A sliver of light from Dallas...

Stan Dane wrote:How do we turn that sliver into a beacon?
 
Well, for one, we don't talk about the main things Dr. Wecht is going to talk about: the autopsy and the single bullet theory. Been there, done that. 53 years and counting.
 
We take the road less traveled. We talk about evidence no one else ever discuses, evidence that exonerates Oswald: Prayer Man and the fictitious second floor lunchroom encounter. 

Unfortunately, we don't have a speaking role at his conference. So maybe we try to make Dr. Wecht aware of PM and the evidence against the second floor encounter with the hopes that he discusses it.

greg parker wrote:

Stan Dane wrote:How do we turn that sliver into a beacon?
 
Well, for one, we don't talk about the main things Dr. Wecht is going to talk about: the autopsy and the single bullet theory. Been there, done that. 53 years and counting.
 
We take the road less traveled. We talk about evidence no one else ever discuses, evidence that exonerates Oswald: Prayer Man and the fictitious second floor lunchroom encounter. 

Unfortunately, we don't have a speaking role at his conference. So maybe we try to make Dr. Wecht aware of PM and the evidence against the second floor encounter with the hopes that he discusses it.

Couldn't agree more Stan.

But one step at a time. It is only a one hour talk by one man. But it is a talk that would never have happened under Mack's watch.

Forget Dr. Wecht. He is sticking to his specialty.

We need to get the 6th Floor Museum to host another talk... one from that road less traveled... and maybe get them on board to get the films we need at the same time.

Paul Francisco Paso wrote:

greg parker wrote:

Stan Dane wrote:How do we turn that sliver into a beacon?
 
Well, for one, we don't talk about the main things Dr. Wecht is going to talk about: the autopsy and the single bullet theory. Been there, done that. 53 years and counting.
 
We take the road less traveled. We talk about evidence no one else ever discuses, evidence that exonerates Oswald: Prayer Man and the fictitious second floor lunchroom encounter. 

Unfortunately, we don't have a speaking role at his conference. So maybe we try to make Dr. Wecht aware of PM and the evidence against the second floor encounter with the hopes that he discusses it.

Couldn't agree more Stan.

But one step at a time. It is only a one hour talk by one man. But it is a talk that would never have happened under Mack's watch.

Forget Dr. Wecht. He is sticking to his specialty.

We need to get the 6th Floor Museum to host another talk... one from that road less traveled... and maybe get them on board to get the films we need at the same time.

Getting the 6th Floor Museum to effectively change its name is a tall order, Greg. Wecht is ancient history. They're probably planning to mummify him and put him up as an historical artifact.

greg parker wrote:

Paul Francisco Paso wrote:

greg parker wrote:

Stan Dane wrote:How do we turn that sliver into a beacon?
 
Well, for one, we don't talk about the main things Dr. Wecht is going to talk about: the autopsy and the single bullet theory. Been there, done that. 53 years and counting.
 
We take the road less traveled. We talk about evidence no one else ever discuses, evidence that exonerates Oswald: Prayer Man and the fictitious second floor lunchroom encounter. 

Unfortunately, we don't have a speaking role at his conference. So maybe we try to make Dr. Wecht aware of PM and the evidence against the second floor encounter with the hopes that he discusses it.

Couldn't agree more Stan.

But one step at a time. It is only a one hour talk by one man. But it is a talk that would never have happened under Mack's watch.

Forget Dr. Wecht. He is sticking to his specialty.

We need to get the 6th Floor Museum to host another talk... one from that road less traveled... and maybe get them on board to get the films we need at the same time.

Getting the 6th Floor Museum to effectively change its name is a tall order, Greg. Wecht is ancient history. They're probably planning to mummify him and put him up as an historical artifact.

LOL Never thought about the need for a name change.

But you know... in this era of 6th Floor Museum Glastnost... that may be even worth a push. No doubt the name was delivered by the CIA connected individual there at the birth and who they are now trying to deny paternal rights to, which may leave them amenable to considering it... or to at least considering the appointment of a blue ribbon panel to appoint a subgroup to workshop the idea.

Paul wrote:I don't think their Glasnost period is going to include having their whole existence threatened bro. They'll wheel out Wecht the relic in an effort to appeal to all kinds but PM? Fuck no. Why do you think we don't have the scans? I still think a legal appeal might do the trick. That's how Garrison got the Zapruder film. There must be some FOI law or something legalese we can use on them instead of hoping to appease them.

greg parker wrote:

Paul wrote:I don't think their Glasnost period is going to include having their whole existence threatened bro. They'll wheel out Wecht the relic in an effort to appeal to all kinds but PM? Fuck no. Why do you think we don't have the scans? I still think a legal appeal might do the trick. That's how Garrison got the Zapruder film. There must be some FOI law or something legalese we can use on them instead of hoping to appease them.

Paul, I thought is was a big enough possibility to ask one of the lawyers in this community. The answer came back that he didn't think a court would force the issue - that the best option was a groundswell of public opinion.  Whilst I agree public opinion could swing it, it's a catch-22 - public opinion needs to be swayed by the media and the media won't touch it without the photos we need the media to help us get in the first place.

Paul wrote:Why did he say that?

No doubt because that is what he believes. We are talking about someone who is 100% honest and trustworthy. That said, it doesn't mean he is never wrong.

We have evidence. WTF else do we need? I reckon we should hire Kevin Costner as Garrison and give it a go.

I like the gung-ho attitude, Paul! Bust or bust through. A lot to be said for that approach, imo. 

But stepping back for a sec, Garrison had subpoena power in a criminal court case. This would be a civil case and probably reliant on "the public good" aspect and/or the JFK Act, arguing that these films should be considered JFK Act records.  

I take the above legal approach because everyone seems gun-shy about tackling the question from the "new exculpatory evidence in a cold case" angle.

greg parker wrote:

Paul wrote:Why did he say that?

No doubt because that is what he believes. We are talking about someone who is 100% honest and trustworthy. That said, it doesn't mean he is never wrong.

We have evidence. WTF else do we need? I reckon we should hire Kevin Costner as Garrison and give it a go.

I like the gung-ho attitude, Paul! Bust or bust through. A lot to be said for that approach, imo. 

But stepping back for a sec, Garrison had subpoena power in a criminal court case. This would be a civil case and probably reliant on "the public good" aspect and/or the JFK Act, arguing that these films should be considered JFK Act records.  

I take the above legal approach because everyone seems gun-shy about tackling the question from the "new exculpatory evidence in a cold case" angle.

paul wrote:Better Call Saul I guess. At least it might generate enough interest. Its not being gung-ho or busting through bro. Its about having a go.

greg parker wrote:

paul wrote:Better Call Saul I guess. At least it might generate enough interest. Its not being gung-ho or busting through bro. Its about having a go.

Yeah, I agree. I guess I was thinking that court is usually the last crack at having a go.

Mate, I promise, I'm not throwing in the towel just yet. Nor are others here.  Efforts continue and you will see that at some point during the year.