A Non-Verbal Symbol For Our Cause

[Mark Prior]

Precisely.

The public slaughter of JFK is not an "American crime".

It is a mass trauma scripted, crafted, with the flair of an ancient myth by the Usual Suspects.

Invoking the likes of Orator Churchill, High Priest of the Beaches, and Henry T Ford, God of Mass Production, ensures only that nothing is learnt.

Official History continues.

No revelation, no epiphany, into the nature of Power is achieved.

This is not a game.

JFK is not a brand.

I agree that JFK should not be a brand. But whether you like it or not, JFK is a brand. And we often refer to his family (way before the television mini-series) as, "The Kennedys." A brand. For we, again whether we like it or not, all around the world, live in a pop culture society. The actor/comedian, Dennis Leary, once postulated to a crowd in his tv show, Rescue Me, "I bet anyone of you can name me five American Idol contestants, but not one of you can name me a firefighter who died on 9/11." Say what you will about my quoting a television show in a forum of obvious history scholars, but that quote is a rather honest assessment of our society at large.

True, it should not be that way that JFK is a brand, that more people follow Idol than study accurate history, and we are a lesser society for it. We should count ourselves lucky that a young adult can at least acknowledge that Henry Ford invented the assembly line, and not the automobile in general. The fact that Ford was a fascist and received a medal from the Nazis before the war is subservient to the fact, at least in my opinion, that when a line was drawn in the sand, the man kicked in for Uncle Sam and his industrial abilities helped beat back the Nazi apparatus. One of my quotes from earlier in this thread came from Theodore Roosevelt. Not one of you mentioned that he was a contributing architect to an organized revolt of key land owners against the government of Colombia to facilitate the building of the Panama Canal. Not one of you. Is this act not akin to the transgressions of Churchill & Ford? The sad truth is, every public figure has some skeletons in their closet; whether a light has been shined in certain closets remains to be seen. Personally speaking, one of my deceased aunts grew bitter and cut herself off from my family, but I will always remember her as the"cool" aunt who let my cousins, my sister and me gorge on junk food and took us to the movies as kids. We remember the best part about people and forget the worst as long as, and I admit it is subjective, their historic balance sheet of deeds permits.

I started this thread to say something about unity. And just the simplest unity: although we can't agree on who were the originators of the assassination, we can agree that it was a conspiracy of some kind. From there, the thread degenerated into a tirade of this/that man is no good, and that my endeavor was "petty." One fellow even made this comment towards me, "Perhaps a less truthful and confrontatory (his spelling) [to the powers that be] website might suit you." I acknowledge that I am new to this forum, and I did get off to a bad start with Mr. Drago (again, that is my fault), but I am amazed at how new voices are treated on this forum. Rather than exchange with me in a constructive manner - "Mr. Prior, I appreciate your desire to bring about yada, yada, yada, but I disagree with you because of reasons 1, 2 and 3" - I am met with a most distasteful bile. This subject of the Kennedy assassination does not only belong to the scholars or the well-read. It belongs to everyone who wants to be a part of it. The prose and word-smithing is great only if you are in a forum of Literature professors. Phil Dragoo, I respect you, and I DO have a degree from an accredited university, but I have no idea about half of what you are talking about. And that has to change for others as well, because there are people coming to this very forum who are seeking knowledge, who want to be informed. Kids out of high school, blue collar people without a higher education or vocabulary...they want to participate. However, I have a bad feeling they are intimidated, not by "the truth," but by the lack of a vernacular that they can grasp or an aire of open discussion. The numbers may very well back me upon this. The "Member List" within the "Community" dropdown menu in the navigation along the top of the this forum displays 9 pages for the list of the 529 members of this forum. Of those 529 members, 396 have posted only three times or less 74.8% !!! And 316 members (59.7%) have never posted anything at all !!! I'll concede that a good portion of people may simply want to read the posts and not participate, but I'll wager dollars to donuts that there are some well meaning, genuinely eager people who want to participate but are downright scared of having their questions, statements, replies picked apart. This is not constructive. This forum, its Founding Members, its moderators have the human right to disrespectfully disagree and insult, but assuming the RESPONSIBILITY to host or moderate a professional forum includes respectfully disagreeing. Anything less, although not a crime, is deconstructive.

As we approach the the 50[SUP]th [/SUP]anniversary, it has become apparent that many in this forum have become wary of any prospect that anything will change. One poster wrote, "I shall not sit by quietly and allow second-rate minds to re-invent wheels." I don't feel wheels have been re-invented, but that they merely be turning ever so slow. I joined this forum with exuberance and enthusiasm for the cause, and was met with the attitude of a W.C. Fields character, "Get outta here, son. You bother me." I caution the elite of this forum with the words of President Kennedy, ..."we are all mortal." You all, like myself will be gone eventually. What keeps this cause, OUR cause, yours AND mine, going is the participation of the younger generation. And as distasteful as it may be to those who hate to write in the common tongue, it would be more productive and constructive ensure that people do not have to frequently open up thesaurus.com to get your point. And forgive me for saying (but I'm sure some won't) the cause could use some more youthful enthusiasm and a little of that "pie in the sky" effort.

Sincerely,
Mark Prior

[Peter Lemkin]

With your little 'numbers' paragraph only one thought comes to mind...who sent you? The mission is obvious, and this thread ridiculous. I'd suggest people stop posting on it, as IMO it is only here to disrupt, distract and discredit.

[Charles Drago]

One poster wrote, "I shall not sit by quietly and allow second-rate minds to re-invent wheels." I don't feel wheels have been re-invented, but that they merely be turning ever so slow.

I am the "poster" in question. I am the poster boy of posters, apparently.

The "wheels" being "re-invented" I reference are the inartfully expressed, stale ideas you proffered as new in your essay.

I joined this forum with exuberance and enthusiasm for the cause, and was met with the attitude of a W.C. Fields character, "Get outta here, son. You bother me."

As I previously noted, your work was given full and fair chance to compete in the marketplace of ideas maintained by DPF. It did not do very well on its own merits; my criticisms of your work should not be blamed for its myriad inherent weaknesses that are so obvious to so many.

I caution the elite of this forum with the words of President Kennedy, ..."we are all mortal."

You are the last person by whom I will be cautioned about anything.

What keeps this cause, OUR cause, yours AND mine, going is the participation of the younger generation.

Again, YOUR cause clearly has nothing in common with MY JFK-related causes.

And as distasteful as it may be to those who hate to write in the common tongue, it would be more productive and constructive ensure that people do not have to frequently open up thesaurus.com to get your point.

Your advocacy for ignorance hardly is surprising.

And forgive me for saying (but I'm sure some won't) the cause could use some more youthful enthusiasm and a little of that "pie in the sky" effort.

The unified "cause" of seeking truth and effecting justice in the matter of JFK's assassination remains in dire need of sophisticated, mature leadership -- leadership informed by the history and traditions of non-violent protest as practiced and evolved most notably by Gandhi and King.

Your "pie in the sky" nonsense must be roundly rejected as the naive, self-destructive nonsense that it is.

In closing, please note that I'm not prepared to share my good friend Peter Lemkin's suspicions regarding your motives and agenda.

Yet.

[Phil Dragoo]

Phil Dragoo, I respect you, and I DO have a degree from an accredited university, but I have no idea about half of what you are talking about.

Mark, the head of my English Department allowed me three hours to study one hundred songs of Bob Dylan.

Bob Dylan was born Robert Zimmerman. George Orwell was earlier known as Eric Blair. Do you have no idea what Orwell-Blair is talking about?

Have you been with the professors? Did they all like your looks?

Cut to the chase: Your insistence that all here who have studied the assassination of the 35th president within the context of a history not taught in "accredited" universities should cease whatever silly thing they're doing and get out the coupon in the back of their Weekly Reader shows naivete or a hot itch to disrupt.

You perhaps fancy yourself in the Ballad of a Thin Man--you have your pencil in your hand, but have no idea what's going on (participle dangling).

Take all of your exasperation to your congressman's local office, to your senator's Washington staff, to your president's vast boileroom of comment line operators.

Take it to your newspaper--I am sure they will publish your 500-word letter written in a white-hot hissy fit simultaneously with the first snowball thrown out in the Hell Series.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3964[/ATTACH]

[Greg Burnham]

Mr. Prior,

If I give you the benefit of the doubt, then I might respectfully submit that you are among the "innocent" of both heart and mind:

• that you are well intentioned
  
• that you feel it would be effective to march before those who are to this very day responsible for the continued erosion of the principles upon which this republic was founded and demonstrate our solidarity with the equivalent of a four fingered peace sign
  
• that you have yet to come to grips with the gravity of the situation, but are attempting to do so
  
• that this endeavor (your facing reality) is not near completion
  
• indeed, innocent (at best)
  

Then, quoting Graham Greene:

"Innocence always calls mutely for protection when we would be so much wiser to guard ourselves against it: innocence is like a dumb leper who has lost his bell, wandering the world, meaning no harm."

"He'll always be innocent, 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."

===================================

Sometimes the appearance of innocence is a subterfuge. We shall see.

[Seamus Coogan]

Mark you are succeeding in one thing that is uniting the forum on the eve of the 50th against you. I emailed you and gave you some advice.
I thought it good you and CD made amends. But now you are thrashing out some of the same old dross, not only that taking the piss out
of PD. Okay the mans cryptic as hell, however he's also hilarious when you get what he's saying. Some are clearer than others Greg's slightly paranoid at the moment but who the hell can blame him? After all the bollocks he's dealt with recently from friends turned nut jobs I'd watch my back as well. Indeed, seeing trolls emerge from nowhere is something the DPF is becoming well versed in. Again can you blame him when he's had to deal all manner of wankery at the EF dealing with the likes of Cinque and Mike Ragoooo. I said to you that the least one can do is provide a positive paradigm for discussion. As long as there is respect for the person you are debating then that in itself is a good sign. That respect has to be earned however. I'm through with my little tips you are either a troll or you are not. Your either with us against the Macks, McAdams, Cinques and Fetzers or you are not. There's plenty of time to debate the issues after giving these mooks a jolly good smacking.

I leave you to your fate!

[Mark Prior]

.
Your either with us against the Macks, McAdams, Cinques and Fetzers or you are not. There's plenty of time to debate the issues after giving these mooks a jolly good smacking.

Seamus, you are too cool. Seriously. You have drawn a very clear line in the sand. And I can can assure you that when it comes to McAdams, I am so far away on the opposite side of him that I couldn't catch a bus just to get back to the opposite side of him. But overall, I had to speak my mind and let the chips fall where they may. I would like to see some real progress made towards releasing all still withheld assassination documents... that you can bank on.

I actually smiled when I read Phil's last post. I do see what you mean.

As for Chuck and myself, I believe we agree on some things, but differ on the vernacular. He's more Shakespeare and I'm more Quentin Tarantino. Doctors talk to each other using terms like "lacerations" and "abrasions;" everyday people just say "cuts" and "scrapes."

So, let's move on and see if we can't make something phenomenal happen in the next year or so.

[Don Jeffries]

Charles and the other leading members of this forum,

Mark Prior is a seemingly sincere guy who has been met with inexplicable vitriol from most of you. His post a bit earlier, where he very politely took you to task for being so cliquish and arrogant to outsiders was reasonable and well argued. So what if he wants everyone to hold up four fingers, or their middle fingers? Why does that warrant such scorn? He's posting on an internet forum, not appearing on national television advocating this.

I've been posting on internet forums devoted to this subject since the late 1990s. I've been researching this case since the mid-1970s. It's been very disillusioning to me to discover that most of the best and brighest critics of the official fairy tale have such bombastic egos. That's the primary reason why the research community is always fractured; someone is always feuding with someone else, and most appear more concerned with being right about every minute detail than they do with finding the ultimate truth about who killed JFK. Something about this case just attracts difficult personalities.

Mark is exactly right about how new posters are greeted here. The inner sanctum of this forum resembles an overblown fraternity, only the hazing period for initiates doesn't seem to end. Statements are met with esoteric and/or acerbic responses, intimating that Charles and his followers alone possess the answers, only they aren't willing to share their wisdom. Instead, the unwary must guess, and pretend they too understand everything or risk incurring the wrath of Charles. Or they can follow the often undecipherable poetry of Phil Dragoo. Like Mark, I don't get most of what he writes, but people here seem to think it's consistently brilliant. I do, however, love the pre-accident lyrics of Dylan.

I would like to ask Charles (and Jan, Monk, whoever)- exactly what do you think we should be talking about here, or on any other JFK assassination forum? What should we be doing? You are full of ideas about what we should not be doing or saying-which appears to be just about anything that doesn't originate from the mind of Charles-but I can't determine where you think individuals interested in this subject ought to be focusing their attention. People come here to discuss this subject, but as Mark notes, the vast majority of members of this forum post little or not at all. When one sees how new posters are treated, one can see how people might be reluctant to have themselves castigated publicly, accused of being disinfo agents or merely the new pseudonym for some previously ousted poster. Why aren't you welcoming new converts to the cause?

Mark is certainly being naive to think that members of the research community would agree on anything, let alone hold their hands up in a unanimous gesture. I've tried to reason with the most bellicose personalities on the EF forum, to simply read their posts and understand how unreasonable they come across. They aren't willing to do that, and I'm confident neither Charles nor most of the other inner members here will be willing to do that, either. Whether it's intentional or not, the way the most regular contributors here express themselves seems elitist in tone, almost snobbish. Mark put it perfectly when he described it as saying to newbies, "Get outa here son, you bother me."

If you wish to reserve this forum as an exclusive debating society, but one in which no real debate is permitted, then by all means it's your right to do so. Kick me out for questioning you. I'm simply telling you that, as someone who doesn't post here that often but checks in fairly regularly to read the threads that interest me, I'm rather amazed at the way Mark Prior has been treated by virtually all of you. He tried to share his new article here initially, and Charles reacted as if he'd been the victim of a violent physical assault. Referencing his own work, and how Mark's was derivitave of that, was fine. However, it was done in such a nasty, childish manner that it just made Charles look even more egotistical than usual. Still, in spite of this, Mark actually apologized! That wasn't enough, however, as he has continued to be lambasted reguarly whenever he posts.

I know I'm fond of trying to get people to come together- something about the "Blessed are the peacemakers" thing, I guess. I'm not claiming to be perfect, and can display some of the traits I'm taking you all to task for. But I have never been uncivil on these forums. I have never resorted to name calling or mean-spirited personal ridicule. I don't know Mark Prior from Adam. But I do know right from wrong, and the way he's been treated here has been wrong.

Understand that I respect the views of everyone here, and agree strongly with Charles Drago on most poliltical issues. My old friend Greg "Monk" Burnham and I go back to the early days of the Dellarosa forum, and we certainly agree on most things. So I hope you don't attack me personally and take this for what it is; constructive criticism for people I consider my confederates.

[Peter Lemkin]

Don, you might consider how some of us [myself included] were treated on other Forums after being long time members in good standing [me even a mod]...add to that those trolls we have had NO doubts about. You may be correct that, at times, those who only appear [and may very well not be] awkward, insincere, or naive sometimes get a rough time...often they do not. This is a small Forum, mostly of refugees of one kind or another, mostly fairly advanced on JFK and Deep Politics, generally; while it is open to others, theoretically to all, it is best they sense the lay of the land first and then slowly move ahead.

We are fighting a war and he seemed [to me] to at best be wanting a boy scout secret signal - at worst just to divert and make the forum less serious on the real issues of the WAR for Truth, Justice, and Survival!

Back to my first point. You [and others] did precious little, and still do little [i.e. nothing] to hold those at EF accountable for how I and several others were treated [I don't need an apology, but I did loose 8750 posts I worked on for years -and contacts and some standing in the 'community' totally undeserved [and the aim of the whole conspiracy against me!] DAMN IT!

.....if that makes me and others a bit brittle then all I can say is 'human, human...all too human!'. I'm sick and tired of being sick and tired and my country dying, robbing, lying, subverting, spying, and killing. We need strong words and even stronger actions FAST - not 'high-four' signals - even if well intentioned [though my intuition after watching this long thread made me doubt the well-intentioned part. I could be wrong...but if so and even if not so, I'm brittle from abuse on the EF, by my own government and by trolls I've met here, there and elsewhere.] To sometimes being a bit 'brittle' and curmudgeonly, I plead guilty, at times....who wouldn't after what some of us have been through in life and on the internet?!

So, I would politely suggest you get your ****ing Forum 'in order' before you come over here to pontificate to us how best to run this one. You are of course, as is the starter of this thread, welcome to post whatever they like and welcome here. No one has suggested being banned. People have reacted how they felt. I often too don't like what some post here [of the regulars I'm not talking]...but still stick around because there is a lot of great information, and even some attempts at movement to real action. Whatta concept!

As one who took one hell of a lot of unjust heat [and libelous/criminal action], I know how it feels!! Thanks. Rant over.

[Don Jeffries]

Peter,

You know I agree with you politically on almost everything. I did try to fight for you behind the scenes at the EF. I understand your feelings on this. Certainly, the inner members here have adopted something of an "outcast" collective mentality. However, that doesn't explain why there is this compulsion to bash someone like a Mark Prior- who has no connection to EF and hasn't harmed anyone here to my knowledge.

I just wanted to note this situation, and I don't think we can transform it into a larger context. You have a seemingly sincere poster who appears to want nothing more than to fit in on this forum, and he just keeps getting roundly rejected by everyone. Like I said, I don't know him and have no dog in this fight. I just was disturbed by what I saw from reading all these posts.