JFK conspiracy proof

[Michaleen Kilroy]

I’m a PR guy (I know, people hate us worse than lawyers) and I’ve always felt the debate over the assassination was a war of PR tactics.

IMO, the conspiracy side hasn’t communicated its point in a simple, accessible fashion to cause a tipping point in public agitation that the federal govt could not ignore. 
 

I’ve been looking for that simple story for years and this article by Benjamin Cole for K&K finally made it clear to me.

The crux of the WR falls on the magic bullet obviously - the theory that JFK and Connally were hit by the same bullet.

But….

1) Both Connally and his wife testified to the WC that he turned to look at the state of the president after hearing what he thought was a shot. He saw that the president had slumped. Then as he was turning back around, Connally said he was hit.

2) This is verified by the Z-film. If you look at the effort it took Connally to turn around in that jump seat, and the look on his face, and the reaction of his wife, it’s obvious he has not been hit yet.

3) The majority of witnesses said the last two shots occurred almost on top of each other. There was approximately .8 seconds between Connally’s reaction to a shot and the JFK head shot. The Z-film and the Connally testimony all agree with that shot sequence.

4) The images of Connally’s jacket and shirt in Ben’s article looks like a first hit, not a tumbling bullet after hitting JFK.

Not sure why this was never clear to me before. Two bullets not a single magic one, last two shots nearly on top of each other - the Carcano could not possibly achieve that scenario.

This is the simple story with the simple image below to tell the world: 58 years ago one November day in Dallas, somebody got away with assassinating the president. And maybe worse, the US govt let them. 

 

 

Edited August 2, 2021 by Michaleen Kilroy

[Guest]

Hi Michaleen,

I am also a PR guy. To me, the power of the government narrative has always been significantly more powerful than the chaps alleging conspiracy, the government had the natural proclivity of the public to conform on their side. But, those alleging conspiracy were much more compelling and had much more conviction. Hence why, the media deflection changed from lone nut, to a wash of other irrelevance, Mafia, Cuban’s, John Birch, etc etc. Anything but, at the military or CIA. Then it became about discrediting JFK, his achievements, his romantic attachments, his family’s behaviour, all of which made people care less about their slain leader. I think this was built into the strategy, layers of blame which took the heat off the actual planners or perpetrators. The truth was lost to the public in that sea of irrelevance and was powerful enough to create self doubt, too many options. An impartial media could have made a mockery of the magic bullet and opened everyones eyes, instead they pushed Arlene Spector and theoretical physics which was a fantasy. The CIA would have been very well versed by 1963 in psychological warfare, with sophisticated propaganda campaigns to mislead the public before and after their regime change operations abroad. 
 

Just my thoughts anyway. Thanks for sharing this. 
 

Cheers

Chris

 

 

[Michaleen Kilroy]

3 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

Hi Michaleen,

I am also a PR guy. To me, the power of the government narrative has always been significantly more powerful than the chaps alleging conspiracy, the government had the natural proclivity of the public to conform on their side. But, those alleging conspiracy were much more compelling and had much more conviction. Hence why, the media deflection changed from lone nut, to a wash of other irrelevance, Mafia, Cuban’s, John Birch, etc etc. Anything but, at the military or CIA. Then it became about discrediting JFK, his achievements, his romantic attachments, his family’s behaviour, all of which made people care less about their slain leader. I think this was built into the strategy, layers of blame which took the heat off the actual planners or perpetrators. The truth was lost to the public in that sea of irrelevance and was powerful enough to create self doubt, too many options. An impartial media could have made a mockery of the magic bullet and opened everyones eyes, instead they pushed Arlene Spector and theoretical physics which was a fantasy. The CIA would have been very well versed by 1963 in psychological warfare, with sophisticated propaganda campaigns to mislead the public before and after their regime change operations abroad. 
 

Just my thoughts anyway. Thanks for sharing this. 
 

Cheers

Chris

 

 

Thanks, Chris.

Yes, it does show what masters the CIA were/are at propaganda. It took me a good 40 years to see the irrefutable evidence that was right in front of me the entire time.

 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Michaleen Kilroy said:

Thanks, Chris.

Yes, it does show what masters the CIA were/are at propaganda. It took me a good 40 years to see the irrefutable evidence that was right in front of me the entire time.

 

Another very powerful thing is that the focus is always about who fired the gun and from where (if not Ozzie). As opposed to what were the circumstances that led to him being killed and who was behind it. That serves as a distraction too, it prevents most of us from looking for a bigger picture. Most of us see things in isolation, we have a macro focus on traumatic events and a small proportion are deep analytical thinkers who see patterns easily. I do like the ‘cui bono’ logic espoused by some JFK authors. 

[Michaleen Kilroy]

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

Another very powerful thing is that the focus is always about who fired the gun and from where (if not Ozzie). As opposed to what were the circumstances that led to him being killed and who was behind it. That serves as a distraction too, it prevents most of us from looking for a bigger picture. Most of us see things in isolation, we have a macro focus on traumatic events and a small proportion are deep analytical thinkers who see patterns easily. I do like the ‘cui bono’ logic espoused by some JFK authors. 

Yeah, like many before me I’d like to know who the ‘intellectual author’ was behind the assassination. But the key to getting there I think is to truly convince the public there was a conspiracy. The govt avoided that at all costs because there would’ve been mobs with torches at their doors.  That’s the best explanation I can think of for the massive, deliberate coverup.

Edited August 2, 2021 by Michaleen Kilroy

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, Michaleen Kilroy said:

Yeah, like many before me I’d like to know who the ‘intellectual author’ was behind the assassination. But the key to getting there I think is to truly convince the public there was a conspiracy. The govt avoided that at all costs because there would’ve been mobs with torches at their doors.  That’s the best explanation I can think of for the massive, deliberate coverup.

The final fail safe would have been blaming CIA rogues, deluded hateful patriots. The people who gave the nod would have gone to any length to avoid being exposed. I don’t think they ever could be. I should imagine someone from above in the east coast clique, spoke with Dulles and then it was all Dulles word against theirs. Dulles did the same with Angleton or Atlee Phillips. You ‘re insulated against any possible prosecution. Each line of people below involved are not conscious of the layers above. You compartmentalise everything. So, they have nobody to name. Also, what is the cost of talking if caught? Chances are people with families would keep quiet and taken the blame. 
 

I don’t know if you’ve read about the creation of the Federal Reserve? A bunch of people went down to the Rockefeller estate on Jekyll Island, Georgia on the 22-11-1910. They all used first names only on a private rail car. With the Vanderbilts, Warburgs, Aldrich, and I forget who else all had a secret meeting about how they could control America’s money supply. Woodrow Wilson fell for it. Now you have people inventing money from thin air and charging us interest on it. Fractional Reserve Banking.  I’d imagine there is ample evidence JFK was in the way of their progress and more oriented toward the people, as opposed to his class. Vietnam was the straw that broke the camels back. I should also imagine David + Nelson Rockefeller knew what happened to JFK. Nelson had Allen Dulles as his lawyer. This would only be guesswork, I don’t see any way of proving who said “get rid”. But, I am certain it came from higher authority than the CIA or Military. 

[Benjamin Cole]

5 hours ago, Michaleen Kilroy said:

I’m a PR guy (I know, people hate us worse than lawyers) and I’ve always felt the debate over the assassination was a war of PR tactics.

IMO, the conspiracy side hasn’t communicated its point in a simple, accessible fashion to cause a tipping point in public agitation that the federal govt could not ignore. 
 

I’ve been looking for that simple story for years and this article by Benjamin Cole for K&K finally made it clear to me.

The crux of the WR falls on the magic bullet obviously - the theory that JFK and Connally were hit by the same bullet.

But….

1) Both Connally and his wife testified to the WC that he turned to look at the state of the president after hearing what he thought was a shot. He saw that the president had slumped. Then as he was turning back around, Connally said he was hit.

2) This is verified by the Z-film. If you look at the effort it took Connally to turn around in that jump seat, and the look on his face, and the reaction of his wife, it’s obvious he has not been hit yet.

3) The majority of witnesses said the last two shots occurred almost on top of each other. There was approximately .8 seconds between Connally’s reaction to a shot and the JFK head shot. The Z-film and the Connally testimony all agree with that shot sequence.

4) The images of Connally’s jacket and shirt in Ben’s article looks like a first hit, not a tumbling bullet after hitting JFK.

Not sure why this was never clear to me before. Two bullets not a single magic one, last two shots nearly on top of each other - the Carcano could not possibly achieve that scenario.

This is the simple story with the simple image below to tell the world: 58 years ago one November day in Dallas, somebody got away with assassinating the president. And maybe worse, the US govt let them. 

 

 

Michaleen K-

Hey, no bias here against PR guys, or any other profession. 

Many thanks for noting the story. People like you make the effort worthwhile. 

And you are right: The JFKA long ago and still needs PR advice on how to advance a solid and irrefutable story. Particularly now, in front of Biden's decision to release the JFKA docs or not. 

I do not discount anyone's observations, for internal consumption, so to speak. 

My next bid will be to clean the story up some more, and try to hustle it to a so-called "major" publication, although the battle seems lost before it has begun.

The Atlantic? NYT weekend magazine? I can't imagine a publication....

[Michaleen Kilroy]

2 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Michaleen K-

Hey, no bias here against PR guys, or any other profession. 

Many thanks for noting the story. People like you make the effort worthwhile. 

And you are right: The JFKA long ago and still needs PR advice on how to advance a solid and irrefutable story. Particularly now, in front of Biden's decision to release the JFKA docs or not. 

I do not discount anyone's observations, for internal consumption, so to speak. 

My next bid will be to clean the story up some more, and try to hustle it to a so-called "major" publication, although the battle seems lost before it has begun.

The Atlantic? NYT weekend magazine? I can't imagine a publication....

[Mark Knight]

One thing I've learned working in a business environment: If it was a committee decision, no SINGLE person gets tagged as the person who said, "Do it."

The JFK hit reeks of being a committee decision. As with many committee decisions, different members of the committee then work from their level of experience to make the committee decision happen. Which would explain why so many allegedly "aggrieved" parties [Mafia, CIA, pro-Castro Cubans, anti-Castro Cubans, and right-wing nut jobs] can be considered as possible suspects for making the hit happen. And of course, as in the old "Mission: IMPOSSIBLE" TV show, "the department will disavow any knowledge of your actions." This, "rogue" CIA agents, "rogue" Cubans or Cuban sympathizers, and "lone nut" assassins are the "obvious" suspects.

And we are left without enough information to peel back enough layers of the onion to arrive at the TRUTH.

[Michaleen Kilroy]

Thanks, Ben.

 

Have you approached media before with a JFKA story?  Other than Salon, it's almost in granite that they will either fear it or not believe it.  Remember, the media need to protect their reputations.  They can't look foolish or gullible or publish something someone else proves is a fabrication. 

 

Always good to offer someone with official credentials of some kind - either you or someone you quote - that can provide credibility.  Could be someone in forensics, law enforcement or a former federal JFKA investigator who agrees with you.  TBH, that didn't help either when HSCA Chief Counsel Robert Blakey posted his letter saying how he couldn't trust the CIA on anything they provided him during the investigation.  That should've got major news across the land but it didn’t. 

 

I actually had some good convos with this USA Today writer who I thought did a great job with this story:

https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/investigations/2019/11/21/jfk-spy-cuba-new-york-times-crozier/2425360001/

 

But he never moved on an update.  

 

I think the keys to generate interest are:

• Don't overreach.  Just state what you can prove.  To me, you don't have to prove who did it.  But I think your article proves a conspiracy did happen, according to the framework created by the WC itself.  No magic bullet = conspiracy.
• Have a hook.  Putting a compelling angle on the research might be of interest.  Always good to ask it in a question, e.g. "Was the answer to the JFKA conspiracy question always right in front of us?"  Or “Can a Tiny Hole in a Coat Unravel the Mystery of JFKA?” That means the media's not responsible for proving anything - you're just raising the question.

Not sure if any of this helps or even if you wanted it but thought I’d share some ideas.

Edited August 2, 2021 by Michaleen Kilroy

[Michaleen Kilroy]

17 minutes ago, Michaleen Kilroy said:

Thanks, Ben.

 

Have you approached media before with a JFKA story?  Other than Salon, it's almost in granite that they will either fear it or not believe it.  Remember, the media need to protect their reputations.  They can't look foolish or gullible or publish something someone else proves is a fabrication. 

 

Always good to offer someone with official credentials of some kind - either you or someone you quote - that can provide credibility.  Could be someone in forensics, law enforcement or a former federal JFKA investigator who agrees with you.  TBH, that didn't help either when HSCA Chief Counsel Robert Blakey posted his letter saying how he couldn't trust the CIA on anything they provided him during the investigation.  That should've got major news across the land but it didn’t. 

 

I actually had some good convos with this USA Today writer who I thought did a great job with this story:

https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/investigations/2019/11/21/jfk-spy-cuba-new-york-times-crozier/2425360001/

 

But he never moved on an update.  

 

I think the keys to generate interest are:

• Don't overreach.  Just state what you can prove.  To me, you don't have to prove who did it.  But I think your article proves a conspiracy did happen, according to the framework created by the WC itself.  No magic bullet = conspiracy.
• Have a hook.  Putting a compelling angle on the research might be of interest.  Always good to ask it in a question, e.g. "Was the answer to the JFKA conspiracy question always right in front of us?"  Or “Can a Tiny Hole in a Coat Unravel the Mystery of JFKA?” That means the media's not responsible for proving anything - you're just raising the question.

Not sure if any of this helps or even if you wanted it but thought I’d share some ideas.

Just saw in your bio you are journalist, so not sure you needed any of my advice above.

[Benjamin Cole]

6 hours ago, Michaleen Kilroy said:

Thanks, Ben.

 

Have you approached media before with a JFKA story?  Other than Salon, it's almost in granite that they will either fear it or not believe it.  Remember, the media need to protect their reputations.  They can't look foolish or gullible or publish something someone else proves is a fabrication. 

 

Always good to offer someone with official credentials of some kind - either you or someone you quote - that can provide credibility.  Could be someone in forensics, law enforcement or a former federal JFKA investigator who agrees with you.  TBH, that didn't help either when HSCA Chief Counsel Robert Blakey posted his letter saying how he couldn't trust the CIA on anything they provided him during the investigation.  That should've got major news across the land but it didn’t. 

 

I actually had some good convos with this USA Today writer who I thought did a great job with this story:

https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/investigations/2019/11/21/jfk-spy-cuba-new-york-times-crozier/2425360001/

 

But he never moved on an update.  

 

I think the keys to generate interest are:

• Don't overreach.  Just state what you can prove.  To me, you don't have to prove who did it.  But I think your article proves a conspiracy did happen, according to the framework created by the WC itself.  No magic bullet = conspiracy.
• Have a hook.  Putting a compelling angle on the research might be of interest.  Always good to ask it in a question, e.g. "Was the answer to the JFKA conspiracy question always right in front of us?"  Or “Can a Tiny Hole in a Coat Unravel the Mystery of JFKA?” That means the media's not responsible for proving anything - you're just raising the question.

Not sure if any of this helps or even if you wanted it but thought I’d share some ideas.

Michaleen: 

Or “Can a Tiny Hole in a Coat Unravel the Mystery of JFKA?” 

Great hook! I see you have your thinking cap on. 

Well, I will give it a spin. Maybe I will try Salon, Slate etc. 

I wanted to peg the story to the the release of the JFKA docs. 

 

 

 

[Michaleen Kilroy]

9 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Michaleen: 

Or “Can a Tiny Hole in a Coat Unravel the Mystery of JFKA?” 

Great hook! I see you have your thinking cap on. 

Well, I will give it a spin. Maybe I will try Salon, Slate etc. 

I wanted to peg the story to the the release of the JFKA docs. 

 

 

 

Good luck!

[Benjamin Cole]

19 hours ago, Michaleen Kilroy said:

Good luck!

MK--

OK, due to your suggestion, I have in fact pitched Slate magazine and will try Salon tomorrow. 

I will need adult diapers if I can get this story published in a "major" outlet. 

 

 

[Gene Kelly]

Gents

This is an interesting thread.  While not a journalist or PR expert (I am an engineer by trade, trained in physics), my thought has always been to keep it simple when explaining a complex story (e.g. teaching quantum mechanics to undergraduates).  First, characterize the story as JFK's murder and avoid using the word assassination, to call it for what it was. My lead-in, when asked, has always been simply that "there's a lot more to the story than meets the eye". Let that thought percolate, then pick a few simple (basic) points like Michaleen's observation that Connally was hit by a separate bullet. Things that appeal to common sense.  Like a good PowerPoint presentation, keep it to three compelling points (the word 'bullets' seems inappropriate here). For me and the JFK case, these are:

• agencies like the FBI and CIA have the investigatory power to know what really happened ... their capabilities are impressive, and the fact that they didn't prevent the plot from developing, or quickly ascertain who was behind it, speaks volumes.  Just imagine this happening today to the President ... no stone would be left unturned, and each/every perpetrator would be brought to justice (promptly).  Why didn't that happen 50 years ago?    
• two "independent" federal investigations were largely unsuccessful in getting to the bottom of the story, and establishing a credible, satisfying conclusion. Important records were withheld (or in some cases, destroyed), and some are are still protected.  How can that be, and what is so sensitive that 50 years later is still a mystery? 
• the individuals who plotted and executed this murder were proficient at what they did ... hence no smoking guns, irrefutable evidence, candid confessions, damming memos, names/faces of shooters.  Instead, what we have is a lot of smoke and mirrors ... distraction and deception.  Someone who could enlist/infiltrate police complicity, control evidence and witnesses, compromise the media, influence an autopsy, manipulate a New Orleans DA's investigation and stonewall Congressional inquiries. So we must reflect and ask, who is expert at pulling all of that off?  Once we rule out Oswald, the Mob, the JBS/far right, Castro, a foreign government ... only one candidate sticks out (like a sore thumb). I once asked a colleague (who had been an HSCA investigator) who did it - and why it wasn't exposed by now - and he tellingly remarked: "what makes you think that's the worst thing that they've ever done?"  One of my favorite quotes is from an Esquire article about the 1975 Church Committee hearings, by writer Tim Crouse, remarking about what limited information the CIA divulged at the time (the so-called "family jewels"), almost as a willing and cooperative partner to the Committee's chief counsel (FAO Schwartz, Jr.):

“It’s a queer thing to hear the chief Senate investigator talking as if he and the CIA were partners in the search for the truth.... It does not seem to have occurred to Schwarz that the CIA was, is, and always will be in the business of deception. One suspects that the Agency may be trying to peddle certain crimes of its own choice, trying to guide the Church Committee toward certain items and away from...God knows what."  

Gene