Best Spokespersons for the Truth for 50th Anniversary

[Charles Drago]

David,

You're making the critical and all-too-common mistake that three generations of JFK researchers have made when attempting not just to prove conspiracy, but also to define and deliver justice in this matter: You're getting ahead of yourself.

Please re-read my post # 1 on this thread. Note in particular what I suggest must be our first step:

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 presentation of science-based 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.

Like countless others, you neither differentiate between nor prioritize within strategic context the "how" and "who" questions.

I'm curious though Charles...

Given the conspiracy and the impossibility of determining what occurred from the evidence available to us...

I don't accept your "given" insofar as the phrase "the impossibility of determining what occurred" is at best impossibly vague and in fact patently false.

We KNOW -- as oppose to theorize -- that JFK was shot from two or more firing positions by two or more gunmen.

How do we KNOW this?

Through study of the medical evidence -- legitimate and tainted.

How does one go about determining HOW to piece together the elements that caused his death when the pieces we are using to build this conclusion are not even from this puzzle?

I don't mean to be unkind, but this sentence is worthy of "Albert Doyle" in its opaqueness and absence of internal logic.

Have you discovered any unassailable evidence that JFK was hit from the front other than the eye witness testimony and HSCA acoustics (which have both been assailed repeatedly over the years).

Yes.

The fact that you would ask this question at this point in time is ... curious.

Read Salandria.

Then move on to Mantik.

For starters.

And get rid of this "unassailable" bullshit! Understand that no piece of evidence is "unassailable." The enemy's goal is to preserve doubt. Indefinitely. So assail they will ... over and over and over again. This is the tactic used by Holocaust deniers. Proof? WHAT proof? Naysay ad infinitum.

How do you defeat this tactic? Expose it. Ridicule it. Expose and ridicule those who use it. Deny the enemy the illusion of a level playing field.

Turn the oppressed against the oppressors.

Lead! Or be lead to the slaughter.

Are we to say the Zapruder (and Nix/Muchmore) films constitute this level of evidence - when at the same time we claim what Zfilm we have is not even to be the original film?

No.

The physical reality of the coat/shirt/back added to the anatomically impossible path from back to front without hitting anything,and the complete lack of a channel of transit... AND the FBI reports AND Hoover telling us that Oswald NOT be considered the only man involved.... seems at least to me... the only "sober, science based evidence" that reaches our conclusion and is unassailable.

There is absolutely NOTHING "scientific" or "unassailable" about the evidentiary value of a quote by JEH.

On the other hand, science-based repudiation of the SBT is of inestimable evidentiary value.

Turning now to WHO

Before you make your turn, please share with us your working model of the conspiracy's structure.

Other than readying [sic] Palamara... how do we show SS involvement....? IMO, back to CE399's chain of evidence.

Where, in your conspiracy model, do you place the SS? Using the Evica/Drago model, would you describe the SS as an assassination Sponsor, False Sponsor, Facilitator, or Mechanic?

I might add that "the Secret Service" was no more involved in the JFK assassination conspiracy than was "the Central Intelligence Agency."

Do you understand the distinction I'm making? Its deeper implications for our work?

Rock-solid specificity is the sine qua non for successful development of the case you wish to make. And I see vagueness and undisciplined vacillation in the majority of your presentation so far.

So again... some from the SS had to be involved... you want to introduce the casket charade to this easily presented argument....

Again, you need to focus on the placement of the SS within the larger conspiracy model.

Once the SBT is soundly defeated, which it most certainly has, we have the cornerstone of our "position".

Perhaps. But you must appreciate the importance of redundancy to this effort. Setting up any single piece of evidence as a "cornerstone" allows the enemy to concentrate fire. Identify your forces in terms of their inherent strengths and deploy them wisely.

And I submit that the few things brought to this conversation related to Hoover, the autopsy and CE399 create an equally unassailable position describing the elements of the conspiracy related to hiding the fact that more than one person was involved.

FUCK Hoover. At least in terms of formulating a response to the "how" question.

And let me be clear: When I ask, "HOW was JFK killed?" I'm asking, in essence, "Was JFK killed by one gunman acting alone, or was JFK killed by conspirators?"

Step One.

Very simple.

Direct and to the point.

Maintain operational discipline.

What esle does Joe Streetcorner need to understand... and if Joe Streetcorner is not our audience... Charles, who is... Those that understand?, those that don't and won't? Those on the fence?
As I said in my first post on the subject...

Until we know who we are talking to... how can a message be fashioned with any effectiveness?
Basic Marketing 101

This last quote amounts to quite the revealing and disturbing diatribe, I'm afraid.

I shall take no part in denigrating or assuming a patronizing stance toward our audience -- the extended victims of JFK's assassination. To do so is to guarantee failure. "Joe Streetcorner"??? I reject the characterization categorically.

And spare me your lecture on "Marketing 101." The myriad weaknesses of your undisciplined approach, including but not limited to the absences of basic definitions, objectives, and structured, reasoned strategies and tactics, combined with your patronizing and indeed insulting references to the people who you would address and, ultimately, serve, strip you of all credibility in this regard.

In closing, and with the hope that the exercise may be enlightening, permit me to reiterate, in slightly modified form, the central portion of my original post on this thread:

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 (not "Joe Streetcorner") 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?
[/B]