PLACING OUR OWN NEWSPAPER AD TO RAISE AWARENESS

[Christopher Hall]

I would be happy to spring for some money for the ad, but I agree with some of the above ideas re corporate and foundation sponsorship.

It would be quite helpful to have a few people in Congress who would spearhead any re-investigation initiatives.

Someone who has no qualms about mixing things up with the CIA would be particularly suited to the task.

I don't think that most Americans know that a lot of the results of government-sponsored "investigations" into the JFK assassination remain under lock and key or have been lost or destroyed.

What security reason remains, 44 years after the assassination, for not revealing that info?

Whose career will be destroyed at this late juncture (noting that EHH is deceased)?

Someone who is on whatever House and Senate intelligence appropriations committees should be in a position to ask the FBI and CIA these questions, particularly in the upcoming election cycle.

[Myra Bronstein]

I would be happy to spring for some money for the ad, but I agree with some of the above ideas re corporate and foundation sponsorship.

It would be quite helpful to have a few people in Congress who would spearhead any re-investigation initiatives.

Someone who has no qualms about mixing things up with the CIA would be particularly suited to the task.

I don't think that most Americans know that a lot of the results of government-sponsored "investigations" into the JFK assassination remain under lock and key or have been lost or destroyed.

What security reason remains, 44 years after the assassination, for not revealing that info?

Whose career will be destroyed at this late juncture (noting that EHH is deceased)?

Someone who is on whatever House and Senate intelligence appropriations committees should be in a position to ask the FBI and CIA these questions, particularly in the upcoming election cycle.

More good points.

This should be done in conjunction with BK's mission IMO:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=8471

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

I think it is also important to have a clear sense of what results we want from the ad.

1.One goal I think is worthy is to give a clear boost to books that can counter Bug-Push '08. One thing I noticed about the NYT ad last month was that the book it quoted from, Talbot's Brothers, got almost no bump from it, at least as far as Amazon sales. I think this has a lot to do with how that ad was written and framed. It started out, by mentioning a personal beef with WaPost about some documents not returned or something.

Now certainly think that this is a legitimate issue, but WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT THE HOW THE AVERAGE 29YEAR OLD READER OF NYT IS SEEING THIS.

Such a quibble near the beginning will automatically but the ad in the framework of WEIRDO BILLIONAIRE CHASING THE DOT ON HIS FOREHEAD --JUMP TO BOXSCORES. I mean we'll be imediately lumped together with the funded christians from South Korea type bimonthly full-pagers, and I like to play coy-er with these folks!

From the git go our add has to stand out from these Quixotic full pagers. Least Quixotic Font is advisable.

Also I am quite convinced that reading a book is the only way to "convince" people. There is no way an ad can do it. If Larry Hancock is being hounded by HBO for a script he's being subtle again. What our ad needs to do is......

2. Give people an excuse to read a book. What I mean by this is to provide some sort of awning to shelter themselves from the Bug-crap which is

reigning down from the Corporate Media rainmakers. What precisely does this mean? Um... what comes to mind is the letter John published from

NYT book review from Jefferson Morely, in which the latter challenges the Times review of Bug-book and says, "look at all these big names who

believed in a conspiracy. " While this in some ways is credentialistic, and bad for my stomoch, it is necessary when fishin' for the uninitiated in these

poluted media-waters. Our list should be longer than Jefferson's. Also I really like the snippet from the NYT book review of Brothers by Allen

Brinley about the Warren Commission. (perhaps some camparison of Posners WC panting in '93 with how much it was hailed from on high, with how

it is eleven foot poled today?)

3. Pehaps some questioning as to why LN books get so much more Media propagation than do much better books by CTers who are in this case

deeply credentialed? Something akin to Dr. Gary Aguilar's article on the three historians who have shown yes virginia, he was pulling out?

4. A link to the forum, inviting everyone to debate the issue. I think even an illustration of a spartacus thread whould be alluring. One of the best parts

of these threads are the quotations at the bottom of the thread from many different sources. (I fear a lot of people might not see these). This

multi-sourcedness of John's threads has a very important effect on the reader, that needs to be played up more.

5. The connections of the JFK assassination to today. How it is a core-sampling of the same tendencies that have run through the National Security

State from 1947 through 9-11 to today. Note I DO mention 9/11 because it has been used as the excuse for everything, but I DO NOT mention one

conpiracy theories that challenges' that of Lee Hamilton and his bipartisan friends. The goal here should be to emphasize the continutity in secrecy and bureaucratic insularity which facilitates our increasingly fascist nation. WITHOUT THESE CONNECTIONS BEING MADE, THE PERSUIT IN

WHICH WE ARE ASKING NEWBIES TO INVEST THEIR TIME, WILL COME ACROSS AS MORE TRIVIAL ENTERTAINMENT

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

my geopolitical bad.

Edited August 28, 2007 by Nathaniel Heidenheimer

[Christopher Hall]

I think it is also important to have a clear sense of what results we want from the ad.

1.One goal I think is worthy is to give a clear boost to books that can counter Bug-Push '08. One thing I noticed about the NYT ad last month was that the book it quoted from, Talbot's Brothers, got almost no bump from it, at least as far as Amazon sales. I think this has a lot to do with how that ad was written and framed. It started out, by mentioning a personal beef with WaPost about some documents not returned or something.

Now certainly think that this is a legitimate issue, but WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT THE HOW THE AVERAGE 29YEAR OLD READER OF NYT IS SEEING THIS.

Such a quibble near the beginning will automatically but the ad in the framework of WEIRDO BILLIONAIRE CHASING THE DOT ON HIS FOREHEAD --JUMP TO BOXSCORES. I mean we'll be imediately lumped together with the funded christians from South Korea type bimonthly full-pagers, and I like to play coy-er with these folks!

From the git go our add has to stand out from these Quixotic full pagers. Least Quixotic Font is advisable.

Also I am quite convinced that reading a book is the only way to "convince" people. There is no way an ad can do it. If Larry Hancock is being hounded by HBO for a script he's being subtle again. What our ad needs to do is......

2. Give people an excuse to read a book. What I mean by this is to provide some sort of awning to shelter themselves from the Bug-crap which is

reigning down from the Corporate Media rainmakers. What precisely does this mean? Um... what comes to mind is the letter John published from

NYT book review from Jefferson Morely, in which the latter challenges the Times review of Bug-book and says, "look at all these big names who

believed in a conspiracy. " While this in some ways is credentialistic, and bad for my stomoch, it is necessary when fishin' for the uninitiated in these

poluted media-waters. Our list should be longer than Jefferson's. Also I really like the snippet from the NYT book review of Brothers by Allen

Brinley about the Warren Commission. (perhaps some camparison of Posners WC panting in '93 with how much it was hailed from on high, with how

it is eleven foot poled today?)

3. Pehaps some questioning as to why LN books get so much more Media propagation than do much better books by CTers who are in this case

deeply credentialed? Something akin to Dr. Gary Aguilar's article on the three historians who have shown yes virginia, he was pulling out?

4. A link to the forum, inviting everyone to debate the issue. I think even an illustration of a spartacus thread whould be alluring. One of the best parts

of these threads are the quotations at the bottom of the thread from many different sources. (I fear a lot of people might not see these). This

multi-sourcedness of John's threads has a very important effect on the reader, that needs to be played up more.

5. The connections of the JFK assassination to today. How it is a core-sampling of the same tendencies that have run through the National Security

State from 1947 through 9-11 to today. Note I DO mention 9/11 because it has been used as the excuse for everything, but I DO NOT mention one

conpiracy theories that challenges' that of Lee Hamilton and his bipartisan friends. The goal here should be to emphasize the continutity in secrecy and bureaucratic insularity which facilitates our increasingly fascist nation. WITHOUT THESE CONNECTIONS BEING MADE, THE PERSUIT IN

WHICH WE ARE ASKING NEWBIES TO INVEST THEIR TIME, WILL COME ACROSS AS MORE TRIVIAL ENTERTAINMENT

Well spoken.

There are a lot of people, on both sides of the political spectrum, who were born a long time after 11/22/63 and who are extremely concerned about the current loss of individual liberty and the legislative, executive, judicial and bureaucratic facilitation of a police state.

The comparison of 11/22/63 and today is replete with similarities, and the continuing governmental veil of secrecy surrounding the JFK assassination is emblamatic of the reasons which exist today for public distrust of government.

[Tim Gratz]

Folks, IMO the purpose of the ad would not be to make political points.

I think the main objective should to create a public outcry for a final investigation, either the final production of all documents or an investigation whether through a special prosecutor or otherwise.

In that regard I think the ad should emphasize the new leads in the case that need investigation, e.g. the Gene Wheaton allegations, the Joannides matter, the challenges to the NAA, determining whether the acoustic evidence is valid; and I can think of about four or five other points as well. I know Jim Lesar is very interested in the acoustic evidence. It is clearly important because if it can be rehabilitated it will definitely establish a second shooter.

I think the ad should cogently make the case for the existence of a conspiracy so people don't think VB has demolished that case.

I also think the ad could emphasize the new pro-conspiracy books.

My thoughts anyway.

[Myra Bronstein]

Folks, IMO the purpose of the ad would not be to make political points.

I think the main objective should to create a public outcry for a final investigation, either the final production of all documents or an investigation whether through a special prosecutor or otherwise.

In that regard I think the ad should emphasize the new leads in the case that need investigation, e.g. the Gene Wheaton allegations, the Joannides matter, the challenges to the NAA, determining whether the acoustic evidence is valid; and I can think of about four or five other points as well. I know Jim Lesar is very interested in the acoustic evidence. It is clearly important because if it can be rehabilitated it will definitely establish a second shooter.

I think the ad should cogently make the case for the existence of a conspiracy so people don't think VB has demolished that case.

I also think the ad could emphasize the new pro-conspiracy books.

My thoughts anyway.

I agree with BK on this:

"If we can convince Congress of anything, they should live up to their responsibilty to oversee the JFK Act, and hold hearings on the issues related to that law - the destruction of records, missing documents and the illegal withholding of documents.

When those oversight hearings on the JFK Act are held, and they will be some day, then they will spark additonal legal actions - that will assit in the eventual solving of the crime.

Congress, as we learned from the HSCA, is no place to investigate a homicide, but they have an important role to play, and the citizens and the public must convince them to do their job.

Trying to convince them to re-investigate the assassination will get nowhere."

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...60&start=60

[Tim Gratz]

How can you say: "Trying to get them to re-investigate the assassination will get nowhere."

How many Congressmen or Congresswomen have you asked about it?

What is your experience in the political arena?

Are you saying that Congress would not re-investigate if 80% of all voting Americans demanded a new investigation?

I presume you would not. Now it is unlikely we will ever persuade 80% of the public, but what kind of public support for an investigation can be generated remains to be seen, does it not?

Moreover, we really don't know what is in the hearts and minds of our representatives on this issue. Do many of them really believe there was a conspiracy or do most of them accept the VB lone nut position? I bet there is probably not a single American member of this Forum who really knows the private opinion of his or her representative on the conspiracy issue.

IMO, if a MC believes in his or her "heart of hearts" that there was a conspiracy, and can be persuaded that there are new leads that deserve investigation, he or she would probably be inclined to vote for one, subject to the usual influences of his or her party members, constituents, etc.

Now if you are saying that a congressional investigation is not the best way to re-investigate the assassination that is a totally different issue to be addressed.

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

The thought occured to me that it might be advantageous to have our ad come out on the first night of the HBO special, or around that time.

Then we can raise the more general point about "why no similar access to public airwaves for opposing views, give big names etc" Why is big media scared of a MEDIATED Debate type hook.

Then we can push a book or two, and anounce a kind of "live blog" response going on at Education Forum.

Also a more general contrast between the INCREDIBLE MEDIA COVERAGE given to the once every 13 year lone nut book vs. the near censorhsip of all CT books. Why the unfair playing field? Isn't the media's job to mediate between conflicting views? If so why not a debate? If its so obvious Case Closed then why do they need to protest too much.

Anyway, how does it sound to make the HBO special the point of our attack, in so far as it is typical of the near Corporate bias throughout the years.

I also think some quotes from Barbi Zelizer's book might be useful, because she is a professor of journalism at very prestigious Annenberg School of U. Penn and we need some credentialism near the top of the ad to dispell initial impulse to turn page on presumed lune, which is the general assumption about these one page ads.

[Myra Bronstein]

The thought occured to me that it might be advantageous to have our ad come out on the first night of the HBO special, or around that time.

Then we can raise the more general point about "why no similar access to public airwaves for opposing views, give big names etc" Why is big media scared of a MEDIATED Debate type hook.

Then we can push a book or two, and anounce a kind of "live blog" response going on at Education Forum.

Also a more general contrast between the INCREDIBLE MEDIA COVERAGE given to the once every 13 year lone nut book vs. the near censorhsip of all CT books. Why the unfair playing field? Isn't the media's job to mediate between conflicting views? If so why not a debate? If its so obvious Case Closed then why do they need to protest too much.

Anyway, how does it sound to make the HBO special the point of our attack, in so far as it is typical of the near Corporate bias throughout the years.

I also think some quotes from Barbi Zelizer's book might be useful, because she is a professor of journalism at very prestigious Annenberg School of U. Penn and we need some credentialism near the top of the ad to dispell initial impulse to turn page on presumed lune, which is the general assumption about these one page ads.

Has the HBO special been scheduled Nathaniel?

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

Don't know, was going to ask that myself. I think probably not yet. Seems a bit early. But I think we need to keep our finger on this pulse. Even if not the add, there needs to be prep work to make a coordinated internet response work.. I am sure that with a little cooperation we could get thousands of new visitors to this site.

[Tim Gratz]

Nathaniel has a good point about prep work needed so everything goes smoothly when there are responses to the ad.

Because it will be so important and so expensive, it is important it be very carefully written but with sufficient dramatic impact to stir readers to demand congressional action.

I agree it would be helpful to have respected persons e.g. authors and staff members of previous investigations endorse the ad. I have started to work on the latter.

If money could be raised I would like to see the ad run in conjunction with the 44th anniversary this November--rather than time it close to the HBO special.

[Myra Bronstein]

Don't know, was going to ask that myself. I think probably not yet. Seems a bit early. But I think we need to keep our finger on this pulse. Even if not the add, there needs to be prep work to make a coordinated internet response work.. I am sure that with a little cooperation we could get thousands of new visitors to this site.

I think it's a great idea to try to schedule it so that it disputes the Bug's HBO propaganda (plus HBO is doing a documentary to reinforce the programing).

But I'm not sure how much we should refer to the Bug's lies. I say that because I agree with George Lakoff that negating a frame evokes the frame (don't think of an elephant). I don't want to give them more exposure and attention.

Edited August 30, 2007 by Myra Bronstein

[Tim Gratz]

Here is what I would like to see:

A two-page ad in the front section of USA Today (right in the middle) on Wednesday, November 21, 2007. If money cannot be raised for an advertisement of that size, I'd like to see at least a full page ad.

A two page ad would cost about $212,000. I would like to find 212 people willing to contribute $1,000 each (or more) , which would pay for the ad. The contributions would go through (hopefully) a 501©(3) entity so they would be tax-deductible. Of course smaller contributions would also be welcomed.

I submit we can solve the dispute whether we should ask for oversight of the production of documents (BK's position) or a more full-scale investigation as I suggest by leaving open either possibility.

The language in the ad will be most important because it will in all probability be our "one shot" and we must appeal to as many people as possible.

What do you think of this as possible language:

The following persons who served as staff members of either the Church Committee (in the U.S. Senate) or the House Select Committee on Assassinations support this effort: [followed of course by their names]

I am working on contacting those staff members. To date, one "big" name has, confidentially so far, indicated a tentative willingness to support a new investigation.

[Tim Gratz]

I also think it might be helpful to obtain support for a new investigation from members of law enforcement. While I cannot promise he would go public, I can say that the Chief of the KWPD, who is doing an outstanding job and is highly respected, is interested in the assassinastion and believes there was probably a conspiracy. He might endorse the concept if we can show him that there are indeed still matters that merit investigation.

Are there any other Forum members who have communication with law enforcement officers, whether on a local, state or federal level? Obviously we need persons with a ranking position not just an individual police officer.