Find a voice which can carry the message with an authority and reach that connot be ignored
Compile a single manifesto in the same vein as the WCR (authored by respected individuals beyond rapproach) which presents our unified message
Inspire the honest and responsible members of our government to expose the truths which caused JFK's assassination
???
We have the 50 Reasons series, TMWKK, the Horne volumes, YouTube channels such as Gil Jesus' and many, many, many others....
Books which address every piece of JFK minutia known...
The Warren Commission says, "Oswald did it"... and here are 10 million pages of evidence focused on that single 3 word sentence - choose to read them or not... but if you believe the Chief Justice of the Supreme court
you don't have to worry about reading all those pages.
The JFK Truth movement says, "Oswald didn't do it", "Oswald might have done something", "Oswald may have been two people", "Oswald was connected to the CIA/FBI/ONI so they did it".
"Oswald wasn't seen coming down the stairs", "JFK's brain just fell out", "Oswald and every piece of evidence is a farse", "Garrison was CIA'd and FBI's to ruin",
"The greatest hoax perpetrated"...... with about 2000 more books to read and incorporate into your knowledge base just to BEGIN to understand what happened...
How can we promote a message, when we have 10 million pages of fraud to expose which comprise of 1 million bits of minutia...
all to arrive at, "Oswald didn't do it" (we think, kinda, well - uh, did you know the Zfilm is a fake?) "and we're not exactly sure who did, but it wasn't him" and not only MUST you read all our info, you STILL may not see it.
::zzzzz:: huh, what? Scuse me, Honey Boo-boo is saying something to the Duck Dynasty guys... gotta go.
::face.palm::
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
Magda Hassan Wrote:Good points David. I think it has to move away from focusing on Oswald and put it onto JFK. Why he was killed and why it matters.
Thanks Magda...
yet.... isn't your question simply moving us from one batch of minutia to another?
Can you state why DOES it matter to a 25 year old living in NY, or a 35 year old mom in Idaho - or anyone not on these forums - in language that they understand and is somewhat actionable?
What is the underlying "thing" that makes this knowledge compelling, necessary, and easily transferable?
I truly have not come upon an answer yet that makes sense to me... which is any different from, or I have any effect upon, why it matters that we invaded Iraq, put Aspertame in our diet drinks, poison our air and water,
or any of the other tragedies that befall humankind at the hands of humankind.
===== You're in a room one evening laughing and talking with a group of non-JFK aware friends and one uninformed spouse asks, "So why do you believe Oswald didn't do it... and who did?"
You have a few sentences to make your point to those who have very little knowledge of the case...
What do you say?
I'm sincere here Magda... and I am not trying to put you on the spot... I'd welcome any response from anyone who graces these pages...
This has happened to all of us... if we can agree on an answer to that question, we have a chance at developing a plan of action to tell EVERYONE.
How do you describe the forest without naming all the leaves?
DJ
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
Magda Hassan Wrote:Oh, I think we've all been in that room David. ::doorhide::::
How about:
"The evidence does not support that conclusion
[B]
Norman Redlich tells lead counsel J. Lee Rankin on April 27, 1964:
I should add that the facts which we now have in our possession, submitted to us in separate reports from the FBI and Secret Service, are totally incorrect and, if left uncorrected, will present a completely misleading picture.
Suffice to say, all the reports were left uncorrected and became the WCR.
That's why."
[/B]
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
David Josephs Wrote:You're in a room one evening laughing and talking with a group of non-JFK aware friends and one uninformed spouse asks, "So why do you believe Oswald didn't do it... and who did?"
You have a few sentences to make your point to those who have very little knowledge of the case...
What do you say?
I'm sincere here Magda... and I am not trying to put you on the spot... I'd welcome any response from anyone who graces these pages...
This has happened to all of us... if we can agree on an answer to that question, we have a chance at developing a plan of action to tell EVERYONE.
How do you describe the forest without naming all the leaves?
DJ
I always like to point out the big-picture problems with Oswald-as-shooter: his lack of physical coordination, hadn't learned to drive a car, declining shooting scores in the Marines, no extra ammo/gun-cleaning equipment among his belongings, the poor condition of that particular rifle which probably hadn't been fired since WWII, his lack of motive, his protestations of innocence (political assassins historically don't do that), no verified rifle practice (except for Marina's changing stories), and on and on.
The bigger problem is that many people think of the assassination as "ancient history," something that doesn't mean anything to them today. Even more recent events are viewed that way by many people. Most folks are too busy and preoccupied with their daily lives to understand the importance of it all.
When you boil it all down to "The rich and powerful rule this country and the rest of the world," many people instinctively agree with it, but then shrug their shoulders and say, "What can you do about it? That's the way it's always been."
I think possibly the majority of Americans today if the case is clearly spelled out of all the implications of a successful JFK second term, would quietly think: 'It's probably just as well. The stock market would suck. We would be asking some shitty little country who thinks they have rights if its OK to take piss. We wouldn't have won the Cold War. Labor unions would still be strong. Just think.'
Americans are quiet little fascists who think they defeated the Nazis in WWII and then the commies in 1989.
EDIT: Change "Americans" to "A majority of Americans.'
"We'll know our disinformation campaign is complete when everything the American public believes is false." --William J. Casey, D.C.I
"We will lead every revolution against us." --Theodore Herzl
Magda Hassan Wrote:Good points David. I think it has to move away from focusing on Oswald and put it onto JFK. Why he was killed and why it matters.
Thanks Magda...
yet.... isn't your question simply moving us from one batch of minutia to another?
Can you state why DOES it matter to a 25 year old living in NY, or a 35 year old mom in Idaho - or anyone not on these forums - in language that they understand and is somewhat actionable?
What is the underlying "thing" that makes this knowledge compelling, necessary, and easily transferable?
I truly have not come upon an answer yet that makes sense to me... which is any different from, or I have any effect upon, why it matters that we invaded Iraq, put Aspertame in our diet drinks, poison our air and water,
or any of the other tragedies that befall humankind at the hands of humankind.
===== You're in a room one evening laughing and talking with a group of non-JFK aware friends and one uninformed spouse asks, "So why do you believe Oswald didn't do it... and who did?"
You have a few sentences to make your point to those who have very little knowledge of the case...
What do you say?
I'm sincere here Magda... and I am not trying to put you on the spot... I'd welcome any response from anyone who graces these pages...
This has happened to all of us... if we can agree on an answer to that question, we have a chance at developing a plan of action to tell EVERYONE.
How do you describe the forest without naming all the leaves?
DJ
---
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.
__________
*#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.
Quote: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.
__________
*#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]
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
:
