Who would you choose as the "face of JFK research" for the 50th Anniversary

[Ian Kingsbury]

John you are tempting fate !.

Maybe he could speak at the 50th .

Outside the TSBD perhaps Gary Mack will invite him for the day

Give him a tour possibly?.

[John Dolva]

When I say support I also mean protect. Think through the full implications.

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

double.

Edited January 16, 2013 by Nathaniel Heidenheimer

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

No Fetzer.

No Cinque.

Douglass and DiEugenio have to take the lead here, like it's a political convention.

Draft Douglass and DiEugenio!

I second these choices. The key is that the WHY of the assassination has be front and center, at least as much as the assassination itself. The real context is the Long Arc of the Democratic Party. The assassinations are the stolen bread crumbs on that path, stolen by crows named Chomsky and his twin O'Reilly. The Paperclip-Witch that the path leads to is today's Democratic Party, which functions as cowcatcher to the Republican locomotive.

The knuckleball that must be dealt with carefully is the wide variety of Federal Reserve banter. The issue of the Federal Reserve has long been used by the right to create a kind of false dichotomy between those who say the words Federal Reserve lots, and on the other hand, those who focus on JFK fiscal Keynesianism. That either/or is 1-800-false dichotomy and goes back to Great Paines I mean Planes and Great Depression. It is best handled by pointing to the Keynsian/ Progressive Hamiltonian aspects of JFK, and saying, "look there may well be something to the Federal Reserve stuff, but if so, it relates directly to changing patterns of trade than most Alex Jones types would have us believe, and, in the end we have to ALSO look at fiscal policy, and not ONLY say Federal Reserve lots."

Douglass and DiEugenio are best at combining the how and the why.

* Before some one rebukes me for "brining up the false left right dichotomy" let me define my terms. By Right I mean greater corporate control and greater power for undemocratic media and military practices. By left I mean less corporate control and greater sunlight in media and military practices. In this sense there is absolutely no doubt that the result of ALL of the political assassinations have moved the US Corporate Right.

[Steve Kober]

I'm a bit suprised at some of the negative commments regarding Jim Fetzer. Personally, I think Professor Fitzer has made major contributions to the JFK research community . He is tireless at keeping the subject of Jack Kennedy's murder fresh and active.

I've always felt it is these types of divisions that have harmed the Research by keeping us apart. All findings should be exchanged free of judgement because of the source. If one person were to be the face of the "JFK Reasearch" I would nominate Oliver Stone. He would give us some media clout at least.

[David G. Healy]

Simple... for an up-to-date (2013) analysis concerning case disposition.

Bill Kelly -- case background, deep evidence background

Jim DiEugenio -- organize all materials-write-conclusions, present in written form

Doug Horne -- Documents-WCR conclusions

David Mantik -- Medical evidence-conclusions

Harry Livingstone-David Lifton-John Costella--The Zapruder Film, various topics

and considering the Dallas hardball nature of the 50th anniversary, and despite what you think of him (whom of course needs a bit of polish, this is not a popularity contest after all) Dr. Jim Fetzer as the face and public presenter... no one, no one is more *ballsey* and dedicated in finding the truth concerning the murder of JFK. (keeping him on topic and point well, may prove a bit challenging)

Edited January 16, 2013 by David G. Healy

[David G. Healy]

Simple... for an up-to-date (2013) analysis concerning case disposition.

Bill Kelly -- case background, deep evidence background

Jim DiEugenio -- organize all materials-write-conclusions, present in written form

Doug Horne -- Documents-WCR conclusions

David Mantik -- Medical evidence-conclusions

Harry Livingstone-David Lifton-John Costella--The Zapruder Film, various topics

and considering the Dallas hardball nature of the 50th anniversary, and despite what you think of him (whom of course needs a bit of polish, this is not a popularity contest after all) Dr. Jim Fetzer as the face and public presenter... no one, no one is more *ballsey* and dedicated in finding the truth concerning the murder of JFK. (keeping him on topic and point well, may prove a bit challenging)

David,

Jim Fetzer now struggles to generate credibility within the research community and many of us know he has very little outside of it.

There are now only a handful that are standing by him, and it is a small handful. His reputation, for most of those who did respect him, is now in the tatters. His reputation for those who have never trusted him is simply an opportunity to say, "Told you so."

He should be kept far away from proceedings in November, IMHO.

Hardball Lee, HARDBALL! For what it's worth, the research community (for what that's worth) has struggled for 45+ years, there's only two folks that have rolled right over the WCR and its supporters, Mark Lane and Jim Fetzer.

His Fetzer's reputation btw, isn't fazed much outside of the so-called, JFK research community. Point being, what is the so-called research community trying to prove? Conspiracy or NO conspiracy murdered JFK? No one up to this point has carried that water but Mark Lane, period.

Frankly, I could care less concerning the "I told you so's".... simple turf wars which of course lead no where, perhaps, exactly what some want, eh?

There is enough documented evidence to blow the WCR conclusions out of the water (we've known that for years), so, what's left to do? It's a pure PR-presentation game now... the question is really, how do you advance that PR game? What do you think the Dallas 50th anniversary is all about? PR, baby. Erasing the stigma Dallas has suffered for the past 50 years.... nothing more!

So who can the conspiracy research community trust to carry counter WCR conclusions to the public? Another well informed, well meaning researcher-writer? Nope!

There is no more need 'preaching to the choir'!

David

Edited January 16, 2013 by David G. Healy

[Michael Crane]

Larry Hancock.

[William Kelly]

I cast my vote for T. Carter, who I think would be the best face to put out front to represent the independent research community.

She's been a big part of organizing COPA conferences for the past decade and recently wrote a book on the MLK

assassination with Jerry Ray, she's smart, has an Masters Degree in History and she's a good looking Babe.

What more do you want?

(26) Tamara Carter

Billsbooksblog: TrinDay & A Memoir of Injustice

(26) Tamara CarterJerry Ray: A Memoir of Injustice - Martin Luther King and Civil Rights - The Education Forum

[Pat Speer]

Douglass with DiEugenio

I think you're onto something, David. Douglass doesn't have the encyclopedic knowledge of some, but he is an inspirational speaker. DiEugenio has a strong overall knowledge of the case. The two of them together would be quite compelling, IMO.

There are certain aspects of the case, however, on which they could use a little help. Perhaps we could set up a support team.

Oh wait, I forgot. This will NEVER happen because the CT community will NEVER allow it to happen, first, and the mainstream media--ever after ratings--would not agree to it anyhow.

They want obnoxious--and easily discredited--mouthpieces. This opens the door for some who'd otherwise never be considered...

[David Andrews]

Douglass with DiEugenio

I think you're onto something, David. Douglass doesn't have the encyclopedic knowledge of some, but he is an inspirational speaker. DiEugenio has a strong overall knowledge of the case. The two of them together would be quite compelling, IMO.

There are certain aspects of the case, however, on which they could use a little help. Perhaps we could set up a support team.

Oh wait, I forgot. This will NEVER happen because the CT community will NEVER allow it to happen, first, and the mainstream media--ever after ratings--would not agree to it anyhow.

They want obnoxious--and easily discredited--mouthpieces. This opens the door for some who'd otherwise never be considered...

Douglass has the exposure and the good reviews of his book, and has achieved a certain moral imperative in the media.

DiEugenio knows the nuts and bolts, and his strong performance there can boost sales of his new book and gain him currency with Douglass in the media.

Like it's a convention ticket: Douglass with DiEugenio. A speaking tour or scheduled appearances together.

Don't let this opportunity go to headline grabbers, cheap documentary pitchmen, disinformationists, or book-flogging former politicos. We cannot afford Jim, Ralph, Jesse, Lamarr, O'Reilly in their stead.

Edited January 17, 2013 by David Andrews

[Frankie Vegas]

Jim DiEugenio, Mark Lane, Cyril Wecht, James Douglass and Bill Kelly.

[Daniel Gallup]

I find it strange (but not surprising) that one name does not appear on the list except in David Healy's post -- David Lifton. His seminal work Best Evidence is still, IMO, the most important work ever written on the case. I have read every supposed rebuttal to his main thesis that I can find --and find them pitifully wanting. Lifton was the first to synthesize the strange goings on at Bethesda into a coherent scheme of pre-planned government deception to create a false solution to the crime. Along the way Lifton was one of the earliest to question the authenticity of the Z-film. And see what has followed: William Law's great work In the Eye of History owes its existence to Lifton. Doug Horne's 5 volumes would never have come to be except for Lifton. Even Harrison Livingston's books, poorly written as they are, would not have come about except for Lifton. No author today can write on the Kennedy case and ignore Lifton -- and be considered an expert on the case, IMO. Lifton has attempted to recreate the machinations of Friday afternoon and evening after the assassination, bringing to light body bags, shipping caskets, surgery statements by Humes and a careful study of wound descriptions using his own interviews with Dallas and Bethesda personnel before they understood that what they were saying ran contrary to the official record.

Everyone knows that David Lifton is working on Final Charade -- with hopes that it may be ready for publication by the 50th anniversary. If it is ready and gets published, and has as big an impact as Best Evidence did when it came out in 1981, that will put Lifton front and center, and he should have a voice-- and an honored place-- in the discussion.

[David Andrews]

In the way of things, it has to be someone with a book out now, or recently out. That narrows the field.

But it's right, if the right people do it. A perfect I Ching hexagram of correctness.

Edited January 25, 2013 by David Andrews

[Greg Burnham]

Great points, Tom. The greatest portion of this is the facts; a small portion is responsible supposition (at a minimum); another very important portion is a cogent presentation of the evidence that absolutely refutes the official version, i.e. the work of David Mantik, et al; another is the actual spokesperson ... "the face" of it.