what we are witnessing...

I know the claims have been made for a very long time that witness testimony has been changed/suborned. But I honestly don't believe the case for that has ever been all that strong. Suspicion isn't evidence.

I think what we have witnessed 

here
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20354&page=1

here
https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t34-was-eddie-piper-on-the-6th-floor

here
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17269

& here
https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t453-the-rearranged-boxes

to give just some examples, changes all that and is the bones and meat of a prima facie case that Oswald's alibi would not be permitted to stand, and wherever possible, the real story would be turned into a variation on the truth, but leaning towards his guilt.

There is, imo, no longer any justification for defending the WC findings or its methodology.

These threads, among others, contain the real story, or very close to it, about what happened just prior, during and just after the assassination.

The pity is that this story will remain buried in forums. They have no real impact on how the history is written.

It is a large part of my frustration.

greg parker wrote:I know the claims have been made for a very long time that witness testimony has been changed/suborned. But I honestly don't believe the case for that has ever been all that strong. Suspicion isn't evidence.

I think what we have witnessed 

here
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20354&page=1

here
https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t34-was-eddie-piper-on-the-6th-floor

here
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17269

& here
https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t453-the-rearranged-boxes

to give just some examples, changes all that and is the bones and meat of a prima facie case that Oswald's alibi would not be permitted to stand, and wherever possible, the real story would be turned into a variation on the truth, but leaning towards his guilt.

There is, imo, no longer any justification for defending the WC findings or its methodology.

These threads, among others, contain the real story, or very close to it, about what happened just prior, during and just after the assassination.

The pity is that this story will remain buried in forums. They have no real impact on how the history is written.

It is a large part of my frustration.

Maybe one way to bury threads that contain the real story is for people to start bunches of new threads?
 
There's a guy over at ED forum that has started 21 new threads in the last two days alone. As a result "Oswald Leaving TSBD?" keeps getting pushed down the list off the front page. My latent paranoia makes me wonder if thread starting might be a way of burying the real stuff in a sea of minutia.
 
Speaking of Prayer Man, wouldn't you think a thread that has almost 92,000 views in in just two months over there be worthy getting pinned?
 
PS: I just discovered Lee's "Oswald and Bus 1213" thread over at ED. Something great to peruse, yes!
 
PPS: Tom Scully's recent posts where he tells of thousands of posts being deleted was scary. I hope Sean and others make copies of all of their hard work. It would be a crying shame crime if the content of the Prayer Man thread and other great research were lost.

I hope to see this info in books and documentaries. You're so right Greg, it would be a shame to see this information buried in forums. Maybe a newsletter even, or a blog could write it up? Easy summaries of the info for people to share on facebook and twitter and use in whatever media they are making.

Frankie Vegas wrote:I hope to see this info in books and documentaries. You're so right Greg, it would be a shame to see this information buried in forums. Maybe a newsletter even, or a blog could write it up? Easy summaries of the info for people to share on facebook and twitter and use in whatever media they are making.

Frankie,

I just remembered that British journalist, Chris Lightbown's book is now out.

Chris Lightbown is an experienced investigative journalist who has worked for the Sunday Times, and his masterly book is the first to use the network of high-quality but unknown independent researchers whose conferences, internet sites, lectures and books have largely been ignored by the mainstream media. Lightbown's book is a brilliant piece of investigative reporting. It is also an utterly convincing and gripping narrative that provides the greatest clarity to the dark event that altered the twentieth century.
http://www.amazon.com/Strange-Death-JFK-Murdered-President/dp/0297864467/ref=pd_sim_b_5

Would be interested to find out what made it in, and what didn't from "internet sites", conferences and etc.

Me too! We need one of these coming out every year. Like an encyclopedia of sorts...
An overview of the years findings.

Frankie Vegas wrote:Me too! We need one of these coming out every year. Like an encyclopedia of sorts...
An overview of the years findings.

Excellent idea, and one that should be acted upon.

I spent more time over the weekend than I perhaps should have replying to articles motivated by the 50th anniversary of the assassination in the online versions of the UK qualities.

What struck me most was the number of people who have been influenced by the spate of junk TV programmes that seek to justify the SBT or rule out a shot from behind the fence. Five decades of demonizing Oswald has reaped psychological dividends - many, apparently including Anthony Summers, cannot believe he didn't fire any shots that day. The phrase 'a second gunman' crops up time and time again.


It must be particularly frustrating for the more active members of this forum. The work by a handful of researchers over the past few years has shed new light on the assassination, particularly in regard to events and individuals within Dallas. Far too many were prepared to accept parts of the Warren narrative without pondering why they should accept any of it. What if it was all a big lie? Even some 'conspiracy theorists' have a natural inclination to shy away from this question. If they think CE399 was so obviously planted, then why shouldn't the bus transfer or the paper sack have been too?

Sean Murphy's argument concerning Oswald being at the rear of the TSBD entrance should surely have attracted some media attention. Certainly, more than the case that a Secret Service agent accidentally shot Kennedy! At this stage of the game, though, it is all about trivialisation and LN propaganda.

greg parker wrote:

Frankie Vegas wrote:Me too! We need one of these coming out every year. Like an encyclopedia of sorts...
An overview of the years findings.

Excellent idea, and one that should be acted upon.

I would volunteer but we want people to actually be able to read these things   Hopefully someone will pick it up though.

Redfern wrote:I spent more time over the weekend than I perhaps should have replying to articles motivated by the 50th anniversary of the assassination in the online versions of the UK qualities.

What struck me most was the number of people who have been influenced by the spate of junk TV programmes that seek to justify the SBT or rule out a shot from behind the fence. Five decades of demonizing Oswald has reaped psychological dividends - many, apparently including Anthony Summers, cannot believe he didn't fire any shots that day. The phrase 'a second gunman' crops up time and time again.


It must be particularly frustrating for the more active members of this forum. The work by a handful of researchers over the past few years has shed new light on the assassination, particularly in regard to events and individuals within Dallas. Far too many were prepared to accept parts of the Warren narrative without pondering why they should accept any of it. What if it was all a big lie? Even some 'conspiracy theorists' have a natural inclination to shy away from this question. If they think CE399 was so obviously planted, then why shouldn't the bus transfer or the paper sack have been too?

Sean Murphy's argument concerning Oswald being at the rear of the TSBD entrance should surely have attracted some media attention. Certainly, more than the case that a Secret Service agent accidentally shot Kennedy! At this stage of the game, though, it is all about trivialisation and LN propaganda.

The long and the short of it is that we've been successfully marginalized. islands of discontent in the Salton Sea... 

We have two main choices. 

Turn to the "alternative" media which is largely populated by the Tinfoil Hat brigade we are lumped in with already, preach to the "converted", never have our ideas challenged or tested or embraced by the masses...  and never have them heard by the people we need to reach.

Or we can take the harder path to find a way to break down the barriers between us and the MSM. 

Lee has taken a small, but hopefully significant step in that direction.

The MSM is a tool of propaganda. Anyone who has studied old newspapers like I have may understand that the idea of using "propaganda" was not considered wrong in any way shape or form and at least up to and throughout the '50s, it was not used pejoratively (I've seen headlines such "more propaganda needed"). It's much like the old stories I've read where it is reported in a very mundane fashion that medical experiments performed at an orphanage would benefit a lot of people. Well, not the orphans of course. But who cares? They were repaying their debt to society for keeping their wretched bodies breathing.  

But before I totally sidetrack myself... not all propaganda is "bad", and even only when moderately well done, it is still effective. I see every day of my life how effective it is with people parroting the Murdoch Press and Talk Back radio - regurgitating events/policies/spin and being told who to hate and who to like, even though it is distinctly against their self-interest. We need to use propaganda the same way it used by the "other side". The MSM provides the only effective means. I don't believe it's impossible to break through. I'm a great believer in "tipping points" in history.   

This shunning of the MSM is wrong-headed. Pure and simple.

Frankie Vegas wrote:

greg parker wrote:

Frankie Vegas wrote:Me too! We need one of these coming out every year. Like an encyclopedia of sorts...
An overview of the years findings.

Excellent idea, and one that should be acted upon.

I would volunteer but we want people to actually be able to read these things   Hopefully someone will pick it up though.

Frankie, you don't TYPE with a Kiwi accent...!!!

You Australians think you're so funny...
I might go get a 'sex peck' and sit back and enjoy the jokes.

Frankie Vegas wrote:You Orstralians thenk you're so fanny...
I mioght go git a 'sex peck' and sit beck end injoy the jokes.

For the benefit of other members, and as a qualified Interpreter of various Kiwi dialects, what Frankie has said here is,

"I may make my way to the nearest liquor outlet and therein purchase a small case of ale comprising of six (6) small bottles. I shall then sally forth with a fifth and return to my abode. Once safely ensconced inside, I shall recline in my favorite chair where I shall have maximum enjoyment of Greg's little japes."

greg parker wrote:

Frankie Vegas wrote:You Orstralians thenk you're so fanny...
I mioght go git a 'sex peck' and sit beck end injoy the jokes.

For the benefit of other members, and as a qualified Interpreter of various Kiwi dialects, what Frankie has said here is,

"I may make my way to the nearest liquor outlet and therein purchase a small case of ale comprising of six (6) small bottles. I shall then sally forth with a fifth and return to my abode. Once safely ensconced inside, I shall recline in my favorite chair where I shall have maximum enjoyment of Greg's little japes."

And this, my friends, is why I won't be writing our encyclopaedia.
I will however write to Santa and tell him to give Greg a lump of coal for Xmas.

I will however write to Santa and tell him to give Greg a lump of coal for Xmas.

Doesn't Santa take vacations in New Zealand?

Albert Rossi wrote:Doesn't Santa take vacations in New Zealand?

He's my uncle actually. I bring him whiskey and feed his reindeer in the summer months.

Ho-ho-ho!  Any chance you could ask him to help reopen the case?

Albert Rossi wrote:Ho-ho-ho!  Any chance you could ask him to help reopen the case?

Why not?  :)We have just as much of a chance with Santa as we do with congress!

Frankie Vegas wrote:Why not?  :)We have just as much of a chance with Santa as we do with congress!

Frankie,

Something tells me we actually have a much better chance with Santa than we do with Congress

greg parker wrote:

Redfern wrote:I spent more time over the weekend than I perhaps should have replying to articles motivated by the 50th anniversary of the assassination in the online versions of the UK qualities.

What struck me most was the number of people who have been influenced by the spate of junk TV programmes that seek to justify the SBT or rule out a shot from behind the fence. Five decades of demonizing Oswald has reaped psychological dividends - many, apparently including Anthony Summers, cannot believe he didn't fire any shots that day. The phrase 'a second gunman' crops up time and time again.


It must be particularly frustrating for the more active members of this forum. The work by a handful of researchers over the past few years has shed new light on the assassination, particularly in regard to events and individuals within Dallas. Far too many were prepared to accept parts of the Warren narrative without pondering why they should accept any of it. What if it was all a big lie? Even some 'conspiracy theorists' have a natural inclination to shy away from this question. If they think CE399 was so obviously planted, then why shouldn't the bus transfer or the paper sack have been too?

Sean Murphy's argument concerning Oswald being at the rear of the TSBD entrance should surely have attracted some media attention. Certainly, more than the case that a Secret Service agent accidentally shot Kennedy! At this stage of the game, though, it is all about trivialisation and LN propaganda.

The long and the short of it is that we've been successfully marginalized. islands of discontent in the Salton Sea... 

We have two main choices. 

Turn to the "alternative" media which is largely populated by the Tinfoil Hat brigade we are lumped in with already, preach to the "converted", never have our ideas challenged or tested or embraced by the masses...  and never have them heard by the people we need to reach.

Or we can take the harder path to find a way to break down the barriers between us and the MSM. 

Lee has taken a small, but hopefully significant step in that direction.

The MSM is a tool of propaganda. Anyone who has studied old newspapers like I have may understand that the idea of using "propaganda" was not considered wrong in any way shape or form and at least up to and throughout the '50s, it was not used pejoratively (I've seen headlines such "more propaganda needed"). It's much like the old stories I've read where it is reported in a very mundane fashion that medical experiments performed at an orphanage would benefit a lot of people. Well, not the orphans of course. But who cares? They were repaying their debt to society for keeping their wretched bodies breathing.  

But before I totally sidetrack myself... not all propaganda is "bad", and even only when moderately well done, it is still effective. I see every day of my life how effective it is with people parroting the Murdoch Press and Talk Back radio - regurgitating events/policies/spin and being told who to hate and who to like, even though it is distinctly against their self-interest. We need to use propaganda the same way it used by the "other side". The MSM provides the only effective means. I don't believe it's impossible to break through. I'm a great believer in "tipping points" in history.   

This shunning of the MSM is wrong-headed. Pure and simple.

The 50th anniversary was a very good opportunity for Warren critics to influence opinion but it seems to have slipped by. Obviously, channels like Fox News would not be particularly interested but others might.

I don't believe the media outside the US has much of an axe to grind in terms of which 'side' of the debate it favours. However, one common response to articles in the Guardian and Telegraph was 'who cares - it was fifty years ago'.

Much depends on organisation and contacts, though. A recent scientific paper that purports to discredit the HSCA acoustics study has not received the attention that might have been envisaged.

The level of discussion on forums such as this is far too high to influence opinion although the broader issues just might. Several articles around the world mentioned the complexity of the case and the mountain of conspiracy theories, thereby placing the 'CIA was responsible' line alongside 'Onassis did it'. The Wikipedia article does likewise and it this instance it looks like a subtle tactic. Some progress could be made here. Nearly all the serious researchers believe that while there may have been various elements involved the plot was driven by the CIA. Even Dave Perry said this was possible.

The LN side plays very heavily on the stigma it wishes to encourage being attached to belief in 'conspiracy theories'. Hence, the habitual use of words like 'kooks'. To counter this, emphasis must be placed on the angle that it is simply another unsolved crime with grave evidentiary problems, albeit one which has huge significance. It doesn't help the critics' case to be associated with 9/11 theories, in my view, and there appears to be a small number of people at the fringes of JFK assassination research whose presence is largely - maybe in one or two cases, deliberately - counter-productive.


If the aim is to use propaganda methods that will have an impact in a TV-dominated age, issues must be simplified to the absolute basics. This is obviously not possible with, say, something like the events in Mexico City. However, Prayer Man-as-Oswald is ideal. This single issue condenses the whole conspiracy vs. lone nut debate to a brief clip of film and a question of identity. It places the lone nut position on the defensive and the response so far has been lame. LNs will bluster about the 'number of pixels' and so on but as long as the matter remains restricted to a few assassination forums it won't pose any threat. That's why the goal should be that it becomes a news item.

The tactic of putting legitimate and ridiculous hypotheses on the same level is no different from what mass media coverage of any potentially explosive issue tends to be:  neutralize it by presenting a so-called "balanced" view.  The JFK case is only the most egregious example of this.

These days I cannot imagine the corporate driven media outside the US to be much different from here.  One example:  http://ctka.net/2013/citizen_dissents.html

If there are realistic ideas for how to defeat the corporate machine without the same capital they have at their disposal, I would be interested to hear them.  One can talk about the need to propagandise, but without a visible soapbox to stand on, one can't get very far.

Redfern wrote:If the aim is to use propaganda methods that will have an impact in a TV-dominated age, issues must be simplified to the absolute basics. This is obviously not possible with, say, something like the events in Mexico City. However, Prayer Man-as-Oswald is ideal. This single issue condenses the whole conspiracy vs. lone nut debate to a brief clip of film and a question of identity. It places the lone nut position on the defensive and the response so far has been lame. LNs will bluster about the 'number of pixels' and so on but as long as the matter remains restricted to a few assassination forums it won't pose any threat. That's why the goal should be that it becomes a news item.

Albert Rossi wrote:The tactic of putting legitimate and ridiculous hypotheses on the same level is no different from what mass media coverage of any potentially explosive issue tends to be:  neutralize it by presenting a so-called "balanced" view.  The JFK case is only the most egregious example of this.

These days I cannot imagine the corporate driven media outside the US to be much different from here.  One example:  http://ctka.net/2013/citizen_dissents.html

If there are realistic ideas for how to defeat the corporate machine without the same capital they have at their disposal, I would be interested to hear them.  One can talk about the need to propagandise, but without a visible soapbox to stand on, one can't get very far.

To capture the attention of the public, I agree that the issues must be simplified to the absolute basics.
 
Advertising is successful not because it focuses on all of the technical/logical reasons why you should buy a certain product. It works because it appeals to your emotions. As essential as they are to sound research and building a solid case, detailed chronologies, timelines, thousands of pages of statements and affidavits won't get the job done by themselves. If they did, this thing would have been over long ago. As a non-researcher type, I even have trouble following all of the information at times, and I'm ex-nuclear Navy who still has retained much of my ability to think. Again, this stuff is vitally important, but not to sell product.
 
It's got to be something akin to an "advertising campaign" where information is put forth to grab people's attention and start a buzz. Something like Prayer Man that catches detractors completely off guard and flatfooted, including the Military Media Industrial Complex. Just like the movie JFK did; once the public got onboard the train, nobody could stop the momentum. That's a great way to make news.
 
The question, of course, is the "visible soapbox" upon which to stand. But if the right people are engaged, then these things can happen.
 
Maybe Richard Gilbride's new movie project can be that soapbox. Hire the right people, promote the hell out of it, grab people's attention, create interest and anticipation, be agile and take the offensive. Be creative.
 
Barring any new slam-dunk irrefutable smoking-gun evidence turning up—such as a document saying ABC did it with help from XYZ, or a new perfectly recognizable mass of pixels leaving nothing to the imagination—we have to take what we have sell it effectively. To do this, we may have to think more like marketers than researchers.
 
Just my 39 cents worth.

You know, all of this keeps bringing back to mind Mr. Smith Goes To Washington.  As problematic as that film and its director are, they do get one thing right.  No matter how motivated, a bunch of boy scouts printing up their own newspaper and riding around on a pick-up truck delivering it were unable in the end to out-shout the moneyed radio and newspaper propaganda machines. 

Who are the right people to hire?  You would need the kind of exposure, clout and backing Stone had when making JFK (and he was coming off multiple recent Oscar-level recognition).  And once you pull off the next JFK, be prepared for what was done to Stone and JFK (before the film ever hit the theatres) all over again.  I mean, yes, the film produced the ARRB.  And the film contributed to the "polls" showing how the American public supposedly rejected the official story.  But if that's all it took, what are we doing today fighting the same battles? I think before one goes off in that direction, it behooves one to try to come up with a strategy for successfully dealing with that aftermath.  If you can't win that one, no progress will be made.

OK, enough negativity.  I'd like to hope progress could be made.  I just fear we either have yet another 50 years of the same ahead of us, or must await the disappearance of US imperial hegemony by other means, whichever comes first.

Thanks for the feedback guys. 

Myself and another member had already had a quiet word in Sean's ear about getting PM into the media spotlight. Friendly contacts were even offered.

Sean's response has been that he is not ready for that just yet. He is determined to nail it down as tight as he can before doing anything with it. I can understand that, but probably wouldn't have the patience to stick to it. In any event, Sean needs to be the one who presents it.