what we are witnessing...

First topic message reminder :

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.

Same here, Lee.

That's why tonight I shall be avoiding all MSM crap and watching Oliver Stone's fantastic movie instead.

True reporters are a small minority anymore. Most "reporters" just parrot the prevailing (approved) narrative. So that's all most people hear. And they are influenced by what they hear.
 
The prevailing narrative wins. Very few people think deeply or critically anymore. I wish it were otherwise but I just don't see it.
 
Not everyone who hears a Bud Light commercial goes out and buys that tasteless product. But enough do, so the commercials continue unabated. They work.
 
The prevailing narrative wins.
 
My dear old mother-in-law is a case in point. She has a good heart and some common sense, but when I try talking about the JFK assassination with her, she has trouble buying what I'm saying. She's been too conditioned by the bullshit she's heard over the years.
 
She watched a special on JFK two nights ago (I don't know which one it was, but you can be damn sure it was a Lone Nutter palooza). How does one combat expertly produced LN propaganda over a cup of coffee with a person who doesn't even a JFK Assassination 101 knowledge level? No matter what you say, you end up looking like the weirdo. It's very hard to compete with mainstream state news organs.
 
If there's hope (and I believe there is) we have to take over the narrative and tell our big truth over and over again until people believe it.
 
It's Greg's propaganda strategy. We must be relentless as the opposition is. You punch me, I punch you (and knock your tooth out). It won't be easy but there's no other way to win this thing.
 
The prevailing narrative wins.
 
PS: I plan to sit down and watch the JFK movie with my mother-in-law fairly soon. I'm hoping she'll think differently afterward.

Stan Dane wrote:True reporters are a small minority anymore. Most "reporters" just parrot the prevailing (approved) narrative. So that's all most people hear. And they are influenced by what they hear.
 
The prevailing narrative wins. Very few people think deeply or critically anymore. I wish it were otherwise but I just don't see it.
 
Not everyone who hears a Bud Light commercial goes out and buys that tasteless product. But enough do, so the commercials continue unabated. They work.
 
The prevailing narrative wins.
 
My dear old mother-in-law is a case in point. She has a good heart and some common sense, but when I try talking about the JFK assassination with her, she has trouble buying what I'm saying. She's been too conditioned by the bullshit she's heard over the years.
 
She watched a special on JFK two nights ago (I don't know which one it was, but you can be damn sure it was a Lone Nutter palooza). How does one combat expertly produced LN propaganda over a cup of coffee with a person who doesn't even a JFK Assassination 101 knowledge level? No matter what you say, you end up looking like the weirdo. It's very hard to compete with mainstream state news organs.
 
If there's hope (and I believe there is) we have to take over the narrative and tell our big truth over and over again until people believe it.
 
It's Greg's propaganda strategy. We must be relentless as the opposition is. You punch me, I punch you (and knock your tooth out). It won't be easy but there's no other way to win this thing.
 
The prevailing narrative wins.
 
PS: I plan to sit down and watch the JFK movie with my mother-in-law fairly soon. I'm hoping she'll think differently afterward.

Good luck with your Mother in Law, lets us know if she changes her mind after 'JFK' the film really is good at changing hearts and minds. It will be excellent for her to have someone with her who can answer questions afterwards.
We watched the film last night as well. My husband loves it. We watched Parkland not long ago and hubby 15 mins in just looked at me and said... "It's boring". "How on earth did Hanks manage to make this story boring?"...
Last night he said that JFK is fantastic, you care about Garrison, and it's easy to understand even though it's convoluted because all the information is slowly fed to you as you go o his journey with him.
Imagine if we could have small public viewings of this film with a panel to answer questions afterwards! People who saw it could then go out and show their friends and answer questions for them and so on....

I just wanted to add here since we are talking about films. I contacted the people who made Killing Oswald and asked them if they would play the film in New Zealand. They replied that if I could find a theater then they would love to. I'm going to try and contact some theaters and the film festival today and ask if the will be keen. Just in case any of you are friends with theater owners or are really persuasive.

Frankie Vegas wrote:Good luck with your Mother in Law, lets us know if she changes her mind after 'JFK' the film really is good at changing hearts and minds. It will be excellent for her to have someone with her who can answer questions afterwards.
We watched the film last night as well. My husband loves it. We watched Parkland not long ago and hubby 15 mins in just looked at me and said... "It's boring". "How on earth did Hanks manage to make this story boring?"...
Last night he said that JFK is fantastic, you care about Garrison, and it's easy to understand even though it's convoluted because all the information is slowly fed to you as you go o his journey with him.
Imagine if we could have small public viewings of this film with a panel to answer questions afterwards! People who saw it could then go out and show their friends and answer questions for them and so on....

I'll provide a report on how it goes, Frankie. I'm going to do it at her place so she can be more comfortable (she's 80 years old) so I'll have to bring over my Blu-ray player and hook it up to her new plasma TV she just bought. Hope to do this in less than a week. (I just hope she stays awake!)

You might have to do it over a weekend
Part I and part II?

I had a choice between "JFK" and "The Package" last night.

I have JFK on DVD and have seen it quite a few times, so I opted for "The Package", which I had two previous failed attempts at watching from start to finish. 

I would like to thank RCD for recommending this movie to me earlier in the year.

Although it's not about the assassination, it is about an assassination plot.

I don't want to give it away to anyone who hasn't seen it, but there are elements of it that almost make me believe the writers had inside information.

I was suprised to see that Foxtel History finally replayed The Texas Connection last night. The one with Gen Semple, Walt Brown etc that pushed the LBJ, Mac Wallace story. I thought this one had been banned due to legal challenge.

Nat Geo continued to spew out Killing Kennedy unfortunately....utter garbage.

Dan, I agree that the best way to build consensus among the "community" is to focus on the cover-up, since media opposition won't even admit that.  But once they do, then an open discussion of the actual circumstances of the crime and its perpetrators might be able to take place in a public arena.  That is why the deconstructive approach (initiated by the earliest critics and culminating for that period in Sylvia Meagher's reading of the Warren Report against its own grain of exhibits and hearings) is still the best first step.  And I agree, Jim's article (along with his foreign policy article) ought to be widely divulged.  I think the foreign policy story is also crucial, because to my mind it provides the most convincing context for demonstrating relevance.

Lee Farley wrote:Some of these people who are giving sound bites are talking utter bullshit.  These are supposed to be reporters.

"We know that people in the windows below the sixth floor heard shells hitting the floor and the bolt being operated."

"Oswald's actions after the assassination were not that of an innocent man."

"We know he shot Officer Tippit in cold blood."

"He came closest to an admission of guilt in the theater when he said 'it's all over now'"

"He tried to shoot police officers when they were arresting him."

It's Mr. Peabody and Sherman in the way-back-machine. 

We have, by a commodious vicus of recirculation, returned to 1964 and environs.  Riverrun, past Dulles' and McCloy's.  Not that it was ever really the case that the MSM moved away from there.

I spared myself this grief, Lee.  I'm glad I did.

Dan and Albert,

I continue to believe there are small pockets within the MSM that are reachable simply because they are NOT part of any deliberate cover-up. There are other reasons behind  what they present which has little to do with deliberate deceit. However, even that group would not be easy to crack. It takes what we lack. Money for advertizing (doesn't matter what, or be related ), and stories handed to them in the form of media releases that they don't have to write themselves or spend any time on. The key sweetener is actually in giving them a clever or funny headline for the story.  

That said, this works mainly only with regional newspapers struggling to fill their paper with ads and news. Stories do get picked by the majors from the regionals on occasion. Especially if they can see it's a popular story.

So I don't give up on MSM altogether.

The other option, given what the two of you have said, is a good old fashioned newsletter. This could be made available through subscription or per edition through my main website, or some other. Money raised through that could be put to say FOIA requests for members here, or whatever projects anyone can come up with.

For that to work, it's going to take people who not only have the time, but also the commitment.

The main theme could be "cover-ups" of the 60's assassinations - with occasional pieces on other cover-ups before and since (so long as it doesn't turn into a "Truther" deal!)

Greg,

first, I agree that all of the MSM business is not to be explained as deliberate.  Certainly a good part of it has to do with links between the major houses and intelligence and corporate/financial interests, but part of it derives simply from intellectual inertia, the comfort of conformity, and a desire for access to information.

That being said, I think you hit the nail on the head about the dangers of any grassroots initiative that one must be vigilant against:  when you open the doors to a wide public, a certain loosening of standards and rigor tends to occur. We certainly don't want a YouTube kind of open-door policy, wherein the message is drowned out by nonsensical and inane commentary. The formula for coupling wide diffusion with high quality information is a difficult one to come upon, I would think. 

I am certainly favorable to such an effort, though I also think it easy to become a bit starry-eyed about the chances of success.

Speaking as an American about traditional media in the USA, I see very little hope there.  Perhaps this is not true elsewhere in the world.

Who knows, maybe social media can be used successfully for this purpose.  But my brief experiences on Facebook two years ago (I left after about six weeks) suggested otherwise to me.  I tried to post articles of political and social significance to elicit comments from my friends.  They were more interested in discussing what restaurants they ate at or the latest episode of some silly sitcom.  Or what they did that afternoon. 

Sorry if my outlook is so sour.  But rest assured I do believe it important to pursue this somehow.  Otherwise I wouldn't be here.

Albert Rossi wrote:Dan, I agree that the best way to build consensus among the "community" is to focus on the cover-up, since media opposition won't even admit that.  But once they do, then an open discussion of the actual circumstances of the crime and its perpetrators might be able to take place in a public arena.  That is why the deconstructive approach (initiated by the earliest critics and culminating for that period in Sylvia Meagher's reading of the Warren Report against its own grain of exhibits and hearings) is still the best first step.  And I agree, Jim's article (along with his foreign policy article) ought to be widely divulged.  I think the foreign policy story is also crucial, because to my mind it provides the most convincing context for demonstrating relevance.

Sorry Albert, I probably wasn't being clear enough as I was throwing ideas aboot. I was actually thinking that the focus should be on consensus of basic facts of evidence, and so those basic facts being presented in "headlines" that get hammered into people's minds. The bit about the cover-up(s) was me being pissed and getting carried away remembering GB Shaw's idea (somewhere in "Man and Superman") that people will sit and take all manner of bullshit but if you call a man a coward he'll move heaven and earth to refute that charge.

So in other words, an independent platform or venue is needed (which doesn't rule out this forum, as one or more "sticky" could serve the purpose), with presentation of summarized evidentiary points about which there is general consensus (again, not total agreement but what people can "live with"); so for instance,

1. AARB releases have been completely ignored by MSM programs

2. David Phillips & Ann Goodpasture were to be indicted on perjury charges when Johannides came along

3. Medical professionals at Bethesda as well as Parkland said they saw a large avulsive wound in the right rear of President Kennedy's head


Those are just examples of what I had in mind, culled from the parts of Jim's article I quoted. I was mainly only thinking of what would be "effective propaganda" as well as what platform would work best. I've since read yours and Greg's ensuing posts and I agree with so much of what you had to say I'll just quote from it at the end, but Greg's right about the time and commitment needed, and I'm afraid a good old-fashioned newsletter would wind up only as preaching to the choir. So I would revise my original proposal towards the "platform" being in a social media campaign; Frankie's ideas are excellent despite her being a CIA disinformationist disinfoer  disinformer somebody that lies about stuff.

On your final point, reading Jim's article on Kennedy's foreign policy reminded me of how the idea of the Alliance for Progress went to hell; and of how, almost immediately after the assassination, Thomas Mann was recalled by LBJ from being US Ambassador to Mexico to resume his prior Eisenhower Administration duties as an UnderSecretary for Latin American Affairs. Things like that are extremely important, I think, but I'm afraid the foreign policy realm may only appeal to people like you or me, a teenage history buff and International Studies Major, along with people outside the United States. And maybe the latter is where our focus should be, even though we Americans don't mind being left out of what "the rest of the world" thinks -- for instance, the metric system and "soccer."

Albert Rossi writ:

Greg,

first, I agree that all of the MSM business is not to be explained as deliberate.  Certainly a good part of it has to do with links between the major houses and intelligence and corporate/financial interests, but part of it derives simply from intellectual inertia, the comfort of conformity, and a desire for access to information.

Also, the people we see on TV are making the kind of money that most ordinary humans can only dream of. They are not struggling to get by. They have a vested interest in the system that has done so well by them, and their curiosity is like their charity: makes them feel good as long as it doesn't really cost them anything. Edward R. Murrow they ain't.

Who knows, maybe social media can be used successfully for this purpose.  But my brief experiences on Facebook two years ago (I left after about six weeks) suggested otherwise to me. I tried to post articles of political and social significance to elicit comments from my friends. They were more interested in discussing what restaurants they ate at or the latest episode of some silly sitcom. Or what they did that afternoon.

That's true of an individual effort, and trying to appeal to one's friends. A group effort, designed to appeal to like-minded or at least "reachable" audience (the people who search on facebook for "issues" groups, similar to groups devoted to sports clubs, celebrities, etc)? That's what I think we're talking about.

Sorry if my outlook is so sour. But rest assured I do believe it important to pursue this somehow. Otherwise I wouldn't be here.

Same here, brother. I hope you have a Happy Thanksgiving.
Dan

Dan, just a few quick comments. 

First, I, too, am guilty of being imprecise.  The points you raise above are indeed the kinds of things I was thinking of, because they are "facts" which have been suppressed.  One can demonstrate that easily.  And that demonstration shows an on-going cover-up, whether deliberate or not.  But their implications for a reconstruction of the crime itself are less straightforward.  I was agreeing that if you can get a public acknowledgment of these "facts", that is already a victory, and the rest will proceed from there.

Second, I remember being taught in high school about how the Alliance for Progress was ineffective and idealistic.  Then I remember the further revisionism in the 70s which claimed it was a mere cover-story for waging anti-communist counterinsurgency in Latin America.  JFK the "horrible war-monger".  This is another story which is in sore need of recuperation.   I don't think the foreign policy question is of limited interest, because it is extremely relevant to the situation today, and it provides the most powerful motive for the assassination.  In my view, making evident the connection between Dallas 11/22/63 and what has happened and is happening in the US and the world today is the primary reason for continuing to fight this battle.  What Americans need to understand is how their democracy has been robbed from them over the course of the last half century and more, and how their country has become the successor to imperial regimes on the order of Rome.  I think the larger pattern is extremely important, because it shows that things like Iran, Nicaragua, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. (we could go on and on) are not momentary aberrations, the whims of particular administrations.

Third, I admit that my elitist bias ;-)   tends to color my view of Facebook, but that does not mean I would not be in favor of using it or other social media for the purposes stated.  Those more adept should lead the way.  But I do have one question about all of this, though.  We could potentially reach more people this way; but if it does not provoke a response from officialdom, the success of the campaign is a limited one.  The two cultures will continue to clash in their views, and the official culture is the one which will continue to hold the cards.  Can social media really cause the latter to crack?  It has brazenly gone along in denial for 50 years; and, at its worst, has lied repeatedly and deliberately, even in the face of a public which supposedly doesn't believe it.  It can continue to do so, because it deems that resistance irrelevant.  What will make resistance through social media any different?  Now, if you could get people to turn off the TV news, that would be a victory in my opinion (I think Ed Murrow would maybe even agree with me here).


Though I only reluctantly participate in the mythological construct, I do wish you and yours a peaceful Thanksgiving Day.

As far as agreement on different things to do with this crime I quite like the Ten Points Of Agreement that COPA has. ( I know they got this from someone else but I can't remember his name, so sorry for not including it here). Looks like some fab ideas coming out of this thread.
http://politicalassassinations.com/2013/10/10-points-of-agreement-on-political-assassinations-sign-on/

This has been out there for a while now.  I agree that it has potential.

Frankie Vegas wrote:As far as agreement on different things to do with this crime I quite like the Ten Points Of Agreement that COPA has. ( I know they got this from someone else but I can't remember his name, so sorry for not including it here). Looks like some fab ideas coming out of this thread.
http://politicalassassinations.com/2013/10/10-points-of-agreement-on-political-assassinations-sign-on/

I believe it originates with Joseph Green.  See also:  http://www.ctka.net/2009/ten_point_program.html

\"Albert Rossi wrote: wrote:Who knows, maybe social media can be used successfully for this purpose.  But my brief experiences on Facebook two years ago (I left after about six weeks) suggested otherwise to me.  I tried to post articles of political and social significance to elicit comments from my friends.  They were more interested in discussing what restaurants they ate at or the latest episode of some silly sitcom.  Or what they did that afternoon. 

While not an expert on social media myself, I have noticed that "articles" of any length do not usually garner many hits.

However, if one posts a lot of cute, crazy pictures - perhaps of kittens discussing the assassination or acting it out (just thinking out loud here) - with provocative one liners, it might get enough interest for people to stick around and read an article.

One thing to keep in mind is that many people get their Facebook updates on their phones. Reading a long article on a phone is a bit tiresome but a cute picture, funny cartoon, or catchy one-liner is perfect. They are quick and easy to read, to laugh at, to "Like", and to "Share", which is really what we are looking for here.

Just a thot...

terlin wrote:

\"Albert Rossi wrote: wrote:Who knows, maybe social media can be used successfully for this purpose.  But my brief experiences on Facebook two years ago (I left after about six weeks) suggested otherwise to me.  I tried to post articles of political and social significance to elicit comments from my friends.  They were more interested in discussing what restaurants they ate at or the latest episode of some silly sitcom.  Or what they did that afternoon. 

While not an expert on social media myself, I have noticed that "articles" of any length do not usually garner many hits.

However, if one posts a lot of cute, crazy pictures - perhaps of kittens discussing the assassination or acting it out (just thinking out loud here) - with provocative one liners, it might get enough interest for people to stick around and read an article.

One thing to keep in mind is that many people get their Facebook updates on their phones. Reading a long article on a phone is a bit tiresome but a cute picture, funny cartoon, or catchy one-liner is perfect. They are quick and easy to read, to laugh at, to "Like", and to "Share", which is really what we are looking for here.

Just a thot...

I agree with this, cute funny memes is where it's at. We can link to more info underneath.

Frankie Vegas wrote:

Brilliant Frankie! Now you just need the links to feed some salient facts through.

A link to a blog with some bullet points or facts would be fab! I'm not so hot at that part. This is one of a series I made a while back. In other news. I now know how to add a picture here.

Got a cold, can't sleep, so I play around doing stuff like this. But I was inspired by Frankie, although I'm not sure this is suitable for jack. It was fun anyway.



Time for another shot of Glenlivet and then off to bed.

Bahahaha!