A Non-Verbal Symbol For Our Cause

[Peter Lemkin]

We all believe that AT LEAST four shots took place on 11/22/63

I "believe" no such thing.

This is a typically cryptic response from you. You obviously don't support the official story, so ipso facto you believe at least 4 shots were fired. Are you playing with semantics here, and objecting to the word "believe?"

I don't think it is clear that Mr. Prior objects to the official version. I've never seen a substantive post to that effect from him. He suddenly appeared on this Forum with this exercise at mis-direction and confusion. He has offhandedly pointed out that we believe in different numbers of shots [i.e. are not united as are those who bow to the BigLie of the Official verions] and even went to the very low step [more so for someone new] of trying to point out the low numbers of members and lower number of high posters here.] His presence is suspect unless or until he posts something of SUBSTANCE and not this fool's game. It is Sunnsteinian diversion, IMO. Does this entity post on other JFK forums? If so, the same pointing out of differences? He has gone out of his way to point out any on this thread and the entire thread is IMO meant to create exactly that. Disinfo. IMO.

[Malcolm Pryce]

I must admit, as a relative newcomer to the deep political scene, I too feel there is something occasionally intimidatory about this forum, or more specifically the JFK section. In all the other sections it seems people can post what they like and display a less than perfect understanding of the issues and no one seems to mind. The JFK section, however, feels less inclusive - some of the key players have the air of high priests giving off gnomic utterances that are only explicable to the cognoscenti. I don't greatly object because no one forces me to come here, and I can understand how those who have devoted a lifetime to the study of this subject might well tire of having to explain what has been commonplace for them, but all the same, what is the point of a forum such as this if not to disseminate this hard won knowledge?

As a concrete example, posters frequently allude to some supra-national group who were the ultimate sponsors of the Kennedy assassination. I think Charles mentioned 'the usual suspects' in a recent post.

No one ever expands on this, it is simply assumed one knows who this group is. I don't. Would anyone care to put a bit of meat on the bones of this? Or point me in the direction of some books on it? I am aware of Churchill's words about the High Cabal. Intriguing, yes, but if I had read Churchill's comment in my pre DPF days I would have assumed this was a metaphoric allusion to the gods, or fate, or the forces of destiny, or some such thing. It is very easy to read it in that manner, is it not?

[Charles Drago]

I must admit, as a relative newcomer to the deep political scene, I too feel there is something occasionally intimidatory about this forum, or more specifically the JFK section. In all the other sections it seems people can post what they like and display a less than perfect understanding of the issues and no one seems to mind. The JFK section, however, feels less inclusive - some of the key players have the air of high priests giving off gnomic utterances that are only explicable to the cognoscenti. I don't greatly object because no one forces me to come here, and I can understand how those who have devoted a lifetime to the study of this subject might well tire of having to explain what has been commonplace for them, but all the same, what is the point of a forum such as this if not to disseminate this hard won knowledge?

As a concrete example, posters frequently allude to some supra-national group who were the ultimate sponsors of the Kennedy assassination. I think Charles mentioned 'the usual suspects' in a recent post.

No one ever expands on this, it is simply assumed one knows who this group is. I don't. Would anyone care to put a bit of meat on the bones of this? Or point me in the direction of some books on it? I am aware of Churchill's words about the High Cabal. Intriguing, yes, but if I had read Churchill's comment in my pre DPF days I would have assumed this was a metaphoric allusion to the gods, or fate, or the forces of destiny, or some such thing. It is very easy to read it in that manner, is it not?

Malcolm,

You very well may interpret what I'm about to write as yet another collection of "gnomic utterances" produced to add voltage to the electrified fence around our Bohemian Grove-like exclusive enclave. So be it.

1. One should not expect to be taught the alphabet by members of one's doctoral dissertation committee. We are all about sharing what we know, but I for one have neither the time nor the temperament to conduct JFK Assassination 101 classes.

2. I am not alone among the founders of DPF in my certainty that our brutal war -- yours and mine and the rest of the civilized world's -- with the killers of JFK continues unabated. The JFK Assassination section of DPF is indeed an armed camp, one that, like many others of its kind, is under attack.

Accordingly, we must be ever on guard against agents provocateurs who would attempt to destroy us from within.

Melodramatic? Overly bellicose?

That's for you to decide.

[Peter Lemkin]

I must admit, as a relative newcomer to the deep political scene, I too feel there is something occasionally intimidatory about this forum, or more specifically the JFK section. In all the other sections it seems people can post what they like and display a less than perfect understanding of the issues and no one seems to mind. The JFK section, however, feels less inclusive - some of the key players have the air of high priests giving off gnomic utterances that are only explicable to the cognoscenti. I don't greatly object because no one forces me to come here, and I can understand how those who have devoted a lifetime to the study of this subject might well tire of having to explain what has been commonplace for them, but all the same, what is the point of a forum such as this if not to disseminate this hard won knowledge?

As a concrete example, posters frequently allude to some supra-national group who were the ultimate sponsors of the Kennedy assassination. I think Charles mentioned 'the usual suspects' in a recent post.

No one ever expands on this, it is simply assumed one knows who this group is. I don't. Would anyone care to put a bit of meat on the bones of this? Or point me in the direction of some books on it? I am aware of Churchill's words about the High Cabal. Intriguing, yes, but if I had read Churchill's comment in my pre DPF days I would have assumed this was a metaphoric allusion to the gods, or fate, or the forces of destiny, or some such thing. It is very easy to read it in that manner, is it not?

While I understand your points in theory, it is called not reinventing the wheel [nor spinning ours endlessly]. I've seen mixed reactions to helping newcomers on JFK on this Forum. I think this is an advanced forum, though not adverse to those who might not have spent decades working in these cotton fields. Sometimes, there is a reaction that the requester's purpose is to slow the progress of the Forum - and the 'calls' on that probably are wrong some % of the time...comes with the territory. Other times I've seen persons here really help to bring someone up to speed, as the more advanced person sees 'it'. We all have different experiences and levels [and times] of commitment to JFK and other Deep Political Research. The EF, for example, is very large and more tolerant of newbees [as well as moles]. Perhaps the tolerance here is not as great. Some of us have lost much time, money, friends, blood, sweat and tears, homes, jobs, nearly our lives [others have lost theirs] on this kind 'o thing over decades. It changes how one approaches the naif. I personally welcome and want to educate those who honestly want to know, no matter what their level is; but I usually would spend more time/energy on an advanced thread, it is true. This subject matter has cost me dearly, personally......and I'm passionate to make some progress in the few years I have left. You're observations are not without some merit, but some understanding of what may be behind it [each would have to speak for themselves, and each of their explanations would differ somewhat] might be in order. The EF is unfriendly to anyone who thinks 911 was a conspiracy and can speak effectively to that....and some other topics. Those who believe the official version of Dallas are often given short shrift here. So it goes. Life is short and one must decide how to expend one's energies to the greatest effect....moreso when there are not that many more years.

[Don Jeffries]

Malcolm,

That was a thoughtful and well expressed post.

Charles,

You astutely recognized the way your response will be perceived by most readers here. Are you satisfied with sounding that way? Maybe you could inject a dose of humility or self deprecation here or there? That would make your eminently reasonable views so much more accessible and impressive.

Btw, you, and Monk, and Peter, as well as others, consistently allude to "the war" we are engaged in. Now I certainly consider those who killed JFK to be my enemies, and the enemies of everything worthwhile in a society. But you don't specify how YOU are waging this war. How are you fighting this battle, other than posting on the internet? Nothing wrong with that, of course, that's pretty much what we're all doing. But you infer that there is something more going on there, behind the scenes perhaps, but certainly unknowable to the typical readers of these threads. Please elaborate.

I am finishing up a book about the past fifty years of cover ups and scandals, and I consider that time period to have been one huge conspiracy, consisting of numerous smaller plots, seemingly unconnected, but all an integral part of what I feel is systemic, organized corruption. I like to think I'm pretty well versed on these topics, but your vague, esoteric replies leave me as baffled as Malcolm and I'm sure many others who are just realizing how much they've been lied to by their leaders.

I don't really expect you to elaborate, as that seems to be your style. That's fine- you're a unique character and we need more individuals like you. That being said, I think a lot of people would benefit from you sharing your wisdom.

[Don Jeffries]

Peter,

Impressive post. For the record, not many are more radical than I am on 9/11. I go pretty far down the rabbit hole on that issue in the book I'm completing. I'm a moderator at the EF, and no one has objected to my extreme views on that, or any other subject.

[Albert Doyle]

Be specific as to the "method" you reference.

Civil Disobedience going back to the writings of Thoreau. Now you be specific why I should have to answer hair-splitting digressions vs the obvious?

And what, specifically, is "innocent" about true non-violent protest?

The intention to make those who violated all basic known forms of civilized order in their CIA-assisted assassination of JFK accountable to the trust they violated.

Next, why doesn't Mr. Prior share his understanding of and insights into satyagraha with us?

I think this is loading more requirements than are necessary for a basic showing of democratic protest.



I guess what I'm getting at is a show of discontent over a phony 50th Anniversary observance conducted by the murderers themselves doesn't necessarily conflict with the Deep Politics perspective in the JFK Assassination. Of course I defer to the Deep Politics perspective and suggest any such protest be done under the informed guidance and knowledge of that perspective and any public attention such an organized protest might bring should be referred to the Deep Politics viewpoint. Ultimately, if the four finger protest served to weaken or divide the Deep Politics stance then it should yield - however I have yet to see how it would.

[Albert Doyle]

Charles,

You astutely recognized the way your response will be perceived by most readers here. Are you satisfied with sounding that way? Maybe you could inject a dose of humility or self deprecation here or there? That would make your eminently reasonable views so much more accessible and impressive.

I'd be careful Don. Charles is writing from the position of tenured professor emeritus scolding his students into strict obedience to ideas. While you might not like his style it has a purpose and I have yet to see anyone prove that purpose, or the way Charles describes it, wrong. A person who carries out his purpose should not have to humble himself in order to make the indifferent more comfortable.

[Greg Burnham]

That subtleties are being missed by many in this thread is astounding. These are not trivial, nor are they of no consequence, nor
are they a simple matter of semantics as some of the "peace makers" would no doubt have us "believe" --which brings us to that
word again.

I do not "believe" that there were more than 3 shots. It is fact. I therefore KNOW it. How many shots were there? As many as it
took. Is there room for discussion? Perhaps, but only in a scientific context.

End of story.

Raising four fingers (along with its planned association) only invites the accusation of being labeled a "conspiracy theorist" from
the enemy. It invites irresponsible, out of context, speculation. It will further marginalize and minimize what we do. It is a disaster
of a plan, a train wreck in slow motion, a burning Barbie Doll house of cards and mirrors, a rabbit hole that will be filled in with
concrete as soon as the fluffy cotton tail has scurried into its false sense of security.

Macbeth:

"... a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage
and then is heard no more: it is a tale told by an idiot, full of
sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Operation JFK is not a parlor game, it is not a secret society, it is not a fraternity replete with secret signals and codes. It need not
operate or appear to do so in shadows.

Support COPA. That too is doing "something" only that something has a track record and is not reduced to the equivalent of passing
notes in class.

[Vasilios Vazakas]

Absolut Lee Not or the four fingers?
The answer is very simple:
Absolut Lee Not, by a mile.
It is imaginative, powerful, inspiring and speaks a thousand words.
Deeps the subconscious into the forrest.

On the other hand the four fingers, are unimaginative, powerless, unspiring and speaks one word.
Deeps the subconscious into a tree.

The first symbol deals with the big picture, while the second with specific details.

It is more important to know that Oswald did not kill JFK and he was framed as a patsy in a conspirancy,
than to believe that four shots were fired that day. So what if they were 4, 5,6, 7, or 20.
Makes no difference.

Should i repeat Salandria's words to Fonzi?