Jump to content
The Education Forum

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


Martin White
 Share

Recommended Posts

Bowron swore to tell THE WHOLE TRUTH, under penalty of perjury.

The above statement is the type of garbage we continually have to put up with here on this forum whilst many of us endeavour to put together reasonable and rational arguments concerning the evidence we have.

A tautology, if Farley knew the meaning of "rational"

I don't suppose Daniel could help a brother out here and point out the fallaciousness in Carroll's statement

Farley also doesn't know the meaning of "fallacious."

Let us spell it out for you in simple words:

Either Bowron lied to Livingstone, or mis-remembered, as is more likely,

or else she committed perjury before the Warren Commission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 211
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

She didn’t report any such wound because it wasn’t there.

Absent a recording of the actual mutilation, David, there is no way you can state this as a fact.

I don't mind you going steady with Mutilation, but I protest the marriage. B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now don’t you think...that if Diana Bowron had seen a bullet wound on the back of President Kennedy, she would have said something about it? I certainly do. .... She didn’t report any such wound because it wasn’t there.

EDIT --- Oh, I forgot. ~slaps forehead~ Mr. Lifton thinks the bullet hole in the back was added by the covert body-altering team at Walter Reed. Therefore, there's no need for Humes, Boswell, and Finck to be liars at all. (How silly of me to forget that delicious layer of utter nonsense and crackpottery authored by Mr. Lifton. So sorry.)

DVP, was Dennis David mistaken when he told Lifton that the shipping casket entered the morgue at 6:40, and OConnor, among others, in error when he said Kennedy's body was removed from a shipping casket? There were several recollections also of a body bag. Care to comment? Thanks in advance, and best regards, Daniel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Throwing in my .02 among the "heavyweights"

I've spent my life creating, writing, managing and implementing Marketing strategy.

After reading this thread all I see is us talking about the package before we even know what the product is...

This is a MARKETING CAMPAIGN... and Fetzer knows it... which is why he is making sure all roads lead to him.

Doug Horne - ? Yes, he touched the evidence, interviewed those that blew the case open and has published the findings.

But how do you explain the casket fiasco without sounding ridiculous? Does it matter to today's skeptic who Ruby was? How many shots actually hit JFK (if the evidence is so bad, as we all agree, how can we prop up a conclusion on it?) Whether the Xrays say this or that?

So I am wondering aloud what kind of Marketing stategy and planning has gone into WHY we need a face at all.. or WHAT it is we want to accomplish

Who is our target market for this info? Those at the 50th are already part of the flock except for the disruptors... and we are not talking to them in this plan...

Are we trying to illuminate the situation for some ultimate action to be taken?

Why is this our target market? Are we "Meeting the needs of this market" with the information (product) we are preparing to deliver

What is it we are trying to get across? "Oswald was not a lone assassin?" "Oswald was innocent, completely?" "The entire thing was a conspiracy/conver-up wrapped in yet another one inside another one....?"

How are we positioning our "product" for the greatest consumption?

Describe the distribution channels to be used

What is the marketing mix of tools to be used to acheive our goals?

Who is going to manage this project and ensure the tasks are performed and the results are on track?

Which part of the evidence proving the obvious conclusion can escape DVP's twisted view of the case and his unsupportable objections?

I am asking... can ANYONE state our case so it is clearly understood?

In the real world marketing is: MEETING NEEDS PROFITABLY

What do the fence sitters and nay-sayers NEED to BUY our PRODUCT - Answer that question and THEN talk about the package..

DJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me try.

Tha case we have to present is that there has not yet been an official investigation that was not obstructed by the CIA. 50 years have passed and our government is still withholding thousands of documents. Its time to release everything and do a proper investigation.

Surely we can all agree on these two points.

As the face of our community I suggested William Kelly, but I actually think that there should be many, and that they should just stick to the two points above. We should save the public from endless squabbling. We all want the same thing.

Given his recent interview I would hope that RFK Jr. would take a prominent role with the media.

Personally, I agree with Salandria. We already know what happened and why. We wouldn't be mired in this endless debate about how it happened had our elected government and our media done their jobs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Throwing in my .02 among the "heavyweights"

I've spent my life creating, writing, managing and implementing Marketing strategy.

After reading this thread all I see is us talking about the package before we even know what the product is...

This is a MARKETING CAMPAIGN... and Fetzer knows it... which is why he is making sure all roads lead to him.

Doug Horne - ? Yes, he touched the evidence, interviewed those that blew the case open and has published the findings.

But how do you explain the casket fiasco without sounding ridiculous? Does it matter to today's skeptic who Ruby was? How many shots actually hit JFK (if the evidence is so bad, as we all agree, how can we prop up a conclusion on it?) Whether the Xrays say this or that?

So I am wondering aloud what kind of Marketing stategy and planning has gone into WHY we need a face at all.. or WHAT it is we want to accomplish

Who is our target market for this info? Those at the 50th are already part of the flock except for the disruptors... and we are not talking to them in this plan...

Are we trying to illuminate the situation for some ultimate action to be taken?

Why is this our target market? Are we "Meeting the needs of this market" with the information (product) we are preparing to deliver

What is it we are trying to get across? "Oswald was not a lone assassin?" "Oswald was innocent, completely?" "The entire thing was a conspiracy/conver-up wrapped in yet another one inside another one....?"

How are we positioning our "product" for the greatest consumption?

Describe the distribution channels to be used

What is the marketing mix of tools to be used to acheive our goals?

Who is going to manage this project and ensure the tasks are performed and the results are on track?

Which part of the evidence proving the obvious conclusion can escape DVP's twisted view of the case and his unsupportable objections?

I am asking... can ANYONE state our case so it is clearly understood?

In the real world marketing is: MEETING NEEDS PROFITABLY

What do the fence sitters and nay-sayers NEED to BUY our PRODUCT - Answer that question and THEN talk about the package..

DJ

------

IMO an extremely useful post. We really should mull these questions over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/1/2013 at 2:31 PM, Paul Brancato said:

Let me try.

Tha case we have to present is that there has not yet been an official investigation that was not obstructed by the CIA. 50 years have passed and our government is still withholding thousands of documents. Its time to release everything and do a proper investigation.

Surely we can all agree on these two points.

As the face of our community I suggested William Kelly, but I actually think that there should be many, and that they should just stick to the two points above. We should save the public from endless squabbling. We all want the same thing.

Given his recent interview I would hope that RFK Jr. would take a prominent role with the media.

Personally, I agree with Salandria. We already know what happened and why. We wouldn't be mired in this endless debate about how it happened had our elected government and our media done their jobs.

Interesting post Paul... do you really think a proper investigation could be done 50 years later?

Doesn't your post beg the simple question: If Oswald was both LONE and NUT... what could the government consider TOP SECRET enough to seal files for 75 years?

Has ANYTHING sealed even for a short time and finally released thru FOIA been shown to be a threat to national security other than exposing non-related illegal activites of the CIA/SS/FBI etc...

or having nothing whatsoever to do with the case?

Does this clearly state our case?

That records/investigations were blocked by the CIA... sources and methods could have been compromised... we were in the midst of a Cold War... sensitive info could fall into the wrong hands - ????

The HSCA already concluded the WCR was a poor job and left most stones unturned....

Doesn't THIS state our case simply and clearly? We still don't really know Oswald's role, exactly.

Does the FACT that the same report concludes that Oswald fired all three shots and that the SBT MUST still be valid hurt this as the focal point of our "product"?

IMO... we print/copy/eBook as many copies of FASLE MYSTERY as possible.

Same thing for the Katzenbach memo.... and the HSCA conclusion...

And rest our case

C. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to

it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a

result of a conspiracy. The committee is unable to identify the other

gunman or the extent of the conspiracy.

post-1587-0-14753000-1359767427_thumb.jpg

Edited by David Josephs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

CE 399 was planted.

I wonder why DiEugenio continues to pretend he has PROVEN that CE399 was a planted bullet. He hasn't PROVEN any such thing, nor has anyone else on the planet. Not even close.

JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/Bullet CE399

JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/The Secret Service And CE399

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, see, I think we should attack with things that everyone can understand and is not part of anyone's proprietary theory.

Something easy to understand is this:

CE 399 was planted. Its an orphan. It was never fired in Dealey Plaza that day.

The SBT never existed. It was just a propaganda piece to cover over the holes in the WC Report.

SInce CE 399 was a plant then there obviously was a conspiracy and a cover up went into effect almost immediately.

We can then build on that if we wish by going after the ballistics evidence, that is the phony NAA testing, and the shells at the sixth floor window. Evidence which Blakey would not test, but was all too eager to endorse. Barry Krusch's book has some interesting stuff on this issue.

I also personally think David Joseph's new evidence about the flyer for the JFK talk at the Trade Mart is really important. ANd that should go on line again, and maybe be included in a time line.

Arguing with the Lone Nutters and convincing them there was a conspiracy is a noble goal but not one that I think will change anything.

Rather, I think it more important to try to use the intense interest in the 50th anniversary to call attention to the yet unanswered questions and still withheld government records, without which we should not even begin to debate the subject.

Beginning with the ballistics is not the way to go however, as it automatically eliminates those who can't deal with such details.

Most of those in DC who concluded Oswald did it, or must have done it was based on the basic facts that he owned the rifle and was in the building at the time, and nothing else mattered. Confusing them with details won't alter their opinion, while engaging them on issues that Jim Douglas brings to the table in his book certainly makes it easier for ordinary people to talk about the assassination.

So when people come to the point where they are to decide whether they believe JFK was killed by a left wing lunatic, as 20% of the people do, or he was killed by his enemies in Washington, as 80% of the people do, they are not about to switch sides because of any details of CE 399.

While the devil is in the details, I think it best that we don't engage in debate over conspiracy and instead, when ever given the chance, to call for the release of the remaining government records, which even the 20% Lone Nutters agree with, so we have a complete consensus for a specific action - free the flies -

While 399 might be easy to understand, its not an issue that most people will want to know.

We need a more broad of an issue to bring the subject to the national media table, but it can be done.

And to bring this back to subject, I don't think it will be our choice to decide who is the public media face of the CT community, if there is such a thing.

Those with the power to determine such things will chose for themselves who they want to represent the CT viewpoint, not us.

BK

Edited by William Kelly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...call attention to the...still withheld government records...

The notion that many conspiracy theorists seem to have about there being thousands and thousands of secret assassination-related documents still being withheld from the public is very likely just another one of the many conspiracy "myths" that continue to surround this case. Let's listen and watch:

http://box.com/s/3if3887c39w7dg4d6iri

http://c-spanvideo.org/clip/4346873

So, who's the xxxx in the above two audio and video clips? Vincent Bugliosi? John Tunheim? G. Robert Blakey? Anna K. Nelson? Or are all four of those people liars with respect to what they said about the release of the documents?

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know why anyone even cares what DVP or McAdams or Paul May thinks in this day and age. Or even uses them as any kind of argument to bounce off of to advance an agenda. .... They and their organization--Non Conspiracists United-- are a sideshow; to me more like a freak show. And should be treated as such.

Says the man who believes in all of the following things:

1.) Oswald never fired a shot at JFK.

2.) Oswald never fired a shot at J.D. Tippit.

3.) Oswald never fired a shot at General Walker.

4.) Oswald never went to the Cuban and Russian embassies in Mexico City in 1963.

5.) Oswald never carried any large paper bag into the TSBD on 11/22/63.

6.) Oswald never ordered or possessed Mannlicher-Carcano rifle #C2766.

7.) Oswald never ordered or possessed Smith & Wesson revolver #V510210.

And yet it's the lone-gunman advocates who are considered the "freak show" by a person who is silly enough to think that ALL of the above seven fantasies (plus a whole bunch more) are the absolute truth.

Unbelievable.

Talk about a freak show. Jimbo's the ringmaster.

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

DVP, was Dennis David mistaken when he told Lifton that the shipping casket entered the morgue at 6:40, and OConnor, among others, in error when he said Kennedy's body was removed from a shipping casket? There were several recollections also of a body bag. Care to comment? Thanks in advance.

Yes, O'Connor was definitely wrong about Kennedy being removed from a "pinkish-gray shipping casket". It couldn't be more obvious that O'Connor (for whatever reason) was dead wrong about that observation.

And it's also obvious that (for whatever strange reason) O'Connor was also wrong when he claimed that JFK was inside a body bag as well.

And O'Connor was also wrong when he said that virtually all of JFK's brain was missing at the autopsy.

JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/Paul O'Connor

Now, Dennis David (and others) might very well have seen a "shipping casket" enter the Bethesda morgue at 6:40 PM EST on Nov. 22....but that shipping casket most certainly did not contain the body of John F. Kennedy.

Why don't conspiracy theorists ever even consider the very likely possibility that the people at Bethesda who said they saw a "shipping casket" merely saw a casket containing someone other than JFK?

Plus: Why would any body-altering and casket-switching conspirators be so reckless (and downright stupid) as to waltz into Bethesda with Kennedy's body in a casket that looked nothing like the casket he was placed into at Parkland Hospital?

Furthermore, why would any plotters also be so stupid as to have JFK's body arrive at Bethesda (with witnesses present who were NOT part of "the plot") at a point in time (6:40 PM EST) which was way too early for the arrival of the gray Navy ambulance which left Andrews Air Force Base with a bronze ornamental casket a short time before?

Can any sensible person really believe this casket-switching/body-mangling crap?

The answer to my last question is an undeniable -- No. They cannot.

http://Best-Evidence.blogspot.com

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

DVP, was Dennis David mistaken when he told Lifton that the shipping casket entered the morgue at 6:40, and OConnor, among others, in error when he said Kennedy's body was removed from a shipping casket? There were several recollections also of a body bag. Care to comment? Thanks in advance.

Yes, O'Connor was definitely wrong about Kennedy being removed from a "pinkish-gray shipping casket". It couldn't be more obvious that O'Connor (for whatever reason) was dead wrong about that observation.

And it's also obvious that (for whatever strange reason) O'Connor was also wrong when he claimed that JFK was inside a body bag as well.

And O'Connor was also wrong when he said that virtually all of JFK's brain was missing at the autopsy.

JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/Paul O'Connor

Now, Dennis David (and others) might very well have seen a "shipping casket" enter the Bethesda morgue at 6:40 PM EST on Nov. 22....but that shipping casket most certainly did not contain the body of John F. Kennedy.

Why don't conspiracy theorists ever even consider the very likely possibility that the people at Bethesda who said they saw a "shipping casket" merely saw a casket containing someone other than JFK?

Plus: Why would any body-altering and casket-switching conspirators be so reckless (and downright stupid) as to waltz into Bethesda with Kennedy's body in a casket that looked nothing like the casket he was placed into at Parkland Hospital?

Furthermore, why would any plotters also be so stupid as to have JFK's body arrive at Bethesda (with witnesses present who were NOT part of "the plot") at a point in time (6:40 PM EST) which was way too early for the arrival of the gray Navy ambulance which left Andrews Air Force Base with a bronze ornamental casket a short time before?

Can any sensible person really believe this casket-switching/body-mangling crap?

The answer to my last question is an undeniable -- No. They cannot.

http://Best-Evidence.blogspot.com

David Lifton sent me today a recording which contained his interviews with O'Connor, Dennis David, and Aubrey Rike. It is one thing to read about what they had to say in Best Evidence, DVP; yet quite another to hear them speak of their own experiences. O'Connor, were he alive today, would be quite surprised to hear that you know more about what he saw that night at Bethesda than he does. Dennis David is still alive, and wouldn't it be a great idea if you could meet him and explain to him that he didn't experience what he said he experienced? By the way, if your questions are sincere questions and not mere rhetorical devices, you will find all of them most ably answered in the pages of Best Evidence itself. I especially recommend to you parts VI : 1979 The Coffin/Body Problem, and part VII Synthesis. If I may add my poor observations, the plotters were not stupid but constrained by time and available resources. Stealing a body and covertly removing bullets not associated with Oswald's gun is not something that is practiced every day, and mistakes were made. In a perfect conspiracy, the body would have been stolen from the Dallas casket, bullets removed and wounds altered, and placed back in the Dallas casket without anyone knowing anything was afoot. Ah, but the plotters had to "adapt and improvise," to quote Clint Eastwood in Heartbreak Ridge, when things didn't go as planned. That meant reintroducing the body back in the Dallas casket at the earliest available opportunity, which was after the FBI escorted the Dallas casket into the morgue around 7:17 and before the casket team finally found the Navy ambulance after a futile chase of a decoy ambulance, after which they escorted the Dallas casket back into the morgue around 8:00 p.m. Those two entrances of the Dallas casket into the morgue ought to be sufficient to cause alarm that something rotten is going on. I hope you will consider some of the things I have said, and all best wishes - Daniel

DVP, I did learn one new thing from the material Lifton sent me today: before the ARRB Humes was asked when was the time he first saw the body of the President. His answer was around 6:45 p.m. and this answer was given under oath. Recall that the Dallas casket from Air Force One arrived at the front of Bethesda around 7:00 and was driven to the back of the morgue in time for the FBI to accompany it into the morgue around 7:17. But Kennedy's body had been in the morgue with Humes since at least 6:45, according to Humes under oath. Therefore the Dallas casket was empty, and therefore, the body was stolen at some point earlier in the day, even if we don't know how, who, and when. But that it was done, and done successfully, is beyond doubt. You can thank Humes for that, and the ARRB.

Edited by Daniel Gallup
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arguing with the Lone Nutters and convincing them there was a conspiracy is a noble goal but not one that I think will change anything.

Rather, I think it more important to try to use the intense interest in the 50th anniversary to call attention to the yet unanswered questions and still withheld government records, without which we should not even begin to debate the subject.

I most heartily agree, but the minute you bring up unanswered questions, you raise the issue: "what are the unanswered questions?" and stir up a hornet's nest anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...