Myra Bronstein
-
Posts
1,883 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Myra Bronstein
-
-
Courtney,
If you are talking about what Myra said(referring to a xxxxx), I certainly don't think she meant you. She was talking about some other folks perceived by her to constantly create problems that inhibit unification.
She's full of "spit and vinegar", and we don't see eye to eye more often that we do, but I can tell you to a certainty--if she were speaking about you, you would know it. She doesn't mince words.
Kathy
Kathy is 100% correct Courtney. I was not saying or implying that you are a xxxxx.
Regarding whether or not we are at war--the Big Bad blew President Kennedy's head off. And that was just the shot across the bow that preceded: the literal war in Vietnam that JFK rejected, the systematic slaughter of our greatest leaders in the sixties (i.e., RFK, MLK, Malcolm X) by the gangsters that took over our government, the trashing of the constitution and bill of rights, and decades of propaganda about John Kennedy and what he stood for and why he was murdered. So I'll exercise that prerogative you so generously gave me to reiterate that we are at war.
I'm glad you're having fun here but don't assume it's fun for everyone. I'm also glad you're here to learn. We have that in common.
-
Tom is of course absolutely correct in every point he makes.
Boy, this thread has gone just where AG predicted: Gratz highfiving Purv.
Dalton Trumbo- (Johnny Got His Gun)- was my favorite patriot.
Dawn
The Tim Tom Tag Team.
-
However, as with Adolph Hitler, the KKK, and all of the other such groups of history, the "need" to associate and belong has lead to far more "sheeples" than to independent thinkers.
This from a man in uniform.
This from someone who claims to be a man, yet apparantly has not served his country in the armed forces???
Exactly where was it that you "hid" at Charles?
You reap the benefits from those who have fought and/or fought and died, and yet make some feeble attempt to dishonor the uniform and those who wore it and for whatever reason chose to support their country.
Rest assured that if those who continue to wear the uniform believed that they were doing so merely so that those such as yourself could continue to enjoy the freedoms we earned, then they too would most probably throw in the towel and determine that you and your kind are hardly worth dieing for.
You are merely one of those "peripheral leeches" who want to enjoy the rewards without having to either earn the right or risk the dangers of what it takes to have a free society.
War is a racket Thomas, or hadn't you heard?
According to General Smedley Butler "There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.
I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.
...
I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.
During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents. . . . "
http://www.twf.org/News/Y2001/0911-Racket.html
So you're a muscle-man for big business Thomas. I don't think that's anything to be self righteous about.
More from General Butler:
"I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service."
-
Excellent post. I agree 100%.
Reasoning ability was given to us all. Deciding the veracity of posts--separating the wheat from the chaff--is part of the fun of being here, I think. Sharpens your skills as a critical thinker. Scholarship depends on those critical thinking skills and being able to keep an open mind.
Most who post at this end of the Education Forum, namely the JFK Assassination section are NOT interested in scholarship, critical thinking, or teaching about [or concerning] the assassination. Most here are beyond reason. Most here understand that the WCR IS the "chaff". And finally, most of us do NOT consider this FUN. In fact some consider this W-A-R.
There are as many agendas here as there are posters. Yes, even John Simkin and Andy Walker have agenda -- and I suspect you do too!
Welcome to the cover-up of the CENTURY
I have to agree with DH here.
This is not a game.
And characterizing devotion to researching the murder of our last good president as "fun" is way off the mark.
We are in a propaganda war. And we are seriously outgunned.
That's why it is especially frustrating when the propaganda trolls have the run of the place, when their posts seem to comprise 70-80% of all threads, and when the signal to noise ratio is so unfavorable to sincere researchers that they take their signals and go elsewhere.
I agree with some of the sentiments Ashton expressed. I agree with the sentiments Peter expressed and appreciate the diplomatic way he expressed them. And I appreciate the fact that John left this thread open to give me a chance to say that I wish the Ed forum did not reflect the real world in the percentage of propaganda versus truth. I wish the Ed forum was an antidote to the real world instead of a mirror of it.
The corporate media spends 24/7 x 365 spewing lies about President Kennedy's murder. And dedicated researchers have very few places to congregate and discuss the truth and the evidence. This would be a better place to wage our war for truth if we didn't have to battle the ubiquitous garrulous trolls at the same time.
I reject the argument that the trolls keep us sharp and help us refine our arguments. The outside world serves that purpose daily/yearly/constantly. We don't need forums that mirror the outside world. We need places that give us a sanctuary from the outside world. We need resources to make it easier, not harder, to discuss facts and ideas and learn from others.
The trolls are seriously jeopardizing the work we're trying to do here with their constant heckling and monopolizing of threads. And I understand the frustration behind some of the posts in this thread even if I'm not thrilled with the rhetoric and tactics.
-
FWIW a few anagrams of Ashton Gray:
has got yarn
thorny saga
angry oaths
hoary angst
hasty groan
snag thy oar
rag any host
You truly have a gift Ron.
-
Okay kids - enough rough-housing. Playtime is over. Thread locked.
I disagree and have opened it. People should be free to defend themselves against Ashton's attacks. He should also be free to post his defence of his comments.
Thank you for keeping the thread intact and open John.
-
I'm sorry to see it come to this.
Evidently, Ashton believes he has special insight, and has trouble seeing how anyone could ever disagree with him, and takes all disagreements personally. The irony is that, among his list of perceived sins against him by myself, there were a number of incidents where I was trying to help him. He kept asking Tom Purvis whether or not he'd had special training in Special Forces. I have a friend in SF. I asked my friend if he'd received such training. I told Ashton that SF didn't regularly receive that training but that the CIA would frequently sheep-dip officers into SF, and it's possible Tom received the training from CIA. That's it. A horrible sin in Ashton's eyes.
I suspect John Simkin has better things to do than read rants like this. While I am with John and his defense of freedom of speech, Ashton's rant is self-serving at the expense of the forum as a whole. If the moderators like they can take all the parts where he talks about how evil I am and keep them online. But I think this thread, particularly the parts where Ashton attacks John and the forum as a whole, should be removed, as they serve no educational purposes, and appeal only to those looking at the forum as a "soap opera."
I hope that this none of this thread is removed.
-
...
We want, with everything inside of us, to bring the truth about the JFK murder into the light of day.
Terry
You got that right Terry.
-
Virtually every week someone emails threatening to resign from the forum because of the antics of a fellow member. Usually they name Tim Gratz but recently John Bevilaqua has become a figure they want removed. Despite these threats they rarely do leave. The reason being is that people join this forum for purely selfish reasons. They use the forum to promote their views, their website or their latest book.
...
John, you've expressed this viewpoint more than once and I don't understand the logic at all. If sincere researchers have a common goal of spreading the truth about the murder of President Kennedy it makes sense to pool resources, to use all possible means of reaching people, and to go where like-minded people are to discuss theories and evidence. Furthermore, I can't imagine a less selfish endeavor than striving to inform an uncaring populace about the hideous crime(s) committed by a "government" of gangsters. If we fail at the endeavor we're beating our heads against the wall year after year decade after decade. If we succeed, presumably that means selling a lot of books or making a high profile movie, then we make enemies of the government gangsters. There's almost no scenario where truly selfish motives can come into play for sincere (non-xxxxx) researchers.
If you're sincere about spreading the truth, and I think you are, then I fail to understand why you begrudge fellow researchers the resources you freely and willingly provide.
I don't begrudge them the right to this. I also provide this resource for selfish reasons. I want to expose government corruption wherever it takes place. This is the only way we can maintain democracy. My point was that Ashton gets a great deal from this forum and so he will contine to post when it is in his interest to do so.
I understand now. Thanks for the clarification.
-
...I find these kinds of dramatic forum exits to be totally ridiculous.
...
I do too.
Such "exits" strike me as hyper-theatrical.
And the erasing of all past posts is hyper-theatrical to the point of absurdity.
Virtually every week someone emails threatening to resign from the forum because of the antics of a fellow member. Usually they name Tim Gratz but recently John Bevilaqua has become a figure they want removed. Despite these threats they rarely do leave. The reason being is that people join this forum for purely selfish reasons. They use the forum to promote their views, their website or their latest book....
John, you've expressed this viewpoint more than once and I don't understand the logic at all. If sincere researchers have a common goal of spreading the truth about the murder of President Kennedy it makes sense to pool resources, to use all possible means of reaching people, and to go where like-minded people are to discuss theories and evidence. Furthermore, I can't imagine a less selfish endeavor than striving to inform an uncaring populace about the hideous crime(s) committed by a "government" of gangsters. If we fail at the endeavor we're beating our heads against the wall year after year decade after decade. If we succeed, presumably that means selling a lot of books or making a high profile movie, then we make enemies of the government gangsters. There's almost no scenario where truly selfish motives can come into play for sincere (non-xxxxx) researchers.
If you're sincere about spreading the truth, and I think you are, then I fail to understand why you begrudge fellow researchers the resources you freely and willingly provide.
...Sure, members sometimes go off in a sulk and stop posting for a couple of weeks. In reality, they are addicted to this forum and cannot give it up.
...
That part I agree with.
-
This forum once was a place of rational discussion and relevant facts related to important issues in history.
Still is.
Ashton, I didn't get into it with you over the throat thing because we have bigger
fish to fry.
I think "the Timeline" is the most important work being done. Everything
else is Parlor Gaming.
Please continue with your Timeline work on the Forum.
Can you please point me to "the Timeline" work you're referring to Cliff?
Thanks.
Myra,
The "Black Propaganda Ops" thread is very interesting.
Thanks Cliff. Appreciate it.
-
This forum once was a place of rational discussion and relevant facts related to important issues in history.
Still is.
Ashton, I didn't get into it with you over the throat thing because we have bigger
fish to fry.
I think "the Timeline" is the most important work being done. Everything
else is Parlor Gaming.
Please continue with your Timeline work on the Forum.
Can you please point me to "the Timeline" work you're referring to Cliff?
Thanks.
-
Quote from Midwest Today article:
"One of the biggest scoops of Kilgallen's career came when she obtained the 102-page transcript of Ruby's testimony to the Warren Commission. Readers were shocked at the hopelessly inept questioning of Ruby by Chief Justice Warren, and by Warren's failure to follow up on the leads Ruby was feeding him. Attorney Melvin Belli called Dorothy's scoop "the ruin of the Warren Commission." Incidentally, John Daly, moderator of "What's My Line?", was married to Chief Justice Warren's daughter, Virginia.
The FBI sent agents to Dorothy's townhouse to interrogate her and an FBI memo reported that "she stated that she was the only person who knew the identity of the source and that she 'would die' rather than reveal his identity."
Now CIA/Time ragazine's spin:
"As exclusives go, however, the leaked transcript fell somewhat short of perfection. It presented few, if any, surprises: much the same ground had been covered during Ruby's lengthy trial in Dallas. Moreover, most of its thunder had been stolen by the Dallas Morning News, which, only three weeks after the Warren Commission's June session with Ruby, front-paged a copyrighted paraphrase of the same testimony."
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...,876102,00.html
-
Incredible article; thanks Mike.
Details on Kilgallen's investigation into President Kennedy's murder that I've never seen before, and a lot of info on the beyond suspicious Pataky.
"Sinclaire said that Dorothy Kilgallen called him on Saturday, Nov. 6, 1965, her final weekend alive. "We talked for about an hour," Marc maintained. "Her life had been threatened..."
Does anyone have any further info on the threat to her life she mentioned to Sinclaire?
-
Excellent write-up Paul.
I need to look into this more, confirm things for myself.
Thanks for providing the road map.
-
I would still like to read the second installment of your presentation Greg, if you're up for it.
-
Vassar professor reviews ‘Oswald’s Ghost’ http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/apps/pb.../ENT03/71015015
Total propaganda from the aptly named Mia Mask.
Just infuriating.
Don't even want to quote from it.
-
Bill,
Where Armstrong published his book, or whether or not he is an egotistical jerk has nothing to do with what I said.
And whether or not his theory is generally accepted is equally irrelevant.
I've never stated on this Forum that I believe Armstrong's conclusions were right or wrong, only that his research was important and valuable, which in my opinion it was.
Do you believe that because Greg is "tired of hearing about Armstrong's book," that gives him a right to be insulting and intimidating?
Out of respect to Evan, I'm out of this thread.
Bill,
Your logic eluded me as well.
Whereas I do see the logic in what Mike is saying.
-
Though some speculation of necessity does permeate it, this is not really a theory. It is mainly looking at Oswald's known actions and fitting them into known events/studies/operations/policies. Due to the expected length, and limitations on my time, it will be broken into parts. For the same reasons, I will also dispense with citations.
EDIT: Evan having just re-read your initial post, I can only say making this concise, and a few paras max is virtually impossible. It's a complex case, and by your own words, you're starting from virtually a zero knowledge base. However, it's your thread, and rather than waste time giving your far more detail than you may be prepared to spend time reading, I'll pass on continuing.
Greg, I for one waited all night for Part II and now I'm not going to get it.
By giving examples of John Armstrong's work in your response you acknowledge that you have considered his work.
Also, as for LHO moving to NYC "to be tested" is fascinating since Posner reports that Dr. Herzog gave LHO a Minnesotta Multi-Phasic Personality Invitory (MMPI), which identified him as a having a "Passive-Aggressive" personality, exactly the type the US Navy was looking for to man their special assassination training, according to Lt. Commander Thomas Narut.
Perhaps it would be prudent to start your own thread, but I for one would like to read Part II.
Thanks,
Bill Kelly
...
I, for two, would like to read more as well Greg.
Please do as BK suggests, i.e., whatever it takes.
Just don't stop before you're done.
-
Intro:
The US government murdered President Kennedy.
In 1963 the US government was the Military-Industrial-(Congressional)-Complex that Eisenhower warned against after spending 8 years bouncing between golf courses and hospitals. Meanwhile Nixon, aka Prescott Bush's lapdog, was inserted into the VP slot to be heir apparent and insure that the US would retain the favorable business climate they enjoyed under Eisenhower. The actual US capital was in Texas due to the immense power wielded by big oil and the nascent defense (i.e., offense) industry.
Background:
US business moguls had been battling for years to beat down labor unions and their pesky demands for fair treatment and a reasonable share of the profits they help generate. When Hitler emerged in Germany and German industrialists, notably Fritz Thyssen, threw their financial support behind him after getting his assurance that he would crush labor unions, US moguls realized that they wanted the business environment Germany had under Hitler: unions illegal, unionists jailed or dead, wages lowered and locked, work enforced just like the military.
Instead of Hitler however they had Franklin Roosevelt who--in spite of his personal wealth--was a populist with every intention of reining in the robber barons and bankers who had created the 1929 stock market fiasco that caused world-wide pain to ordinary working folks (while bankers and the central private banks did just fine repossessing property). The US business moguls, including Duponts and JP Morgan (and some say Prescott Bush but I've yet to see good evidence of his involvement), formulated the Business Coup wherein they approached retired military generals such as notorious nutter Douglass MacArthur, to ask them to serve as figurehead and rally the US military to the cause of overthrowing FDR. In the process they made the mistake of approaching General Smedley Butler, a principled man who refused to become involved. He reported the attempted coup to congress. This resulted in the McCormick-Dickstein congressional committee which confirmed General Butler's account, yet opted not to punish the treasonous clan behind the coup. In fact with the help of the complacent media they kept it very quiet.
The moguls learned a very important lesson. If you're rich and powerful there is no down-side to trying to overthrow the US government.
Why:
Led by the Suite 8F group--which represented big business and their subsidiaries in local and federal legislatures--and allied with the American Security Council--who represent big business and their subsidiaries in the US congress--oil and defense interests watched President Kennedy nervously from the second he got the democratic nomination to see if he "understood business." On the one had they had reason to be optimistic because his father Joe Kennedy was one of them. On the other hand they were edgy because John Kennedy as a US congressman and senator, had no clear agenda--no landmark legislation--no track record that would make his ideology and sympathies crystal clear.
Suite 8F's favorite son Lyndon Johnson, who most definitely "understood business," could not be elected president because he was a southerner. Period. So they had to secure the Vice Presidential slot for LBJ to insure that the white house contained a business friendly (anti-labor) Executive. The VP slot was secured at the democratic convention, possibly through blackmail which was one of LBJ's chief means of attaining power.
The moguls watched with growing disgust as it became clear that President Kennedy was a populist. JFK, an immensely wealthy man with a father who was a hugely successful business man, was completely unimpressed by big business and, in fact, seemed to have little respect for the style of predatory "disaster capitalism" so widely practiced by companies like US Steel.
For example, when President Kennedy slapped down US Steel after it attempted to betray the steel union and raise prices, after justifying a wage freeze by telling the union that they would not raise prices, JFK waged war on them. JFK's public war, in press conferences, through the media and most-important through his brother's justice department, got US Steel to back down on their price increase.
(For further details see:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...p;#entry115524)
President Kennedy continued to ally himself with the people who voted for him, and--to the continued disgust of business titans like HL Hunt, Clint Murchison and George Brown of Brown and Root--all of whom supported LBJ--seemed to take his oath of office seriously.
JFK was pulling us out of Vietnam, dashing the hopes of the armaments industry to make a killing in that region, and raising the ire of the CIA who was solidifying their hold on international drug trafficking and the golden triangle so important to the heroin trade.
JFK had already repeatedly refused to wage war with Cuba in spite of massive attempts by the CIA, the enforcement branch of big business, and by the hawks in the Joint Chiefs of Staff who were desperate to justify their jobs and use their stockpiled toys to force his hand with the Bay of Pigs setup, and later with the Cuban Missile Crisis. They dubbed JFK "soft on Communism," the code phrase for those supportive of organized labor, for his friendly rhetoric towards the Soviet Union and his successful effort to ratify a test ban treaty.
Their exasperation with JFK, who actually inherited an undeclared war against Cuba from General Eisenhower and still refused to prosecute the war, was explosive. The reaction of Cuban exiles to their failure to regain their homeland was just as explosive. And the CIA made sure that this hatred was channeled into shaping the militant Cubans into a force of highly trained terrorists and mercenaries by dangling the carrot of a Castro-free Cuba in front of the exiles.
President Kennedy defied the military-industrial-congressional complex in every way.
He recognized that the CIA had an agenda that was at odds with his agenda. He threatened to splinter them into a thousand pieces.
He stated his intention of raising taxes on the US oil industry by eliminating the oil depletion allowance. HL Hunt, a powerful backer of LBJ who became the richest man in the world with the help of such tax breaks, was furious.
He and Attorney General Bobby Kennedy attacked the mob, not realizing until far into the process that the mob was an important part of the CIA and therefore part of his own government. AG Kennedy went after corruption and theft in labor unions, thereby erasing the only good that--from the perspective of business magnates--could come from labor unions.
JFK ignored the advice of his military experts and gave the TFX fighter plane contract to General Dynamics instead of Boeing.
He was an intelligent and thoughtful man who encouraged education and culture when titans like the Rockefellers (who had their own political ambitions thwarted) were actively trying to dumb down American public schooling with the aim of creating generations of docile ditch diggers for the work force.
Civil rights was exploding just as Kennedy was already fighting for his political and literal life. He tried to get leaders like Martin Luther King to wait until his second term when he could work towards his legacy and not just his reelection. But African Americans were understandably tired of waiting, and with little reason to trust this rich white president pressed forward with their cause. Once his hand was forced by civil rights leaders, activists (like James Meridith) and the US Supreme Court JFK embraced the cause of civil rights and made it a moral imperative, thereby earning the hatred of the knuckle-dragging racist demographic: KKK, John Birch Society, Minutemen, etc. And of course there is much overlap between the racists and the military (e.g., Edwin Walker), big business (HL Hunt), Dallas Police Department (of course Earle Cabell overlaps with the CIA too) and many other contingents.
JFK planned to get rid of J Edgar Hoover, the mob-coddling democracy-hating racist in charge of the FBI, as soon as he was reelected. And LBJ was toast unless something dramatic happened. Not only would he be dropped from the ticket for the 1964 election, but he'd likely be in prison, or at least out of politics, by then because of the details emerging from the Bobby Baker scandal ongoing November 22, 1963. That fact dictated the timing of the assassination.
Summary:
The bottom line is that the 35th President of the United States was at a crossroads of history that would likely have crushed him no matter who he was, unless he was a member in good standing of the military-industrial-congressional-complex. President Kennedy was not. Instead he was president of by and for the people, who took his oath of office seriously and made enemies of everyone who was a member in good standing of the military-industrial-congressional-complex. So he was removed, and LBJ--always happy to oblige a profitable cause--willingly replaced President Kennedy and made the agenda of "disaster capitalism" his.
Who, aka "Prime Suspects":
Suite 8F Group
American Security Council?
Big Oil:
HL Hunt
Nelson Bunker Hunt
Lamar Hunt?
Clint Murchison
Armaments Industry:
Brown and Root
George Brown
Bell Helicoptor?
LBJ
Mac Wallace
Nixon
Jack Ruby
Jimmy Hoffa?
George HW Bush
Edwin Walker
Curtis LeMay
CIA
(too many to list)
Cuban Exiles
(too many to list)
Dallas Police
(too many to list)
Issac Irving Davidson
John McCloy
Et Al--http://www.jfktimeline.com/
Suspects and Motives (a work in progress)
Cover up:
LBJ
J Edgar Hoover
Warren Commission
-
Myra.....I'm in for the cost of the ad.....I'm a rookie here...... it just seems nothing is being developed( action taken)...and it has been so long ago.....very bright individuals on board......so why nothing?
Well I think there has been some action taken Tom, and now we're discussing further action.
Much of the past and current action has taken the form of authoring books, developing websites, putting videos on youtube, etc.
JFKLancer, sponsors a conference every year I believe on the anniversary of the assassination. I haven't been to it so I'm not sure of all the details though Larry Hancock did post details of this years event in the research forums, including this one. So there is most definitely action.
I want to build on this with action intended to reach as many non-researchers as possible.
Regarding an ad, there is much to discuss here. We may have to start out modestly and work up to getting an ad in a high profile newspaper or magazine because some are seriously expensive. I mean seriously expensive (thousands or tens of thousands). So it's a possibility to be discussed among other possibilities--short and long term.
Also, I think many long-term researchers are understandably pessimistic about the prospects of informing people who don't want to be informed.
I can't speak for other cultures, but I've talked with enough Americans about this subject to see that many of them recoil from upsetting facts, actually making a conscious decision not to let disturbing reality into their heads because it'll shake their faux world and besides they rationalize:
"I can't do anything about it anyway."
Add to that the fact that the media and government do not want upsetting facts to be known, and there is some pretty powerful disincentive for/against those with the kind of agenda we're discussing. I don't want to blow smoke here; anyone even considering taking action of the kind we're discussing has to be absolutely determined, and would be well-advised to have an attitude that just taking the action, i.e., trying, may have to be its own reward.
Results would be great too.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not ruling them out. I'm just not counting on them.Hope I'm making sense to you.
-
Myra,
Your ideas are worth serious consideration, and I hope that I'll be able to offer worthy responses soon.
Until then, you've inspired the following:
Why not ask John, Rich, and Debra to form a -- what shall I call it? -- Leadership Forum? I'm thinking of a multi-site, two-stage approach.
The Leadership Forum would appear simultaneously on all three websites.
Stage One -- Closed to all but the principals. A full and free exchange among the leadership, if you will.
Stage Two -- Open to one and all.
Each site would provide a moderator.
Thoughts, please.
Charles
My thought is that I really like your idea Charles, and really appreciate your input.
-
I am willing to work with others to promote wider access to the truth about the assassination.
Previously i have posted things about the possibility of coordinated promotion of books like Someone Would Have Talked etc on sites like Amazon and mainstream newspaper sites.
Nobody seemed interested, but from the work I did on my own, I found that a little effort, if it was planned stragically, could go a long way. I am currently posting things on twelve different newspaper sites, although none about JFK lately. This method works. The only real time it takes is to register on the sites. After that you can click and paste the same mesage up on twelve sites in two minutes, and get hundreds and often thousands of views. Of course if there were people who frequently responded to these threads the number of views could increase exponentially. To me this seems an obvious course of action, but its seems like so many of the forum just want to talk amongst themselves, as if they have somehow become convinced of the necessary irrelevance of the assassination to the wider population.
Perhaps fatalism is comforting for those unwilling to role up their sleeves?
That is fantastic Nathaniel. I'm looking forward to working with you on this.
And I appreciate your ideas on how to utilize the internet to spread the word (sorry to sound so evangelical, but hey...).
BTW, we've had brief discussions in the past--I don't know if you recall--about spreading messages on forums and such and I wanted to mention that I don't post under my first and last name when I do that. So, if you're inclined to assume anything, please don't assume that I'm not following your advice. Sometimes, when not on JFK forums, I use a screen name and sometimes I just use my first name.
...Perhaps fatalism is comforting for those unwilling to role up their sleeves?
I'm certain of that.
-
Myra, If you are, as I think you are, trying for something for this November 22, your timing is 'tight' to say the least! The BIG problemo with the whole case is a few thousand of us know minutea that most don't want to know and the many feel there are 'too many strange and unprovable theories out there'....as the Borg has led them to so believe...but we know with some guidance this isn't so. Actually, for as little as about $20 / month one can host a huge website, but then it takes time......for something quick, you'd have to use an established website or websites. There are many others not specifically JFK, but progressive that might also mirror it, if it is good enough and you are good at selling them on the idea. Things are already done as far as material, articles, etc....they might need references and action pointers attached. Mucho work and I'm sure none of the websites you mentioned or didn't want to do anything more than to provide a space, if that. Good luck. I'll help where I can if it seems like a good plan. Ask BK what he's got up his sleeve and if the timing is right. There are associated videos and movies of course. I think there will be huge issues to tackle, like if to associate with 911 or not; other major assassinations or not, etc. I think it can just be a thread on a forum and you can ask the various fora if they would allow it to be mirrored, or at least until if found a 'home'. Just thinking outloud. I also think some websites would not like the idea of excluding people
o how
and who whould determine who can and who can not be involved? That's the advantage of your own site and domain. But you'd have to purchase some software that [i think] is not cheap nor easy
to set up at the get go.....may the force be with you.
I agree there's no time to do something for Nov 22 Peter, at least not a newspaper ad.
Maybe something more modest.
But I wonder when the Bugliosi propaganda-fest mini-series is airing.
To try to answer your question, I plan to start a yahoo or google group to discuss strategy.
I'll issue invitations to those who express interest, as well as those I hope will be part of it.
I will exclude trolls and moles and, frankly, I think it's obvious who they are so I can't imagine that'll be controversial.
Beyond that, and discussing both short term and long term strategy and goals, and ideas I've already mentioned, the plan is rather rudimentary. I kept putting it off 'cause I'm short of time right now, but I don't want to put it off any long 'cause I don't want to assume we will always have the internet, in it's present uncensored form...
Don't get me wrong, I'm not ruling them out. I'm just not counting on them.
The Farce Forum
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
NOW I'm having fun.
Thanks Charles.