David Josephs

Also in that paper is a comparison of the C2766 serial number to what was written on the Italian documentation... This is a blow-up of that line from the manifest and then reversed to confirm, that is a 5 not a 6, since we have the "6" just before it for comparison. C2765... FWIW

Thanks Matthew... I was sure I had compared to the Argentine Mauser as the images found were of the Argentine rifle.. what struck me was how the mounting of a scope would obscure the "MAUSER" stamp... I also surmise that "MAUSER" was mentioned since there was no clip also found on the 6th floor... and since Seymour would have been knowledgeable about rifles he "should" know about stripper clips... What amazed me was how Boone and Weitzman spell it out almost exactly as a 7.65 Mauser, and this after DAY supposedly calls out the 6.5mm inscription... and as you might have seen in that paper, there is no decent image of the "6.5mm" from the rifle in evidence while the rifle DAY removes from the building does not have a caliber stamp at all... Below is SHARP's contact report... seems to me an honest and revealing discussion.. . Argentine Mausers are not mentioned yet FBI got many rifles from KLEINS and not a single one from the batch of 100 that C2766 was supposedly from. Below that is a small recap of some of the rifle evidence from my paper... The Secret Service determined the rifle SHIPPED from Kleins was a 36" carbine (1891 TS)

If that's what was said, the transcripts don't include it... "move to central Oak Cliff area" could be morphed into that line - after the fact - by Marie or by Edgar telling the story. At 12:45 the name Oswald was not yet known publicly; privately - who knows? Why is Nelson back at the TSBD by 1:19 when he should have been the first to arrive at 10th and Patton as opposed to CROY who claims he was there first. And if he was one of two men assigned to Oak Cliff, why send him all the way out to 4340 W Davis?

Thanks Larry

Not exactly motivated to hit that link at the moment... Especially on an iMac or iPad... were you using an Apple product or other? After the assassination, Dodd, using CIA sources, helped the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee publish a story that Oswald had been trained at a KGB assassination school in Minsk. At the time, Dodd was on the payroll of the American Security Council, "the leading public group campaigning to use U.S. military force to oust Castro from Cuba, and to escalate the war in Vietnam." http://www.famoustexans.com/leeharveyoswald.htm edit: THIS LINK SEEMS TO HAVE EXPIRED... https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/Vtlg6NPbbQQ THE 2ND LINK JUST TAKES YOU TO THE QUOTED MATERIAL IN A POST BY Sam McClung WITH THE SAME LINK AS MY ORIGINAL ONE.. THE "FAMOUSTEXANS" LINK GOES TO "DOMAIN NAME MAY BE FOR SALE"

Is it not a bit disconcerting that this Dr is using the WCR medical evidence as gospel... as if they are a true representation of the wounds sustained in Dallas... and they simply are not. So while I will read the entire thing, it is truly rendered worthless by this assumption... too much was done to JFK between Dallas and 8pm for any intelligent person to accept this assumption... and too much ARRB testimony has passed under the bridge for anyone to accept this ...

..

From what I've heard, they stopped allowing people to even see the exhibits any more, they bring photos for you to see... Gee, that must be because all the evidence is so telling of what really happened as opposed to exposing the cover-up The BEST EVIDENCE also happens to be the most revealing... can't have any of that now can we?

On the slide the asterisk refers to J. Garret Underhill who was one of the people who felt "they" were after him after the assassination... The real heart of the matter is that Klein's had nothing to do with that rifle which was last represented as being at Harborside in a carton... there is no evidence "that" rifle was ever removed - repaired or looked over by RUPP - or ever sent to Klein's. On Nov 22/23 the FBI had info that N2766 and C2746 had been shipped to Klein's, not C2766. There was nothing offered by closed loop, self-corroborating Scribor evidence in the form of a master invetory sheet which bore the number of a different order on it but was represented as THE 100 rifle order to Klein's. Despite Feldsott saying the shipment was in June 1962. This first image is priceless FBI mumbo jumbo... FBI has info related to June 18, 1962 and that this rifle was received by Crescent from Italy. Nothing proves it was shipped to Klein's... nothing.. The second is the prewritten affidavit of Feldsott and the 2 FBI reports telling us exactly what the FBI knew those days and nights... with that info there'd be no way to find that order left alone the shipment to Klein's... the FBI also mentions a March 1963 order with C2746 a 40" FC rifle yet we are not given evidence related to any March order, only a faked Feb order... This is the only item of evidence which ties C2766 to something at Klein's.. see order # 1259 at the top right versus the 1243 for 2-22-63... the master of this list was available at Klein's but the FBI decided it wasn't necessary. Nothing outside these 100 rifles was offered as evidence from Klein's... not a single one of the other 99 rifle serial numbers has ever been produced or seen on an existing rifle... nor do we know what Klein's shipped customers when they ordered the same thing they claim Oswald ordered... as that rifle was on ad for months and months prior to Nov 1963.

.

.

.

Humes is simply covering for the hack craniotomy job done... here is the process for those of you who missed my posting it before

(Edit: I'm leaving this one as it makes my point as intended.. and pins Pat down to his position related to the skull injuries.) Whatever you say Pat... You see anyone say the word "ABOVE" or "EAR" Pat? Dr. PERRY - As I mentioned previously in the record, I made only a cursory examination of the President's head. I noted a large avulsive wound of the right parietal occipital area, in which both scalp and portions of skull were absent, Dr. McCLELLAND - As I took the position at the head of the table that I have already described, to help out with the tracheotomy, I was in such a position that I could very closely examine the head wound, and I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted. It had been shattered, apparently, by the force of the shot so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral haft, and this sprung open the bones that I mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out. There was a large amount of bleeding which was occurring mainly from the large venous channels in the skull which had been blasted open. Mr. HILL. The right rear portion of his head was missing. Miss BOWRON - The back of his head.Mr. SPECTER - And what was that condition?Miss BOWRON - Well, it was very bad---you know.Mr. SPECTER - How many holes did you see?Miss BOWRON - I just saw one large hole. Mr. GREER. His head was all shot, this whole part was all a matter of blood like he had been hit.Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the top and right rear side of the head?Mr. GREER. Yes, sir; it looked like that was all blown off. A doctor asked me to place a pressure dressing on the head wound. This was of no use, however, because of the massive opening on the back of the head. - Pat Hutton Mr. KELLERMAN. OK. This all transpired in the morgue of the Naval Hospital in Bethesda, sir. He had a large wound this size.Mr. SPECTER. Indicating a circle with your finger of the diameter of 5 inches; would that be approximately correct?Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, circular; yes, on this part of the head.Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the rear portion of the head. Mrs. KENNEDY. I don't remember anything. I was just down like that. And finally I remember a voice behind me, or something, and then I remember the people in the front seat, or somebody, finally knew something was wrong, and a voice yelling, which must have been Mr. Hill, "Get to the hospital,"or maybe it was Mr. Kellerman, in the front seat. But someone yelling. I was just down and holding him. [Reference to wounds deleted. and we all know what she said] I then examined the wound in the back of the President's head. This was a large, gaping wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed. - Dr. Clark Dr. PETERS - Well, as I mentioned, the neck wound had already been interfered with by the tracheotomy at the time I got there, but I noticed the head wound, and as I remember--I noticed that there was a large defect in the occiput. Dr. SALYER - I came in on the left side of him and noticed that his major wound seemed to be in his right temporal area Maybe with a shot hitting where these men show, we'd get a hole at the right rear of his head? . You do see where the Temporal bone extends well behind the ear as does the Parietal bone... or not so much cause it conflicts with your conclusions too much? A person could have a hole in their Temporal bone, above and behind the mastoid process, where virtually everyone who ACTUALLY SAW THE WOUND places it... Cerebellum does not ooze from a wound at the top of the head... Sorry.

6 Degrees of separation... Sam Cummings of INTERARMCO... his sister marries John Tower

Point remains Pat... you are wrong about the alteration to the head and skull... Brains don't just fall out. You're wrong about what I've said and what others say... the blowout was above and BEHIND the ear thru to the back of the skull... NOT what BOSWELL or HUMES described at all which was after whatever they did to the man's head in that 90 minutes prior to the autopsy officially starting. Your terrible need to be right has allowed you to make minutia into mole hills into mountains... DULANY is written at the top rear of the head wheretf do you think he is pointing? Or do you not see him leaning forward and pointing his head towards the ground? Is he holding the top rear of his head or the TOP of his head Pat? And why must you be so freaking snarky about what the rest of us know as fact... no alteration to the brain of skull? Avoid the multiple casket entries, Avoid the work Humes or someone obviously did to the head between Parkland and 8pm at Bethesda... No Pat, that's you, your POV and your inability to see anything that may conflict with your conclusions.... the images show a mixture of behind the ear all the way to the very back middle of the head... let's look again shall we? How many are pointing to above the ear as opposed to the right rear of the head? Stopping being so disingenuine... it's plain as the nose on your face. There is only 1 person touching anything that can be considered "above the ear" when the rest are in the back... You do see I also wrote the names on his profile.. That you can't acknowledge there was alteration done to the man's head is too bad and confuses too many people who respect your body of work as I do. But you keep doing you Pat and argue in the direct face of the evidence... a hoax? Whatever you say Pat... The images and xrays I post must be wrong as they so strongly conflict with your conclusions... So everyone else must also be wrong. Despite you having no clue as to what happens in that 90 minutes which changes the wounds from what was seen at Parkland to the real joke and real point of the matter, what he looked like at 8pm which has no connection at all to the injuries he had at Parkland... Everyone. Mr. SPECTER. What did you observe as to President Kennedy's condition on arrival at the hospital?Mr. HILL. The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed. There was blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car. Mrs. Kennedy was completely covered with blood. There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head. Mr. SPECTER. What did you observe about the President with respect to his wounds?Mr. GREER. His head was all shot, this whole part was all a matter of blood like he had been hit.Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the top and right rear side of the head?Mr. GREER. Yes, sir; it looked like that was all blown off. Mr. SPECTER - And what, in a general way, did you observe with respect to President Kennedy's condition?Miss BOWRON - He was very pale, he was lying across Mrs. Kennedy's knee and there seemed to be blood everywhere. When I went around to the other side of the car I saw the condition of his head.Mr. SPECTER - You saw the condition of his what?Miss BOWRON - The back of his head.Mr. SPECTER - And what was that condition?Miss BOWRON - Well, it was very bad---you know.Mr. SPECTER - How many holes did you see?Miss BOWRON - I just saw one large hole. Miss HENCHLIFFE - Yes; he was very bloody, his head was very bloody when I saw him at the time.Mr. SPECTER - Did you ever see any wound in any other part of his body?Miss HENCHLIFFE - When I first saw him---except his head.Mr. SPECTER - Did you see any wound on any other part of his body?Miss HENCHLIFFE - Yes; in the neck.Mr. SPECTER - Will you describe it, please?Miss HENCHLIFFE - It was just a little hole in the middle of his neck.Mr. SPECTER - About how big a hole was it?Miss HENCHLIFFE - About as big around as the end of my little finger.Mr. SPECTER - Have you ever had any experience with bullet holes?Miss HENCHLIFFE - Yes.Mr. SPECTER - And what did that appear to you to be?Miss HENCHLIFFE - An entrance bullet hole it looked to me like. (DJ: HOW IN THE WORLD DOES HE GET AN ENTRANCE WOUND IN THE FRONT OF HIS NECK WITHOUT A SHOT BEING FIRED FROM THE FRONT PAT?) ACTIVITIES OF PAT HUTTON ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963 Several people helped put the President on the cart, and we then proceeded to the Major Surgery section of the Emergency Room to Trauma Room #1. Mr. Kennedy was bleeding profusely from a wound on the back of his head, and was lying there unresponsive. As soon as we reached the room, a doctor placed an endotracheal tube, and prepared for a tracheostomy. Within a few minutes, there were numerous doctors in the room starting I.V.'s, placing chest tubes and anesthesia with O2. A doctor asked me to place a pressure dressing on the head wound. This was of no use, however, because of the massive opening on the back of the head. Do I also need to post an image of Clint on the limo to prove where he was when he sees this injury? How many more statements about the right rear blowout of skull do I need to post?

So why did they lie about the arrival time of the body and what did HUMES/BOSWELL et al do with the body on the table from 6:30 until 8pm? The xrays we have are obviously not from that time period as Dr. Mantik has repeatedly shown. When the doctors claim no damage to the left side of the skull and then claim no sawing was necessary.. I call BS. As I've repeatedly shown, brains do NOT fall out of a skull on their own... brain stems do not cleanly cut themselves... Pat, your denials of any wrongdoing during the flight and/or that hour and a half is simply too naive for words. You may have devoted an entire chapter, Horne devoted half a book and actually worked with the evidence. The words of the witnesses all depends on when they saw the body... We didn't know Sibert and O'Neil were not in the morgue with the body for over an hour until many years later... What casket with who's body did they carry in at 7:17pm per their own reports/words? And who was carried in at 6:30-ish? and again at 8pm? To claim there was nothing going on with his brain is simply wrong... the evidence is plain on this fact and easy to follow... the brain gives away the # of shots and direction... the brain in his head at the time was never used and I doubt even seen by very many other than the 6:30-8pm crowd. There are things you post that are just so freaking far out of left field I have a hard time seeing that it is still you posting it. You honestly think the back of his head was not missing? or you just reporting what Jenkins and others said? No bets necessary Pat... From Parkland and the below explanations to Boswell's drawing and the huge amount of missing skull... No alteration?

There is no photograph of these bills just this photo of a page of notes on them. Along with an example of the use of a torn bill in spy-craft by AMBIDDY-1... below that is the inventory sheet with the $13.87 and handwritten inventory from Irving... no wallets. And by the way... Do you see a red and brown wallet listed in this handwritten inventory from Irving? The DPD obviously knows what it took off "Oswald's Person" so if they took a wallet from him in the car, where is it?

You can go to his profile and see all the posts he's made as well. The pattern is ridiculously obvious... There are 5 or so others with exactly the same agenda... can you imagine a life where you wake up only to defend the WCR on a forum full of members who know better? To be so unaware of history as to make an argument in favor of the DPD, CIA, ONI, MID and FBI of 1963? What a sad, depressing and pathetic little life that must be...

FWIW here are the marked shells... The evidence simply tells us the story of the Conspiracy to implicate Oswald... for the truth, the Evidence in the WCR is worthless.

"ignore member" is your best friend in this case... Nothing like the smile you get when you see this on a thread you follow... like the sun breaking thru on a cloudy day You've chosen to ignore content by Bill Brown. Options

Oh Michael... you are not dealing with rational behavior here my friend. BB is part of a contingency which has only 1 purpose... Act and post as much nonsense and misdirection as possible to keep others busy so no real information gets passed along. He's been #9 as long as he's been here and will never change. This is no longer about a discussion over evidence as you will soon find out if you haven't already. No matter what you post of how rational and logical your presentation is... you can't fix adherence to a path of irrational resistance for no other reason but to make up for the huge hole in his life from not getting enough attention as a child. Sad that BB and others need to validate themselves with arguments they themselves don't even believe or accept... the more he posts the more obvious it gets... I feel for you my friend as you are now caught up in a never-ending loop of LNer double-speak... he aint gonna learn what he dont wanna know... Silly blunders is his stock in trade.... Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation) rules are generally not directly within the ability of the traditional disinfo artist to apply. These rules are generally used more directly by those at the leadership, key players, or planning level of the criminal conspiracy or conspiracy to cover up. 1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues. 2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the 'How dare you!' gambit. 3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work a swell. This method which works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such 'arguable rumors'. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a 'wild rumor' from a 'bunch of kids on the Internet' which can have no basis in fact. 4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues. 5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues. 6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism, reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint. 7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive. 8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon' and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources. 9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect. 10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man -- usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with - a kind of investment for the future should the matter not be so easily contained.)Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source. 11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the 'high road' and 'confess' with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, 'just isn't so.' Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later, and even publicly 'call for an end to the nonsense' because you have already 'done the right thing.' Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for 'coming clean' and 'owning up' to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues. 12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to lose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues. 13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual material fact. 14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10. 15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions In place. 16. Vanish evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue. 17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can 'argue' with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues. 18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.' 19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance. 20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations -- as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications. 21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed and unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed. Usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim. 22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s),group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively. 23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes. 24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by destroying them financially, emotionally, or severely damaging their health. 25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.

Well it should be the same 3.13.... Can you explain why this 215/217 looks different that yours? Pincushion effect? The overlay is lined up to the limo

Notice COINTELPRO Tactic of "Playing Dumb" and TOPIC DILUTION... just to name 2. The image in the link he posted changing subjects is mine... People who spend their time defending Dale Myers deserve whatever comes their way... please go see what nonsense BB peddles elsewhere in response to visual physical evidence in support of DM, GP or VB... very entertaining but a complete waste of time. Only if you keep BB off ignore... otherwise the same tired sheet which has been proven wrong in the past, gets caught in their throats and regurgitated with a side of bile every time to opportunity presents... 9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect. (more possible tactics used below) Technique #3 - 'TOPIC DILUTION' Topic dilution is not only effective in forum sliding it is also very useful in keeping the forum readers on unrelated and non-productive issues. This is a critical and useful technique to cause a 'RESOURCE BURN.' By implementing continual and non-related postings that distract and disrupt(trolling ) the forum readers they are more effectively stopped from anything of any real productivity. If the intensity of gradual dilution is intense enough, the readers will effectively stop researching and simply slip into a 'gossip mode.' In this state they can be more easily misdirected away from facts towards uninformed conjecture and opinion. The less informed they are the more effective and easy it becomes to control the entire group in the direction that you would desire the group to go in. It must be stressed that a proper assessment of the psychological capabilities and levels of education is first determined of the group to determine at what level to 'drive in the wedge.' By being too far off topic too quickly it may trigger censorship by a forum moderator. 17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can 'argue' with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues. 18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.' 19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance. 20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations -- as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.