Paul Kuntzler New York Times Conspiracy

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

Tim I think that point could be made, but within an overall context of

1. solidly emphaisizing LHO's intelligence links; while pointing out the WC denied them

2. pointing out Ruby's organized crime links while pointing out the WC deneid them.

I think the possiblity of them meeting might be mentioned at the end of these two sections, but not as the main point of emphasis.

I also think there has to be a clear, crisp paragraph of how this matters FOR THE WORLD OF TODAY. We have to rescue the case from the category of trivial pursuit, where it has been relagated by the Corporate Medcia. I think the line of continutity here involved increased centralized power, increaing lack of checks and balances, and a complete absence of sunshine-- rumored to be the best disinfectant.

[Myra Bronstein]

...

I also think there has to be a clear, crisp paragraph of how this matters FOR THE WORLD OF TODAY. We have to rescue the case from the category of trivial pursuit, where it has been relagated by the Corporate Medcia. I think the line of continutity here involved increased centralized power, increaing lack of checks and balances, and a complete absence of sunshine-- rumored to be the best disinfectant.

Yes, why this matters, for example, is that--as evidenced in the 2000 election--the American people have no say in the running of the government. That's a direct result of the 1963 coup.

Very important to show that 1963 coup=2007 fascism.

[John Simkin]

Well why don't I see how much a full page ad in USA Today would cost? I suspect the cost will be between $14,000 and $18,000!

Then we can determine if there is sufficient interest to pay for it.

Perhaps it could be jointly sponsored by the Education Forum, the Mary Ferrell Foundation and JFK Lancer (I am not suggesting that those entities would pay for the ad).

I suspect it would be impossible to agree what the advert would say unless it was written by one person. For example, I would have nothing to do with an ad that suggested that Castro or the KGB had anything to do with the assassination.

My suggestion would be to hold a conference where a series of lectures are given by the leading experts on the assassination. In this way, all the latest evidence that we have on the case would be presented. We could use all the media contacts we have to publicize the event. For example, the Spartacus home page receives 50,000 visitors a day. Hopefully, we would get some publicity for this event. We could also film the conference and supply media outlets with a copy of the DVD. We could then advertise the DVD in the national press. We could also make it available to Amazon where we could also supply the reviews of the DVD. I could also sell it via my website and I am sure that others who run websites would also join this venture. Extracts of the documentary could be placed on YouTube.

The idea of placing an advert in the New York Times or the Washington Post is very old fashioned. We now live in a world of the web, YouTube and DVDs. Let us use these new methods as part of a campaign to force the US government to reopen the case.

[John Geraghty]

I have become aware of the fact that the advert was originally to run in the Washington Post, but was pulled at the last minute. The Post then began calling around offering the advert space at half price so as not to lose too much reveneue. Obviously it was less trouble and less money not to publish Mr.Kuntzler's advert.

Very interesting.

John

[Herb White]

The New York Times rates are available, I believe, on-line.

I agree a lot of content can go into a half-page ad.

USA Today has of course a greater circulation than the Times.

I think you should worry less about the price and more about what to write that will REALLY have an effect. There are a few well-heeled JFK people who might be willing to help out if they saw a product and project they could get behind - or the money could be raised in progressive circles, again if something good were at hand. One might also first publish it in cheaper papers / magazines or on line and solicit money for a print run in NYT and other such in those. If a well-written piece of a page had references [both to books and websites] and concrete suggestions on what a person could do to move the case along or call for it to be REALLY investigated, it might have some effect. Nov 22 is not so far away and if it is to be done, someone should start 'a writin and the production of two or three versions [only differing in size/detail] might be in order....depending on what kind of money one comes up with in the end.

Well that's kinda what I was trying to say in the other thread that people won't post in:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=10618

Still, we need to know the cost up front to know if it's feasible.

I'm not as confident about the prospect of raising money as you seem to be Peter.

$10,000 maybe. $80,000, no.

I'd agree that ~80,000$ is not easy goal....but there are persons with that kind of money IF they think it will have a positive effect. Second, the NYT is no longer the only game in town....there are lots of other venues - print and internet. Perhaps a factual website - with call to action and links - with cheaper ads in lots of local papers and specalty magazines pointing to it might have the same effect. Add to that permission to print [if in full and not altered] in more expensive/important/higher circulation papers and someone with money might just pop for it......

I'd be very interested to know what kind of reception / reaction the current one is getting and how he is handling the interviews.....this could have a large effect on the planned follow-ups and their construction and positioning. The main idea is to start MOVEMENT and that doesnt' mean one has to start in the biggest venue [NYT] or start small there and monthly enlarge it with solicited contributions. Movement is the key.....a rolling snowball will soon enough get large....no matter what size it starts...but once it stops....it melts.

Another technique is to do a really good presentation and post it on internet, giving permission and encouragement for other blogs, sites, etc to repost/mirror it as long as it remains unchanged and cited.

Twarpley just did this with one paper of his and it got on 10,000 sites in a month.

I believe most people respond to visual imagery more readily than just the printed word. Why not put a selection of of the most damning/convincing photo evidence along wth a short summation of what it represents. I don't know how much of the general public have seen blowups of badgeman and heard the Gordon Arnold story, or a clear shot of the man Groden found in the Dillard photo, but to me they are both clear evidence of conspiracy. Add a sharp image of the dark complected man clearly speaking into a radio and then the one showing the bulge under his jacket with a description of his activity during and after the shooting and I believe you can get a lot of people interested. I think we tend to forget how these images affected us when we first saw them and so many people haven't. Along with a strong narrative it could be effective imo.

Herb

[Myra Bronstein]

I just received this copy of a letter Mr. Kuntzler wrote to the Washington Post. I'm not sure if its the same thing as the ad he put in the NYT, but assume so, since that what I had requested and what he indicated he would have sent to me.

_______________________________________

...

Thank you SO much for posting this Phil.

[William Kelly]

I am quite certain that the Ford Motor Company had nothing whatsoever to do with the assassination, even if Henry Ford II was a friend of LBJ.

Unfortunately, it is assertions such as these that play into the hands of people such as Vincent Bugliosi.

Tim, being unafraid to play into the hands of Vincent Bugliosi, I take issue with your assertion that "the Ford Motor Company had nothing whatsoever to do with the assassination..."

I believe that Mr. Kuntzler's inclusion of Ford Motor Co. is because of their destruction of evidence in remodeling the Lincoln death car, however, the Ford Foundation also comes into play, especially if you believe in JRC's "Que Bono" theory, that those responsible for the assassination were handsomely rewarded.

McGeorge Bundy, the natonal security advisor to the president, who advised re: Backchannel negotiations with Cubans, and was in the WH Situation Room during the assassintion, went on to head the Ford Foundation.

While Kuntzler's ad may sound like the ravings of a lunatic, his points, while off kilter, have a basis in reality.

BK

Edited August 2, 2007 by William Kelly

[Tim Gratz]

The government tells the Ford Motor Company to redo the limousine, after the purported assassin is dead, and that action makes Ford Motor part of the conspiracy?

That's just daft, IMO. And I think at least 90% of the public would see it that way.

You put it well: While Kuntzler's ad may sound like the ravings of a lunatic . . .

That may be JUST the point!

If you want to be conspiracy minded, perhaps Kuntzler is a part of the conspiracy because I think his ad brings ridicule to the assassination research community by its wild and unsupported accusations. Perhaps that was its intent.

Edited August 3, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[John Simkin]

Sometimes it is difficult to conceive of an event as simply a coincidence. It is easy in the JFK case to view events as part of or proof of a conspiracy when they might be only coincidences.

As proof that strange coincidences do happen, last night I switched from news coverage of the tragic bridge accident in Minneapolis to watch "CSI Miami". In the opening minutes, a large yacht crashed into a bridge in Miami, collapsing the bridge and sending cars crashing in to the water. The scenes looked just like the actual news scenes from Minneapolis. It was eerie.

So this just proves that odd coincidences can indeed occur.

The case for conspiracies

As JFK proves, the theories are usually much more interesting than the truth.

By Meghan Daum

Los Angeles Times

August 4, 2007

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-...inion-rightrail

Since the May release of his 1,612-page book, "Reclaiming History," criminal prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi has been appearing on everything from C-Span to "The Colbert Report" telling the world that JFK's death had nothing to do with a government conspiracy. By most accounts, he's made a pretty airtight case.

Bugliosi, famous for prosecuting Charles Manson and for coauthoring the book about the case, "Helter Skelter," has spent 20 years examining just about every theory ever put forth about the assassination. "It's my view that it's impossible for any reasonable, rational person to read this book without being satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that Oswald killed Kennedy and acted alone," Bugliosi told the New York Times in May. Since then, overwhelmingly favorable reviews have suggested that the days of the grassy knoll-Mafia-missing bullets conspiracy theories might at last be over.

Despite the sense that Bugliosi's is the final word, for some people the simple explanation remains less compelling than the labyrinthine alternatives. It was notable that Tuesday, the print edition of the New York Times published a two-page ad, an "open letter" from one Paul Kuntzler, declaring that "President John Fitzgerald Kennedy was murdered by vice president London [sic] Baines Johnson in a widespread, incredibly complex and brilliantly planned conspiracy. . . ." The letter went on to implicate Richard Nixon, George H.W. Bush, Arlen Specter, the United States military, the Ford Motor Co., Life magazine and something Kuntzler called "big Oil of Midland, Texas," among many others.

Who is Kuntzler? Since he included his telephone number at the bottom of his letter, I called him to find out. As you might imagine, I learned more than can possibly fit in this space, but the basics are these: He's 65, a former exhibits and sales director of the National Science Teachers Assn. and once a prominent D.C.-based gay activist. He first became interested in the JFK assassination in 1991 after reading Jim Marrs' book, "Crossfire: The Plot that Killed Kennedy" (this was also, incidentally, the year of Oliver Stone's film "JFK," which Kuntzler calls "98% accurate").

In 2004, Kuntzler's longtime partner, Stephen Miller, died of complications from AIDS and left him Miller Reporting Co., which had transcribed documents that Kuntzler believes are relevant to the assassination. Following the company's demise (Kuntzler referred to "millions in estate taxes"), he sold the building that housed it, using the money to pay off his credit card debts (including $25,000 he spent organizing an assassination panel discussion last year) and spent $186,000 on the New York Times ad. Altogether, Kuntzler estimates he's spent a quarter of a million dollars on what he calls "the last opportunity for the American public to have confirmation on what happened on Nov. 22, 1963."

"I don't have much money left," he added. "I expect that once the truth comes out, I'll go on a speaking tour. If not, I'll have to take out another mortgage on my house."

After I talked to Kuntzler, I called Bugliosi, who listed for me many of the same points he made on C-SPAN and "The Colbert Report," including his belief that the Stone film is "one continuous lie, [other than] he did have the correct date and the correct victim."

"I didn't read [Kuntzler's letter] carefully," Bugliosi told me. "But I went through it enough to see that he was regurgitating all the old hoary theories that even those in the mainstream community have rejected. He's not even reading mainstream conspiracy dogma."

We then spent some time talking about why, despite the conventional wisdom that the simplest explanation is usually the best explanation, the human mind seems so naturally drawn to the complexities and innuendoes of conspiracy theories. Bugliosi admitted that they are usually more interesting than the truth. In the case of President Kennedy, he said, they point to a kind of collective inability to accept that such a monumental, historical event could be caused by a single, ordinary person.

"It gives more meaning to his life and death," Bugliosi said, "to believe dark forces are responsible for his death. Jackie herself said we don't even have the satisfaction of him being killed for a cause."

That makes sense. But speaking of simple explanations, what about the fact that every once in a while a conspiracy theory comes along that has some truth to it? Take, for example, this particular moment in this particular nation. You don't have to believe in fake moon landings or even stolen elections to sense that we're experiencing one of the most secretive periods in recent political history. When it comes to the current state of things, smelling a rat isn't necessarily contingent on living in your mother's basement and wearing T-shirts that say things like "Inside Job!" It's simply a matter of paying attention.

Then again, there's such a thing as paying too much attention. "If you're a parent and your child gets interested in the JFK case, it's toxic," Bugliosi told me. "It's caused divorces, bankruptcies and suicides."

"My mother and my sisters received copies of the ad via FedEx," Kuntzler told me. "They knew how much I was spending. Well, actually, I haven't told my mother yet."

mdaum@latimescolumnists.com

[Tim Gratz]

This is an interesting post by John McAdams in the Google group alt.assassination.jfk:

"From an anonymous e-mail correspondent:

What was conspiracy buff Paul Kuntzler doing in Dealey Plaza with a

video crew late this afternoon?

He was reported late in the afternoon with two guys, one with a video

camera.

Want to know that he looks like?

http://innworldreport.net/video_launcher.php?2007-08-03i

In the video he admits his NYT ad cost him $196K, which was most of

the money he had."

[Tim Gratz]

One may disagree with part of the content of the Kuntzler ad, but if he did indeed spend most of the money he had to place the ad in the "New York Times", as McAdams reports, one must certainly applaud him for his dedication to the "cause" of solving the conspiracy!