PLACING OUR OWN NEWSPAPER AD TO RAISE AWARENESS

[Myra Bronstein]

...

We ought to be able to complete an advertisement demonstrating (conservatively) why a conspiracy existed that can fit on a single page and run it in the US Today on November 22.

I'd like to see our members e.g. Michael Griffith, Larry Hancock and Pat Speer assist in writing the piece.

...

Now THAT is a freakin' brilliant idea.

I second the nomination of Larry Hancock.

How many thousands of dollars do we need?

(I'm sure we can't afford as much space as Kuntzler.)

Ok, so just brainstorming this... We need:

-To decide which newspaper we want to target and research prices.

-The copywriter; Larry is ideal (contingent on his agreement ).

-A treasurer or treasurers to collect and save the money and make sure this project is not somehow sabotaged.

A lot of thought needs to go into that...

-A coordinator.

-Legal input (Dawn?).

-A way to insure that if one person on the team flakes out the project goes forward without losing much time or work.

-A way to deal with the inevitable agitators and infiltrators.

-Stated goals, for example--insistence that all papers from the JFK act be released, that the murder FINALLY receive a proper investigation, that the documents that are sealed until 2013 or whatever be released, etc...

-A call to action--something we want the audience to do to move us towards our goals.

BK is very strategic and practical and could (if willing) help us come up with goals and calls to action.

-Ideally do this as a coalition of forums Education/John, Lancer/Debra, Research/Rich, etc.

-Then we might need a group name.

We should do this.

We really should do this.

[Myra Bronstein]

Copied from the old thread.

...

We ought to be able to complete an advertisement demonstrating (conservatively) why a conspiracy existed that can fit on a single page and run it in the US Today on November 22.

I'd like to see our members e.g. Michael Griffith, Larry Hancock and Pat Speer assist in writing the piece.

...

Now THAT is a freakin' brilliant idea.

I second the nomination of Larry Hancock.

How many thousands of dollars do we need?

(I'm sure we can't afford as much space as Kuntzler.)

----------------

I third the motion. I would be willing to put up some some of my misbegotten funds towards such an ad. I think it should have concrete recomendations on how people new to the issue can learn more. That would be time and money well spent! Also, if there was a reference to the forum, memebership would quadruple by teatime.

[Tim Gratz]

I determined that the cost of a full page black & white ad in Thursday, November 22nd USA Today would exceed $100,000, perhaps cost prohibitive.

Another way to reach the public would be to produce a one hour tv show to demonstrate a conspiracy. Query whether it might be possible to sell advertising on the show and generate sufficient revenue to cover both the cost of the production and the placement of the show?

Granted, producing a tv show would be a more ambitious project than creating a text ad, but it might be worth considering. Even if not for this year perhaps for the 45th anniversary in 2008.

[Myra Bronstein]

Ok, NY Times rates are in a PDF file here:

http://www.nytadvertising.com/was/files/ot...lClassified.pdf

But since they charge per column it's hard to get a real idea of the cost of a full or, more realistically, half page ad from it.

A rough estimate of the price is here:

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=449751

Which says in part:

"The column inch rate for weekday full-page display in the city edition was recently $191 (full-page rate discount included) per column inch so a full page would probably cost about $24,000 or about 2 cents per print copy circulated. This is the rate for a full-page, camera-ready black and white page."

I think the NY Times is doable and USA Today is not so much doable.

[Tim Gratz]

Let's try to put "Our Ad" idea in this thread.

What do people think of the accoustical evidence? Has it become too controversial to include in an ad?

See:

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/...iew_and_History

I think one could do a condensed version of the accoustical evidence with references to the work by Don Thomas. In fact, Mr. Thomas should probably wrote this section of the ad.

By the way, if I have anything to do with the ad, it will not include a claim that any car manufacturing company (whether Ford, GM or Chrysler) was a part of the conspiracy! On a more serious note, I think the ad should not attempt to identify the major conspirators due to the controversy over just who fits in that category.

[Myra Bronstein]

Let's try to put "Our Ad" idea in this thread.

What do people think of the accoustical evidence? Has it become too controversial to include in an ad?

See:

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/...iew_and_History

I think one could do a condensed version of the accoustical evidence with references to the work by Don Thomas. In fact, Mr. Thomas should probably wrote this section of the ad.

By the way, if I have anything to do with the ad, it will not include a claim that any car manufacturing company (whether Ford, GM or Chrysler) was a part of the conspiracy! On a more serious note, I think the ad should not attempt to identify the major conspirators due to the controversy over just who fits in that category.

I think the ad should be all about Ford...

Ok, for real, I think the ad should start with the conclusion that the gov't killed President Kennedy in 1963, and that we the people are entitled to the truth. I don't see this as the place to make the case with a list of evidence. But we can point people to some of the more compelling evidence, for example selected videos on YouTube (maybe Gil would help with this) in a group created for this purpose. Let's point to evidence elsewhere (maybe even recommend the best books), then use the very expensive ad space as follows:

We say why this murder matters today (as Nathaniel mentioned).

We are on a downward continuum that began November 22, 1963.

We tell some truths about JFK and what he really stood for and why his progressive policies led to his murder.

I think it's critical that we show them the real JFK versus the demonized version the CIA depicts; people will care about the real JFK. Point them to his American University speech for example.

We state our goals:

Point out that we are entitled to see all documents from the JFK Records Act. We want all documents being held until 2013 unsealed. We want a genuine investigation into the murder itself and the two cover-ups (Warren Investigation & HSCA).

We tell people what they can do to insure we achieve our goals.

Just brainstorming.

Edited August 2, 2007 by Myra Bronstein

[John Simkin]

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.

[Myra Bronstein]

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.

Very good points.

It would be very difficult to agree on a message and wording.

That's a fact.

My concern about selling something is that we could end up being dismissed as people out to make a buck.

Furthermore, this method--while more contemporary than a newspaper ad--requires that the audience take action to get the information we're so eager for them to have. They'd either have to attend a conference or buy a DVD.

Let's assume our target audience doesn't care at this point about the JFK assassination and considers it ancient history.

What would motivate them to attend the conference or buy the DVD?

What about a combination of an ad and a seminar and posting it on YouTube?

In other words, all of the above?

Though, again, I feel we must avoid the perception that we're we are out to make a buck off President Kennedy's murder.

Whatever we end up doing we should utilize YouTube to the max.

[Tim Gratz]

John wrote:

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.

But I had made the same point earlier:

On a more serious note, I think the ad should not attempt to identify the major conspirators due to the controversy over just who fits in that category.

I think any ad should avoid controversial issues and concentrate on evidentiary issues proving the existence of a conspiracy. It should cover what people ca do to advance the case and reference the fact that there are many documents that are still withheld from public scrutiny--and reference the battle over the Joannides documents, for instance.

[Tim Gratz]

In another thread, Antti states he believes the accoustic evidence is "weak".

Would appreciate the opinions of others re the accoustic evidence.

Edited August 2, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[John Simkin]

I think any ad should avoid controversial issues and concentrate on evidentiary issues proving the existence of a conspiracy. It should cover what people ca do to advance the case and reference the fact that there are many documents that are still withheld from public scrutiny--and reference the battle over the Joannides documents, for instance.

Any adverts or media event should attempt to collect all the latest evidence we have on the case (that was what the BBC suggested when we approached them about making a documentary about the case). This evidence not only shows that there was a conspiracy but also identifies people who were involved in the assassination. It is this evidence that is likely to get the attention of the media. Especially as some of these named individuals are still alive.

[Tim Gratz]

I don't think names should be named unless there is very strong evidence of their involvement, which I have yet to see. And if any of the names are living persons, I think a paper would reject the ad for fear of getting sued.

[John Simkin]

I don't think names should be named unless there is very strong evidence of their involvement, which I have yet to see. And if any of the names are living persons, I think a paper would reject the ad for fear of getting sued.

I have named Carl E. Jenkins as being involved in the assassination on my page on the man (ranked number 1 at Google) and on this forum. I know from two sources that he has read these comments and has decided not to sue. In fact, he has admitted that he told Gene Wheaton that he and Chi Chi Quintero were involved in the assassination (apparently, it was his idea of a joke).

[Tim Gratz]

Well that is my point EXACTLY John. If your only evidence of Wheaton's involvement is a remark or "confession" if you will that he now says was a joke, that's a pretty thin reed. I think the same thing may be true of Morales' alleged "confession". He knew his friends were JFK supporters. What better way to rile them up than to claim "credit" for his death?

The Martino statements are far different. One very important distinction is that they were made BEFORE the assassination.

I think Larry should write about the Martino statements for any ad.

P.S. If indeed Wheaton stated he was involved, even if he now says it was a joke, he certainly ought to be investigated. But "naming" him in an ad is just premature IMO.

Edited August 2, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[Phil Nelson]

Although I am admittedly a neophyte at this, I agree with Tim's and John's posts above. If the charges made are too provocative, and cannot be reasonably substantiated, such an ad - or book, or whatever - loses credibility and becomes fodder for the lone nutters.

We can all agree that the assassination changed the course of history, in a big way. Clearly the 58K deaths in Viet Nam would not have occurred for instance because there never would have been an LBJ presidency, nor the reactions to it, such as Nixon winning in '68, therefore no Watergate. But "fascism in '07"??? Count me out of that one.

And this defines the problem.....what is said in such an ad must be palatable to everyone asked to contribute towards it. It must be attention getting without being susceptible to charges of reactionary or hollow assertions. I like John's idea of a symposium, where each presenter "makes a case", which would "compartmentalize" their assertions into their own levels of credibility so if anyone goes too far into unproven grounds it doesn't necessarily reflect adversely on the others. There is certainly a rationale for an ad in this scenario, but it would be used primarily to promote the symposium.

JMHO

Phil