04-02-2013, 02:59 PM
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).
FOR STEP C -- TBD
STEP D -- TBD
STEP E -- TBD
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).
FOR STEP C -- TBD
STEP D -- TBD
STEP E -- TBD
Charles Drago
Co-Founder, Deep Politics Forum
If an individual, through either his own volition or events over which he had no control, found himself taking up residence in a country undefined by flags or physical borders, he could be assured of one immediate and abiding consequence: He was on his own, and solitude and loneliness would probably be his companions unto the grave.
-- James Lee Burke, Rain Gods
You can't blame the innocent, they are always guiltless. All you can do is control them or eliminate them. Innocence is a kind of insanity.
-- Graham Greene
Co-Founder, Deep Politics Forum
If an individual, through either his own volition or events over which he had no control, found himself taking up residence in a country undefined by flags or physical borders, he could be assured of one immediate and abiding consequence: He was on his own, and solitude and loneliness would probably be his companions unto the grave.
-- James Lee Burke, Rain Gods
You can't blame the innocent, they are always guiltless. All you can do is control them or eliminate them. Innocence is a kind of insanity.
-- Graham Greene