotional mobilization; Rivera's Zapruder screening forced the HSCA; Stone's JFK (1991) forced the JFK Act. What is called for is another masterstroke of street theater where the street is the world.
Phil, we could not be more aligned in our thoughts here.
In the wake of Stone's JFK, I publicly spoke of the unique power of artistic expression -- refined, which is to say, universally effective -- to inflame the hearts and minds of the anesthetized/oppressed.
Art leads.
A series of moving images presents as I type. Let me develop it, and if it shows promise, I'll share.
Well, I can't think of a better stage and timing for that 'street theater' focused (or ignited) on the 50th in Dallas and coordinated with other major cities worldwide.
"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws. - Mayer Rothschild
"Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience! People are obedient in the face of poverty, starvation, stupidity, war, and cruelty. Our problem is that grand thieves are running the country. That's our problem!" - Howard Zinn
"If there is no struggle there is no progress. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and never will" - Frederick Douglass
The first problem to overome is the division between the researchers. A minimal consensus is necessary
so they should put their differences aside for a while. I can think of a team that will include Charles Drago, James DiEugenio,
Bill Kelly, James Douglass, Peter Dale Scott, Larry Hancock and John Newman. Then again this is my opinion and my opinion only.
