Missions Statements for the JFK Truth movement

[Marc Ellis]

Since I'm a novice and not a researcher, it is easier for me to avoid getting bogged down in minutiae.
I don't know enough minutiae to get bogged down in. So I'll give ths a try.

A: So why don't you think Oswald did it...and who did?

B: (1) He had no motive. He never said a bad thing about Kennedy. And I don't think he was a good enough shot, especially with that terrible rifle.
(2) *If he did do it, he had help. There are a lot of suspects. The mob, anti-Castro Cubans, disaffected US officials.
(3) Where is JFK's brain anyway? Did you know that went missing after the autopsy?
---

Those are reasonable, bite-sized answers people can understand.

Then if the conversation goes on, I'd want to mention 544 Camp Street.
If it goes on a little longer - Mexico City.

Why did LHO stamp the address of anti-Castro Cubans and an ex-FBI agent on his pro-Castro literature?
That's one people always get. And it's good too, because everyone who's looked at it - WC, HSCA & LN'ers all agree on that fact.
-----

In terms of PR, I think it's the LN'ers who have a problem. That's lasted for decades, despite a deluge of media bias.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/165893/ma...onspiracy.aspx

__________
*#2 is a 'for the sake of argument' statement. I'm personally convinced LHO wasn't even a shooter. But I wouldn't go there at the beginning of a casual conversation like the one we're given.

Hey there Marc... thanks so much for your input... I will play devils advocate here simply because I have friends who do the same for me to keep my personal feelings in check... keeping me on track to support and defend my bite sized reply in line with the evidence available.

B1... Spot on, as they say, the WCR itself states this conclusion exactly in those words....

Ch 1/p.22: The Commission could not make any definitive determination of Oswald's motives.

Yet would we agree that a determination of no motive does not equate to innocence... or refute the supposed evidence against him ?
While we know this evidence to be ultimately refuteable and inauthentic... we are back into the minutia if we are to address each's deficiencies.

B2... Completely agree... once you start with "the mob, the CIA, Cubans, etc..." we are back in the weeds.
and even worse, "IF he did it" is not a possibility at all... if we are to be untied behind a single message... we cannot include that option... and for very good reason, there is no authenticated evidence to support it.

B3... Sadly, we begin to enter the very place the plotting envisioned... fruitcake-land... It is my opinion that any Counter-intelligence operation of the security services - which is exactly what the cover-up as well as the actual activities themselves were - is simply not understandable or absorbable by those outside those services without SERIOUS research and understanding... Reading Hancock's NEXUS for example or Prouty's Secret Team... just name a couple, is absolutley necessary for anyone to grasp the levels of depravity necessary to create and carry out these plans.

If you've read about the Lansdale and Phillips programs in order to make a targeted population believe one thing or another.. and the unearthed realities of plans that we actually carried out like Artichoke, ZR-Rifle, Paperclip, and Mockingbird to name a few (and some that were not ala Northwoods)... we enter a real Alice in Wonderland world of double and triple agents where logic and reason cannot explain these activities. Gladio is another example, or that we actually armed North Vietnam and moved over a million of the northern peasants out of the ancestrial villages to South Vietnam and CREATED the conflict... is to my POV, beyond the understanding of the every day person.

That is not to say they did not remove the brain, did not perform the pre-autopsy surgery to obliterate the evidence... they did.


but we need to counter "Oswald did it", even while supported with polls saying there is a majority BELIEF of a conspiracy, there is little comprehension of what that means.

I posted that excerpt from Redlich in an attempt to focus on a plan of action... and to anser the question

"Were there peple in the know, on the inside of the investigation that questioned the evidence, that challenged the conclusions? Not just doubts but documentation that puts the entire WCR at risk?"

I am working on an extensive series of images which in one look can tell a thousand word story... When I have a few more completed I will post them here for review and critique...
One of the first I did is below...

On Dec 12, 3 days after the FBI delivered the report Redlich calls "totally incorrect" Hoover sends a memo to his Sr Staff stating:

I said I personally believe Oswald was the assassin; that the secondaspect as to whether he was the only man gives me great concern; that we have several letters, not in the report because we were not able to prove it,written to him from Cuba referring to the job he was going to do, his good marksmanship, and stating when it was all over he would be brought back to Cuba and presented to the chief; but we do not know if the chief was Castro and cannot make an investigation because we have no intelligence operation in Cuba; that I did not put this into the report because we did not have proof of it and didn't want to put speculation in the report; that this was the reason I urged strongly that we not reach conclusion Oswald was the only man

While the FBI report concluded differently:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]5763[/ATTACH]

When I wrote the "if he did it, he had help" part, I was just trying to keep the conversation light & simple for someone who asked me your two questions. Why don't I think LHO did it and who did? I am persuaded LHO was not a shooter and was not on the 6th floor. But I don't go there in casual conversation.

The cast of usual suspects part was in answer to the 'who did' part of your questions. I keep it light & easy. I have my own conclusions about which groups are responsible. But I don't go there either in casual conversation. I'd just say there is a whole list of suspects with better motives than LHO.

I've been pleasantly surprised that people who have not paid a lot of attention to the assassination, seem to understand the 544 Camp Street enigma right off the bat. In the simple conversations I sometimes have about this -- they get it. And they get it fast.

If LHO was a communist, why did the use the address of an anti-Castro group and a retired FBI agent? I always point out that this is not a controversial fact. Everyone who has looked at it pro or con, agrees LHO stamped that address on those leaflets. Why?

In fact - I think it's helpful to start with facts all sides agree on. No motive & 544 Camp Street are two. His brain is missing is a third one. I don't know how many more of them are out there. But they are useful.

I have not met many people who are instinctively LN'ers. Most people seem intuitively suspicious about the official story.

In the casual conversation scenario you describe, I think the danger of going off into the weeds arises from follow-up questions. One does not want to appear obsessive. But you have to answer the questions asked.

In the situations you describe, I try to avoid endorsing any conclusion. Jim diEugenio in his two books, is very good at that. He demolishes the evidence or story-line and then merely suggests alternative scenarios that make more sense, without necessarily endorsing them. He has a light touch and a humorous touch too. "Reclaiming Parkland" really shines in that respect.

When you have them laughing at your opponent - you've won.